City Council - Regular Meeting

Just waiting on the queue. All right. Good evening and welcome to the September 14th, 2026 Tualatin City Council meeting. I'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. First item on our agenda tonight is a pledge of allegiance led by Council Brooks. Thank you, Councillor Brooks. That brings us to announcements. Our first announcement is a proclamation declaring September 15th to October 15th, 2026 as Hispanic Heritage Month in the City of Tualatin. We have an English version of the proclamation and a Spanish version of the proclamation. So we'll start with the first one, the English one, which will be read by Councillor Gonzales.

Thank you very much. Whereas each year the United States observes National Hispanic Heritage Month by celebrating the culture, heritage, and countless contributions of those whose ancestors were indigenous to the North America, as well as those who came from Spain, Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. And whereas what began in 1968 as a Hispanic Heritage Week under President Johnson was expanded by President Reagan in 1988 to cover a 30-day period starting on September 15 and ending October 15. And whereas this year's theme, Unidos, Inclusivity for a Stronger Nation, encourages us to ensure that all voices are represented and welcomed to help build stronger communities and stronger nation. And whereas we recognize and honor the many ways the Hispanics, have enriched the fabric of our society while also rededicating ourselves to address the lack of equal access to opportunity that many still face. And whereas Hispanics continued their rich tradition of significant and diverse contributions to the cultural, educational, economic, and political vitality of the city of Tualatin. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the City Council of the City of Tualatin, Oregon, September 15th through October 15th, 2026, is Hispanic Heritage Month. In the City of Tualatin, it encourages all residents to celebrate our unique and vibrant history and recommit ourselves to a shared future of a healthy, peaceful, safe, and sustainable community for all. Introduced, adopted this 14th of September, 2026. Thank you. Councilor Reyes.

Thank you, Councillor. For many of you who don't know, I'm Honduran American and I also, my native, my first language is Spanish. And Hispanic Heritage Month was originally proclaimed because to celebrate those languages And Spanish is one of those languages that is spoken in the United States, as well as many other languages. So that's the reason why it's not because it's the Independence Day of any nation. There are some independents, obviously, in Mexico and Central America, but it is to celebrate the Spanish language that all these countries celebrate around this time. So just a little bit of why we do this during this time of the year. Por lo cual, cada año, los Estados Unidos observa el mes nacional de la herencia hispana, celebrando la cultura, el patrimonio y las innumerables contribuciones de aquellos cuyos antepasados eran indígenas de Norteamérica, al cual que los que vinieron de España, México, el Caribe, Centro y Sudamérica. Y por lo cual, lo que comenzó en 1968 como la Semana de la Herencia Hispana bajo el presidente Johnson fue expandido por el presidente Reagan en 1988 para cubrir un periodo de 30 días comenzando el 15 de septiembre y culminando el 15 de octubre. y por lo cual el tema de este año, Unidos, inclusión para una nación más fuerte, nos empuja a asegurar que todas las voces sean representadas y bienvenidas para contribuir comunidades fuertes y una nación más fuerte, y por lo cual reconocemos y honramos las diferentes maneras que los hispanos han enriquecido la tela de nuestra sociedad. Sin embargo, volver a dedicarnos a abordar la falta de igualdad de acceso a las oportunidades que muchos aún enfrentan. Por lo cual, los hispanos continúan su rica tradición de importantes y diversas contribuciones a la vitalidad cultural, educacional, económica y política de la ciudad de Tualatin. Ahora, por lo tanto, que sea proclamado por el Consejo de la Ciudad de Tualatin, Oregon, el 15 de septiembre a 15 de octubre 2026. El es el mes de la herencia hispanidad en la ciudad de Tualatin y animamos a todos los residentes a celebrar nuestra historia única y vibrante y nos comprometemos a un futuro juntos de salud, paz y comunidades seguras y sostenibles para todos. Presentado y adoptado este 14 de septiembre del año 2026. Thank you.

That brings us to item number two. Proclamation declared September 17th to the 23rd of 2026 as Constitution Week in the city of Tualatin. I understand we have representatives of the Daughters of the American Revolution.

Come on up. Don't be shy.

You can go ahead and sit in those two seats and then turn your mics on, and I understand some brief comments. Welcome.

Thank you, Mayor and the City Council. On behalf of the Tualatin Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution, we thank you for this proclamation and to acknowledge the vital role that the Constitution plays in our country. Thank you.

That's super brief. All right. Reading the proclamation tonight will be Councillor Sacco.

Thank you. Whereas the Constitution of the United States of America, the guardian of our liberties, embodies the principles of limited government in a republic dedicated to rule by law, and whereas September 17th, 2026, marks the 239th anniversary of the framing of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional Convention, and whereas it is fitting and proper to accord official recognition to this magnificent document and its memorable anniversary, and to and to the patriotic celebrations which will commemorate it. And whereas Public Law 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by the President of the United States of America, designating September 17th through the 23rd as Constitution Week. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the City Council of the City of Tualatin, Oregon, that Tualatin recognizes the week of September 17th through 23rd as Constitution Week. We encourage community members to reaffirm the ideals of the framers of the Constitution had in 1787 by vigilantly protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us through this guardian of our liberties introduced and adopted this 14th day of September 2026.

I think we forgot to sign it.

Pass it down.

We're going to sign it and we'll hand it to you real quick. All right. And then Councillor Sack will go ahead and present it. I think, yeah, just get Nicole's signature on that one, too.

Just make it legit.

Thank you for coming tonight. Appreciate it. All right. Again, thank you for coming tonight. All right. Item number three, new employee introduction, recreation supervisor Erica Baylor. Hopefully I said it right. I think, Julie, you're introducing her?

Yes. Welcome, Erica.

Up to speak. Good evening, Mayor Buvenik and members of the council. I'm Julie Ludeman, recreation manager, and I have the distinct pleasure of being here tonight to introduce Erica Baylor, our new recreation supervisor. So Erica's first day was August 10th, so we are just a little over one month, and already she has gotten right to work. So Erica came to us from the city of Wilsonville, where she was a recreation coordinator, too, And she worked there since 2017. So she's got... quite a bit of experience under her belt that she is now taking to the benefit of our community. And I am super, super excited to have her. She's already worked on some winter break camps, which we know is going to be, well, we sure hope is going to be popular, and working with some new partner programs to utilize our parks and the Van Raiden Center. So she's just jumped in with both feet. Really, really excited to have her and looking forward to seeing some great new things.

Erika.

Hi, everyone. My name is Erica. Thank you, Julie, for the introduction. I'm on week six, so, you know, doing as much as I can at this point, but learning a lot. I'm grateful for Julie's leadership, grateful for Dustin and the team. Really excited to be here to see how we can expand youth programming. As you probably know, you have some really beautiful parks and spaces that I'm really eager to get in and provide new opportunities for folks. if you really want to see a show I'm not sure if it's a generous offer yet or hazing but I will be paddling a pumpkin yeah just thank you for the opportunity I'm really grateful to be here and yeah more to come well thank you for coming from Wilsonville our parks programs are you know a lot of times oversubscribed because they're super popular Julie and her crew come up some fantastic ideas

You came at a busy time of year, end of summer, going into the fall with lots of events coming in the future. So looking forward to you helping and pitching in with Julie and coming up with maybe some of your new ideas of some stuff you might be able to rip off of Wilsonville. You know, the implement here, of course, much better. But thank you. Welcome to the team. Thanks.

Thank you.

Our next employee introduction is our new Deputy Parks and Recreation Director, Kira Haggart. Introduced by Dustin. Welcome.

We passed the first test. GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. IT IS MY PRIVILEGE TO BE THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR HERE IN TWALTON. IT IS MY PLEASURE TO INTRODUCE OUR NEWEST TEAM MEMBER, KIRA HAGGART. SHE STARTED IN THE ROLE ON AUGUST 31ST AND COMES TO US FROM LAKE OSWEGO. WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT RUNNING TOWARDS GREAT THINGS AND NOT AWAY FROM OTHER THINGS. Kira brings a background in planning and analysis, and she most recently worked with the Lake Oswego community on the 2040 Parks Vision and Resique Park by their new Lorette Community Center. In her role here, Kira will help support projects, will work collaboratively with the team on change processes, help implement meaningful analytical data analysis for our team, and really support the team with efficiency and service to community in mind as we move forward. And I know you will all join me in welcoming Kira to the team.

Kira.

I'm very excited to be here. As our wise city manager said, it's not what you're leaving from, but it's what I'm coming to, and already everyone here has been so welcoming and helpful. I'm very excited to be digging in. This is only week two, so just getting my whereabouts, but I will also be paddling a pumpkin. Touch both your new employees, hopefully not falling in. Yeah, and thank you. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I'm really excited to be here.

Well, thank you for coming here from Lake Oswego. We appreciate, again, our parks and recreation programs are top notch and always looking forward to having more additional talent here in town to provide outstanding services to our community. Thank you and welcome.

Thank you. All right.

All right. Item number five, one more employee introduction, our new police services tech, Kayla, or is it Kayla or Kyla Goodwin? Kayla. Kayla. Welcome, Kayla. Chief.

Well, Mayor and Council, good evening. Chief Pickering, and I'm excited to introduce the newest member of the Police Department, so Kayla Goodwin. Kayla joined the Police Department August 24th. She came to us from Washington County Sheriff's Office, where she worked in records, and also a short stint with the City of Newburgh Courts. So she has a great background that she brings to the Police Department. Kayla grew up in Portland, graduated from Sunset High School, and ultimately ended up with a bachelor's in communication from Portland State University. So we're excited to have her on our team. The nice thing is she came through with her lead certification and a lot of training already coming from the sheriff's office. So she hit the ground running, and she's currently in her training phase with the police department, but she should be that smiling face at the front counter on her own in no time.

Yeah, right in the front.

We're excited to have Kayla as part of our team. Kayla.

Happy to be here. Nice to meet you guys.

You've got to turn your mic on. Broadcaster all across the world right now.

Testing, one, two, three. I'm happy to be here. Nice to meet you guys. I've had a great start so far, and I'm happy to be with the PD.

When will you be fully certified?

I mean, I kind of am. You are?

Yeah, so the training process for our record staff is anywhere from a month to a month and a half. So, yeah, it won't take long. And, again, she comes with a lot of experience, so it should go pretty quick.

All right.

Welcome. Thank you for coming.

Thank you. Nice to meet you all.

All right, so that brings us to public comment. Public comment is an opportunity for someone in the community to speak on something that is not on the agenda tonight. Please keep your comments to about three minutes. If there's anyone here who would like to address the council, this would be the appropriate time. I have a couple of sign-ups, but you don't have to be signed up. I will take the sign-ups first. I'll do folks in the room first and then switch over to Zoom. My first sign-up is Terrence Dyson Curran. Terrence, welcome. Welcome.

Good evening. I wanted to talk about some recent closures and even the water main break that had to be dealt with and offer some why I feel this constructive criticism. The communication was spot on when it comes to social media. However, I saw that folks in real life and online weren't aware of the water conservation efforts the city was so adamantly pushing for or the railroad cross enclosures. I believe the city of Tualatin has rolling billboards. I've seen them out during the Pumpkin Regatta. I feel that if some of those were placed around the railroad closure beforehand, it would help. I do know that one of the railroad crossings is not in the city limits, so I'm not exactly sure how that would be possible, but I do feel that that is a place to work on so folks not on social media are able to sort things out.

Okay.

No, I've heard that from multiple folks about better outreach. I think you're spot on. Thank you. And that is all. All right. Well, thank you for coming tonight. You're welcome. All right. Next one is Tualatin Community Gather.

Chair doesn't roll the way I was expecting. All right. I have a couple signs I'm just going to hold up at random. Good evening, mayor and counselors. I'm here to ask you to look closely at something that may seem like a simple administrative process, how the city handles complaints in a complaints-based system. I've become aware of how some Tualatin residents can use this system, and I've been investigating it for two years. Over these years, I've spoken with city employees and asked them what the complaints process is and how complaints are received and how they are investigated. I've also attempted to use the complaint system for myself to better understand it. And what I have found concerns me. Not because I believe individual employees are necessarily acting intentionally inappropriately, but because the system itself creates opportunities for improper outcomes. A person can be angry with their neighbor. They can dislike what their neighbor is doing. They can have personal disputes, and they can misunderstand ordinance, and they can complain a lot, repeatedly. And now that person that's complaining has gained something extraordinarily powerful. The ability to direct government attention towards another resident. But wait, there's more. It's supposed to be Billy Hayes, but I'm not very good at that. The other problem is, imagine two properties with the same exact potential violation. One has a neighbor that complains and one does not. One property is investigated and one is not. So on and so forth. All the way down to one individual being held accountable for an interpretation of an ordinance and another is not. It is built into the system. There is not equal enforcement at that point. And it does not require a biased employee to produce those results. Portland Ombudsman's office examined the complaints-driven property maintenance enforcement system in Portland and found it to be inconsistent, provide inconsistent treatment, inefficiencies, and inequitable outcomes. And then they followed up in 2025 and found that disputes, even with some reforms, those disputes still frequently, the disputes and complaints still frequently produced inequitable outcomes. This is a well-recognized municipal government issue. It's recognized in a lot of places. You can Google it up. Anonymous complaints, rather than confidential, make that more problematic. Subjective language in the ordinance makes that more problematic. Things like unsightly, offensive, nuisance, clutter, rubbish, which chairs have been categorized as rubbish. 45 chairs have been categorized as rubbish and they are now in the police department Like that dramatic music perfect timing everybody Because this is serious There are no neighborhood conflict resolutions available there are no mediators available and I have asked I I may not be the best communicator, but I think that I should be getting at least equal access to information and treatment from individuals. There is a lack of safeguards against repeated retaliatory and bad faith complaints becoming a pathway to enforcement. Through repetitive complaints, a person becomes the problem, me here, the problem, and receives disproportionate attention. Our systems cannot distinguish genuine threats to health and safety from complaints about appearance and personal opinions. The question isn't whether Tualatin should enforce its ordinance. The question is whether the same ordinance means the same thing for everybody. The end.

That's all I had that signed up So anyone else have public comment in the room don't be signed up do we have anyone in zoo This is your opportunity if you're in zoom if you want to supply some public comment is your opportunity and Still none? Doesn't look like it. All right. All right, with that, I'll go ahead and move on to the consent agenda. These are items that are considered routine. They will be adopted by one motion unless someone in council would like an item removed and heard separately later tonight. Tonight's consent agenda consists of three items. Item number one, consideration of approval of the work session and regular meeting minutes of August 24th, 2026. Item number two, consideration of resolution number 5994-26, awarding and authorizing a contract with Walker Macy, the Downtown Tualatin Urban Design Framework and Design Standards Project. And finally, item number three, consideration of resolution number 5995-26, awarding the contract for the design of Riverfront Park.

I move that we adopt the consent agenda as read. Second.

I have a motion and a second to adopt the consent agenda as read. Any comments on the motions? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? It's unanimous. Thank you. All right. So that brings us to our public hearing for this evening. Item number one, consideration of two appeals of the June 17th, 2026 Type II Architectural Review decision Approving Architectural Review AR 26-0002, Lamb Research TUB, Building B, Addition with Conditions. I have a script that's required, so let me bring that up. All right. The Tualatin City Council will now consider two appeals of Type 2 Architectural Review Staff Decision for AR26-0002, approved on June 17, 2026, with conditions for the construction of an approximate 3,900 square foot addition to existing Building B at 11259 Southwest Leviton Drive. Appellant 1, Brett Hamilton. 11430 SW Kalispell Street, and Appellant 2 Deborah Anderson, 110405 SW Tualatin Road, each filed an appeal and paid the required fee on June 30, 2026 within the appeal period. The hearing is subject to the Tualatin Development Code's Type 4-A quasi-judicial hearings procedure. This appeal is de novo, meaning new evidence and argument may be submitted. AR 26-0002 was submitted by McKenzie on behalf of Lamb Research Corporation. In addition, there has been a request by a party to submit additional evidence, argument, or testimony in accordance with ORS 197-797-6. As such, no final decision will be made this evening, but we will open a public hearing, receive the city staff report, and take public testimony before addressing the request. Tonight's public hearing will be conducted as follows. First, we'll open the public hearing and request a staff report. We'll then enter additional correspondence received into the record. Then we'll invite testimony in the following order. The proponent, Lamb Research Company, and or their representative, followed by Appellant 1, Mr. Hamilton or his representative, followed by Appellant 2, Ms. Anderson and her representative, then followed by interested persons in favor of the proposal, those folks opposed to the proposal, and then a rebuttal by LAM. The scope of the rebuttal is limited to matters which are introduced during this hearing. Following all that, we will close the public hearing. We'll have questions of staff, if any, by the council and a discussion by the council. Testimony. If you wish to speak tonight, please wait for me to ask for testimony and raise your hand or select the raise hand button if you're in Zoom, if you're joining us virtually. I'll recognize those people wishing to speak. Any questions should be addressed through me. Please state both your name and address for the record when you come to the podium as this hearing is being recorded. Please keep testimony concise and to the point. The criteria for approval are contained in TDC 32, 33.020, 62, 73A-D, and 74. Specific information regarding the applicable criteria can be found in Section 5 of the September 14, 2026 Supplemental Staff Memo. These are the criteria the Council must use in making this decision. All testimony and evidence must be directed toward these criteria and other criteria in the comprehensive plan or other land use regulations which the person testifying believes apply to this decision. Please relate any testimony to the listed criteria. The appeal before the council this evening must be decided based on these criteria. Despite the importance of other issues that may be raised during the public hearing, the authority of the Council is limited to only those issues that address compliance with applicable criteria. Failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Council and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. ability to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the counsel to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Prior to the conclusion of the public hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments, or testimony regarding the application. The counsel shall grant such request by either continuing the public hearing to a date certain date, time certain, and place certain within at least seven days from the date of the public hearing, or leave the record open for additional written evidence, arguments, or testimony pursuant to TDC 32.2405E or F, respectively. At this time, I ask members of the council to disclose any ex parte contacts, bias, or conflicts of interest. Please indicate the nature and extent of the ex parte contact, bias, or conflict of interest, and indicate whether you intend to participate or abstain in the hearing. Does any member of the audience, go ahead. That's President Pratt.

Yes, I did a site visit to LAM, and I also went to the groundbreaking in August, and I also have had communications on unrelated matters with one of the appellants. But I do believe that I can render a fair and impartial decision based on the evidence before us.

Yes, thank you. I'll go through all of mine just in case. I was on the architectural review board when the original matter came before the board. I did recuse myself during the city council hearing. because I had already voted on the topic, and I did have a follow-up conversation meeting and site visit with Vartan, and I apologize, I cannot pronounce his last name, and I don't want to be disrespectful, and Wayne Nobles at the Lamb facility, and did go for a tour, and I was also there for the groundbreaking, And I do believe that I can render a fair and unbiased opinion on this particular matter based on the criteria.

Anyone else? All right. Council Brooks.

Thank you, Mayor. I toured LAM eight years ago, I think, and... have given an award to Lamb for the Tualatin Chamber. I also know one of the appellates and serve on the Arts Advisory Committee, and I do believe that I can come to an impartial decision based on my, and follow the criterion based on my experiences with those folks. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none does any member of the audience wish to challenge any members impartiality So I'll now open this public hearing and city staff will now present the staff report I

good evening mayor member and members of council keith leonard associate planner before you tonight our request for review of the architectural review decision for lamb research building b edition case ar 26-0002 two appeals were filed of the staff's decision that was issued on june 17 2026. The action before you is straightforward. If the council denies the appeals, the June 17th decision is affirmed and the approval stands. If the council approves an appeal, the decision is reversed. The site is located at 11259 Southwest Leviton Drive in the Manufacturing Park Zone. It's part of the larger Lamb Research Campus. Residential properties lie to the north across Southwest 1210 Road. The proposed addition sets more than 550 feet back from the road. This was a Type 2 architectural review. The application came in on March 25th, and the public notice was mailed on April 20th. The city received 61 written comments during the comment period. The decision was issued on June 17th and both appeals were filed on June 30th within the appeal period. Notice of tonight's hearing was mailed on July 27th and we have received additional comments after the council packet was issued. These comments have been made available for your review and are included in the public record. This is the site plan. Building B is an existing laboratory and the addition is in the north side pictured in blue. The proposal is an addition of about 3,900 square feet, roughly 31 feet tall, to an existing research and development laboratory along with a scrubber pad on the north side. Seven parking spaces are removed and the site still meets the parking standards. The addition generates no new vehicle trips and no new employees. I want to spend a moment on the nature of this review because it shapes everything that follows. Architectural review is standards-based. Under 33.0205C, the question is whether the application complies with the standards in Chapter 73A through 73G. And under ORS 227.1731, the City may consider only criteria adopted in the Development Code. Conditions of approval were imposed, and Condition A14 requires the completed development to comply with the environmental regulations of Chapter 63. So noise from a development that is built and operating is regulated under TDC 63.051 and the Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. But those are operating obligations. They are not architectural review approval criteria and that distinction runs through each of the claims I'll walk through next. Both appellants commented during the comment period, so both have standing. Mr. Hamilton attached a letter setting out his claims. Ms. Anderson relied on her appeals form. Their claims overlap a good deal, so staff grouped them into six issues. Those are addressed under headings A through F in the memorandum or attachment B. And the next six slides. Claim A, the first claim is that the campus already conflicts with the surrounding residential area and that the addition will add to that conflict. Expanding the research and development laboratories permitted outright in the zone. And the development standards as modified by industrial master plan 24-0001 are still met. The MPZ, MP zone, purpose statement is not itself an approval criterion and Chapter 62 does not define objectionable annoys or set a threshold for it The code gives that language effect through chapter 63 and condition a 14 requires the applicant to meet that and Conflict this and the conflict described is with operations that already exist and It is not attributed to an addition that has not been built. Claim B, the second claim is that noise already exceeds the city's nighttime limit, and that the city should require LAM to resolve that before allowing any expansion. The noise ordinance is part of the municipal code, not the development code, and it contains no architectural review criteria. Noise compliance is determined and enforced through the city's code compliance process. TDC 63.051 does apply here, but as a forward-looking obligation secured by condition A14, not as something the applicant had to predict at the application stage. The addition has not been built, and it produces no noise measure. Claim C. The third claim is that the noise model land prepared is incomplete because it leaves out several sources. Neither TDC 32.140 nor 33.0204 require a noise model as part of the architectural review application. The model being criticized was submitted in a separate application. None was submitted here because none was required for AR26-0002. Compliance with the noise standards is established by measuring the facility once it's operating, not by a predictive model. I do want to mention that LAM's legal representative submitted an updated predictive model on September 4th. But again, this is not a submittal item required for architectural review. Claim D, the fourth claim is that the city took its measurement in the wrong place, roughly 500 feet from where the appellant's engineer recorded his reading. I want to be clear, staff do not question the engineer's qualifications or his instrumentation. But where the measurements are taken during an enforcement investigation is a code compliance question, not an architectural review approval criterion. If that question is unresolved, the code compliance process remains open to the appellants and anybody else for that matter. Claim E. The fifth claim concerns the label on Lamb's Fire District's middle and asks what the building is for and what chemicals will be used in it. Chapter 62 allows research and development laboratories in the zone, and this application expands that existing use. A project name used on another agency's form does not change what that use is. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue confirmed in writing that it enforces the Oregon Fire Code for the classification, storage, and handling of hazardous materials. The district reviewed this application and raised no concerns. The development code does not require a chemical inventory as part of the architectural review. I do want to mention that the appellant Hamilton submitted a Washington County off-site release plan, but this has nothing to do with an architectural review criteria. Claim F. The last group of claims raises fugitive dust, light trespass, vibration, airborne pollutants, and reduced property values. No supporting evidence was submitted on these points. Each of the environmental concerns corresponds to a standard in chapter 63 that applies to this development and is secured by condition A14. Construction dust and erosion are addressed through the permits required by conditions A2 and A3. Property value is not an approval criterion under this development code. To summarize the record, staff memorandum attachment B responds to every claim under the heading A through F. Staff have responded to each claim and find that none of them rest on applicable architectural review criteria. On that basis, staff finds no group drowns for the reversal of this decision. No public comment had been received since the hearing notice went out on July 27th until Mr. Mann, and they're in your packets, submitted his comments on September 6th, 10th, and 11th. Mr. Hamilton submitted the Washington County Chemical Facility Offsite Release Plan on September 11th, and documentation and opposition from David's Fox Run HOA on September 13th. And today we received some additional information, a petition that's also in your packets. These comments and submitted materials do not address the architectural review criteria and are not applicable to the appeal of the decision approving AR26-0002. So that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer questions. We have some other folks here that can answer questions as well, legal, so.

So any question I have? Have we received any correspondence on this matter other than those items included in the agenda material? Sounds like everything up through today has been included.

Yeah, I think the last one came in. I couldn't tell you exactly what time, but I believe it was in the afternoon. Okay.

All right. Thank you. So now I'll switch gears, and the proponent, Lamb, may now come forward to make their presentation. Welcome.

Good evening. We have a PowerPoint.

I'm going to attempt to share a screen here.

While he's pulling that up, I'll introduce myself. My name is Dana Krafchuk. I'm a land use attorney at Stoll Reeves here on behalf of Lamb Research Corporation. My address is 760 Southwest 9th Avenue, Suite 3000, Portland, Oregon, 97205. And with me here is Ian Sisson from McKenzie, who is available to discuss the details of the Building B addition. But I think reflecting... Keith's staff report, there's really no question about the details of the Building B addition raised in this appeal. We'd really like to start by thanking and recognizing staff for the quality of their initial decision, their staff report for this hearing, and their presentation. They've been careful, they've been thorough, and they've made a claim by claim response. Because of that, we're going to keep our presentation short. We're also going to keep it short because we were all in this room about a year ago during the Tucks expansion, and a lot of these issues were raised, considered, and resolved through that decision. So we're not going to repeat all of that. I would like to echo some themes. Mayor, in your intro, you raised this, and I think I heard it in Keith's presentation. Just because issues aren't relevant to this consideration doesn't mean they're ignored. It means there are other forms for these issues where subject matter experts address those issues. So noise complaints, for example, for an operating facility, you have an enforcement officer that has expertise in noise complaints, and then further appeals can be to a municipal court judge. That's not what the city council does as part of architectural review. Same for hazardous materials or other concerns where this is really just not the forum for those considerations. And so I, I understand that sincerely held beliefs can, it can feel frustrating when you're told this is not where you consider it, but this is a discreet process. We can go to the next slide. It's architectural review. Architect. We're supposed to be looking at what the outside of this building looks like, what its landscaping looks like. That's what's relevant this evening. The proposal before the City Council is quite narrow. 3,900 square feet of an existing use that's expanded. No traffic, no impacts like that. Our request is that you deny the appeals and you affirm staff's decision and include staff's memo as findings. Next slide. The script at the beginning of this hearing talked about compliance with the approval criteria. State law requires that. This very limited approval that considers things like site design, landscaping, parking is not the forum to reopen cases that have already been decided or to relitigate cases where you didn't like the outcome. This is a very limited process before you. Next slide. Many of the arguments that we've heard in this appeal are not new. I've divided up in this slide some context here. The tux decision addressed many of these concerns, such as how noise was considered, whether the purpose statement was an applicable approval criterion, how performance standards are measured. All of those issues have been considered and decided, and you should apply them the same way in this case. Existing operations, we've already heard this evening how there is a separate enforcement process. That's an example of concerns having their own forum, and this is not the place to talk about operational noise. The Building B appeal, that's what we're here for this evening. We haven't heard any issues raised with the actual approval criteria or the design of Building B. Next slide. the noise ordinance and performance standards. LAM during the Tuck's approval voluntarily provided some predictive noise modeling, and they provided some more. They did that because we're aware that there's community concern, and we're trying to provide data to show how serious LAM takes the noise compliance issue. Every time that LAM provides this information, Becomes the basis for more criticism and more appeal and so at just a macro level I'd like for the City Council to consider that that that is going to discourage Applicants from voluntarily providing information that we know that the community wants to hear what lamb did here was they evaluated a predictive model of what building B noise sources would be and They added that to the predictive model of what was considered in-tax. Then they added that to the actual measured noise from the existing operations. And those models show that it's expected that compliance will be maintained. but you don't have to take our word for it because there's condition of approval A14 that requires compliance and you've got enforcement authority and investigations if compliance is not met. So because the noise model was provided just as information and is not evidence necessary for the approval criteria, any criticism with the noise model also cannot be a basis for denying the approval, because frankly, we didn't need to provide it. It was really just to continue the public discourse about noise. Next slide. The new issue that has come up is what chemicals, what materials are being used in the existing lab on the existing campus and that will be used in the expanded Building B. Of course, safe handling of hazardous materials is critically important. That's not the City Council's job. That's not architectural review. That's Washington County and their emergency operations plan that was submitted into the record. That's the fire department Those agencies are involved and highly regulate these substances They're not relevant to architectural review the only provision in the city's code Related to architectural review relates to waste hazardous waste. That's not not all hazardous materials or chemicals are hazardous waste and Next slide. So in conclusion, the record is complete. The proposal meets all of the applicable approval criteria, and there are other forms that are available to address the other issues. We understand that a request has been made to hold the record open, so we know we're not going to get a decision this evening. But we are hopeful for a prompt approval of a legally supportable decision that affirms staff's decision and denies the appeals. And we're available to answer any questions.

Thank you. Mr. Hamilton now can come forward and make your presentation. Yeah, you can come together. Sure. Welcome. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Bubinek, Council President Pratt, and members of council. My name is Brett Hamilton. I've been up here before. And tonight was Deborah.

Hi, my name is Deborah. Thank you for having us.

So I've never done one of these things before with a clicker, so bear with me. Okay, perfect. Oh. How much time do we have? Oh, beautiful. Okay. Perfect. Okay, good evening. So, can I go back? So the big issue we're dealing with is property rights. As residents, we have the right to quiet enjoyment. It's not a punchline. It's an actual old thing from way back in, like the English common law. If you own property or you rent property, you have a right to enjoy living there, which means TO NOT BE INTERFERED WITH BY NUISANCES. AND A NUISANCE IS SOMETHING THAT'S OFFENSIVE OR IRRITATING OR OBSTRUCTIVE OR DANGEROUS. AND SO THE REASON THAT WE'RE CONTINUING TO APPEAL LAMB'S EXPANSIONS IS BECAUSE THEY ARE AN EXISTING NUISANCE WHEN IT COMES TO NOISE, DUST. MY HOUSE WAS SHAKING TODAY AS I WAS TRYING TO WRITE THIS. WE UNDERSTAND THERE ARE There are things that happen when you're doing construction that are necessary and there are things that are not. Having backup beepers going all day long when there's an alternative of a backup alarm that isn't noisy, there are things that are nuisance and there are things that are not. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS PROTECT OUR PROPERTIES AND OUR HEALTH AND FROM THE NUISANCES THAT LAMB'S EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE OFFERING AND THEIR PROPOSALS WHICH THREATEN TO MAKE THEM SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE. DURING THIS PROPOSAL WE HAD NO IDEA WHAT IS BUILDING B. IT'S A BUILDING. THERE'S NO WINDOWS ON IT. We're looking through the plans and there's all these acronyms, a little bit of alphabet soup, CMS, AWN, I have no idea what these are. The application narrative doesn't mention what these are. But the fire department, There's one page in this application that says the newbie is a chemical management building. So we're like, oh, there's some chemicals going on here. That is the only place in the entire land use application where the word chemical is used is the document that's submitted to the fire department. The document they submit to you guys just says chemical management or CMS. It doesn't say what it is. So we looked it up, chemical management systems. This is our best People who are in the industry helping to try to explain what these acronyms are. Not 100% certain that's what LAM calls it, but it's pretty likely. The other one, AWN. So they keep talking about hazardous waste. AWN is acid waste neutralization. So microchips, they use acids to etch into the chips. And when they're done etching a chip, there's this acid waste. It's highly acidic liquid. They can't recycle it because it's contaminated with debris. So they have to neutralize it with an equally strong base, which is like a caustic. So we believe that in this AWN building is somehow like a blend of really acidic stuff, really basic stuff. They mix them together, they neutralize the pH, and then they get flushed down the sewer, which is the, and filtered, and then flushed down. But this is not mentioned anywhere in their land use application. We're just sort of trying to put the pieces together because Lamb does not share a lot of information. But we did find out through the county, and it was just a, By happenstance, there was a gentleman at the county that I was there a couple months ago with the tax breaks, and he's like, you guys live next to Lamb. I said, yeah. He's like, have you heard about their off-site release bond? I said, no, I've never. What are you talking about? He's like, you're in the evacuation area. I'm like, what? So now Deborah's going to cover the next part of this pitch.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and council members. So my name is Deborah Anderson, and I've been a resident of Tualatin since – do I need to turn this on, or is my voice big enough? It's on. I usually don't need a microphone. I've been a resident of Tualatin since 2005. I'm just a regular citizen, and my biggest investment is my home, and I live across the street from Lamb. And it's really important to me that my home and my property is not destroyed or devalued because of a toxic chemical incident. I am deeply concerned for myself and my neighbors regarding the addition of this building B at Lamb Research. It's my understanding that the purpose for this structure is the storage and processing of chemicals. So we did obtain a list of these chemicals from the Oregon Fire Marshal. As you can see right up here, there are over 30 chemicals used by the LAMS Tualatin site. And of these listed chemicals, about 15 of them, I looked up almost all of them, 15 of them are non-toxic. Four of them are toxic, carcinogenic, depending on your exposure. six of them are highly toxic and or carcinogenic, and five of them are dangerous greenhouse gases, and six are highly flammable toxic gases. And of those six highly flammable toxic gases, I wanted to focus on one chemical gas listed, and that would be on the left side of that list, about 10 or 11 down, spelled S-I-L-A-N-E, silane gas. It is a poisonous, spontaneous, combustible gas when exposed to air. Even more frightening, a gas fire with silane cannot be extinguished with water. Last month, there was a silane gas fire in Microchip Technology in Colorado Springs when the gas was accidentally exposed to air. The incident caused a pre-evacuation of the neighboring community using text messages and local media broadcasts. to inform the neighborhood. And I wonder what would have happened in the night when nobody was watching TV and their phones were on silent while they were sleeping. Fortunately for that neighborhood, the incident resolved successfully without physical harm to the community. But I can't help but think how frightening this must have been for the people that live there. And on this slide, you can see this is a slide of the evacuation zone for one scenario in the case of an environmental incident, not even the worst case scenario. As you can see, the zone extends deeply into the River Park neighborhood, including Hazelbrook Middle School. I do not want to be afraid to live across the street from Lamb. The toxic chemicals they are planning to store in building B are 800 feet from our neighborhood starting with my front door. Lamb has 15.75 acres of land at their disposal. Our ask Is there anywhere else on their property they can store these dangerous chemicals? And if that is absolutely not possible, we need to know the plan for how you are going to keep us safe from them. Big business like LAM, a big business, especially in light of the decreased regulatory oversight due to government cutbacks, has given the public little reason to blindly trust them. And we are asking for and expect complete transparency in regard to our safety. We are paying attention and we want to be heard. Thank you.

So LAMP keeps talking about the approval criteria as though that is the only thing that you guys are allowed to look at. But what's missing from this is that they need to provide evidence that their proposal will comply with the codes that exist. And they have a burden of proof to provide this. So let's see. The noise issue, I want to clarify it, predates the TUCS proposal by years. So in your packet on page 180, the text messages start in January of 2023, way before we even had any idea that LAM was proposing to expand anything. So we wanted to put that absolutely, put a pin in that. Lam's attorneys talks about that we are trying to reopen and relitigate the tax project. We are not. That has been decided. However, the issues that were raised have not been resolved as they state. They continue to be a nuisance. The code enforcement process has failed because they ask us to tell us in advance when the noise is going to be. You cannot schedule the wind. You cannot schedule the weather. And the readings that they take are just completely not adequate. THIS PLANNING PROCESS IS THE BEST PLACE TO PREVENT NUISANCES. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE LAND USE. THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE ZONING. IT'S ALL ABOUT NUISANCES AND PROPERTY RIGHTS BECAUSE YOU DON'T JUST WAIT UNTIL THE TANNERY THAT MOVED IN NEXT TO YOUR HOUSE STARTS TANNING LEATHER. YOU SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE A TANNERY NEXT TO YOUR HOUSE. THEY CAN'T HAVE A LEATHER TANNERY AT LAND RESEARCH. IT'S NOT ALLOWABLE IN THEIR ZONE. BUT THEY CAN HAVE EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. The whole zoning thing is to prevent these nuisances. The next thing we are going to talk about is the noise. Actually, it's not. Sorry. So the dangerous substances. So chapter 63 of the Tualatin Development Code, which is not technically the approval criteria for architecture review, but it's part of the development code that the standards that needs to be met, says all uses are prohibited from the storage, transfer, or processing of hazardous, toxic, or radioactive waste. So take out the radioactive stuff. We have no evidence that there's any radioactivity going on there as far as we know. They have, it's not just hazardous, it's extremely hazardous substances and it's waste. So I would love for the staff to figure, apparently this doesn't apply, but we have questions about it. The other thing is heat and glare. So as one of the conditions of one of Lam's earlier proposals, is they're not allowed to have exterior lighting shining into the residential districts. Well, they just brought their parking lot online for the Tucks project. AND THERE'S PROBABLY 40 OR 50 LIGHTS THAT ARE CLEARLY SHINING ACROSS THE STREET. THERE'S NO SHIELDING. THEY'RE NOT FULLY SHIELDED FIXTURES THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. SO I BELIEVE THEY'RE ALREADY VIOLATING THAT. SO THEIR PRESENTATION SAYS THAT THERE'S ALL THESE CRITERIA THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT IS PUT IN, LIKE MAGICALLY THEY'RE GOING TO MEET IT. WELL, THE ONE THEY JUST PUT IN DOESN'T MEET THIS, SO WE WANT TO PUT A PIN IN THAT. And then the noise. So it's not an approval criteria, but again, their application has to demonstrate that it's feasible and likely that they can comply with the environmental noise standards. And so I would like to, Deborah's going to switch places here with Carrie Stanley, who is a acoustical engineer who we hired last week. We had one week. LAM has had months to submit additional information for this appeal. They know the noise is an issue. And so last week, an hour before the deadline for the packet, we got this new noise model. And Kerry has taken the time to go through the noise model and also take measurements to back up the observations of the community. And so I'm going to turn it over to Kerry. Oh, he's also the principal engineer at Daley Stanley and Associates, well renowned. LEGEND OF ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERING.

SO ACTUALLY I'LL CORRECT THAT. IT'S NO LONGER DALEY STANLEY AND ASSOCIATES. I SOLD THAT COMPANY IN 2016. IT'S NOW DSA ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERS. MY NAME IS CARRY STANLEY. I'M THE OWNER AND PERSON OF THE DSA ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERS. I'm a registered acoustical engineer in Oregon, and I have over 51 years experience in acoustical engineering. Just off the side, my first residence was in Tualatin when I moved to Oregon in 1978. As a resident, I also participated in the Planning Advisory Committee, which we were looking at developing a noise ordinance. So it took a while for the city to get that, but I moved from Tualatin before that happened. I've been living in Tigard since then. So I was asked to... take a review do a review of the materials that were submitted for this application of of uh... the expansion of building b and uh... just to take a look at it from the noise standpoint uh... i have a report here that i was going to submit to each of you if you're in if you're available i believe i have enough everybody And I'd like to go over that, the results of my review. I looked at all of the studies that had been submitted for, as part of the record for this application, and I found that there were about three different studies that were presented. One of them was A NOISE MEASUREMENT STUDY THAT WAS DONE PRIOR TO THE TUX APPLICATION REVIEW. THEN THERE WAS A MODELING OF SOUND ASSOCIATED WITH THE TUX. AND THEN THE THIRD WAS, AS WAS MENTIONED, THE MOST RECENT STUDY THAT CAME IN AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I NOTED FROM REVIEWING THAT I WANTED TO BRING OUT TO YOUR ATTENTION. And one thing is that it is not the best way to do a noise analysis when you're doing a combination of modeling and measurements. What was done by the consultant in this particular case is they took measurements of the sound coming from existing operations and they assumed that it was absolute. They then modeled the sound coming from future operations and they added the predicted future operation sound to the existing measured sound. The problem with that approach is that it assumes that the measured sound is absolute. And what you will see in the record is that the complaints have been when the atmospheric conditions are such that the sound is coming from best from the LAMP research facility to the neighborhood. That's when the wind is out of the south. The reports that were done by the consultant for LAMP research never mentioned anything about when they did the measurements, what direction the sound was from. They also mentioned the fact that there were crickets that were dominating the sound measurements at some of the locations. but they never quantified how much that contribution was and they never quantified how much was coming from the existing operation. So they basically have had to somehow come up with how much was coming from the crickets, how much was coming from the operation to be able to add that to the predictive future. Because I wanted to demonstrate to you how that's important, I watched the weather forecast and I saw that there was going to be a time prior to this meeting which was this past weekend. When the wind was going to be out of the south, the weather conditions were to be such that the sound transmission would be best, low temperatures, high humidity. And so I went and measured between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. Sunday morning. And that's also a time over the years my experience has been it's a time when crickets, frogs, all of those noise-making sources that are naturally there tend to quiet down. And that is what I found during that time when I was out making measurements between 2 and 4 in the morning, Sunday morning, the 13th. So the data I got did not have to be adjusted for any influence by other sources, whereas the data that was used to come up with the total sound to add to the model had to be adjusted by some amount, but they never mentioned what that amount is. So my first comment is that if they're going to do a study, they have all the equipment, they have the sources, they could model those sources as well. and predict along with the new equipment what the total would be. And that's usually how you would do a study to determine if your facility is going to be in compliance. We do that all the time. We don't just go out and do measurements and then try and add to it because your measurements may not be your worst case condition. Those conditions will change daily. What I found in doing the WELL, WITH MY MEASURED DATA AND TAKING THEIR PREDICTED LEVEL DATA, I DETERMINED THAT THEY'RE PROBABLY UNDER PREDICTING USING THEIR MEASUREMENT DATA AND ADDING TO THEIR PREDICTED LEVEL, THEY'RE PROBABLY UNDER PREDICTING A MINIMUM OF ONE TO TWO AND POSSIBLY THREE OR 40 BELOW BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T GET WORST CASE CONDITIONS. I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT FORWARD TO YOU SO THAT YOU CAN THINK ABOUT IT AND MAYBE SINCE YOU ARE DELAYING DECISION TONIGHT, MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN HAVE A LITTLE TIME TO CONSIDER THAT AND AT LEAST PRESENT MORE OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS USED IN THE MODELING BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I REALLY COULD NOT established or assessed whether their numbers are accurate or not. There's not enough information presented in their reports, such as the sound power level for the different sources that they included in the model, their assumptions relative to whether they did downwind conditions or not. The ISO standard that they referenced They encourage to do downwind conditions so that you get worst-case predictions. I don't know if they did that. It wasn't mentioned in the reports. So I would encourage you to ask the applicant to submit additional modeling information so that it can be reviewed, and I would provide my assessment of that. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those.

I'VE GOT FOUR OTHER POINTS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS. FIRST, POINTS. SO AT THE TUX HEARING, ONE OF THE COUNSELORS MENTIONED THAT LAM WILL BE SELF-POLICING THE NOISE. THEY ARE NOT SELF-POLICING NOISE. THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING IN THREE AND A HALF YEARS TO ADDRESS THE ROOFTOP NOISE. SO RELYING ON LAM, THEIR GOOD WILL AND THEIR GENEROSITY, THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. THEIR ATTORNEY KEEPS TELLING US TO DO THE NOISE ENFORCEMENT ROUTE. put a pin in that. The second thing is, as a business reality, LAM is not a B Corporation. This is not New Seasons, right? This is a for profit NASDAQ traded high tech company. They do not take business decisions for the good of community. That's not one of their bottom lines. So in order for them to make an action, somebody needs to provide them some incentives. And that's what we're asking for you guys. You have the authority to require them to take an action. And if you require it, they will do it. They can afford it. We just would need to give them like a $5 billion, no, it's a $5 billion project, an unknown millions of dollars in tax breaks. Perhaps they could use some of that money What we're asking for is not less development, it's more development. We want them to invest in their physical plant and whoever it is that installs HVAC stuff, hire those people to get the best top of the line equipment. Maybe they need to invent a better fan. I'm an inventor, I have some patents, maybe we could work together. This problem with these HVACs is a huge problem with data centers. It's the same problem everywhere. They're just moving air. This does not need to be this hard. It's not like a jackhammers or like some kind of a place where the noise is intrinsic to the activity. It's just air moving. It does not need to make noise. Speaking of the architecture, Their plans, the thing we care, I don't care about the building, right? The building, we don't see it, it's 30 feet tall. The thing we care about is the rooftop fans. Their plans, as far as last time I checked, it doesn't show where this stuff is gonna be on the roof. It doesn't even show the maximum height of the stacks. It could easily, in my estimate, be another 10 or 12 feet above the top of the roof. So we would like to see, what are they planning to put on this roof? One of the good things that they did cover in the neighborhood developer meeting is that the mechanics of this scrubber is a big, huge box on the floor that cleans the air. But the fan that runs the scrubber is not on the ground. The fan is up on the roof because it all has to be negative pressure. You don't want positive pressure with toxic gases in it because then they'll leak out. So you want everything to be suction. So the rooftop stuff is the thing that's making the noise. It's up on the top of the roof. That's an architectural review criteria. If you want to be super, super narrow, ask for that. Show us where the fans are going to be. What are they going to be? How tall are they going to be? I think that is my only thing. Oh, the other thing is the wind direction from their study. I think Kerry mentioned this. They didn't. They did not document which way the wind was blowing when they took their noise readings. That's super important. So I think that's everything. And thank you guys for hearing our appeal, and thanks for your consideration.

Thank you. So now I'll open it to the audience. Anyone in the audience or in Zoom who would like to speak in favor of the decision reached by staff on AR 26-0002. Nicole's missing.

Is in favor the one against?

Favor is supporting the staff's judgment.

Original proclamation of yes. Yes. Yes? Okay.

Frank, do we have anybody in Zoom? Can you see? All right. Now I'll switch over those folks in Zoom or in person who oppose the decision breached by staff on AR26-002. I just made some notes while I was listening to that.

Yes, state your name and address. Victoria Fisk. I live on Creek Court in Tualatin, Oregon. I wanted to know, does this gentleman have any disclosures? Because he's giving you the information. So I thought it might be important for him to provide disclosures to you to let you know that he's informing your decisions. It just seemed that it was a little bit dismissive, to say it the best way that I know how, of the people who are making those complaints, and there's a way for people to say things that are not dismissive and just making it more of a problem. So I just wanted to bring that to note. And we also had complaints about information today, information being provided to the public about things like water leaks and breaks, and then we just had an individual say that they are also concerned about what chemical actions are going to happen. And so if we add those two things together, if we're not informing people of it, there's already a larger issue. Not knowing how to write a complaint to the specifications of someone with a lot of skill sets specifically in engineering is not a reason to discredit or dismiss what those people are saying. They are trying to say that they are worried about noise, and they are trying to provide as much proof and evidence as they can. And just being like, this isn't on the form, this isn't relevant, isn't necessarily the best way to resolve that. It is an opportunity for you to take all that information about those complaints and make substantive responses to those complaints because a lot of people have them. Just not very many people have all the time and energy and knowledge and know-how in order to engage in the system. And then you all know what I think about ordinance-enforced things. I have been told by police that I am too loud. But Lam isn't? I have been told that I am too loud and I am not allowed to make noise in a public space based just on my voice. So I find that this referral to ordinance is incredibly problematic. They're saying that they put that information, the noise information, out there as a measure of goodwill. If they literally had goodwill, they would be showing all the ways in which they would prevent the impact of noise on the populace around them. They wouldn't just be saying, we already gave a bunch of information we didn't have to give. We don't have to do any of this. This is all legally. Yeah, sure, legally you've dotted all your I's. You've got your tittle on there. You've got your little line on your T. And you've done that. But that's not addressing what the citizens are saying that they are concerned about. And just because we don't have the knowledge and know-how of an extensive engineering degree doesn't mean we don't have valuable input. Um, hazardous waste wise. I texted my husband who was the captain at the hazmat station here in Tualatin. And he has said, those are concerning things. I took a picture of it. I texted him and he is concerned. That's it. Thanks.

Other folks who want to offer testimony tonight in opposition, anybody on zoom? Does anyone want to provide a general comment about the application? Yes.

You can do it.

Welcome.

Hi. Do you want to say your name?

Hi, my name's Josette.

Josette Hentges. We just purchased a house. We are a Purple Zone family. So we just bought our house on 11130 Southwest Appalachia Street.

And my dad's name, Caleb Hentges, is in the back. He is.

And I have a new school today. You do? A lot of new things, huh? None of this information was disclosed to us when we purchased our house just recently in May. We are a unique family as we are transplants from Arizona. We specifically chose to live in Oregon. We specifically chose to live in Tualatin. We would like to continue to enjoy our home with our family, to raise them here, to feel safe. We provide services. When your children ingest chemicals, they call us. We help them. So who helps us when our home is infected with chemicals? That's what we'd like to know.

All right.

We like sparkly stuff like unicorns and like boots. And everything makes us happy like friends playing and like playing with a far frisbee with information with my dad playing with the frisbee with us.

Good job. So we'd just like you to take our family into consideration when you're thinking about these things because we all are very real. So thank you. Thank you.

Well, thank you. All right, anyone else? Anyone in Zoom? All right, now I'll give an opportunity for Lan to rebuttal.

Thank you for the opportunity to have rebuttal. And I know that we're going to have an open record period, so there's just a couple things that I'd like to respond to. The discussion about what a predictive noise model has versus actual measurements, I want to be abundantly clear about what level of evidence is required as part of an architectural review. Because this is a quasi-judicial hearing application. That means you have specific criteria that apply. Um, in the tux findings, I'm looking at page five of the findings where there's a chart. So these are, this is what city council adopted as what your criteria mean. And what it says is performance standards, which are things like the noise ordinance. What's the characteristic. It regulates how a use functions. When is it applied? Once a use is operational, including through enforcement, if necessary. What proof is required during architectural review? None, because they are not necessary prerequisites to issuance of a permit. Examples of the code provisions, TDC 63, that's the environmental performance standards, and the municipal code, TMC 6-14. So what does that mean in English? That means that there is not the standard you held in Tuck's. You made these findings that there is no evidentiary threshold. There is no feasibility standard that we have to meet. You could have believed everything that noise experts said. You think that Lamb's noise evidence is wrong, that still wouldn't be a basis to deny this because noise is a performance standard. It's what happens, what's regulated once it's operational. The dollar amounts that were discussed in terms of the investments that LAM is making, do you think that a company would make that kind of an investment? If they couldn't meet the approval criteria, of course they wouldn't. They monitor the sound, they model the sound, they predict the sound, they tweak things, they install new fans that are quieter so that they can be sure that they meet the law because otherwise it would impact their ability to perform advanced manufacturing and they wouldn't do that. And so I just want to be very clear. We know, we understand that noise is a concern but that's handled through the enforcement process. This is not cross-examination in front of a municipal court judge. If it needs to get there because there is a dispute, that's where we get, but it's not a city council issue, and this is not a way to, again, re-litigate that you disagree with an outcome. There was an enforcement process, and your own city enforcement person concluded that there was no noise violation, and the enforcement matter was closed. It's closed. New complaints have been filed, and those will be investigated. And when the Tucks facilities are operational, if there are additional noise complaints, those will be investigated. But this form is not the place for investigating those noise issues. The other item I'll mention is architectural review for the fans. My understanding of those standards are that the fans would not be visible because of the distance in the screening from the road. And so that's the extent to which architectural review investigates the fans. But I don't know if you've got something to add.

Yeah, that's correct so in our application we addressed visibility of rooftop equipment Which would otherwise require screening on the roof directly in front of that equipment? And found that it would not be required because it would be screened by a distance topography existing dense vegetation So on and so forth so that was the finding that was also adopted in the staff report

So we're happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, we look forward to your deliberation or questions, and we expect that it'll be an open record period, and we look forward to reviewing the materials that were submitted this evening, and then coming back before you at whatever date for deliberation and a vote.

All right. So at this point, I'll open the floor to councillors for questions of anyone who made testimony tonight. Council President Pratt.

I just have one, and it's for you, Lam. When the subject of chemicals came up, you said that hazardous waste is the only city issue, and it sounds like there is hazardous waste. So when would that be addressed? Is it in the ARB process, or is it at another time?

So first of all, this ARB is for an expansion of existing activities that are happening. I want us to all understand that. If there were materials that were not allowed under the code, so waste, then that's where that ongoing condition of approval requires compliance with those, so that would be an enforcement matter. I am not a chemical engineer. I heard that it was flush. I'm not sure what that material is, so that's something that I'm sure that your compliance people will be interested in. But what we were focused on is that emergency operations plan materials that were submitted into the record, which is, you know, Washington County is the coordinator for first responders across the region, you know, in case there were some kind of an incident. That's what those materials were about.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions? Council Brooks.

I have a question for staff. Thank you for your presentation and your work. I am just curious about the HVAC fan. Discussion so I just want to understand for architectural review There's been a lot that we've talked about about sight line And I understand that architecture has a visual piece But there's also structural and functional piece like we don't want buildings to fall down. We want fans to work Etc. So I'm just curious about how we address this in our code. I

Sure, so in our code we have screening requirements. We don't get into the mechanical equipment that's done by the building division. They look at that, they make sure that it meets the building code here. But as far as architectural review, it's more of a visual thing. We don't have anything that reviews the fans or the noise or any of that. It's just not part of architectural review.

Okay, so that is under building review. Okay.

Well, yeah, they make sure that things are going to operate properly, not going to catch fire, not going to blow up, that sort of thing. So they do make sure that things are done correctly to the building code.

Yeah, and that it's sound.

I don't know that they have any sort of decibel measurement.

No, no, no, not sound. That the buildings themselves are sound?

Oh, yeah, yes.

Is not the architectural review. Okay, it's very interesting because I used to work for architects, and I'm kind of surprised that it's not part of the functionality. It's not part of the review of the architects.

Yeah, so with architectural review, we look at the site function and then the building architecture. But all the detailed stuff that goes way over my head as a planner is really looked at by the professionals, the building inspectors and that sort of thing.

Okay, thank you. I just wanted to understand that better.

Other questions? Ms. Hillier.

Thank you. I can appreciate that this is not part of the architectural review, but I do wonder in a future conversation where I would like to learn more about what the evacuation plans are and the notification plans. I know there's an ongoing activity with the CIO and that sort of thing, and I'm assuming that there is a clear plan. And because things haven't been built and the chemicals, as I understand it, aren't even on site at this point in time. So it would be good to understand what will that process be in the future. I'm sure the school district, I'm sure there's a whole lot of people that are involved. And again, I can completely appreciate this is not part of this conversation with the architectural review. And I look forward to engaging in that conversation when the time is right for that. Thank you.

Other questions? All right. City staff, do you have anything to add which specifically addresses a question raised during this testimony tonight?

No.

All right. Next, the council will consider Jonathan Mann's September 10th, 2026 request to present additional evidence, arguments, and testimony regarding the application. under ORS 197.7636A, a party may request at the initial evidentiary hearing an opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments, or testimony regarding the application. If that request is made, the council must either, one, continue the hearing subject to ORS 197.7636B, or two, leave the record open for at least seven days subject to ORS 197.7636C. Under either option, the continued hearing or open record period provides the opportunities and opportunity to submit any additional evidence, arguments, and testimony. The scope of the additional evidence, arguments, and testimony submitted during the continued hearing or open record period is unrestricted, so it includes both one, entirely new evidence, arguments, and testimony, as well as two, responses to evidence, arguments, and testimony that were submitted at or prior to the initial hearing. Staff has recommended that council leave the record open for at least seven days subject to ORS 197.763.6c. If there is a motion tonight to leave the record open pursuant to ORS 197.797.6c and it passes, I will close the public hearing and then ask for a motion to continue this agenda item to the October 12th, 2026 council meeting. We will then move on to the next agenda item. So Kevin, do you have anything to add to my Script here.

Mayor, I think you said it well. All right. Yeah. If you have any questions during this, I can certainly answer them, but I think that you have the appropriate procedure in front of you, and the council has its path laid forward. There is an opportunity to either continue the public hearing pursuant to ORS 197-797, Leave the record open and of course staffs recommendation as you stated was to leave the record open For at least seven days and the city staff will follow that process. We will we will get all those requirements and rules To every party that participated in this in this matter so they know what steps they need to take next Mayor

Okay, that's right clarification or just kind of repeat a little bit of what you're asked there are three options, right? One is to set is that what we're is that what you're saying or right?

So if there's a motion to leave the record open tonight Yep, so leave the mission will leave the record open for Seven days and then I'll close the public hearing then there'll be a second motion to continue this agenda item to October 12 2026 Correct

Make sure we get this right with the city attorney. Mayor, that's correct. So there's a choice for the council whether they want to continue the public hearing or leave the record open for at least seven days, which is the staff recommendation. And we will follow the process set out in ORS 197-797 after that motion has been made and is passed. I have a point of order question as an advocate. Go ahead.

Is that seven business days, seven calendar days? Can you be a little bit more specific on that?

The record would be open for at least seven days, and the city staff will work with the parties. They will let them know exactly what they need to do, where they need to submit this additional argument, testimony, or evidence. We will have that in place and work with all the parties that are involved in this tonight.

Councilor Ray's question, is that business days or calendar days?

calendar day is not business days thank you I don't I would like some clarification I mean didn't the appellants turn their information in July or June 27th I'm confused as to why we need to extend it where's mr. man No, I mean, like, I don't see any information. When did we get that?

September 10th.

I don't see it. Okay, thank you. And that couldn't be, other things were added to the record today, so I'm confused as to why that wasn't.

He made a request to extend.

Oh, so I don't see that email anywhere. I'm sorry. Okay, thank you.

Counselor Hillier, there was several public records requests that Mr. Mann submitted during the Labor Day holiday and afterwards. And embedded in that September 10th public records request, there was also a request to take additional argument, evidence, or testimony. And by law, we have to honor that.

I'll make a motion to leave the record open for seven days as suggested by staff for any additional evidence, arguments.

Your Honor, is it okay if I take a quick recess and speak with legal counsel for Lamb just to clarify the records period?

Sure.

How long you need?

About five minutes. Okay. We'll go ahead and take a five-minute recess. We'll reconvene at 10 to 9.

We discussed the seven days and what that actually looks like as far as dates. We're going to get those dates if this motion passes to all participants. Mm-hmm. anyway but for the record that it's it'll be on the city's website will make sure that happens uh... if the the city does grant uh... the uh... opportunity to leave the record open for seven days that open record period would end on september twenty first at five p m now the next step if there is any party uh... during this the next periods called the cerebral period uh... there's Any information that's submitted in that initial, that open record period, that seven days, any party has the opportunity to then present arguments, evidence, or arguments or testimony regarding any information that was submitted during that seven day, that initial seven day period. Not anything, but only the information that was submitted in that initial seven day open record period. But they have to request it in writing. If that happens, that would end on September 28th at 5 p.m. And then the applicant lamb, they have the final word per law, and that would happen on October 5th by 5 p.m. to have that. And then the staff would be prepared with an updated staff report. You would have your agenda packet, and that would be at your council meeting on the 12th. And just for full disclosure, Mr. Hamilton did ask me If I would just throw it out there, he would actually like more time than seven days for that initial open record period. Now, the law says it's got to be at least seven days. So that's within the council's discretion. But I did note talking to our city staff and legal counsel for lamb, we are getting close to that 120 days. That would be a problem. Right. Thank you.

All right. So, Councilor Brooks, you were making a motion.

Okay. I make a motion to keep the record open for seven business days. Second.

I have a motion second to leave the record. Calendar days. It's calendar days.

I said business days.

I know.

I said business days. She intentionally said that.

Okay.

It's seven days. It's not business days. It's calendar days. But you would want to say in accordance with ORS 197.7976C. Go ahead. I...

making a motion to Leave the record open for seven business days To because I don't think we're gonna run into that 120 days with that But then it kind of gives people a chance on their own time to get this information together. So that's why pursuant to ORS Make sure No, I have a second impact 120 days in the calendar.

That's my question. I

I would need to call staff back up for that.

They could certainly come up to the podium and discuss that with you right now. That might make it easier. If we have that information, I don't know if we're coming up how close we are to the 120-day rule.

Yeah, we are quite close. I believe it's the 29th of this month. We have had conversations with the applicant that they are willing to extend the clock within reason. We don't have a date in writing of how many days they're willing to extend at this point. So you could certainly ask them that.

Just two days. Is seven business days okay with you guys? Two extra days?

Considering that this application has been pending since April and to date there hasn't been an iota of information about the relevant approval criteria, I don't see why additional business days are required. So that we can make the October 12th city council hearing the only way we can make that. with the 777 days is to use calendar days, not business days. And so our preference is to keep it like the statute says, having it be calendar days.

It doesn't add up to...

This is within council's discretion.

Okay. Can we make... But does it, I just, I don't have a calendar in front of me. Do we run into a problem with 120 days? Yes, okay. All right, then I'll take that one back and just make a motion to keep the record open for seven calendar days.

And I'll second that motion.

Discussions on the motion. Is this a roll call or a voice vote? Let's do roll call, Your Honor. All right. Councillor Sacco.

Aye.

Councillor Hilliard.

Aye.

Councillor Reyes.

Yes.

Councillor Gonzalez. Aye. Councillor Brooks.

Aye.

Councillor President Pratt.

Aye.

Chair votes aye. It's unanimous.

Now we have to deal with the moving the... Well, I think the next step, Your Honor, is you're going to close the public hearing, and then there will be a motion to continue this agenda item until October 12, 2026. All right.

So with that, I'll go ahead and close this hearing for the evening. Do I hear a motion per Mr. McConnell?

I motion that we continue this until October 12, 2026. Second.

I have a motion and a second to continue this hearing until October 12, 2026. Any discussions on those motions? Councilor Sacco?

Aye.

Councilor Hillier?

Aye.

Councilor Reyes?

Yes.

Councilor Gonzalez? Aye. Councilor Brooks?

Aye. Oh, I didn't say it.

Pause.

Okay. I would like to amend my motion to motion that we reconvene for, say it again, deliberations on October 12, 2026.

We have a modified couple of motions to reconvene. Any discussions on those motions? The adjusted ones? Okay. Councilor Sacco?

Aye.

Council Hilliard?

Aye.

Councilor Reyes?

Yes.

Councilor Gonzalez? Aye. Councilor Brooks? Aye. President Pratt?

Aye.

Chair votes aye. It's unanimous. This will be pushed to October 12th for a future date.

All right.

That brings us to general business. Business item number one, consideration of ordinance number 1458-26, amending Tualatin Municipal Code chapters 11-09 to update the CIO boundary map and other changes. Quinn. Quinn. Robert, welcome.

Good evening, Mayor Bubanek and members of the council. This item on the agenda represents the effort and coordination on the part of Megan George and her leadership to bring it to this point. Quinn and I are pleased to present it to you this evening. Quinn's going to present the slideshow describing the process and the outcome of this. And we will have questions at the end of the presentation. Over to you, Quinn.

Thank you, Robin. Mayor Bubenik, members of the council. My name is Quinn Bruner. I'm a policy analyst in our urban renewal and economic development division. I HAVE TEN SLIDES AND I THINK I CAN DO THEM IN ABOUT EIGHT MINUTES HERE. SO WE HAVE MEGAN GEORGE AND CIO COMMUNITY LEADERS LED THIS WORK AND PROVIDED A DETAILED PRESENTATION AT THE AUGUST 10TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING PROVIDING A BRIEF RECAP HERE. Thank you. Providing a brief recap, so when the CIO program was created in 2011, there was an effort to ensure all CIOs had approximately the same number of households. Not all households were included in a CIO, and as Tarleton has grown, the balance of households in CIOs have become kind of imbalanced. This boundary update is the first since the program's creation and this process has been led by CIO leadership and they've reached a solution that as I understand it is widely supported by both leadership and CIO membership. Next slide here. So the new boundary map includes two substantial changes. It includes the extension of the Byrom CIO to include Autumn Sunrise and Planbeck Gardens. It also involves the creation of a new downtown CIO which borrows from River Park and East CIOs, and it also includes a few hundred households near downtown who are not yet in a CIO. So we explored these four options at the August 10th work session, and CIO leadership selected option four, which if we can go to the next slide here, has the most balanced set of households per the now seven CIOs. So next slide. So all impacted CIOs approved this change earlier in the year, and the full CIO leadership gave their approval in July. The CIOs brought the proposed changes to you in August, and Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance for consideration, and this is where we are today, considering Ordinance 1458-26. So next slide. We've got the current CIO boundary map is up on the screen here. And I just want to draw your attention to three areas. So if you look at the southern edge of the Byram CIO, that's one area where you'll see a change on the next slide. And then if you look up at the River Park CIO in the southeast corner, that's another area where you'll see a change. And then on the other side of I-5, on the northern part of the east Tualatin CIO, there's kind of that little spur there. That's another thing that you'll see change. So those are the three. THINGS TO KEEP YOUR EYE ON IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE HERE. SO SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FORMAT BUT I THINK IT'S YOU CAN FOLLOW PRETTY CLEARLY SO AGAIN LOOK AT THE SOUTHERN PART OF BYRAM AND IT CONNECTS ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE SOUTHERN EDGE OF THE CITY WHEREAS BEFORE IT DID NOT. AND THEN THERE'S A NEW DOWNTOWN CIO THERE ON THE NORTH END THAT BARS A LITTLE BIT FROM RIVER PARK AND THEN ALSO EXTENDS ACROSS THE INTERSTATE TO COVER THAT PORTION OF THE EAST TO ALTON CIO. AND THEN WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. So in addition to making the boundary map change, staff are also using this moment to do a little bit of code cleanup. And so there are three additional code changes that have been reviewed by CIO leadership and are, again, supported. So the first is changing the official name of the CIO program from the Citizen Involvement Organization program to the Community Involvement Organization Program. My understanding is this change has been made functionally for some time now, but this is just putting it in aligning code language. It also removes the Citizen Involvement Coordinating Committee, which was required when this program was created in 2011. My understanding is it never formally met, never formally formed. And so this is, again, an alignment of code with the existing practice. And then finally, we reduced the required minimum number of general meetings from two per year to one per year. CIOs may continue to meet at whatever rate they like, but this just reduces the threshold for remaining an active organization. So again, CIO leadership is aware and supportive of these changes. And then if we go to the final slide here, those are the updates I have for you. And Robin and I are more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions for Quinn and Robin? Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Thank you very much. I want to insert this comment here once again, that instead of acronym, the CIOs, if we could spell it out, simply because people don't know what the acronyms are. They don't. And if we're trying to participate, give more participation, let's spell it out. Not everyone is like us where we're being taught all these acronyms all the time. They're just driving by and see CIO. They think it's probably some policy situation. I prefer that we spell it out clearly and then move from there. That way we can encourage more involvement.

Thank you.

Councilor Reyes.

Yeah, I'd like to add to that. Maybe I think the word organization is the longest out of that. Committee involvement is a lot easier, so maybe committee involvement. committee or something like that, but I agree. I know that for a lot of people that might seem community involvement sounds like, oh, I want to be involved in the community, whereas organization sounds like a very formal, you know, you need to go through some steps in order for you to be a part of that. So I'm just thinking out of just language and words. Thank you.

Council Brooks.

Like to make a motion It's this be first reading second reading that whole thing okay, just say no for a first reading by title only of Ordinate ordinance number 1 4 5 8 dash 26. I'm gonna name the 12 to municipal code chapter To update the CIO boundary map and other changes second

I have a motion and a second for reading by title only of ordinance number 1458-26, submitting to Alton Municipal Code Chapter 11-09 to update the CIO boundary map and other changes. Any discussions and motions? Councilor Sacco?

Aye.

Councilor Hillier?

Aye.

Councilor Reyes?

Yes.

Councilor Gonzalez? Yes. Councilor Brooks?

Aye.

Councilor Pratt?

Aye.

Chair votes aye. Dean Adams? Aye.

An ordinance amending Tualatin Municipal Code Chapter 11-09 to update the Community Involvement Organization boundary map and other changes.

I'll make a motion for a second reading of ordinance number 1458-26 amending the Tualatin Municipal Code to update the CIO boundary maps by title only. Second. Second.

I have a motion and a second for a second reading of ordinance number 1458-26, amending to all municipal code chapters 11-09 to update the CIO boundary map and other changes by title only. Any discussion on the motions? Councilor Sacco?

Aye.

Councilor Hillier?

Aye.

Councilor Reyes?

Yes.

Councilor Gonzalez? Aye. Councilor Brooks?

Aye.

Councilor President Pratt?

Aye.

Chair votes aye, unanimous.

An ordinance amending twilight municipal code chapter 11-09 to update the CIO boundary map and other changes.

Okay. I'll make a motion to approve ordinance number 1459-26. Adopt. Second.

I have a motion and a second to adopt Ordinance Number 1458-26, amending to Ultimate Municipal Code Chapter 11-09, to update the CIO boundary map and other changes. Any discussion on the motions? Councilor Sacco?

Aye.

Council Hilliard?

Aye.

Councilor Reyes?

Yes.

Councilor Gonzalez? Aye. Councilor Brooks?

Aye.

Councilor President Pratt?

Aye.

Chair votes aye. The ordinance is adopted. All right.

Thank you. Thank you.

Moving on to item number two in general business, consideration of ordinance number 1459-26, adjusting building inspection program fees for the City of Tualatin. Welcome, Samantha. You're hanging in there.

Good evening. My name is Samantha and I'm the building official here. My goal is to do that faster, my presentation faster than what he did. Oh, hello. Okay, so building fee schedule adjustment. Oh, just a second. Who we are. We're reiterating where there's eight of us in the division, primarily responsible for ensuring the safety and inhabitants of Tualatin by enforcing statewide building codes. We do this primarily through plan review, inspections, and code enforcement. BUILDING FUND BACKGROUND. BUILDING PERMIT FEES ARE REQUIRED TO BE DEDICATED TO THE BUILDING USE. IN 2023 WE INCREASED THE FEES WITH THE GOAL OF COVERING COSTS AND RIGHT SIZING THE CONTINGENCY FUND. With rising costs of personnel and materials and everything else, we are finding that that is not happening. So staff came before you on July 27th with different proposals and was giving the recommendation to come back with a 15% adjustment and with a 5% annual adjustment to continue yearly. This is the updated schedule showing where we would be at with that 15% increase for the residential. So we're on the very low end of that schedule for all of those different organizations. Commercial, we are still on the lower end, so keeping our fees economical for everybody. And then this is a list of all of the different changes that we discussed when I was here last time and plugging holes in the fee schedule that we don't have and then updating some of the other fees. And staff is recommending the ordinance be approved for 1459-26. Short and sweet. Sorry. Questions? Questions for Samantha.

I'll make a motion to for first reading by title only of ordinance number one four five nine dash twenty six adjusting building inspection program fees for the city of twelve second

I have a motion and a second for a reading by title only of ordinance number 1459-26, Adjusting Building Inspection Program Fees for the City of Tualatin. Any discussion on those motions? Councillor Sacco? Aye. Councillor Hilliard? Aye. Councillor Reyes? Yes. Councillor Gonzalez? No. This is reading. Okay. It's fine. Yes, reading. Okay. Councillor Brooks?

Aye.

Councillor President Pratt? Aye. Chair votes aye. Anonymous.

An ordinance adjusting building inspection program fees for the City of Tualatin.

I'll make a motion to read by title only ordinance number 1459-26, adjusting building inspection program fees. Second.

I have a motion and a second for second reading by title only of ordinance number 1459-26, adjusting building inspection program fees. I'll receive a 12th. Any discussion? No motions. On those motions. Councilor Sacco?

Aye.

Council Hilliard? Aye. Councilor Reyes? Yes. Councilor Gonzales? Yes. Council Brooks? Aye. Council President Pratt?

Aye.

Chair votes aye. It's unanimous.

An ordinance adjusting building inspection program fees for the City of Tualatin.

Make motion to approve. Adopt. Adopt. Ordinance number 1459-26, adjusting building inspection program fees. Second.

I have a motion and a second to adopt ordinance number 1459-26. Any discussion on the motions? Councillor Sacco?

Aye.

Councillor Hilliard?

Aye.

Councillor Reyes?

No.

Councillor Gonzalez? No. Councillor Brooks?

Aye.

President Pratt?

Aye.

Chair votes aye. It's 5-2. We'll be scheduled for the next meeting. All right. Okay. Item number three, consideration of recommendation from the Council Committee on Advisory Appointments. Thank you. Just giving a report.

Maria, do you want to kick us off? Councilor Reyes, do you want to kick us off?

Sure, yeah. I thought we did this last meeting that I missed. Sorry. YEAH, SO WE MET WITH I WOULD SAY FOUR OR FIVE INDIVIDUALS LAST MEETING. I CAN'T REMEMBER. IT WAS IN AUGUST. AND IT WAS JUST LIKE ALWAYS WE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT WERE FOR THE PARK. Yeah, there were tea parks and they were just all parks. Yeah, I do. And there was like one spot available. So it was really hard to pick, but like always, people that, come and interview and I just want to say thank you because it takes a lot of time and effort and willing to do something for our community in order for you to be a part of this. So it's always an honor to do that and I just can't wait to see more people come and wanting to be a part of this. So if you're out there and there's positions, there are positions available, please, please SIGN UP, SEND AN EMAIL OR JUST INQUIRE BECAUSE WE DO NEED MORE PEOPLE THAT THERE ARE OTHER COMMITTEES THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR PEOPLE TO FILL IN. SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COUNCILOR REYES. SO WE HAD FOUR APPLICANTS FOR THE PARKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND WE'VE SELECTED Johanna Horner with a term expiring February 28-29. So I'd like to make a motion to appoint Johanna Horner to the Parks Advisory Committee.

Second.

I have a motion second to appoint Johanna to the Parks Committee. Any discussion on those motions? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Abstentions? It's unanimous. That moves us to items removed from consent. We had no items removed from consent. Council Communications, I just have one reminder. I'm going to put Kevin on the spot. Can you please remind Councillors about what the rules are since we've pushed the hearing to October 12th about discussions and stuff like that, that ex parte and all that good stuff still applies?

I assume. That's correct, Mayor. And so this matter has been continued to your October 12, 2026 council meeting. So I would recommend that you not have any contact with any interested party regarding the substance of this agenda item. And we'll take it up again on October 12. And if you do happen to have expertly contacts, you might want to just disclose those at the hearing that is continued and we start again with deliberations before you begin deliberations.

All right. Thank you So yeah regular council communications Council Brooks.

I just want to take a point of personal privilege to thank Frank for helping me with my laptop I had an issue with our password for over a year and Could not get any help and Frank finally resolved it for me It cost me a whole new computer and everything and I really appreciate it. Thank you

Any other communications? Council Hillier?

Move to adjourn. Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Good night. Everyone have a good evening.