Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

With staff, like

Yes. Good evening, everyone. Commissioner Watten. Here. Commissioner Kaczorowski. Here. Commissioner Wolvotny? Here. Acting chair Jones? Here. Chair, we have four members in attendance and we have a quorum.

Okay. So we are here for application CUP twenty five zero three, DR twenty five zero three, VAR twenty five zero two for conditional use permit, class two design review and class three variants at 18850 Willamette Drive. The proposal is to construct a new drive through car wash. This is a quasi judicial decision. Unlike in legislative hearings where opinion may come into play, quasi judicial rulings must be grounded in the relevant code, and the application meets the and if the application meets the code, the commission must approve it.

The hearing will proceed as follows. After preliminary legal matters, staff will make a presentation followed by the applicant. Then anyone who wishes to testify will be given an opportunity. Finally,

there will

be time for rebuttal by the applicant. The applicant will have twenty minutes initially, plus fifteen minutes for rebuttal. If participating remotely, please remember to use the raise hand icon if you wish to ask questions. Please keep yourself muted until you are ready to speak so everyone is heard clearly. About roughly every two hours, I will call a washroom or stretching break, however you prefer to call it. And I now call to order this public hearing. I now ask the city attorney to cover the preliminary legal matters.

Thank you, acting chair. The applicant has the burden of proving that the application is consistent with the city of Westlands community development code, Comprehensive Plan, and any applicable municipal code provision. The criteria that must be addressed in this hearing are Chapter 19, General Commercial, GC Chapter 32, Water Resource Area Protection Chapter 42, clear vision areas. Chapter 44, fences. Chapter 46, off street parking, loading, and reservoir areas.

Chapter 48, access, egress, and circulation. Chapter 54, landscaping. Chapter 55, design review. Chapter 60, conditional uses. Chapter 75, variances and special waivers.

Chapter 96, street improvement construction. Chapter 99, Procedures for Decision Making, quasi judicial. As the Planning Commission is sitting quasi judicially, any testimony, argument, or evidence that speakers give us must be directed at these criteria or at some other criteria in the development code or comprehensive plan which you believe should apply to this decision. Only those who have provided testimony to the planning commission in person or in writing will have standing to appeal this item to the city council. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements of evidence sufficient to allow the commission and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue.

Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues related to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the city or its designee to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. So now I will ask the planning commissioners if you have any conflicts of interest, bias, or ex parte contacts. Do any of the members of the planning commission wish to declare a potential or actual conflict of interest or bias? Seen head shaking. Okay. Do any members of the Planning Commission wish to report any site visits or ex parte contacts?

Yeah. I did a drive by to kind of focus my looks at topography and how the grades are there. Just drive by. I didn't get out the car, but I did do that. And I also did visit the website of the applicant. Just doing a little additional research based on some of the documentation that was in their application.

And do you feel that you can nevertheless make an impartial decision?

Yes.

And does any member of the audience wish to challenge the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to hear this matter or the impartiality or ex parte disclosures of any member of the Planning Commission? Okay. Anybody online? No, it doesn't look like anyone's raising their hand online. Okay, so moving on. Yeah, Acting Chair, that concludes the legal matters.

Thank you. Just going forward at least while I'm sitting in this chair, we live in a specific time where people seem to confuse identity and title. So going forward, at your pleasure, I would prefer to be referred to as David instead of chair. I think too many people confuse these issues and let's start with a kind of small role modeling now. So can we begin with staff report and presentation?

Alright, thank you. For the record, Darren Wise, principal planner with the City of West Linn. I'm gonna go through a staff report to lay out the proposal and then entertain any questions the commission may have of me. Alright. Sorry. Is that better? Alright. There you go. Alright. For the record, Darren Wise, principal planner with the city of West Linn.

I'm gonna go through this presentation, outline the proposal and the applicable criteria, and then, take any questions the commission may have of me. So again, it's a proposed drive through car wash at 118850 Willamette Drive or Highway 43. Alright. So again, it's a quasi judicial public hearing for conditional use permit, a class two design review, and a class two variance. And that variance is for the city's window transparency standards in the design review chapter, and I will speak more to that later in the presentation.

So the commission has options approved with the staff recommended conditions, approve with modified conditions, or deny the, the proposal. So in the planning commission, materials, there was a staff report, sent out almost two weeks ago, included background information, the recommended conditions of approval, all the findings for all of the applicable criteria, and several exhibits. Exhibits one, two, three, four were the applicant materials. Exhibit five were the public comments that came in prior to the publishing of the staff report and planning commission packet. Some additional maps in exhibit six.

And exhibit seven, the completeness letter in the affidavit of mailing of notice. There have been two public comment memos sent to the planning commission. 11 comments were sent to the Commission last Friday, March 13, after 4PM, and another, public comment memo sent to the Planning Commission today, just after noon. Noon was the deadline for written public comments and included eight additional comments that came in since last Friday until today at noon. The applicant also sent in additional materials today that were sent to the Planning Commission.

It included an updated site plan addressing, the five foot landscape buffer between, the parking area, the proposed parking area and the commercial property to the north and an additional, traffic study with additional data, that was sent to the commission. And also wanted to point out that, the Oregon Department of Transportation also sent in a comment letter that was in the packet that was sent out today with the, with the other seven comments. So again, subject property is 18850 Willamette Drive. The existing conditions, it's just over 56,000 square feet, which is about 1.3 acres. It's got general commercial zoning.

There's a vacant McDonald's building with a drive through. It's been vacant, for seven or eight years at least. It has two existing ingress, egress drives, one off of Walling Way, one off of Willamette Drive that it shares with the commercial property to the north. There's mature street street trees and landscaping on-site. There's cedar trees and a masonry wall on the sort of the east end of the site where the drive aisle comes off of Willamette or Walling Way.

I'm sorry. There's exist existing street improvements, sidewalk, curb, gutter on Walling Way, sidewalk, bike lane, curb and gutter on Highway 43. The water resource area map, the adopted water resource area map shows a significant riparian corridor in the southeast corner, which again, I will address here in a couple of minutes. There's existing storm water detention and treatment facilities, in that southeast corner of the site, as it exists today. Alright.

Sorry. Here is the site itself. Again, it sits at the corner of Walling Way and Highway 43 Or Willamette Drive. Commercial commercial businesses to the north, commercial businesses to the South, commercial business across the across the street, Highway 43, and then residential, residential properties to the to the, east of the of the subject property. This is just a zoomed in zoomed in look of the existing position of the of the vacant McDonald's, old McDonald's building.

It's hard to see the the the text on the, on this image, but the one way access down sort of the, the bottom of the the frame there in the middle. Sorry. The shared access up in the, sort of top left there, then and the storm water facility over in the, the bottom right of the of the red triangle, the existing facility that is is located in that area. Here's the zoning. Again, commercial to the Northwest and South and residential r 10 to the East.

So the applicant proposal, again, a drive through car wash. They would demolish the existing fast food restaurant, construct the 3,470 square foot structure, which is includes the car wash itself and then two attendant booths for the customers to pay and get into the line for the wash. They would shift the boarding over toward the middle of the site compared to the existing McDonald's positioning. It includes a proposal for dual reservoir lanes for queuing up to the attendant booths so it doesn't spill out into the drive aisles. New parking area with landscaping, 14 spaces with vacuum services, one eighty eight van accessible space and two employee spaces.

They would retain the two existing access drives as they are currently. Retain the existing landscaping and street trees along Willamette Drive and Walling Way. Retaining the existing cedar trees at the back of the masonry wall on the east portion of the site. It would include a waste enclosure and then two vacuum pump enclosures for the vacuum services. Excuse me.

This is just a somewhat closer up view of the proposal. I know it's hard to see on the screen. The applicant did send in again the updated site plan today showing on the left hand side parking of area, expanding that landscape strip to five feet to meet the code requirements of the code. Here's the facade of the building from the from the north and the south. Here is the the entrance at the top and then the exit from the from the car wash facility itself on the on the bottom.

So I'm going to go through the applicable criteria and just highlight, some of the information, especially anything that was proposed as a condition of approval. So the Chapter 19 is the general commercial zoning, automotive and equipment cleaning requires this conditional use permit, hence we're here this evening. Contains the rear and side setback requirements, height and lot coverages. All of these are met along Highway 43 of Willamette Drive. The maximum front yard setback is 20 feet.

The applicant is proposing a 54 foot five inch setback from Willamette Drive that would contain landscape, the existing landscaping, the drive aisle to the car wash, some nonvehicular hardscapes, and then the exit drive aisle. So the Planning Commission may impose conditions to ensure compatibility with other uses. And the Planning Commission could approve this additional setback area to mitigate noise from the proposed use. So chapter 32 is the water resource area protection chapter. Again, as I mentioned earlier, the adopted water resource area map includes a significant riparian corridor designation on the southeast corner of the subject property.

The associated creek, Fern Fern Creek, however, is piped across the property. There is no open channel on the on the subject property. In the development, chapter 32 development code, exempts any development at a rang right angle from a pipe section, exempts it from needing a water resource area permit. Chapter 42 is clear vision areas. Three intersections need to be need to comply and they do.

That's the Walling Way Access Drive, the Willamette Drive Access Drive, and then the Willamette Drive Walling Way Intersection. And excuse me for a second. So there is a condition of approval three, that requires pruning of the existing landscaping to meet current height requirements in the municipal code for the height of tree limbs tree limbs off the street and sidewalk. So essentially just, some, some cleanup of the site. And here's the water resource area map.

On the left is a clip of the actual adopted map. As you can see, the, the green coloring is is the significant riparian corridor. And then the image on the right is the, obviously, the aerial photo with the storm water facilities. As you can see, the creek is piped all the way to the rear property line behind the existing storm water detention detention and treatment facility. So hence the exemption from needing to get water resource area permit for this proposal.

Chapter 44 fences. No new fences are proposed on the perimeter of the property. The existing masonry wall, retaining wall is to remain on the east side of Wallingway Drive Isle. And as you the image shows it there And as the the cedar trees behind it buffering the the properties to the east. And then the waste enclosure needs to comply with the chapter fifty four and fifty five for the waste enclosures, and I'll get to that here shortly.

Chapter 46 is parking. So again, 14 spaces with vacuum services, one ADA van space. It was a condition of approval five that the the any ADA requirements must be federal ADA requirements must be met. And that's done as part of the building permit process and then two employee parking spaces. The city's code has maximum parking standards, and the maximum on this site, for this use is 17 spaces, so they meet that standard.

The proposal includes traffic directional areas to direct traffic through the site into the site. It contains a 20 foot 22 foot, two way drive aisle through the parking area which meets the city standards. It has adequate reservoir areas, to get into the the tenant boost for paying for the wash and then getting into the wash itself. No loading space is required. There's a condition of approval that the parking areas must be improved and inspected prior to the condition or the certificate of occupancy and that's a condition of approval for.

They've proposed adequate bike parking. Our code does require the installation of a bike parking sign and lighting. So there's a condition of approval six around those standards. The CFEC rules, if you remember a couple of years ago, now require a conduit to be installed for future EV charging stations that requires 20% of the parking spaces to have conduit. And so there's a condition of approval seven to provide conduit to four of the parking spaces as part of this proposal, which would meet the 20%.

Chapter 48, access egress and circulation, again retain the two existing access drives. They do have the shared access agreement with the property to the north. RD Engineering sent in a traffic impact analysis letter, showing that there would be a reduction in trips from the previous use or many of the other, outright permitted uses in the zone.

Again,

Oregon Department of Transportation submitted a letter. It's in the comment packet today. There would be no significant impacts from the proposal. No additional state review required. They did recommend the city consider a condition of approval to upgrade the ADA ramp at Walling Way and then the Highway 43 intersection. So it's something for the condition commission to consider. The existing service drives meet the standards. Walling Way is 37 feet wide. The Walling Way Drive is 40 feet wide. The reservoir lanes meet our standards of 12 feet.

They range from 13 to 28 feet wide where it's the dual lanes. Tualatin Tualatin Valley Fire Fire and Rescue, excuse me, issued a service provider permit. So they reviewed the, site for fire access and met their met their requirements. And and the site has adequate intersection separation between the drive aisles and the intersection of Walling Way and Willamette Drive. Alright.

Chapter 54 is landscaping. Again, retain the existing street trees and mature landscaping along both Willamette Drive and Walling Way. The city's development code requires 20% of the site to be landscaped. They've proposed with the retaining the existing landscaping on-site about 34% of the site to be landscaped. And again they submitted a revised site plan to meet the five foot landscape buffer, at the north property line between the parking area and the commercial property to the north.

So Chapter 55 design review, again the applicant has requested a variance from the facade transparency standards. I will talk about that here in a second. There's a pedestrian walkway that exits the parking area to the north to the commercial businesses on the northern property and also west to the sidewalk. The applicant submitted a noise impact study which resulted in a modification of the exit, with an acoustic enclosure which you can see in the purple on the image to the right there. Again there's existing street improvements.

ODOT does recommend considering upgrading the ADA ramp at the corner of Highway 43 and Walling Way. They submitted a storm water report. The site is primarily type four lands, which is lands less than 10% slope. And, they have access to existing water and sanitary sewer services from the city. There is a recommended condition of approval eight to submit a fire flow test prior to prior to occupancy of the of the structure or the site.

Lynn, you forward it again? The solid solid waste recycling enclosure, which is sort of on the near the entrance to the the car wash itself, Several conditions associated with, with the waste enclosure. The code requires a to be covered by a roof and the receptacles to have lids. So, condition condition of approval nine requires those two items. Requires a curved landscape area at least three feet wide with a three foot high continuous hedge around three sides of enclosure.

So condition that is condition of approval number 11 and that requires screening on all four sides with some type of fencing. Again condition of approval 12 to require that. And then hazardous materials 50 five-105.04A, condition of approval 10 to submit evidence from the Department of Environmental Quality that either no hazardous waste is on-site or it's being managed per DEQ requirements prior to a certificate of occupancy to start operations of the of the car wash itself. And then the last condition is that it requires a minimum one litter receptacle on-site based on parking area. So that's the last condition that's being recommended.

So Chapter 60 is the Conditional Use Chapter. It gives the Planning Commission some ability to determine site size and dimensions and or consider site size and dimensions and characteristics in the in the proposal, the overall benefit benefit to the city, adequate public facilities, and the Planning Commission may impose conditions around hours, days, place, manner of operation, additional setbacks, limiting height, and another a number of other, items including landscaping and screening, size, size, height, location, materials for fences. And then again they're asking for a Class two variance to the to the window transparency standards and for the Commission to consider it's the minimum necessary, the variance is the minimum necessary to make use of the site and they're similar, it's similar in size and intensity to other uses around the area and physical characteristics of the property should be taken into account as well as the potential for economic development. The variance cannot result in violations of the code and not created by the applicant. The code section they're requesting a variance to is CDC fifty five one hundred b six e which requires 60% window transparency at the pedestrian level on the front facade which is essentially the exit of of the the car wash.

And then 30% window transparency on the Walling Way facade, again the pedestrian area of the Walling Way facade, which is the is the image to the south on the on the bottom there on the right. So they've got some windows, for the employee area, but it does not meet that 30% window transparency, hence their request for the, the variance. I'm almost done. Chapter chapter two more chapters. Chapter 96, street street improvement and construction.

Again, existing curb gutter sidewalk, walling way, plus a bike lane on Wayward Drive. The ODOT recommended condition of approval for the, upgrade to the ADA ramp, and then chapter 99 is the, procedures for decision making. The applicant attended a pre op conference March 6, held a neighborhood meeting on June 8, and the city's noticing requirements were met, and that can be found in exhibit p c seven, to the staff report. And then here are the 13, recommended conditions of approval. I am not going to read these, but they are in the staff report.

I went over them briefly as I went through the presentation. And again, ODOT is recommended recommended the city considers conditioning it to do the ADA ramp at the corner of Walling Way and Willemra Drive. And sorry that was a lot, but I will entertain any questions you may have.

Are there any questions here on the dais? Okay, thank you very kindly. If we could move on to the applicant's presentation.

Chair, would ask that we hold a moment while I load his presentation.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear the beginning of that.

David? Oh,

no, being passive aggressive. I honestly didn't hear the beginning David, of

we hold a moment while I load his presentation?

Okay. Gary's going to be doing a few impersonations mostly from the Silver Age of Hollywood. He'll be mostly fucking up focusing on some shacky green. Take it away.

Okay. Hello, my name is Eric Lee. I'm the project architect with TVA Architects. While this thing is booting up I can just sort of give you a little bit of background. I know that time is precious today. We've got a long discussion about a little project. Have, ah there we are. So

Just a moment. I need to share the screen. Alright. We're ready.

Alright. Well, thank you, Darren, and, thank you commissioners for, taking this, under your consideration. So this is this is Katie Carwash. And for those of you in the community, you've you've probably seen a few Katie Carwashes. Chuck Katie is a Portland native, and he's been, innovating carwash technology since 1976.

His advanced technology car washes are effective, efficient and the recipient of environmental awards, the first car wash in Oregon to receive the prestigious Oregon Pollution Prevention Resource Center EcoBiz certification and we'll talk about that a little later but this is he's been a steward of the environment for many many years. All of the car washes in the state of Oregon have been EcoBiz certified and that is unique and it is a first. TVA is partnered with Katy Car Wash, beginning in 1988 and we did the Barbara Boulevard Car Wash and that won an AIA design excellence award back when both Chuck and Bob Thompson were younger men and I think we are we've we have completed a total of seven car washes in collaboration with Chuck and we are proud to continue that tradition. So with me today I have Chuck Cady. Bob unfortunately couldn't make it but he is the design principle.

Me, Wendy Kellington, our land use attorney with the Kellington Law Group. Evan Eichelbosch, our civil engineer from Frohlich. Mike Ard, our traffic engineer from Ard Engineering. And we had Eric Miller Klein from Tenner Engineering who wasn't able to make it this evening. So for the project data, Darren already did a pretty good job of giving you the physical description of what this project is.

It's about 56,000 square feet of site area, building area is about 31 3,190 square feet which is smaller than the existing McDonald's. It is single story. It's 14 feet two inches which is also shorter than the existing McDonald's which has a two story play structure volume to it. There are 17 parking spaces. This is a general commercial zone.

It, the business operating hours are between 8AM and 8PM which is important when you're considering the, the acoustic performance and requirements of this building. This and as described before the site is currently occupied by an abandoned blighted McDonald's drive thru. It's since 2019 when it was abandoned and actually if you go on YouTube you'll find a YouTube video about it. The abandoned abandoned McDonald's and so it's been out there for a while. The site has an existing shopping center and it shares an existing drive aisle.

It's a reciprocal access easement so we are not making any modifications to the to the area to the east side of the property which is handy because that also is as was described that's the the WRA, the wetland resource area. So none of the construction is actually overlapping into the WRA. And there is It also shares an entry access. The main entry access is also shared between the shopping mall and the property that we are proposing. So we'd like to say that the city's professional staff got it right and that the proposal meets all the relevant standards.

The evidence in the record demonstrates that the proposal it meets all the noise standards, it meets all traffic related standards and has significantly less traffic than other uses outright on the site. We've determined that it is a 44% difference between the old McDonald's site and and what the the calculated expectations for this project. Essentially I think it's seven seven trips an hour or something like or a queuing space of seven in the drive aisle. It's considerably less than what was used, prior and it is similar 44% less traffic than if it was a convenience store of the same size. And being deep meets all the environmental standards.

And it's important and we'll we'll talk about this a little bit more later, but the car wash, car process water, for the, I've got this I'm going back to the presentation here. The storm water, the parking lot non car wash processing areas, is, thoroughly addressed and is and it complies with all city standards. We are actually improving the site. There is an existing storm water filter and we're bringing it up to current code by providing a, another, an additional filtration system. So essentially you're going to get, we'll talk about it later but it'll get triple filtered.

The car wash process water and solids are sep separately managed in an in an award winning manner and and and this is this is connected to the sanitary system and it uses reclaimed water, and it and it siphons out all of the, the solids and they get flushed to the bottom of this of these tanks which get removed by a DEQ certified, hauler. So not only does does it not get injected into the storm system at all, but it also doesn't largely get subjected to the sanitary line. And this this waste is actually monitored and tested before it actually even hits a dump. So this is this is all part of the sort of the green stewardship that Katie Carwash has been operating for many years. This meets all plan standards.

Note only, the standards in effect while while this application is submitted can be applied. Vision 43 is still not adopted and it is not an applicable standard. It meets all other city standards and, I think Darren actually walked you all through that. And so here's the view coming down looking north along Willamette Drive. You can see the big sidewalks there.

You got eight foot sidewalks and a bike lane. And we are endeavoring to leave the landscaping the landscape buffer alone and we're keeping all the street trees. A view looking down, and you can see the big lollipop trees and you can also see there is, your TriMet stop right there. So we are multimodal relative to transportation getting to the site and around the site. This is the the building will look like this with the exception that we will have an acoustic exit enclosure.

But this is I know that there have been some concerns raised by the public about the other car wash that's in the neighborhood that it looks like a disco globe where it lights up and does a lot of show and tell kind of stuff. This is a much more restrained building and I think this is here's a view around the entry side. So it's a simple modern building and, again, so Bob Thompson if you don't know him, you can Google him. He is a historically significant architect and the ability to get an architect of this caliber working on this piece of property is rare. And we've seen the site plan so you can see the circulation that goes through.

One of the key things also to recognize is that the Walling Way exit is only going to be lightly used because of the the exit traffic, essentially allows the vehicles to use the main entry along Willamette Drive. And one of the other things that we think is an actually advantageous for the other businesses in the area is that you come out slowly facing the shopping mall to the west and we know that car wash customers tend to be impulse shoppers. And the the opportunity if you wanted to grab lunch afterwards as opposed to traveling down Willamette Drive at a higher rate of speed, you're coming out slowly out of the car wash and maybe you want to get your nails done or have lunch. And here's the elevations. We've seen these before, but you can see the exit enclosure on the exit elevation down lower and then the entry, where where the car is going in with the ticket booths on the on the top.

And again, we've seen these. This is, again, metal panel, glass, simple, elegant, we propose. So we know that there are some neighborhood concerns. And, the neighborhood meeting with the Robinwood Neighborhood Association we held back last year in June and, we tried our best to respond to all of the comments. The applicant took well, that's us.

We took all the concerns seriously and we addressed them with the requested studies, the noise and acoustic study, the traffic impact analysis and the environmental studies. And we made adjustments when necessary. The proposed car wash that we had was redesigned because when we did our initial noise study, we found that the neighborhood on the West Slope, which actually goes up, was going to be adversely affected by noise coming out of the car wash exit and so we put an enclosure and redirected the sound to the non sensitive areas of the site. Topic. Car wash redesign worked.

The evidence demonstrates that the proposed car wash meets all DEQ standards that all noise sensitive receptors residences, and it is not perceptible is not perceptible at all, inside the businesses to the north and only barely perceptible outside of the shopping center. The background noise, at the site without the car wash is already at a high, extremely high from Highway 43 at 75 decibels directly adjacent to, Willamette. And so that affects the shopping mall on the Western face. At the shopping center businesses, the addition of the of Katy is not the difference between quiet and noisy, it's the difference between hearing existing 43 traffic and hearing that same traffic with a faint added sound component near the eastern most business sidewalk area and and I will emphasize that that is outside the building and not inside the building. So the environmental impact.

So, talked about this before. Katie Carwash has two separate systems that handle two separate kinds of water. The Carwash process liquids that are, controlled internally through a custom filtration system, that reclaims water, waste wash water, for reuse. If it uses a series of concrete baffles that separates out the detergents and particulates from the process water. Water not reclaimed is sent into the sanitary system and is not introduced to the storm water sewer at all.

A new storm water system will be established to capture on-site storm water and entirely meets the current code. On on-site storm water including runoff from the roof, the parking lot, and the drive aisle, and the vacuum vacuum stations. This water is sent to a new SC 800 chamber detention system which is other words for a long area flat control system. And that's the first filter that brings us up to code and then after that it goes into a second existing filtration system that is shared with the, the shopping mall, and is jointly held. And then it goes into a a storm water retention pond which both does a quantity and quality control and then it gets injected into the public sewer.

This is important to recognize that the liquids from inside the car wash are treated entirely differently than runoff water. This water does not get does not influence Fern Creek. All of this water is self contained. It is filtered, treated and mostly reused. Water not reused gets sent to the sanitary system again and they do not everything it's it's segregated water.

And then periodically every three to four months a pumper truck comes in and takes the takes the effluents out. Also something that, was mentioned by Darren, per the staff report finding 17, the Westland Water Resource Area map shows the significant riparian corridor. The where the that 90 degree hits, the first thing is it's it's exempt by code. But as a as a second assurance, the 65 foot offset buffer that's required doesn't actually go to any part of the project that we are actually developing. Does go on to our property site and I think our application sort of misspoke when we said it doesn't appear on the site.

It doesn't appear anywhere in any of the constructed work and it doesn't even go into the access, the reciprocal access way, which we are not touching. So there's a good 20 more feet before that buffer runs out or before between the buffer and actually where we're doing our project. And so that's and that's that clarification. So EcoBiz, we talked a little bit about this. It's a program, of the State Oregon DEQ along with the Clean Water Service Management Utility for the Tualatin River Watershed.

The Portland Environmental Systems we know as BES and Lake Oswego, Office of Water Quality. It's They have certified all 12 Oregon Katy car washes as an ecological business. This certification is part of the Pollution Prevention Resource Center. So they have reviewed all the chemicals and all the soaps that that are that get used and they have determined it to be to be clean. So EcoBiz has lauded, Katie Carwash as setting the pace for ecology carwash businesses and that they are very impressed with the environmental standards that they already have in place.

As well as their can do attitude and that's the letter that you see there on the screen. This is not greenwashing. This is sustained commitment to environmentally responsible business practices, working in conjunction with the local authorities having jurisdiction. And here is just, a new slide for you. But you can see the the areas in green, there's a, the the central belt there that's a sloping trench that slopes to the middle of the building.

So it gets all the wet water away from the edges and it goes perpendicularly into the filtration system that's contained within the building. And if you look at it here in section, it shows that it's a sloping trench to the middle of the building and then gets sent to essentially a big box that takes all the effluents out and then gets either reclaimed or sent to the sanitary line. Here is our our site utility plan and you see the long boxes that are the series of lines on the right of the of the building. That is our our filtration system that we're at we're we're adding. And so you can if you can follow the manholes, it goes manhole, manhole, filter, back to a manhole, back to a filtration system, and then back into another filtration system that is in the the storm water pond.

So this is getting triple filtered before it hits the storm the public storm water system and it doesn't contain anything that's coming from inside the, the actual car wash. Traffic impact analysis by Art Engineering. So Willamette Drive is classified by the city as a major arterial roadway and is clearly classified by ODOT as a statewide highway. It's an ODOT facility and is subject to ODOT capacity rules expressed as VC. The TIA determined that the, car wash will generate 47%.

I said 44, it's actually 47% fewer weekly evening peak hours and 60% fewer peak hour trips than a fast food restaurant or a similarly sized convenience store. Both of which would be formidable outright in the existing general commercial zone. The TIA demonstrates that the proposed car wash will not result in increases in traffic beyond what is allowed outright on the site or degradation of operations of the area roadways and intersection as compared to either the prior use of the site or other uses that are also permitted outright in the GC zone. No additional travel demand circulation or queuing mitigation measures are necessary. ODOT has no concerns and that was something that arrived today with the so there's the little the clip.

We do recognize and already Mr. Katy has agreed to making the improvement to the curb cut upgrade. So the existing queue analysis determines that the total queuing load of the car wash is 7.4 automobiles and that there is an there is adequate space for 19 automobiles, leaving plenty of queuing space and no concerns regarding drive entry. And and so by that what what we're trying to get at, we don't need 19, but we're not expecting to have 19 automobiles but if it ever comes to that point we know that there's not going to be a backup out through the through the front door and out on to either the adjacent parking lot or Willamette Drive. This thing can take a considerable queue though we are not expecting it, it is available if necessary.

Exiting the facility is no different than any exiting by any other customers from the existing business and compared to the original McDonald's business, Katy presents much lower demand. So there was a story out there that McDonald's the site complaining about morning peak hour traffic between 7AM, 9AM, which is the time when McDonald's generates highest traffic volumes. They have McDonald's has a very high volume of traffic. So this is an this is essentially a description of apples and oranges. The kinds of trips required for a drive through restaurant is very different than actually going through the car wash when you get when there's a lot more turns that were required for the previous previous effort.

And then we are also not we're not expecting these kinds of loads at that at that time. It's a more evenly spread out traffic pattern and, it's not even open before 8AM. So this is so it it's not a it's not an apples to apples comparison saying, that the McDonald's site, couldn't couldn't hack the traffic and so therefore ours won't. We're we're operating in less traffic with less turns. And traffic at the two driveways are well within the required capacity as Darren had mentioned and is significantly better than capacity that previous existed with the McDonald's.

And here's the proof. You can we have these those those analyses are in your packets in our application. So the ODOT ask, and this is this is talking about the curb ramps and I don't need to go into that. We've already discussed some of that already. We don't generate pedestrian trips from people with with or without mobility issues, trying but it's at this point, we're saying we'll do it. Two minutes. We're going. Okay. So I think this is this is the curb ramp upgrade and we the the additions of the improvements, the sidewalks will be implemented through the building permit process. It doesn't need to be done at the land use time.

Noise analysis. Okay. Tenor acoustics. So the supplement was prepared and submitted by under and analyzed under the modified noise reduction design and acoustic exit enclosure that reduces the noise. Operating hours again, eight eight eight to eight.

DEQ standards apply to noise sensitive receptors which do not include businesses. They are dwellings, libraries, churches, and public health areas. And so this is this this is the the long and verbally challenging description of what we are held to. The key thing here is to recognize that all sensitive noise receptors, the homes, the residents, they are all under the DEQ standards of 55 decibels or less. The the businesses to the north, the car wash noise is less than 60 decibels at the, commercial properties across the street and up to 65 decibels at the sidewalk outside the businesses further east from Highway 43.

Others will experience greater greater greater noise than Katy from the existing highway noise. In other words, this isn't going the the buildings that are trying to defend against the highway noise, the noise generated from this building is less than the highway noise. And so respectfully, the only conclusion from the evidence for the noise analysis, all standards are met. And this is this is our statement saying that essentially what you come down to is outside the the businesses that the noise is kept to about the volume of speech. And if you can from the inside the building, can handle speech outside your door, you're gonna be okay.

And that is that's this this claim here. So here is that's what that's what the hot the the acoustic, heat map looks like with just from Willamette Drive and you can see the red belt, the and it sort of bleeds out and you will see that there are indicators, with numbers that will indicate the maximum number of decibels that the that is subject. This is the effect of Katie Carwash and you will see that there is no red wash against the side of the building and quite noticeably you will notice that the acoustics, that eight foot concrete wall does us a lot of help as does the fall away of the slope that goes down and away from our site. So what we put the exit enclosure specifically to protect the properties that are to the east. We did some initial studies that showed some wash that went up there and we have changed it so it doesn't do that.

Robinwood neighborhood plan. Wow. Okay. I got a lot of work to go here. The opponents assert assert that the proposal is contrary to the what Nate Robinwood neighborhood plan. They are mistaken. This is not an approved standard that applies. It is a directive to the city to adopt code changes and other legislative measures. It has specific methods for implementation and all of them are directives to the city, not individual land use approval applicants. And so here is here are some of the main street goals and policies and, we you can, review those individually because we got more stuff to talk about.

The Robinwood neighborhood plan, policies are expressly implemented by non binding action measures which are in turn implemented by non binding action implementation measures. It is not possible to characterize the Robinwood neighborhood plan as an applicable standard because it is because it is entirely aspirational. Regardless, we have met all of the, the the major goals of the the neighborhood plan. Willamette Drive shall provide superior transportation facilities for all modes of transportation. We have that.

Most of that's existing. That's the the bike lane, the bus stop, the big sidewalks. And so that's what this describes here and that we're keeping the street trees. And to the extent relevant, as staff explained, scale here is consistent with the neighborhood setting two. This is a smaller building.

It is a shorter building. It is consistent it is scale consistent with the other buildings up and down Willamette Drive. And, city comprehensive plan confirms that the Raman neighborhood plan is not an applicable approvable standard. And then here are the various plan goals. And the final note, what is non applicable?

There are claims that there is no need for another car wash in West Linn. This sentiment is irrelevant. There is no code provision that makes a need a standard. This particular the particular businesses that are allowed are expressly allowed by the code. The car wash is expressly allowed by the code and the fact that there is an existing car wash doesn't just because you have one car wash or if you have one Starbucks doesn't mean you can't put a another coffee shop across the street.

It's not it is this is not the argument to be made whether this this facility is deemed compliant. Complaint claims that the aesthetic appearance of the building is Las Vegas are not wrong and irrelevant. We believe our building, we are proud of this building and, also proud of, our the principal architect who has recently retired. And that claims that the draft program under consideration should be applied as approval standards or that the code should be amended by the interpretation are wholly unlawful and inappropriate. And this just sort of reiterates some of the things that I was talking about.

You have a copy of the PDF of our whole proposal and you can review it at your leisure and I cede my time. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. Are there questions? Tom.

Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you, David. I just have a couple of questions. Sure. And you've you've hit on a few of them, so I'll try to keep it as brief as I can. There was a late submittal on the sound documents. The original ones were from December 28.

Mhmm.

The

latest were the March 17. Can you give me just was there anything I mean, I I read through it, but there's a lot of information there. Is there anything significant in there that I should know?

Well, there I'm trying to remember at the time. The the original submission probably did not have did the one that you review had the acoustic exit enclosure?

It I I believe that the document did.

Okay.

So so I think, yes, it did.

We we have we actually have been working up to the last minute with the readings. Some of it was the graphics because that there are some small circles which actually show, if you take a look at the at the heat maps that they they have the indications of what the what the decibel levels are. And so that got adjusted. Okay. That's that's the that's the primary thing. And and there was some back and forth about there was some also, there's a circle with a split number which has a number on the left and a number on the right. One was a a reading that would say this is your daytime maximum number. The And other one would say that's your nighttime maximum decibel level. Yeah.

Saw that.

And and we had to reissue the the the acoustic study to say that the nighttime the nighttime number is irrelevant because the business is not operational in what is described as the night the nighttime that the the 8PM to 8AM consideration or the ten to seven. It's not the building is not operational. Okay. Speaking

of the eight to or the the hours of operation eight to eight. This is just it's probably an irrelevant question, I'm just curious. Does that include the vacuum stations?

Yes. So those Yes. I believe in in chat. Yeah. The the the the power is shut for those.

Okay. So

no one's gonna be sneak because I because it's it's it's cheating the business if you come in and start turning the turning the vacuum stations. You you get you actually get your vacuum to you get access to the vacuum when you actually do the car wash.

Oh, that's right. Okay. Yeah. I remember that from the previous It's a great car wash by the way. Yeah.

I mean.

Just one second here. You were saying on the the the water system that's inside the building, so it gets treated or it gets separated a couple of times. And then every like you said, every I mean, I'm sure it's self regulated when you come and and Yes. Remove. So you said that water never makes it it it recycles. But does that does that eventually go into the the city sewer? The sanitary one. Sanitary sewer.

Okay. That's

why just

wanted That's right. So overflow it it gets processed. It get the some of the water gets reclaimed and reused in the

wash

process. But if there's overflow at a certain point, the way the way it's staged is that in order to keep the bucket from overflowing, it goes into the it goes into the sanitary system. So it never actually hits any of the sensitive wetland areas. It's all self contained.

Okay. That's what I understood. So thank you.

Thank you, chairDavid. I have some questions on the stormwater plan, on the stormwater report. So the copy that we received or that I downloaded, so on exhibit g or appendix g exhibit for the utility plan, there are some red, basically red line comments added to it. And and these comments are on the the east side of the the car wash itself. So I just wanted to check with you on if on those. My

civil engineer, Evan Eichelbosch.

Great. Thank you. If you could introduce yourself, that would for the record.

Yeah. Evan Eichelbosch, civil engineer with Frohlich Engineers.

Great. Thank you. So I'm not sure who added the red line on here, but there's it indicates that there's a conflict with the drive thru structure. And for the I'm assuming with the detention facility that would be under the queuing lanes. Can you explain that?

So you said appendix g.

It says appendix g exhibit utility plan. Exhibit four.

I guess I'm not sure what point you're referring to.

Mister Walter, actually, how do pronounce your last name? Walvotny. Walvotny. I I I think I know what you're describing, and I think there was an old there was an old diagram that showed where that the ticket booths were sitting on top of the the the water the filtration system. We moved the filtration system back so that it wasn't sitting on top of it. And I think there might have been I think in an old I don't know if it's in the current the current one. It shouldn't show it, but that was it was a conflict between the footing of the ticket box boxes and we needed to move. So we ended up moving the the the filtration system further to the west to get it out of the way of the ticket boxes. It was a conflict of footings to to drains.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. This is from the the storm water report that was provided with the the planning.

Yes, I understand. I remember seeing that comment too when was looking And at

then there's a comment about the conflict with the tree root zone. So that may be not an issue at this point either.

We're trying to preserve all the trees. And and I think we're we're trying to leave all the existing curbs the way they are. There are some things where there's some path we're going to do some path improvements to get from the sidewalk to the to the to the internal circulation system for our building. But the idea is don't mess with the curbs so that you don't end up messing with those trees. They have a very high root wad system and they're big lollipop trees. They're very attractive, and they do a good job of actually doing some public screening. So it is our intent to leave those alone.

Okay. Thank you. There's a note on here that it says it's 30 inch diameter concrete pipe structure. But then when you go back to this is exhibit. It's the details. So the number on it is 25COO7KD, and it's the ADS storm water or storm tech details.

Yeah.

And and so I'm just trying to understand. The StormTech details show that there's a detention facility underneath, at least as I'm understanding it, a stormwater detention facility that would be underground beneath the queuing lanes, but it's made rather than concrete. It's made, I think, from high density polyethylene.

Yeah. Yeah. The the city code has a requirement that you detention be made with concrete. And then if that's not possible, then there's you make a request. I believe we have that documented in here. Mhmm. So we looked at getting this to work with concrete pipe. Concrete pipes, pipes in general, have less storage volume in them than the system that we're proposing.

And so we looked at one, it didn't work,

and then we are proposing the HDPE chambers.

Okay. Thank you. I'm familiar with these. So my understanding on these is that it's really not a filtration system unless you put something inside it, unless you're looking at settling inside the detention facility.

It's not an infiltration facility. It's purely a detention facility. Eric, you may have had a slight misstatement that I could just address here. The treatment won't be happening in the detention facility. We have a water quality manhole prior to the system Right. Which is similar to what the entire project site is currently treated with down in the vault. There's contact water quality filters down there. So we're gonna same technology on up on our property inside a manhole.

So you're so I'm looking at that drawing too. The so the water quality manhole is on the just beyond the booths up in the Yeah. Whatever direction it Yeah. Northeast. Yeah. And so that's a storm filter water quality manhole and then water from there or if if so I guess I'm trying to figure out. So there's a a manhole just to this to the Yeah.

Southeast I

could explain it.

Okay.

Perfect. So all the water from our developed site, the parking lot, the roofs, the internal sidewalks get collected in a series of catch basins or trench drains. They all get routed into the water quality manhole. It gets treated through those cartridges and then it goes into a flow control manhole. That flow control manhole, one of the pipes, which is not flow controlled, connects to the detention system.

The outlet pipe does have a flow control structure on it, and it discharges to the east towards Weilings Weilings Way and ties into the existing on-site stormwater system. Okay. Okay.

That makes sense. So I'm curious, is there a sampling point? Is it at that flow controls chamber?

Well,

the flow control manhole, is is that a sampling point for for water quality after the storm filter?

Yeah. If you wanted to sample after treatment, you would sample downstream of the treatment.

Right.

The the outlets from the water quality are not very accessible for that sort of thing. So you could open up the detention structure that or the flow control manhole and sample the water entering that from the water quality facility.

Okay.

And I think I had one more question. So on the the manholes, do they all have they all have the grease trap hinge lid structure for

The manholes themselves would be kind of your standard 24 inch manholes that that lift out.

K.

If we have catch basins, they would have the grease trap on them. And I don't believe we're showing a grease trap on the trench drain at the moment, but it is possible to put grease traps on those

Okay. As well. Is it standard practice for parking lots that you that you look for oil water separators and that kind of thing?

Well, I'm not saying an oil water separator per se, but but there's you can you can have a there's actually a figure. It's a trapped catch basin that's

in Trapped. Yeah.

In your details. And so there's if there are any floating petroleum hydrocarbons, they'll float on the water. The water below, which would theoretically not have petroleum in them, would then flow through a lower exit and but you can flip up a lid and look down in that, clean it out, do whatever you wanna do. But

Yeah. And that's how our catch basin setup. The trench drain can be similarly designed that way.

Okay. One other question going back to the detention facility. So it says the details say that you're going to have sounds like an HDPE liner with with the geosynthetic, nonwoven geosynthetic geotextile on below above and below it. Is that right? And and I guess the question ultimately is, so the the arched stormwater detention sections sit on top of that that liner with the geotextile.

Are you looking for a seal at all between between the arch and the the lower liner?

I don't believe we show these as having an impermeable liner underneath them. That is something that can be done. And then if there's high groundwater or other reasons to do so, we'll wrap these to make them not possible to infiltrate. The they are all wrapped in a fabric to separate the native soil from the rock so that you don't get that mixing.

So the in the this is on page 69 of the combined stormwater report and the design. There's the s c 800 cross section detail.

Yeah. I'm looking at that now. Yeah. And thermoplastic liner. Yeah. That's what you're looking at.

Yeah.

Yeah. So that in that case, thanks for reminding me, it would have that impermeable liner

Okay.

That goes underneath it.

Yeah. So I just wanted to check because then we avoid the infiltration issue.

Correct.

Okay. And you said that it goes discharges then to the existing storm drain, and there's a note on one of the drawings, and it says that it that there' an existing discharge to an off-site ditch so that would be on the apparently on the residential property to the north? I' just trying to figure that out.

Yeah. Existing discharged off we say ditch. It's actually the creek.

To Fern

Creek. To the North.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

So then the question is, does the existing stormwater system have a 1,200 z permit, or will you be required to have one?

12 so a 1,200 c is required when you have over one acre of land disturbance. Did you ask about the existing?

The 1,200 z.

Oh, z.

Yeah.

I I don't know if the existing site has a 1,200 z, if that was your question.

Yeah. And and I I guess with with granted you've got the the storm filter system and there's another existing filter system from Contech. Just wanting to make sure that contaminants are not bypassing those filters of how often are they changed and how are they monitored and at what point do we make sure there are not contaminants going into the storm drainage system because storm water system for this community. All the drainage is coming off the ridge.

Had recognized when we Evan and I went out to the site a few weeks ago, and it was hard to determine. We popped a bunch of manholes trying to figure how the system was working. Subsequently, we we determined that that the city had, at some point, made some modifications to some of the sewer systems in this area. We couldn't find any documentation for that. So I think there there some of the question the answers to the questions that you have, we I don't know exactly when we there's it's kind of this there's a bit there's a question mark around sort of the manholes right around where that retention pond are that we're that that we're taking we're taking some stabs at it.

We don't have we don't have a lot of great background of what of of the existing system. We have some you can go to the public the public site, you can see some lines that that go around, but there's some things that don't from a survey that we have, don't jive with it. And so I think that there's some more background information that we that we would need from a survey to get to get that.

So what about doing a dye test?

Well, that that could be one option. The dye test would require that we go onto the neighbor's property or down the street. I actually considered it, but knowing there was a lot of concern about this project, I thought if we start flowing green water down the river or down the creek, that that wouldn't go over real well.

Fluorescein dye? Or what? Fluorescein dye.

Fluorescent dye. Yeah. It's like are they yeah. So what he was alluding to is it appears the city may have done a reroute of some of the sewer line down Whaling's Way back in the late nineties. This project, think, was built in was it '95? The McDonald's, early mid nineties, and we don't have that. But I I think, originally, the entire public storm ran through that Fern Creek, and it may have gotten rerouted down the street.

Okay. So there should be I would assume city has builts for anything in that area.

That's what we'd be hoping for.

Well, that's all the questions I've got at the moment. Thank you.

Other questions? I have a simple one. In the presentation, could we go back to two slides before it said floor plan? I know. Oh, that was a good look though. Oh, that was a good look.

Chair, I need to reload the presentation.

No worries.

Can I ask you a question?

Can I

ask you just a curious question? What the 15 was 14 and the way I read it, the ADA was actually also a vacuum station, but 14 or 15 vacuum stations. There's I'm sure there's no work obviously, there's no requirements for that.

What's Right. Well, I think we had as was described 17 is the maximum count. Actually I to be honest, I think we have three staff parking spaces and 14 vacuum stations. So the, you know, a business, it only requires a couple of people to maintain to run the car wash. And so that the other all of the other stations, if that's what you're asking.

It's just it's a lot seems like a lot of stations. That's why I was just curious. It's more curious. It has nothing necessarily to do exactly with what we're doing here, I was just curious if that was

Yeah. Think that this was I think we're following the model that I think the Toowalot and Sherwood car wash I think is sort of a basis of design for what we're looking to do. And you know that was we realized that we only needed three parking spaces for the staff and so that the remain the remainder of them gave opportunities for, I mean they may not all get used honestly, but you know that they have the capacity for 14 folks.

And just one other question since I'm since I'm going is in your report, I think it was like page 12, you're using examples of other locations and there was one that was noted as it was the Hillsborough. And that thing is all glass. Yes. And so I know that we're kinda here. One of our our sticking points is

That is not what we're doing here.

Oh, that's But

I know what you're talking about. The one along TV Highway.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. It's a you know, and that one's that that is a I mean that's TV Highway so it's it's actually I mean compared to Moana Drive it's even it's it's So the and and it is in a commercial zone which you know surrounded by other industrial and commercial properties and so it was I think we wanted to I think this is a more modest approach that we are taking. So the one to look at again that the images that I was showing if you go up onto Northwest Burnside and you go past the oh, next to Providence Park. That's that's where it's at. And it's, you know, I know there was there was also I think someone had wrote a letter about they were concerned about competing signs and something where it becomes like a they didn't want a billboard fight.

And and I think we can we can assure the community that this is that the signage is modest. Sure. And that and that the that our presentation is simple and modest by comparison. We're not this isn't trying to be a the bells and whistles show.

Yeah. Okay. Alright. Thank you.

Acting chair, I have the presentation up. Is this the page you wanted?

I was trying to it was I was trying to catch something. It something that was refuting and it was quoting a specific page from the staff report and it was addressing or something and it was two slides before the screen that said floor plan and I was just frantically trying to get a note down. But if it's taking too long, I can catch

Does the applicant know what page

he's I'm talking trying

to think

of what this was. Because there were some things that I know

If we could get a copy of it after the meeting I can look it up on my Yes.

There's been there's a PDF copy of the full full presentation that has been given to the to Darren and Lynn. So you should be able to to check check that out and and I think, okay, going back.

We don't need to waste anyone for else's me to look one thing up. So yeah, I can do it at my Yeah,

you can answer it if you find it.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing that there's not currently any further questions at this point, thank you very, very kindly for you and your team being available and to come up right now.

Thank

you. I think we're ready to go on to public testimony. Okay. So, I said every two hours, I'm going to look for a nodding of heads. Do you all want to go another thirty minutes in starting to go into public testimony, or do you want a stretch washroom break now? Nada? Alright. Here we go. In public testimony, as I mentioned at the beginning thank you. Oh, beautiful.

As I mentioned at the beginning, if you wish to testify during the hearing, please complete a request to speak testimony form. And submit it to the staff now. The commission will first hear from the proponents, then opponents, and finally anyone who has neutral testimony or wishes to ask a clarifying question. When your name is called, please come forward and state your name and city of residence. Consistent with the city council rules, each commenter, including neighborhood association representatives, will have five minutes to testify.

If you have any written material or any evidence you would like us to see, please hand it to staff. The staff will distribute it to the members of the commission, and the applicant, as well as place it in the record. The commission will decide if the must decide the application before it is based only on the applicable approved criteria, despite the importance of other issues that may be raised during the public hearing. The authority of the commission is limited only to those issues that address compliance with those criteria. When you approach, please state name and your city of residence.

There is no need to state your address for the record. Please make sure to make your comments, and then take a moment to see if there are any questions from the Planning Commission. With that and if I pronounce your name wrong, for goodness sake, please correct me. I have the third most common name in the English language. Very, very few people ever screw it up, so I don't want to do that to you.

Could we have David Robinson? So the first proponent, David Robinson. Please make sure the button is pressed and you're speaking directly Can into the

hold a moment while I while I give you the materials and load his his materials?

Okay. Commissioner will be doing some soft shoe and small tap this evening. Whenever you're ready. Okay. I'm David Robinson

of West Linn.

Oh, and just before you start, I will give you like a thirty second mark, so you know.

Okay. And what I'm primarily concerned about are the traffic situations. This diagram, the one you've seen before, shows what we're talking about. The facility is here, the yellow rectangle. There's the incoming queue of cars waiting to enter. They expect to be processing during peak times 60 cars an hour, that's one minute. They expect maybe eight cars lined up on the input queue. So what happens on the exit queue? And that's the point that I've highlighted here in red. If you have only a few cars blocking the driveway here, that impedes access into the Cedar Oaks Shopping Center.

And from what they have said earlier, it seems like once you've got eight cars in the entering queue, you would have a considerable number of cars still in the exiting queue. Another concern is that if there is congestion here, cars that were trying to enter in from Highway 43 might turn to the right. They would then be blocking the bicycle lanes and the pedestrian access. The congestion here might cause some people to exit out the back way and go out through residential areas. So there would be spillover traffic down Walling Way to the residential area, to River Road, and then over to the Cedar Road traffic light.

But the real concern that we have is the issue of left hand turns. So if you imagine that at peak time of day, which they have said in their analysis is afternoon, most of the traffic is southbound on Highway 43. There are occasional cars that stop here in the center lane trying to make a left turn onto Walling Way. And they are proposing now 60 cars an hour, a car a minute, that's a lot of traffic. The majority presumably coming from the southbound lane because that's where most of the traffic is.

So there will be a new queue of cars starting here trying to make a turn into the driveway. So you've got one group trying to turn into the driveway, and then some of these people in the driveway are going to wanna make a left turn to get back out into southbound traffic. So they have to then navigate getting into the center lane here, which possibly has a blockage, and then merging back. So we see this as a serious safety issue. Three streams of traffic here, one trying to enter, one trying to exit, plus the northbound traffic is still continuing.

And it's for this reason that there should be a traffic analysis. And what are the requirements for a traffic analysis? If you look on the backside, I've outlined what it's stated in CDC 85. At a minimum, the analysis area must include all points of access into public streets, all the intersections and neighborhood roads, all the intersections where the traffic generates exceeds 5%. They are to analyze existing conditions and projected conditions and demonstrate compliance with the city's level of service.

Well, I would say that this traffic plan does not do that. There is no there has been no traffic count to estimate the length of the exit queue. No looking at a market model to estimate how many of the newly created left hand turns are going across traffic. No discussion of any mitigation measures. And I should mention that if there's mitigation on Highway 43, it's a state highway, it would take ODOT approval.

And when we had checked, there had not been any proposal submitted to ODOT for review. Now the applicant has said that these traffic considerations don't matter because if you look at otherwise permitted uses, say like another McDonald's, the traffic would be just as bad. And we would say that argument really doesn't apply. That's like saying we don't need to look at our problems if somebody else has got problems that are gonna be even worse. In fact, this is there are changes being made here to the parking structure.

There's lane dividers being added that interfere with access into the Cedar Oak parking area. So there's going to be constraints on the Cedar Oak parking lot. That's going to interfere with access at the driveway. And more importantly, this application is not an otherwise permitted use. It's a conditional variance, and it should stand or fall on its own merits.

And to suggest that it should be compared against a hypothetical case is not correct. The existing case is a vacant building with zero traffic, and anybody in West Lid will tell you that we already have a congestion problem, and any increase over that is going to only make it worse. The applicant had suggested that there will be no traffic issues without actually doing an analysis or a proper report. They didn't really look at congestion at the exit queue or the safety issues or the spillover issues. And then we get to what are the projected conditions that we might expect in the future.

Well, we have been participating with discussions on the Vision 43 project, and I included a picture of what the proposal is from that from that vision forty three project. The idea here is that we would be looking at development that is pedestrian friendly mixed use development. And we fully expect that within a few months, vision forty three will be proposing zoning changes that would prohibit automobile centered businesses of this type. And the applicant clearly understands that because he said that they don't apply with vision forty three and they evidently don't expect to. So imagine that you are a pedestrian standing here at the entrance of the facility.

You're facing possible congestion. You're facing the noise. Is this a place where you would take a walk? No. If you were a developer looking to invest in mixed use development, that's not an ideal location for that. So we see that if this is accepted, we are grandfathering in a non complying use that will interfere with the Vision 43 project. It will interfere with trying to have a cooperative mixed use development.

We have passed time. Just to

clarify. Well, I wanted to say that the Robinwood neighborhood plan does cover these issues even though the the vision 43 is not yet adopted. And the neighborhood plan clearly states for the same type of development and it has a specific action item that prohibits inappropriate automobile services. So we see

that We there is

are at time.

Okay. We see there is no benefit and there are externality costs which are going to impinge on the community. Thank you.

Thank you.

We have a question. David, if you wouldn't mind coming back, we have a question.

Yes.

There's a lot of reading that's involved in this thing as I'm sure everyone everyone here has. I was thinking I read every three minutes. I don't remember seeing every one minute.

I I read that their analysis of peak of peak usage was 60 cars an hour and one a minute.

Okay.

And and that's where they got the entrance the entrance queue of eight vehicles.

Okay. Alright.

And my apologies, I will catch time a little better. Next we have Jeannie Thompson.

Hello. Yeah. My name is Jeanie Thompson. I live in West Lynn. I've lived here for thirty four years.

I raised my daughter here. I'm not as eloquent as David, but I just wanted to bring up the fact that this is a town that has a population of approximately 28,000 people. We if this were to go through, we would have a third car wash in Westland. We already have two car washes, one is less than a mile from this location. And my question is, does another car wash really improve the livability for Westland residents?

It doesn't. And the most important thing is looking at the list of conditional uses. One of the criteria is the granting of the proposal will produce a facility that provides an overall benefit to this city. And I don't think in my opinion that it meets that criteria. The other thing I wanted to mention is that a successful site would have a minimum daily traffic count of about 5,000 vehicles with over 12,000 vehicles being ideal.

Essentially, just kinda seems like it would one of them would put the other other out of business. And there was an earlier comment that there's a comparison to, well, it's, you it's not a big deal because it would be just like putting another coffee shop in. That's not really a fair comparison because I think we all know it's different than that. Anyway, that's really all I wanted to say.

Thank you so very much. If we could hear from Shane Winder or Winder. And if you could please correct me on the correct pronunciation. Thank you.

Good evening. I'm a resident of West Linn, specifically the Robin Hood Robinwood neighborhood. I'm here to oppose a conditional use permit for the Katy car wash located on Wilma Drive. Specifically, this falls under chapter 60 of community development subsection three, much like my neighbor just talked about here. The granting of a of the proposal will produce a facility that provides an overall benefit to the city.

This will not. The city has a clear plan for the street. Rob Wood neighborhood plan adopted by ordinance and carrying the same weight legal weight as the city city's comprehensive plan envisions Waima Drive as our main street. The vision is specific, locally owned businesses, pedestrian friendly development, uses that invite people to walk and gather. The plan explicitly flags automotive services as an incompatible use along the corridor.

And that neighborhood vision vision didn't just stay on paper. Vision 43, the city's fifty year planning initiative adopted as a key council priority was built directly on top of the Robin Hood neighborhood plan. It calls for mixed use development, a sense of place, safe crossing for pedestrians and cyclists, and a corridor that gives people options beyond the car. These are not aspirations. They are the city's adopted framework for the street.

This project contradicts those that that framework. Katy is a regionally is a regional chain processing up to 60 cars an hour that would process up to six cars an hour in this location, twelve hours a day. It will negatively impact those linked businesses that are in that strip mall and many of those businesses signed, in opposition to this proposed plan as well. There is no reason for anyone to arrive on foot at this location by bike or by bus. It creates no street level activity, no gathering space, no sense of place.

It is by design a car only destination, the opposite of what this quarter is meant to become. And the applicant's own variance request makes this even clearer. They're asking for relief from the building facade transparency transparency standards, a waiver to build a more closed off blank walled structure that code normally allows. Transparent street facing facades are one of the most basic elements of a pedestrian friendly design. The fact that this project can't even meet that standard without a variance tells you everything you need to know about how it will fit on the Main Street.

Another car wash car wash facility already operates two blocks away with a signaled intersection. Adding a second car wash within an eighth of a mile doesn't serve our neighborhood better. It just adds more congestion and further erodes the character we've been working to protect. The timing on this matters. Your votes matter.

Vision 43 is in its final stages right now. Open houses were held just weeks ago. The city is preparing to adopt a fifty year land use plan for this corridor, Approving a car car wash at this location at this moment would send a troubling message to everyone who's participated in that process in good faith that that the plan doesn't actually constrain development decisions. In closing, would just like to say Eric from Katie said this is just a little project, but it has a large impact on our community and my neighbors. And I respectfully urge the commission to deny this application.

It is inconsistent with Robin Hood neighborhood plan, inconsistent with with vision 43, and inconsistent with the community's long held vision for Willamette Drive. Thank you.

Thank you very kindly, but please do remember to wait just a second to give us a chance to ask a question. Okay, thank you. If we could next I'll ask Elizabeth Dietz.

Hello. I'm here as a private citizen, and I'm here also, with my attorney. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Thanks.

Please introduce yourself.

My name's Elizabeth Dietz, and I'm a citizen of Westland.

My name is Andrew Molke. I'm a Steetz attorney, and I believe I'm probably next in the queue. So I'm I'm just is is it okay if we just come up together? We each have five minutes?

No. You need to speak separately.

Well, we will speak I'm

just gonna sit here.

You ask the chair of that.

Is is that okay? If you can do it in harmony, double word points. Okay. However So

I I'm just gonna give you these ahead of time.

Let's clarify. The rules are that each speaker gets five minutes and you're and you speak separately. So Elizabeth gets five minutes and then we will move on to the testimony from her attorney.

Can I ask a clarifying question? I'm gonna be talking on behalf of a neighborhood association and from what I understand neighborhood associations get ten minutes.

No. Neighborhood associations get five minutes and you need to clarify you just said that you were speaking on behalf of yourself. So you need to clarify if you're speaking on behalf of yourself or as a representative. In No, no, no, no. I'm sorry.

In a

previous meetings, we allowed ten minutes for Neighborhood Since then, it has now been the script has now been changed to five minutes per speaker. Although

Female Just to clarify Please. Script's been updated to reflect our actual regulations. So the actual requirement is that every member of the public who is testifying regardless of whether they are representative for a neighborhood association or not, everybody receives the same five minutes.

So when did this change? Because we just had went through this a few weeks ago and unless this is in council rules

It is.

It doesn't fly. So when did council pass this?

Council rules were changed in November 2025 and we were not notified so we didn't know.

A point of clarification, the five minute rule was changed in the previous council rules, I believe it was in 2023. But that's not that's not important, Cam.

Before it starts just because it's gonna become something, was it changed in November 25 or '23?

The council rules that are that were voted on in November 2025 give five minutes for each speaker regardless of whether they represent the neighborhood association or themselves. So every speaker speaks for themselves, they cannot cede or give

their time

to anyone else. You get five minutes, you speak only yourself and then the next speaker can speak on their time. So you can't combine talking. We won't. Okay.

So to clarify, so for the request to speak that I have before me, I have first you, then I have Andrew to come after you immediately, each for five minutes. That is correct. Okay.

There's two.

Okay, so my name is

Before we start again, we have yet another question.

So to clarify then, since miss Dietz would be speaking for herself, but she would also be speaking for a neighbor association, does she get five minutes for one and then five minutes for the other?

She would, but it is up to the chair to determine the order of speakers. So she cannot just she would need to ask permission from the chair to speak, like, for another another five minutes on behalf of the mayor of association.

How do you wanna play this?

Okay. So I think the way it's gonna go, ideally, is that my attorney's going to speak on behalf of me. And then I, Elizabeth Dietz, I'm going to speak as a vice president of the Neighborhood Association.

Does that

That's fine. As long as each time of speaking is five minutes, that's completely fine.

Okay. And I believe Ms. Deese would like me to go first. Is that going to be okay?

That throws everything into chaos. I know. I know. Wait. Okay, I fixed

it. Okay. So,

all right, we ready? Okay, ready?

I'm ready.

Let's do it. All right,

thank you very much. On behalf of Mystietz, my name is Andrew Mulkey. I want to emphasize really that I think Mr. Shane Winder said is exactly on point, and that this Planning Commission has all the authority and the discretion it needs to deny this application. And I'm not asking you to do it based on Vision 43.

I'm asking you to do it based on CDC 60.70A7 and 60.70A3. And so the first provision that I mentioned, the A7, requires for conditional uses, which are discretionary. They're not outright permitted uses in the zone. Basically that provision A7 requires compliance with the policies of the comprehensive plan. You heard today from an architect, not an attorney, that the provisions of the Robinwood neighborhood plan and those policies don't apply.

That is not correct. In the letter that I provided to you, I quote portions of the comprehensive plan itself as well as the neighborhood plan that discuss the effect of these various plans and policies. And one of those quotes is, as applied to the Robin Hood neighborhood, the goals and policies of the Robin Hood neighborhood plan will have the same effect as the goals and policies of the West Wind comprehensive plan. And so here in this A7 provision we have a basically an implementation measure that says that, oh when you're going through and looking at conditional uses, go refer to the policies of the comprehensive plan. And that does in this case also include the policies of the Robinwood neighborhood plan.

And then the other provision, which Mr. Winder also mentioned, and I believe another commenter mentioned before, is the A3 provision, the CDC sixty-seventy A3, which is that you can deny an application for a conditional use that fails to provide an overall benefit to the city. And you have all the information that you would need in front of you to do that here today. I mean that is essentially that what we have is we have the Robin Hood neighborhood plan, which discusses a main street area, and that already includes a car wash just a little over half a mile down the road. And for practical purposes I want to put this into perspective.

This is one stoplight away. So it's not going to it's not as if you're drawing in more customers. If you're if you are coming to this neighborhood and this Main Street area to get your car washed, you already have that option. So to put this in bigger perspective, the comprehensive plan talks about how there's actually very limited commercial real estate or commercially zoned land in in the city. And it's it explains that it's very hard to they're not gonna make more of it, essentially.

You what you have. And so redeveloping the area that you have in the ways that you want is very important. And in this case, allowing a redundant use in the same neighborhood, in the same Main Street area, you can easily find that that does not provide an overall benefit to the city when there are already two existing car washes in town. And so that is a basis for denial that you can you can stand by. And so I've actually, I know I'm running out of time, but I've provided you handy dandy proposed findings and conclusions of law.

And so you know, you have a proposed motion and you can go through and say, oh, you know, this this proposal does not meet comp plan policy four b. It's not a proposal that is a commercial use that encourages the creation of meaningful public gathering spaces or that incorporates unique shopping opportunities to increase activity in surrounding areas. Again, this is not a unique draw to the area. And so you can go down and you don't need to hit yes or no for everything, but you can say,

hey, we're gonna deny this thirty seconds.

Based on the comp plan policy section three policy 4B. And so that is a basis of denial. And in my twenty two seconds, I just want to point out that there are two others that are Robinwood neighborhood plans that I want you to keep in mind that are actionable. They are not aspirational. They do not require any additionals. And those are policy 2.3 and policy, I believe it's 2.5. So these are written out, but they have to do with the scale of commercial development. And then also allow only commercial uses that are compatible with the Main Street concept. And yeah, so I have eight seconds. Oh those are over time.

Okay, okay. So anyway, both of those are reasons that you can use to deny, this proposal, and I respectfully ask that you do so.

Thank you.

Alright. So I'm here to testify on behalf of the Robinwood Neighborhood Association of which I am the vice president. So we have submitted testimony, a recommendation that we have formally adopted at the neighborhood association level. It says in your comments if you have it, opposition to propose Katie Carwash conditional use permit and development PA dash two five dash o six class two review. I'm going to skip down to point one, environmental impact summary.

The proposed car wash poses a danger to the protected riparian waterway and water resource area located on and downstream of the site. Building a car wash with chemical storage and runoff should not be approved by the city for this ecologically sensitive location. Per Oregon statewide planning goal five, the local government must identify and protect significant riparian corridors. The city has identified this site as a significant riparian corridor on its maps, but has not historically protected this waterway adequately. We believe the city can and should do better.

New state and federal laws now also protect this riparian zone. There are also there are other sites better suited for this car wash, and we encourage the city to consider locating this business on a less ecologically sensitive site. Requirements, the residents call for the following actions and plans to ensure compliance. So looking at the map, you can see that the property is falling right when this water resource area. There's a map that you can see if you're looking at the comments.

There's also application inaccuracy and omissions. At this time we submitted, this was in October and they have since submitted newer applications, but there was erroneous information regarding a presence of significant riparian corridor, it did not include the requisite environmental impact assessments or natural resource documentation. There's also concerns about car wash chemicals and runoff. The applicant stated during a presentation to the Robinwood Neighborhood Association that chemicals are stored on-site in containers and that periodic disposal is handled by environmental company. They claim all chemicals are filtered out and will not enter runoff.

We demand a comprehensive publicly available listed chemicals stored and used on-site along with detailed hazardous spill response and mitigation plans to know how we can properly react to our drinking water sources. I also wanna go down to point four and just reiterate the importance of its inconsistency with the neighborhood plan, is a point of this application being denied. So the Robinwood neighborhood plan emphasizes maintaining neighborhood character, enhancing community connectivity, and promoting environmentally sustainable development. The proposed car wash diverges significantly from these objectives, threatening the visual environmental and social fabric of our community. So key concerns are contradicted contradictions to development goals.

The plan prioritizes small scale pedestrian friendly and mixed use developments that serve and enrich the community. The large scale automobile centric car wash conflicts with these goals by prioritizing vehicle throughput over neighborhood cohesion and aesthetic appeal. The neighborhood plan has explicitly called out automotive services as an area of concern. The application states that Highway 43 is not a pedestrian thoroughfare which is also in contradiction with the City Of Westlands planning goals. So I just ask that you really consider what Andrew has stated as one of the approval criteria is in chapter 60.7, does this ask yourself, does this really provide an overall benefit or is this something that we can just outright deny based on that?

Thank you.

Ms. Dietz, could you please, go back to your statement about erroneous information given in the presentation and expound on that so that we kind of know where that direction is more.

Which part?

You said erroneous information was gonna it was when you were talking about the repairing the the chemicals getting into, I believe, the water supply.

Yeah. So they're saying that the car wash is not going to be in that that waterway or it's not going to be really affecting it. That's not true. It is going to be affecting it.

Thank you. Please. Thank you.

So in looking at the plan, it's showing that that's if I'm following you correctly, it's underground for that portion. And it comes out of the ground at the end of that property. Am I following that correctly? Anybody? Okay. If that's the case, and if they have extensive catchment as the cars go through the car wash, help me understand how you're envisioning the contaminate any contaminated water getting into the natural

So part of this document was created with a committee, and there are later on, there's going to be testimony from environmental experts on this specific subject that can answer you more readily. But I would say there's concerns about runoff and concerns about spray. It's really hard to mitigate those and it's not you can't always contain those specific issues within their system.

I think what I'm asking, because it's enclosed, the car wash is enclosed, that changes spray and runoff, especially if it's sloped toward the center in order to catch everything. I just want to make sure that I'm not missing something that you're seeing, because so far, I'm not able to see how that is is spraying and running off into the community.

So from what I'm understanding from other experts that are more knowledgeable in this area, I would say that there is going to be spray, regardless of if they say it's going to be contained in the building, there's still going to be an issue of spray that couldn't contaminate the the stream. But I think more importantly, I mean, I I testified on the environmental impact and it's more there's more detail within that, but I think comprehensively my point is to look at the actual does this provide a benefit to if we're talking about this, is this really gonna be a benefit?

Think it was mentioned in I think page 31 of one of the additional testimonies that we were provided of where one of the residents kind of expounded more of how that spray may or may not impact. She laid her testimony. Thank you both so very much.

Thank you.

And glad we got it sorted out.

Thank you. Thanks.

It is four minutes past eight. Break, stretch, washroom. Shall we do that? Ladies and gentlemen, it is now 08:05. We will reconvene at 08:10.

Want me to do it again? Ready? Okay. So, we were talking up here and we did speak to the attorney. I want to be very clear of what was exactly discussed.

What was discussed is how long are we going tonight? And that was the sole and only topic that was discussed while we were up here. So what everyone has to say is important and we want to make sure that we can hear everyone. We are going to try to make sure that we can hear through everyone, but there is also a factor of at some point people's brains get a little sluggish and there is a difference between communication transmitted versus message received. And at some point, brains become a little more sluggish, and we want to make sure that what is being said is also truly being heard.

So we want to stay up here as well, where our brains are fresh and are hearing everyone. So we're going to push for at least another hour plus, and we want to see everything that we can hear, and then we'll kind of assess there. Does that make sense? Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, if you would be so kind. If we could see if Elizabeth Hayes is here. Elizabeth, come on up. Yes. Yeah. That's what the invitation's for.

I didn't mark to speak.

Just Oh,

okay. I thought I was maybe I misunderstood. I thought we turned

it in at the of

the bread that we opposed, but that unless you march to speak,

that we weren't expecting to speak.

You are not mandated nor are you being forced to. But thank you for participating and thank you for taking part of a representative democracy.

Absolutely. You're welcome.

Well, this is going so much faster than we expected. But this is also important. Ladies and gentlemen, I understand the passion, the desire to clap and applaud, but also understand it is also still on the same spectrum as heckling. And so if we could dial it back in, and just wait, and do this maybe on our own in private, and understand it is part of our maintaining decorum, which as you know, is the root word that comes from decor, which means knowing where to place the ottoman. So if we could have KD merger?

Mercer. Mercer. See, I'm learning so much. Thank you so very kindly. Please remember to make sure the microphone is on. Lean forward into it because the range on these is horrible.

Okay. How's this? Alright. Katie Mercer here. I am a resident of Robinwood. I am within 500 square feet of this thing, so I'm close. I want to talk about the environmental aspect on www.kdchemical.com. This is k d chemical corp. They have listed chemicals that they have, and this is no surprise to anyone. But did you know that there are many, many chemicals?

They list 32. ALK two two five, all natural surface cleaner, body shampoo, bug eliminator, carpet shampoos, ceramic paint protection, clean all, clear coat shield, clear coat shine, foam shield, yada yada yada. I can go on. There are 32 of these listed. Each one has something called a safety data sheet. I pulled up one at random. HD Super Cleaner. The safety data sheet is a fact. You can get it right on their website. It's a fact.

I don't care what what wonderful things that they say about it being ecologically friendly. Let's look at the chemicals of this. HD Super Cleaner, alkaline degreaser, hazard identification. GHSO eight, health hazard, carcinogen two, h three five one suspected of causing cancer. G h s o five, corrosion.

H two ninety may be corrosive to metals. H three one eight causes severe skin burns and eye damage. GHS o seven, acute tox four. H three zero two, harmful or swallowed. Product is classified and labeled according to globally harmonized system, GHS. That's what a safety data sheet is. Sodium hydroxide, nitricitamine, possibly carcinogenic to humans, category two b. Now, I'm gonna ask you a common sense question. Are these chemicals that should be on a sensitive riparian waterway? Liz was asking how could it go wrong? Right? How could it? Yeah. Spill we talked about? Did we?

What could cause a spill? Could it be an equipment malfunction? Can that happen? Yeah. What if there's something like an ice storm? What if there's something like abnormal flooding and rains? Have we had those things happen in the last year? Yeah. These are all things that can happen. Even if there aren't things like the overflow and spill and cars dragging water off, which I think there will be. There are lots of reasons that this can fail. Equipment malfunction alone. Do you want these on the Ripourian Corridor? Do you want them going into the creek? And that is something that West Linn must protect.

This is a resource. I know that we you pave over it, you culvert it, you put it away. It's it's kinda something that you just wanna hide, but it's a beautiful, wonderful, natural resource, and you can't put chemicals on it. When we look at compliance, chapter 32 covers it. You got chapter thirty two zero two o, o five O, f 678 G3H, 3206O3209 o and chapter 28 because you have the Willamette River downstream.

You have the US Army Corp riparian, the four zero one cert. Someone was asking about that earlier. Yes. It does apply. I do independent compliance advisory for the state of Oregon and other states, and I comply with federal compliance. And you know what? Yeah. You got DEQ permits. 1,700 a, you talked about 1,200 z, 1,200 c, erosion control, surface water permit, clean water services, wash water permit, riparian four zero one certification required by US army corps. Yeah.

You got the Clean Water Act. You got Oregon Statewide Planning Goal five, protecting significant riparian corridors. You got the WRA, the Water Resource Mervent Etcher Growth Management Functional Plan Clean Water Act. This has to be protected. Am I being stopped?

Oh.

That's actually all I really want to say. This is a beautiful resource. If Westland treated it like a beautiful resource, if your goal is capitalizing on it and money, consider what Ashland does. They have a beautiful creek, same as ours, but they put it through the middle of their downtown and it's beautiful. People love to it. They flock to it. Could this not be an asset for West Linn rather than something to just culvert and pave over like you've done before? You did that at nineteen four one two. It caused a huge liability and problem. It overflows. The city knows about it. It's bad. You're not supposed to pave over these things. That's in your own code 32. Okay. That's all I have to say. What questions do you have for me?

What I would like to know

is if because we used

to have a KD just a block away. And what I'm wondering is because you're talking about the chemicals and potential hazards and so forth, I wonder if you or anybody has any kind of data to support that it is unsafe and that there have been problems before from the original Katie.

Oh, I don't know. I know there's one lawsuit floating around. I don't know the details of it.

One lawsuit for what?

There was a Katie lawsuit floating around somewhere, but I don't know the details. I think it was in the nineties. That's all I recall. My concern, though, is that these are

definitely caustic chemicals. There's I'm no doubt about hearing that, and I am respecting the seriousness of that. And that's why I'm kind of wondering,

did we have this problem before? Because that would seem

Are you willing to risk it on our creek?

I'm not. I'm just asking

I don't know if

we're I

think that's a logical question to ask the if the if there was an issue before since most of the time when we get applications, it's new. Where this time, it's really not. So we do have history to look back into. And so that's

that's what I'm wondering. Know. But I do know that this site is protected. It is a riparian. If nothing else, that drainage is really well protected by your own code. You can't put chemicals on it. Any other questions for me?

So the last two or three, speakers have been pressing really hard at this site as Ribertarian, if I said it correctly. And I understand that, yes, there are there there's natural water flows, beyond. What a four story mixed use building goes there, is that is that okay? If

there aren't toxic chemicals,

I feel a whole lot better. So so it's specific to the to My concern

is environmental. Everything else that people are saying, I absolutely agree with. You can't take a left turn out of there. We have this problem. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. But it's check.

Okay. My concern and my five minutes is about the toxic chemicals. Don't put them on a creek.

Thank you so much, Katie. And also just a reminder because this is something we've had earlier this year. When you are submitting information about chemicals or lawsuits or whatever, we, it is probably best to support your argument if those are submitted in a written format that we can use as we are not allowed to go searching on our own. So it has to be supplied to us as part of actually have this

in written testimony for me. Specifically noted the safety data sheet, but it's also on their Web site.

Okay. I didn't see it, so I look forward to finding it whenever it was submitted. Well, actually, can you tell me when you submitted it? What time or day?

I have been working long days. Yesterday.

Okay. Thank you so kindly.

So I'm looking at this map right here. This is and I just wanna make sure I'm understanding this correctly because it looks like doesn't the black mean that it's underground? Is that what that means? Okay. So through the start to finish of this property, it's underground.

It doesn't come above ground until it's off the property. And I just in order for me to really understand how the chemicals enter the water supply, that's it's paved over. I'm I'm not I'm not understanding how, if it's paved over, it's getting into the water. So I would love it if there's more clarification on that piece.

Katie, do you have a response to that at this point? And If nothing else, WRA You've got to be at the microphone, and we're going to

keep this really brief.

At the microphone. And

if I may, I I appreciate the questions and I think a brief clarification would be fine. But you know, any additional thoughts on the testimony, I just recommend holding until deliberations.

The drainage ditch has special protection special protection. It is on the property.

The drainage ditch is right on top of the WRA, and this is something that West Linn must understand. It is a WRA.

Do you have follow-up questions? I see you looking.

Because what I have shows that it's underground. She's talking about something. So I'm curious to know where the ditch is relative to the site.

Darren, I believe you know the drainage ditch. Maybe you could elaborate. You're the planner in charge. Yep?

Yes. Commissioner Kaczorowski is correct. The creek comes down the hill, it's piped under Highway 43 through the subject property and then it releases onto the the residential property to the east of the of the site. So at point in time is the is the creek above ground on the subject property.

It is a WRA. It is designated as so on the City Of Westland maps.

I believe I addressed this in my presentation. The map does have the WRA that goes out from the end of the of the creek where it's released from the pipe, but any development is exempt at a 90 degree 90 degree angle from a pipe. So hence the reason they do not need a water resource area permit from the city because they are not they're they're developing probably not even at a right right angle from the pipe because they're not disturbing the drive aisle up from Walling Way. Right? That that all that's all remaining. That masonry wall is remaining, and all of the cedar trees behind the masonry wall.

The drainage ditch and storm water are immediately impacted.

Alright. Thank you. We wanna get to as much testimony as we can. Okay. Oh, did you I'm sorry. Did you my bad. Okay. If we could have Larry Holman. Please remember, state your name, the city you reside in.

Larry Ulman, Westland. I happen to be that property that's just where the waterway is. I'm on Rose Way, exactly on the opposite side, east side of what used to be McDonald's. You are all invited to come and wear your boots so you can get on the swamp line of my backyard. That might have been the reason for one of the discussions about the runoff is is all of our street, the the Roseway Street itself that is facing the wall, that is the partition between the paved area and my property takes an excessive amount of runoff.

The creek that's directly behind my house runs to Walling Way, turns and goes underneath Roseway, and then continues on where my neighbors who are on the East Side of Roseway. I have that concern. I also have a concern about Roseway as a shortcut for people who do not want to be taking a left hand turn because that middle median lane, there you would be directly taking a left into the shopping area, which would be the proposed car wash, will instead be taking these are southbound folks. We'll be taking a left on Fairview coming up Roseway, taking a right on Walling and then taking another right so they can avoid getting stacked up on 43. This is a concern we see it now as people shortcut their way through our neighborhood to to get around the the chaos on on 43.

Those are concerns I have about congestion. I do have a concern. It's piggybacks on on the deer that come through my yard. The wildlife that still continues to be part of our the quality of life that we enjoy and the potential for a catastrophe that might occur that were the the excessive amount of water that's coming through my yard, is also their feeding stations, the areas this creeks have actually used for animal life. I see that our neighborhood would be deeply affected by potentially by the by the chemicals, but but also by the congestion and the noise.

14 vacuums from eight to eight affects me deeply. It's not exactly welcome to McDonald's. Instead, it's 14 vacuums continuously working from eight to eight and that is a real concern for me personally. I'll follow-up with my last concern which is that if this business were to come in, which I'm opposed to, potentially they would not make it. And if so, you've now created a plant, a facility that has even less likely to be replaced.

And now you have a structure that will sit dormant potentially longer than a McDonald's that's been sitting there. So I have these concerns and I'm grateful for the opportunity to share my concerns. I also piggyback again on the things that have been sent prior because I think they're also valuable. Thank you.

Thank you, ChairDave. Questions? So I do have a question since you have as I understand the Fern Creek runs through your property. And so Mike, you described it as as swampy and I haven't seen mean I've driven down that street in the past but I haven't looked onto your property and seen

Love to have you.

And so I'm curious as to, I mean, are there times when it floods because of the natural flow from Fern Creek? I mean, can you, are there any observations that you can make from water being discharged? I'm I'm really curious to know where the discharge point is because it I mean, from what I can see from the drawings I've seen, it looks like it's in the discharge point is off the property and on your property.

Correct. It is. So what I fear is is that this won't change anything other than the potential for contamination. I have nothing but water and I have nothing but wildlife and those things I particularly wanna continue to have. Yeah. I can deal with boots. I can deal with wet. What I'm concerned about is is the quality of life that we've been exposed to is what keeps us in town. The idea that we have skunks, beavers, and deer, I hold really closely. You know, my grandkids come to visit.

They see deer in my yard. My concern is is that that runoff is directly hitting my property. It's not hitting the pavement that is the commerce part of it. It's dealing with my neighborhood and particularly my street. Mhmm. And that's of concern to me.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. Anyone else?

Thank you very kindly. If we have David Dodds available.

Thank you. David Dodds, West Lin. I'm just gonna take a few moments to belabor something that's already been well belabored, and that is there's a very good reason why commercial properties are often conditional use as opposed to outright use, And why it is perfectly appropriate for land use decision making bodies to view that as very differently than they would an outright use. And that is, as a conditional use, does this, is the particular use appropriate for the unique site location, and is it also conducive, or is it actually compatible with the existing location, the existing neighborhoods, and so forth? And you've already heard a lot of testimony that this particular application and this particular use are not.

I would concur with that, and I think you're going to hear more testimony in that regard. I would particularly draw your attention to page six of Ms. Deeds' attorney, Mr. Mala sorry. Yeah, wherein he lays out for the Commission the proposed motion for denial, lays out the criteria that are not being met by this application, and also lists proposed findings for the Commission to adopt in that decision.

This is not a compatible use. This is not a necessary use. This is not something that I would say overwhelmingly is not wanted by the neighborhood, by the neighborhood association, by the preponderance of everyone I've talked to or have had any interaction about this proposed use. Thank you.

Thank you so kindly. Do we have Brent Hunsberger? Welcome, and please name and city of residence.

Before I start, before the time starts, I do have a video and a photo that I'd like to show during my testimony. Is that allowed?

Chair, we have it available if you want to to watch it, but it'll take me a moment to bring it up.

Fourteen seconds long, the video.

Is it appropriate to see it after your testimony or before?

I think it would be helpful to see it during or before.

Lynn, at your discretion. Okay.

Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Brent Hunsperger. I live in West Linn, just a couple blocks on Walling Way from this development. I'm here to testify this application fails to meet specific West Linn Community Development Code standards regarding public facility adequacy, traffic safety, noise mitigation.

My written comments provide a detailed analysis. I'll focus on the most critical safety failures tonight in my oral testimony. The applicant says it plans to use Walling Way Driveway as an exit and possible entrance to its its business. That video was taken on Walling Way. No traffic impact analysis was done on this staff finding one forty which found no additional street improvements required relies on a previous traffic use baseline, the McDonald's that closed more than seven years ago.

This is legally insufficient under CDC 60 dot 70 a four, which requires that public facilities be adequate, quote, at the time of occupancy. In 2015, the city's transportation system plan stated that Walling Way Highway 43 in its intersection was already at a level of service e. As just before f which means failing. And that was before the high volume Starbucks was was allowed or approved at the site. Now what you just saw in the video was the traffic queue into Starbucks on Walling Way directly across from the entrance and exit that Caddy plans to use onto Walling Way.

So you see what the intersection can look at like today. That video was taken on February 12 at 08:02AM, but those queues also can occur on Saturdays later in the morning, which I believe is the day that Caddie says will be its most its busiest. As you can see from the video, vehicles are can be forced to swerve into opposing lanes or block the crosswalk just to navigate the Starbucks queue. My wife and neighbors already avoid using this intersection to exit the neighborhood. They go on other streets to leave.

This is the existing condition of this intersection before adding the car wash traffic. The proposed caddy exit on Walling Way directly conflicts with the city's transportation safety goals or standard goals, which talk about opposing driveways aligning. The car wash exit points directly at the Starbucks exit only lane, create an a head on conflict zone right on Walling Way. Car wash users, if car wash users are in fact impulse buyers as the applicant stated, they will be darting right across this misaligned driveways to get their coffee after their car their car is washed. And that's a big concern to us who use this street to get out of the neighborhood.

Under CDC 48 o two five, the city must maintain the functional classification of roads. Walling Way is a local street, but allowing this egress onto Walling Way from Caddy, you are forcing it to function as a neighborhood route. That's not the street's intended purpose. We already have vehicles using Walling Way to reach Cedar Oaks School and the boat ramp. The Starbucks causes queuing as you can see.

The car wash entrance and exit will only make it matters worse. I have a photo from this morning, but I don't know if you have can call it up. This morning, there was a similar site. I don't know if the applicant got it. Apparently, they were out there also videotaping the area, but there was another lineup and quite a bit of traffic congestion.

The commission has the authority under the code to condition approval of this of this development based on the closure of the Walling Way curb cut out of this property. The code 48DotO6OF says that curb cuts shall be kept to a minimum and consolidation of driveways is preferred. I so I would ask you I would ask the commission to consider conditioning this approval based on closing that Walling Way entrance and exit. Finally, CDC fifty five one hundred allows you to require transit improvements. Simply, maintaining a poorly marked transit stop, as you saw in the photo that, the applicant showed, is not enough when you are also increasing turn hazards onto, 43 time,

so if we can wrap.

Okay. Pedestrians and transit users trying to use those bus stops are are already having to navigate a busy road, and there are is no median to stop and cross, to deal with the the traffic turning left out of that proposed use. Thanks for your time. Any questions?

Okay. Thank you very much. Michael Kappigan.

Michael Kappigan, Westland. Nice to see you all. Thank you, David. I appreciate the being able to address you. Few thoughts, I'm not going to try to get super detailed. I think it's pretty clear that the use is opposed by the people that live in that area. I think it's very clear that it's a conditional use which is discretionary, which means if it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. A denial is equally as valid as an approval. And I would ask that you consider a denial outright.

I don't try to digress limited time, but I will say this vision 43 thing is nebulous, it's not defined, and it's not applicable standard for application. I think we can all agree on that. That being said, there's discussion about having a conditional use and allowing automotive businesses allowed in that new rezoning proposal. Which means that the same argument could be made for this current zoning as general commercial that conditional use still doesn't this conditional use automotive intensive business automotive related doesn't fit. Whether we have the specific language adopted in the Vision 43 or we look at the current code and the fact that it is conditional use.

Criticize me for repeating myself, but I think it's very important to repeat and repeat and repeat. Conditional uses are not permitted uses. They are opportunity if they serve the community's interest to be approved. There's other criteria associated with chapter 60 that would also talk about is this site adequate for the size and the type of business. One could say, hey, you can't control the noise on this site because it's too small.

You're dumping the noise into your commercial neighbor. And so I would even argue this site is inadequate for the proposed use. The variance, well you've seen that this is clearly self inflicted. They've designed a building without any transparency. They have other buildings that have it, but for some reason on this site they don't want to do it. How can that not be a self imposed hardship? Anyway, it's just I try not to get into the weeds, but I could get into the weeds. A couple other thoughts I had quickly if I can get them. Not I'm not real impressed I'm not real impressed with the idea of this eco business. I think it's just a checklist they go through.

I don't think it's anything super significant. I wonder if they and I don't believe they address the forever chemicals. The fact that those will go into the sanitary sewer system, into the water treatment plants for the sewer system and end up in our waterways, Clackamas River back in the Willamette River potentially feeding into South Fork where we get our water. Right? A couple other thoughts.

Okay. The noise study is inadequate. They don't address all the sources of noise and all the things that are going to happen. I'm not going to digress into it, but it's inadequate. I will tell you that. If you review it on your own you can see.

Michael, could you speak up or just a little closer to the mic because we want to make sure that it's recorded.

I apologize. I think it's a let's see I think I'm going to say this and see if it draws a question. The staff has a finding on 133, I think finding 133 that addresses the noise issue and it's false. It's an incorrect statement. So they would put that in there and I would say it's not correct and as it relates to the sound study.

But again, I don't think this is an issue simply of traffic, sound, chemicals. It doesn't fit. It does not need for the city. I believe the attorney has this attorney that's been here, Andrew thank you. Has indicated and given you findings that you could adopt and I would just say in Chapter 99, I think Chapter 90 nine-one 100 D subsection four allows this planning commission to address, excuse me, to adopt findings that are presented by any party.

And I would seriously ask you to consider adopting those so that they're legally sustainable and can be upheld. And I again, I have to reiterate because I think it's important people don't get confused. We are under no obligation to allow this use. It's conditional use. It's it's it's discretionary. It's not permitted outright. We don't need to try to fix this to shoehorn in shoehorn it in to something that won't be a benefit to the community. I will stop there. Thank you.

Michael, I have a quick question. So you were citing finding for the noise, you were saying citing finding 143. Is that correct?

One hundred thirty three?

One hundred thirty three.

That's why

I'm asking. And when you were saying it was incorrect, can you say how it was incorrect? Because just saying it's incorrect doesn't

Thank David. Thank you, I was fishing for the question to try to air that out because But I didn't have enough I would point out that there's discussion in that finding, want to say about bullet point three as I sort of close my eyes and think back to what I saw. But it talks about the noise that's generated from the proposed car wash will travel 300 feet across across three three hundred fifty feet across the highway. That's the nearest residence 350 feet across the Highway, but that the buildings on 43 will block the noise, the sound. Well, then they do a noise study that comes in and says, well, guess what?

It won't block the noise. So we better put a little tunnel on it and shoot all that noise into the commercial building. But my point being, it's an incorrect statement. They're they're saying two things in the same finding. They're saying that the buildings will block the noise and it's all good.

And in the same finding, they're saying, but this they've done an acoustical study that say they can meet the noise standard. And I won't digress into the how incomplete the rest of the noise study is, clearly the consultant who did the noise study chose not to show up for whatever reason. But I can tell you the DEQ noise standard relates a lot more to the percentage of noise an hour than it does to a decibel level at any given point in time. And so, thank you, David. Just one more minute, please.

Or not even that, maybe twenty seconds. Is the idea that there's already noise out there that's generated by the highway and this will not be any higher than the noise that's generated by the highway. But if you combine the two, there'll be very there'll be a greater level of noise in the percentage of hour. It will sort of as opposed to having some lower sound levels for a percentage of the hour, now you're gonna have a continuous as the a whooshing sound as they call it. Any more questions? Thank you, David, for that extra opportunity.

No worries. Thank you. Okay. If we could hear from Anthony, and I'm going to ask you to tell me if it's Braco, Braco. Braco. Anthony Braco, if you could please come up. Please state your name and city of residence.

Anthony Braco, Westland resident, also Robinwood Neighborhood Association president. However, I'm not representing the neighborhood tonight. I ceded my time for that for Liz to use. Also, the president of the neighborhood presidents for the different neighborhoods of the Westland. And to find out about the time change tonight was rather upsetting.

I don't think any neighborhood has heard of it. I do know that the city council's citizen five minute time limit was reduced to three minutes. We were aware of that, but nobody was aware of the neighborhoods losing their ten minute time. Why do we even have neighborhood associations if we don't have perks like that. There's another thing I'll be bringing up in a moment, but I know that Vision 43 is not applicable as it did not pass in the application was presented before vision 43.

So those arguments are not valid because of that. But to find out to hear the Robinwood neighborhood plan being called irrelevant because it is aspirational again it's very insultive. Why do we have neighborhood associations if our plans are to be ignored. Currently our plan is going on a plan that was I think 2016 we had submitted a current plan it has not been adopted yet but again it really makes me wonder why do we have neighborhood associations at all if our things are going be told that they're irrelevant and we're going to have our times that we should receive as a privilege as a neighborhood cut. So I will be coming back to city council with a lot of the neighborhood presidents to address this.

On to what I'm actually here for tonight. So I need that document. So it was stated that. Our plan is relevant however, city code six zero point zero seven zero a section three says the granting of the proposal will produce a facility that provides an overall benefit to the city. Working of right lot lot have road.

To on to do do do the side that. Plus And the one that he has on 43 another mile north in Lake Oswego, is there enough business for all three of those car washes or is it going to put one of them out of business again, leaving us once again a vacant business on 43? If there isn't enough business, okay, so that's one point. The noise, which previously was a major problem with the old Katy location, although I hear a lot of complaints about the disco being gaudy, the disco car wash being gaudy, it's quiet and everybody isn't complaining about the noise. They complain about the lights, but they are not complaining about the noise.

Whereas previously, the old Katy car wash could be heard at the Cedar Oak School, It could be heard on Cedar Oak Island. It could be heard on Nixon all day long everybody in that neighborhood complained because the noise would travel downhill and as we know how noise waves will increase as they get that going uphill not so much going downhill. The sound was increased by the time it got to the river. So the from what I understand the East wall that is existing currently that's eight feet high. It's not eight feet everywhere. There's sections where it's lower. But if you look at the way it is, it's eight feet from the pavement. But if you stand by the building and you look down, it is sloped downhill. So it is not eight feet blocking the egress or entrance. It is eight feet from where the pavement is sloped downhill.

So that eight feet is not gonna be catching all the sound. The exit to the west where they were talking about, Mike was talking about, with the sound being redirected by that new round wall into the businesses next door, I don't see how that's a benefit for the businesses next door to now have to absorb all that extra sound and noise coming out of the car wash. You're keeping it from going across the highway to citizens living there, but you're now affecting the businesses next door. They're gonna have to deal with that. And we have a hard time keeping businesses in that location.

And we are now like the seventh business going into that location right now. So finally the studies that were used to dismiss the concerns are a study from Wisconsin car wash during 2012. So not a really busy time for car washes, that's one study. The other study is a drive through bank in Kansas. So I don't think either of those studies are really relevant to what we're looking at right now.

And finally really quick about the riparian zone and the spray, when the wind comes through, there's entrance and exit to the car wash which are open. The wind can blow the spray out which would then be collected by the storm water drains, which would then end up through into the retention pond being absorbed into the ground in a riparian zone, which would then contaminate the stream. So that's how those chemicals could be conceivably blown out into the spray into the car wash parking lot area, which would then get absorbed by the storm. To answer your question, Chris.

Thank you.

All right. That's it. Thank you. Any questions?

You made a statement that the previous location was unable to pay rent and that's why they had to leave. Do you have any questions?

He did not renew his lease. I don't know if it was because he wasn't able to afford So the

it's supposition but okay.

He did leave that location and that location stayed vacant for quite a while until the current wash came in. So previously gave up that location. And I was to understand it was because of the high rent and not enough income from that location.

Perfect. Thank you so very kindly.

Anything else? All right. Thank you all very much.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm going to do a bad thing here. Athena? Alright, then you get to help me out with the second part. Contreras. Athena Contreras, would you please come on down?

Hello. I'm Athena. I live in the Bolton neighborhood. Maybe just briefly, I can kind of, echo some of the safety concerns, about the walkability of that area. I do have preteens who are starting to want to walk places as a group, and so we live on 43 At Pemblokow, near Pemblokow, and so they can walk safely down where there's paved areas. But since we're heading more towards the paved areas and they've been begging me for years and years, I have a feeling that they're gonna be wanting to walk down to that Starbucks and they will have to pass by that that area.

So if the the where the car if the car

wash were there, I do think that there would be a significant difference in the

safety of that area where people

are coming in and out because of just my history with my understanding of of car washes. So I just wanted to say that very quickly. And then here is my this area has very limited commercially zoned land. All of our 43, and that makes each land use decision especially important. In a community that's predominantly residential, these few commercial sites should be used to meet a broad range of community needs.

A car wash does not meet a a significant unmet need here, particularly given that there is already a car wash in a very close proximity. Approving another car wash is essentially this in the same corridor represents an overconcentration of a single use and reduces opportunities for more diverse community serving businesses. We need spaces for small shops, services, and family oriented activities, uses that contribute to the daily life and the vibrancy of our neighborhoods. Choosing to site another car wash here means losing one of the few chances that we have to bring in something that the community really actually lacks. This is not about whether a car wash can operate at this I mean, I know it's about whether the car wash can operate.

I know we're going into, like, the little details, but it is a bit about the bigger picture of of what fits into this kind of zoning. And and speaking to that point that I keep hearing again and again because I've been very late to the game, but I continue to hear that this is a conditional use, not standard. I know I I believe there's a lot of things we could fit into a conditional make fit in a lot of different circumstances, but, but really it should fit the neighborhood. It should fit the the the use and and the vision of the area. It's worth it's worth asking if we continue to fill our limited commercial areas with repetitive uses.

Where will future businesses that better serve our residents go? So, yeah, that's it. Thanks.

Thank you so very much. Barbara Thank you. I'm I I I appreciate the opportunity to learn. Thank you.

I'm Barbara Seve. I live in West Linn. I actually live on Old River Drive just a couple blocks down. And I agree with

A little closer to the Sure.

Is that better? Yes? Okay. So I'm here past my bedtime because I mean, I agree with many of the objections, but I personally came because I'm so concerned about the traffic. The gentleman who showed the picture of Starbucks and the line that went all the way up to, Highway 43, I come to Starbucks from the other side.

I literally have to stop because I don't know there are cars coming out of Starbucks going left or right, and then there are cars coming down from Highway 43 going right into Starbucks, and I'm trying to make a left into Starbucks. And I can't even imagine if there were cars coming or going from that Wallingway driveway into, the car wash. It I mean, I just can't even how do you even figure out who's going where? It's just impossible. Just it's not meant that street is not meant for that kind of traffic.

And, you know, the the Starbucks, only recently is getting a lot more sit down, customers. Really since the pandemic. It was virtually entirely drive through. So it and it still is primarily a drive through business. So right next door, have a drive through car wash, then you have a drive through Starbucks.

I don't get how that's ever gonna work without some serious injuries. And, you know, and that's not even talking about making a right onto Highway 43 or making a left from the car wash onto Highway 43 and it's it's just, you know, I just a few years ago, I sat in a hearing from ODOT, you know, about the intersection at, Cedar Oak and and, Hidden Springs and the whole issue there with and this is one block away. It it's just gonna create havoc. So that's all I came to say and I'm going to go and go to bed.

Thank you so kindly. Roxanna Khosfran? Khosfran? Just put me out of my misery. But please tell us, because I find names fascinating. Thank you. Correct pronunciation?

Rukhshana Khoshrawi.

That's awesome. Say it one more time.

Rukhshana Khoshrawi.

Thank you.

Okay. Please. And I go by Shana for short.

Okay. That's

my nickname, so it's

a little City

you reside in? Five minutes.

West Linn, Oregon. So I am a former employee of Katie Carwash. I used to work at two locations in the Beaverton area. The primary location where I worked was on Canyon Road, was a busy location. I'm very familiar with the car wash process, how to operate a wash, and I can answer questions for you about spray and runoff, and I'm happy to do it if you have them.

I have significant concerns on multiple levels. I've reviewed the car wash application, there are multiple inaccuracies in it. And I have concerns that the car wash at this location is wildly inappropriate for any car wash to be placed right above two creeks on a major riparian zone. I am a resident of the Robinwood neighborhood and my property lies within 500 feet of the proposed site. So I'm also very familiar with the neighborhood And I have viewed the storm water detention pond, which is behind the restraining wall.

There's a gated fenced air or a gated and fenced area. And it was my understanding from speaking with city planning that its purpose was to absorb water into the ground, which would go into the water table and end up in the creek. So any spray and runoff is going into that area. And from looking at the application, it appears that Katie Carwash wants to actually develop that land, which is designated as medium priority riparian zone. If you see it on the City Of Westlands riparian maps, it appears yellow, And that's medium priority, but it is protected as a water resource area which Karen stated, I have seen where the creek emerges and the property below which is very very close to the storm water detention site.

As a former employee, I am very familiar with the spray that comes out of the car wash. There are multiple sprays. The employees manually spray the bumpers, the windshields at the entrance of the wash. Wind blows, it ends up in the air, it goes airborne. I'm concerned that the spray generated from the wash process, not just with the cleaning chemicals and the finishing chemicals, which could contain liquid polymers, some of which are known to be hormone disruptors, could end up all the way at my house if it goes airborne.

But I'm extremely concerned about the proximity to Fern Creek, which is the one that's culverted and emerges just under the car wash site on a slope, and also the proximity to Robin Creek. This is a major riparian waterway and we don't want it contaminating our creeks, our streams, our rivers, our children, our wildlife, our homes. I have multiple concerns about inaccuracies and especially I'd like to clarify some things about noise and I have concerns about the variance. One thing it states that employees are not in the wash bay during operation, that is totally unequivocally false. As when I worked there, employees were in the wash bay during hours of operation, during opening duties, closing duties, anytime it was slow.

We were to walk through the wash bay and pick up decals and molding and car parts that could have fallen off during the wash process. And I believe that this, which I understand it's an aesthetic provision, but I do believe that it may be being requested as a cost cutting measure. I would have to receive clarification from the car wash regarding why they are doing this rather than paying for paying more for windows that would be properly soundproofed and reinforced. So this up to me appears to be a cost cutting measure. Regarding sound and noise, where do I begin?

It was so loud that it hurt my ears without ear plugs. It was loud at the entrance, it was loud at the exit. I, am aware that the blow dryers can be turned up and down because mister Katie would call in an order, for the blow dryers to be turned up for peak performance. They would be turned up in volume. So I also at one point was asked by the general manager to wear a decibel meter around my neck and he went into the back room, I wore it as a pendant, and I believe he was adjusting the settings because all of a sudden the car wash became much quieter than it ever was during normal operations.

So I call this sound study into question because I know the settings can be modified and if the applicant commissioned the study, the applicant then can select his choice locations and he can adjust the settings to be favorable to get the best results. So my time is almost up, I also have concerns about the traffic studies, certain things are irrelevant, multiple locations of car washes in Minnesota, climate is totally different and they're outdated from 2012 in February which is not even peak season. Summer and December would be busier than February.

Okay.

Thank you. Perfect. Questions?

I

have some.

Yes.

When in, first off, I had read your written testimony and I'm very glad that you also appeared for, you know, in person. So thank you. One of the things, when you were citing what appeared to be concerns because it relates to the variance for the windows and the issues that you brought up in your written testimony. How many employees generally were on shift on average? When you were working, how many employees were on shift?

It varied. Sometimes when it was really slow, there could be two employees. Sometimes when it was busy, there would be three employees. We'd have a third man position because there were, there was just so much traffic. We ran over, you know, at 1.86 cars in an hour.