Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yes. Yes. Yes.

We're ready.

I will now call this meeting to order. Welcome to the June 9th, 2026 meeting of the Salem Planning Commission. Megan, would you please call the roll?

Commissioner Vieira-Brendel?

Here.

Commissioner Fott? Apt and excused. Commissioner Freybeck?

Here.

Commissioner Heller? Here. Commissioner Infante?

Here.

Commissioner Levin.

Here.

Commissioner Rhodes. Here. Commissioner Tev. Here. Commissioner Slater.

Here.

Quorum. Are there any interested citizens who are here to address the commission on specific agenda items other than the public hearings, deliberations, and the merits of land use issues doable by the planning commission? MINUTES. ITEM 4, THE CONSENT CALENDAR, ITEM 4, THE CONSENT CALENDAR, APPROVAL OF MINUTES. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. DO I HAVE A MOTION? DO I HAVE A MOTION?

SO MOVED.

SO MOVED.

A MOTION.

A MOTION. SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A MOTION. SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A MOTION.

Second.

I guess I will note for the record that I did watch the testimony or the hearing for last week, so I'll be voting on this.

Commissioner Vieira-Brendel?

Aye.

Frybeck?

Aye.

Commissioner Heller? Aye. Commissioner Infante?

Aye.

Commissioner Levin. Commissioner Rhodes. Aye. Commissioner Tev. Aye. Commissioner Slater.

Aye. Motion passes. Do we have any resolutions? I do have one motion to move the agenda item Make sure for 7.1 to be before the public hearing. I get a second for that motion. Second. Second on the motion.

Vote.

Commissioner Vieira-Brendell.

Aye.

Commissioner Freybeck.

Aye.

Commissioner Heller. Aye. Commissioner Enfronte.

Aye.

Commissioner Levin. Aye. Commissioner Rhodes. Aye. Aye. Commissioner Tev. Aye. Commissioner Slater.

Aye. So new agenda item number five, information report on wastewater collection system master plan presentation.

There we go.

There we are.

Thank you, Commissioners, for having us tonight. My name is Jason Pulley. I'm the Assistant Public Works Director for the City of Salem. Next to me is Sage Barnard-Davidson. She's a utility planner. And Xue Zhao, who is our Assistant Director for Wastewater Treatment. We're coming before you tonight to talk about the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan that we recently completed. This is a look at the current state and the future of our Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. It's a 20-year look into our future on what our wastewater needs as far as the collection system might be concerned. And the purpose of this meeting is to bring you up to speed on where we are in the process. We're currently scheduled to go to the City Council beginning July 13th to start the adoption process. We wanted to give the Planning Commission an opportunity to take a look at what we've developed so far and to allow you to provide any comments, weigh in on anything that we've discovered. and generally just make you aware of the things that have been documented in this Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Um, our master planning process at the city is, uh, usually, you know, lasts for several years. The last wastewater collection system master plan that we, uh, conducted was in 1996. There was a, uh, subsequent amendment to that in 2007, uh, which was basically just an updating on the, uh, projects that were included in the master plan. This ties into, uh, So, you know, the wastewater collection system and the wastewater treatment facilities are interconnected. Wastewater collections collects from residents, businesses, commercial industries, and sends it to the wastewater treatment plant. So this is... The first step in a two-step process. One is to identify the capacity and the needs of the collection system. The next step will be to develop a wastewater treatment facility facility plan, which will then look at the treatment side of our wastewater system. As we talk about this, there's, you know, there's a... There's a need to identify the fact that we operate, the wastewater system operates under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit, an MPDS permit. We've been operating our system basically on an administrative extension since 2009. We are expecting a new permit to be issued by the Department of Environmental Quality next year, which will guide a lot of the decisions, not necessarily on the collection side, but mainly on the wastewater treatment side. But it is important to put that into context and that there are going to be, we understand there are going to be new requirements placed on the wastewater system in the city of Salem once the new permit is issued. The purpose of the master plan is really to look at the long-term reliability and efficiency of the existing collection system We look at the existing system and the capacity limitations that may exist. One of the things that's really important about the master planning process is we take a forward-looking stance so that we identify where our growth areas are, what the future of the Salem community looks like, and what those needs are going to be. So when we look at a collection system, it's really about identifying where we have existing limitations and where we expect growth to occur. we look at a very long horizon. And so one of the things you'll hear when you talk about master plans is what's called build-out. Build-out looks at what if everything within the urban growth boundary is developed. And that is a very comprehensive look at what the needs of the system are. The master plan really tries to focus on what's needed in the next 20 years. And that's the planning horizon that we're looking at in a master plan, 20 years. It also looks at policies that may be in place or should be in place to address the wastewater needs for the community over those next 20 years. Key elements of the master plan. We'll start with the system description. And if you have a chance to look at the 2,000-plus page document that we have produced, and from your smirks I see that there's probably, you know, it's overwhelming to us who have been working on this for the past four and a half years. But we look at what the existing system is. And so we look at the system description, which is basically it looks at our service area. It looks at what we have in the ground today, what the condition of some of the assets that we have are, how much flows are being conveyed currently. what types of pipes we have, what are the condition of those pipes, what are the types of things that we need to advance in the future to maintain the integrity of our wastewater collection system. You'll see that last bottom point. We do operate 24 sewer pump stations in There are two in Kaiser. I know it says Kaiser operates two. We actually operate them for them. Uh, and Turner has five. So if you're not aware, and I think we might see this on the next slide, we provide wastewater services for all of Salem proper portions of unincorporated Marion County, which we would generally consider like the four corners area. Um, The January area in Northeast Salem, we provide wastewater services to the city of Kaiser fully and we provide wastewater services to the city of Turner. And so when we look at our planning area, it is really the entire urban growth boundary of Salem Kaiser plus the UGB for the city of Turner. When we look at how we plan this, we look at what our current flows are for our wastewater, and we look at what are those numbers look like 5, 10, 20 years out, and then what is build out. One thing I want to draw your attention to is that average dry weather flow, ADWF. So that's essentially the amount of wastewater that is generated by homes, businesses, industries in Salem. Peak hour or peak flow of our wastewater system is basically how much is coming into the system during rain events, storm events. It's really looking at what we would refer to as inflow and infiltration. And I'll say I&I for short. But what jumps out at you when you look at this is that we have... about six times as much peak flow as we do average dry weather flow, which means that during rain events, we see our flows increase existingly, right? From 27 million gallons a day of wastewater flow during a weather event, we can see upwards of 175 million gallons of flow. So we have to be prepared to... Take in what is coming directly from our connections, plus what is also coming into our system from leaks, rainfall events, things like that.

Yeah, go ahead.

I saw you.

Yeah. So I guess I'm trying to understand. So does Salem have a combined stormwater-wastewater system?

No, we do not.

We don't have a combined system. We do not. So the source of the rain infiltration is where?

So the source of the rain infiltration is mainly from manholes, leaking pipes – One thing that I want to point out is that a wastewater system typically operates a lot differently from a water system, right? So a water system is always under pressure. So we have positive pressure in the pipe that keeps things from coming in. The wastewater system is mainly gravity. So that means that pipes are usually not full. And so when you have saturated groundwater tables, that water will flow into the system. Also, As anybody who drives on Salem streets knows, it's like there's manholes every 500 feet, right? That's also a source of water coming into the system. We operate under what's called an MS4 permit, which is for our stormwater, which is a municipally separated storm system. So... Technically, we have separate systems for stormwater and wastewater. We do recognize that some stormwater obviously gets into our system. There are some places where we still have direct connections between a stormwater system, say rain gutters from a business or a home that flows directly into our sewer system. But we do have a separate system for stormwater. On this slide, you'll see that Some of the areas that we have concerns with are I&I that I've talked about, which is excess groundwater and stormwater entering the system during rain events, aging pipes, which you could have, you know, dysfunctional joints in a pipe. You could have cracks in pipes. You could have root intrusion. You could have other things that cause groundwater to enter into that system. And during heavy storm events, you'll see a lot more of that coming in. The concerns really that we're trying to address are what we call sanitary sewer overflows, right? So when the system gets surcharged that we're not flowing out of manholes or we're not releasing untreated sewage into area creeks and streams. This is the biggest challenge and one of the largest dollar issues that we're trying to deal with on the wastewater collection system side. And unfortunately, All the water that enters our pipes have to be treated at our Willow Lake treatment facility. So regardless if it's coming in from a direct connection or if it's coming in from leaks in our system from I&I, it still has to be treated and it has to meet the regulations and the standards that are provided to us in the MPDS permit process.

What is the economic cost of that? Of which one? I'm sorry. Of the treatment costs. I mean, how much extra are we paying for the infiltration, for treating infiltration?

Well, I think that's built into the latest study. I'm not quite sure exactly. Probably that's a question we'll have to get back to you about the dollar amount.

It sounds like our system is six times bigger than it otherwise would need to be. Is that one way of thinking about this?

That's one way to think about it, but no... No collection system is 100% airtight.

Yeah, I understand.

Yes. I&I is the biggest contributor to some of our expenses. And that's why when we get a little further into this, you'll see that I&I is really an area where we need to invest heavily to try to shore up that system. Thank you. So we operate under several regulations, Clean Water Act, EPA regulations. The State Department of Environmental Quality is the primacy agency for – I'm sorry.

I thought I turned this off.

For – For compliance with the Clean Water Act, we operate under our MPDS permit. And then we have city engineering design standards and construction standards that we try to adhere to to ensure that things that are going into the ground today meet the standards that we have set forth. There are some things that, some policy considerations that we are looking at in the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. One is, one of the real key contributors are private wastewater laterals. So for homeowners, The connection between the sewer main and your house is considered private. The city has very little jurisdiction over fixing that issue. And studies have shown when you look at I&I issues that somewhere around 40 to 60% of I&I is coming in from private sewer laterals. For a homeowner, that means you still flush the toilet, you put water down the sink, and it still disappears somewhere. It may be disappearing into your front yard. But on the flip side of that is that when we do have large storm events and when the groundwater table rises, that water is then getting into our system, which we then have to subsequently treat. One of the things that is in current code is a maximum allowable amount of I&I. I'll tell you an aside right here just to lighten the mood. We've had sewer pump stations come online that have had no homes constructed that start running before any connections are actually made to the system. And so it's really an issue of, it's construction quality, it's enforcing standards, it's building to proper design standards to allow for that basically watertight connection. Like I said, sewer is notoriously, inadequate as far as protecting against i and i and so it's a constant challenge to try to keep you know non-sewage out of our wastewater system because once it's in we are responsible for it and our discharge limitations from the mpts permit require that we treat it to the same standard that we do for you know essentially raw sewage from a direct connection So one of the things that comes out of our master plan are CIP recommendations. I'm sure you're all familiar with our capital improvement plan. It's a plan that city council puts forth every year. It looks at our five-year needs and it addresses those major projects that require significant capital to either fix what's broken or address future needs. Over the next 20 years, our wastewater just collection system master plan, this is not talking about treatment or anything else. Over the next 20 years, we're looking at a $250 million bill to fix what we have. The good thing about our system is that we have grown really fast. really well in that we don't have a lot of deficiencies within our system. We build in contingencies, we build in future growth in everything that we do. So a lot of the projects that have been identified are really focusing on that I&I component and trying to reduce the amount of water that gets to our wastewater treatment plant because the treatment plant only has so much capacity. And when we start to exceed that, we're talking about huge amounts of capital investments to treat that additional water. So really, what we're trying to find is that sweet spot of investing in the collection system to reduce that future load that's being transferred to the treatment plant. We go and we look at these projects, right? I mean, there's only so much that rates can fund. We're looking at alternative ways to fund some of these projects. When you look at, and we'll be back in front of you in a few months to talk about the water side of things as well. When you start adding all of these ups, we're talking about, you know, billions of dollars in needs that our system has right so we try to compartmentalize these and look at exactly what is it what do we need for you know the collection system and then we'll look at what we need for the treatment side and what we need for the water side and the storm water side i mean These things compound. And we as a community only have so much that we can afford. So it's really about prioritizing these projects and finding the, you know, if you will, the best bang for the buck. And what it is that we can do to allow growth within our system while also reducing the capital burden that's placed on our rate payers. So in our CIP, and we'll get to the list here in just a second, but in our CIP, we basically look at a few categories, right? So capacity pipelines, right? Are we undersized? Are we not being able to convey enough flow? Pump stations, is the pump station size adequately to convey those flows? Is the pump station nearing its end of life? Is there a way to upgrade a pump station that would allow us to grow and increase our capacity? I&I projects, again, a huge component of this master plan. And then rehab and I'm sorry, rehab and replacement programs. This is basically addressing aging infrastructure. Pipes that have been in the ground for a long time that are ending their near or nearing their end of life. that need to be addressed. And then we have general projects, which are basically system studies, optimization type studies, kind of new ways of thinking about how we can approach some of these problems. This is a lot. I don't want you to focus on really the project names, but just focus on the last column on the right, and you start to see some of these things are very expensive. You'll see down there about a third of the way down, the West Salem sewer pump station force main. I think all of you are familiar with the issue that we had a couple of years ago with the force main broke in the city of Kaiser and started spilling raw sewage into farm fields. And we weren't able to transmit any wastewater flows from West Salem to our treatment plant. We have a plan to address that. That's a $23 million plan. We have I&I projects that run into the tens of millions of dollars to try to reduce the amount of infiltration and inflow that we're getting into our system. Now, some of these we look at with an eye of if we can reduce I&I, it may work. reduce our need to build out capacity. So if I can reduce I&I in one particular sewer basin, I may not have to build a new pump station or add a new pump or add a new force main or add bigger pipes. So all of these were evaluated. There's a second page of this. It keeps going. So all of these are looking at ways that we can One, tighten our system. Two, accommodate future growth. And three, set up the future generations to inherit a system from us that functions properly, that conveys the needed flows, that aligns with the community's needs and what we are able to provide as far as a service provider. Again, $249 million, that's just in 20 years. When you look at what build-out might be when we get to those edge of the urban growth boundary, I mean, those double it, triple it. But that's something that we as utility planners wrestle with every day. It's like, where do you spend your money and how do you make the best investment that you can with limited amount of dollars? And then weighing that amongst all of the utilities and trying to provide the best value for our community. So over the next 20 years, this is basically what we're looking at, right? A $12 million investment is about what you're going to get when you divide up the capital transfers that we have from our revenues to projects. There's a lot of needs out there. You'll see that light blue chunk is I&I reduction, which is one of the things that our master plan is really focusing on, which is really trying to reduce that I&I, which is going to save us capital costs down the road. Pump station improvements are in there. R and R is a big one that you're going to start hearing a lot more of, you know, through the budget committee, through the CIP process, through the planning commission, everything is like, we have to address the issue of aging infrastructure. That's one of the things that not, it's not unique to Salem. It is something that's happening across the utility industry is that we are not taking care of our aging infrastructure because we are chasing the growth components. We are chasing how do we make housing more affordable? We are chasing how do we allow industries to come into our community? And unfortunately, one of the things that gets lost is what are you doing about the stuff that's already in the ground that's been there for 70, 100 years? And what's your plan to address that? So R&R, rehab, and replacement becomes a bigger and bigger component as you move through those years. We like to think that what we're putting into the ground today is meeting our needs and that we're holding ourselves to a higher standard for those projects. But at some point, you have to start looking backwards about what was put in before me, before you. How do we address that aging infrastructure issue? So with that, and it's not to be a downer about everything, But just to recap, we've taken a very comprehensive look at our wastewater collection system master plan. We have a plan in place. It's a very dollar-intensive and labor-intensive effort that we're trying to undertake. We, as Public Works, are trying to put this together with what we need on our water system side, what we need on our treatment system side, what we need on our stormwater side. And we're trying to balance these needs. And so one of the things that I can assure you of is that, you know, for the first time in, not the first time, I don't want to say that we've been negligent, but we've brought all these plans together at once. So we can take a comprehensive look at what the true utility needs are for the next 20 years. And so as we try to prioritize these projects, we can look at what is delivering the best value for our rate payers today. for our rate payers and that we've set our system up for future growth and for future generations to be, you know, to be able to rely on. And with that, I'd be happy to take any questions if you have any.

I have one question. With the Willow Lake Treatment Center, are we close to being over capacity on that? I mean, as expansion happens and our expected usage, I mean, if we don't do anything, are we concerned about having to put in more treatment capacity?

Well, we definitely cannot accommodate the build-out requirements, right, if we don't fix the I&I problem, which is inflow and infiltration. Okay. So just to give you a sense, the plant during a normal, like wet and dry weather, it's about 30 million gallons per day the flow comes through. But during the wet weather, like Jason said, we don't increase the way we flush the toilet, right? But when the Willow Lake plant can receive up to 138 million gallons a day, plus we have a wet weather facility, which can reach to 60 million gallons a day. So that's how the peaking factor can be that. So far, because there's still some limitation in the collection system, so not all the flow can all be sent over to the Willow Lake. So we still have a little bit of capacity, but if we don't control the INI, we will not be able to handle all the flow.

Yeah, adding additional treatment capacity is probably the most expensive thing we can do. So when we start looking at how do we plan these projects, I&I, and like I've mentioned throughout this presentation, I&I is really what is going to save us from having to build additional treatment capacity. We were... We built a, if any of you are not familiar, in early 2000s, we built a basically, I wouldn't call it a secondary treatment system, but it's a wet weather treatment facility that's at the North River Road park right across from fred meyer in north salem and it activates when we have large storm events so when will lake starts to get overwhelmed that treatment facility comes online and treats water wastewater it's mostly dilute sewage but it treats it and it relieves capacity from will lake yes sir

I had two questions. So build out, are you guys accounting for the total zone capacity of the UGB or just like development of like vacant land?

So we've looked at, so for a build out scenario, we've looked at two different things, right? So we've looked at what the comprehensive plan has for existing zoning and we've also looked at what we anticipate those zones will build out to. The other thing that's important to realize is that we've also looked at two other factors. One is middle housing, infill, and we've looked at climate change. So we've taken into account both of those, right? So one of the things that if you look at through the climate change, it's like, well, you might have more frequent, more severe types of storms, not necessarily something that would be a constant, right? So when we do look at build-out, we've taken into account what was brought forward in our Salem plan, the comprehensive plan update, and we're also looking at where we expect growth to be and what types of growth we expect. So it's a guess. But we can look at the outskirts of West Salem and guess that's probably going to be residential. We can also look at some of the other areas in town that are not fully built out and think that those are probably going to be industrial or commercial. So all of those assumptions have been put in place.

Cool. And then the next one I had was about earthquake resiliency. Am I going to be able to flush my toilet after the 9.0 earthquake if my house is still there?

So you can still flush it. I don't know where it's going to go. Okay. So that's one thing that we did not address in this master plan. We did look at it on the water side. We looked at seismic resiliency of our water system. One of the next steps on our collection system is to look at seismic resiliency. We need to look at it both on our collection system, our pump stations, and also on our treatment plant. And I...

We talk about resilience and this resilience in the original scope, but we decided to choose to do it afterwards. Because, you know, like Jason mentioned, we spent how much? It's a lot of effort and four and a half years for this one. But for the treatment plan, as we design and update all the project, we actually did add that piece in factor into the design. So just to let you know, like I will clarify later. we do have those features built in. It's not cheap.

Right. So every project we undertake right now has seismic resiliency in mind. When we're looking at it strategically from a utility standpoint, the one thing that we prioritize or are prioritizing is Do our citizens have access to clean water? Do we have adequate amounts of water for firefighting capabilities? Do we have resiliency hubs where people can congregate and get that basic human need, which is clean drinking water? Wastewater is right behind that. But when we start prioritizing, and I'll be honest, when we start prioritizing, we're going to make sure that you have access to clean and safe water, that our fire department has access to water to put out fires in a major earthquake. Wastewater collections and treatment will come on the heels of that. But to give you a preview, just looking at... the water system and making sure that the main pipes, not the entire system, the main pipes can handle an earthquake. I mean, we're upwards of $2.2 billion in construction needs just to harden the water system. So you can imagine you do that again with the wastewater system and the treatment plant. I mean, we're talking about huge dollar amounts. So we have to make choices on where we want to drive our investments. Right now, we're looking at wastewater as well as water, but water is kind of leading the charge right now as far as seismic resiliency goes.

Cool. Is there some kind of action plan, like say if an earthquake happens tomorrow, you know, what do we do with the wastewater? Because I'm assuming it's going to be a little bit all over the place.

I mean, to be honest, it probably would be, right? Not that we want to go back to the days of cholera and other sorts of infectious disease outbreaks, but we are very limited in what we can do on the wastewater side as well as the water side. we want to make sure that the system continues to function. We've identified areas of weakness, but it's a matter of being able to address those areas of weakness with the proper plan and kind of build our resiliency to these types of events.

Thank you, Jason.

any other questions yeah i have i have two i'm just going to continue the follow-up on this cascadia question not because i think the city isn't doing what it should be doing or should be doing more i i recognize the expenses but just from a citizen perspective i mean after a significant cascadia event 9.0 i mean are we looking that the city is going to have to essentially like re-plumb the entire city for water and sewer? I mean, is that like the, is that the kind of like bond issues that we're going to be looking at post post Cascadia?

No, we're looking at it very strategically. Right. So we don't think we're going to have to replumb the entire city. There are, you know, as in any type of distribution network you have well, you know, just like if you're talking about streets or pipes or whatever, you have, you know, you know, major arterials, minor arterials, you have collectors. So we think that the types of breaks that we're going to have, at least from a pipe standpoint, I mean, when I say manageable, I mean... In the context of an overwhelming event. Exactly. We would be able to manage it. The things that really concerns us are... From a wastewater standpoint, it's a complete collapse of the wastewater treatment plant or a pump station that falls in. On the water side, it's like a reservoir collapses or something like that. The pipes are something that we, as a public works crew, can get out and repair. It might take us a while, but we can get out and we can repair those. So what we're really trying to do when we harden the system, it's making sure that those key facilities are protected in that event. Yes, there would be, in a Cascadia-level event, there would be severe disruptions in our services. But what we want when we're planning for that is to make sure that... that our citizens can go somewhere to get clean water that we have a plan in place to remove sewage from homes or you know in in some of the cases we're talking about the wastewater side you're going to have rallying points you're going to have community centers you're going to have places where people are congregating as as we're recovering from the event and so we call that the backbone Right, so we're trying to make sure that we understand what the backbone is, and we're looking at strategic locations throughout the city where we know people can gather and they can get the essential human services that they need as far as water and wastewater goes. That was helpful.

Thank you. Just one last question. Go ahead. So are you finding that the current construction design standards and the way that construction standards are implemented is reducing I&I over the past 20 years or 50? I have to imagine it's better than 70 years ago, but are we seeing improvements or is it pretty much stalled out?

No, we are seeing improvements, right? And a lot of it has to do with the types of pipe materials that we're using now, right? So in a lot of... In a lot of new sewer construction, we're seeing HTP type pipes being used as opposed to, you know, some, you know, I mean, you can imagine the stuff that we've seen in our system, right? You know, brick sewers and things like that, right? So, you know, HTPE, for instance, is... It gives way, it has a lot more flex, the joints are more tightly put together than just butting up sticks of pipes, which is what we've seen in the past, or just wrapping a collar around a butt end. So yes, when we look at our design standards, that's one of the things we look at. It's like, how do we make sure that what we're putting in the ground now is not something that we have to come back and deal with in 20 years? So, yes, our design standards are addressing those issues, and we're seeing an improvement. It's not always perfect, but for the most part, our inspections are getting better. Our design standards are getting tighter so that we know when new sewer pipe is going into the ground, it's meeting the current standards, and it's going to last longer than what was put in 50, 70 years ago. Mr. Depp?

Thanks for the presentation. So yeah, I guess I had a couple pieces. One was, so when you get a water, bring it home, like when you get a water bill from the city, you're charged by how much you use. And is there any way that the city is recording how much the sewer, is there any kind of meter of like how much quantity is coming into for each home for the sewer?

So the short answer to that is no. So when we go into. So every year we go into what's called base setting. Right. So your sewer is calculated, especially on a residential basis. Now, yes, some industrial customers, some large commercial customers actually do have sewer meters where we can actually bill the amount of sewer that's coming in. But for the water system, we set a base rate. It's a multiplier. So we look at your water bill over the lowest... months of consumption, which is typically November, December, and January, right? So we look at that. It's how much water does your home use? And that sets your base charge. And so there's a multiplier that goes in. So your sewer is based on how much water you use When you're not irrigating your lawn, when you're not washing your car, when you're not giving your dogs baths out in the yard, you know, that kind of thing. So we look at what is your base consumption? And that is what we consider the amount of water that you contribute to the wastewater system. So no, we don't. It's almost impractical to try to meter sewage. And so the best surrogate we have is to look at what your base consumption water demand is, and then assume that that base demand is what makes it into the wastewater collection system.

And then we know it's in the rainy season, it's more than that, probably.

Yes. And that's recognizing the fact that your lateral may be leaking, our pipes may be leaking, or not leaking, leaking in, right? So we're taking in water that's not actually coming out of your faucet and going into the sewer. Yes.

So my other couple questions go right with that. So the $250 million is spent, I assume, on the public side of things, right? You're not going to put dollars into somebody else's collection on private land.

That's correct. So a sewer lateral is the connection from the main to the house or the main to the business or the main to the industry, whatever it may be. That's all private land. And we do not. We do not do that. I mean, there are some instances when we are doing a, and it's in code, and it's one of the things that we're talking about in this plan. There are some instances when we are replacing a sewer main where we find it's necessary to replace a sewer lateral because it's either we've changed the location of that connection or we've identified a deficiency in that connection. But for the most part, the $250 million is only addressing the public side of the system.

Would you ever consider, or is there any money in there for like public outreach or any kind of like incentive to get your sewer scoped? Like what are the things that homeowners could do? I guess optionally. And like, is there any room for the city to encourage that behavior?

So there is room. Is there appetite? That's another question. You know, 10, 15, 20 years ago, I can't remember, we used to have a sewer lateral loan program where we would finance interest-free sewer lateral replacements that would essentially end up as a lien on your house. So when the property sold, you paid us back. That program has been discontinued. There's also... there is some incentive to, sorry, I completely lost my train of thought because I had another great point to that.

Sure. Yeah. So like what can landowners do and is there any way for the city to encourage that behavior to reduce I&I?

There's a policy recommendation to bring back public engagement around I&I and reducing I&I.

One thing that other communities have done, and this is the point, is require sewer lateral inspections on home sales.

I was thinking of that because that was where my brain went. I had my sewer scoped eight years ago.

Right. Now, if you're buying a property, due diligence as a potential purchaser would be to have your lateral inspected. Right. We don't require that. Not a lot of jurisdictions do. There are some that have made that a requirement. I mean, this goes back to, you know, 20 years ago, if you had a house on a private well, you sold the house as is, and now there are requirements that you have to have, you know, your well tested for, you know, nitrate and arsenic and bacteria and things like that. So there is an industry-wide move to start pushing for private, Lateral inspections at home sales. Again, the appetite for that because it's, you know, now we're balancing how do we keep homes affordable, but also add these additional requirements. It's not a huge expense. It actually would save a potential future buyer a lot of money. But these are types of things that are constantly being debated about, you know, how do we encourage this type of behavior without actually requiring it.

And then the other kind of tangential thing I thought about was there's, I think, maybe some opportunity for overlap with the street tree program as well, since that could be a potential, you know, something to increase I&I.

Root intrusion, not just from street trees, but from all sorts of trees are a big issue. We have a crew that is basically out you know, five days a week, cleaning out root intrusions in our system. Again, it's difficult on the wastewater side because we consider everything from the main to the house as a private system. And so, you know, there's only so much that we can do because this is private property. But roots are, you know, between fats, oils, and grease and roots. And honestly flushing things down the toilet that you shouldn't flush. I mean, these are what causes the non-storm-related sanitary sewer overflows, right? So when you hear about in the middle of the summer, the city will put out a press release saying that we've had a sewer overflow at a certain location. It's probably because of a blockage. And blockages are usually one of three things. It's either you've got roots, you've got overflows, fats, oils, and grease, or you've got things that have, you know, basically accumulated in that sewer pipe that is causing water to back up and flow out of the manhole.

So, um, 20, 30 years ago, it was common to have a smoke test done on laterals. Is there still an active program?

unfortunately there is not. Um, one of the things that we, when we had a really aggressive smoke testing program, 20, 30 years ago, what we were really looking for was, uh, downspout connections directly into the sewer system, right? So trying to separate the stormwater from the wastewater. We do use smoke testing in limited capacity to look at areas when we're looking at very targeted I&I reduction because smoke testing as disruptive as it is, does give you a really good sense of where those leaks are because you put smoke in, it comes out of the cracks. When we were really trying to make sure that we had a separate storm and sewer system, we were aggressively smoke testing. A lot of it was downtown. That was the biggest culprit where we had a lot of the older buildings that were plumbed. Their roof drains were plumbed directly into the sewer system. We know that there's still some out there, but we've We think we've exhausted that to the amount that we were getting diminishing returns on aggressively smoke testing the entire system.

Is there a reasonable potential that there is some kind of additional testing that could occur that would identify the infiltration and assist in that process of evaluating where the problems are, that's number one. And number two, is it possible that the city council could consider a program, you know, so many dollars a year toward addressing I&I as preventive maintenance? Yes.

So as we're moving through both the wastewater collection system and the water system master plan, one of the things that we are doing is that we are identifying have that anymore um we're identifying what that bucket might look like right so we're trying to identify our need and we're looking at our r and r program right so uh and then trying to budget a reasonable amount of dollars on a yearly basis to to focus main you know just on i and i on the sewer side right because we know a lot of that is is a rehab and replacement program um And so part of this master plan was trying to really quantify what that need actually is. Some of that was in that $250 million price tag that you saw, because we looked at some capacity issues and some R&R. But really, the master planning process is really a forward-looking process, which is making sure that we have the capacity to meet the future anticipated growth. We also have an O&M program that looks at what are our R&R needs to address I&I and other things like that. I know, I'm sorry. I try not to do that. It's a bad habit.

So the final question that I have is I absolutely appreciate the presentation and the information, but what would you like to see from the Planning Commission that would be of benefit to your needs in providing service to the community?

I think it's, you know, why we're here tonight is to bring this issue in front of you so that you're aware of what the utility is facing. Like I said, we're going to come back to you with the water master plan. We're going to come back to you with the stormwater master plan. I think as one of the governing bodies of the city of Salem, I think you should be aware of the needs that exist with the utility. So when you're thinking about things in front of your agenda, as far as development goes or rezoning or other things like that, I mean, you have to understand that there's a utility side that comes with that. A housing development can come in and build 100 homes, but that puts a stress on the system. And so as a body, all we're asking for is really a recognition of that and knowing that these services aren't coming for free, that every time somebody builds a new house, every time somebody builds a new apartment building, I mean, this is a service that we have to provide to that development. And, you know, while we are happy to do it and we're happy to see Salem grow and prosper, it's just a recognition that there's a, you know, there's an underside to that, which is, you know, every development is a utility need. And we are committed to meeting that need, but that need comes at a price. And so when we start talking about things like you know, how are we going to fund this and, you know, what is the next, you know, what is our, you know, utility rate increase going to be to make sure that we can accommodate this growth? Or, you know, when we're talking to the state and to the federal government about, you know, infrastructure needs have to come with this push for housing development, right? I think the governor has done a really good job of recognizing that, you know, one of the biggest barriers to producing affordable housing is really trying to bridge that gap between you know, building a house and then connecting it to the system. And I think that's one of the things that's been lost a lot of times is, you know, we collect, you know, system development charges for new development, but that doesn't always cover, you know, the cost that's needed to put those systems in place. And so it's really an advocacy kind of level, which is We can promote new housing, affordable housing, all we want, but the city is still tasked with delivering utility services to all of that and unless there we find some way some way to bridge that gap where our rate payers aren't paying for you know bringing in new systems i mean rate payers should be paying for the system that they're using paying for the upkeep and the maintenance of that system um the development community you know when they're building a new house they should be i'm on my soapbox i'm sorry i'm not i'm speaking speaking out of turn here but What I'm saying is that just to recognize the need that utilities are an essential part of the housing production strategy that we have. And it's a struggle for us sometimes to try to meet those needs, keep things affordable for developers, and still providing the level of service that we think everybody in the city deserves.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Any other questions? Thank you for the presentation. It was very thorough. Thank you for having us. Appreciate it.

Make a comment regarding that last presentation. I think that would be fine. In recognition of the information that we just received regarding utility services, I would like to ask that the commission consider requesting of staff that they review the criteria for issuing a remodel permit or an extension or an infill permit and that permit criteria also includes a storm sewer and sanitary sewer inspection so that the individual or business that is doing the upgrading and increasing the demand or requirements on the system be responsible for providing that the system is in good, durable condition.

I would second that so we can have a conversation about it.

Okay. Discussion?

Was the motion to have staff come and speak about that or to have staff do that? Um, I will defer to your, um, I think it's best if we ask our staff that review permits for infrastructure to come speak to that. Um, because those are our planners that plan for the system, but then we have different staff that actually review development, apply the standards. Um, and so I can't necessarily speak. I wouldn't be able to speak to what, you know, we are requesting. And I'm not sure that the planners that were here would be, I think that,

the looking at the development criteria that we've looked at in many other situations, taking a look at this is not only reasonable, but it's absolutely an immediate need. And the sooner that we have the individuals looking to develop, redevelop, expand, whatever their use and occupancy, is we don't have anything in place that examines the existing service lines. And if you were doing new construction, then that new construction is all subject to inspection as it is being put in place. But the existing systems with an existing piece of property that may be adding an ADU or or maybe adding additional square footage, those don't have something in place that the community could potentially benefit from if those were examined and repaired or upgraded. So however we can get to that would be my request.

I think we need to get a little bit more information on that. Just a remodelers perspective here. When we touch any project that's an upsize or additional line, there is, we have to evaluate the water line to the house already. And we're upsizing already.

Maybe we could just have more discussion and have staff come back at a future meeting to talk about that topic more specifically.

Yeah, I guess so. So I think the request is can we have a staff representative?

Okay.

Yep. Okay. Absolutely. Thank you.

You made a motion, but I don't think we need a motion. So I'm happy to set that up.

Okay. Thank you. Okay, so now moving on to what I guess is agenda item six with the amended agenda. It's the opening of the public hearing, but before we do that, I'd like to ask the ex parte communications or any conflicts of interest to state into the record. No? Okay. I will now open the public hearing for 6.1. Megan, will you please read the statement of criteria?

Sorry, she doesn't have to read it again because it continued. Yeah, I will ask, or maybe you were going to ask, there was two commissioners that were gone. If they viewed the materials, if they could state that into the record.

Yes, I reviewed the materials and watched the video. Likewise.

Okay, so I guess I'm just reopening the hearing, continuing, continue the hearing.

Yeah, reopening.

Okay, well, Bryce, I guess I think it's your turn to talk.

I'm division here, and this is a new hearing from the hearing we had on May 19th. I'll have that hearing, there will be discussion concerning the petition.

Do.

or makes you remember makes use to industrial, commercial and see brand new art, I see. And based on. Right about Apple can the potential. where to make a decision. The development pattern is consistent. Problems along the system, we're going to make an excuse, which is most appropriate based on something. But then also there was a question of the commissioner standards from the The IC zone. I'm a pattern that you hear the IC zone standards to those that you learn. Pedestrian friendly mixed use district. IC zone does not have those standards. And very vulnerable. and employment protection rates on these buildings along the streets. So there's definitely more pleasing to the staff's perspective of the development of this area. And so the planning commission meeting on May 26th presented a list of uses that would need to be And we also. We have an evening event prior to air tonight. City Council Chambers and City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. City Council Chambers. uh and so yeah we didn't come to an agreement and how many uses all of the developments hasn't been identified in their board staff uh that speed and i because is the is the best destination for the property And it really sets the policy vision for that.

I have one question. So I apologize if this isn't the material that I reviewed and I missed it. But during the RCL process, did the applicant weigh in on the ?

that was received from the Alexandria Post.

We don't have a record of the applicant participating in the RCL process.

So I was looking at the attachments and the exhibits, and one of the things that would have been helpful for me is if there was a zoning map Showing the relationship of the property to MUR. Here it is. I was functioning off memory and recollection, which for me is a dangerous thing.

So the... So property question. So Paris is such a property. And so it's currently river-oriented mixed hues. And this is the comp plan again. And so that turquoise color is all the river-oriented mixed hues. So you see that it is... We have it to the...

So the question is, is the property across the street and adjacent to the north industrial? Okay. So as a practical matter, What is the difference between IC and the gray industrial?

IC allows a lot more. It's an industrial purchase element. Bar is the ground code. Third voice code on the comp plan. Okay. Okay. The specific use

requested by the applicant, if I recall, is to be used by the school district? Is that correct?

No, I think that was the other hearing that same night. That was the other hearing.

Okay.

All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Frebeck?

I don't know why question. We're doing three things. We're doing comp plan, neighborhood plan, and the zone change. I understand the zone change is the thing that actually governs the use of the property. What are the comp plans? Could we change the zone and not change the comp plan and the neighborhood plan?

Comp plan is the basic.

Okay, and then mixed use residential would not. Yeah, sorry. Industrial commercial would not.

Yeah, yeah, the list of, uh, uh, uh. So, identify. Okay, I see. Okay.

Another question have the applicants identified a proposed use or potential development for the site. And, and what is the square footage of the property in question.

Is.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Any other questions? Okay. I think you're off pretty easy tonight. Applicant representative? I think we do that, right? This is a continued hearing, but the applicant has to come back again, right?

Yes, and I get 15 minutes, but they have to share their time.

Oh, okay.

Yes, and you get 15 minutes, but you have to share your time. So anyone that wants to speak.

Megan, are you timing this?

You can speak really close to the mic, because otherwise they can't hear you online.

Thank you very much. Good evening, Mr. President, members of the public. I used to turn this off on breaks, too. We 200... Eleanor and Beckman Trust and to Lauren Beckman. Later, you, again, in my presentation, you asked why we didn't participate in our sample. I wasn't brought on to this case until a couple of years ago. And our sample was going through. Eleanor Beckman still, she's sick. Passed away just now. was enacted. So the family matters dealing with trust matters and figuring out what.

I just clarify, I just asked if I hadn't asked the why, but I'm happy to hear that information.

Yeah, so we explained that at the hearing. Well, then, you know, you know, it's it's it's easy to overlook, but but I wanted you to be aware of that. I would like to have Lauren talk briefly. President of landing.

Thank you. And 1st of all, the 1st, couple of letters have just received. You know, from the previous 10 and 1 parts and states that over.

Um, zone change generally requires that the changes.

Awesome friends letter references walkability, uh. That's an issue that's not going to result. Most efficient use the reference in that letter certainly. Eric, it's just supposed to be my understanding the requested uses it fine. Are so many reasons why see Holding to the M. U. R. regularly restricts our ability to release it this time. Looking for more house space. I believe in time, the intended change can happen without damage to the existing uses. Now, I believe it's making all those changes. Thank you.

At the end of the last hearing, you told city staff and the applicant to get together. I come up with a compromise. We did meet. It's a good meeting. Identified in the staff report and attachment aid and also touched in my rebuttal letter that I submit. Those are all highlighted, not highlighted. Get out in red. So those are the uses we all agreed on. I thought we could get closer, and while we're closer, we still need you to help close. So, as notified, there's only five categories that we disagree on. I'm going to focus really on the two key ones that I see in deployment. The first is the industrial services category, as with their maintenance and industrial machinery equipment. I'd like to point out that the exceptions found R. C. four hundred oh nine oh D sub two sub three. Remember section four hundred is the use section that defines in the zone. He defines what uses are allowed in those general categories and like all of the dogs. So we always flip back to seven four hundred to try to refresh your memory what that what that is. I believe that there is protection in the in the current home to protect those abutting mur zone property from potential thinking about. being cited on the Beckman Trust property. The second area that causes us a lot of concern, well, there's actually three areas. The second area is general manufacturing. Staff wants to change that from permitted to all those used to be conditional. And that puts a huge burden on any property, because any applicant that comes in with a proposed general manufacturing rules would have to not only do a site review, they would also have to do a conditional use permit. So you've got a tenant that wants to ask state power as it really wants the location or site and they're moving on. They are not going to stick around for conditional use. Now, if you have a tenant that comes in and identifies that code already falls for it as being a conditional use. That's a different story. And I'm going to get to that in a second respect to the to the I would request that you keep the permitted uses And then finally it's it's the keeping of the livestock and other animals that makes it seem like they're going to be having horses and donkeys and owls and everything else and that's really not what that speaks to. What it speaks to, I believe, is limitation on with respect to pet boarding and training. That's 783 units that are coming online into Camry just out of this property. We've got approximately 90 units Nice if you had a boarding site in the neighborhood, assuming somebody wanted to put it. Be able to be able to walk your pet down to the boarding, put in there, and then get in your car, get up to PDX and take off on your vacation. Just think that not having that use in there is, I think it's wrong. I think that it would fit. What's interesting is that the current code was identified as an additional use. impact would have to go through the conditional use program process we don't believe the mur development standards are appropriate and laura touched on that briefly we talked about that a bit in the first hearing with respect to the nature of the building how it was built the dock height um the loading doors the the train tracks um other locations the building the building's got four streets it's surrounded You'd have to go through a series of adjustments. I run the scenarios to whether that's one adjust. Why, why make an applicant do that? At this time. Defying for an adjustment to try to get away from having to put in. Having having to put in. Those in the building, they're putting overhangs in the building or an additional landscape. identified it correctly is that as the property the south gets developed further to the north, I believe. Mr. Freibach, you asked a great question with respect to does the comp plans have to align with zoning law that requires that there's nothing as code that requires it. Any design is something that's in the code that is not even in the You would always try to identify that the company. Say, you know what, in this case, we're gonna keep the comp plan designation as any one. It's a message to the property owner, it sends a message to future buyer that this property is something. But if you feel like that's an appropriate mechanism to change that, I welcome that. If not, then let's keep it as I see it. noted in our initial hearing that the property is what I call a boundary property. And that's it. It's on the edge of the core of the NUR area. I believe it was a mistake when it was brought in initially. It didn't have any of the core elements that they were looking at with respect to access to the river. There was no direct access. Couldn't see the river, although if you went up, I think, I don't know if you went up five, six, maybe seven stories from that location, you're pushed back by the waves. I often combine requests To attract the tenants in the building. One wants the property or their neighborhood to be. On vibrant and active properties, particularly those on the edge like this one they're not ready to come into the future. Those useless that we have. I include the m you are development standards with the industrial development standards. And you haven't answered any questions that you would have of myself at this time, thank you.

Any questions?

Mr. Levin? Looking at the list of uses that have been redlined and then the list that has been that are highlighted in yellow. Has there been any other conversation between you and your client that have indicated any other items in yellow that you would consider deleting? Yes. Is there any potential compromise?

Yes. Commissioner Levin, you're asking is there further compromise? I would say, yes, there can be further compromise. I would say that commercial parking, I kept commercial parking in there to be a little cheeky, actually. At the last hearing, there was comments made with respect to somebody wanting to put in a soccer stadium on Front Street, right? And I thought, well, shoot, if you're gonna put in a soccer stadium, you're gonna need parking. currently. So can we give up parking? Is that a big giveaway? No, it's not. And would we be willing to eliminate that? Absolutely. The second area that I would say that I'm not falling on the sword over is the heavy wholesaling. Can we do away with heavy wholesaling? And I would say, yes, we can. You know, what's sad about that is that for 30, more than 35 years, they've been able to do that use. Remember, 35 years ago, the one landing apartments were built. Here's incompatible. They get along great as neighbors. They've got a great symbiotic relationship there in that neighborhood with respect to those 2 uses. We walk away from the old city. Yes, the areas that I, that I have learned over personally. Are getting rid of the industrial services right above. getting rid of the general manufacturer without getting rid of it. Actually category permitted condition. Otherwise, we're in total agreement with staff, except for the anyone. Oh, and I'd like to keep you. Honestly, if you have 900 apartments there, how many dogs are going to be?

Could you except that cows, sheep, goats, and horses will not be tenants of the property. Yes, yes, as long as, yes. I understand the need for dog and cat boarding and shelters and training, but if we eliminate farm animals, that would be one more item.

Honestly.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions?

I was just thinking, so the intent of Some of the carve outs here in the mixed use residential or mixed use riverfront was to not impact the existing zone or the existing use. Would a reversion of the zone change on the sale of the property be a reasonable compromise?

It'd be a reasonable restriction. Remember, Commissioner Pryor, those apartments were built in the IC zone. So what we're looking at is we're looking at 2026, staff's making a great argument that those change that I see is totally compatible with the NUR. It's just not in line with the, or the NUR zone. The horse is out of the bar. The reality is, is that those apartments have been there. Going to the south of Perks and that area has transformed. Could I see additional transformation? Don't put that condition of trust with that.

I do think maybe some of the concern from maybe the city, I don't want to speak for them, but I feel like they might be concerned that say the property would get redeveloped and then there would be a leather tanning facility next door to a 900 unit apartment complex and

kind of get what i'm yeah that's price that question bryce lockbrook read the code that i am both leather tanning would be and i don't know that that's they're tanning with you and say if it was if there was a thing leather tanner that was tanning leather for um blue cheese or fendi or somebody really high end and they were able to they were making the market was bearing the Some of these, some of the uses, they're just, we want them there for flexibility, obviously, because of the potential. But with some of the uses, they're... Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay. Appreciate it. I have a question for Mr. Bishop.

Well, we will get back to that shortly. I just want to make sure I get everyone else, though. I assume there's no neighborhood association, but I confirm that. No? No? Okay. And then I think public testimony, if I'm reading the sheet correctly, is Rachel Bullard part of the applicant team? Okay. So Dean Alterman. You'll have five minutes. Please state your name and address or ward into the record.

Here and here. My client poses the question. For reasons that I go into detail. First. We don't see location meets the criteria and testers. Okay, there has been an alteration in circumstances justified in achieving the applicant has shown proposed as it may seem to be better suited. There's no conflict between the top designation. Similarly, applicant hasn't shown that we were better suited for this office in the gene system itself. Your plan describes ideal industrial being land that has direct access to the just in the case of why the other properties in the area process a couple of years. So have the same some destination. I think the substantive problem that we have in approving the applicant's request is going to be that it finds that the icing zone is dead and current. Regardless of what conditions you would like to impose on the applicant, it is suggesting you impose all of those uses. Mr ship. By range of things. A lot of those things aren't compatible with what the sea. The riverfront. I'm compatible with being able to see I need to get a residential district with some. That's a very hurtful. Nice idea to suggest. Some property or all of these uses we're going to let you have some. I think somebody buying the problem five or 10 years leaders and some is something that the planning staff is going to know about in five or 10 years when an application. You're. Where all intents and purposes, it looks like this. Oh, about five years from now. And then some proposed findings in support did not have to respond to one of the points of the apple swing, which is allow dog boarding the cat board here, sir. You have other zones that allow dog and cat courting. Not every kennel is in a . I ask that you . Thank you.

Any questions?

No?

Okay. Seeing none, now we will go back to additional questions for staff. I am pretty sure Commissioner Levin has one. I'll let him start this out.

Good evening, Mr. Bishop. Question that I have is, did you note the additional restrictions or categories to be eliminated from the the clients requested changes.

The commercial parking and the heavy wholesaling?

Yes. And also under farming, forestry, and animal services, all farm animals.

That currently would farm animals, if you look at that specifically. Not permitted. Yeah, it says animal shelters, boarding kennels, training facilities. You know, I don't think horses and cows are typically being taken to animal shelters. That's more of a small animal, you know, type of facility. And it's all other, keeping it as prohibited.

Stock and other animals is conditional under that use. And then the...

um the other item that is not permitted is keeping of livestock and other animals yeah the only things that are the three things that are allowed out of the out of the universe of keeping of livestock and other animals is animal shelters boarding kennels and animal training facilities all other is specifically identified with it by a no and in the table which means prohibited right so farm animals wouldn't be okay yeah very good okay

Is there any other thoughts or concerns that you would express with regards to the conversation regarding general manufacturing?

So in regards to general manufacturing, if you recall from the previous hearing, the MUR zone does allow general manufacturing as a permitted use, but there are some caveats. It can be up to 10,000 square feet in the building or half of the square footage of the building, whichever is greater. So the MUR zone currently allows that general manufacturing allowance, and that was specifically put into the MUR zone to allow to recognize we have existing industrial buildings in this area where it's feasible that they could be adaptably reused and continue in that use. But then once they convert away from that, we have the zone in place that has the development standards that are appropriate to encourage that long-term vision. So you can do manufacturing there today as an allowed use. And the applicant indicated they had 9,000 square feet of vacant space in the building. Well, a general manufacturer could go into that 9,000 square foot vacant space because you can have up to 10,000 square feet or half of the building as a general manufacturing use, as long as you're just selling the products you're making. So that would be something that could be achieved under the zoning today. And then in terms of the development standards real quick, I just wanted to point out, As long as they're not adding square footage to the building, like proposing to add additional floors to the building or expansions, the continued development standards of the MUR zone are pretty flexible in that if you're not making substantial changes to the building, it doesn't trigger like having to cut holes in your concrete building and put windows in them. It doesn't require you to have to put you know, canopies and awnings along the building facade. It's just when you're getting into more substantial, major or substantial redevelopment is when more of those pedestrian oriented standards kick in. So if you're just pretty much looking at putting a building, a use in a building and not making it larger or not doing anything really changing on the outside of it, there's very few standards that would kick in in terms of the MUR zone that would apply to that change of use. And again, it does allow, you know manufacturing with the limit of size and the requirement to sell and it also does allow general wholesaling as well so the the zone does allow you know flexibility you know for some of that today the concern of staff is going to ic uh you know it would open it up to a whole a broader list of uses many of which would be incompatible we have worked with the applicant we've discussed you know how those uses could be minimized and restricted But in terms of the general manufacturing specifically, the one thing that we, in looking at this useless, we were trying to do as well is not to rewrite the zone and come up with a brand new zone district. It was kind of taking what was allowed in the IC zone today and saying whether or not it would be permitted so you know one might argue well could you take like the the mixed you or the mur zone provisions for general manufacturing and apply that to the ic zone that would be you know that was that's not typically we haven't gone so far to do those types of things to zones in the past but there is a history where we have as we discussed at the last meeting limited uses of with zone changes and then also applied specific standards but again like as we indicate in the staff report we really feel that the mur zone standards are really important to ensure that this property is poised for redevelopment consistent with the the emerging you know pattern that we will see as property to the south uh you know develops there's market forces come to bear on adjacent properties and that change occurs in the neighborhood and if it's ic you It would really, either the city would have to do another zone change and city initiated to take it to MUR or a buyer would then have to come back before the planning commission and then undo the IC zone change again. So we feel that the MUR zone provides enough flexibility today to allow the buildings to be used for industrial uses that have been there in the past, but then also fulfill that long-term vision. Okay, thank you.

I'll just add on to that answer. So the reason we were proposing a conditional use for those general manufacturing uses was to have a way to look at the specific proposal that's coming forward and mitigate that specific proposal because we feel like the MUR zone, by keeping it small and having a retail component, is allowing it but also mitigating what the impacts could be because of the small scale. And so if the IC zone were to be approved, we just thought changing it from permitted to conditional in that zone would give a way for us to review that impact and have mitigation proposed for that use. So that's why we were proposing that. And then Mr. Shipman did say he thinks that you can change the zone and not the comp plan. I'll just say staff vehemently disagree, and we would not recommend you do that. We do not believe it complies with state law or our own code or our comp plan. So we do not believe that that is an option for the planning commission, and we're happy to provide that in writing with citations at a future date, but we don't have that in front of us.

Any additional questions for staff? Okay. I think the applicant gets rebuttal. Five minutes.

Thank you real quick. I don't have anything further to add. Um, I realized that Mr. Alterman has submitted a fairly, uh, detailed letter in opposition and i'm i'm i'm good we just want to we want a decision either either up or down and uh either allow us to appeal it to the to the city council if it's no or allow the willamette landing to appeal it to the city council if it's no but um i appreciate your time and just would request that you uh consider what we what we said and and uh um hopefully you'll you'll uh approve our request as we requested thank you for your time

okay so i think this is a new script for me and it has one more final questions for staff is that am i supposed to ask that is that correct anyone anyone final questions for staff okay okay cool So it sounds like nobody would like to continue this to a date certain and would like to close the public hearing today. So I will close the public hearing at 7.20. May I have a motion? Commissioner Levin. Thank you.

I would make a motion that the amended IC uses be permitted as requested by the applicant.

Does that change everything?

That is correct.

Do I have a second?

I will second that.

Okay, is there discussion?

Commissioner Levin, it's your motion. The reason why I think that the zone change should be approved is because it is in fact a boundary property that probably should not have been included in the MUR rezoning. Number one, because of its design construction use and occupancy at the time that that occurred. Whether the applicant was preoccupied with family or life issues is not a point of conversation. I think what is important is the building was designed and built many decades ago for its current use and occupancy. and for the city to down zone the potential use of the property is not okay. I have experienced as a property owner, the city's representation that they would be okay, even handed and reasonable in evaluating future use and occupancies. of the property and have been literally overwhelmed by the inability to find a acceptable tenant for a piece of property when I did agree with the potential zone change. And I think that going back from the MUR to the IC with all of the restrictions that have been agreed between the applicant and the staff is a reasonable compromise moving forward. It changes the potential use and occupancy from where it began to something that would be viable moving forward and the concept that there is going to be a pedestrian access to a piece of property that is bounded by two streets and a railroad is, can only make me smile. So I think that this is a reasonable decision. Mr. Freibach.

I just wanted to clarify. So, Commissioner Levin, your motion is to approve the alternative as written in the staff report?

That is correct. Okay. With the additional changes eliminating the parking, heavy wholesaling that Mr. Shipman added to the list.

i think i would want a little bit more clarification my understanding of what is the alternative on page nine of the staff report is essentially the motion but it is uses limited as identified in attachment b

And attachment.

Yeah, maybe you could clarify exactly what is the alternative in the staff report, because exhibit B is the staff proposed use list, not the applicant proposed use list.

Correct? Correct. So this would be an entirely different alternative than what staff recommended. It would be the useless identified by staff in B, but then further amended to remove heavy wholesaling and commercial parking.

Okay, so it's the... Applicant version as amended in kind of back and forth.

Yeah, it's really, you know, for simplicity, it's really, you know, the attachment B minus plus the additional exclusion of commercial parking and heavy wholesaling.

Okay.

And we're set on no horses, right? That's still...

I think the other item was the general manufacturing as far as permitted uses is the other... Okay. That is different from B and C. Sorry, attachments B and C. That would be correct.

Yeah, if that was part of your intention to include general manufacturing, that is a difference. So yeah, commercial parking, general manufacturing, and the heavy wholesaling. So general manufacturing would be permitted, and then heavy wholesaling all prohibited, and commercial parking all prohibited. That's correct.

Just to clarify, since Commissioner Freibach asked about the staff alternative that had two conditions and the second one was about the design standards and that's not covered by the motion. Just to clarify. Correct. Commissioner Levin, you're not intending to apply the MUR standards to the property?

I am not. Correct. Objected. That's correct. Thank you.

Yeah, so we're open for discussion. I just wanted to say that I would be an A on this. I live in this neighborhood. I'm on the other side of Grant School. This parcel is between 300 units and grant school. And I think the goal should be to make it walkable. And we have decided that collectively as a city with lots of public engagement, lots of the testimony that we've received short notice was also would also be an A here. So that's where I'm at.

Any other discussion?

I can respond to that comment that I would suggest that if there was future development on the property and they did, and the MUR standards for development are a part of this, then they would have to make those changes in the future if they did develop the property further. So the pedestrian access becomes a part of the property. It just doesn't do that today.

I guess I too am going to be a no vote on this motion for primarily the reasons that I simply don't think the applicant has made a that it meets the criteria. Um, and it looks like the business is, in fact, going to be suffering because some of the zoning change because of the zoning changes occurred. And I'm certainly sympathetic to that, but I simply don't feel like it meets the criteria. But for things that, but against things that I liked, it doesn't meet the criteria. And so that will be the case for me today.

I agree with Commissioner Slater. I want to vote no on this. Commissioner Levine's motion, I don't think that the applicant has met its burden to show that it's a better use of the property rather than what it's now zoned. I think that... There is a certain responsibility that all I am sympathetic. Really, I am to the owners, the applicant. I just think that not participating in our Salem discussions was a large mistake on your part. I still have to vote.

Mr. Frebek.

Yeah, I had a hard time with this one, but I. Properties on the edge and the history of being used for.

Our Salem.

You're accurate. But it's the purpose of that project was to Council will use it differently.

Not today. I mean, the question was on end of it. On the edge.

And.

calls in question almost every other property that's on the edge. Commercial centers that were other areas that were created and other things changed.

Considering the opinions and comments of the commission, I think it's appropriate that I withdraw my motion.

I don't know if Tom could hear. I don't think the rules allow you to withdraw. I think you have to vote on it and then there would be a new motion.

And we haven't heard from the folks on TV.

That's right. We do have two commissioners online.

I'm not sure if they, I don't see their hands up.

I'm happy to speak.

I can turn my video on here.

As far as kind of what this is, and unfortunately the audio is not incredible, so a few of these things I have not been able to hear. But based on kind of where the building is and how it's surrounded by IG, to me it makes sense to keep it in the IC just because of the continuing use of what the building is. and how it's set up and the whole structure. It really feels like an icy building and not to bring it into mixed use is going to be just, I think, cost prohibitive and unless it's a completely removal of the property and rebuild, so.

Agreed.

Am I okay to answer the question about whether he can withdraw his motion?

Yes, please.

You should vote on the motion and then have a new motion in front of the commission.

No other reason is useful for the city council who is likely to hear an appeal to see what the record is.

Right.

Yeah, so on that note, I actually found this to be a much closer call than I had expected it to be. And it had not occurred to me that we could even consider comprehensive and zone changes. We can't. I believe they have very similar criteria, or at least I have always viewed them as very similar criteria. Maybe I shouldn't. I know they're different sections, 265 and 64, but when you kind of look at the Listing of them, alteration circumstances, equally or better suited. Those are kind of the main sort of ideas there. What this really seems to come down to for me is looking at 265E1A3, a demonstration that the proposed zone is equally or better suited for the property than the existing zone. So it is already MUR and has been for decades. six or seven years or something five years i don't know a while not not a long while um and then it actually just defines what a proposed zone is equally or better suited for the property than an existing zone if the physical characteristics of the property are appropriate for the proposed zone and the uses allowed by the proposed zone are logical with the surrounding land uses so i think what this is asking us to decide is whether this proposed zone is logical with the surrounding land uses And I think there's some very valid arguments that it is logical to have it be industrial, fitting with the properties to the north and the east of it, including the railroad spur in there, the rather sort of just industrial nature of the area. But what I'm thinking is all of the arguments about changing it back to IC are We're focused on the past and past uses. And all of the arguments about keeping it MUR are talking about prospective uses. And we are a planning commission. We are looking forward. I think that it is going to be a burden for this landowner to keep it how it is. There's no question there. I just think it is. And that is too bad. And I'm very sympathetic to that. But I think that the comprehensive plan of our Salem and what we are trying to do, it is logical to allow that to continue and move forward. And it is unfortunate for the landowner at this time that they do not get to have as much use as they could. And they really are kind of caught in a tough spot where there are industrial buildings literally next door. But I just think that if we look at the mission of the planning commission, the purpose of looking forward about how to help the city develop into the future logically, I don't think that changing back based on retrospective analysis is the logical thing to do. And so I am also a no, but it was very close. I think they are a real corner case. It's a tough one.

Can I say something? Yes. I also agree that I know that we look at past data. uses of buildings that was brought, the information that was brought forward. And yes, we, as we've seen with a lot of buildings across the city of Salem, industrial buildings have been changed and modified to like mixed use, retail, multiple different things across the city of Salem to encompass family, people coming together, um, being, uh, being able to walk from place to place. And, um, and I, I also agree that, um, we should keep it in the current zone. It is, um, I'm also a nay on this of changing it to IC. Um, I know that a lot of people, um, try to think outside of the box of what they will do with a specific space and looking at different types of vendors or markets to be able to lease a space out, which was an industrial-style building. And they're... especially where it's currently located at and the current future development that's going to be coming that has been brought to our attention in the south and the development along the Willamette River is important for a lot of people in the city of Salem and the Salem plan so I do appreciate everybody's input on this case and bringing it to the planning commission but that's all I have to say

Any other discussion or is it time for a vote? Commissioner Freibach?

I just wanted to add a note. I'm a bit of a history aficionado, and I was looking at, just unrelated to this, Sanborn fire insurance maps of various parts of the city. And, you know, you look around 1926 Salem, which is kind of the 1926-27s, like the last year, and you look around downtown Salem, and you see lumber mills, you see storage yards, you see... You know, all these boundaries. I think we had a foundry downtown at one point. And, you know, it doesn't really impact my decision on the case, but, like, I can't help but think, like, you know, say Planning Commission circa 1926 Salem, you know, decided this is industrial commercial and, you know, we're not going to build housing or something. And so. Land uses change and I'm fine with that, but I think. The our Salem process just cover that very recently and so. I'm confident in the results of that process.

I agree with past history when you had mentioned a commercial for a week about. What was decided years ago from previous planning commissions again? mostly industrial, not a lot of, um, walkways and so forth by the river, but yes, we, things change over the years and, um, ideas grow and, um, we're going into a, um, more family-oriented, trying to bring people to the city of Salem and along the Riverwalk, especially with our nature that surrounds us that we embody and enjoy. But I agree with where it's currently at.

Yeah, guess I would ask for a vote.

Commissioner Vieira-Brundell?

No.

Commissioner Freibach?

No.

Commissioner Heller? No. Commissioner Infante?

No.

Commissioner Levin?

Aye.

Commissioner Rhodes? Aye. Commissioner Tev? Nay. Commissioner Slater?

No. Motion fails.

I guess I would move the staff report then for this. So I move staff report CPC-NP-ZC-2602. Second.

So the motion is just to approve staff report. Approve staff report. Correct. Done. Any discussion? I think we have to approve some motion.

We do have to approve some motions. I understand it as well. So I think the staff report was well argued and well thought through. And while I appreciate the impact and wish that weren't the case on the applicant, I think that our obligation is to approve, to approve the staff report.

Any other discussion?

Anyone online?

I don't want to skip anyone. Yes, my take on it is we didn't do the other option and this is kind of the complimentary one. So any other, no? Okay, move to a vote.

Commissioner Vieira-Brendel.

Aye.

Commissioner Freybeck.

Aye.

Commissioner Heller. Aye. Commissioner Infante. Aye. Commissioner Levin.

Nay.

Commissioner Rhodes. Nay. Commissioner Tev. Aye. Commissioner Slater.

Aye. Motion passes. Agenda item seven, special orders of business. I don't see any on there. We already did what used to be seven. So now eight subcommittee reports. I don't believe there are any. Planning Administrator's Report.

So we were just discussing, we don't have any items for the June 23rd meeting. So our next meeting in two weeks. So it'll be up to the commission if you would want to cancel that. And I will be on vacation. I know that's not a deciding factor, but I will not be here.

I think it's a deciding factor. We should cancel. Okay.

And then... I think we will have some items in July. I think we will have, we don't have it on the fly sheet, but we'll have a couple of resolutions to initiate, one for a code amendment and one for a zone change. And then we'll have a presentation from our urban renewal staff on the new urban renewal plan. area in the North Waterfront area. So that'll all be coming in July. I also have a draft of your annual report. And once desktop publishing makes it look nice, I will send it out for review and feel free to... If you don't like the topics in there, I think there should be something different, but we only have to October to give it to council. Once we have that final version, generally the president comes and speaks to it. Yeah. Isn't it, Pierre Brandel? That's part of your responsibility. So we could work on a date for that. When we send the annual report, we will also send the letter from the commission where you adopted a letter recommending to the city council do interviews for all candidates. We do have that letter we're going to send at the same time. And then the city attorney's office did take your recommendations on membership changes to the board, to the council boards and commissions committee. I watched the meetings. They discussed it over numerous meetings. They ultimately decided not to adopt your recommendation. There was a three to one motion on that. So there is a code amendment going forward to make changes to other commissions and then to change generally Just general information that applies to boards and commissions. But it looks like it will not have your recommendation in there as a recommendation from that committee. So when it goes to council, I'll let you know. If you want to submit testimony that night or something, you could. Yes. And if you want to watch the meeting and their discussion, I could send it out to you. It was on YouTube if you'd want to see it. Sure. Yeah. Send it out. Yeah. Okay. Great. Question or fireback?

To clarify, so our recommendation, was it the occupation suggestions, not the interview requirements?

Yeah, the interview requirements, the city attorney did not take to that committee because it's a letter from the commission to the full council. So we'll take that with the annual report. But they were soliciting input on membership requirements. And the commission's recommendation was to add different professional jobs as consideration. There was a lot of debate about that. And even why are we limiting that even for consideration? And future councils might feel like they really have to do it. And so, again, there was debate. And, again, it was over more than one meeting. So I'll send it out to you, but I'll tell you what times you can fast forward to if you want to watch it. We talked about it. Yeah, it did get talked about quite a bit. So I think that's all I have.

I have a question. Could we get an update on the repairing inventory process?

Our two planners that are working on that project happen to be in the audience. What a coincidence. Oh, my goodness. So maybe I'll ask Eunice Kim, our long-range planning manager, to come forward and provide us with an update.

Good evening, Eunice Kim, Long Range Planning Manager in the Planning Division. We had the first phase of the repairing corridor project, which was led by Public Works, wrapped up maybe in the last month or two. We had that open house where we presented the results of the inventory, so that was really the Where are the creeks and streams and waterways and the wetlands that are adjacent that are significant? All that information has been submitted. No, the wetlands has been submitted to DSL for their review. And so we are now starting phase two that's being led by Bryce and I, and that is really going to look at developing regulations on... how to better protect those corridors. So what we're doing right now is looking at what that safe harbor option looks like, the 50 feet on each side of a creek, and what that impact would be. So we're in the analysis phase to better understand how many properties are impacted, what does that mean for bullable lands, what does that mean for existing properties. And so we'll be bringing that information back I was hoping this summer. We'll see. We have a new GIS analyst who's still kind of getting up to speed on everything. But we're going to then bring that information back to the Repairing Advisory Committee, hopefully this summer, if not early fall, to get input on that. And then we'll keep moving forward.

So at this point, if I understand correctly, the policy options are adopt a 50-foot safe harbor or not adopt a repairing buffer, right? And the question will essentially be a political question for the council based on the scale of the proposed impact. Is that a way to think about this? Not how you would say it, but if I were to say it this way.

Yes, we're under no obligation to adopt, you know, as you know, we are many years have not had these standards yet. Because we're under no legal obligation to do it. And so, yes, we've done the project. The council's funded it. There are counselors on the committee. There's planning commissioners, you know, all kinds of people on the committee. But ultimately, it will be up to the city council, yes, if they want to do that or not. based on the input from the committee where I think we're expecting the committee to provide a recommendation, right. To the council. And then for some of the counselors to be on there.

And one of the inputs to the council, to the, to the committee will be then kind of this, the impact on the property owners. Gotcha. Thank you. That was helpful.

So I do have a question and have you identified how many people are out there that have existing property homes that encroach into this 50-foot riparian setback?

We've looked at the maps, but we don't have a solid number yet.

We're doing all that analysis now. The one concern or request that I would have is that If the 50 foot repair and setback does go into effect that the existing homes that are within that setback area be excluded as existing non conforming so that so that they may not have. you know, maybe additional development into that area. But the issue from my perspective would be if there was a situation where there was a reconstruction necessary from, let's say, a fire, that even though they were within that boundary area, that they were permitted to reconstruct.

Yes, the safe harbor option does allow for the rebuilding on your existing footprint. So that would be included.

Okay.

Commissioner comments for the good of the order. I have just one as well. I just want to make sure there's like a public service announcement based on our earlier presentation. Some people I know feel like roots are responsible for intruding in sewer lines, but in fact, roots simply find openings and cracks in existing failures in sewer lines. So they follow the water. So they may in fact enlarge an existing hole, but it's not, they're not creating the hole in the first place. So trees are not our problem. I thought the takeaway was cut all the trees down. I did too, and I wanted to correct that.

All right, thank you. I have one quick comment. It's a long public hearing we just got through today and on the previous day, and I just want to say that I appreciate the input of everyone here, the analysis that everyone provides to it. There's a lot of input from others that I am not going to think of myself, and I think that this body actually does a very good job of developing these issues so that we can come to reason decisions, understanding likely city council will vote how they vote. And it doesn't really matter what we do anyways, but I do think I appreciate the work that everyone does.

Well, I do think they actually look at, look at the votes and give us some consideration. I think they probably do. And they're willing to overrule us. Yes.

Okay. Anything else? We're adjourned.

And we're going to have wetlands. No? No.

Do we need to adopt the final?

We have an agenda.

Oh, we can do it.

Yes, let's do it then.

Well, at the last meeting that we had, you weren't here, Commissioner Slater, right? But weren't there edits from Commissioner?