Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Lindsay, will you please call the roll? Or equivalent?

I'm going to call the roll since we didn't set up a mic in the back.

Oh, sorry, Lindsay. Alright.

I have

a little different setup tonight. So commissioner Parancini. Commissioner Coon. Here. Commissioner Weimer. Here. Commissioner Vale has an excused absence. Commissioner Heldick.

Here.

Ledek. Pardon me. Vice chair Thompson? Here. And chair Beers.

Here. Thanks, Aquila. Are there any announcements or planning commission communications? Okay. Next step is approval of draft minutes for the 05/21/2025 meeting. We don't have a quorum of the right people, to approve those, so that'll have to get postponed to another meeting. But we just didn't have the right people here. We needed, Britney because there's so many of there were others absent that one. So move on to June 18 meeting. Is there a motion to approve the draft minutes of the 06/18/2025 meeting?

Second. Thank you. I think, Zach, you were gone for that one. So with the exception of Zach, all those in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you.

Oh, Chair, is your I believe his mic is on. It's red. Yeah. You may need to, pull it slightly closer.

Okay. Thank you. If that's not working.

Yes. That sounds better.

Okay. I'll leave it right there then. Okay. Is there a motion on the draft minutes, for 07/16/2025?

I have a correction.

Oh, for that, for that meeting?

Yeah. Okay. It's, July 16 page two paragraph seven. The minutes say, in that paragraph, if any natural resource would affect the water reservoir, those words need to be flipped to read if the water reservoir would affect any natural resource. K.

Alright. Okay. Thanks. Alright. Thanks, Alan. Okay. Any or excuse me. Thanks, Randy. Any other modifications to the July 16 draft minutes? Move approval. It's been moved. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ursula. All those in favor, it looks like we got all, but Alan and Chanel were there that day. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. That's minutes done. Next up, we've got communication from the public on an item that is not on the agenda. I have a few slips here that are blank as to what, topic they wanna talk about. Tony Carrasco? Hello? Do you wanna talk about the lamb? Are you for or against or neutral?

We

we don't wanna listen to the comment right now. I'm just trying to sort into those that are in favor or those that are opposed.

Make it Then

I'll We're sure. It sounds like it would be in the against pile as they are currently compiled.

Okay. Thank you, Kevin. Alright. Wendy Valise from PGE. Okay. Thank you. And Chris McEnroe. It's for the Ram. Okay. Thank you. Jamie Whiteman. Am I pronouncing that right? Oh, sorry. Whiteman. Okay.

Thank you. Alright. Thanks for helping me sort those out. Are there any comments in the room or online for items that aren't the land topic tonight? Okay. Thank you. Okay. So we'll get right into the public hearing portion. This is a quasi judicial hearing, so there's lots of things for me to read. So I'm gonna get right to it.

The first item is a public hearing on industrial master plan I m p 24 dash zero zero zero one. Add one lot to the industrial master plan area, modify standards listed, chapters 60 twos, including setbacks, building height, remove alternate landscaping standards, and replace parking lot landscaping standards with the standards effective on 07/08/2025. The total site area is 75.96 acre site in the Manufacturing Park Planning District located at 1155 Through 11361 Southwest Levitton Drive. Section b, conduct of the hearing. The public hearing this evening will be conducted as follows.

One, open the public hearing in requesting the staff report. Two, entry of additional correspondence received into the record. Three, inviting testimony in the following order. Applicant or applicant's representative followed by proponents followed by neutral testimony followed by opponents and wrapping up with rebuttals by the applicant or representative. Four, closing of the public hearing.

Five, questions of staff, if any, by the planning commission. Six, discussion by the planning commission. A decision may be made by the planning commission at the close of this hearing for the matter or the matter may be continued to a time and date certain in the future. If the matter is reset to a time and date certain in the future, this will be the only notice of that date you receive. Part c, testimony.

If you wish to speak, please wait for me to ask for your testimony and raise your hand or select the raise hand button in Zoom if you are joining us virtually. I will 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 the hearing will be recorded. Please keep testimony concise and to the point.

The criteria for approval are contained in 12 in development code 32 procedures, Twalton development code 33.05 industrial master plan, and Twalton development code 62 manufacturing park zone. Specific information regarding the applicable criteria can be found in the analysis and finding sections of the staff report, IMP two four dash zero zero zero one dated 08/20/2025. These are the criteria the planning commission must use in making its decisions. All testimony and evidence must be directed toward these criteria or any other criteria in the comprehensive plan or other land use regulations which the person testifying believes apply to the decision. Please relate any testimony to the listed criteria.

The application before the planning commission 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 planning commission is limited only to those issues that address compliance with the applicable criteria. Failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the planning commission and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Failure to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the planning commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Prior to the the excuse me.

Prior to the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments, or testimony regarding the application. The planning commission must grant the request by either continuing the public hearing to a date certain or leaving the record open for at least an additional seven days to allow a dent additional written evidence, arguments, or testimony to be presented. Part d, disclosure. At this time, I ask members of the planning commission 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 from the hearing.

I'll start out. I saw the Safe Tualatin Road website signs at the beginning of the year, and I went to it on my phone and realized within about a minute that this was coming to the planning commission. So I quit reading and haven't been back. So that's my ex parte contact. I do plan to participate in the hearing.

I guess Here's your mic. There we go. I'll go next. I have, of course, I have a daughter at Hazelbrook. I've seen all the save tolls from road signs frequently. I've had no contact other than that.

I do have friends that live in

the area who have tried to talk to me about it, and

I've told them I can't. We've avoided I've avoided the newspaper and everything. We've we've known it was coming in front of us for a long time, so I've been very careful about not seeing anything about it. So Similarly,

I live nearby and have driven past the signs regularly, on the advice of chair beers. I did not go to the website and have, also, rebuffed request to to speak to me on the topic from from friends and other locals.

I too read science on Tualatin Road. That's as far as I've gone with this with this issue. I'm completely unbiased as far as the ultimate decision here goes.

Anyone else? This is Chair?

Oh, go

Before just to make clear for the record, it based on anything you learned outside of this hearing, is does any commissioner is it gonna be impossible? Are you gonna be incapable of making a decision based on the record before you today?

No.

No. No?

No. Does

any member of the audience wish to challenge, any planning commission member's impartiality? Okay. Part e, staff report. City staff will now present the staff report.

And that will be Keith. So Alright. Lindsay is bringing up the presentation, and Keith will present the staff report to you.

Thank you. Keith, make sure you turn your mic on.

I appreciate that. Yeah. Okay. We did receive some additional information. We received comments for, comments against. There is one letter from Ian Cason dated 08/20/2025 in which they talks about utilizing chapter 73 c. This was kind of a formality, that they they, provided to us. So, and I think that's about it. Okay. So good evening, commissioners.

My name is Keith Leonard. I'm an associate planner here with the city of Tualatin. And tonight, I'm going to be presenting an industrial master plan, I m p 24 dash zero zero zero one. McKenzie, on behalf of Lam Research Corporation, is requesting to amend setback standards, building height, and remove alternate landscaping standards memorialized under the previous industrial plan. The addition of one lot to the IMP area is also being requested.

The subject proposal is a type three land use case subject to a quasi judicial hearing before the Tualatin Planning Commission. I'd like to enter it and I just covered that stuff, so we're good with there that. So sorry about that. I actually put it in my notes. Didn't know I did.

There we go.

To provide some background, the subject site was formally comprised of three lots totaling 58 acres of land that zoned manufacturing park. A fourth lot, Tax Lot 100, illustrated in a later slide will be added to the IMP area increasing the total IMP area to 75.96 acres. The property is occupied by Lam Research Corporation and is improved with seven buildings and associated parking and landscaping and other improvements. Important dates include an application being submitted on 07/08/2024. It was deemed incomplete on 07/24/2024 and deemed complete at the request of the applicant on 12/16/2024.

The city sent out three notices due to the applicant asking for the public hearings to be delayed in order to adjust their plans. The final public hearing notice was sent on 05/16/2025. On 07/21/2025, we received updated materials that reduced the proposed development size, moved buildings construction south toward Leviton Drive, and removed proposed employee access from Tualatin Road. The industrial master plan process is intended to achieve a campus like setting while lying while allowing development to occur independently on a number of smaller parcels within a plan area. An industrial master plan is optional for any development in the manufacturing park zone and may be used to modify development standards including setbacks, building height, and lot size listed in chapter 62 manufacturing park zone in the development code.

The applicant has asked to add tax lot 100, adjust building setbacks, parking and circulation area setbacks, building height standards. Additionally, requested to remove a condition of approval three e, which provided alternate landscaping standards. The applicant also requested to the addition of chapter 73 c parking lot standards from the development code that was effective on 07/08/2024. The lot outlined in this aerial photo shows Tax Lot 100 which will be added to the IMP area. This tax lot is about 18 acres increasing the IMP area from about 58 acres to almost 76 acres.

The applicant has asked to retain previous IMP conditions that modified building side yard side and rear yard setbacks to zero feet for lots under a land ownership. Other abutting lots would still be subject to the setbacks listed in table 62 dash two of chapter 62. That's the MP zone. The building code requirements will still be applicable, and staff does support this condition. Sun's catching me right in the eyes.

Parking and circulation setbacks would remain zero feet for lots owned by Lam. Setbacks for lots not owned by Lam, would be increased from 9.5 feet to 10 feet. Staff support this condition as well. Maximum building heights would be increased from 70 to 85 feet for lots owned by Lam. The minimum building setback to the north property line along to Ellington Road is a 100 feet.

The closest existing building located about is located about 540 feet south of Tualatin Road. The proposed buildings will be constructed even further south than the closest existing buildings. The applicant has has proposed parking areas abutting Tualatin Road effectively working as a buffer. Staff also supports this condition. Previous development codes have permitted modifications to the parking lot landscaping as noted in condition approval three e.

This condition provided for up to 12 contiguous parking spaces before a landscape island is constructed. The current development code requires landscaping islands every eight parking spaces. These alternate landscaping design standards were provided to address grade changes from north to south within the IMP area. The applicant has asked that condition three e from the previous IMP be removed. Alternatively, the applicant has asked to include chapter 73 c, which was in effect on 07/08/2024, and which includes the parking lot landscaping standards.

Staff does support this condition as well. Illustrated on this slide is the proposed that's not it. Yeah. The applicant is proposing through a separate architectural review to construct a 120,000 square foot office building. This is wrong.

It's not forwarding. There we go. The applicant is proposing through a separate architectural review to construct a 120,000 square foot office building, 90,000 square foot lab building, 29,000 square foot utility building, and 2,230 square foot storage building for a total of 241,230 square feet of building construction. The existing bulk gas storage yard would be also be expanded. For site access, the applicant is proposing one new truck driveway access from Leviton Drive while utilizing three existing driveways from 108th Avenue, three existing driveways from Leviton Leviton Drive.

Additional landscaping and new site circulation for the employees are proposed with architectural review AR 24 Dash 0002. Illustrated on this slide is a proposed site plan for AR 24 Dash 0002, which is a separate application that will be heard by the ARB on September 10. The dark gray areas are proposed for new parking and site circulation construction. The bluish rectangles are the new buildings. The light blue rectangle just south of the northernmost Hundred And 8th driveway is the existing bulk gas yard which is proposed for an expansion.

Before I continue, I wanna recognize that the city received a large number of public comments. The city appreciates all the effort that was made by the public to get involved in this their city government and the development review process. However, the public comments will be more appropriately considered by the architectural review during the public hearing on September 10. The ARB hearing will consider the applicant's plans in detail, including traffic, noise, and other applicable standards required by the architectural review process. Tonight, we are only considering proposed modifications to building setbacks, site circulation, and parking setbacks, building height, and parking lot landscaping standards.

The development code includes approval criteria for the development code includes approval criteria for industrial master plans in chapter 33 dot zero five zero. Staff has provided an analysis and findings summary as as attachment a to address the criteria as well as suggested conditions of approval in written order as attachment c. For the first approval criteria, staff found that the subject site is improved as a research and development campus that is currently served by public facilities. The findings fur further further recognize that the development impacts to the public facilities are reviewed under the corresponding architectural review process. It is staff's recommendation the public facility conditions included under IMP 22 dash zero zero zero one that was previous IMP be carried over into IMP 24 dash zero zero zero one.

The recommended conditions recognize the architectural review process and reviewing public facilities to serve new development as well as the applicant's obligation to maintain easements as necessary. For the second approval criteria, staff found that the previous IMP established building materials must consist of masonry, sandstone, metal siding, and window glazing and include earth tone color palette to remain compatible with character and the general vicinity. Staff continues to memorialize these IMP standards in condition of approval three. The applicant has requested to modify building setbacks, site circulation, and parking setbacks, building height, and parking lot landscaping memorialized under previous IMPs. For the building setbacks, previous building setbacks to lots owned by Lam would remain zero feet and other lots not owned by Lam or adjacent to a street would be subject to the development standards in place when an application is submitted.

For parking and circulation setbacks, the applicant would retain or the application would retain modified parking and circulation setbacks for yards under common ownership at zero feet. Setbacks for other yards adjacent to private property would be increased from the previous setback of 9.5 feet to 10 feet. The maximum building height would be increased from 70 to 85 feet with the building setback being a 100 feet, the minimum setback for lots north of Leviton Drive. Oh, let me back up one. Let's talk about landscaping too.

The applicant has asked to delete the alternate parking lot landscaping standards modified by previous IMPs. These alternate standards emanated from the 2000 IMP zero zero dash zero one. The standards allowed for up to 12 contiguous parking spaces without a landscape island. The rationale for this allowance was due to grade changes from the land campus at the land campus from north to south. Additionally, the applicant has asked to add 73 c parking standards, which also contain parking lot landscaping standards.

The version of 73 c that would be applied is the one that was effective when they submitted their application on 07/08/2024. Based on the staff analysis and findings as well as the application materials demonstrating compliance with the applicable approval criteria, staff respectfully recommends approval of the subject industrial master plan application I m p 24 dash zero zero zero one with conditions of approval included in the written order. I would like to note that staff made updates to the staff report, architect attachment a analysis and findings, attachment b presentation, and attachment c the planning commission order. These changes were not substantive. Instead they address Scribner's errors and changes to the specific section referenced for parking lot landscaping standards to chapter 73 c.

Chapter 73 c contains the parking lot landscaping standards in one of the sections in this chapter. I will now briefly provide a preview of the conditions of approval on the following slides. For reference, I've included bold and underlying text indicating what standards have new text. A strike through indicates a standard that would be removed if approved by the Planning Commission. The general public facilities location design color and materials are the same as the previous I m p 22 dash zero zero zero one.

With the exception, we've added sections of the Tualatin development code to justified easements declarations being recorded and maintained. This slide illustrates the removal of the reference of Tax Lot 100 being owned by JAE due to it now being owned by Lam Research and added to the IMP area. The reference to development standards listed in table 60 two-two addressing building setbacks will be added. This slide illustrates the former parking and circulation area setbacks from 9.5 feet from the lots not owned by Lam to 10 feet. This slide illustrates the maximum building height being increased to 85 feet at the required setback of a 100 feet.

As a reminder, the proposed building in AR 24 Dash 0002 will be well over 500 feet from the south from Southwest Wellton Road. This slide illustrates alternate parking lots landscaping design standards that the applicant has asked to be removed from the IMP. Finally, this slide illustrates the addition of chapter 73 c parking standards that were in place at the time the application was submitted on 07/08/2024. The planning commission is asked to make a decision regarding I m p twenty four dash zero zero zero one. The application can be approved as proposed or with modifications.

The planning commission could deny the application. Finally, although the hearing could be continued to a future date, a continued hearing could be tight in terms of timing. A decision must be issued and appeals must be finalized by 12/16/2025 to meet state deadline requirements. Staff respectfully recommends that if possible, a decision is rendered tonight. And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Keith. Commissioners, do you have any do have any questions for Keith right now? Go ahead, Randy.

Yeah. Pete, the number of questions for you. Could we go back to that first slide that shows the timeline, please? There it is. I think just for the record, that date next to the bottom should be 07/21/2025. Correct.

Okay. Yep. That was a typo.

Just for the record. Okay.

Thank you.

But similar to this, your last comment about meeting this deadline, this is a state imposed requirement. What are the consequences if we don't meet it?

I think I'll defer to the city attorney to talk about that.

And thank you, commissioner. I I haven't checked double checked that deadline, but if that was correct, and I have no reason to doubt it at this point, what would happen if we don't make a decision within the statutory time frame? The applicant could seek a writ of mandamus in the circuit court to to get their application force the city to approve their application as submitted.

To approve it? Yes. Not just But even though the applicant themselves has delayed the hearing twice, we're still bound by that original schedule from their initial application date.

There there's a a couple of timelines. There's a hundred twenty day timeline, and then there's an I I believe that one year timeline that applies ultimately to to the this particular application.

In other situations, we've had the applicant has been given the opportunity to waive any kind

of a deadline. That's not applicable here? I we can certainly work with the applicant on that. There's they're not forced to seek a writ of mandamus. K. So far, the city has been working in good faith with the applicant, so I have no doubt that, if this moves forward and the the the, you know,

planning

commission ultimately approves some form of an application and the ARB approves an application, we should keep moving forward.

Okay. Good. Thanks. Keith, can you just briefly describe the notice requirement? Who who receives notice of the public hearing?

Sure. So I've worked for a couple of different cities here in in Oregon, and I will tell you that 2 Ellington actually has a larger notification area than Newburgh or Happy Valley. They go to a thousand feet. And beyond that, if it bisects a plat, then all the people beyond that thousand foot point are also notified. We also notified all the CIOs in the city as well. So

And that that radius pertains to both residential and manufacturing zones? Yep. Of those?

They they kinda draw a a kind of a boundary around the exterior of the lot, and then it it's projected out a thousand feet in all directions.

Directions. Gotcha. Gotcha. Okay. And there seem to be some back and forth about this parking lot landscape requirement. We got a late notice yesterday or today that some other agreement's been made. I guess bottom line is is whatever is being presented, does that mean more or less landscaping compared to what was originally described?

Sure. What it is the section that I had put directly in the the findings and analysis was a specific section in chapter 73 c. Instead, we're calling the whole chapter as part of that. So it's more encompassing, I guess. And it was the same regulations that were in place on 07/08/2024.

Okay. And and then finally, and this is the one that can kinda confuses me the most. The architectural review board, it sounds like, is going to be addressing the traffic issue. And as as we're aware, there's a lot of testimony about concerns with traffic. And if I'm reading the plan correctly, I think it it stated that 544 new parking spaces are going to be built, of which a 127 were previously approved, but that still leaves 417 subject to this particular process.

In the past, when we've had land use actions, the planning commission has discussed the state transportation planning rule, traffic impact analyses. And so I'm curious why with if if they're gonna be 544 new parking spaces, that seems to suggest that there will be more traffic entering at least to Walletton Road. And I'm I'm kinda wondering why the planning commission isn't getting involved with that, why it's delegated to the architectural review board.

Sure. We do have Mike McCarthy, online, so he may be able to go into some of this. But, generally, when the the transportation planning rule is utilized, there could be a, a rezoning or a master plan amendment. There's other, times that it's required. This is not a specific submittal item for industrial master plan.

The chapter or, section 33 dot zero five zero, I believe, two, BI specifically states what is reviewed. And one of those is not chapter 75 or 74. 70 those chapters more deal with and even mention specifically the transportation safety or the transportation rule.

There is the one and and we've had some discussion about this, the development code of 33.05 subsection six a allows the planning commission commission to impose in addition to the regulations and standards expressly specified in this chapter other conditions found necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding property or neighborhood or the city as a whole. So does that not give the planning commission broader authority to address transportation issues?

I Mike, are you there? Hello. I am here. And, I think that last question, I think I'd defer to our city attorney on kind of what rules give which board's, decision making authority on what matters.

And thank you, commissioner and and members of the planning commission. So, generally, yes, that's what the code says, and you have to you have to give it its plain meaning. So there are situations, and I I believe it's true, that the a planning commission could impose conditions of approval, related to traffic or noise or anything, like that in a, a particular circumstance. The issue here is whether this is the appropriate circumstance given the particular application before you today. I know there is a corresponding application that will be heard by a in another form, in another, architectural review board, but there is some case law on that.

So you have to justify your conditions of approval. You know, one of the things you have to have is that there's gotta be a correlation between the impacts of the proposed, application that's pending before you today, not some potential future one that could increase traffic or noise or something like that, and the, possible condition of approval that you might impose tonight. That would be one thing. Another one is a a particular condition of approval, and I don't know what those would be tonight, what you would actually craft, whether you even have enough information to impose a condition of approval that could withstand legal review. But if you did, is it is it is it necessary, I I would I would say, to ensure compliance with the applicable criteria that Keith listed today.

And, you know, we have we've there's gonna be public testimony on traffic and noise, and I don't think the the traffic issue is before you today. Okay. I think that the traffic issue, if it were to come before the architectural review board, they would certainly have the ability to review that matter and and determine whether a reasonable specific condition of approval related to that issue needed to be imposed or not.

Okay. I I understand what you're saying about conditioning and looping it back to reports that we don't have, studies we don't have. I was just confused why in the past the planning commission has addressed traffic issues, and now it's going to the architectural review board. That's I'm just not aware of their authority in that regard.

So

The first approval criteria did include transportation, though, did it not? Like, that you showed on your slide.

Just writing down the number.

Said all the public facilities are able to handle it. So I guess that's where I get confused too.

Okay. So, yeah, it's at this point, it's just do we have the the public facilities that can support this sort of development? And there is a letter in your packet from Mike McCarthy that that does indicate that our facilities do are adequate to support the the additional traffic. The other thing is TIA or transportation impact analysis is not part of this middle even for this type of application. With a conditional use permit, that's that's a good one.

Yeah. Because then, you know, you're deciding on a type of use that may or may not be something that is is good for one area where maybe it's not good for another area. So that transportation, the transportation rule is something that that generally comes into those sorts of things.

Thank you.

Any more questions from the commission for staff? Go ahead, Ellen.

Would be addressed to Keith and, Kevin. Just to be clear, I've I read over the weekend a couple 100 of the public comments on this issue, and I just wanna be crystal clear and not to be redundant that we we are not addressing tonight the issues of traffic, entrances to and from the the property, and noise. Is that correct?

Yes. It's it's setbacks. It's building heights and landscaping.

Alright. Any more questions from the commission? Alright. Part f, correspondence. Have we received any correspondence in this matter other than those items in the agenda materials?

I I just wanna point out that each of you have, two packets in front of you. So those are, comments that we've received since the packet was published. So that would be the additional correspondence.

Thank you, Akula. Alright. Moving to part g, public testimony. First up, the applicant may now present their proposal. There's a little button right here in the There we go.

Good evening, planning commissioners. My name is Ian Sisson. I'm a land use planner with McKenzie here to help present with, with the applicant team. So thank you first, Keith, for your presentation. That was very thorough.

We're gonna go through, our application materials and highlight some key points. Here is an aerial photo of the campus. And as Keith described, this industrial master plan application would add a new tax lot on the west side of the site that Lam recently acquired from JAE. And then you can see the existing development on the site and some under construction development, in the southeast corner of the site. That is the new building g that was approved back in 2022.

Here presenting with me today, we have Jennifer Oddurnas, director of site master planning for Lam, and Dana Krochuk, our land use camp council from Stolt Reefs. And I'll hand it over to Jen now to speak about Lam and some project background.

Hi. Thanks for having us here today. My name is Jennifer Auturnas. And as Ian stated, I'm a director at Lam Research and responsible for the site master planning. I've had the pleasure of being a part of Lam's growth over many years, specifically at the Tualatin campus, which was constructed almost twenty five years ago.

If you're new here and you don't know anything about Lam Research, we're a semiconductor company, and we play a critical role in the making of chips, not the kind you eat. And we power everything from, you know, smartphones and laptops and data centers, and we're a company that's driven by innovation. So, yes, the plan is to build a new lab, new, office building to support that lab, and then the utilities building to go with it. We have refined the initial plan to incorporate key stakeholder feedback and to better align with our business needs. The project will bring hundreds of jobs, and it'll stimulate local business growth.

This includes construction jobs as well as long term employment with industry leading compensation and benefits. And because is a stakeholder, or because Lam is a key player in global semiconductor ecosystem, and it's vital for our economic growth. We were also selected to receive funding from the Oregon Chips Act to expand our research and development operations. If you can flip to the next slide. You can read through some of the quotes from key officials.

Lam has made significant impact on the Tualatin community, including sponsoring community events, which many of our employees volunteer at. And we also support science and technology, education and youth, sponsor robotics programs, mentor students. We award college scholarships. We also support organizations like the Oregon Food Bank and the Tualatin Schoolhouse Pantry. And Lam offers additional, donation match even to our employees so that they can go out and give more to the initiatives that they value.

Our executives have served on the chamber board of directors and are actively participate participants, excuse me, in local committees and initiatives. We have received a tremendous outpouring of support from the local community, some of which are in the room today. So I just wanna thank the everybody who's participated in this hearing, those members who have written support or might be online and speak today in support of Lam. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. So next, know, Keith already described what an IMP is and what it does, so I won't belabor that point. But it's fitting for a campus like setting and allows Lam to have some alternative development standards as they continue to grow. And, you know, the the campus has been subject to an industrial master plan since 2000, and that has been iterated since then a couple of times. The key thing that I wanted to emphasize here is that an IMP does not approve any actual development, and the actual development will be reviewed in the future by the architectural review board.

Again, as Keith described, our request for this IMP, which will replace the current iteration, that was adopted in 2022, We'll add the new tax lot to the Lamb Campus boundary and the IMP boundary, and it will modify some of the development standards, including zero foot setbacks to the interior lot lines. So those lots that are, those lot lines that just separate land owned properties won't require any setback for buildings or for parking or circulation areas. The parking and circulation areas will be required to comply with a 10 foot setback to the exterior property lines shared with other owners, and buildings will continue to meet required setbacks to those property lines as well. There is a requested modification to the building height standard. In the MP zone, the maximum height is 85 feet already, but it requires a greater setback than, than closer to the road.

So when you're closer to the road, there's a a 70 foot building height limit. The future AR application includes a building that's a little bit higher than that. And so what we're requesting is to recoup, to remove the requirement to increase the setback to go up to 85 feet, and that would really only apply adjacent to Leviton Road, so within that industrial area. And as Keith mentioned, we're proposing to strike a previous modification to parking standards and replace that with the provisions of chapter 73 c that were in effect on the date this application was submitted, last July. Okay. Dana?

Good evening. My name is Dana Krafchuk. I'm a land use attorney at Stoll Reeves, and and I'm gonna talk about the approval criteria, but I wanted to also address some of the questions that were raised by the planning commission. Chair Beers started the hearing reading the script, and it just makes me think of when we're all on an airplane, and we get the instructions about where the emergency exits are. And and rarely does it sink in or do we listen, but it's probably some of most important information you'll hear all day on on an airplane.

The same is true about the approval criteria and what's relevant. Absolutely, the planning commission looks at transportation when the approval criteria tell you to, and those approval criteria are related to the impacts of development. So a conditional use approval, for example. You would have an actual building in front of you that has actual trips being generated that you would analyze on where those trips are going, or a zone change from a lower intensity zone to a higher intensity zone, that's when the transportation planning rule is an applicable criteria. The industrial master plan, all you're approving tonight, it's like a little mini zoning code that will apply to future development.

And the issues here are really quite limited. Lamb bought another piece of property, and we would like to be able to develop the the property as a single campus so that we can essentially ignore an internal lot line and not have to have a setback from it. So it's it's operates like a campus. No no more intense development is allowed. It's just where it's configured.

You know? And this is not what's proposed here. But if, for example, Lam said, we would like to, through this IMP, change the development standard so that we can build three times as much as would otherwise be allowed. Well, absolutely, transportation would be relevant to this IMP because you're increasing the amount of traffic that could be generated. You know, that would be something like a zone change.

That's not what's proposed tonight. There is no traffic impact or no noise impact through the IMP. The AR hearing, the architectural review hearing that's being held in a month where the actual buildings are proposed, that's when traffic is going to be discussed. That's when noise is going to be discussed. We don't want people to feel ignored.

The land use process is very formal and very specific. This is a very narrow issue this evening. There will be plenty of time, and Lam takes all of these comments very seriously. It's just gonna be addressed in a different form. And so, I I am concerned that people maybe misunderstood what the scope of this hearing is, and there will be time, you know, at the next hearing to talk about that.

So in terms of the approval criterion a about public facilities and services, you know, it says the word transportation. Your own city engineer in exhibit e to the staff report has opined that the transportation system is currently or is capable of supporting future traffic that's allowed by this IMP. Again, the IMP that tweaks some landscaping standards, that modifies some internal setbacks. I'm I'm not gonna put words in his mouth, but I expect one reason he's able to make that conclusion is he knows that through the AR process, the ARB is going to be very carefully and closely evaluating all of the transportation impacts. I think that's probably all I'm gonna say about those conditions or sorry, those approval criteria.

There was a question generally about, what about that section six of the code that allows the the planning commission to impose conditions generally, related to community welfare. I'm not remembering exactly what the the term is. Case law on that says, absolutely, the planning commission can exercise that broad authority to impose conditions, but those conditions have to address an impact. And here, there is no impact to transportation. So, again, if we were proposing something tonight that increased transportation, then it would be appropriate to impose conditions.

But because all that's at stake this evening is things like setbacks, there's just no correlation there to to transportation. Conditions of approval. We, agree with with the conditions of approval. You know, maybe one example is a condition talks about what types of materials should be used in the AR. You know, that's relevant to the approval criteria.

You know, the the vegetative buffer needs to be maintained and extended. That that's relevant to to to what we're talking about because we're talking about setbacks. Transportation and noise are are different from that. Next slide. So as our last item, you know, we have had a number of letters submitted to support.

We know you have a high volume of information to read, and sometimes letters come in late. So if you will indulge me, there's just a couple of very short letters that I I want to make sure are read into to the record. There's only three of them, and they're each short. The first one is from Intel. Dear chairbeers and commissioners, on behalf of Intel Corporation, I am pleased to voice our strong support for Lam Research's proposed expansion in Tualatin.

Lam is a global leader in the semiconductor manufacturing equipment and Oregon's largest semiconductor equipment company. For more than twenty years, they have been a vital part of our state's technology ecosystem, employing over 3,800 people, investing millions in the community, and partnering to advance STEM education and workforce development. The TuX expansion project will bring hundreds of millions in investment, create high paying jobs, and strengthen The US semiconductor supply chain. Lam's expanded r and d operations will accelerate innovation in chipmaking technologies at a time of unprecedented manufacturing complexity. We urge the planning commission to approve Lam's application and help ensure Oregon remains a global hub for the semi for semiconductor innovation.

The next one is from the Washington County Chamber of Commerce. On behalf of the Washington County Chamber of Commerce, which represents more than 800 businesses and over 75,000 jobs across the region. We appreciate the opportunity to submit written testimony in support of Lam's research industrial master plan. Lam's proposed expansion is about more than adding space. It reflects a commitment to global competitiveness, local prosperity, and long term resilience for our regional economy.

Washington County is a key part of Oregon's semiconductor corridor, and Lam serves as one of its anchors. Their work powers not only advanced technologies, but also careers, partnerships, and innovation that ripple across our community. As Tualatin's largest employer, Lam has demonstrated what it means to be a deeply invested corporate citizen. This expansion aligns with the values we consistently hear from businesses, stability, opportunity, and shared growth. The project will create workforce opportunities across a wide range of skill levels from engineers and technicians to logistics providers and local small business suppliers.

These ripple effects are precisely the kind of economic impact that strengthen our region. We are particularly impressed with Lam's collaborative approach. Their partnership with local agencies, community organizations, and educational institutions demonstrate a commitment to investing in people as much as facilities. This approach ensures that the benefits of the expansion are broad based and enduring. For these reasons, the Washington County Chamber of Commerce strongly supports Lam Research's industrial master plan and respectfully urges its approval.

This project represents the kind of forward looking investment that will strengthen both Tualatin and our regional economy for years to come. Very last one, thank you, is from Work Systems. On behalf of Workforce Development Board for Washington And Multnomah Counties, I am writing to express our strong support for Lam Research's application to expand in the city of Tualatin. Lam Research has been a cornerstone of our regional economy for more than thirty years, consistently providing family wage jobs and creating opportunities for residents to build rewarding long term careers. This expansion represents far more than new construction.

It represents hundreds of high quality jobs in advanced manufacturing and technology, sectors that are vital to the future competitiveness of our workforce and community. These are career pathway jobs that provide stability, benefits, and advancement opportunities, ensuring that workers from diverse backgrounds have access to meaningful employment. Lam Research has demonstrated a deep commitment to workforce development. The company partners with school, training providers, and community organizations to prepare residents for careers in high-tech industries. Their investment in internships, apprenticeships, and skill building programs has helped grow the local talent pipeline and inspired young people to pursue STEM related careers.

This new expansion will further strengthen these partnerships and expand opportunities for the next generation of workers. In addition to the tax revenues and community benefits that will support schools, parks, and public safety, the workforce benefits of this project are profound. The expansion will help retain and attract talent, support upward mobility, and ensure that our region continues to compete on a global stage in advanced manufacturing. For these reasons, I strongly urge you to approve Lam's application. It is an it is an investment not only in our community's economy, but also our workers, our students, and our shared future.

Thank you for your consideration. So those are all of our comments. We would be happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, we'll, cede the floor to the next folks who get to speak.

Alright, commissioners. If you have questions of the applicant.

I have a quick question. So you're increasing the height to eight I think it's on. You're increasing the height to 85 feet for buildings. Does that did you remove all setbacks? That's what I was

trying to remember. So the setbacks that are being erased are the internal lot line setbacks. For the building height, your code currently allows 85 feet. But once you get above 70 feet, there's a ratio for how far back a building needs to be set. So it'd have to be set back 127 feet from the from the road from Leviton. Okay. And we would like that 85 foot building to be a 100 feet. So it's it's we're it's technically a height adjustment, but it's really a setback adjustment for a taller building Oh. If that makes sense. And it's what is precisely proposed in the AR. So the the ARB will be able to visualize and and see what that looks like.

Just to clarify and and restate to make sure that we're understanding correctly, you are only proposing an adjustment to the height requirements and the setbacks along the sole interior line that would join the two different lots to each other. None of the, places where it abuts to surrounding properties outside of your property?

There is one adjustment, related to exterior property lines, and that is for build the building that's 85 feet. It will be allowed to be a 100 feet from Leviton instead of a 127 feet from Leviton. It's called a height adjustment because that's the portion of the code where this setback ratio is described. For everywhere else, it's the the typical setbacks other than, you know, the interior ignoring the interior lines.

Thank you. Mhmm.

On that height adjustment, you say it only applies against Lobleton right now, but in the future,

it would

apply against exterior boundaries adjacent to the other, non land properties. Correct?

So, for other street frontages, the other exterior where there's a residential zone so, for example,

a I'm not talking about residential. I'm talking about the the manufacturing properties to the south. It's my understanding that you're asking us to remove that ratio

Mhmm.

For extensions to 85 feet against nonresidential zones. And so in the future, this would, if you needed to, allow you to build closer to the property line to the south against property you don't own. Correct?

I I believe that's true. Maybe Keith or Ian, do you know the

The height standard is what speed so it would allow a taller building closer to Leviton Road. To the property even to the south that isn't owned by a well, that's zoned for manufacturing. You're asking us to So the south would be across Ploviton Road. Right?

Maybe pull up a site plan, and we can

Yeah.

Do we have a

It's it's in both our presentations, so whichever is easier to pull up.

Across the street at Fijini, not in the small corner.

Take a look here.

South.

Because I know you guys also own other property not in the. We don't.

The other side of. We don't own them. We lease them.

Land Research Building the UK that's gonna kill this? We

we lease them.

So the southern end of the property abuts Leviton. K. And so the request for the the so called height modification would allow an 85 foot building up to the setback there rather than requiring the increased setback for an 85 foot building. And in the narrative, you talk about that being the rationale for that is that buildings on the campus are already required to maintain large setbacks for the base zone in IMP, and the campus is so large that tall buildings would likely be internal to the site and not impactful to the neighboring industrial properties. What's the evidence that it won't be impactful to industrial properties adjacent to it?

You say it's likely not to.

Because those industrial properties are also allowed to have large buildings, and they still will be set back a 100 feet. So it's really just having them be only 27 feet closer to the road than would otherwise.

But those other buildings would be subject to the ratio requirement. Correct?

Because it's Unless they have their own IMP. Yeah.

Okay. And as I looked at your plan elevations, is the 85 foot structure what appears to be your some sort of an exhaust stack or something. Is that what's 85 feet? So the there's no building proposed that is 85 feet. The the height of Building X, which is the lab that's closest to Leviton Road, the blue rectangle oriented north south there, is not 85 feet tall at the setback line.

I think it's actually just over 70 feet. So you're actually just needing something just over 70 feet? Well, this industrial master plan, it is not for the development that's proposed in the AR. It's a long term industrial master plan that would continue to to apply for any future development project. That's what I'm trying to get at. The the plan elevations that you show show buildings that look like they have some sort of exhaust stacks on them. That's the lab building. Building That's Is that what we're talking about going in excess of 70 feet? That building would be in excess of 70 feet. And is it the stack height that we're talking about here?

No. It's to the top of the roof. The stacks aren't the stacks don't contribute to building height. They're they're not counted or measured as part of the building height. Oh, they're not? Correct.

Okay. Alright. If I could, I'd like to add some clarification to the setback. So the way the setbacks read, for properties North Of Leviton Leviton, and the setback is a 100 feet. For property South Of Levitton, the setback is actually 60 feet, not a 100.

K. Thanks

for that clarification. I have other ones, Bill.

Yeah. Please hold while you're reading.

Can, can you help us understand? You're asking for an expanded bulk gas yard. What does that look like? Is that one big tank, or is that a collection of gas cylinder type portable gas cylinders? Or what is that for?

You know, before somebody answers, we're not proposing that tonight. That's not part of the IMP. The architectural review board will evaluate that. So I I personally don't know the answer to that question because I prepared for this hearing and, you know, what was before the

You know, counselor, I I appreciated your lesson on the transportation planning rule and the concurrence with our council on conditioning. But back to the transportation issue, I don't mean to be argumentative here, but how how when you're proposing an additional 417 parking lots is one not to assume that that's gonna create more traffic. I understand it belongs to somebody else now, but I don't understand the logic.

Sure. So 400 new parking spaces will create new traffic, and that's what the ARB is going to evaluate. Tonight in the IMP, zero new parking spaces are proposed. Zero new buildings are proposed. All we're talking about in the IMP is the words on the page in terms of what the development standards will be for those 400 new parking spaces, what the landscaping of those parking spaces look like. So, yes, there is, you know, a a transportation impact analysis that's an inch thick that the ARB is gonna be talking about and where those those, those trips are going. It's just it's a different process than what we're talking about tonight.

And and the approval criteria says that the transportation system needs needs to be or can be made adequate to support the type of development that would go onto the campus. And so as Dana mentioned earlier, the city engineer has confirmed That's fine. That the the system is capable or can be made capable through potential improvements to meet increased demand that might be associated with future development. I appreciate that. My my question for the expanded gas, so just help me understand this.

And this goes to the people out there that have presented you a whole bunch of issues about the noise issue, which I understand we're not gonna be dealing with. However, the way I read the code, we could. But and it it it hinges on this. There's more than just anecdotal information coming from residents, which is some is rather unusual. I mean, there's an actual acoustical report in there that indicates that you've exceeded the city standard by a couple of decibels, which led is is pretty loud.

I guess what I'm trying to just clarify for my own information and for the purposes of us here, it appears from the testimony in the written record that the noise emanates from some facility that makes nitrogen on the property. And what I'm trying to understand is is the expanded bulk of gastroids somehow connected to that facility that makes the nitrogen? Is there a direct pipeline or other connection between the two?

So we also just received that acoustic study and are evaluating that and are preparing our response for the hearing where the gas facility is going to be prepared. So I I don't know the answer to that question, but that's the type of thing that acoustic experts will offer technical expertise on.

Sure. And there would be opportunity and appeals to go over that. But my question is, is the expanded gas bulk gas facility that you want in this plan connected to the facility that makes nitrogen?

I don't know the answer to to that. And and I also know that there's nothing in the IMP that's gas specific. So, I mean, if you're curious, we can find out from We

didn't bring

architects or Yeah. Or mechanical engineers tonight for for land use folks. Yeah. Okay.

And and, again, you know, that that sweeping authority to impose a condition, yes, you have it. But it has to be a condition related to an impact of the proposal that's before you, not an existing situation.

So if we approve the IMP with the expanded gas facility, bulk gas facility Sorry. The the IMP, the site plan on the screen is for the architectural review. So it Why are we seeing?

Because Well

Go ahead, Dana.

I I think that it's trying to help folks imagine why we need this. But if this IMP is approved tonight, none of those buildings are approved. We are going to have a hearing in a month where all of those buildings are are subject to review.

This this site plan demonstrates the location of buildings relative to lot lines as well as the location of parking lots relative to lot lines so that you could imagine what it looks like to have a zero foot setback to an interior lot line and what it looks like to have a 10 foot setback And so we would be approving where that facility would go in the future.

No. No. No. No. We would only be approving, an exception to the IMP per building x there in the southwestern corner of the lot.

Dana's term mini zoning code is a really good way of describing it. It's a it's a special land use plan with its own set of specific standards that only apply to the campus. And so what you're what you're approving is not a site plan for development. It's it's a code for the development.

So on on pages, you know, 23 through 26 of the staff report, you know, and it was up on the screen. There's a a chart with Yep. Breakthrough. Right. This is what you're approving. This is all you're approving. No site plan, no building, no gas plant, no parking lot. Just words that will be applied to those future development proposals. Right.

So you guys could have not set in any drawings or anything to Right. And and

the thinking, and maybe on retrospect, it made it more confusing, was because the applications are gonna be heard in such close succession, having it all packaged together so folks could understand, you know, what was coming next, I think it's, in hindsight, contributed to confusion.

Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant right now?

I think it may be useful, just as we've been reminded that the the the question before us is extremely narrow in scope and very specific in its wording and criteria. Keith, you were kind enough earlier to list out for us the specific I think you listed three specific issues that we are here to discuss tonight. Just for for the record, for these of those who are listening and and for our minutes going forward, would you be willing to just hit those points really quickly for us just to help us remember the scope, especially as we go into readings of many different comments that, do seem to go beyond that.

Sure. And I think the, Lam's presentation has those three points on it, if you can call up that. Yeah. It's all on one slide, so it's probably easier.

Slide four, I believe.

Couple further in advance.

Yeah. As as I see it in in the City Of Tualatin proposal, we list as the addition of Lot 2 S 122 B A 00100, the building setback, parking and circulation areas and their landscaping design, the building height, and then, yeah, the parking lot landscaping landscaping standards, and nothing further. We're not approving the construction. We're not approving approving a site plan. We're not approving use or noise or traffic or any of the other, valid issues that will be raised at other hearings, but only the specific IMP criteria as regards the variances that are requested for those topics. Nothing further.

Can I ask how you landed at 85 feet since you're not even going to 85 feet? Is that just where you guys felt like was a good height? Just wondering.

It's, again, it's the maximum height in the MP zone already, so, we're consistent with that number. That's where 85 came from. It just, again, allows that 85 foot height to be reached, closer to a property line without increasing the setback, with the ratio that Dana was explaining. Yeah. You read, I think, two or three letters into the record having to do with the workforce and the great community relationship that Lam has with the community. How is that relevant to the three criteria that we're addressing tonight?

Excellent question. It's relevant to the criteria, I think, in a bigger picture sense, you know, does it talk about adequacy of the transportation system? No. Does it talk about compatibility with the architecture? No. I forget what the third criteria is. In terms of condition, of approval in number six, It talks about Metro's functional plan title four, which is the, industrial and economic development section of Metro's code. It talks about the community welfare, kind of the whole of the city. On on the whole, it's it's a balance of the city. It's not just, you know, one person's opinion.

I think that's where it's relevant is in that more holistic view of, when conditions can be opposed imposed.

Yeah. And to add on to that, you know, the IMP is designed to allow campus like development, and Lam, by its nature, is how they operate as a company, needs a campus to to to develop and grow. So this project allows them to develop and grow their campus within the parameters of the IMP, which was designed for that purpose.

If we were to approve the, industrial master plan is written, could you put an 85 building a 100 feet away from Tolleson Road? No.

No. There's a special setback that applies when you're near a residential district. And, Keith, you probably know it better than I do. I think it's only 28 feet tall, within 100 feet, 50 feet. But the the short answer is no because the residential, lot lines are are treated differently.

Okay. Commissioners, any other questions for the applicant?

Follow-up on that. Can you verify that it's 28 feet and not 85 feet?

Adjacent to a residential.

Adjacent to residential.

Is. It's Wallet

and Rolling.

That's what the the code states. Yeah. Yeah.

28 feet.

It does. Yeah. K. Sixty one three hundred.

It's it's 28 feet, and then it increases at a 45 degree angle as you go back into the site.

But, worth noting that the request they've made is only to the the internal to the the industrial area, not to the residential.

And I believe, Keith, that

it is further back than on the south side of the drive because they have a different classification. They're asking for it to be even further back than their neighbors adjacent to the south for the same use.

Yeah. And and if you look at it, they they're gonna have parking all along Tualatin Road, so it's really kinda serving as a buffer.

Alright. Commissioners, any other questions? Alright. Thanks, team. Okay. Next up will be people wishing to speak in favor of the application. I'd like to start with the folks online. Anyone online at their on Zoom, if you'd like to speak in favor of the application, please raise your use the Zoom function to raise your hand. Alright. Looks like we got one. Will Worth. Let me see. Can you unmute? Perfect.

Thank you, chair Beers. Member of the members of the planning commission, good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak for the record. My name is Will Worth. I'm the chief of staff for representative Walters here on behalf of the office to express strong support for this proposal. This proposal represents a real opportunity at a time when Oregon's economy is starting to show signs of strain.

Lam Research has been a part of this community for over twenty years. They've made it clear they they're committed to growing their presence here, and now they're following through on that promise. The impact of this small step goes far beyond the benefit of just this one company. This step on the path to the overall expansion would generate millions in economic returns for the community, money that will directly support Tualatin schools, parks, fire and police services, road improvements, and other critical infrastructure. Lam employees are known for giving back in immersing themselves and their communities, volunteering their time and talent to help make this a better place for everyone.

In a time when some companies are choosing to leave Oregon, Lam is doubling down on their investment in our community, in our state. That's something we should all get behind. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. Appreciate it.

Thank you. I should mention we've got a timer going, so we'll try and keep our, comments to three minutes or under. Anyone else on lines in favor of the industrial master plan? Okay. I'm gonna go with the stack that I've got here. First up, Chris McEnroe McEnroe? Yeah, please. Just just make sure you tap the little buttons, the red light lights up, and then introduce your your name and your address for the record. It should be right kind of in the in the Oh, there we go. You got it. Yeah.

Hello. Thank you for having me and for your time tonight. My name is Chris McEnroe. I am a vice president at Perlo Construction. Our headquarters is right down the road, and I'm here tonight to offer strong support for our client, Lam Research.

We've been working with Lam for about a decade now and have seen firsthand the positive impact they bring to the community. Just wanna talk a little bit about that tonight. It starts with job creation, especially in the construction industry. We're working on a project right now that's been a year and a half, almost two years long, and that job alone brought 10 superintendent and project manager positions, 30 to 40 union carpenter and labor, jobs, and over 200 other tradesmen, jobs for the duration of that project. We're just a small piece of the pie, that is Lam in their development and construction, but you can see the staggering amount of economic impact, they can have.

It it goes beyond that. There's community support that comes with any construction project, the things like lunches for our crews where we're going out to a local shop, local lumber, local tools. It all matters. And a lot of our employees are here in Tualatin, and we're proud to call it home. So it stimulates the Tualatin economy.

Beyond that, Lam is truly extraordinary that is they look in terms of safety and quality control, unlike most owners that we deal with. It's it's incredible, their safety program, that we are aligned with them, that they want every worker going home healthy at the end of the day. And with that, they have a top notch safety program that it just it's moving to be a part of that that on a project. Whether it's known or not, there's little things that go into a construction project that, are important things like minimizing the impacts to the surrounding areas. We go to the level of effort of putting vibration controls in, keeping the streets clean, the pipes clean, so it's not impacting the the greater community.

All that said, one of the things we're most proud of is giving back to the community, by and we wouldn't be able to do that without Lam and and our other clients, but Lam is a huge part of our business. A few things we do to give back, we host the annual Tualatin Crimson Ayres Choir. We are a proud member of the chamber of commerce for Tualatin. We host turkey not tickets with Twalton PD where they give out turkeys instead of tickets for traffic violations. We host Twalton Valley Fire and Rescue at our training room.

We host the mayor's forum with seven mayors and, over a 100 community members. We're putting together school and coat drives for underprivileged youth and, hiring interns and, doing job shadowing for local high schools. So with all that being said, we couldn't do all those things to give back without Lam. We offer strong support, and we know the positive impact will be lasting for the foreseeable future. So thank you very much. Thank you, mister McEnroe.

Next up, Wendy Valise.

Good e good evening, chair chair Beers and members of the planning commission. My name is Wendy Valise. I'm senior local government affairs manager, and I'm here representing Portland General Electric. My business address is 121 Southwest Salmon, Portland, Oregon. PGE supports the proposed modifications to the industrial master plan for the land the land research Tualatin campus.

This expansion reflects a significant investment in Tualatin and the region. And as we've all heard, includes office, expanded office buildings, as well as an updated parking and circulation improvements per community input. The revised IMP allows LAM to integrate a newly acquired lot into campus, apply consistent development standards, and streamline future architectural reviews, ensuring the site functions as a cohesive whole. Lam's growth strengthens our local economy, creates high paying jobs, and creates property tax revenues that support public services. From a utility perspective, large energy users such as Lam help keep prices as low as possible for other customers because they generally operate and use higher volumes of electricity for more significant portions of the day and with greater predictability in specific locations, that usage helps pay for the equipment that serves all PGE customers.

This stabilizes energy prices by allowing PGE to spread our infrastructure costs across greater usage, thereby helping residential customers and general business in the process. We also appreciate Lam's thoughtful design revisions, and including the reduced building footprint and improved access findings, reflect their commitment to responsible development and being a good neighbor. PGE encourages approval of the updated industrial master plan and looks forward to continuing to support the energy needs of Tualatin's residents, businesses, and growing economy. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, miss Viliz. Up next, Nick Triska. Hope I'm pronouncing that correct. Scrape.

Good evening, chair beers and commissioners. My name is Nick Triska, head of business development at Greater Portland Inc, the public private partnership for economic development in the by state seven county metropolitan region. Our mission is to strengthen traded sector industries that create quality jobs while advancing long term equitable economic prosperity. Lam Research's presence in Tualatin is that mission realized. As the city's largest private employer, Lam has demonstrated what it means to be both a global industry leader and a rooted local partner.

Their work powers nearly every computer chip in the world, and they've chosen to grow and innovate right here in Tualatin. For more than two decades, Lam has developed a track record of expanding responsibly, working closely with city staff, leaders, and community partners. The proposed expansion, backed by a strong compliant IMP application, projects significant regional investment, an investment that would mean high wage jobs for residents and increased tax base and business development opportunities for local suppliers and vendors. It's a direct reflection of the regional economic priorities Greater Portland EAC advances in partnership with public and private sector partners. Lam's growth also strengthens the larger semiconductor ecosystem that constitutes Greater Portland's industrial base.

Our, region is home to world class chip design and process r and d, a robust supplier base, and strong research institutions. Lam's expansion in Tualatin doesn't just add capacity. It reinforces Oregon's role as one of the most critical semiconductor hubs in The United States. On behalf of Greater Portland Inc. And in recognition of relevant approval criteria being met, I'm here to express strong support for Lam Research's industrial master plan application. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Triska. Next up, representative from the Tualatin Chamber of Commerce.

Good evening, chairbeers and commissioners. My name is Analia Jackson. I'm the CEO of the Tualatin Chamber of Commerce. For more than twenty years, Lam Research has been a vital part of the Tualatin community. Since joining the Tualatin Chamber of Commerce in 2001 and becoming a platinum member in 2015, Lam has been more than a company headquartered in our backyard.

It has been a neighbor, a partner, and a tireless supporter of our community. And I'm here today in support of Lam's proposed expansion in Tualatin. Lam is already the largest employer in our city with thousands of employees and contractors across its Tualatin and Sherwood locations. The company is also the second largest technology employer in the entire state. It continues, its continued growth is not just a business story.

It's a Tualatin story. And believe me, I have businesses leaving constantly out of the city, out of the state. And so Lam making the decision to stay and expand is incredibly wonderful for us. The proposed expansion is in alignment with the master plan submitted to the city, and Lam has obeyed all the laws and guidance in the plan. I've watched them also continually adjust the plan, trying to please the neighbors.

This expansion will bring hundreds of new high paying jobs to the region, both during construction and once the new facility is fully operational. These jobs come with industry leading compensation and benefits and will create new opportunities for local suppliers and vendors. In a time of economic uncertainty and tight public budgets, Lam is especially significant. On behalf of the Toalton Area Chamber of Commerce, I am proud to voice our strong support for Lam Research's expansion. They've earned our trust, our gratitude, and our full endorsement. Thank you.

Thank you, miss Jackson. Next up, we've got a representative from the Home Building Association.

Good evening. My name is Isaac Ambruso, and I'm the deputy director for the Homebuilding Association of Greater Portland. I'm here this evening to strongly support the Lam Research expansion. This project has been part of Lam's master plan for quite some time. To us, this kind of resistance this late in the project undermines the very idea of long term planning, plans that have been public and vetted and consistent for quite some time.

Lamb has made sincere and honest efforts to respond to community concerns, and we applaud that. And that behavior should be rewarded in a time where the trust between the development community and and industry and the communities they serve is reaching a low. Lam is engaged with good in good faith, both the city and the surrounding neighborhoods. The Toalton road access, requirement, for example, was a requirement that was proposed by the city, not Lam, and was the instigating factor in this opposition. So even though Lam has worked collaboratively to address those concerns, both the community and city staff have showed a con city staff and city staff have showed a commitment to being a constructive community partner, we still are receiving significant community opposition.

But regardless of the devot design and development requirements, I urge you to consider the long term economic and regional benefits of this project. Lam anticipates creating 400 to 600 new high paying jobs as a result of this expansion. When new families move here, they bring purchasing power to coffee shops, to restaurants, retailers, service providers. They bring fresh energy into civic life. They create a multiplier multiplier effect that builds strong and resilient communities.

They also create a demand for new homes. Those homes will be necessarily have to match the high income levels which Lam, routinely supplies its employees. This directly supports housing growth at a time when undersupply is one of the main drivers of housing inflation both in this state and nationwide. Finally, it's important to consider the strategic role that Lam plays in Oregon's economy. Even without the expansion, they're already the second largest technology employer in the state.

And unlike many tech firms are currently doing, they are continuing to grow. In a globally competitive industry, that stability matters. With semiconductors as Oregon's top traded sector industry, supporting companies like GLAM is essential if we wanna preserve our state's economic leadership. They're not asking for public funding. They're simply asking for the ability to complete an expansion that has been long planned.

They've shown time and time again that they invest in the community through local STEM education, supporting underrepresented groups in tech, even rental assistance right here in Tualatin. So it's hard these days to find a corporation that really truly does lead with conscience and competence, and Lam has consistently set a high bar. So for all these reasons, I urge you to support the expansion. Thank you, mister Ambruzzo.

Alright. And we Danielle Silver?

She unfortunately installed.

Oh, okay. Thanks for the heads up. Was there anyone who wished to speak in favor of the application that didn't yeah. Please come up, introduce yourself, name, and address to the record.

Good evening, chair Beers and council. My name is Martin Elsigray. I'm actually a resident of Camas, Washington where I am a city councilor, but I'm not speaking here on behalf of of my official duties. I'm speaking here on behalf of Lam and on behalf of the industry in which I'm a active participant. I'm the vice president of a company in Hillsborough that serves the same the same markets as Lam.

And and so I first, I'm very disappointed that missus Krawczyk didn't pick my letter to be read, but I'll I'll find a way to get over that. So I I think I wanna I I wanna go, a little bit on the way that, representative Walter's chief of staff went, and that is that, Oregon's labor market's declining. And I think you all know that it contract, contracted year over year with seasonal adjusted non farm employment down by almost 3,000 jobs. And this marks the third consecutive month of decline and a loss of more than 4,300 jobs in total. The state's unemployment rate climbed to 5%, up from 44.3% last December, and this is above the national rate of 4.2%.

Furthermore, Oregon's labor market lost almost 5% of its manufacturing jobs in the period from July 2024 to July 2025. Lamb is the largest employer in Tualatin, and I suspect it's the largest taxpayer as well. Oregon and Tualatin need companies like Lam. We need companies like Lam to expand, companies that provide high paying jobs, opportunities for new college grad grads, And cities, especially like my city of Camas, we need corporations like Lam to ease the tax burden on private citizens. The US semiconductor and semiconductor equipment industry are facing fierce competition from companies in Asia and especially those companies in China.

That's why the US government pact passed the Chips and Science Act, of which Lam is a recipient, and my company, Edwards, is also a recipient. And that is important to ensure our competitiveness in the world market and perhaps more important than minor traffic inconveniences. So as a counselor for Camus, I'm very much aware of the high value of these types of corporations. We have two such in our town. We have TSMC Washington, and we have Analog. And we work very hard to attract businesses like Lam. So I hope that you'll support them. And if you don't, you guys are welcome in Canvas. Thank you very much.

Alright. Thank you. Any other folks out there or online that wanted to speak in favor of the application? Alright. Does anyone wish to provide neutral test neutral testimony, for example, asking clarifying questions? Anyone online or in the room? Okay. And we'll move into, folks that wish to speak against the application. We'll start with, Tammy Weithman. Okay.

Yeah. You'll have your opportunity at the ARB meeting. Okay. Alright. Dan Wilson Fay?

Hi. My name is Dan Wilson Faye. I live at 17640 Southwest Fulton Drive here in Tualatin, which is halfway between Tualatin Road and Hazelbrook, just to the east of Jurgens. I I I think what I don't know if it's it's somewhere between neutral and in favor. Let me say from the outset that, like most of you, I saw the road the signs on Tualatin Road, didn't pay too much attention to them, roughly knew what was going on, but only became more aware of the issues and especially the traffic issues in the last couple of weeks.

So I am new to this whole game, and I am new to the process of approvals and what the planning commission does and what the architectural review board does. It seems odd to me that the planning commission doesn't necessarily take into account traffic patterns, especially with an expansion of land. But the architectural review board, I think only, apparently, they don't just do with deal with buildings and and plans. But let me say that, overall, I'm in favor of Lam's expansion request. I think it's good for the community.

I think what they have done in addressing the initial concerns about more traffic on Taunton Road have been commendable are commendable, and I'm grateful that they have redesigned and taken the effort and the time to do that. I will say, however, that when I leave my home and drive south on Jurgens and come to Tualatin Road, I sit there for a very long time often. And I just cannot imagine any more traffic dumped onto Tualatin Road as a result of this project. So whether that's you or the architectural review board or whoever has any say in trying to ameliorate those effects of that of any possible increased traffic, I, as a citizen and resident in the neighborhoods into the North of Taunton Road would appreciate, just consideration. And I and I understand that some consideration has already been given by Lam and by the whoever the powers that be for that make decisions on this.

So just registering my my personal experience with traffic on Tualatin Road. It's heavy enough. Let's not add to it. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Wilson Fay. Next up, Martin Elzinger.

Pardon me, Scott.

Oh, gotcha. I didn't realize. That's good. Okay. Tony Carrasco.

Thank you, commissioners, for letting us address you. My name is Toni Carrasco. I live at 17790 Southwest Cheyenne Way, And, I appreciate Lam and all of their contributions to our town, the good people that are there, the the taxes they pay. I mean, that's that's kind of why our city is trying to give these concessions. But I am concerned about, since this is about high density setbacks, which would cause high density and extra parking spaces tonight that would also cause high density, I'd like to address that.

And I think that we should be looking at that carefully because there are safety issues, there are fire issues, there are pollution issues, there are noise issues, and, of course, the traffic issues, which we're not supposed to talk about tonight. But, I live in a neighborhood where there are 10 foot setbacks from my neighbors. And I don't think it's right that, these large buildings should not have a 10 foot setback just because they're next to somebody that owns the same property. I also don't think that the, original 20 foot setback from Leviton Road should be changed to 10 feet. There were previously two driveways on Leviton.

One of those has been closed with the assumption, which hasn't been ok'd, that, the new employees, the 650 new employees, would be using a hundred and eighth. Like, one of the neighbors said earlier, we have to wait five or ten minutes just to try to get out of Cheyenne Way. And, and, apparently, we have not been included in any of the notices. At the last meeting in December, we were promised to be notified. No Shawnee, Cheyenne, Pawnee, Chippewa neighbors have been notified of any of the meetings.

And, I've talked to several of the neighbors. A lot of them believe that a solution for Lam would be to have extra shifts and not add 427 parking spaces for these 650 people, a lot of which would end up parking in our neighborhoods because we know that our use of public transportation is about point 01% in Tualatin. So they're not all gonna be carpooling. They're not all gonna be using the transportation system. They're gonna be parking down into our neighborhoods just like when the Kershaw has their knife sale.

They park all the way down Cheyenne Way, which is, I don't know, half mile away. And we anticipate that could be happening now. So, I'll put this into written form and send it to you. And I'd like an email for the planning commission that we could send information to, please.

Alright. Thanks, miss Kresko. Aquila, can we provide miss Kresko a contact email for her?

We we will do that.

Okay. Yeah. Alright. Next up, Brett Hamilton.

Thank you chair of yours, commissioners, and staff for the opportunity to testify tonight. And I have a presentation on screen here. Technology is great when it works. Wasn't it there was a

different program you used earlier. Yeah.

Does somebody else wanna go who doesn't have? You open an app. Is that

Is this the correct presentation? Yeah. Can we just scroll through the PDF? Yeah. I guess so. Okay.

It's yeah. Okay. So my name is Brett Hamilton, and I have lived on Kalispell Street since 2010. And in the past few years, the background noise in my neighborhood has has increased significantly. And the source of this noise is equipment at Lam Research that runs twenty four hours a day. And in rather than talking about the noise, let's take a listen. Now to be clear, this is not a recording. This is a generated demo of some of the frequencies coming from Lam. I don't yet have the equipment to record and isolate these sounds. I don't know if you can hear this.

So most people would find this sound objectionable, especially when it's loud enough to penetrate into your house at night when you with your windows closed when you're trying to sleep. And so just close your eyes for a minute and imagine that. Our neighborhood hired an acoustical engineer to provide some hard data, and his report is included in the comments. And I'd like to show you where some of this noise is coming from. Back in 2013 next slide.

There was not much equipment outside at Lam or on the roof, but that changed in 2017 in the yellow and blue squares, and then in the red square in 2018 and 2024. This increased intensity of use has caused the increase in off-site noise. Air handling equipment located on the roof generates the tones that carry the furthest. This rooftop noise cannot be blocked by trees or a sound wall. The propagation pattern of this noise depends on the weather, and the rooftop signature from Lam can be heard over a mile away on Durham Road in Tigard.

The Tollton development code chapter 62, which is the next slide, states that such permitted uses this is the industrial master plan or sorry, the manufacturing park zoning. Such permitted uses must not cause objectionable noise. So, therefore, Lam is in violation of both the development code and the municipal code. And it is absolutely critical to our quality of life that peace and quiet be restored to the neighborhood. Next slide.

Tonight, I'm asking the planning commission to require Lam to prove their ability to eliminate off-site noise impacts before adding any new sources of noise on campus. And as you can see in the next slide, the city code gives you the authority to do this, and I'm asking for you to use your authority to protect our neighborhood on behalf of everyone who has been kept awake or has been woken up by these noises. Thank you very much.

Thank you, mister Hamilton. Alright. Was there anyone else in the audience that wish to speak against the application, either in the room or online? Alright. Applicant team, would you do you like to provide a rebuttal to any of the testimony you heard? Please come up.

Thank you. Dana Krakcek again on behalf of the applicant. I just wanna I'm I'm just going through my list here and, you know, acknowledging that it's a little confusing when we talk about a site plan, but then say, oh, no. No. We're not talking about a site plan.

But I just wanna make sure everyone's clear when they're talking about the Tualatin Road access. The site plan that will go before the ARB originally had an access point on Tualatin Road, and that's been removed. So if you feel like the the discussion has kind of ping ponged around about that, that that's why. Not relevant to what's tonight, but just to, you know, explain that. The comments about the internal setbacks, one thing to make clear, and I think it's best seen in the staff report on pages 23 through 26, where the setback is being removed, the internal setback, it's essentially we're deleting before Lam bought the property from JAE, there was a special callout about the setback to the j e AE property.

The zero internal setback had already applied to the rest of the Lam campus. So there's already a zero foot setback. We're just expanding that to include the entire campus now. So that's just a a point of clarification. On on the noise issue, I mentioned in our original testimony, you know, we've seen for the first time this acoustical report.

We're taking it very seriously. We're evaluating that. I think the record also shows that there is an ongoing good faith dialogue between Neighbors and Lam to try to address noise issues. The condition of approval language, There is case law out there about how you can impose conditions of approval. If there are noise violations, the enforcement process in your code in the noise ordinance is the form for doing this, and I imagine your your city attorney can talk to you about that.

That's not the purview of the planning commission to evaluate and pursue enforcement actions. What the Land Use Board of Appeals has said, Luba, is that in order to impose a condition of approval, there has to be evidence in the record related to the impacts of the proposed development, and that condition would further a legitimate planning purpose. The evidence that we have relates to the existing condition. It doesn't relate to the proposed development because, again, there is no proposed development as part of the IMP tonight. So LUBA, the case law says that without an impact, there's no condition.

So the requested condition of approval, lawfully, you can't impose that. Instead, you need to let the enforcement process run its course. So that's my only, feedback on on the requested condition. And, you know, we fully expect to have a robust discussion at the ARB about noise, including with our own expert analysis. So unless there's any questions, I'll conclude with that.

Alright. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. Moving on to are each staff comments? Does city staff have anything to add which specifically addresses a question raised during the testimony?

I I would just like to add that our code enforcement officer has begun, investigations into the noise complaints, so they're actively going on right now. And, typically, the way code enforcement works is they receive the complaint, and we call it investigation. Really, it's part of that is research. Is there an actual violation? So that's the question that that he's undertaking right now. So I just wanted to let you all know that, Lam stated that they're taking it seriously. We're taking it seriously as well and and investigating if there is a noise violation or not. And,

chair, I would also add that if the city did determine there was a violation of the city's noise ordinance, and that's in chapter 6.14, that would be handled through our municipal court. And our municipal court judge would ultimately make a decision whether the city's noise ordinance had been violated. There's also a variance process that the applicant could, potentially take advantage of to seek an exception from the noise ordinance, regulations, and that, can be, appealed or that that would go through the city manager. And if the city manager did not grant that variance, that could be appealed to the city council. So there is due process and an avenue for, any person in Tualatin that believes they are aggrieved by the activities at Lam to have those addresses as it relates to Moise.

Thank you, Akula. And, Kevin?

And I can address the setback that was raised, a 10 foot setback. It's actually a 100 feet. It's a 100 feet from Southwest Wellton. It's a 100 feet from a hundred and eighth and a 100 feet from Leviton. So Alright. Thank you.

Alright. Part I, questions of clarification. Does any member of the planning commission have any questions of staff regarding clarification of the testimony to this point? Please go. Start yourself.

I need really

Oh, hey, Randy. Hold on. Will you turn your mic?

Really appreciate what city councilor just told us about the noise ordinance and the enforcement actions from the planning director here. So I appreciate that clarification on how that pertains to the IMP process. Appreciate that. Okay.

Oh, I had a question, Aquila. Thinking about the the how this is zoned and how it's used. If this is one continuous piece of property from the get go, And it wasn't, like, two pieces put together, and that's why we have a new and they need a new master plan. Could they have done all this development with the current plan? Like, the the buildings that they wanna build and the facilities they wanna build and the parking they wanna put in. It's like those are all approved uses under the current one. They just have a bigger space to use now?

Correct. Yeah. The uses are all, they're allowed uses. They're, permit they're outright permitted. There's no conditional use that I'm aware of. The orientation of the buildings, pretty much everything that's out there, they they could do if it was one lot. So the setbacks from the streets, not the interior setbacks, but the setbacks from the streets, we would still be looking at. But the configuration of the campus as it is, if it were one big lot, it could could happen. Yeah. Does it was that the question you were asking?

Yeah. Basically Yeah. Like, like, this could be a development that could have happened if it was one piece, and now it is one piece. So Right. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Alright. Anyone else on the commission have questions or clarification that, staff could provide clarity on?

Just follow-up. Oh, yeah. Mike. Would have been.

Thank you. You. If

this would have been from scratch, like, right now, when would the tran would the transportation analysis have to have been taken have to have been done if it was zoned MP and and all these uses were permitted outright, how would the traffic issue have been addressed?

In the same way through the development of the buildings itself. So, usually, what triggers a a a transportation analysis is a zone change. So if it weren't manufacturing park and it was changing to that, we would have to look at, the impacts from from that change. And that specifically is when that transportation planning rule comes into effect. So if it were a blank slate and and maybe a good example even is the the PGE site off of 124th And 12 In Sherwood Road that that started out that's one big lot.

It started out as greenfield, and so we would have looked at the transportation impacts at the time of the development application. So, because it depends on the size of the building, how many and then we look at, okay. It's this type of use and this size, which means it will generate this many trips, and are the roads around there able to handle that many trips? And if not, how do they mitigate that, that that type of thing?

And in that case, Sequela, if there would have been an expansion then generating more traffic, what happens to the traffic analysis?

Right. If there's an expansion to an existing building Yeah. Then still it goes through so I wanna be careful because it depends on the size of the expansion. But let's say that it triggers a new architecture review, then we're gonna ask for a traffic analysis, and it's the same thing. How much square footage?

What is the use? And then we look at the, the ITE, which I can't remember the exact what that stands for, but I think it's the International Transportation Engineers Code. What is what is the trip generation? You know, do all the calculations, look at the background modeling, and then what kind of impact will that have on the existing, road network.

Bottom line, zone change and a conditional use permit would come to us where we could discuss transportation, but a building expansion on an existing zone goes to the ARB.

That's correct. Okay. Yeah. Okay.

Alright. Any other questions for staff? Okay. The public testimony portion of this hearing is now closed, and it's time for us to discuss amongst ourselves. I'll go I'll and that was my thoughts were about this were, like this isn't like a plan map amendment where we're making a recommendation to council, and there's new something this is stuff that was already permitted. It's just in a slightly different configuration, two things put together. Yeah. That that was my those are my main thoughts on this.

I have sort of the same thoughts. I felt weird

to not see any transportation stuff, but as I read it, that's what I understood too is that it's it's the setbacks. It's the parking. It's the landscaping kind of the industrial master plan has worked like that. It's just a zoning thing, and we're only touching pieces of it.

And I think to join in too, we were I swear we looked at this just a couple of summers ago when they already removed their internal lots because we looked at a lot of that for the placement of the parking spaces that did get put in. And that was a very similar situation where they already owned the bigger parcel, but they had been divided, so we removed that line. So in that same way, to add in a new parcel to where they are is, I believe, at least in the same spirit of what we had done just a couple of summers ago two two summers ago, I think. We just did this.

Yeah. Okay. I was out that time. But I remember we Yeah. No. We provided.

We we belabored it for a while.

Go ahead, Ernie.

Yeah. My reaction tonight came from the public testimony regarding noise and traffic, and I was surprised that we didn't hear we didn't get to deal with the traffic issue, and I understand whose sandbox that goes into. And then the noise thing too, my concern was, I think, this, last member of the public talked about if it expands, it just perpetuates the noise, and how do we deal with that? County council or city council, clarified the role of the city's role in taking care of those complaints. So I understand the position now.

Yeah. And I appreciate attorney there schooling me on some of his stuff. Thank you.

I'm I'm sensitive to the noise issue myself. I'm sensitive to the noise issue myself. But, like, I was as we were going through this, I'm like, I am really hesitant to wanna write a condition to talk about that. Like, there's already a rule about it in our code. And so hearing that the code enforcement is already on it and that that is the path that it needs to follow, I'm satisfied with that for addressing the noise.

I I don't see any grounds for us to impose a condition. I question, in fact, the relevance of most of the testimony that we heard tonight, both in favor and opposed. In favor, it looking back to my notes, it seems that almost everybody spoke about economic impact, business practices, and culture. Nobody had any real things to say on the efficacy of the site, why internal division would be inconvenient, how it would impede, their their business, and those opposed, with the notable and, I think, laudable exception of, miss Whitman who withdrew her statement due to irrelevance of the traffic question. Nobody actually addressed any issues to do with the actual criteria being addressed tonight or the questions that are before this council.

So I I really don't see the the questions before seem really narrow, really straightforward, and I don't personally see any reason why we shouldn't grant the request, especially given the fact that the only really relevant testimony that we have before us tonight that was presented comes from the city, who have done a few studies, who have made their recommendation for us.

I'm gonna vote for this, but I would would like to say that I appreciate the city's position about code enforcement. I think that might have been a route that should have been followed earlier. For what one reason or another, it wasn't. So be it. But it's good to hear that the code enforcement people are, are working on it now. But, I am gonna vote in favor of this.

I maybe just wanna say too to the citizens who

are concerned about traffic, like, are being listened to. I know it's not on our plate this evening, the traffic issues, but I I do understand. I drive your road, and

I get stuck there all the time too.

But I think it's important you know that you're heard and that the city is gonna try to do what they can, and it sounds like Lam is making adjustments to try

to help. We're not addressing it, but I I think it's important just to understand that you were heard. It's that's a big deal.

Thanks, John. Any other discussion, internally from planning commission on this issue? Is there a motion to approve application I M P24Dash0001?

So moved.

Okay. I'll go with Ursula moved and perhaps Randy is a second. Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All those again, say nay. Alright. The motion passes. Thank you folks for attending tonight. We've got some other things on our agenda, but this was the main event. So if you wanna go, that's totally cool. So at item nine, is there any communication from commission members to city staff? Or, I don't know. It's a good question maybe for Aquila.

Aquila. We've been, thinking to ourselves that since here has taken a different route, but perhaps we need to readjust some of the titles and, on the current commissioners while we are awaiting new ones. What is the usual procedure if we were gonna volunteer to take Bill's job?

Well, I'm not.

Thank Bill. This is

my my This They've

taken your last meeting. Okay.

So, tip typically, there's a nomination process for chair and vice chair. And For current commissioners. Yeah. Do we

need to wait for outside people as well, I guess, is my question, or can current commissioners?

Do you need to wait for outside people? Like, new new members to come on board? They're gonna be filled.

Like, Britney's position and my position, should those be filled before we do

them? Well,

yes and no. The city commission has I think they are on Monday, hopefully, going to appoint one new member, but I don't know that we have, a second, volunteer who who will take the the place of the next of the other open the other vacancy. Sorry. Stumbling over my words a little bit. So I guess what I would recommend is maybe wait until the September meeting because I do or the next meeting, which I'm not sure if that will be September or October.

But I do believe that there will be another commissioner appointed by the city council by the time you have your next meeting, and then you could at least have most of the seats filled, make your nomination, and, vote on it at that at that point. So

I think that's the way to go.

So at that next meeting where we're going to have a new commissioner, do we have a meeting without a chair?

We've got a vice chair.

Yes. Okay.

Correct. Kevin, see your finger hovering over the That's

what I hear. It's funny. It's funny. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. And, Cheer, I haven't looked too closely at that. But as as I read just real quickly the code, I believe it as long as you have a quorum to conduct business, yeah. It's true that if there's a vacancy, the city council will appoint a person to fill that vacancy, but, it's you as a body that appoints or elects your chair and vice chair. So if you don't have a chair, you you could I I don't think at this point you could you could take action to, nominate and go through that process and and determine who your chair would be.

And but I'll check with Aquila and make sure that I'm not not overstating that. But, yes, you will need the the code requires a chair and a vice chair. Generally generally, a vice chair a vice chair serves in the when a the chair is not available for particular meeting or a temporary absence, not when the chair that that member has resigned. That office needs to be filled. Okay.

That was what we were getting at.

Yeah. So at the next meeting, since commissioner Thompson will still be part of the part of the planning commission, she will open up the meeting and can take the nominations, and we can figure out who's going to be chair. And I presume that, we won't need to a vice chair as well because I what I'm kinda used to is that in January of every year, we do the chair and vice chair. Right. So this is a little, like, off, the the routine.

But so at the next meeting, Janelle will open it up and conduct, you know, conduct that first part. We'll switch seats, play musical seats. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Cool.

We could simply draft her.

Yeah. Like, is that an option? There's spot. Yeah. Requesting some

of us

to the new person.

Yeah. Right.

Any other commission or, excuse me, communication, Well, I guess from staff to us or vice versa.

Well, yes, I have I have a recognition of chair Beers for all of his efforts. So

How many year how

many years was it, Bill? It's in twelve.

Like, fourteen.

Fourteen. Yeah. That's what

I thought. It's a long time. Yeah. We were just talking about that today. So, so I think that if I'm doing my math right, that's 2011. That's when you would have started as planning commission actually okay.

This the

story here. So would have started as a planning I'll just say planning commissioner, and then he's been chair for seven years. So Chair Bears has seen a lot of applications. So I started in 2007. So, basically, everything I've worked on, he's worked on too. So, that would include things like so two TSPs at this point that he's gone through, the chicken ordinance.

Okay. So he

just sat through, the marijuana ordinance, text and map amendments. And one of those, I think you were on the commission when the high school, Tuala and High School sign. Changed their sign, and that was the when we first heard the term

TVs. Yeah.

Hot mess. The Tualatin High School sign was a hot mess, and that was a quote we talked about for a while. They were also the students were saying that Tiger gets a reader board, so why can't we have a reader board? So, anyway so we sat we sat through that. That wasn't there. And so your chair here was kind of the instigator for turning the planning advisory committee into an actual commission. So we went to look

at that.

A, like, you know, the annual report that happens every year for a city council. And I don't know if I knew you were gonna do this, but you said, I think, that we need to have purview over.

Well, no. I've never It started with Paul Sively.

Okay. Oh, okay. Okay.

It was his impetus, and I think, originally, counsel said, okay. You can do sign variances.

They they gave you one thing. So it's probably the That started industrial master plans or, like, oh, those are Something

like that. But, yeah, then later, I helped expand it. Like, what are what are what can we legally do, and why don't we do this?

Yeah. And so that's why you now see conditional use permits and variances and that type of thing. So yeah. So you can thank Bill for

Thanks, Bill. Yeah.

I like the idea of, like, the public being able to appeal to counsel and not have to go immediately to LUPA. Yeah.

Right. That's why you can't remember that.

Thanks. Gotcha.

Then go to the center. Then go

to LUPA.

Yeah. Like, get get it resolved at a lower level like I'm telling teenagers to. Right.

Exactly. So thank you, Bill, for all of the hours you spent here at this dais and in now you've this is your third location.

Oh, yeah.

And you started at the building that's no longer there.

There. Yeah.

And then the Juanita Pole Center. And Those are the best meetings that way. Zumba in the background. Oh, oh, I love that. You hear the thumb. There.

And, Here's that. Zumba.

You know, all this time you spent reading these packets and staff reports that we wrote. So we we thank you for that. We have nice That's good. That's Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you.

Say something fun.

What's Well Maybe not fun, but it has been nice to see, like

I do.

The Basalt Creek in particular go from just the concept to, like, their literal buildings there now.

Yeah. Yeah. That's been amazing.

Mean, that's a long process, and so being able to see the bookends Yeah. Has been nice. For sure. Yeah.

That's that's the communication that I oh, I I should tell you one more thing. So you all know that that Steve Cooper moved on. He got a a career move, and we're happy for him even though we miss him. So he's a community development director for City of West Linn, and I am starting a recruitment for a planning manager. And we'll see where that leads. And at some point soon, you'll be working with another planning manager. So just wanted to give you update on that.

What's in our future in terms of things that are in the pipeline?

I was like, yeah, you just said maybe not a September meeting?

That's a good question. And I got so focused on, tonight's hearing that I don't really know what's coming up next. To be

fair, it was a doozy.

Yeah. It was

You got anything on your desk,

Keith? Like,

things that are gonna

I don't think there's any quasi judicial that I can think of.

We have a bunch of type two architectural reviews which are staff level. No math amendment. No. Yeah. I don't think we have any quick three.

We already did.

The the next thing that I can think of is a legislative another legislative amendment for some more CFEC walkable design, standards. And, we just heard from DLCD today. We got an approval extend our deadline, basically, to, I think, December. So we need to get that in front of you in time to get it back in front of, city council. So that's the one thing I I know for sure that that's gonna be coming back for you.

If there's a December deadline for that, that seems like a good argument for us to have at September meeting.

Yeah. Information ready for the September meeting.

I'm not sure. We we have we have to check back in with, we have to check back in with city council in a work session. And so I don't know if we will have anything ready for you by September. So I think we've we we'll have to get it to you October. Yeah. For sure. So, if something comes up in September, surprise, we may be back here.

And that architectural review board meeting for the Lam facility is September 10? Correct.

Yeah. K. 06:30. I think is also where we have

the Isn't it in here?

There's a video for it.

It's in here.

Yeah. Should be

in here.

This is a room that wears many hats.

Alright.

Any other communications to share? If not, I'd entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn. To adjourn.

Alright. We're adjourned. Thank you very much. We

did the free time there then.

Maybe a game. We'll

see. Well done. Right

here. Thanks.

Wait. We had a couple

of years. Know.

Absolutely.