City Council - Regular Meeting

. .

I'll call to order the work session, Wilsonville City Council for June 15th, 2026 at 5 p.m. I'll start by asking council members for review of the agenda and items on consent. Are there any comments? Okay. Any councilor concerns? Councilor Cunningham.

Yeah, based on work session last city council meeting, during counselor concerns, there was the question about, there was a conversation around applicants for various boards and those appointees. I came away from that without a very good understanding of how that structured process is supposed to look moving forward. Like I said, a couple weeks ago, that was not the way that I had envisioned that conversation going, especially given that there was no heads up or I was unaware that that conversation was gonna take place. I don't know if any other members of council were aware that that was coming. So I guess I'm asking for some clarity on what we should expect moving forward for let's say the planning commission appointment Will we be notified ahead of time when that conversation's going to occur and what can we expect in that work session? Will it come again in councilor concerns or will it be a work session item?

Thank you, Councilor Cunningham. From what I'm planning to do is follow the ordinance and the time slots that are in the ordinance. I'm not gonna make any final determination until the city council meeting falling when that time expires. And then I'm gonna ask councillors, under councillor comments and concerns, if they have any recommendations. And then from there, I will take councillors' thoughts, reach out to staff, get their thoughts, and then the meeting following that, unless there's some delay in that falling meeting, then we'll bring it back in front of council for a former vote of the appointment selection.

Okay, so I should be prepared in the July meeting to discuss the planning commission appointment?

It will depend on, I am not here to know when the application period closes on that, but it would be, yes, but it would be. And, um, it won't, um, what I've asked staff to do is to let me know when, uh, that time has expired. So I'm not going to do anything until I come back to city council. and then ask for your input, or any counselor's input, and then I will take that input under advisement, talk with staff, and then present formally a decision in the meeting following that.

Is it possible to notice it on the agenda?

Well, work session is really a staff issue where the staff gives a presentation. I can talk with the city. I don't control the agenda. The city manager does, but I can talk with her on that. But it's really a council ratification of the mayor's appointment process, not a staff decision. But if you look at the time, I will always comply with the time that council has to provide input. In order to avoid serial meeting concerns, I will always bring it to that city council meeting following the time expiration to allow you to give me your input, and then the meeting after that, then there's a final decision that you guys can ratify or not ratify. Understood.

Okay.

Any other councilor concerns? Okay. Turning now to our work session, West Hills legislative request. You can come on up. And please introduce yourself if you don't mind.

And Mayor, while they're getting everything set up, I just want to note, before you all begin with this first work session item, I just wanted to note there is a pending land use application that's going through the city's quasi-judicial land use process, which may come before the city council for consideration. So council members are advised to focus on the legislative policy questions included with the inquiry and refrain from expressing any opinions or thoughts about whether the proposed development does or could comply with the city's current land use regulations or hardship accommodation standards. Any discussion tonight regarding the land use application or components of the land use application is considered an ex parte contact, and since it is occurring outside of the quasi-judicial process, a recording of this meeting will be included in the record for the land use application for disclosure and transparency purposes. Thank you.

Thank you Amanda, thank you everyone for allowing us 30 minutes on your work session agenda to talk through these issues that we're encountering. I am Christy White, I'm a land use attorney for West Hills. Although I'm here not on a particular property like Amanda discussed, but on issues that have arisen under our attempt to apply the code. And what we think are kind of smart and necessary amendments to the code that we would love to engage in a conversation with you. And this is, go ahead.

I'm Mimi Dukas with AKS Engineering, also working with West Hills.

And we have really two exhibits that I hope are helpful illustrations as we go along. But mostly I just want to talk you through the talking points that we put down on the piece of papers, or the couple sheets of paper that are in front of you. So the Frog Pond East Code was adopted in December of 2022. And there's been no development in Frog Pawnee since that time. For the past three years, the development team that's helping West Hills has been working through over about 50 different site plans to try to knit together some of these complex regulations to produce a financially feasible redevelopment plan. And two issues keep emerging. One issue is the way the code regulates housing diversity or mandates housing diversity and the other issue is one that really refers to the way the open space area is calculated under the code. So really those are the only two issues that we want to present here tonight and see if we can get some conversation going about potentially whether you're interested in other solutions and want us to move forward with potentially other solutions which would take the form of amendments to the code. I also want to be sure that you interrupt me anytime you want with any questions or answers and we'll just go in that direction and we'll see if we can cover all of this. So the first issue is housing diversity and the code requires that you have at least three different housing types per sub-district within the mapped Frog Pond East master plan. They then also require that you build three different housing types, but that no one of those housing types can cover more than 60% of the land area in a sub-district. So if you get to 60% with any particular housing type, you are required to take the other 40% of your land and build two additional housing types. So that is, as you would call it, our theme sentence for the regulation that we've been battling with. Because single family detached homes typically have the larger lot sizes, there are fewer single family detached homes allowed on the same land area. That means that even though the highest demand in this area is for single family detached homes, the code discourages their development and in fact requires that you set aside 40% of the land in each smaller sub-district for other housing types like middle housing types. These would include attached town homes, ADUs, cottage clusters, duplexes as an example. So I wanted to give you a simple example that illustrates the issue. taking it off of any particular parcel, we're just talking about the Frog Pond East Code. If you took a one acre parcel, and let's say that one acre is net developable acres. So that means you've already accommodated for open space or rights of way or storm water or whatever else. You take that and you, 60% of that land area of that one acre can be developed with single family detached dwellings. At about a 3,000 square foot lot size, which is a pretty small lot size for single family, based on a 43,556 square foot lot, you would only be permitted to build nine single family detached dwellings. And you would then have to take the rest of the land, 40%, and pick some other housing type. So that would mean on that balance of 40%, assuming a smaller unit, smaller housing type, so a 1,000 square foot lot, you would end up with 17, an example here, 17 townhomes and ADUs. So nine single family and 17 townhomes. The greatest demand in this area in Frog Pond East is for single family detached units. But because we use land area to match housing diversity and not actually unit type, you end up with the most units in the category of land that has the least demand. Because again, we're looking at diversity by lot size and not housing type. So what we would like to pause it and have a conversation about is if instead you took that same acre of net developable acre and you used housing units, how many are you actually yielding out of that acre? And you allowed diversity to be counted by the actual housing type. you would in fact flip that and you would be able to build with all of that same math, uh, 20 or 16 could be single family detached homes. And the other, I think in this example, nine would be the other type on the other, which would account for the other 40%. That other type could be anything, townhomes, ADUs, cottage clusters, whatever you pick from the list of other housing units. So in the end, you don't lose housing diversity. If the goal here is that you have a bunch of different housing types, you don't lose that housing diversity. You're just counting it by unit type instead of land area. And what that allows you to do is respond to the greatest demand, single family detached while still preserving housing diversity on a type that is not as popular and isn't in as high demand. Why is this important to us? It's not because we just love to build single family detached and that's all we would build. The issue is one of creating with all the different layers something that is a financially feasible development. So Frog Pond East has some really heavy public infrastructure costs that in part will be paid by developers, applicants in Frog Pond East. They have a significant park requirement, which we'll talk about in a little bit. and they have to match the housing diversity objective with their ability to actually help finance these important public infrastructure pieces. So the goal here is not to say get rid of your housing diversity policy. It's not to say it's a bad policy. We're asking for a different way to implement it so we can actually build out Frog Pond East and the different way that we've come up with is based on housing diversity. We can throw up a site plan and I'll show you, I mean it's a many colored site plan so hold on for a second and I'll walk you through it. But this is a sample 20 acre SUBDISTRICT WITHIN FROG POND EAST GENERALLY. THERE'S NO STREET IDENTIFICATION OR ANYTHING ELSE. AND WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IN THE FIRST THREE COLORS, THE ROSE COLORED, THE YELLOW, AND THE LIGHT BLUE, THAT IS THREE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED. THEY HAVE ALL DIFFERENT LOT SIZES. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT FLOOR PLANS. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT BUILDING WIDTHS. SOME ARE FRONT LOADED. SOME ARE BACK LOADED. in the kind of, I'm just gonna call it beige-brown color, those are all town homes with ADUs. And if you count by land area, you'll see here that single, this would come very close to meeting your existing code, But what you see is you only yield 94 units of single family detached in this sub-district, but you yield 153 units of the townhouse ADU in this example. They could be other middle housing units, but here it's townhouses and ADUs. The market for these middle housing, we decided to really test this. So we did some economic modeling and we asked Johnson Economics to look at this and said, you know, we'd build this if we could, but what is the market for town homes? What is the absorption rate? That analysis came back at nine to 10% tops. is the townhouse absorption rate that's pretty consistent with the pattern that's been going on for a little bit here in the last five years and what he predicts will be in the next five years.

Excuse me.

Yeah, go ahead.

Sorry to interrupt your thought.

No, please do.

Did you provide that market analysis as part of our packet to look at?

I didn't because it was specific to this land use application.

So that's something I cannot, because of the, Yeah, that's something that we wouldn't be able to make available to the council.

I'm happy to make it available generally, and we could have them rewrite it because it isn't just for this property. It's for what they view as all of Frog Pond East. So if it's helpful, we could present it and talk about it in the future.

I understand this is a policy decision, but from my perspective, I can tell you that it's hard for me to make that policy decision for me without having a better understanding of the market analysis that you're representing here today.

Councilor Shevlin? Thank you. Sorry to interrupt, but I had the same thought, is where's the data? Really would like to have the hard data as appropriate available to us because my mind goes to, well, maybe it's because we haven't had enough middle housing to be able to have them be attractive. So I'd like to be able to look at this analysis again as appropriate so that I could really understand is it really that's all people want or it's just that that's all we've offered for the most part. We really want to help our citizens that are just getting their foot into the housing market. have that opportunity and I don't wanna lose that. So I look forward to when we can have that information.

Yeah, I think those are very good questions and what we're here to do tonight is see if there's enough interest in this that we could pursue that and provide that economic modeling and we can run whatever numbers you want us to run. The point is we're not getting rid of that middle housing, we're trying to rebalance that middle housing so that we actually have something financially feasible to move forward with. And this, I can't talk about ours, but the different lot sizes of single family detached and different size of single family detached lowers the price point. So those have three different entry points themselves. they don't look that different from a townhouse and they're not on an extraordinary large lot. So we're just trying to find that spot where we still recognize and deliver the housing diversity but are careful to maintain something that somebody wants to invest in and build because there's also all of these other obligations. The housing diversity is one thing, significant infrastructure and parks is of course also an important policy objective.

And detached homes are considered middle housing in Frog Pond West as it was moving through development. So it's acknowledged that there's a price point. It's meeting the housing goals even though it's detached.

Thank you. Councilor Skoll.

So relative, you mentioned you, currently there's a count of 94 house homes and you think you can fit 150. Is that, was that the estimate?

That's the estimate on the screen. There's so, as you can probably tell, there's so many different ways to balance that. But what we were saying is one of the easiest ways things to consider is starting to count diversity by actual unit type that you're delivering rather than land area.

I understand. So when you do that, does that cause you to rescale the size of the lots? Are you rescaling the size of one lot, all of them across the border?

We didn't need to do that, no. See, we're not playing with lot size. We're just playing with unit count. So somebody could do that, and that would be something to guard against because you certainly don't want a situation where you end up with 5,000 square foot single family detached lots that are eating up land that could provide a middle housing unit. But that is not the scenario we've modeled at all. These are all very small lots. The distinction between some of these lots is a couple hundred feet.

We also have not struggled with minimum density. That is not a problem. We're providing plenty of density. That piece of the equation is fine. It's just... Buyers don't want to have an attached wall. I mean, it's just... Not this many buyers. Some do. Some do.

A shared wall. And the other thing to consider, and I'm sorry we're narrowing you down to like one slide, but there's other sub-districts that will be multi-family and single-family and ADU. This is just one sub-district to provide as simple as an example as we can to illustrate the problem, but what's coming up for me is like there's, this is a terrible saying, but there's different ways to skin the cat, right? It's like there's so many data points here, you can see how you can shift, and the target we're asking for is let's count housing diversity by the units we're delivering. How many of this kind of unit, how many of that, so you still have the unit diversity, but you don't get punished by a land area calculation without allowing us I mean, nobody's asking to say, well, let's just come in with 7,000 square foot single family detached lots. We know that wouldn't fly.

It's also combined with the sub-districts. We're having to meet all this diversity metrics in a very small land area. If we could do it across a larger land area, it's easier to move the pieces and parts around. So we can make the numbers work on a broader global scale, but on little tiny sub-districts, it's too many levers that we're trying to work through. I will tell you, I have worked through so many site planning exercises, it makes my head hurt, trying to make all these metrics work in a way that we can have end users want to buy the project that can afford the infrastructure, we cannot get the stars to align. We've worked really hard.

It would be helpful for me to hear, since the initial code went into place, some of the different costs that developers are facing now that may have changed since the original. Can we elaborate on that?

Yeah, generally speaking, we can. I'm happy to do that. Let's take our next subject, parks SDCs, for example. The parks SDCs that will be generated by one segment of Frog Pond East, well actually all of Frog Pond East, are about $13 million in parks SDCs. On top of figuring out where that cost goes, whether it gets pushed to a homeowner, it gets divided, however that works out from a financially feasible pro forma, in addition to that, in one section of Frog Pond East, they're also responsible for a three-acre park, which gives them no SDC credits, and regional trails through the BPA easement, which does give them SDC credits. That's just, so 13 million in parks SDCs and a publicly dedicated park that whoever develops it has to purchase and improve with no SDC credits. That's one line item. The other line item that's pretty significant is transportation infrastructure. You have some very, preferred and robust city preferred and robust transportation improvements roundabouts. Those roundabouts are pretty expensive and they're in the millions and millions of dollars and those roundabouts also absorb some land that then is taken out of housing. So all of that has to come into the equation. The stormwater issues, offsite stormwater, those are still a little unresolved and will require another property owner's participation. So these are all of the things that get layered in and increase the price of the housing unit. So we're thinking, we're increasing the price of this housing unit, we're building less single family detached, We don't think we can sell this strata of middle housing and you end up with a financially infeasible development. To your question, I don't know if those were the estimates for all of those pieces of infrastructure at the time you adopted the code. They may or may not have been, but they are the estimates today and with issues with inflation, construction costs, that is all creating a perfect storm that makes this very difficult to proceed.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions on housing diversity? And again, we're not asking to solve the problem tonight. We're wondering if you're interested in us providing and collaborating with staff more data to see if this is worthy of doing what we would view as minor amendments to the code while still holding that goal of housing diversity.

Councillor Shevin. Thank you. I just want to restate to make sure I understand what you addressed in my question earlier, that even with the lot sizes that we have here for the single family, they're smaller, so we're going to have a smaller square foot home, and that in itself will bring the value, the cost down to, we could say, affordable.

More reasonable price point, for sure.

More reasonable price point. So I just wanted to make sure that I understood that correctly. Thank you.

Yeah, you understood that correctly. Any other comments?

Councilor Cunningham.

A moment ago you referred to the park in the development as publicly owned. Is that supposed to be owned by the city or owned and maintained by the HOA?

So my understanding is that it's maintained by us for a period of years and then handed over.

to the city at some point owned and maintained by the HOA and then for 10 years and then, and then transferred to public ownership. Yeah. Still with the HOA maintaining it is our understanding.

If that's different, that's fine, but it ends up in public ownership after it's built and maintained.

Our understanding is that year 10, it goes to public ownership on top of the SDCs that are paid with each building permit.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

Yeah, of course. Oh, go ahead. Sorry, you did ask.

So just to clarify on that. So then at the start, if you were to develop this, then you're responsible for the cost of the parks through build out.

Yes.

And then the HOA carries for a period of years and then it turns to the city, correct?

Public ownership to the city. Public ownership. I think there's still a question here. I'm frankly not sure of the answer as, when the HOA maintenance terminates, if it ever does. But ownership goes to the city and it's dedicated to public use.

Okay, thanks.

Yeah.

Anybody? Anything else?

Yeah. Just one thing, and I'll go through it really quickly, which is the open space requirement. It's a 25% open space requirement across any development that comes in under Frog Pond East. We've run into a strange definitional problem that we would like to have further discussion around. And that definitional problem is this, that the open space calculation is... a function of gross development area. And so what ends up happening is the 25% of open space, and you can read through this in your notes, excludes the BPA easement area in a way that results in a calculation where in any one sub-district you could lose up to 2.8 acres collectively that isn't counted towards housing diversity and isn't counted towards open space. And I can't imagine a scenario where we're interpreting the code to say that's just a ghost or phantom 2.8 acres by one calculation. It either has to function as open space and you get credit for it because it is in open space, or you get to develop it as housing. It can't be lost to either equation. And that's how it currently sits. And my view is just that it's a strange quirk of the code. We've been told that that's always how it's been interpreted. And that's fine. But in this particular scenario, where you have a vast amount of BPA easement area that will also accommodate regional trails and connect this park to the BPA Eastman area to green space on the other side. It seems a strange way to essentially abandon 2.8 acres when the inclusion of residential land in the UGB is so sensitive. If you're off by an acre, you get in trouble, right? And it has to be matched to supply and demand. It seems like we should take a hard look at whether or not that interpretation or that code piece needs to be amended so that we don't have that kind of ghost 2.8 acres in our calculation. I could go into a lot of depth on that, but it's one of those issues that I think if you're interested in it, we would have further discussions with staff and really lay that out and see if this was worthy of a code amendment to fix that particular problem that arises. And then my last point, and I know we're almost at 5.30, is there's a strange situation here where It may not be strange to you, but neighborhood parks are not on the SDC credit eligibility list. So this park we've been talking about, this three acre park, which generally speaking will cost about $2.6 million to develop, it can't be SDC creditable because of what it's called and how it functions. but it sits immediately adjacent to and contiguous to and will not have a physical boundary from the BPA easement area with all of the regional trails. So this is a large green space that will be community serving. It'll function as a neighborhood park and have all the things, but it'll also be widely community serving and it would be an incredible help if we could somehow figure out a way to capture some of that in SDC credits, given how much parks SDCs are generated, how much it's gonna cost to build the park. And if we can only get credit for the trail part, it is again one of those line items that's very difficult. And if there was a way to just capture a few million out of the 13 million that gets generated in Frog Pond East to credit this park, that would go a long way.

Thank you.

That's it. Thank you. Any more questions?

Any more questions?

I just want to note for the record that shortly before the meeting we had, let's see, one, two, three, like roughly three and a quarter detailed document that I see was you're trying to follow during your presentation. We just got it. And for me, for my purposes, I skim things, but I'm one of those readers. So for my purpose, I didn't have an opportunity to appreciate this, but I do appreciate your presentation. So at this point, I guess, we should have a conversation where we wanna go from here. Councilor Shevlin.

Thank you. You really did a nice job, in my opinion, stating your case and helping us understand your perspective and why. And that's very helpful for me. Thank you. I wanna spend more time reviewing the document and thinking more about what you've talked about and what we're considering. I would like an opportunity for further consideration amongst the council.

City Council President Berry.

I agree. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for taking your time to come and talk to us and to provide a report. I also would like a little bit more time to think about all this. I imagine you've had conversations with the Planning Commission Frog Pond Plan was being developed, right? Yes. And were a lot of these topics discussed?

Yeah, a lot of these topics were discussed, but I would say now, like any code, it's visionary, and you don't really know all the things until you actually start implementing it. So they were discussed, but maybe not as applied, and we didn't maybe have the benefit of as applied.

I understand that, thank you.

Anybody else? Councilor Skoll.

Thanks for your, yeah, thank you for your presentation. Very detailed. I did happen to sit on the planning commission during these discussions. So some of it's familiar to me, some of it I've forgotten. So I'd like some time to get back into it and figure it out and, you know, and continue to consider this. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else in council?

Okay.

I'm kind of one of those that could use some time to think about it.

That's great. That's all we're asking for is whether you're willing to think about it.

Okay. Turn to the city attorney. Is that acceptable from a staff direction at this point that we're.

Yeah, I think we've gotten direction and staff can talk with the West Hills team about what next steps can look like then.

Okay, now I'm gonna go into an area you're probably telling me I can't go into, but I'll do it anyway. So being a retired lawyer, I always rely on evidence. So we have a presentation of a market analysis, which I haven't gotten to see, and I would like to be able to be in the position, if that's a part of the conversation, to have an independent market analysis to see if that information is just as accurate. So I don't know if staff has that or they could provide that, but I'm just sharing that. That's how I think of things.

I think we'll take that input back and we'll discuss that offline with West Hill's team and see if there's a way of providing information that's helpful to council that also isn't going to jeopardize that quasi-judicial land use process.

I appreciate that. I don't want to waste anybody's time, so help me. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Thank you.

Next is Town Center Building Height Waiver Provision Project.

Thank you, Mayor and Council, Amanda Geil-Hinman, City Attorney. So tonight we are continuing our discussion on the Town Center Building Height Waiver Project. As an agenda for tonight's discussion, I'm going to provide a quick project update, and then we'll go over a review of the updated and new options to the waiver provision that were provided in the staff report. I'll provide a review of the task force and planning commission feedback and recommendations as to the waiver preferred alternative option, elimination of the waiver to increase height altogether in town center, and then the menu items, and then we'll finish with going over the questions for city council. So as way of a project update, the Town Center Building Height Waiver Task Force has had three meetings, one in April and two in May, where they have since walked away with a recommendation that we'll get to in a moment. The Planning Commission has had a work session on this item on May 13th, followed by a City Council work session on May 18th. That led to the Town Center Building Height Waiver Task Force having their final meeting their current final meeting on May 19th where they made their recommendation. After that recommendation from the task force, the planning commission had a second work session last week on Wednesday, June 10th, and then the second work session for council is tonight. So to orient everybody because it's, Pretty important for understanding the waiver are the sub-districts at play for Town Center. The waiver impacts both the CMU and MU sub-districts of Town Center. So there's an overarching Town Center zone and then there's four sub-districts within that Town Center zone. Closest to the freeway is the CMU or Commercial Mixed Use Area that has an outright allowed building height range of two to five stories. The MU sub-district, which kind of goes on both sides of the Main Street district, allows building heights of two to four stories. The Main Street district allows also two to four stories. And then the neighborhood mixed-use sub-district that's closest to the residential area to the east allows only two to three stories in building height. And what I will just note for the record is that the building height waiver language that's in the town center zone only applies to the commercial mixed use and mixed use sub districts. So it does not apply to main street district or neighborhood mixed use. So this is a table that's in your staff report and it's both updates to two of the original four options that were drafted and then two new options that arose out of the second meeting from the task force. So I'm just very briefly going to go over the changes and additions. So option two and option three generally have the same updates. The first thing that was done is we clarified the waiver as it applies to when you're decreasing the building height versus increasing. Before it wasn't clear about the relationship of the floor plate, the waiver around the floor plate and how that impacts building height. It was pretty clear from the planning commission discussion that the idea was you can expand the floor plate and decrease the building height, but it was never really contemplated that you could both expand floor plate and increase building height. So the first clarification we did was parse that out where the expansion of the floor plate only applies to a decrease of the building height. Or you can just decrease the building height. and not expand the floor plate. But basically, you can't expand the floor plate and also increase building height. So that was the first clarification we made. The second clarification that we made was about not allowing the... not allowing the additional floor in the mixed use sub-district that's on the eastern side of the town center zone. So that area, if you can see my mouse, that area east of the Main Street district between neighborhood mixed use and Main Street district is, we basically created the ability with some bracket language around separating out how we treat that eastern mixed use area versus the western mixed use area for further consideration. Option three has those same updates as option two. Then we added option five. Option five arose out of one of the small groups in the task force that basically looked at, again, if you go back to the sub-districts, is that for the mixed use sub-district, closer to the neighborhood mixed use, that the waiver would only allow building heights to go down and not up. but then in the mixed-use sub-district closer to the freeway that you would only allow building heights, well, both the mixed-use district and the commercial mixed-use district only allow building heights to go up but not down. So basically kind of the inverse of each other depending on which side of the main street district you're on. And like I said, that came out of a discussion that arose from one of the task force small groups from our second meeting. From that discussion then, so in creating that option five, what that meant was there was still the possibility in the commercial mixed use area for potential of six stories. either through a waiver or a bonus floor and I'll cover the bonus floor in just a minute. But the option six is essentially a further limitation to option five where in the commercial, the only changes regarding commercial mixed use where the increase in building height could only occur through the bonus floor, it could not occur through the waiver. So it basically further restricts, if a six story is being built, it's only in the limited circumstance of the bonus floor. So what's the bonus floor? The bonus floor is a reference to note four of table two that lays out the outright allowed building heights, where it says that if a development is providing 25% affordable housing of 25% of an additional floor in affordable housing that they could get that bonus floor as an outright allowed increase. And so what option six contemplates essentially is in commercial mixed use, the bonus floor would only be available and thus what that means is that affordable housing, some amount of affordable housing is being provided in that development. Before I get into recommendations, are there questions about these options, the two updated options and the two new options in concept? If there's questions, we can also come back. So what we did with the task force and then ultimately with kind of a more informal version with the planning commission, we did basically two steps in getting feedback and recommendations. We wanted to make sure that we got, if there was consensus, getting consensus around an option before getting into a discussion of whether or not that preferred alternative option was still preferred over eliminating the building height, the waiver to increase building height altogether. So the task force, as they worked through this, they first eliminated option three right out of the gate, so we didn't further deliberate on that. Then we had them do a dot exercise where we gave them two different colored dots. They were to take for updated option two, option five, and option six. With their two dots, one was to identify their number one preference, and then their second dot was to identify their number two preference. So there would be one option where each task force member would not be identifying it as their number one or number two. We also asked them within their dot, like next to their dot or within their dot, if they had a number one or a number two, but they would still make a change to how it was presented to them to note that next to their dot so we could document that for further discussion. So from that, option two had, and this is in the staff report, option two had two number one dots, but no number two dots. Of note is that each of the number one dots included a note that the eastern mixed use area, so the area closest to the neighborhood, not allow an increase of building height beyond four stories. That would mean the elimination of both the waiver, the ability for the waiver, and the ability for the bonus floor. So that was a note on each of those items for those two dots. Option five had five number one dots and one number two dot. One of the ones that had the number one dot had that same note about the mixed use area on the eastern side, that that should be limited to four stories. So no increase to building height through the waiver and also no increase through a bonus floor. Option six had one number one dot and seven number two dots. And three of the number two dots included that same note about the mixed use east area. Not being allowed to go beyond the four stories. So during the debrief on the dot exercise, the two task force members who had put option two as their highest preferred alternative also stated that they would be fine recommending option five, or having option five be the preferred alternative if it included the provision of not allowing the mixed use area on the east to go above four stories. A third task force member that had placed option five as their highest preferred alternative had also included that same note as a reminder. So ultimately where the task, so there are eight task force members present. The final consensus was four task force members wanted to keep option five as is. Three task force members were comfortable with option five with the revision to limit the mixed use ease to four stories. And one task force member was comfortable with option five but was undecided as to whether to limit the height. in the mixed use area on the east to four stories. So what I take away from that is option five came out as the preferred alternative, but what to do about the mixed use area to the east, whether to cap that at four stories, both through the waiver, essentially eliminating the waiver to go up and the bonus floor in that area, that really we didn't get a consensus one way or another about that. So then after we had the preferred alternative of option five, still with this question about the mixed use area to the east, we asked, oh actually before I get into the next one, I wanted to cover planning commission feedback also on the preferred alternative. planning commission agreed with the elimination of option three, but they were generally split between options five and six. And mainly what it kind of boiled down to was how much did they want to see, the discussion really kind of went back and forth between how much they wanted to limit the ability to increase building height and also a policy question for council on prioritizing the bonus floor for affordable housing. So for example, in the mixed use east area, that allows for the bonus floor for affordable housing. So option five eliminates the waiver, but it doesn't eliminate the bonus floor. If council has a priority of affordable housing, maybe that bonus floor, allowance needs to stay in place, but they didn't feel, there wasn't really a consensus around option five or option six and what to do with the mixed use area to the east. So that's kind of where that left. And then we got into the discussion of the preferred alternative for each group, both task force and planning commission. We got into a discussion of the preferred alternative versus eliminating the waiver to increase building height altogether. The task force voted six to two of the preferred alternative, so that option five, over the elimination of the waiver to increase the building height. However, even with that feedback, the Planning Commission, generally on a three-two, came to the conclusion to eliminate the waiver to increase over the preferred alternative of either an option five or an option six. So, in essence, Planning Commission didn't follow what the task force recommended, which is fine. It's all input, just like it's input for council. And what I will note too is that at least one of the members in planning commission of the two who would stick with the preferred alternative did say that they felt like it should still, the elimination of the waiver to increase building height altogether should still be something that council did consider. So while they were, they would not, lean towards the preferred alternative option five or option six, they still thought that it was important for council to consider elimination of the waiver to increase building height altogether. Everyone in the, or most of the planning commission did discuss how building height and concerns around building height in town center and some predictability with that is an important conversation that's happening in the community right now. And felt like that that was an important component to this discussion about the elimination of the waiver to increase building height altogether is that concern and wanting to take note of that, however ultimately the council decides from a policy perspective it would like to see happen with the waiver. On the menu items, these were discussed both with planning commission and the task force. Basically how the menu items as a refresher, how they're built out is if a waiver is sought, one item from each of two menus has to be, a developer has to comply with one item from each of the two menus. One menu is focused on providing a community benefit and the other is focused on mitigating building impacts. One of the things that we did is we provided essentially categories of concepts for the menu items if an option is going to be explored to further refine the waiver. We also recommended an additional catch-all for other innovative ideas that you just don't contemplate today for a 40-year plan. At the task force level, there was a discussion around there being some level of proportionality amongst the menu items, which is really challenging to do when you're talking about things in more abstract. But basically what they're saying is they want to make sure that one menu item isn't really inexpensive and one menu item is really expensive because then every developer is going to choose the inexpensive item. And there should be some proportionality of cost amongst them. So as we were talking about that, there was this concept that was sort of bounced around about a fee in lieu, a developer paying a fee in lieu that would go to a fund that would essentially support some of the implementation items that need to occur in Town Center. You think about parking strategies or some of the other things that we know need to occur. that fee in lieu could go to a fund to help pay for those. Or making it where there is a cost assessment and whatever the value adds from the menu items, whatever they choose, it needs to represent that cost essentially. So if they're doing something like there's things around environmental stewardship through LEED certification or Earth Advantage, certification is that whatever improvements that are being done to a building to meet those, that there is a cost that is commensurate with or the cost of that is commensurate with some value to the building or some proportionate value that's being established. So that way there's just some parity amongst the different menu items. Planning Commission was, there wasn't a consensus one way or another, there was some concern that that might feel a little pay to play, but also understanding that we don't want inexpensive items and expensive items and then you never see the expensive items happen and you only see the inexpensive items happening. So there was some general discussion with the planning commission around the menu items, but not necessarily a coalescing around a specific idea, particularly around this concept that the task force was talking about. So with that, the questions for Council today really are, are there any further questions or clarifications around the options that Council has? We've added options, we've updated options, so they have been modified as we've worked through this project from the input that we got from the Task Force and Planning Commission and Council. And then really it kind of comes down to two considerations for council. Is council getting direction from council whether to move forward with a modification to the waiver provision and if so, is council looking at option five or option six and any feedback council has on the menu items or is council more in favor of moving forward with an elimination of the waiver to increase building height altogether. What that would mean is that the ability to decrease and expand the floor plate would still exist, but not the ability to increase. Within that discussion of that third bullet point, it's also important to remember that bonus floor. That bonus floor is not part of the waiver. It is part of the outright allowed building heights in our code. But getting back to this discussion around some predictability and certainty with building heights and town center, I do think that that bonus floor is a relevant discussion for council to have in considering that third bullet point around eliminating the waiver to increase the height altogether. So with that, I'll turn it back over to council for discussion.

Thank you for your presentation. Councillor Shevin.

Thank you. I want to thank the members of the task force, the town center building height waiver task force for their good work on this. I also thank staff, of course, but our citizen volunteers that put the work into this is so valuable and I appreciate all the work that was done by them and representing their community and really taking to heart the importance of providing feedback and coming to consensus on what they could offer both to the Planning Commission and then to us. So I know that some of the members are in the audience tonight and I want to thank them personally for their good work. I'm tied between option five or six, but I am personally in favor of eliminating the waiver to increase the heights. I believe we're coming close now as a community on what the vision of Town Center as far as building heights should be, and I want to base my decision on what that looks like and what is best for our community all the way around, for people that need to get into special housing, affordable housing, et cetera, but also what's important for our community and what maintains that feeling of still having that town center that reflects what our citizens want, and I believe that We can get there with either option five or option six. So I'm willing to listen to my fellow counselors debate some of that. But I do believe about the, I support eliminating the waiver to increase the height. Thank you.

Council President Berry.

Thank you, Amanda, for your report. And thank you to everybody who's participated in our town plan and the most recent task force and the planning commissioners. Um, I also, um, agree with let's eliminate the waiver to increase the height. It seems like we've gotten a lot of feedback from our community about the heights, that that's a concern and that if we can, um, make it more clear and simplify the code, I think, uh, people will understand more what the vision is for the town center. And so I would, um, lean that way right now.

Thank you. Councillor Schell.

Add to that, I'd like to thank everybody. I watched both the task force meetings and the planning commission meeting, and it was a great debate. They were very engaged, come up with a lot of great ideas. It was just kind of cool to see how people were concerned and people were coming up with some good ideas and everything. So when all this started, I kind of had my sweet spot in terms of where this would fall out. And it's pretty darn close. And I would, before I I'm kind of leaning towards the eliminate the waiver or the increase of the height. But I do have a question and there's something I do kind of disagree with. The public rooftop restaurants, just a question, does that count as a floor?

So the way that story is, so it's the number of stories that are allowed is the two to four. And how story is defined in our development code is from, I'm not gonna get the words exactly right, but it's basically from floor to ceiling. I don't know if our planning staff has ever interpreted this and actually, is Miranda back there? Maybe I'll have Miranda come up so I don't say anything.

Yeah, and the reason why I ask is if there was, worked on these rooftop things, rooftop designs in my past career. A rooftop can be either, say if it's a hotel, then it's a design-in activity. If it's an office building or an apartment building, then they'll put utilities on the roof to add that, and then at least you could come in and basically invest and do it themselves. Most of the stuff is there. In a larger building, you have the mechanical rooms on top, you have the HVAC units on top. I don't know if the height's included in that. And then also around the lip of the building, you have the safety lip, which is typically three to four feet to protect. And so they're saying that... This could be very challenging and expensive a lot of these buildings are already prepped for this stuff So but in certain aspects, I kind of disagree with that assumption, but the question is is that included? In the cat the floor account and do we have to take that into consideration when making this decision?

Thank you for the question councillor skull. My name is Miranda Rachel. I'm the planning director for the city of Wilsonville and I can answer that. A ceiling or a rooftop amenity use of any kind would not be included as one of the stories. A story is defined as ceiling or floor to ceiling and exclusive of a basement. So you could have a basement really we're talking about from ground level up, the number of stories that you can have. And so if you were to have uses on the rooftop, that is something that would not count towards your stories. So if you maxed out at five stories, then you could also still have a restaurant or outdoor garden or some other kind of amenity that people are wanting to put on the rooftop, correct?

Perfect. As long as there's not a ceiling.

As long as there's not a ceiling. And we do have the HVAC. That's another good part of your question. Those facilities would be incorporated on the rooftop and not count as a story either. We see that throughout the city. They just have to be screened from the property line.

Good, good. So then I would say eliminate to increase. Eliminate the waiver to increase.

Councilor Cunningham.

Yeah, there was a couple of things that stood out to me during the Planning Commission meeting that were discussed. Commissioner Carr asked where five stories came from, and he very... He noted that cities around us don't have five stories. I also noticed that in the beginning of the feasibility, the new feasibility study, there's a line in there that says something to the effect of, we're creating something unique to the region, to the South Metro region. And we talked about the time that was spent by the task force on this, which was appreciated. But there was also 550 people who filled out a survey last year. There was more than 30 people who attended focus groups last year. The city paid a lot of money to garner that information and that doesn't seem like it's been a part of this conversation at all. But I think it's important because the voices we heard there really repeatedly said small town feel, small town feel, small town feel. And I don't think that having the ability to have six story buildings and five stories is debatable enough, but the ability to have six story buildings is questionable. I mean, even to Commissioner Carr's point, Miranda, you responded to him and you said that you actually had folks who wanted eight to 10 stories. I only found one reference to that in all of the outreach. Do you have any information on where, who was saying that or if it was documented anywhere that people were asking for eight to 10 story buildings in Wilsonville?

Yeah, thank you, Councilor Cunningham. There was discussion of it during at least one of the focus group work sessions we had with one of the tables that was doing a tabletop exercise with one of the maps, which is probably why it's not mentioned multiple times, because we didn't hear it very frequently. It was not as frequently heard as a lot of the two to four and some five-story buildings, which was the predominant message we received from the community. There was, I do know, a council meeting where it was discussed, and a councillor specifically was also interested in it. So that's essentially where that came up.

Prior council.

Correct. Okay.

It would have to be.

It wasn't a current council. This was adopted in 2019, so it would have to be. All right, all right.

Thank you for that clarification. The other part of what we're talking about here today, these waivers, these didn't appear during the outreach between 2017 and 2019. Is that correct?

It was, that's correct. It was part of the, um, it developed as a concept from, uh, comments from the planning commission when they were looking at the development code. So that it really arose, it was a creature out of the planning commission as it, you know, is reviewing its development, the development code for, you know, further edits. And, um, yeah, so it wasn't, um, it wasn't part of a public outreach outside of the planning commission city council process.

Right, and so during the planning commission, Director Bateshell also said that the variance came at the very end. It was not part of the public discussion. The public discussion was just about what do you want to see in town center? And here are different buildings, here are different heights. What are you comfortable with? And the majority of people landed within what you see ended up in the plan in terms of the range of heights that are outright allowed in each of the sub-districts. Further clarifying after that, I believe, something to be effective. It was a meeting open to the public, so it was done in public. But I do think that the idea that the public was real involved in this decision was not actually part of what happened. this did come up in planning commission. It was done among planning commissioners in a meeting. Um, the code as, as has been noted in some of these meetings was developed in the middle of that meeting. Uh, it sprang from a discussion on floor plate and going down and then suddenly, uh, went up and, uh, took something that the public had never really had a chance to have any meaningful input on. And in fact, the outreach, pretty clearly shows that people were not real in favor of anything above five stories, and I think five stories was even kind of sketchy. So with that, I mean, I think our community has spoken multiple times over the last decade on this issue. The outreach said three to four stories is what the community was looking for. There's one slide that said Developers wanted four to five stories when we ended up there. Again, we asked last year, we had focus groups, we had a survey. One of the best responded to surveys in the history of the city, as far as I can remember, with 550 respondents. That was no small number, and it was a pretty good sample size. And when you look at what, people were never explicitly asked, what's the tallest building you'd be willing to support in town center. But they were asked what other downtowns are, would you like to see Wilsonville emulate? And it was West Lynn, Sherwood, McMinnville, Canby, and one other one that I can't pull off the top of my head right now. Lake Oswego. Thank you. Again, as Commissioner Carr pointed out, you don't see five-story and especially not six-story buildings in these neighboring cities. So to me, I'm not sure that our community is asking for us to do something completely unique to the South Metro area, especially based on the survey data from last year. And I would be fully in support of removing all upward height waivers, including note four. We have to put this information in front of our voters. this November to try and get funding to get this project done and I can tell you that the headline if we leave a sixth floor in the options That's gonna be the headline and I don't know that we beat it. I Think that people will fight for their small town. They'll fight for the soul of their city Thank You councillor school

So just a couple comments regarding Councillor Cunningham's comments. I did see the Planning Commission, did hear Commissioner Carr's response and everything. And based on actually some recent visits on my part, there are buildings in the area, especially in North Tigard, that are five and some are six storey. So, and I'm sure that that will, you know, propagate South over time. And I think the discussion also, uh, flowed across the fact that this is a 30 to 40 year plan and, uh, you know, we need to keep that in consideration over time. Uh, you know, the difference between four and five stories, uh, I think was decided back in 2019. And so, uh, I think the range there was two and five, and it was in the original plan, and I think we should stick with that. Again, I don't have a problem with taking the waiver process out to go high. They were also talking about the unicorn effect and all that. This could prevent that in the short term, that basically these designs will change over the long term. And basically with the waiver in place to go down to a single, if that's possible, requested and everything that actually creates what I would say a reverse unicorn issue. If you have that mixed into multi-level or multi-story buildings and I'd be concerned about the continuity of design there.

Councillor Shevin.

I want to hook on to Councillor Scull's comment about a lot of requests or a number of requests for one-story buildings. My concern there is that what we end up with, in my opinion, is a giant strip mall area. So I would be less supportive of a number of buildings that would be limited to one story. I do agree with Councillor Cunningham that we need to come to a consensus that we can get this baby off the ground. We need to move forward with town center. And if that means that we have three to four stories primarily with an option of five on the west side in some situations, then I can live with that. Definitely not over five. So whatever it takes for us to get to that with predominantly three to four. I was in Lake Oswego last week and it looked lovely. I was near the Salt and Straw area and I think they're three stories and then there's sort of a facade. window above some of the buildings, but it's three stories with, of course, commercial. And it was lovely. And I looked at that and I thought, this is the way I want our town center to look. So I agree with Councillor Cunningham that we need to have this, we need to make a decision here, not now at this moment, but we need to move forward so that our community supports the town center that we put in front of them in November if we do that.

And I will just note also on the consideration of the one-story buildings, and just generally speaking, I think that our staff recommendation would be on the elimination of the waiver to increase height altogether, that if that's how the council direction is implementing ordinance of that, state something to the effect of that staff come back at a certain amount of time to reflect upon whether it's an issue or it's not an issue. And in particular, if we are seeing several applications for one story buildings, as a reminder, when anybody applies for a waiver, they have to show that they better meet the policies and objectives of whatever plan those code regulations come from, so it's not necessarily a free-for-all. They have to show they better meet it, but there can definitely be a concern about too many one-story buildings, since that was not the feedback that was generated from the town center plan outreach. we can definitely bring T up a review both on to, you know, if we're seeing a lot of one story applications coming through and also if we're seeing that, you know, there's an issue with not having a waiver from a feasibility standpoint, whatever it may be that we'll set, we can set that within the ordinance to bring that back to council. By a date certain and if it's a rising sooner than that and then nothing prevents that discussion from happening sooner it's a what I'm referring to also is something that we've done with our the first time that we did our Forum based code for coffee Creek industrial area because it was something new that we were doing As a way to make sure that we were on the right track with it. So we essentially model it after after that process and

Okay, there we are. Just wanna make sure I got everybody. My thoughts. Reducing it to four stories, the concept of three to four story level, does that impact the plan itself? Is that something that impacts the, potentially, the governor mandates and all the things that we've been concerned about? I just wanna, because I'm very open to having this conversation, I just wanna make sure we can do it without

I don't think there's any staff concern around, there's no staff concern around the waiver, and there's really not staff concern around the bonus floor. I think if you're changing the, I don't think that it's ever been recommended to change the table itself that lays out those outright allowances for a myriad of reasons. But as far as the note four on the affordable housing and the waiver, staff doesn't have a concern necessarily about that. From like a state housing perspective, anything like that.

Okay, then I concur with some of the thoughts that Councillor Shevelyan and Councillor Cunningham And I also believe eliminating the waiver is important.

The only other feedback that I think I would need is I've heard pretty clearly from Councillor Cunningham about the elimination of the note four in the table around the affordable housing bonus floor. do other counselors have a feeling on that? So if you go back, um, if I go back to this, um, the bonus floor has the ability potentially of adding another story than what is expressed in that table, as far as, you know, two to four stories or two to five stories.

Counselor Cunningham. Um, I mentioned this, uh, in a conversation the other day, uh, with you, I don't know if we were able to get any clarity on it around, The bully rules on affordable housing that if, if a developer were to build even 25% of one floor with affordable housing, if that would trigger the bully labor wages, I haven't checked on that, but generally speaking, why you see bully wages being triggered with affordable housing is because of the, um,

is because of the government subsidy. The public money. Yeah, the public money that's involved. So without doing further research, my guess is that it's more, is there public investment that is contributing to it or not? And if not, I would think not. But again, I haven't fully researched that.

You know, one of the, there's a, separate issue going on right now but through that I've kind of learned about some of our citizens frustrations with the last affordable housing project that was built in town the Vuela especially around that 80 percent MFI or AMI band of housing where it's it's such a Goldilocks band of qualifications to attain that housing. And I'm afraid that note four calls explicitly for 80% MFI MI housing that we would end up in a similar situation where you have these units that are hard to move. That's not going to be, very attractive, I don't think, to a developer if they know that. There was an article in, gosh, one of the papers around here recently, and it was talking about how 80% AMI ends up being so darn close to market rate that it's just not working super well. And I would hate for us to leave that note in there with a lot of these difficulties for developers that they may not even ever use. and have that six floor argument be the thing that breaks us in November. Cause I think we would, we would all be very disappointed in November if the answer for funding town center was no, I think we would all feel pretty terrible about that. Um, so to me, I don't know that it's something that, uh, really makes, you know, a giant impact in a, in a, in a building like the boiler or a building like the Sherry's building, you're talking about eight units. in the entire building, seven units, and depending on how the math works. And I would hate for that to be the cause of a failure in November. So I would just throw that out there.

Anybody else?

Councillor Shetland. I just don't want six floors, period. End of story. Mic drop.

I don't want them.

However we get there, whether it's all just middle housing and upper and we don't have affordable housing in that particular building I again completely understand what Councillor Cunningham is saying and getting we don't want developers to be struggling trying to put that particular model of home or housing in and then find that For the most part, they're vacant because that's not what folks that are living in town center are looking for. So I just don't want six floors. We can go four. If there's a bonus on five and it happens to be affordable housing in some structures, I can live with that. Thank you.

Councillor Schell.

I would say the same thing. We need to get this kicked off and basically I'm not sure in looking at how this works, I'm not sure how the economies would pan out from a developer perspective and I'm not really sure it's worth it and I say we level it off at five and move forward.

City Council President Barry.

If we moved forward with leveling off at five floors, then option six would be a maximum of five stories because the bonus wouldn't be. offered, right?

Okay, that is correct, but only for commercial mixed use. So I guess that's why I want to get clarity because mixed use right now, the outright allowed building height is four stories, but that note four allows them to go up to five stories with the bonus floor. So if you recall, neither the task force nor the planning commission really settled on what to do with the bonus floor, but there was definite discussion about in particular, the mixed use east area not going above four stories, which would mean the elimination of the ability to have a bonus floor, at least in mixed use east. And I mean, I don't want to necessarily project, but if you're getting rid of it in commercial mixed use and mixed use east, I mean, the mixed use west area is a very small portion of town center altogether. I'm not sure that you're going to see affordable housing, an affordable housing bonus floor occur in such a small area in town center, given the discussions around development and the feasibility of that. So I just add that to the context.

Councillor Schell.

Just one additional question to this. Regarding these special units, if the state mandates at a later date that, you know, if those rules change, we can come back and address this at a later date? We probably will if the state passes new laws. You know, make sure it's there. Yep. Okay.

I think there's two things that are a certainty. I think that the community wants a more refined town center and two, that the heights that were talked about years ago, things have changed. 2019 is a long time ago in the scheme of what's happened. To come up with more affordable housing right now is virtually impossible given how expensive it is. In my view, a consensus of council, which it sounds like we have, is important. We let the voters decide when we get to the Urban Renewal District. We did the best we could and we'll let them decide.

So is council comfortable with me moving forward with eliminating note four? If I could get, I want to make sure I have a clear consensus. I'm seeing head nods from everybody.

Okay. Great.

So next steps will be, I'm not even sure I put that on the slide. Next steps will be planning commission is planned currently for August. And then bringing, assuming that that goes through to planning commission, that we will bring it back to council in September. both the elimination of the waiver to increase building height and the elimination of note four.

And I'm going to put something that's just put something on the record. There have been community members that have approached me or that, that, that do want high buildings. I never wanted high buildings, but think that, taller buildings equate to affordable housing. And the research I have looked at myself is that's not necessarily the case. Um, and so I think that to suggest just because council has decided to keep, uh, housing heights at the lower level does not necessarily mean we're against affordable housing. I think it's clearly, that's what the community would like is, not a Pearl district in our backyard. So I think there's a misnomer that sometimes taller buildings equate to cheaper housing and I just don't, I've not seen that. So anyway, that's, I think we're good to go on that.

Great.

Okay. Next thing is public safety council goal update. The nuisance code revisions.

Don't even have to change seats.

Thank you, Miranda.

Let me just switch my slide deck here. All right, thank you, Mayor and Council. Again, Amanda Geil-Hinman, City Attorney. I think this one will maybe be a little bit shorter of a topic, so as an agenda for tonight's discussion on the nuisance code update, we'll start with a project overview just to reorient Council on this, discuss the staff's review of the current nuisance code, and then some proposed updates that we are suggesting, and then talk about next steps. So by way of a project overview, as a reminder, as part of its 2025-27 council goals, the city council adopted goal two around public safety. The first outcome identified in goal two is to streamline response to code enforcement challenges. And to achieve this outcome, council adopted several strategies, including strategy 2.3 that calls for the city to update nuisance code provisions with particular review of noxious vegetation, property appearance, noise, and other chronic nuisances. From that council goal setting project, an interdepartmental team was established for the various strategies, in particular for strategy 2.3. It's legal, administration, code compliance, and our police. With particular emphasis on code compliance as the main group that handles the nuisance code provisions. So in reviewing our current nuisance code, the focus for us was looking at, from the council strategy, the call out to noxious vegetation, property of appearance, noise, and other chronic nuisances. We did look at the entirety of the nuisance code provisions, but wanted to pay particular attention to those. Out of the gate we looked at the noise regulations and our recommendation is to not update those because we felt that they were pretty well developed. The first and foremost is that the noise regulations have seven factors that staff consider when we determine whether or not there's a nuisance occurring. They include but are not limited to the following, the proximity of the sound of sleeping facilities, whether residential or commercial, the land use, nature, and zoning of the area from which the sound emanates and the area where it is received or perceived, the time of day or night that the sound occurs, the duration of the sound, whether the sound is recurrent, intermittent, or constant, whether the sound has occurred in the past and with what effect, and any practical or exigent justifications for the sound. There's those seven factors, and then there are 11 enumerated categories of nuisance noises, though they are not exhaustive, for noise nuisances. And then there's exemptions and exceptions also articulated. So it's a pretty well-developed regulations around noise. So we determined that that wasn't something that we would recommend revising. However, we did notice that for noxious vegetation, and we kind of lumped in property appearance with that, that probably some updates are warranted. In particular, we found that the noxious vegetation language doesn't mirror, for example, what we see in our noise regulations. We reviewed several cities within the metro area and looked at their nuisance code to see, are we in line? Are there other jurisdictions that maybe have some clearer standards? And we found, as you saw in your packet, Tualatin, Beaverton, and West Linn do provide some more clarity around noxious vegetation. So what we're proposing is some updates to our noxious vegetation code language modeled after both our noise regulations and the other cities, those three cities noxious vegetation code language. The other updates that we're proposing are also to house, so right now currently for some of our code enforcement for nuisance code violations. Some of that is housed within chapter six where the nuisance code lives, but what we are recommending is as part of our larger code enforcement update that that all get housed within enforcement in chapter one. We're really trying to have one centralized place for code enforcement as much as we can rather than having it spread throughout our code. So what we're proposing is eliminating that in the nuisance code provisions and putting that into chapter one. So for that reason, what we're also proposing is that any updates to the nuisance code happen contemporaneous with our code updates for chapter one. So at an upcoming council work session, we will be going over chapter one, proposed chapter one updates as well. So as I just mentioned, next steps is to finalize any draft updates to the nuisance code and then consider those updates with chapter one updates and then with an effective date plan for January 1, 2027 for both chapter one and updates to the nuisance code. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions on proposed updates to the nuisance code. Council.

City Council President Berry.

Sounds like a good plan to me. Thank you. Anybody else?

Great. Looks good.

Sounds great. Thank you.

All right. With that, we're adjourned at 6.30 p.m. The city council will meet an executive session pursuant to Oregon revised statute section one nine two six six zero subsection two paragraph E real property transactions in order to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions. Paragraph F exempt public records in order to consider information or records that are exempt by law. From public inspection, paragraph H, legal counsel litigation consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. And paragraph I, performance evaluations of public officers and employees in order to review and evaluate the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer of any public body, a public officer, employee, or staff, member who does not request an open hearing. Members of the public, outside of representatives of the news media, please exit the council chambers. We are adjourned for five minutes. We'll resume at 6.36 p.m. That's a lot to read for that.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll call to order the meeting of the Wilsonville City Council for June 15th, 2026 at 7 p.m. Will the city recorder please call the roll?

Councilor Shevlin?

Here.

Council President Berry? Here. Councilor Cunningham?

Here.

Councilor Skoll?

Here.

Mayor O'Neill?

Here. Please stand and join us for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. City Council President Baric, I have a motion to approve the following order of agenda.

I move to approve the following order of the agenda.

Is there a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion passes 5-0. We have a full agenda this evening, and given the hot weather, I'm going to try to keep my lengthy business report brief. Tonight, there are two important proclamations. The first recognizes July as Parks and Recreation Month. and the important role our parks, trails, natural areas, and recreation programs play in supporting the health, wellness, and quality of life of our community. The second recognizes Pollinator Week and the important role pollinators play in sustaining our environment, food systems, and natural ecosystems. Those detailed proclamations can be found in the City Council packet for tonight's meeting. Since our last meeting, much of my work has focused on representing Wilsonville in regional and countywide discussions involving transportation, economic development, and issues that directly affect our community. I attended the Clackamas County Coordinating Committee retreat, met with regional leaders regarding transportation issues, including the interstate bridge replacement, and participated in a number of intergovernmental meetings focused on issues important to Wilsonville's future. I was also honored to participate in Will Snow's pride celebration this past Saturday with many of the council. I want to thank all the sponsors, volunteers, the diversity equity inclusion committee members, staff, and community partners who helped make that such a successful and welcoming event. Yesterday I had the pleasure in participating in the annual flag day ceremony at the Oregon Korean Memorial. with our local scout troops, including Troop 194 and the Sons of the American Revolution Lewis and Clark Chapter. It's an event where the troops take steps to retire used old American flags. I thought it was very impressive to see such civic engagement from our young people in the community. On another topic, I want to give a shout out to Portland General Electric crews last night who worked under extreme heat conditions to restore power in parts of Wilsonville, including my neighborhood. I can certainly attest we missed electricity last night and I'm grateful for the hard work, dedication, professionalism of the PGE crews. Looking ahead, Wilsonville will host several important community events, including our Juneteenth celebration, the Korean War Memorial Ceremony, Fourth of July Concert and Laser Light Show, the Many Cultures One Community presentation, and numerous summer programs. I encourage residents to visit the city's website, calendar, and social media channels for additional information on upcoming events and activities. Thank you to everyone who continues to volunteer, participate, and help make Willisville such a special community. Finally, please note that city offices will be closed on June 19th for Juneteenth and on July 3rd for Independence Day. Additional holiday schedule information is available on the city's website. And our next city council meeting will be Monday, July 20th at 7 p.m. as council will meet only once during the month of July. That's the rest of my business report will be provided to the city recorder for inclusion in the written record. Now I'll turn to board and commission appointments and reappointments. We have a number of reappointments for arts, culture and heritage commission reappointments. I reappoint David Altman and Erin Harris to the Arts, Culture and Heritage Commission for a term beginning July 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2029. Council President Berry can have a motion to ratify these reappointments.

I move to ratify the reappointment of David Altman and Erin Harris to the Arts, Culture and Heritage Commission for a term beginning July 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2029.

Is there a second?

Second.

Is there any discussion? Okay. Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes 5-0. The next I appoint Susan Hanson to the Arts, Culture, and Heritage Commission for a term beginning July 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2029. Council President Berry can have a motion to ratify this appointment.

I move to ratify the appointment of Susan Hansen to the Arts, Culture, and Heritage Commission for a term beginning July 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2029.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, the motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes 5-0. Turning to the Library Board. I reappoint Sarah Ebersole to the Library Board for a term beginning July 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2030. Council President Berry, can I have a motion to ratify this reappointment?

I move to ratify the reappointment of Sarah Ebersole to the Library Board for a term beginning July 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2030.

Is there a second? Second. Motion is made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion. Any opposed? Okay, the motion passes 5-0. Next, I appoint Leanne Scotch to the Library Board for a term beginning July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2030. Council President Berry, can I have a motion to ratify this appointment?

I move to ratify the appointment of Leanne Scotch to the Library Board for a term beginning July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2030.

Is there a second?

Second.

The motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes 5-0. Next, we turn to Tourism Promotion Committee. These are reappointments. I reappoint Elaine Owen, Gus Castaneda, and Seungin Park to the Tourism Promotion Committee for a term beginning July 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2029. Council President Berry can have a motion to ratify these appointments.

I move to ratify the reappointment of Elaine Owens, Gus Castaneda, and Sugun Park to the Tourism Promotion Committee for a term beginning July 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2029.

Is there a second? Second. Okay, the motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. The motion passes 5-0. Lastly, we turn to the Wilsonville Metro Community Enhancement Committee appointments. I appoint James Warm to the Wilsonville Metro Community Enhancement Committee for a term beginning July 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2029. Council President Berry can have a motion to ratify this appointment.

I move to ratify the appointment of James Warm to the Wilsonville Metro Community Enhancement Committee for a term beginning July 1st, 2026 To June 30th, 2029. Okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. The motion passes 5-0. Okay. Next we turn to the city attorney contract extension. Do we know if there's going to be any presentation at all by staff on that? Okay. Okay. Council, have you had an opportunity to look at the extension? Okay. All right. Any discussion at all prior to a motion being presented? Okay. City Council President Berry, can I have a motion to adopt the city attorney contract extension?

I move to adopt the city attorney contract extension.

Is there a second? Second. Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Seeing none all those in favor say aye motion passes 5-0 Next we turn to communications Wilson has a natural resources program in our community development department Jim Carton, environmental specialist, will present three awards to this year's Stormwater Stewards. Stormwater Stewards program was designed to acknowledge individuals and businesses who have been exceptional in the management of stormwater facilities on private property, residential, commercial, and industrial. After Jim tells us more about the program and this year's Stormwater Stewards, we'll ask the awardees to come forward for presentation of the award and a photo with counsel.

Hello? Okay, all right.

Good evening, Council. Thank you for the time today and the opportunity to talk a little bit about our Stormwater Stewards Recognition Program and recognize our 2026 awardees. Again, Jim Carton, Environmental Specialist with Natural Resources. Again, thank you for the time. So city's natural resources program has a specific focus on the Willamette River. It's the city's most important natural resources for many reasons, but besides it being our drinking water source, recreational activities, wildlife habitat, fish passage, cultural historical significance, all these reasons, one of the main things we focus on with the Willamette is that it is our receiving water. So it takes the 46 plus inches of annual rainfall that this portion of the state gets every year and flows through our city limits. So within the city of Wilsonville, we have six drainage basins. All 46 inches flow through those basins. Everything that drains through the city ends up in the Willamette, and we have a stormwater permit administered at the state level by DEQ that I'm responsible for, and that covers our point source discharge for all the stormwater that flows through the city of Wilsonville on an annual basis. So one of the ways we meet the permit obligations of our stormwater MS4 permit is the application of stormwater facilities. So the permit has post-construction requirements for flow control and water quality treatment. The main way we meet these permit obligations is to have stormwater management thresholds within our public work construction standards. These numbers are, as of 2025, These numbers are already out of date. So at the end of this fiscal year, as part of my monitoring and reporting requirements with DEQ, I'll tally up all the public and private facilities that got added to our MS4 over the last reporting year. So these numbers are always changing and these percentages are always changing as well. So if you look at the, at the end of 2025 fiscal year, the total ownership of overall facilities in the city limits, 86.5 are owned privately. And it's not an exact match one-to-one for private ownership and maintenance because there's a couple of kind of weird quirky one-offs where maybe the public works manages a private facility. It's very rare, but it's not a one-to-one. that 86.5% of all private facilities are owned, or stormwater facilities are owned privately. And so that translates to almost two million square feet of stormwater facility that we, by and large, depend on the private side of things to not only monitor on an annual basis, but also do the heavy lifting of maintaining these facilities for optimal functionality over the long term. And again, as City of Olsaville grows and as we add facilities to our MS4, these numbers and these percentages will keep kind of ticking up. And I think we'll see even a higher percentage of private facility ownership and maintenance in the city over the long run. So within the 86.5% of all the facility types, you get a few different varieties. The types of stormwater facilities depend on location of the project in the city, scope of the project of the city, what the amount of impervious surfaces added to the city's footprint for the given project. So we have different types. So vegetated swales, stormwater planters, rain gardens, detention ponds, et cetera. These are all green infrastructure approaches or low impact development approaches. Maybe you've heard of a light as well in the past. Um, these are all meant to manage water and treat water, um, on site where the project is happening and to mimic pre development hydrology. That's the entire goal of these, of these stormwater facilities. And um, you know, based on the facility type, that's what dictates the maintenance and the money that has to go behind maintenance and the effort and labor that goes into that maintenance. So that's a little bit of background. So regarding the recognition program, we have three award categories that we've established, residential, commercial, and industrial. Um, the criteria for the award that we've developed first criteria is a consistency submitting annual reports. So when there's a private stormwater facility in town, we usually have a maintenance agreement. It's a legal document. I'm recorded with the property. One of the obligations for those maintenance agreements are annual reports. So if you're consistent submitting these annual reports that will, um, you'll have better standing with recognition for this program at least. And then based on on the ground inspections, we have a grading rubric. We have like a scoring rubric for vegetated facilities that I can track performance and functionality over time. if they're, you know, entities are submitting their reports consistently and are within a certain range of functionality based on that scoring rubric. Um, that's the second piece of criteria. So you can, you can assume that all the awardees year over year will be meeting these two, these first two criteria. But the third one is kind of like the special sauce of why, why are these entities being, why are they special? Why are they being recognized year over year? Um, and that's environmental community impact. So things like recycling, waste reduction, composting, Energy conservation, water conservation, community involvement. These things that are hard to quantify. You know, I'm not particularly have oversight in terms of stormwater in particular, but it's what else they bring to the table in terms of stormwater management. Benefits of recognition. We will provide a logo for their use in advertising. And then also long term, we'd like to create like a business directory of entities that have been recognized in the city. under this program. And then also like communications involving this program will offer plugs and coverage over the long run. Okay, so now let's talk about our 2026 awardees. So in the residential category, we have homeowners Mike and Patty Lema at 28425 Canyon Creek Road South. So the Lema's take pride in their backyard rain garden. They've added artistic elements over the years and they've managed mature vegetation, not only for water quality function, but for aesthetic beauty as well. The Lamas help their neighboring property manage their rain garden as well as their family and they share one larger yard. The Lamas have brought clear intention and vibrancy to their stormwater facility and continues to make sure it's a lovely amenity for their backyard. So the city would like to recognize Mike and Patty Lama for exceptional stormwater management in the residential category. Do we get to see pictures? Not in this slide, but yeah. I think future articles or future write-ups about the... They can open up their home or... Really, it's a nice facility. I think it's special in the city. Hence their recognition. Okay, maybe I'll go through each awardee and then we can offer the awards. Is Pastor Schween in the house?

Oh, hey, Jake.

Nice to meet you. So, next in the commercial category, we have Pastor Schween at Grace Chapel. So, Grace Chapel has kind of a multi-prong impact, right? They manage a commercial building that not only provides a community space for fellowship, they have commercial enterprise there as well, and they're also exhibiting environmental stewardship. So the staff of Grace Chapel are really, really great property stewards, and they just exhibit exceptional stormwater management. Anytime the public comes for a service or stops by for a cup of coffee, they're seeing really, really great stormwater facility management on that property. So the city would like to recognize Pastor Schween for exceptional stormwater management in the commercial category at Grace Chapel. Last and certainly not least, we have the industrial category. We'd like to recognize Republic Services, and on behalf of Republic Services tonight, we have Sal Navarro, Operations Manager, and Cindy Rogers, the Sales Manager. So Republic Services are committed to stormwater best management practices, and they're continually trying to improve drainage and operations on their property at the transfer station here in town. They're an entity that works very, very well with state and local regulators, and they do well beyond just base level compliance. Republic Services has also been a really, really wonderful partner in the education and outreach efforts that Natural Resources permit dictated, but also of our own goodwill, like to do education and outreach, right? Cindy has been a mainstay at any one of our community events in the natural resources program, always tabling, always having great information for residents. So that's also something very special about Republic Services. So for those reasons, I'd like to recognize Sal Navarro and Cindy Rogers for exceptional stormwater management in the industrial category. And that sums it up. Thanks for the time. Yeah, so let's present the awards, please, and then we'll take a group photo, and then we'll be done with the agenda item. Thanks. Okay, that side, I think that side goes industrial first. So industrial? Less than industrial, yeah. Cindy, okay. All right. Cindy and Sal. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Next.

Would you like to come up? Thanks again.

All right. Pastor Sweeney.

I still want to see the backyard. You're going to have to. Oh, so cool. Do we have to make this about the public record now? Really cool. That's beautiful. Congratulations. Thank you.

Perfect. Okay, everybody. One more group shot, please.

Thank you, Councilman.

I can work on it. Yeah, if they scrunch. Okay. You got this all? Take a breath. Smile. All right. Ready?

One, two.

Okay, we're now gonna turn to citizen input and community announcements. This is an opportunity for visitors to address the city council on any matter concerning city business or any matter over which the council has authority. It's also the time to address items not on the agenda or items on the agenda that are not scheduled for the public hearing. Staff will make every effort to respond to questions raised during community input as quickly as possible following the meeting. Please limit your comments to three minutes. When making your remarks, please address the council as a whole and not any one member individually. You may use the podium or sit at the tables in front of council, whatever makes you most comfortable. Please speak into the microphone at either location. To comment before council in person or virtually, you must sign up by completing a speaker card at the side of the room or by using the raise hand feature in Zoom. Please provide your name, address, and topic. Information on engaging with city council can be found on the council website, willsnoworegon.gov forward slash city council. As a reminder, when you begin your comments, please state your name for the record and your address or indicate that your address is provided on the speaker card Please know that community input is a time for the council to listen, receive feedback, and hear directly from the community. To keep this process fair and respectful to everyone, council members generally will not respond to individual comments during citizens' input. If we respond to one speaker and not another, it can create the impression that some viewpoints carry more weight than others, and I do not believe that serves the public well. If follow-up is needed, staff or council members can connect with you after the meeting Councilors are also free to share their thoughts during councilor comments later in the meeting if they choose. You're always welcome to submit information writing by email or schedule a meeting with me or any of the members of council. With that, I call Doris Whaler.

Good evening, councillors. Good evening, councillors. My name is Doris Wailer, and I live in Frog Pond West. It's shown on my card that I submitted. I have a couple of topics I'd like to discuss with you tonight or ask questions about. The first is about Frog Pond East. We heard a presentation at the group session from West Hills Development about the difficulties they're having meeting some of the code requirements. So my question is, I was involved in the density discussions over two years when the density was set for all of Frog Pond. Metro required that Frog Pond West, Frog Pond East have 1,325 units, yet our plans are to build 1,600 units there. I would like to know when that turned from 1,325 to 1,600. And the second question is why we cannot count Frog Pond East units when trying to satisfy the state's demand for more housing. And the second subject I'd like to bring up that also came up in the work session on the number of stories that will be built in Town Center And I thank the council for being reasonable in getting rid of the six story, if that is what you decide to do, that's what the workshop sounded like, it's what you'll do. But here is my request of you, take that five stories down to four stories if you want this community to pass this. Thank you.

Thank you. Kate Greenfield.

My address is on file. Recently, a member of the council said they had not heard of any interest in or use for creating a pedestrian crossing of I-5 for non-automobile traffic connecting the western part of Wilsonville with the town center area. I was surprised by that assertion. During my 17 years in Wilsonville, I've heard many references to the need for such an overpass. I'd like to share a walker's view with the council. I'm a walker. My husband and I walk about three miles or more a day on Wilsonville streets. We like to walk and we also know that regular walking or other equivalent activity is important for our health. We chose Wilsonville in part because of its beauty and walkability. We live in the northeast section of the city and rarely walk west of the freeway because of its inaccessibility to us. For walkers and largely also for bikers, Wilsonville is effectively cut in half by I-5 with only three crossing points at Wilsonville Road, Beckman Road, and Ellington Road interchange. All three crossings are choked with trucks and cars making turns on the connecting streets, especially during the day and early evening. Bicyclists and walkers must dodge dangerous traffic. The bridge on Beckman Road has almost no shoulder, the one that crosses over the highway, and no sidewalk at all. It's quite dangerous. These basic facts make use of existing roads for walking over I-5 unacceptable for most walkers, especially those with children and pets. I believe those who proposed the bike and pedestrian bridge over I-5 had these facts in mind when they planned an alternative bridge at a midpoint to accommodate families, walkers, and bikers of every age. Such a bridge would do much to connect the two parts of our city and would make the shops, parks, and other attractions of the town center easily accessible to everyone. The planned park at the east end of the proposed bridge would provide for attractive leisure and social activities that would further invite integrating crossovers. The need for and advantages of the bike-head bridge should not be dismissed so summarily as we work on the future design of our friendly and beautiful city. Thank you.

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time tonight with the writing.

Tony, Tony and Gudrun.

Oh, I'm sorry.

No, that's all right. So we have Tony right back here.

Okay.

And I'm Gudrun. We drove up in this heat and struggled getting him out of the car to tell the story. Because it's important for you to see firsthand What traditional living care does to its residents. Is your mic? Yeah, Your Honor.

I'm sorry. Can we please have anyone providing testimony to sit actually here? The mic seems not to be catching.

It's not you. It's her.

That's all right. Shall I start again? Yes, please. Okay.

So we are Tony.

and Gudrun, and we drove up in this heat and struggled getting him in and out of this car to tell you his story because it's important for you to see firsthand what traditional memory care does to its residents. Tony has been physically active all his life and rode his bike twice a day in our West Salem hills until October last year, despite having been diagnosed with Alzheimer's three years earlier. His care became overwhelming, and he moved into memory care in November. That began his fast and dramatic decline, both mentally and physically. He needs help with bathing, using the toilet, getting dressed and undressed, getting in and out of bed. He's been so unsteady on his feet that he's fallen and often needs a wheelchair. Two and a half months ago, I hired an Alzheimer's certified physical trainer three times a week. Tony and Nick talk and exercise to music. The change in Tony has been dramatic. He is more alert and responsive. He sings along with the songs, and his balance is improving. But this is not about Tony and me. It's about the memory care industry, which doesn't seem to care about the residents. Tony's facility is regarded by many as one of the best in our area, yet it is noticeably understaffed and undertrained, and the turnover of caregivers is astounding. Every three months, there's a new crew. Residents are not stimulated by meaningful activities. They spend nearly all of their waking hours sitting and listening to the TV. They don't go outside or leave the facility. Urinary tract infections are widespread. I implore you to consider Tony's story and improve the standards for memory care by requiring additional and better trained staff, as well as paying and supporting them more. And Tony's experience has shown that regular exercise is critical for the welfare of the residents and their caregivers. Thank you.

I think, is anybody else, any other testimony in the audience? Okay, thank you. And now we'll turn to councilor comments, liaison reports, and meeting announcements. Oh, okay. Excuse me, Colin Hubler.

Why do they have to say? Okay, I'm used to being forgotten.

No, I'm sorry.

It's OK. Nice to see you all. I'm Colin Hubler. I am a doctor of physical therapy. I know the woman who just spoke. And I basically retired in 2016. I sold my company. And in the 25 years that I've seen patients, hundreds of thousands were with Alzheimer's. They had Alzheimer's. And I watched them all decline consistently when they went back to their community. Very hard to watch. No matter how often I saw them, a couple times a week, I would watch them fall off a cliff. And research shows that doesn't have to happen. So here's my point. I decided I wanted to change that. I bought a property that's 28668 Southwest 60th. It's within the urban growth boundary. And I want to build a memory care that will put Wilsonville on the map. I want to make it so that this industry changes. I don't need the money. I'm not doing this for fame. I'm doing this because it needs to happen. People like Tony, who's my dad, this is happening everywhere, every day, because this hasn't been done. We cannot continue to keep people with Alzheimer's under lock and key. We need to treat them with respect, give them purpose, have them go outside. And in my case, what makes this property special is the EFU zoning. I can put animals on the property so that they can go in and out and use that incredible healing power of animals. Now, that hasn't gone well with the city. because it is within the urban growth boundary, but it's zoned EFU. And we've been working with Wilsonville staff saying that we need to hook up to public utilities. It's an ordinance. We're aware of that. We're not looking for special treatment. What we're looking for is a temporary solution that would allow us to use utilities on site until the development occurs. That's all. Working with the county won't work because they only allow a five-person residence. That's it. That doesn't pencil out when you're trying to pay back a loan for millions of dollars. So these obstructions, they run counter. They're cruel, and they contradict state initiatives. The Governor's Commission on Senior Services, Oregon Healthy Brain Initiative, The Oregon Health Authority, Oregon State Plan on Aging, the Older Americans Act, and even I was at the Capitol all day today. I sat with Sue Rieke-Smith. I met a senator and other representatives. I need a path here. I can't get anywhere with what's happened so far. I need to know who else I can turn to to do a development agreement.

That's it.

Thank you. I need to know where to go. The email trails just are, this is circular and we're getting nowhere. It keeps coming back to, no, you have to plug into public utilities. And I get that there's an ordinance, but this is not building a bodega or something that's irrelevant. This is a public health concern. This is a disaster. And this industry hasn't changed for decades. And it's largely because the people that own the memory care communities are not clinicians. They are developers looking to score, and they do score big. So what I'm asking you for is a temporary solution. We will sign whatever we need to sign. I spent thousands to confirm that we could do the utilities on site. I confirmed that for up to 30 people. I'll go as low as 15. It does pencil out. And then we can expand out as the area develops. But the only options that the city has given me so far is you either wait or you spend $2 to $3 million to bring the infrastructure to the site.

Thank you for providing that testimony. I appreciate it.

Thank you for the extra time. Appreciate it.

Now turning to councilor comments, liaison reports, and meeting announcements. Council President Berry.

Thank you, and thank you to everybody who's taking their time to come to our meeting tonight. So I'll keep my words brief. I did attend the Pride celebration this weekend. It was a really great event to see so many families and different people recognizing and celebrating all the community members in our city. The other thing that I wanted to mention is in our council packet, the city manager has each of the department heads provide a monthly report. I love these monthly reports. Thank you, I find them very valuable. And if you wanna learn about what's going on in the city, I also recommend that you take time and look at the reports. But dear to my heart is the library. And one of the things that was mentioned in the library report is the outreach that they do to our schools. That's something that I really value is that how our city and the schools work together. So in this report it was saying that the youth services staff performed at the local primary schools in preparation for the summer reading program. The youth staff visited the Beckman Creek, Boone's Ferry, and Lowry Primary Schools in May. At each of the schools, they did a short performance of a skit promoting the summer reading program for every grade level. And all together, the library staff did 18 performances for our children that reside in Wilsonville. The children learned about the summer reading program, including the reading log, the STEAM log, and the bingo card. It's a variety of activities that are available for all the children in Wilsonville. So I really support the library. I love that the staff is doing outreach with the schools. So that's my comment for tonight.

Thank you. Councilor Cunningham.

Yeah, I'll keep it brief as well. But I just want to throw a quick shout-out to Wilsonville Little League. Our 10U honors team won their first game of the postseason, and they're pretty excited about it. Uh, it's the first, uh, it's the first post-season win that we've gotten in a couple of years. And, uh, it's also looking really good for our, our, uh, 10U, 11U and 12U all-star teams coming up at the end of June. If anybody's interested in going and catching those games, they'll be in Lake Oswego and out at Sunset Park. Uh, and information will be on the Little League's social media. So, um, yeah, pretty exciting post-season time for these guys. Uh, So looking forward to getting out there and cheering him on and maybe even umpiring a couple of postseason games. But thank you to everybody for coming and speaking tonight. Appreciate Mr. Hubler coming and sharing his concerns with council. They're definitely well heard, at least I think they're well heard up here. And I'm hoping that we can find a solution. So thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Shevin.

And congratulations to the team as well. Good job. Thank you for coming tonight, especially in this heat. Those of you that know me, I'm a registered nurse, retired now, but I never take off my nurse's cap. So please be sure and stay well hydrated during this. There'll be many more, I'm sure, heat days this summer. So please take care of yourselves. Just a couple of comments. Most of us have seen that the access to the Boone Bridge, particularly from the south, is going to be limited for a number of weeks, up to 15 weeks this summer. So that would include cars coming from the Charbonneau District onto Miley Road. So my community, who is primarily seniors, and we also have an assisted living and an independent living and a memory care facility on campus. my community was really concerned about emergency access for both fire and ambulance. So we did speak to the ODOT representative, and fortunately anyone that's affected that's south of the river, emergency vehicles will be able to access the Boone Bridge and the freeway even during the time that they're doing the work. So we're really grateful for that. Secondly, recently both Councillor Cunningham and Mayor O'Neill attended an event at Wood Middle School where the youth at the school submitted ideas of what they would like to see in our city. And I know that Councillor Skoll recently posted an article about that, so I don't want to steal his thunder, so I won't go into a lot of that detail. But I want to share with you just a few of the things that the youth from Wood Middle School are looking for in our city. All of the counselors received a very thick packet of their submissions. These are just my observations. Their suggestions were very, very thoughtful. They put a lot of effort into what they would like to see. A number of times the youth suggested that they want a place for teens and more opportunities for teens to get together and take part in healthy activities. A sports complex was a very popular one, including boxing and basketball courts, and even a lending program for sports equipment. I thought that was a great idea. One youngster, several actually, expressed a need for social and mental health support. I was touched by that. First, that someone could recognize that need in themselves and in their peers, and was asking for... some opportunity for more support. An outdoor concert venue I felt was very attractive, and a teen volunteer program. But the theme that I saw throughout the suggestions was a way for our youth, particularly our middle school youth, to get off their electronic devices, they voiced this in their feedback, and get off the social media and find healthy ways to interact with their peers. That tells me that our youth are truly listening to us as parents and grandparents when we're trying to encourage our youth to take part in these healthy activities beyond the electronics. So my message to all of us tonight is they're listening to us. We need to listen to them about what they would like to see in our community. It's time we listen and that we build a community that our young citizens are asking for. Thank you.

Thank you.

I wanna thank Councilor Schevelin, thank you for talking about that, and Councilor Cunningham and Mayor O'Neill for basically doing the visits and having the eighth graders provide the information. I think it's most important that we stay in touch and listen to the youth. We have a lot of discussions here about the future of the city. Well, they are the future of the city, so we need to engage and pay attention have them help us move the city forward. My schedule for the last couple weeks and schedule going forward is on file. A couple thank yous. I want to thank the, I attended the Pride celebration. I want to thank the staff, the sponsors, the volunteers. the performers and everything that made that activity possible. There was great attendance. It was very warm, but everybody showed up, and it was still great attendance there, and they did a great job. you know, hope to see it next year and hope to see it bigger and better. And then lastly, I totally support Mr. Hubler's activity. I have a mother, parents who are in their 90s, a mother that's kind of struggling on the memory side to kind of live that situation of the lack of support and the lack of understanding resources and places to go to help that process. And if we have a leading edge idea in all that, how to help that, I think it would be most valuable for us to do that and I'd like to be involved in that as much as possible. So I'll support it and hopefully we can work through that in some way in the future. So that's all I have, thanks.

I'll only add I'm interested in hearing more information about that from staff, because we're hearing it from the first time, and I understand that there's a process that we have to honor, so I'd be interested in hearing more. The next item is our consent agenda. Will the city attorney please read the items on consent?

Resolution number 3263, a resolution of the city of Wilsonville authorizing the city manager to execute a professional services agreement with Century West Engineering for engineering consulting services for the Coffee Creek Day Road sewer extension project capital improvement project number 2115. Resolution number 3270, a resolution of the city of Wilsonville authorizing the city manager to execute an amendment to the professional services agreement with Dow LLC to provide engineering consulting services for the Stafford Road improvements project capital improvement project number 4219, 2111, and 1158. Resolution number 3272, a resolution adopting the canvas of votes of the May 19, 2026 general election. Resolution number 3273, a resolution of the city of Wilsonville authorizing the city manager to enter into an amendment number two to the intergovernmental agreement between Clackamas County and the city of Wilsonville for housing services in minutes of the June 1, 2026 city council meeting.

Thank you. City Council President Berry can have a motion to adopt the consent agenda.

I move to adopt the consent agenda.

Is there a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes 5-0. Now we turn to new business and consideration of resolution number 3271. I would ask staff to make the presentation.

And while staff's coming up, I'll read the title.

Thank you, I'm sorry, I skipped that part.

That's all right. Resolution number 3271, a resolution of the city of Wilsonville approving an amendment to the city's fee schedule clarifying fees for class two administrative review applications and applying fees for public hearings. Thank you.

All right, good evening, Mayor O'Neill and city councilors. I'm Kim Reibold, senior planner, and I'm tonight here to briefly present resolution number 3271 to adopt an updated planning division fee schedule. With ordinance 903, which is the housing statutory compliance project part one, the city will be moving to a class two administrative review process for residential development applications. And because of that, we thought it important to update the city's fee schedule to add some clarity as to how development fees for those applications will be collected and administered There is currently an administrative review fee on the fee schedule that's just under $2,000. That is typically for minor modifications to approved plans. So we've added some clarifying language to the fee schedule to confirm that these residential development applications for new development will be reviewed and charged fees similar as to they would have been undergoing a DRB level review. The amount of time and effort that it takes to review those applications is substantially similar as to anything else going to the DRB. The one difference that we will be applying going forward is that there are some meeting fees that are presently on the fee schedule to account for the difference in administrative costs between issuing a decision administratively versus having a public hearing Any applications now that would require a public hearing will also be assessed the appropriate hearing or meeting fee. So with that, there's no new fees on the fee schedule, just some clarifications as to how we apply these administrative review fees to applications. So with that, staff recommends adoption of resolution number 3271, which would go into effect on the effective date of ordinance number 903, which is July 1st, 2026. And I can answer any questions you have. Thank you.

Any questions of council? Okay, seeing none. City Council President Berry can have a motion to adopt resolution number 3271.

I move to adopt resolution number 3271.

Is there a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Okay, seeing no discussion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes 5-0, thank you. Turning to continuing business, I call to order the Wilson City Council on second reading on ordinance number 903. And I would ask the city attorney to read it before I jump into things.

This is the second reading of ordinance number 903, an ordinance of the city of Wilsonville adopting amendments to Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 of the Wilsonville City Code related to the Housing Statutory Compliance Project Part 1 and declaring an emergency.

Thank you. I call the Board of the Wilson City Council on second reading on ordinance number 903 as been read. Does any member of council have any questions for staff or the city attorney on ordinance number 903 at this time? Okay. Hearing no questions, do I have a motion on ordinance number 903?

I move to adopt ordinance number 903.

Do I have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, I hereby ask the city recorder to make a roll call vote.

Councillor Shelvin.

Yes.

Councillor President Berry. Yes. Councillor Cunningham.

Aye.

Councillor Scholl.

Yes. Mayor O'Neill. Aye. Okay, the motion passes 5-0. I think, is there any city manager business at this point?

Yeah, I just have one, Your Honor. As the council has directed staff to put together a ballot title and language for your consideration for a potential town center urban renewal district, We have contracted with a consultant to do some statistically valid polling of the community to gauge community sentiment and that will be information that will be provided to you all. We'll be coming back before the council at a council meeting and provide you with those survey results. The point of this really is for you all to have one more data point. and piece of information when you make your final decision if you're going to put a town center urban renewal measure on the ballot. So that polling is gonna start this week and it's through phone calls, so those calls are already going out and I wanted to just make sure that you all knew that. The second piece of information is that staff is doing communication out to the community on town center You all know that. Some of the kind of main themes that we are going to be weaving into all of our communication I wanted to just share with you are really kind of three things. One is that the information we share is about a vibrant vision of Town Center, including shopping and housing and dining. to share our commitment from the city to providing information to the community and for listening to the community and then ultimately the community is the one that's going to make any kind of decision on if urban renewal is gonna be considered in town center. So you'd be looking for those themes in terms of the communication that's gonna be going out to the community and I'm always available for questions if you have any.

I do, on the polling, Is there going to be an ability to distinguish between renters and homeowners?

Yes. That is one of the questions on the poll, is to distinguish between renters, homeowners, and other general demographics. So you will get all of that information when the results come back to you.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Any city attorney business?

None tonight, Mayor. Okay.

With that, the city council meeting is adjourned at 7.56 p.m. We'll now go straight into an Urban Renewal Agency meeting. I call to order the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency for June 15th, 2026 at 7.57 p.m. Will the city recorder please call the roll?

Member Shevlin?

Here.

Vice Chair Berry? Here. Member Cunningham?

Here.

Member Skoll?

Here.

Chair O'Neill?

Here. Member Berry can have a motion to approve the following order of agenda.

I move to approve the following order of the agenda.

Is there a second? Second. Motion to approve the following order of agenda has been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. The motion passes 5-0. Do we have anybody interested in citizen input tonight? No? Okay. Turning to the consent agenda. Will the city attorney please read the items on consent?

URA resolution number 360, resolution of the City of Wilsonville Urban Renewal Agency authorizing the city manager to execute a professional services agreement with Century West Engineering for Engineering Consulting Services for the Coffee Creek Day Road Sewer Extension Project Capital Improvement Project number 2115 in minutes of the June 1, 2026 Urban Renewal Agency meeting.

Thank you. Member Berry, can I have a motion to adopt the consent agenda?

I move to adopt the consent agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes 5-0. We adjourn the Urban Renewal Agency meeting at 7.58 PM. And now we're moving into an executive session meeting. So I'll ask the committee to leave the room as I start reading. The city council will now meet an executive session pursuant to Oregon revised statute section one nine two six six zero subsection two paragraph E real property transactions in order to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions. Paragraph F exempt public records in order to consider information or records that are exempt by law from public expense inspection. Paragraph H, legal counsel litigation. Consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. Representatives of news media and designated staff shall be allowed to attend the executive session. All other members of the audience are asked to leave the room. Representatives of the news media are specifically directed not to report on or otherwise disclose any deliberations or anything said about these subjects during the executive session, except to state the general subject of the session as previously announced. No decision may be made in executive session. At the end of the executive session, we will adjourn. Do we need any time at all to do the tape? Kim, are we okay?

Yeah. Yeah.