Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Everyone, welcome to the Westland

Planning This webinar is being transcribed and summarized.

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Westland Planning Commission. Tonight is Wednesday, 03/04/2026, and it is 06:15PM. The first item on the agenda is call to order and roll call.

Commissioner Dietz?

Present.

Commissioner Katz Kaczorowski? Present. Commissioner Wolvotnik?

Here.

Commissioner Watton? Here. Commissioner Jones? I think I think we just lost him.

I'm No. I'm here. I'm mooted. Here.

Oh, wait. Okay. Is your camera on?

I am trying to get that to happen.

Okay. Alright. And chair Schulte Hillen.

Present.

We have six of seven commissioners present.

Great. Next on the agenda is public comment related to land use items not on the agenda. Does anybody have any items?

We do not have anyone online and it does not appear that anyone in the audience wants to testify on this, agenda item.

Okay. Next is planning commission deliberation on CUPDash25DashO2DRDash25DashO2WAPDash25Dash01 proposal for new city of Westland operations support facility at the vacant parcel east of the Salama Road Green Street intersection. So good evening. Tonight, we are here to deliberate to a final decision on file number CUPDash25DashO2, DRDash25DashO2, WAPDash25Dash01, An application for a conditional use permit class two design review and water resource area permit at 23800 and 23834 Salomo Road. Public hearings on this matter were previously held on 02/04/2026 and 02/18/2026.

The proposal is for construction of an operations complex servicing the city of Westlands public works, environmental services, parks and recreation, and water and streets departments on two vacant lots. This is a quasi judicial decision. Unlike in legislative hearings where personal opinion may come into play, quasi judicial rulings must be grounded in the relevant code. Okay. At the 02/18/2026 public hearing, the Planning Commission closed the hearing and kept the record open for an additional seven days until 02/25/2026 to allow for additional public testimony with the applicant afforded an additional seven days until 03/04/2026 to make a final legal argument as required by law.

No further testimony or evidence will be accepted tonight. Chair,

have a member of the audience seeking to make a point of order.

Okay. Permitted.

The member of the audience needs to come up to the microphone and make turn the button green and introduce himself.

Mic tap again. Is it on? Is that okay? In the in the response to the public testimony in the response to the public test and I'm

sorry. Please introduce yourself.

Introduce yourself.

I did. I said Mike

Into on the mic. Into the mic, please.

Yeah. That's right. I think I'll I'll get to sorry. I apologize. I wasn't sure. Yeah. Mike Hapigan. 19500 G Drive, West Lane. In the response to the public testimony, the I believe the applicant has presented new test new evidence into the record, and I would challenge that it I get an opportunity to respond to that.

Can you identify the the new evidence that you're concerned about?

Yeah. I I believe on page five, on number 11, the applicant has stated that PGE felt it was unfe I think the verbiage is it was unfeasible for them to bury the lines. And I see nothing of that in the record nor have I heard that statement prior in any testimony.

So the sentence I'm seeing, chair, on page five is the remaining 235 feet of frontage due to steep topography was deemed unfeasible by PGE.

I don't believe that's in the record or had been previously stated. I believe that would be evidence more than just an argument.

I'm going to rely on staff to let me know if they believe that that was anywhere else in the record previously. But if not, then it would be correct that that would be considered evidence and not testimony, which is not permitted as part of the final rebuttal. Two options for dealing with that. One would be to allow for additional responses, public responses to that. The other simpler and more straightforward in this case, because I don't think it's critical to the outcome of the case, would be to strike that sentence from the record and not consider that as part of your deliberations this evening.

May I make a comment? May may I make a comment?

Yes. You may.

May may is it appropriate for me to say what my feelings are on that?

You you may. Sure.

Yeah. I just assume, if it's possible, be struck from the record. I have no desire to postpone and delay the proceedings, but I don't think it's appropriate that something be added to the record, at this stage that I don't think is, that that is, necessarily valid or proven or could be contemplated as valid. So if you're willing to strike it and not accept that as part of their argument, I'm willing to go forward.

The decision is the the planning commissions, but I believe staff is recommending that striking is probably the easiest path forward in terms of timing and because it's not directly applicable to an approval criterion.

Yes. I think I would like for it to be struck from the record.

Yeah. Thank you.

Okay. We're going to strike that from the record. I will proceed with my script. At tonight's meeting, the Planning Commission will enter into deliberations and vote on a final decision. I now ask the City Attorney to cover the preliminary legal matters. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. As the Planning Commission is sitting quasi judicially, any decision must be based on testimony, argument, or evidence in the record and must address the applicable approval criteria. Do any members of the Commission wish to declare a potential or actual conflict of interest or bias? Do any members of the Commission wish to report any site visits or other ex parte contacts?

Commissioner Ratton.

I did go to the site today from Salamo and didn't walk on the site, but I did stand at the top of the site and kind of surveyed it for the first time.

Anyone else? Does any member of the audience wish to challenge the jurisdiction of the Commission to hear this matter? Does any member of the audience wish to challenge a conflict of interest or impartiality of a member of the Commission or rebut or ask questions about the ex parte disclosure of any member of the Commission? Seeing none, that concludes the legal matters.

Okay. Moving on in the agenda, we will now begin deliberations. Does any Commissioner wish to comment or make a motion? Commissioner Wavotny.

Thank you chair. I have I have some mixed feelings about this one because the facility is needed. It's well the buildings are well designed, but I have a real hard time getting past the location. And I have concerns about the geotechnical stability of the slopes in the area particularly if it's going to also function as an emergency operations center. I have I know that there were three scenarios that were run for earthquakes.

One for a local earthquake, two for cascading subduction zone scenarios. And I asked questions of the geotechnical engineer on that. That said, it didn't resolve my issues with it having been through a major earthquake and knowing that the Loma Prieta earthquake is child's play relative to Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake. So, it may be my good fortune or not to be a geologist and to have some background that others may not have. But there, I just have real issues with the potential for slope failure on the driveway leading into the facility and also the utilities, the buried utilities failing as well if there is a slope failure.

At that point it fails as an emergency operations center in my mind. So I just wanted to put that out there and I'm willing to hear comments from the other commissioners, one way or the other on that as well. Thank you.

Commissioner Wilburton.

Sorry. Yes,

please. Thanks. I agree with you. As a community health nurse, I have big problems getting past some of the hurdles with this specific site, the placement, and operations, and the emergency necessity that it plays for our town. I think safety is incredibly important. And speaking with the consultants, I'm not sure I was completely satisfied with their answers. And I'm not sure I feel that it completely met the code and the community development code. And I also have continuing issues with the way that some parts have been zoned and other parts not zoned on the site.

Commissioner Kaczorowski.

Pardon me. Thank you. I actually feel a little bit differently about the geologic aspect. I am not a geologist. I play one on TV.

No, I'm kidding. I'm married to one, and so it's kind of a conversation always happening in our house. And to me, it makes a lot of sense that these previous slides were generated by poor decision making or inconclusive or insufficient research. I think I am willing to accept that explanation. I actually think it's based on that, if that were to not be the case, then I would reassess, of course.

But I actually think in many ways it's an ideal location. But I do wonder if what is the potential for adding a second egress down toward the freeway? An emergency egress, right? Like, believe that that adjacent property is probably ODOT, right? But maybe there's an agreement that could be established, an easement, something, so that if everything went sideways and there was no egress up onto Salamo, They could just go down on 205. It's right there. Those are my thoughts. Commissioner Watton.

Yeah, it's funny you say that. I had the same kind of thought about that as well. I know that it was mentioned at some point that that's not part of it, but I don't know that it had been explored as a possibility, like you said, as a gated thing that's only for, you know, significant event. You know, as far as the geotechnical, I am not a geotechnical either, but I read a lot of geotechnical reports during the day. The report is pretty extensive.

It's not just a preliminary report that was kind of like, 'hey, I think we can do this here. We'll give you more information if this thing goes through.' It's pretty extensive. Geotechs generally don't put their stamp and their insurance and everything on a project unless they're confident that it's going to work. The fact that it's on solid rock where the structures are, you know, I think I I did ask a couple of times with regards to where the fill is and I was told that the structures were not going to be on any of the fill. So the structures themselves I think are solid.

You know, as far as the slope above it, yes, it's steep standing out there today, and I'm seeing that somebody allowed houses to be built on that steep slope above. This project does not cut into that slope. That I could see there was a one of the outbuildings there's a little bit of cut but not significant into the slope that goes up the Hill. What else? I do agree about the road access.

The geotech explained how they were going to like carpeting and different things. That gets out of the side of my knowledge of geotechnical, but they had addressed geotechnicals that the access road you know, would pass the code for events that are coming. I know that if the big one hits, it's gonna be a situation. So we can't design for that in my mind. Have a level that we design for. So anyway, that's kind of my comments.

Chair, I just want to interrupt and let you know that Commissioner Evans has joined the meeting. Commissioner Evans, can you say can you state can you just check-in with us to let us know you're in the meeting?

Hi, everybody. Jason's here.

Okay. All right.

Chair, may I just briefly Commissioner Evans, just so you know, one thing that you missed while we were conducting this meeting is that on page five of the applicant's final written rebuttal, there's a sentence that says, the remaining two thirty five feet of frontage due to steep topography was deemed unfeasible by PGE. That sentence has been stricken from the record and will not be considered as part of the Planning Commission's decision based on constituting new evidence. I just want to make sure you're aware of that as you're deliberating your decision.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Commissioner Kaczorowski? Thank you. One other thought that I have is, you know, any of us who were here through 2021 know very, very well that more than earthquakes can block a road, right? I do think it is poor planning for there to be only one egress, the more that I think about it. Because it could be trees.

It could be who knows, right? There are many things that could happen. And I think for critical operations, there really does need to be a second access point. I just wanted to add that, that it's not just an earthquake. It's not just a slide.

Chair, I want to draw your attention to the hand raised on the screen.

Yes. Commissioner Jones, my apologies.

Thank you. I just wanted to follow-up on Mr. Shlatan Abhi's comments of the is it with the other things you've heard, is it mostly that the utilities and electricity coming to the center? Is that the vulnerability that you're mostly seeing that make it questionable as an effective operations, emergency operation center?

Commissioner Jones, was that directed at Commissioner Wolotnik? I think we all

are Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

So I think the challenge as has been mentioned by other commissioners is that there appears to be a stable area where the buildings would be constructed. They have concerns about the single access roadway into the facility. If there was another way in and out of there, especially during an emergency, that that might be sufficient for me to reconsider.

Mr. Watton.

Mr. Wise, are we able to ask you a question at this point? I don't believe we are. Okay.

It's going

to depend on the nature of the question. Can decide to

answer it. As a point of approval, potential approval of the project that exploration with the State on a possible emergency point. It's kind of a stretch right now, I think, as far as how far we are along. So I don't as a condition of approval it seems like I don't think that's possible.

I think the question would be, I'm going to have to rely on staff for this coming through the staff report, whether there's an approval criterion related to access that could justify that condition. I don't recall one in reviewing it previously.

I mean, you you could

have a potentially a very loose condition that says something like, please, you know, explore the possibility of a we recommend that you explore the possibility of a secondary emergency access, something like that.

Commissioner Wolbottini.

Thank you, Chair. So my concern about that's a pretty wishy washy condition of approval. And to base each of us to base our vote or at least several of us to base our vote on whether or not the city is able to negotiate a second entrance to the facility when that should have been done previously because to have an emergency operations center with only one point of access, it's just not it just doesn't work. So if we can't have a firm a more firm condition of approval for an access point down through the ODOT property so that operations could function during an emergency and go down to I-two 05 and then come back up into the city. I'm not sure where this goes.

At least in my mind, it's still not I need a little more firmness than that to give a yes vote to this.

Chair, I draw your attention to the screen. Yes.

Thank you. Commissioner Evans?

Yeah. Hi, Chair. Thank you for that. I apologize everybody for my tardiness. My work has carried me out to Washington.

I'm I'm tardied back to the airport. So I'm hearing some discussions, and I'm hearing some testimony. And I feel like it's important to point out that a lot of these things that we're talking about about questioning about soils reports, access to sites. You know, I'm gonna put it out there that I don't think this is really our call to say, a condition of use, we feel like this is an inappropriate site or this is an inappropriate location or this is an inappropriate entryway. A client has come or an applicant has come before us to seek approval for conditional use, and we can put conditions on that use for sure.

But to say we we as a planning commission disagree with the site location or we as a planning commission disagree with your your entry and exit, I don't think that's that's appropriate for us to be saying that to to any applicant. And the reason that we're doing it now is only because the city's is is the applicant. If this was any other applicant, I don't think we would be asking them, hey. Did you think about landslides? Hey.

What about this access road? We should be looking at things like commissioner has pointed out before, like myself about water water treatment. That's that's something we should be really concerned about. A condition of the use to make sure that we we have appropriate water water treatment facilities on-site. This whole situation of, hey. There's gonna be a landslide, so we shouldn't let the city build it. Well, that's that's the city's decision where to build their, municipal municipal complex. That that's not our decision. So sorry. I yield back to you, chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Evans. I am actually in agreement with you. I think this has come up before in this conversation about whether or not this is in each of our opinions the perfect for this operation, and that's really not the nature of what we're deciding. There have been a number of things that have come up from members of the community, very engaged and very intelligent members of the community about concerns related to the site. And at every juncture, they have been addressed.

And I think to my satisfaction, I'm also not a geologist, but, I think whether or not this would be where we would most want it is beside the point. And I I believe that the criteria as we're approving it is has been before us, and I'm generally satisfied with what we have been given by the applicant. So thank you for your yes, per Commissioner Evans.

Yeah. I said thank you. And I I everybody, I apologize since I'm I'm in a vehicle. I I can't see everybody, you know, who who may or may not be ready to raise their hands. So if I'm talking over people and and just share you just correct me and be like, hey.

Somebody's in front of you. So I I'm glad you said that. And I I too agree that the applicant has met the conditions for conditional use permit. I I do want to point out though that I feel there should be conditions that we place on this conditional use permit about the number of ones that the city has recommended. I also feel like we should make my opinion is that we should make a condition part of the conditions of use permit is that we mandate that the that the the SIP Public Works facility cleans out those cartridges and and the water treatment on a regular basis.

And we specify that. And my recommendation is every two years. And I feel like that's a good condition to put on it. I also feel like there has been talk about problems with potential impacts on traffic, and I also feel like there's something we can do about that. And my recommendation to deal with that is is is maybe we could put have the city put up some signs that say, storm and traffic ahead, and maybe they're activated by sensors when there's cars out there.

Those are things that I feel like we as a camp planning commission could ask an applicant to do due to the potential impacts upon their application. And I'm asking anybody else is how they feel about those suggestions.

Commissioner Dietz? Yeah. I just wanted to go back to what you previously said, Commissioner Evans. I actually disagree. I think the recommendations that the consultants gave, the application, this is absolutely our job to look at it thoroughly. And I think it is our job to investigate what those reports mean and understand if there's validity to them and if they meet the code. And I also want to remind everyone that this is like a $45,000,000 $46,000,000 project. It isn't something that we should just make willy nilly decisions on and go, oh, well, we're tired of debating it. It's really serious. It's taxpayer money.

And so the burden of proof is on the applicant. So I don't think we should just try to make suggestions on how to make their application better. It's just, does this application meet the codes and the standards?

Commissioner Evans.

Yeah. I I thank you, chair. I I I'm gonna have to disagree there. Our our we are not responsible for reviewing whether this is an appropriate use for the site. That is the city council's responsibility, not the planning commission. If the residents have a concern, that is the appropriate place to make those make those concerns, not the planning commission. Our job is to look at whether this is an appropriate application and appropriate use of conditional use permit. And I feel that the applicant has met those uses. And I would be voting yes in favor of this. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Commissioner Wolvati.

Thank you, Chair. So a couple of things. We do, as the Planning Commission, have the obligation to consider site conditions, and it's part of the community development code. There have been numerous applications that have come before this body where site conditions have come into play, and we've had conditions of approval related to that. So I'll leave it at that for the moment.

Regarding the storm water filter, the storm filter, one of the things that that came up sort of briefly in the last meeting was that was that the there could be a need for, and I would almost bet that there would be requirement for a 1,200 z permit from DEQ. And that that permit would require that the city would have to regularly sample the storm water release to the to the creek that's at the the southwest corner of the site, and that would be the governing factor on when the storm filters would be replaced. So it's not it's not saying it's a minimum of every two years or laying out some specific timeline. It's based on on laboratory analysis of the water that's being discharged.

Commissioner Evans.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, mister Wolhotnik, for that clarification. I I definitely agree that it sounds like there's gonna need to be that additional permit that the applicants need to make. And I am a wholeheartedly on board with whatever requirements the DEQ is gonna have on that. And I my suggestion was if to make sure that those cartridge were were changed out on a regular basis, but it sounds like that that part of that application that they're gonna have to make, the DDQ will have those conditions.

So I'm satisfied if with those requirements being a part of the conditional use, which I think this they have to do anyway. Back to you, Chair. Thank you.

Commissioner Kaczewski. Thank you. I wonder if we can ask the attorney to settle this issue of do we have where do we fall in our responsibilities, this question that we have?

I'll do my best. So I think it's kind of everyone is correct in a way with the comments that I've heard. Planning Commission's role in a quasi judicial hearing is constrained. It is not a question of, is this project a good idea? Is this how I would design the project? Is this the place that I would put this project? It's not that policy level decision. It is the decision of the property owner applicant. Your decision is, does this proposal meet the approval criteria? And if it does meet those criteria, then you have to approve.

So the question, I guess, is whether any of the concerns that you have relate to whether this application meets specific approval criteria? And if so, then that is a valid basis for considering approval or denial. If more of a general policy concern about whether this is the right place for this type of facility, whether it's the choice that you would make if you were the property owner applicant, then that is not a basis for approval or denial. Did that help at all?

Commissioner Evans?

I apologize. Got to take my little hand up. Apologies, I don't have anything to add at this right. Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Jones, are you still with us?

Yes, I am. Thank you.

Chair, this is Jason here. I apologize. I'm trying to raise my hand, but there's a lapse in the commentary. So I feel like it's an opportunity for me to speak. Is that alright?

Yes. That's fine. Please proceed.

Alright. Thank you. I guess since I'm not in the room currently and I'm attempting to be there, I guess has there been any discussion about who is is or is not in favor of approving this conditional use permit. I mean, I I I think I've made my my opinion known that I'm I'm in favor. It sounds like, sure, you're in favor, and I but I'm I'm having a hard time ascertaining whether the other commissioners, how they feel about approval.

Commissioner Robotny?

Thank you, chair. At this point, I am not in favor. I think the facility is needed. I think it's designed, in its essence, it's designed well. It meets a lot of requirements. My concern goes back to its ultimate or occasional function as an emergency operation center and access to the facility with only one access roadway through an area that's that's potentially subject to slip failure. And that's my my big concern.

Commissioner Evans, your hand is stopped. Would you like to speak?

Yes. I I did put it up. Thank you again. And I I thank you, chair. I think appreciate commissioner Wlavotny's opinion on that. But it sounds like what I'm hearing from commissioner Wahgni is that it is counter to what the city attorney is saying. The city attorney is saying that what commissioner Vlautney is saying is that he's opposed to it because of the site layout. Well, that's not a condition of denial, if I'm understanding it right. Is is that right, chair mister attorney?

I think I'll defer to the commissioner on whether that that concern is grounded in an approval criterion. I I think it it's possible that it is. But if if if that is if for example the ultimate decision of the Planning Commission is to deny this application, then staff will have to prepare a decision that will cite specific approval criteria that were not met. And so, I think that is the exercise that needs to happen as part of this deliberation is to ground any concerns in specific approval criteria.

So Commissioner Evans, this is Commissioner Walvotny. So I don't have concerns about the layout specifically. My concern comes back to site conditions which are part of the code and we are asked to consider slope and safety and whether there's the potential for landslide hazards and things like that. I mean, that's why we have the city has a slope landslide hazards map. And this area is in the middle of one.

So that's part of my concern. And that goes along with the state's Department of Geology and Mineral Industries mapping of the facility or location as well. And the state geologist has pointed out that this location may be subject to landslide or slope failure. So that's where my concern comes about, and that is under the purview of the Planning Commission.

Yes, Commissioner Dietz. Yeah, I just wanted to say my decision is rooted in the community development code. If you can pull it up on your computer and Google Community Development Code West Linn, the goal seven areas subject to natural disasters and hazards. The first sentence many of the natural features of West Linn, such as steep slopes and floodplains, impose limitations on development. That's the first sentence. It's a 143 page document. You should definitely read it. But I would say, to me, it doesn't meet the code.

Mr. Evans.

Thank you, sir. So I guess my to Commissioner Deets and Commissioner Valtney is what part of that is applicable? Just because a site is steep sloping in areas does not mean that it can't be mitigated. You do you not feel like these areas have been mitigated with the appropriate design? Do you we have testimony from the you know, a professional license engineer who's qualified to make these decisions.

And his testimony is such that they've mitigated these issues. Do you not feel like it's been appropriately mitigated? Do you have countering opinions to the professional engineer? I guess that's my question.

Yes. Commissioner Kaczorowski. I would just say to further commissioner Evans' statement, the licensed geotechnical engineer was saying that the original slides were caused by human they were not naturally occurring slides, that they occurred from poor excavation strategies. So is it a natural slide area? Or is it an area that is it is a slight area because of poor execution? And I think that that's a really important distinction.

I think so, too. And I acknowledge what's in the community development code, but we also read 700 pages, many of which were largely about the mitigating factors and the amount of work and expertise committed to making sure that this was safe. Commissioner Evans.

I apologize. I left my hand up. I don't have anything to add, I apologize.

Chair, if I may help maybe clarify another item that's been discussed here a little bit. Two things. One is that in general, when you have adopted development code regulations that implement the comprehensive plan and the goals, then the comprehensive plan and the goals themselves are not applicable criteria. You rely on the development code that implements those, not the general statements. The second would be, as I was encouraging you earlier, to ground your decision in the criteria, the other thing to be mindful of is evidence, right?

And so you may recall from our training that we did several months ago that the decision has to be based on substantial evidence in the record. And so as we often see when there is expert testimony, expert reports in the record, if there is not a contrary report or testimony from a similarly qualified expert, then to disregard testimony from that expert or that report would require identifying specific problems with that report that call its veracity into question rather than simply disagreeing with the conclusion of the report. So, for example, an example I like to give is if you have a traffic study that says there are no traffic impacts on this intersection, there's no queuing at this intersection at any point under current conditions. And you know for a fact that there's queuing there every rush hour, every weekday, that would be a reason to call into question the underpinnings of that report. But absent something like that, typically we do need to rely on reports and analysis of the experts.

Thank you.

Sure. It's Jason here again.

Yes. Proceed. Thanks.

I I apologize. It's much easier just for me to, like, when there's a a lapse in the conversation. If I may, I haven't heard from commissioner Jones, and I'm just curious as to his opinion on the subject at hand.

I will keep my thoughts to myself at this point.

Commissioner Wolotney.

Thank you, Chair. So just to kind of settle the issue of whether or not the Planning Commission has the responsibility and obligation to consider site conditions. CDC 55.11 site analysis, B, let's see, B6, C, and D. This is, this area considers potential natural hazard areas including, and then c and d are landslide areas designated by the natural hazard mitigation plan map 16, and landslide vulnerable analysis areas designated by the natural hazard mitigation plan map 17. So, and those maps do cover this area.

So, and granted the applicant has addressed those issues or address the fact that the site is located in a natural hazard mitigation area or a landslide vulnerable area. The question and I don't doubt the qualifications or the ability of the geotech engineer to design, the access road into the facility. My concern comes in that this is a landslide vulnerable area and where one happens another can also happen. I think an observation of the site and based on information provided by the applicant, there's a wetland area located down on the lower bench where the just to the east of the main office building, that wetland more than likely didn't exist before the landslide because all of that area was cleared out, excavated following the landslide. And so my my point is that the water that's there that created the wetland is from from groundwater drainage seepage onto that terrace area that that ODOT created when they mitigated the landslide that happened in 1969.

So just to point out for that to to remain wet all over all of these years means that there's still water flowing through through the formations in the area and as I can assume has contributed to that wetland, possibly its formation, but at least its continuance.

Commissioner Kaczorowski.

So my thought would be, is it truly landslide vulnerable? Because the landslide that occurred was triggered by excavation. It wasn't something I'm thinking of gosh, I think it was about twenty years ago, above Mary's Woods, up in the hill. There's a lot of rain. I don't know if you recall this. Terrible situation where it was rain. That's a naturally occurring landslide, as I understand them.

And I wonder

if the map is saying that it is vulnerable to landslides, is that sort of like if my neighbor burns a house down with a candle, do I now live in a fire risk area? That's how that feels to me. Because if it's not if it's a landslide that occurred from human intervention, that to me is a different category than a naturally occurring slide.

Yes, Commissioner Rosotny.

Excuse me. Thank

you, Chair. I don't want go too far down that path because it's not entirely related to this, but that particular situation over in on on the other side by Merrellhurst, there was actually a cut slope in that area. And then with the weather that contributed to the slide. Yeah. So, yeah.

At least that's, as far as I know, that's what I read at the time. So, I guess just to carry that forward a little bit is that my concern is that

as

description in the JOTEC report, the vantage horizon is situated between, within the Columbia River Basalt Group and between two basalt flows. It is prone to sliding, my understanding at least, because the slope of that that horizon is more than 10 degrees, and so it presents that possibility. And it is entirely possible that what's gonna fail has has failed as far as it's gonna go. But I just have a concern that in the case of of a Cascade Resolution Subduction Earthquake that slide area will reactivate to some degree. And I have concern with just having a single point of access into the facility, especially if the 28,000 people who live here in Westland expect that that facility is going to operate and provide emergency services during any sort of emergency.

Commissioner Kaczorowski. So I'm thinking of the city attorney's discussion with us about the grounds upon which we can approve or disprove. And what I'm wondering is if there is code surrounding the access rules for a facility like this in egress, right? Can we point to code and say, this condition has not been met, and it requires you know, I'm looking here at option B, right? This condition has not been met for safety and access under all conditions.

Put a road in and then come back to us. Or we approve it pending that road. But can we do this through code? Yes, Commissioner Waldman.

So just one more comment on the geotechnical report and its requirement. Under CDC 55,130 grading and drainage plans under E, section E, for type one, two, and three lands, the applicant must provide a geologic report, which they've done. The geotech certified engineering geologist or geotechnical professional engineer, they have to consider site characteristics, geologic descriptions, a summary of the site investigation conducted, assessment of engineering geological conditions and factors, review of the City Of Westlands natural hazard mitigation plan and applicability to the site, and conclusions and recommendations focused on geologic constraints for the proposed land use or development activity, limitations and potential risks of development, recommendations for mitigation approaches, and additional work needed at future development stages including further testing and monitoring. So I think they've the geotechnical report addresses those issues. I think that there's, under recommendations for mitigation approaches specific to the earthquake.

I mean, there's there's a recommendation to use a geo grid as reinforcement for the roadway and But another mitigation approach for that is to have that secondary access to the facility as well. But that's not part of the I don't know that that's part of the geotechnical report.

So Commissioner, I believe this section that you're citing is the submittal requirements and what has to be included in the geotech report. Submittal requirements, this is a frequent point of confusion. Submittal requirements are not approval criteria. So the question is, did they submit something that checks all these boxes? Yes.

Then they get to proceed to the hearing and then you get to look at the question of whether they meet the approval criteria, which are in a different section. Yep. I'm I'm in a difficult position here because I'm advising the city as decision maker, and so I I need to be neutral. But I I I guess try to help point the planning commission to I think the discussion I'm hearing probably centers most around section 60.03. Sorry.

It's a little confusing in the planning, in the staff report how this is number here. It's in chapter 60, the approval criteria for conditional use permit, particularly subsection A two, which says the characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use considering size, shape, location, topography, and natural features. I think that's what your your conversation has been centered on is whether the site is suitable for the proposed use based on those factors. And then the question really becomes what I was suggesting earlier, is, is there evidence in the record suitable to base a decision on one way or the other on whether the site is suitable for the proposed use based on size, shape, location, topography and natural features. Hope that helps frame the the question a little bit.

Mister Robbins, welcome.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. So apologies again for my tardiness. I have very busy day today. I guess my question goes back to commissioner Levante, and I apologize because I am absent of a laptop and absent of an iPad. And so you were quoting some some verbiage inside the CDC about requirements for slope. And I guess I was just wondering if it specifically says that you can't build on these sites or you can't build under these conditions.

No, it doesn't say that. It says that they need to be considered in a geotechnical report and as the city attorney said that those submitters are required, but those are not necessarily the standards for approval.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Jones.

Thank you. Could the attorney again cite you were saying that it was could you cite where were where were you citing from again? I was trying to follow.

Yes, that's a valid question. It was difficult to follow. Maybe the easiest way to cite this is to say at the top of Page 69 of the supplemental staff report is I just I see the code here is section 60 o seven zero a two. That's the characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed use considering size, shape, location, topography and natural features.

Okay. And are you doing municipal code or CDC?

A CDC.

Thank you.

Yes. Commissioner Robbins.

Thank you, Chair. I guess there was a void, and so I feel like I have to talk. So that's why. I guess I'm trying to take a temperature in the room for approvals on this. And I guess it sounds like there are some concerns from Commissioner Wavotnik and Commissioner Teets about site conditions. And I'm just curious if there are other issues that you feel are in play besides those two types of conditions.

I think I mentioned it earlier, but the zoning issue is an issue for me. There's part parts on the southern part of the property that aren't zoned, and I think there's a process that has to be gone through in order to do that.

Were you not satisfied with the would you mind explaining what about it you didn't find satisfactory?

Yeah. From what I understand, from when you zone or rezone things, I believe it's a public hearing, and it needs to be the public needs to be invited. And it needs to go through a process, a formal process.

Commissioner Evans.

Thank you, chair. Are we allowed to ask about that specific thing to the city attorney or to, yep, the city planning commission or planning department?

We can help point

you to what's been discussed already in the record.

Which is that it sounds like the city went through a proper approval process for rezoning. And that's my understanding of what was admitted into the record. Is that Do you want speak to that?

Is that correct?

Again, just so as not to introduce any new evidence on the record, we would just refer you back to the memorandum that's already been submitted.

Thank you. So my recollection of that memorandum is that it has been discussed. It sounds like the city went to the appropriate approval process for re rezoning that property. So that that's my opinion on that.

Commissioner Wolvotnay. Oh, sorry.

Thank you, Chair. So just to sort of address, I mean, the temperature and the among the commissioners. I I just wanna make the point that that the code comes into play and there can be interpretations of the code to some degree.

And

depending on how the vote turns out, the if there's a failed if there's a failed vote, then at that point you have to be able to point out the specific sections of code that that are at issue. And if the code, if the vote is successful in the eyes of the applicant, then you don't need to do that. We don't need to justify, I mean the commission doesn't have to justify all the no votes or the yes votes. The yes votes will be assumed to be in line with the application and the staff report.

Commissioner Kaczorowski, my apologies. Thank

you.

So this is a genuine question. As the city attorney as I understand the city attorney's comments, we have been presented with the proposal, which included testimonials from various people, including the geotechnical engineer. That's the one that is most salient from me, because to me, that speaks to the heart of, is this safe? City attorney said that if we object, it has to be with evidence, as opposed to just, I'm not sure I'm down with that. So am I missing something?

Because I'm not aware that we have evidence that says it remains unsafe and that it has not I don't know that unless I've missed something, I don't know that I could point to anything and say, this has not been addressed by a licensed professional geotechnical engineer. Do understand why I'm asking? Am I missing something?

Commissioner Evans. Thank you, Chair.

I'm with you there, Commissioner Katariski. If we have heard testimony from concerned citizens about the site usage, If that would be the opportunity for those opposed to bring forth their credible witnesses just to oppose what the applicant has proposed. And we haven't heard that. And so we have to go, in my opinion, you know, I'm a professional architect, and I trust professional engineers and professionals. And if a professional engineer with extensive amount of of experience says it's this is how they plan to mitigate this, then I trust that professional.

Like, I would expect other professionals to trust me when I give my professional opinions. So, Chair, are we accepting motions? Are we still?

Well, I did see a hand up on behalf of Commissioner Jones. It doesn't appear to be up at the moment, but I want to give him an opportunity to speak.

So I would like to hear, as under what was discussed under Goal seven, and we do have some agency of asking questions and having debate, can I hear from some of the commissioners their thoughts about and expound on about having the second entrance or egress in connection with this being an emergency operation center?

Commissioner Evans.

I'll go first, but I feel like Commissioner Jones has asked for everybody's opinion, so I don't mind going first.

No, I'm actually asking the people who raised it in favor of it. Like to hear their thoughts of the people who brought it up. I'd like to hear their thoughts of them expounding on it a

little bit more. Thank you for the clarification, Commissioner Jones.

Commissioner Kaczorowski. Well, that's partly me. So you would like me to expand on why I suggested a second egress?

Yeah, yeah, Just kind of thoughts around it. This isn't a challenging thing. I'm just kind of wanting to hear kind of fleshing out.

Sure, I understand. My thoughts are, given the unquestionable importance of this facility and everything it will contain, most especially during an emergency, I think we're very, very focused on landslides. And that focus, I think, is creating a little bit of, in my perspective, a little bit of tunnel vision, because there are many things that can block a road. There are many things that can go wrong. And as soon as we is it that isn't a Beatles quote, like life is what happens when you're making plans or something like that, right?

So we can sit here and be really focused on planning for a landslide. But if something else goes wrong, but the landslide issue was spoken to, we're still up the creek. And I just think, given the importance of everything contained in this facility and given the site's proximity to 205, the site's proximity to ODOT's storage area, to me, it just seems obvious that I've actually been thinking this all along. Given how close it is to 205, how interesting that there's no access from there and that, in fact, we're taking people through our city to access this when that's not even necessary, perhaps. Right?

I understand we're talking about an easement, and I understand that probably when we're talking about exiting and entering off of 205, it probably puts things into a different realm of getting approvals and so forth. But at the same time, if we're concerned about traffic moving through the city, and especially up Salomo, which can be problematic already, it just seems like a bit of a miss to have to be so close to a very elegant solution that we don't suss out. And at the same time, in addition to traffic mitigation, two is always better in an emergency. Could be either one that's blocked. Does that answer your question?

That's very helpful. Thank you. But I'd also like to kind of hear some of the other commissioners as well.

Mr. Robbins? Thank you, Chair.

So I guess I have two thoughts or maybe more than two thoughts. I completely concur that perhaps the applicant could have considered a second access point. I don't know if that necessarily means we can deny them because they didn't put a second access point. Maybe you guys should have. I don't know.

I haven't looked at the site plan or survey to see if it's even feasible. I haven't looked at the survey to see if oh, doubt, we even allow an easement through there. You know, there's a lot of things in play when it comes to that. I do wanna point out, though, that I work for a utility company, and I feel like I've got some expertise here related to this situation. And the I feel it's important to point out that the public works facility is wholly prepared to deal with something blocking their only entrance.

There I mean, as utility companies ourselves, we have chainsaws in the back of our trucks and our rigs. We have CB radios. We can talk to everybody in our area to come help clear right of ways, clear access to substations and control houses so we can get there do switchgear repairs as needed. And I feel like the this department is wholly capable of going, oh, crap.

There's a

tree that blocked our road. We can clear that.

Yeah. They're the ones who

are gonna they're gonna show up and go,

oh, the tree or there's something that happened here in our only entrance. We have to fix that. So I feel like they're wholly capable of that. So I don't feel that's a concern for me. Although I do feel like there's legitimacy to your concern that a second access would be really nice. But I also don't feel like that's a condition to deny. That makes sense.

Thank you, Chair.

As it I'm sorry, it was very implied that my question was directed at Commissioners Walt Malvey and Deets and their comments about wanting to have secondary access. I kind of wanted to hear them tease out a little bit more. I value their opinions, and I kind of want to hear a little bit more on that if they feel comfortable sharing.

Commissioner Wavotny?

So I think I've gone through this, but, my concern is whether the, the slide can be reactivated. Excuse me. Whether the slide can be reactivated along the the the vantage horizon. And if that occurs, that will likely result in a failure along the roadway. My understanding is that the the geogrid, and I may have a misunderstanding, but the geogrid that they want to use for the road to stabilize that is to stabilize it through a fill area.

Then maybe they're going to remove the fill and put in different material that would be more stable. But the GeoGrid will provide stability. I understand that they're not using or not designing with that at this point. I mean, this is very conceptual, but in their earthquake, their seismic analysis, that was considered as part of the slope stability, and they weren't using the full strength of the tensile strength of the geogrid as it's affected, impacted by the seismic waves through the material. I'm not sure that I'm making that more clear for you.

I don't have an issue the design itself. I mean, I'm not a geotechnical engineer or a certified engineering geologist. I would have been because there's a potential, and maybe this is because of what I do, there's a potential for the earthquake to be a 9.5 magnitude. And that would not stand up to the design that was presented. So, that's my concern about the access and if this is an emergency situation, we only have so much time for the operations center to be closed because people can't get in and out of there.

So at that point, the fences are just cut and they make a mad dash downhill, create a road to get out of there to go to two zero five across the ODOT property and then come back in on at the exit or the the exit ramp. You do what you gotta do in an emergency. But I would feel a lot better if there was an easement in place or consideration of a secondary access point. So and and I have to temper this too with, know, just my own experience with Lena Prieta earthquake. And I was living in Oakland at the time, working across the bay on the peninsula and not being able to cross the bay because it happened at the end of the workday.

As people may know, it was right during at the beginning of the the World Series game. And the Cypress structure collapsed. And that's the large freeway structure in Oakland and that's where most of the lives were lost. So I have concerns about structural stability for roadways just from that experience. So I think the design works for what they've designed for.

We just don't know what sort of cascadia subduction zone earthquake we're gonna get, which could be up to 9.5 magnitude and could also go for more than five minutes as opposed to the twenty seconds of the Loma Prieta earthquake. That's my concerns.

Commissioner Rotten.

So but I my understanding the way I see it is, you know, they're designing it to code. And they're not designing it the code doesn't say it needs to withstand a 9.5 earthquake. If it did, you know, we'd be building things a lot different throughout. Obviously, freeways were built in the sixties, fifties, you know, elevated, double elevated, you know, that design probably is obsolete. That was terrible.

But I'm not sure that I can say that with this roadway that we're kind of focusing on is on a platform, I mean it's on a flat area, it's got a slope coming existing slope that comes in, it builds up, and then it's it's comes back down to another roadway slash platform. It's undisturbed on the other side of that that roadway as it kinda comes back around. It's designed to code. I mean if if there's slippage, it's gonna happen. It's gonna happen above it and that means that the house and the houses along that bluff are gonna be moving in that general direction.

What's proposed here is not affecting any of those, it's not putting any additional load or any additional cut on the properties above, in my view of reading the site plan. So I have all the same concerns that this feels like we all do here, but I don't feel like I can deny something that's been put in front of me here.

Commissioner Evans.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to point out two important aspects. The Community Development Code is one aspect of requirements. And I don't like as Commissioner Watten pointed out, I don't think it says anything about must design to a nine point zero or a 9.5 cascading subduction zone. Maybe it should.

And if we, as a planning commission, feels like it should, we should change our community development code to say that for this category appropriate facilities. The second point is that the architects and engineers have pointed out that they're building the facility to the appropriate risk category. So it seems like the site and the buildings are being built to the appropriate requirements of the appropriate adopted building codes and adopted community development code. So I don't see a reason to deny based upon those criterias.

So I have to come back to the city's natural hazard mitigation mapping and the state department of geology and mineral industries. And so at the state and the local level, we are indicating that this is a landslide prone location and it's just questionable that it was even even selected for anything other than a park. That's that's my concern. So even if we design to it, how much money are we spending? And and that's not a consideration for the planning commission, but we're obviously spending a lot more money to design, to mitigate against a slide, an earthquake at this location, then we're rid of another in another spot in town.

And I understand we got it as a as inexpensive property, but just because you get it for the, you know, on the say around 12,015 thousand dollars an acre instead of $200,000 or more an acre. If you're out of commission because things go haywire, then was it worth it? So

Mr. Evans? Thank you, chair. Are you entertaining motions?

I will give every commissioner an opportunity to say anything that they would like to say, and then I am open to entertaining motions. Sure. Okay. Commissioner Evans. I'm I'm so sorry.

Is the Commissioner Jones?

I'm sorry.

Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Jones, I apologize. Thank you.

Thank you so

much. So after as we're seeing some we are hearing circling around several times about the access of being able to get in case of an emergency, being able to get vehicles out from this facility to the community and understanding that we are still also operating under the goals as recommended. But as the as it's being reminded to us that we have to operate within the CDC, but the CDC doesn't have anything that specifically discusses emergency operation centers or anything of its like that I can find. And this is a question, I guess, to the attorney. Can we make a motion or can we make it in addition to approval that there has to that there is a secondary egress or access under the provision of Goal seven?

Is that an option that's available to us?

So goal seven in and of itself isn't an approval criterion. You have to look at the criteria in the development code specifically. I think the conversation that we had about the alternative access was that we weren't able to identify any particular approval criterion that relates to access that would allow you to be able to impose that as a mandatory obligation for this project. Because there isn't a criterion that you're trying to establish is met through that condition, but that it would probably be acceptable to impose some sort of a condition of approval that expressed the Planning Commission's concern about this issue in a way that doesn't obligate the developer to do something that they're not required to do under the code. So that it was the as one of the commissioners aptly described it, it was a it was a loosey goosey, I think was the term that was used, condition.

But that's what you would be left with, which is something like the Planning Commission encourages the applicant to study an alternative emergency access.

So our option right now is loosey goosey. And I'm recalling that when we were looking at the purchase of this, the lack of documentation explaining what thoughts were behind it, loosey goosey is our only option, if we're going to consider approval, then loosey goosey is better than nothing?

Can I say something?

Of course, Commissioner Deeds.

I just want to say, I feel like we're kind of talking in circles a little bit, and I feel like we kind of probably all have an idea of where we stand on this application and what's the criteria that's presented in front of us and not hypothetical criteria or criteria we've come up with tonight. So I just wanna say that if we did wanna do an additional roadway, I don't know if I feel comfortable voting on a condition where I don't know

where the road would be.

I don't know how it would look. I don't know any of the engineering things going on with it. I just know what I'm voting on is the evidence that's in front of me tonight.

Commissioner Evans.

Thank you, Chair. Are you now ready to accept questions? I want to give everybody opportunity. I don't want feel like I'm talking over people get the impression I'm talking over anybody. It seems like we like, commissioners, Dietz's it seems like we've all have sussed out where where we kind of all stand at. I just feel like either one of us is gonna make a motion to to approve or one of us is gonna make an impression to not approve. And I'm ready to move forward with one of those two options.

Yes. Okay. Fantastic. Thank you. Do my best here.

I make a motion to approve CUP 20 five-two or Doctor-twenty five-twoWAP-twenty five-one is presented and direct staff to prepare a final decision order based on the findings of written record hearings, deliberations, staff report exhibits, and supplemental memorandums.

Commissioner Wharton.

I'll second that.

Do we want to call the roll?

Yes, I would like to call a vote.

Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Wotton?

Yes.

Commissioner Evans?

Yes.

Commissioner Walvotny? No. Commissioner Kaczorowski?

Yes. Commissioner

Deets? No. Commissioner Jones? No. Chair, Schulte Hillen?

Yes.

We have, four to three. Approve.

K. Anyone with legal standing would like to appeal this decision to the city council, you must file an application with the community development department within fourteen days of the mailing of the final decision. Thank you. Okay. The next item on the agenda is planning commission announcements. And I believe commissioner Wolvotnik would like to speak. Please proceed.

Thank you, chair. So this is gonna be real quick. It's gonna require more consideration in a following meeting. So a couple of days ago I noticed something at a former subdivision location where we over the course of three applications eventually approved an application for the Willow Ridge subdivision which is at the intersection of I'm losing the address here. It's off of Cornwall, at the end of Cornwall and Landress, sorry.

So I live a mile away from there. I drove down Cornwall, saw a sign at the end of Cornwall stating Lot 7. This was a six lot subdivision. That particular location is is steep at the end of of Cornwall. And actually there was a right of way for Cornwall that goes down the hill and then would have joined up with intersected with Fairhaven Drive in Barrington Heights.

And whether it's because of the steepness of the slope or other things happen on Cornwall because there used to be a house there before the subdivision went in and demoed that house to replace it with six others. Anyway, that location has a really steep slope. But as part of the the one of the conditions of approval for the subdivision, there was a requirement for a pedestrian trail down that slope. And so it would have been on a narrow strip of land adjacent to Lot 6 from the subdivision and then that abutted up against the right of way for Cornwall Drive. A couple years after we approved that, the applicant came back to the Planning Commission and said, you know, this is really too steep.

We would like to make changes. We'll pay for, you know, trail work in another location and the planning commission accepted that. So the point is they decided they couldn't build a pedestrian trail right there because it was too steep. And lo and behold, now we have a lot for housing construction at that location. I just looked at the topographic maps that were provided with the application and just did a real simple rise of a run calculation and right there at the end of Cornwall, it's a 50% slope approximately.

So it's pretty steep. And it's also outside the area that was covered by the geotechnical report for the subdivision. So to call it Lot 7, I'm assuming that it's supposed to be part of the Willow Ridge subdivision. My point on all of this is that I'd request that staff provide further information on this and provide the information justifying the approval of this particular lot lot in quotation marks for housing when it was already deemed too steep to put a pedestrian trail on. So that's all.

I think just we'd we'd love a motion of the commission to do to do so. Just a motion from the commission and agreement.

Commissioner Watton, thank you.

I move to have staff supply us at the next meeting. If that's not possible, the meeting following that with regards to Lot 7.

I second the motion.

No. I get two. I never get to second anything.

Commissioner Evans?

Yes.

Commissioner Walwatney?

Yes.

Commissioner Kaczorowski? Yes. Commissioner Yates? Yes. Commissioner Watten?

Yes.

Commissioner Jones?

Aye.

And Chair Schulte Hillen? Yes. The motion passes seven to zero. And we'll the staff will get back to you on the day we can do this.

Commissioner Evans.

Thank you, chair. I have two staff announcements to make. And I think it's if if you guys recall, if everybody recalls, we had some concerned citizens here probably six weeks ago or so, and there was some issues with the water that was seeping underground. It was now popping up in their neighborhood. And I think it's really important for us to make sure we don't forget that happened and that they're apparently trying to build a new neighborhood really close by and potentially use that storm water detention pond.

So we should all be very cognizant of that. And the reason I'm saying that is another announcement. Tonight is my last planning commission meeting. I apologize. We finally sold our house, so I don't feel it's appropriate to continue after tonight. And I wanted to say thank you so much for everybody for their friendship while I've been here and and and I value each one and every of you guys. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I think we will move on now to staff announcements.

All right, thank you Chair. The only announcement would be we have another public hearing on the eighteenth with mister Evans, commissioner Evans stepping away. The chair will not be here, and we have another commissioner that will recuse themselves. That leaves us with four. So commissioner Watton, Jones, Wolvotny, and Kaccharisky, I hope you're available on the eighteenth so we have a a quorum. If you can confirm that with us, please. The staff report will be out tomorrow. So at that point, if you have any questions, please direct them my way. And, we'll see you here again on the eighteenth for the public hearing.

Can I add on to that? I'm the commissioner that's gonna be recusing themselves. This is something that I wanted to just let you all know, and then I'll also be sending you information about it.

Alright. Thank you.

I can confirm that I will be present.

I'll be here.

Barring something unexpected illness, I'll be here.

Nine point five earthquake.

As of this point, I can confirm.

All right. So it sounds like we've got a confirmed quorum unless illness gets in the way there. All right. Thank you.

Okay thank you all very much and this meeting is adjourned at 07:55.