Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

.

All right, welcome. I call the August 12th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6 p.m. Can I get a roll call, please?

Chair Yano-Sanvanova.

Here.

Jeff Sundell. Here. Rob Kandrian.

Here.

Andrew Carr. Here. Nicole Hendricks.

Here.

And Matt Constantine. Here. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. All right. Hey everybody. This is the time that citizens have the opportunity to address the planning commission regarding any item that is not already scheduled for a formal public hearing. This includes the opportunity to address any items scheduled for a work session. Therefore, if any member of the audience either here in City Hall or via Zoom would like to speak about any other matter concerned, including any work session items, please raise your hand or send a message to the recorder using the Zoom chat function so that we may hear from you now. If you have not already, please fill out a testimony card and give it to the clerk. Also, please state your name and address for the record or state that your address is as provided on the testimony card. We will limit comments to no more than three minutes. And I do have one card for Ryan Shira, Bushnitzer Properties.

I also have a handout from Ryan Shira, but he's not here. Should I hand it out?

I think you can go ahead and hand it out, hand out the copies, yeah.

All right, do we have any other speaker cards or anybody on Zoom for comment?

I currently have zero attendees on Zoom and no other speaker cards.

All right. Then I will call to order the public hearing regarding resolution number LP26-0003. Town for the town center building height lever At 6 o 4 p.m Of all the commissioners familiarize themselves with the application yes So at this time a call for city staff to present the staff report including steps proposed recommendations along with the applicable review and approval criteria Will the city staff please present their report and recommendation? I?

Thank you, Chair and Planning Commission. I am Amanda Geil-Hinman, City Attorney, and tonight is the public hearing scheduled for the Town Center Building Height Waiver Project. So by way of agenda for this presentation and for the communities and the Planning Commission's information, we'll do a quick background that led to this project. We'll then review the current code provisions within the Town Center zone that are recommended for revision. We'll go over the prior input from the Town Center Building Height Waiver Task Force, the Planning Commission, and the City Council, and then review the proposed revisions that are in your packet, and then open it up for discussion by the commission. So just to start to familiarize you all, I know you're familiar with the Town Center Plan, It really was a decades-long effort in feedback from the community about wanting to see a more vibrant downtown, which led to the council establishing a council goal during the 2015 to 2017 council to have an update to the town center plan. So that work really kicked off initially with some pre-work in 2016 and then the project kicked off in 27 and was completed in 2019. In May of 2019 is when the town center plan and the related development code amendments, particularly the town center zone, were adopted. The updates to the town center zone were adopted. In 2025, the city council set its new council goals, and one of those council goals was regarding communication and education on town center. So what that led to was city staff at council direction to put out a Let's Talk Wilsonville questionnaire and some focus group work in the fall of 2025. The feedback from that questionnaire and the focus groups essentially kind of reconfirmed what led to the town center plan project initially was that people want to see a vibrant town center and a place to meet and gather and interact with each other. One of the things that was addressed as a concern was around building heights and sort of the feel within the town center. And there was some concern about particularly around building height. So city staff went to council with an option that they could look at, which was looking at the building height waiver language, particularly in the town center zone regulations. And so in March of 2026, the city council adopted resolution number 3244 to consider modifications to the regulations governing the building height waivers specifically in town center. We're going to talk a little bit when we get to the proposed revisions about how that interacts with our general waiver provisions. But just as you all are familiar with, there are specific waiver language currently within the town center zone concerning building floor plate and building height, which is what this project was looking at. And I know you all are familiar with this, but it's good to reorient ourselves because it does apply for this particular waiver provision is familiarizing ourselves with the town center sub-districts. So these areas are generally covered by the town center zone, but then there's additional regulations that govern each sub-district. So starting to the west, closest to I-5 is CMU or commercial mixed use. That is where the tallest buildings, two to five stories are outright allowed. MU or mixed use is the area that is surrounding the Main Street District. Those currently allow for an outright allowed building heights of two to four stories. The Main Street District, which is the spine and the real heart of this town center area is two to four stories as well, outright allowed. And the neighborhood mixed use, most close to the residential neighborhood to the east, is two to three stories. So the idea at the time was really about scaling down development from closest to I-5 where the tallest buildings could go and then scaling down closer to the residential area to the east. So again, the outright allowed building heights range from two to five stories in commercial mixed use, two to four stories in mixed use in Main Street District, and then two to three stories in neighborhood mixed use. So getting to the particular provisions that we are looking at as part of this project. First is the building height waiver provision in Wilsonville code 4.132. 4.132 is the town center zone regulations. And then subsection 06D. And of particular importance is this language, the very beginning where it says the development review board may approve waivers to the size of the ground floor of a building floor plate and or the number of stories of a building within the mixed use and commercial mixed use sub-districts. So this waiver provision only applies to the commercial mixed use and mixed use sub-districts, not to the Main Street District or the neighborhood mixed use. And as you all probably remember from when we talked with the Planning Commission about this project, the reason that it talks about floor plate and or the number of stories of the building is because there was some discussion at the planning commission level at that time about that there may need be a need for particularly anchor retail tenants to help spur additional development that we want to see in town center and they would not have the ability to come in under our outright allowed building heights particularly if they're looking for a one-story building so The impetus that started for this building height waiver language was a discussion around sort of those anchor retail tenants and this language was put in there and I think we can all agree that it's a bit imprecise which led to this project being undertaken. I also want to point out, and this will come from the feedback in particular that we got from city council, this is not in the building height waiver provision. It's in the table where the outright allowed story heights and other dimensional requirements for development within the various sub-districts is contained, is the bonus floor for affordable housing. So there's a note four next to all the outright allowed building heights that says, in the main street district, the mixed use, the main street sub-district, the mixed use sub-district, and the commercial mixed use sub-district, that building stories could be increased by one story if a minimum of 25% of the units of the bonus floor area are affordable. And this came up because when you are talking about, all right, what is the understanding the community has about what could be built under our regulations? you necessarily have to talk about that there is the ability to get this bonus floor as well, um, to be transparent about what could occur. And we'll get into the recommendations from council about, about this bonus floor, um, when we get into the recommendations. So as, as I mentioned, and as you all are aware, um, the city council is part of that resolution three, two, four, four, um, put in there to establish a task force, a building height waiver task force, to help provide recommendations and input to the planning commission and city council. So we've received input on this issue around the building height waiver language from the task force, the planning commission, and the city council. What we did with each group, the task force, planning commission, and city council, provide multiple different options and then tweaks to those options as we were working through the language to potentially revise the waiver language. And then at the direction of council, we had the task force planning commission and city council determine if there's a preferred alternative to those options and then consider that preferred alternative against eliminating the waiver to a waiver to increase eliminating the waiver to increase the building height. So there would basically be two decision points, the preferred alternative from the options and then that preferred alternative versus the elimination of the building height waiver to increase height. So the results from that prior input is the task force preferred alternative number option five, but they had an open question about whether to limit the height in mixed use east, the east area that is closest to the neighborhood mixed use. So there was some discussion about maybe that portion of that sub-district should not get a waiver, but it would still allow a waiver for the mixed use area closest to the commercial mixed use. The task force preferred that alternative over the elimination of the waiver to increase the building height six to two. We then provided that information to Planning Commission and the Planning Commission was split between option five and option six as the preferred alternative, but was generally supportive of eliminating the waiver to increase over those two options, three to two, and then with the two who were in the minority in that, also commenting that they weren't necessarily opposed to it, they just had to eliminate, but that they just preferred keeping the option over the elimination. Then when we went to city council, the consensus was to eliminate the waiver to increase the building heights altogether. And the city council consensus was to get rid of that note four. So basically having the chart, the table, that table two that outlines the outright permitted building heights be the maximum that could be established under our local regulations. So that leads to the proposed revisions that are in your packets. So the first proposed revision is to remove the waiver to increase the building height. So rather than having the and or language that there's only the waiver to decrease the building height. The other thing that we want to make clear is as you might recall from the original language that exists now is it talks about expanding floor plate and or Building height and what we want to make sure is that the floor plate is expanded only if you're decreasing the building height because that again it was The intent and the discussion that was happening at the Planning Commission at that time So we don't see larger buildings plus going up all the way that they're allowed to go up We also added a clarification that Wilsonville code 4.119, which is our general waiver provision, basically is not available for building heights because 4.119 does allow waivers to building heights generally, like that's our general waiver policy in addition to other provisions that are allowed for waivers within that. It's basically, you don't get this loophole. Like we want to make it clear that this is not an alternative option for you to, for a developer to pursue. And then ultimately what the reason for this recommendation is that it really does get, I think at the intent for those of you who have read the minutes, listen to those prior planning commission meetings. It really does in my, in my mind, get to the intent of that prior planning commission when they asked for this type of consideration in the development code around the town center zone. And like I mentioned, we are proposing to remove the bonus floor for affordable housing, deleting that note four. One of the things that was talked about with city council is, and I think we talked about this with planning commission as well, is when you talk about affordable housing, because of the costs that are required to build affordable housing, In all likelihood you're not going to see this bonus floor be utilized because you really need those investments from government entities and other entities and at that point then an entire building is going to be affordable housing or the vast majority of a building would be affordable housing. So it really felt like why I think for the city council and giving their guidance is why have this note that creates this ambiguity about building height if it's really not something that we think will likely be utilized. And also noting if there ever comes a point in time where council feels like this is something that needs to be added back in, this process can be done just like we did this process here, both in the consideration of the waiver and the bonus floor as well. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions, but before you tonight is resolution LP26-003, which would recommend adopting these development code amendments concerning building heights in the town center zone.

Thank you. All right, we have no questions. So at this time, do we, okay. The next portion of the public hearing will provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission to hear testimony from audience members. We will take public testimony in the following order. Those present in the person at City Hall, do we have anybody with any speaker cards?

We do not have any speaker cards.

those participating remotely via teleconference.

I do not have anybody online.

Okay, thank you. Okay. I do not have that. So no questions. No discussion.

can make the motion. Uh, I moved to adopt resolution number LP 26 dash 0 0 0 3 recommending adoption of development code amendments regarding building heights in the town center zone.

I'll second.

Now we can hold discussion.

And I'll just note for the record that Commissioner Carr made the motion and it was seconded by Commissioner Candrian.

I'll just say that as I read through the packet and thought about it a little bit more, I still am in favor of eliminating the... the waiver provisions because I think, and it may sound counterintuitive, but I think that still gives us the most flexibility. Because I think if you say you can go higher from the start, someone may go higher. If people don't really like that or it becomes an albatross because nobody else wants to build high, that's bad. But if we start without the waivers and 10 years, 20 years from now, five story buildings are like the average or whatever, like we still have the flexibility to go up, but you can't really, take it back down if we start high and go low, but if you start low, you can still go high. And so I just think it gives the city the most flexibility to start without the waivers as opposed to saying, sure, like you can go up to seven stories from the beginning.

Yeah, I just want to say, I appreciate all the work that staff put in, um, us as a planning commission, uh, the task force and all the citizen input that we got. I think that helped, um, paint a picture of what the citizens of this community wanted. And that helped me drive my opinion to eliminate the variances. So yeah, thank you.

Yeah, I would echo the thanks to the staff and to the fellow commissioners and the members of the community who've put a lot of effort into the drafts of this, the discussion, the expressing I don't know that I would agree with the characterization that this gives us more flexibility, but I do agree that it seems to reflect what the dominant voice of the city seems to want out of this. I think it is restrictive. I think it does limit what builders will be able to do, but I think it does it in a way that's deliberate and reflects what the people of the city seem to want. I don't think that that voice of the people of the city is clear. I think that it gets muddled. I think sometimes in the way that the louder voices in the community tend to overpower or maybe drive away some of the discourse that could be happening in the city. And I wish it wasn't that way. I wish that we could have more frank conversations among each other in the community without it devolving into mischaracterizations and mudslinging that we sometimes see online or even sometimes in this council or in this chamber. I do think I would like to maybe set the record straight a little bit on the vote that I gave last time when we were discussing this and the characterization. I don't think... It wasn't a preference of mine that I want to have building waivers or to have larger buildings in Town Center. It's that when I look at the survey results and when I see the results of the task force, it seems to me like the dominant attitude or the dominant expression in those two sources is to allow building high waivers. So I was trying to reflect that and support what it seemed like the community was saying, especially in the survey and in the task force itself. The specific findings that we got out of those two mechanisms was seemed to be saying that they wanted to have options for waivers. So for us to say no to that, it seems to me that we're going in opposition to the input that we've solicited from the community. And so I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on this. I think that It's very confusing to try to make sense of what we're hearing from the community when we go out and ask really direct questions in the survey or in the task force. We get what seem like direct responses and then we go in opposition to that. I don't necessarily think that's wrong because we also have other inputs that we're looking at as well. I don't oppose this. I support the outcome of this. I think it does reflect what seems to be the will of the community. But I say a strong emphasis on seems to be the will of the community because I think it's very muddled. It's very unclear what the community actually wants despite how clear some people might want to portray it as being.

Any other discussion?

No. No, I also appreciate all the hard work and input from everybody. And I mean, I agree with these changes, especially listening to the many deliberations of the previous years of the commission and their vision. I think this is more reflective of what that vision was. And so that's why I agree with that. All right.

Excuse me, Chair. Just a clarification for the record. Did we close the public hearing?

Say that again? Oh, fair enough. Thank you, Paula. Yeah, can you close the public hearing, Chair? Sorry. Thank you.

Well, I guess I had a question. Do we need to come back to the speaker card or not?

I don't think it's for this matter.

Oh, gosh, that's right. Okay, I will close the public hearing. I declare the public hearing closed at 6.25 p.m.

And you do have the pending motion.

Yeah, okay. I was working my way through that. All right. So we already motioned and we seconded. We had the discussion. So I hear no further discussion. And I don't see a further discussion. Hearing no further discussion, I will call the question. All in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. All opposed? No, none. The motion carries. Six to zero. All right.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right, our next agenda is a work session. for transportation performance measures. This work session is a chance for the Planning Commission to gain additional understanding of and provide guidance on ongoing and legislative projects prior to a public hearing.

Thank you, Chair Simonova. I will go ahead and introduce this item briefly for staff. Over the past few months, there have been a number of questions that have come up here at the commission related to the transportation system, the design of our facilities, and especially how that interrelates with land uses. and different master planned areas in the community. And so I thought it would be helpful to invite engineering here tonight to orient you on the goals and guidelines that are in the city's transportation system plan. how we measure our performance in executing that plan and our review of that system performance. So this information is really foundational to the work that we do in our department, and we'll hopefully provide you with useful context as you review and provide feedback on items that are coming in front of you here at the dais. So with that, I'm going to introduce Amy Mogg, the city's development engineering manager, and she can introduce the team that is with her tonight.

Good evening. Thank you, Miranda. That was a great summary, so my summary will be very short. Tonight we invited DKS, our transportation consultant, who was the author of our transportation system plan and works every three years with me to work on our performance monitoring report, which is a look back on how we're doing to meet our goals and policies in the transportation system plan. That work, that three-year look back is underway currently and will be completed this fall. But this provides more of a high-level discussion, as Miranda said, about our goals and policies and kind of sets the framework for how we see the transportation system in the city. With that, I will turn it over to Jenna Bogart and Scott Mansour from TKS. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks. Should I share my screen? The PowerPoint pulled up? Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, good evening. My name is Jenna Bogert, like Amy said, and I'm a transportation engineer with DKS. And Scott Manser, my colleague, is here with me tonight. And we have a brief presentation to share with you about the city's transportation goals. And we would be happy to answer any questions about traffic and the city of Wilsonville. Between Scott and I, we have like decades of experience working with the city of Wilsonville and their traffic issues. So We'll be happy to answer questions. All right, so what are the city's transportation system goals? There's seven of them. The city has these goals to provide a transportation system that is safe, connected and accessible, so it allows people to access jobs, parks, schools, homes, and other cities within the region. A transportation system that's functional and reliable allows people to get where they want to go in a reasonable and efficient manner. The city also strives to have a cost-effective transportation system, so a system that's constructed under good stewardship of available funds. A compatible system, so a network that complements the city's other goals and state and regional goals as well. A robust transportation system, so a system that provides multiple options for how people get around and move through the city. And lastly, a transportation system that promotes livability. So those are the city's seven goals. These are identified in the city's transportation system plan, the TSP, and that is the city's long term plan that contains an evaluation of the city's transportation needs and projects that are identified to address those needs. It also contains transportation policies and standards. And it's a sub element or sub sub element of the city's comprehensive plan. And so in that way, the goals in there reflect goals that the city has overall that are identified in the comprehensive plan. They're also consistent with required goals at the state level, specifically statewide planning goal 12. They're also consistent with regional goals, so the metro regional transportation system plan is meant to be kind of a partnership with the city's goals and reflect those as well. And all of these were selected and reviewed through a public engagement process. when the TSP was adopted in 2013. And why are these goals important? So goals guide what the city roads look like and they help prioritize funding. They carry the city closer towards the overall vision for the transportation system. The benefits are not just limited to Wilsonville but also allow the city to connect to neighboring communities and support travel to and from state and regional highways. So those are all reasons for why we need to honor these goals. How do we ensure that goals are being met? So there are a few ways the city has a hierarchy to make sure that this is happening, and that's through transportation policies and implementation measures. So you can see in that figure the hierarchy of goals being supported by policies, being supported by those implementation measures. An example would be taking the city's goal for robust transportation networks which is supported by a policy that says providing a robust transportation system that serves all members of the community and provides access to multiple travel mode choices. And that policy is then supported by implementation measures in the city's public work standards and the development code, through planning documents like the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, through the Transit Master Plan. All these standards and implementation measures are found in other documents that are part of our land use approval criteria. They're the basis of design for capital improvement projects. They are really the kind of backbone of transportation infrastructure. Like I said those measures are included in the TSP they can be found in the development code public work standards Some of those measures and standards that are specifically documented in the TSP are the desired functional classification of all the public streets in city of Wilsonville There's standards for the spacing of streets and connectivity routes designated routes for freight and bicycle cross-section standards that for each of those functional classifications for your arterials, collectors, local streets, as well as guidelines and policies for managing access on those roadways. So progress towards these cities' transportation goals can be defined in three steps, establishing those clear standards that are in those code and planning documents. Step two would be evaluating the transportation system, and this is done through different avenues, private development traffic impact studies, area plans, safety studies, urban upgrade corridor studies, and... the third step would then be to monitor that system performance over the course of the years. And that's what Amy was referring to. The city has a process in place to look at these metrics every three years. The report that is a result of that effort is called the Performance Monitoring Report. It contains metrics for each transportation goal and evaluates those metrics every few years. It ties recent infrastructure investments to changes in metrics, for example. Some of those metrics include the number of fatal and serious injury crashes on city streets, the volume of traffic, the the delay in seconds of traffic at your key intersections, as well as travel times along key corridors. And so the report also looks at all that information, then makes recommendations for ways to continue improving those metrics into the future and ensuring that those goals are we're trending towards achieving those goals. And yeah, as Amy said that this fall is 2026 is a year for an update. So this fall we'll be presenting that to the city. And lastly, what does this mean for the Basalt Creek area, plan area? It means that the city code and standards will continue to be applied to new streets that are built within the Basalt Creek area, continuing that idea of supporting our transportation system goals. And sidewalks and bike lanes in an industrial area help the city meet those goals by providing safe and connected paths for multimodal options and encouraging that robust transportation network that's identified in the city's DSP as one of our key goals. So yeah, with that, I'll open it up. That's kind of the end of the presentation that I have, and we're happy to answer any questions about any of that content or the Salt Creek.

Great, thank you so much. Members of the commission, do you have any questions for staff? Comments and discussion?

How do you capture the performance measurements? You said you do that every three years? How do you capture those?

some of the data sources are available on a yearly basis so like crash data they put out new years of crash data every year traffic counts for example those are collected through the update process they also get collected through the development traffic impact studies through a lot of the different analyses that the city will conduct for like Brown Road, for example, or maybe a signal enhancement project. We'll pull all of that available data together and use that to help inform the change in traffic volumes over the years. Yeah, there's a few things.

I know there was a point in there where we talked about the difficulty in capturing near misses. I don't know if the city allows it, but have we considered cameras at certain intersections that we know are prone to it and using AI technology to determine near misses?

I'll jump in. We do that quite often, especially at a lot of high crash locations. The great news about Wilsonville, IT'S A VERY SAFE NETWORK. THERE WAS A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD WHERE THE CITY HAD NO FATAL CRASHES. I THINK THERE'S ONLY BEEN ONE OR TWO IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. I DON'T BELIEVE THOSE WERE. ONE WAS AT A MID-BLOCK LOCATION. ANOTHER WAS ON TOWN CENTER, NOT AT INTERSECTIONS. Yes, it's a technology that can be used. It's pretty expensive, and so a lot of times that technology is really used at more high crash where you're seeing more fatal and serious injury crashes that we're not seeing on a lot of the Wilsonville streets and intersections. If that helps.

Commissioner Hendricks.

Yeah, thanks for presenting. The staff report mentioned that there might be increased tracking because of the CFEC. or the state goals. And so is that required by this state? Or I was just, it kind of alluded to more tracking and I was like, oh, where is this coming from?

Yeah, there, as part of the new CFAC requirements, the city will be required to monitor their progress, but it'll be a really similar to what we've been doing. So the city of Willisville is kind of one of the only cities that I see that's doing this ahead of it being a requirement. So it'll be a very similar process.

process way to go so i need to talk to my city that i work for um that's good that's good to know thanks for clarifying um and then i had a couple more questions just uh i've been hearing a lot about um e-bike safety and e-scooters and so i'm wondering are is that already being tracked is that going to be tracked since that seems to be more and more common now

Yeah, I mean, one of the new tools that we've been having is collecting a lot of bicycle and pedestrian data, and that's something 10, 15, 20 years ago, we were not able to, you had to send somebody out to go collect it, and now there's a lot of data points that we can, especially when the city completed the Fifth to Kinsmen portion and that pathway, we can now collect pedestrian data But as far as the e-bikes, we can't differentiate how many of these are regular people riding their bikes versus the e-bikes. That's a challenging thing. But we are collecting data, and there's more to come on that. But right now, it's collected in our bicycle and pedestrian data that we're presenting. We just can't differentiate what percentage of that is in cycling trips.

Yeah, it sounds like it might not be possible. But it is interesting because it's like there are very different safety issues with a regular bike versus an e-bike. Yes. So it's like, yeah, that could skew your bike. I don't know. It's just interesting to think about.

I was talking to a city engineer in kind of a conversation with the police, too, and just they're really having a lot of challenges with some of the safety issues being created. And they have the technology, and they can do a lot of things that a regular bike can't. And so, yeah, it's one of the challenges we're working with right now, too.

And then the final thought is, do you cross-reference the results from our national community survey and see how the data is kind of lining up with what the community is feeling or kind of reporting out on?

Yeah, that's actually a sizable portion of the performance monitoring report is looking at those results over year over year. I think it's every two years, right, that those surveys go out. And yeah, kind of cross referencing those with, yeah, exactly, with like what is being actually implemented and then what is the kind of perception from the public. Cool. Yeah. Groovy, thanks.

Yeah, that will be one of the slides when we present this, we'll be sharing.

Yeah, great work on this. I love transportation and mobility, so this is something that I would love to nerd out on a lot more. So it's been a little bit since I reviewed the transportation assist plan more in detail, so some of this isn't super top of mind for me. I'll be excited when you do the more in-depth presentation in the future. When we look at those goals or when you look at some of the things that you're measuring, What do you do when you run into some goals that conflict with each other, like safety and time to destination, or like trip to destination, or the duration of the destination, or how long it takes to get to your destination, or through a traffic signal or something like that? How do we weigh which one should win, so to speak, or be prioritized in those kind of cases? Yeah.

Do you want me to take that? Yeah. A lot of times it's really looking at all the seven goals at one time. Are you all pretty familiar with the transportation system plan? Probably not. A little bit, a little bit. So what the transportation system plan is doing is it looks out 20 years and it's looking at the last round, one of the big changes was Frog Pond. We need to figure out the streets and how are people gonna walk and bike between the schools and the parks and the neighborhoods. And so when you're done with the transportation system plan, you have a list of projects. And I wanna... There's a lot of projects and part of that process, we also have to create a financial constraint so we know there's gonna be more projects than we have money for. And so then we use, we create from those goals, we create evaluation criteria and we evaluate all the projects based on each of those criteria. And so a lot of times it's not comparing two goals but you're right, there's times where you could have one project that is really, really expensive and it's not cost effective, so therefore it's not gonna score real well, but it's really safe and it's gonna make an amazing connection for the city. it's really looking at all the goals at once and kind of combining those and we do our best to try and score those. And then we typically, through our public process, we then share and say, hey, this is the valuation criteria based on your goals and objectives, and here's how we've scored these. Do you agree? Did we mess this up? And the community could come back and say, well, safety is our number one goal, so therefore we think that should be a lot more important than some of these other ones. And those are some of the questions we ask when we're doing that valuation criteria and we're evaluating each of these projects to help recommend what we think are the most the projects that should be advanced are going to be most consistent with your goals. Does that help?

Yeah, that's super helpful. And I'll be eager to dive into that more as well in the future. Yeah.

We have had some communities that come up and say, we have these seven goals. Safety is our number one. We don't want people dying. We don't want serious crashes. We think that goal should have the priority of the weighting of maybe two of any of the others. And there are things that we have through that process that helps.

Excellent. And I think the people in the city who know me know that I'm a pretty strong advocate of cycling around the city and walking around the city. I try to encourage the kids in the neighborhood that I live in to get to school by bike or to walk. But one of the things that we constantly run up against is the people who don't, they don't even want to get on the bike in the first place. So when you're looking at measurement, is that one of the things that you're measuring? The people who don't even, take the trip because of whatever factor, maybe it's they don't have a bike or they don't, I'm using bikes as an example here, but, or they don't know the routes or they're scared because the cars around them are too fast or whatever. Is that something that you measure, the trips that aren't taken or the modes that aren't used because of whatever factor?

Yeah, we do do like a scoring process that looks at bicycle level traffic stress and that is a scale that ranges from one to four and one kind of representing that corridor that's like comfortable for kids on bikes to ride by themselves. And then four would be the kind of other end of that spectrum of it's really only comfortable for those super experienced bikers that don't mind being in the roadway next to the high speed traffic. And so we aim to have see more of those one and two corridors than those three and four corridors. But yeah, there's certainly like a latent demand, I guess, for for bike trips or even walking trips when those facilities aren't present that we do consider when we are working with the city on a design of a corridor or, you know, the future development of Frog Pond East or whatever, the kind of area that doesn't exist yet, even those facilities don't exist. So, yeah.

Yeah. I just say on the From the goal standpoint, though, you also have to think about having a well-connected system. And I mean, one of the highest priorities is trying to get multimodal streets, connecting all your parks to your neighborhoods, and just making sure that if you want to ride your bike somewhere, you have a safe route to get from point A to point B. And when the transportation plan, that's one of the things is we're trying to help help the city determine one of the best projects is how can we get connections. And in the public process, I'm, oh, there's, I've never seen a cyclist on that road or something. But a lot of times it's because it goes nowhere, right? Until you make, have a bridge or you have a connection that connects that you'll have that, you know, A to B. And so it's part of, it's still part of the decision-making process. I don't know if we can answer your question perfectly, but it all comes down to the land use, where is the residential, where are the jobs, where are the transit centers, and making sure that every mode is really covered between transit, walking, biking, and cars that anybody wants to get from point A to point B, they have a safe route that they can get there.

Yeah, totally. And the last thing I'll say on this, I guess, I was one of the people who asked exactly that question last time we were talking about the Salt Creek. We were looking at a lot of the data around the measurements that we had done around the intersections, and I was like, why would we put bike lanes on this road that has major vehicle, like big, heavy trucks and stuff? And that was something I think staff came back with a really good response on that you echoed here. It's about that last mile. It's about making sure that people have multimodal ways of getting to work. And I'd love to be able to dive into that a lot more to look at how does the data support the hypothesis that the best way to solve car traffic is to provide other ways for people to get around besides cars, since traffic is one of the big issues among the citizens of this community. So yeah, that wasn't really a question, just an eagerness to dive into it more.

On the connectivity piece, how do you guys coordinate with the other jurisdictions? So for example, I was thinking about this because I also bike a lot. And I don't think there's a way you could get from here to West Linn without having to just share a lane on the road at some point. And then there's a couple other places in town where I'm either on a run or biking, and the shoulder just ends. or a sidewalk just ends and there's still like land where you could have built a sidewalk or, you know, the shoulder of the road ends. And then like 30 yards down, like a bike lane starts, but there's no way to go from like, I was just thinking right now of like where barber hits Graham's ferry. Cause I was writing that today. It actually like forces you on the roundabout to go on the road or on the sidewalk, but then like maybe 20, 30 yards up Graham's ferry, a bike lane starts, but you could never go from the sidewalk to the bike lane. Cause there's like a big ditch in between. So you're kind of like forced to like ride on the road for a little bit. Anyway, like there's a lot of those little where it's only like 20, 30, 40 yards of stuff. How does that factor in like reviewing the plans and saying, hey, there's this little space here that we need to build that piece out where it's probably not going to be like focused on as part of like a larger project? That was like six questions in one.

I'm going to answer it from the planning standpoint, and maybe Amy can hit it from the plan side of things, but when we're doing our, so when we assisted the city on preparing your transportation system plan, we had a technical advisory committee, and on that technical advisory committee, there was a staff person from Washington County, and there was a staff person from Clackamas County, and a lot of the different counties or cities close by that where decisions in Wilsonville or in the fringe may have effect on or they own that facility. And so we have that inter-agency coordination. So I'm just using your example of how would a bike get to Westland. That's where there's a section in there would be rural Clackamas County. And so when rural Clackamas County does their transportation system plan, The city can make, that's those kind of discussions back and forth. Like, hey, we really want to have an opportunity because you share a school district. If you have a student, there's opportunities and people that would use it if there's safe facilities for them. So that's typically the type of interagency coordination that goes into trying to come up with a long-term regional plan. I believe Metro has also some regional trail plans and a lot of times there's a lot of different ways to try and connect cities and through the county.

Because previously I worked in like North Marion County, and I think that even has like designated as like a scenic cycling area. And so there's at least like a shoulder everywhere. And so it was great to go on a lunch ride because even though it was busy roads, like I always had a shoulder, right? And we have a lot of great area like in the Stafford section where that could be like a tourist tourism type thing of like, hey, here's a great place to go bike. There's hills. you know, go from Westland to Wilsonville, back, whatever, come over, stop at the town center, enjoy one of the cafes, and then go get some exercise. And a lot of these like group rides, they obviously like to stop at a coffee shop or something along the way, but is that ever addressed like as part of transportation plan, how like that could impact positively tourism?

Yes. And I think if you were to go to the city's transportation plan, probably every collector, arterial, most of the main routes, it's got a trail system. It's showing all those projects are not built, so there's definitely gaps in the system, but there's a plan to get there. And as development occurs, as the city funds projects, a lot of those gaps will get filled in. But there's standards, and that's what Jenna kind of hit on for If you wanted to go, if you're going to go build a section of Graham's Ferry that's rural, they can go right to the TSP, see the type of facility it's going to be, see the bike facility is going to be provided. And then there's even, and there's a lot of checks and balances too because the TSP might show on-street bike lanes. And that was done in 2013 and things have changed and we're trying to do more protected bike lanes. And that's where the city will evaluate and to say, okay, what's the best and safest option for this street? So that's kind of how we, evaluate and kind of implement to make sure as streets are getting built that they're getting built with safe facilities. I don't know if you want to cover that.

Yeah, so I will just add that staff, similar to us having a task force for our TSP, they're our task force in Washington County, Clackamas County. Tualatin sends us when they update their TSP, they send us their draft TSP for us to look at and comment on. As far as capital projects, we do, get feedback on some of those capital projects. One of them that's happening right now is the roundabouts at 65th and Stafford. Staff is actively working with Clackamas County on those designs. So there is some coordination that happens. We don't necessarily have a say in them prioritizing what capital project happens where first, but we do definitely have conversations about that.

I'll just add in a little bit. Zach Weigle, city engineer. And to your question about kind of the little things that come up, like these little gaps, like the thing you were mentioning on Graham's Ferry, the engineering staff, when we get comments through our CRM portal, the community interface, We do track and keep a list of those types of things, and as funding comes available, we do make those small improvements over time. I will say the funding is very limited, so we do about three or four crosswalks or that type of improvement every couple of years with that funding. And then the Stafford Road is a great example. If you look through the county's transportation system plan, They have a shoulder widening project for Stafford Road, just getting that to that point. Also, Metro has the regional trail plans, and so we're building our Beckman Creek regional trail. A lot of it through Frog Pond has already been built. We're planning on extending that down to Memorial Park, but there are plans to extend that along Beckman Creek through the county, up Stafford Road, all the way to 205, extending the 205 trail all the way to Gladstone. So there are plans for all this work, just need the money to do it. Commissioner?

That sparked another question in my mind. I have similar experiences as Commissioner Kandryan around biking and encountering these little gaps and that's good to know about ways to make sure that the community is kind of registering those with the city and making sure that the city knows so that we can plan accordingly. I want to appreciate the limited funds and the fact that we have to plan and prioritize our capital projects accordingly. What I don't see very much in the city, and I wonder how much this could factor into planning or how much it does factor into planning, and maybe I just don't see it, is lower cost, maybe temporary solutions that allow us to learn. One of the complaints that I hear in my community in Villebois, when the community was designed Or actually, I don't want to speculate on that necessarily, but street parking causes visibility problems around crosswalks and intersections. And I've wondered, like, what would it cost, what would it look like for the city to maybe paint some lines and put some bullets out to just stop people from parking so close to the intersection to learn? Is that considered a capital project or is that something that's like a smaller scale thing that we could do to learn and do more iterative near-term solutions? And how does that factor into something like the transportation system plan? Let me take it back. Sure.

Maybe I can just give you, I would say those are probably more, if you're just talking about going and putting in some striping and doing some testing, you could also just cone it off. I mean, if you're really saying, hey, I want to do this for a month and how's it work, maybe the city cones it off and you just see, is this making things safer? A lot of times you have to, it's probably good to confirm you have an issue, though, because as you... parking is, I'm sure whoever's parking in those spaces, there's a desire there. And so it's, I guess, number one, confirming there is an issue. And if there is, then there are low cost options. And I'll use Town Center as an example. It used to be, I think, four travel lanes or four or five travel lanes, no bike lanes. And we got a lot, we've done the traffic analysis. We determined that the volumes are well below the levels for that many travel lanes. And so But there was a lot of pushback we received, and so we were able to sell it as this is just a striping. We can always go back. And so we were able to restripe, put the bike lanes, and actually a couple of the major naysayers said, where'd all the traffic go? And it's worked really well. So I think there are options for when you're looking at bike facilities and things. There are some low-cost options you have. But when your road's only 24 feet wide, there's no sidewalks, you're limited. But there are... implement on occasion lower cost projects that are really easy to reverse if they're not working.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? On your bar graph where you have the peaks and valleys of crashes and fatalities, is there anything that like after each peak, is there something that's done to decrease that back to a valley or is that just how things are going? Like is there a study of what causes those?

Yeah, as part of that crash evaluation, we'll dig into a lot of the data that we have access to. There's like causes, there's a lot of information, you know, how many vehicles were involved, what direction they were traveling. if there was speeding or alcohol and impairment, like there's a lot of details about those crashes. So we dig into those details and see if we can find trends as far as locations or causes or even, you know, maybe they all happened at nighttime and there's on a street where there's no streetlights or something like that. So we are we do dig into that data and see if we can find those patterns that can then be addressed through some kind of project or yeah, improvement. And I mean sometimes those crashes like you can kind of see there on that graph like in 2008 that like anomaly year of like 10 10 serious injury crashes and then all the years kind of surrounding it were much lower to one two three crashes and sometimes I think those just happen and and you can kind of see things kind of calm down um in the following years so um yeah but we'll definitely dig into that data to see if we can find some kind of underlying reason

Just to give an example of how we've done that in the past, the Canyon Creek Beckman intersection used to be one of our highest crash rate intersections in the city. And when you looked into the data, it was really about people not stopping at the stop signs. They were just going right through them. Because it was a kind of a, you know, there were through lanes and left turn lanes at a four-way stop. It's a little bit of an odd configuration to have that. And that really,

led to the decision to put in a roundabout at that intersection so that data really fed into that decision making thank you and hopefully the reduction of those after that i'm curious do we have any i think this ends in 20 2023 so the next one that's going to be updated this year will be through 2025.

The statewide crash data lags by about two years. There's a really robust process that the crash data goes through to get released to the public. So there's about a two year gap. So this will include the 2023. It should probably include the 2024 that just came out a few months ago. So it'll include crashes through 2024. And if there were like notable crashes that like just, you know, through news and other knowledge of the city, we would document that and discuss it here kind of unofficially. But yeah, that's kind of how the crash data works. It lags a little bit.

And the reason for that lag is that Oregon still, as the police take their crash records, it's still paper copies. And ODOT just got a grant that they're trying to get to where everything will be electronic. But basically, they have to take the paper copy, enter all the information. And I've looked at the DMV reports versus what you get entered, and you lose a lot of information. And so, yeah, they're trying to, but that's why that lag. It's usually about 24 months before we actually get the data. Okay.

Hopefully we'll see that decrease in the next one. I don't know if you have a sneak peek or not. Um, okay. Thank you. All right. I don't, I don't think we have any public comment related to this. I think everybody's here with us is with a city in the audience, right? Yeah. Okay. Do we have anybody on zoom?

I do have someone on Zoom. Are you giving them a chance to raise their hand and speak?

Yes, exactly. So if we have somebody on Zoom, this is your chance to raise your hand.

If you're on Zoom and would like to speak, please raise your hand now.

Chair Seminova, I just want to clarify that not all work sessions take public comment. Public comment for hearing items goes with each hearing. The work session public comment is typically taken at the beginning when we had the citizen comment period. If you would like to take, if the commission is interested in offering an opportunity for people to provide comment at each work session, you may. I'm just letting you know that because we'll want to make sure we call for public comment for all three work sessions tonight if that's something that the commission would like to do.

Sounds good. And we offered that in the beginning, I believe.

You did have the public comment period at the beginning already, yes. So the commission is not obligated to take public comment during work sessions.

All right, thank you. Looking at the script. It's in the script, guys.

It's a long script.

No, I appreciate that. Okay. No hands raised since we offered it. Okay. No hands raised. All right. Thank you. I think that's it. No other discussion or questions or anything. Thank you so much for today's presentation. Appreciate that. Can I just add one thing?

I really like the bike tourism comment. And I know we have a tourism committee. Do we know if they've ever talked about that before? It might be just a cool thing to throw out and see where they take it, but maybe not like the hill tour part. I like the idea.

Yeah. Like part of Marion County, like North Marion County is like a designated bike scenic bike route. So there's at least a shoulder everywhere where there's not a shoulder in a lot of the coast.

Staff is happy to check with the staff people who work on the tourism committee work, and we can share that information back with you by email.

Okay. Well, thank you. That concludes our work session, uh, for transportation performance measures. And our next, um, work session on the agenda is the Wilsonville industrial land readiness for basalt Creek master plan. This work session is a chance for the planning commission to gain additional understanding of, and provide guidance and ongoing legislative projects prior to a public hearing. So this time I call for city staff to present information they have prepared for the work session. Will the city staff please present?

Sorry everyone, every time for this.

That's why I always have Lauren on that side. All right, we were ready. Just a moment here while we get the presentation up. And there it is. Okay. Well, thank you, Chair Simonova, Vice Chair Constantine, commissioners. Appreciate your time tonight. So we are, we're back here tonight with work session three for the Salt Creek Master Plan. We keep chipping away at those milestones as we move toward adoption. So the commission, you have reviewed most of the major elements for the Master Plan to this point. Excuse me. and most of the supporting analysis in previous work sessions. So we're not gonna revisit a lot of that material. What we're gonna focus on are the revisions that we've made in response to comments from the commission, as well as some of the elements or the elements that you haven't seen to date. So that'll be the focus of tonight's work session. And honestly, that's the value of having and expanding our work sessions to three did allow us to make them a little bit more digestible bite-sized chunks versus really long, large things to go through. So before we go, can you go next slide for me, please? Before we get into that, let's just do a little quick where are we now, where have we been kind of deal. We have had two previous work sessions here with you back in June and July. Of course, we're here in August for our third. And as promised, September 9th, we'll be back with our public hearing for Basal Creek. So hopefully moving in the right direction. Next slide. All right. Let's see here, so the purpose of tonight, I already kind of touched on this, the purpose of tonight's session though is final review of the draft master plan. Lauren's gonna walk you through that here in a minute. Amy is here tonight from engineering. She's gonna go through some of the appendices, the water analysis, sewer, and stormwater, and also joining us online, I believe he's logged in. He's going to be logging in.

Ooh, no water questions.

Jason Rice, our consultant from WSC who did the water and sewer analysis. If we have any technical questions that Amy can't handle, but let's be honest, she can handle all the questions. But Jason will be joining us just in case there's a question about those analyses that we cannot handle here at the table. Next slide, please. And with that, I'm gonna pass it off to Lauren.

Thanks, Chris. Good evening, commissioners. It's nice to be back here again. So like Chris said, in June, you saw a lot of the same content that's in the packet tonight. The chapter organization has remained the same, chapter one. is why we plan, just the introduction to Basalt Creek. Chapter two really covers the history from the concept plan to today, all of the technical work that has gone into this master plan. Chapter three summarizes that work, and then chapter four is really the core of the plan, laying out the future and concepts for the major elements like land use. transportation, natural resources and infrastructure. And then chapter five is our implementation recommendations organized into different buckets and then also organized by timing for implementation phasing. And then we have a lot of technical appendices. These are very small on the slide because there's so many, but it's really to show that this plan is supported and grounded in a lot of technical work that has gone into this plan over the years. The two things that I will note, the stormwater evaluation and the funding analysis, Well, actually, just stormwater is actually noted as in progress. That work is almost complete. But the final memo and report weren't ready to be included as a full technical appendix for this work session. But the major elements of what is being recommended in terms of stormwater facilities for this area that Amy will speak to in a little bit are already in the plan. And so that's content that's included. And then just to call attention to some refinements and edits that we made in addition to the infrastructure analysis that was added in, some of the discussion points in the June work session, there were a lot of questions about natural resources, so we really tried to elevate that conversation in both chapters three and four, talking more about Tappman Creek and Coffee Lake Creek, just the ecological function that they provide, the potential benefits that are there, how the city plans for natural resources. That has all been highlighted more in this draft. And then we also heard a little bit just about a lot of implementation items were identified for early term actions. And so we tried to adjust the timing for chapter five's implementation table to reflect a little bit more realistically for staff's capacity and acknowledge that those conversations are ongoing. It's not like staff won't be talking to service providers, and the like, but that the actual implementation effort may be further along down the line. And then we also just want to recognize that there are a lot of questions about transportation planning, which we all just talked about in your work session. Wildlife crossings, which are noted in the plan and the city does take into consideration, especially in this area and especially in West Railroad. Questions about the history of Basalt Creek planning. I think we talked about what happened in 2010, 2011. How did this area get set up? And then again, just more questions about infrastructure and master planning. And so this slide just lists what was in progress in June. Those have pretty much all been addressed aside from that final stormwater technical memo. But the water system analysis, the future concept, same with sanitary sewer, stormwater, those are all incorporated into the master plan now. They're reflected in figures of what the city will be intending to plan for at a very high level. Zoning, you talked a lot about at your second work session. That's aligned with the master plan. And then, you know, all of the placeholder text and figures that we had noted in that first draft, you all saw in June. Those have been largely resolved now. And I think I am turning it back to Chris.

Back to me. Chris and Lauren show. Okay, so for work session two, if you recall, we brought to you our proposed development code edit package, which was that 55 pages of fun that you guys got to go through. It included the new craft industrial code language, as well as some new definitions for our code. It also, we had some additions and changes in the Northwest industrial pattern book. If you recall, that's the track one, track two book there, as well as we really went over in, we had some good discussions about the use table. If you remember that one, we added direct to consumer, which is the e-commerce fulfillment, data centers, residential hospitals. So those were some, that's what we went over in the last work session. Next slide, please. And then we made some changes based on those conversations. One, if you remember data centers, we had a pretty robust conversation about data centers, about the challenges, the concerns. So we did make an adjustment. You can see that in attachment two of the packet, which actually is page 1,147. I know, I know, it's the world we live in and it's painful for all of us. I apologize for the length of that. packet, only about 60% of that is my fault. The rest is someone else. So just to clarify on the data centers, we took the comments and we had some internal discussion about it. So what we've done is data centers are now a restricted use in all four sub-districts, which if you recall, they were only restricted in two. And now it's required, they are a, accessory use instead they cannot be the primary use on a property so someone would not be able to purchase a property and open a data center on a property just as that use it would have to be like siemens as now where it's an accessory to their primary business it can be located on an adjacent property to that business And we didn't change the size as well. They stuck at 25,000 square feet. Thank you, boss. So data centers, we made that change. We added industrial services. I don't think we talked about that, but we missed that definition. So that's a new definition, makes it 12 new definitions added. And then in the pattern book, we had some decent discussion, and that's actually kind of where the discussion that you guys just had about transportation came from. clarifying some of the streets and the multimodal design framework. That can be found on page 1230. So there's that. And then I wanted to make a comment. I didn't put it up on the slide because it kind of came up late this afternoon. Mr. Shira from Schnitzer Properties, Ryan, was going to be here to make a comment tonight in the public space. And we wanted to make it really clear that there's a couple pieces here. It's complicated, but Schnitzer Properties, we actually met with them on Monday. I think this was our third meeting with them. We had a really positive meeting. I think some clarifications were we got to a point where Ryan and his team understand a little bit more about what they can and can't do. And really, they're really close to getting everything they want. I actually wrote out some comments so I wouldn't forget and then of course I just completely ignored my own comments. But really what we wanted to express is that it is important to know that Schnitzer and other development companies like that do have a track to getting a successful development that they want. That's actually technically track two. In reality, track two is just our regular land use process. That's it. It goes under review and a development of that size with that complication goes to DRB. That's how we do that here. That's how most jurisdictions do that. Track one is, well, if you're extra special and you can meet all the code all on your own, well, you don't need to go to the DRB because we've already told you this is the code you need to meet and if you can do it, fantastic. We write it up, Miranda signs it, and we move on. So there is that pathway. However, there is sort of a design principle that the city feels very strongly about. And the planning commission through the years, the city council through the years, and the community have expressed that this is an important design element that we don't want changed. And that's the parking in front of buildings that front an addressing street. So right now you can get 16 parking spaces per structure between the addressing street and that building that's fronting the addressing street. We do not regulate how much parking you can put on any side or any rear part of the property. You can put as many or as few as you want. We do have concern about the sea of parking, the old school style of building where you enter a property and you go through 400 parking spaces before you get to the front door. That is an element that's been expressed many times through the years that this community does not want, even in an industrial area. It changes the physical and it changes the aesthetic value of development. So that's one space that you cannot waver through. That's a design standard that is set and we feel strongly that that's a good policy to have and a good direction to go and it's foundational to the design of the now NWI code. But we just want to make it really clear that Schnitzer Properties, Ryan and his team do have a very good pathway to getting what they want. We were able to discuss their connectivity and I think most of the team left that meeting feeling very comfortable and happy about the progress. So we just wanted to kind of put that out there. We continue to work with Ryan and his team at Schnitzer Properties to work towards solutions. And like a lot of things in life, you won't always get every single thing you want, but they're really close to getting everything they want.

Can I ask you a quick question?

Of course, of course.

How is the addressing street determined?

Well, we have a regulating plan that shows, and actually the pattern book shows the addressing streets in the Salt Creek Master Plan. Typically, the addressing street is going to be the, what's the word I'm looking for? the higher, thank you. Let's just call it the higher volume street, like the larger street is gonna usually be your addressing street. Yeah. I think next slide. And now with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Amy. She's gonna go through a few of the appendices and we'll go from there.

So as part of the master plan, it was important that we look at what future utilities would be needed to serve this future development, so we hired Water Systems Consulting to look specifically at the West Railroad area for sanitary sewer and water. This map up here, the solid lines show our existing water system. You can see the water system goes as far north as Dave Road in this area, so the dashed lines indicate the areas where it would need to be extended to serve development. This is important as we meet with developers such as schnitzer properties and look at the areas they want to develop. So we have a better understanding of what infrastructure needs to be extended to serve that development. It also is important for different property owners to understand the needs of the typical size of a water line is eight inches, but to serve a lot of, larger developments, sometimes we need to upsize that line, so it's important for us to plan it so when the water line goes in, we get the size that we need to serve future development. So this kind of gives you an idea of what the water system would look like. If you recall what our transportation system plan network is, it follows along pretty closely with that network. It's assumed that the water system would be in the roads. Next slide. So unlike the water system, which was all connected and looped, that's looped for reliability and fire service and things like that. So the sewer system is not looped. So this is a schematic of what we anticipate the sewer system would look like. Again, following roads, but it follows also contours to make sure that it's mostly served by gravity. There is one lift station or pump station shown to serve West Railroad. West Railroad is anticipated that it would not be able to flow to our system completely by gravity without a pump station. And that pump station would have to be someplace near Graham's Ferry to serve the entire West Railroad area. I will note, currently the sewer and day road is not constructed, but that is currently under design. We're anticipating, we extend utilities as we can to serve future development that has been identified in the Coffee Creek Master Plan for many years as needing being needed for both Coffey Creek and Basalt Creek. Next slide. And finally, stormwater. What's missing from this map is our natural resources, so Tatmim Creek, the wetlands are missing. Most of the property in Basalt Creek and West Railroad will drain naturally to those natural features. Our standards require onsite. stormwater management through some kind of pond or rain garden or some kind of natural system before it goes to those natural systems. We did hire Brown and Caldwell to look at the portion on the east side of Basalt Creek. We call it the Green Hill area. That portion does not go to a natural drainage area. It actually goes to our pipe system and goes further south before it hits Tappan Creek. So we have them doing some additional analysis to model that so that we can better understand what needs to happen outside of this Basalt Creek area. And we anticipate that will come with the final master plan. That's all I have. That's it.

All right, so one last note I forgot to mention. We did write a memo regarding Schnitzer Properties concerns. It was attachment four in your packet, which is page 1247, so it's there. It's not that long. I mean, it's only eight pages, but it did address all of their concerns, so that's in there if you wanted a little bit more background on that. I forgot to mention it. Uh, so the city council timeline, uh, we're headed toward adoption. We'll be at council on Monday, this coming Monday for their only work session on this topic. So, uh, we are trying to figure out how to do all that in 40 minutes, um, and keeping it high level. And, uh, then we'll be at, uh, as you remember your public hearing here at planning commission will be September 9th. and then we'll go to city council for the first reading of the public hearing on October 5th. So again, we keep checking off those milestones as we move forward.

Next and I think last slide.

Yeah. So at this point, the questions we have are essentially, does this draft reflect your prior input? Are we getting it right? Did we miss something? And then are there any specific revisions that the commission would like to see us make before we get to the public hearing on the 9th?

Commissioner Constantine.

Okay, well, first off, Chris, great job. I really appreciate the memo. That was helpful to summarize sort of the previous comments. It provides perspective. And I appreciate you working with them. That's helpful to know that you can reason it out. I know those are difficult meetings. I've been in those. It's a challenge, but I appreciate the work you've done. Thank you. And then my only other comment is on the data center. You took our comments and addressed those well. To answer your questions, I think you responded to our questions last meeting, so I just appreciate all the hard work and the thousands of pages, so thank you.

Killing trees, sorry. No, thank you, I appreciate the comments, I do.

Any other questions or comments? Commissioner Zindel?

Yeah, this is more curiosity about messaging and communication to the community. But as we look at an area where we're looking at a significant build-out of more public infrastructure like water mains and sewer and stormwater, and thinking back to earlier this year when we had a lot of public attention on long-term maintenance of water mains and sewer and stormwater, How do we capture in this plan or how do we communicate to the public that the kind of development that we're going to bring in in this district is going to be able to pay for the infrastructure that supports that area long term?

So one of the appendices of the master plan includes a funding plan for that infrastructure. A good portion of that infrastructure is assumed to be paid for and installed by private development. For the storm system, a good portion of that storm system will actually be privately owned and maintained. Water, we like to own our water system and maintain it so that we can meet state law and public health. Same with sewer. But long term, we look at setting rates our rates and having them pay their proportional share to pay for that infrastructure. It will be new infrastructure. So while the rest of our system is aging, their, their monthly fees will likely go to paying for our aging infrastructure across the city. So there's that balance that while they have constructed new, they are continuing to pay to help offset the aging infrastructure issues.

Thank you. And also I'll add before I yield to my other commissioners here, I forgot to say when I started, thank you also for the excellent work. I think this is really impressive and thanks for covering so much.

Thank you. Appreciate the comments.

Commissioner Kendrick.

And thanks for kind of putting in some of the feedback we had from the last session. I still have a couple of concerns about data centers being included. I think exhibit 31 kind of, drove that home, which is page 939, where it lists out the various electricity requirements. I think the highest from any of the other proposed uses is like six megawatts. And then data centers are between five and 100, where everything else was like two, six, two, half, one and a half, half, one, one, half, one, and then up to 100. I mean, that's a lot of energy. that could potentially be going just for one part of the build-out. I like that they were listed as being, what was the term now? Accessory. Accessory. Based upon many other things that have come up, I think not just in our community but other communities, I wonder if we should have even stricter language as to what an accessory means if we want to allow for data centers to be there because the former law student in me reads the accessory uses customarily incidental to any permitted uses as being loophole that a industrious tech company could seek to exploit and I think we've seen that in other areas in Oregon recently where things were supposed to be maybe at a smaller scale and then people have aggregated some areas or they've set up separate entities to be on separate plots but then they could be connected and Um, and so I would hate for us to have the intention of them being secondary uses like at Siemens and someone figures out a way to make them a primary use. Um, and so that's why I would even, I still think having them as a. kind of permitted or acceptable use is dangerous, especially for a lot of the things that we've talked about when it comes to water, electricity, even the number of people who are employed if we want to make this an employment sector. So my preference would be to strike it altogether. because I think it just is kind of a Pandora's box of potential problems. But if I'm in the minority on that, I would like to see the accessory uses much more strictly defined, maybe even when it comes to the amount of power a specific location is allowed to use in comparison to other locations, just to make sure that we don't have loopholes that can be exploited if the council decides that having data centers as one of the allowable usage usages is a good thing.

Okay. Um, for the, uh, thank you for that. Those concerns, commissioner Kandri and for the rest of the commission, I just, I'm going to go ahead and read you the definition and the code for accessory use. So you have that for the purposes of your discussion. So the way it's written is accessory building or use. A subordinate building or use, the function of which is clearly incidental to that of the main building or use on the same lot. For non-residential uses, an accessory use may be located on a lot adjoining that of the main use if approved for this purpose through the administrative review procedures of section 4.030. Uh, I would also just note, uh, if you do have further discussion on this item, if other commissioners weigh in other restrictions that can be put in place, if you decide not to strike it entirely, uh, would be things like, um, a percentage of the square footage. So if you're thinking about like the, it's a percentage of the primary billing or function use. So instead of it being a, square footage as it's written now, you could do it as a percentage. So max of 10% of the main use on site or something of that nature. It could also go from restricted to conditional use permit only, which would require it to go to the development review board, even if it met the track one process. Otherwise, so I just wanted to kind of offer up those other considerations as you start having this discussion.

comes to my mind is like if we do allow them to have something in place to do a study of like does it constrain other development if it all of a sudden eats up all the system resources like for electricity or water? Like maybe we have capacity and then you put this thing in and then you can, you know, further development would cost substantially more because then you would have to expand your, you know, transmission or water or anything like that. Like we might be able to support it. But I'm curious, not to leave that topic, what you had showed for sewer and water plans and things like that, supports up to a data center draw of those resources?

So the governor right now, I think it just wrapped up had a task force this spring to look at data centers. They had a number of meetings once a month. Um, we can probably provide the links to those if you're interested in more information about data centers. They talked about everything related to data centers. Um, data centers, uh, are, wide ranging on what their power usage is and their water usage. Mostly it's related to the actual cooling of the facility itself. Some of them use more power, some of them use more water to cool. So it's highly variable. And so we don't have a specific answer on either of those. It would be highly dependent on what they propose. As far as water, we would provide the water. So we would require if they were a large water user and it had impacts to the rest of our system that they would be responsible for contributing to those upgrades. For power, that's not in our control. That's in Portland General Electric's control. I will say there are some different standards that limit the ability to extend new transmission routes through the city. So if a data center needed a lot of power and that needed to be through a transmission route, those wires that are usually at the very top, you see them through this area because we've got the BPA corridor that has those big towers. That's essentially the routes that they can use right now and we wouldn't allow PG to extend, add new poles essentially to our right of way. So there are some limits on them being able to use, to extend high voltage lines in areas where they're not right now. So when you think about the area of development, Clay Street, that wouldn't be able to have a data center. It's possible a data center could be between along Graham's Ferry, along those transmission routes if that was needed. but there would be a lot more conversations with PGE. PGE has indicated there is, you know, they understand how much power is available for Wilsonville and they're continuing to track that. Um, so it's, it's kind of a, it's a, uh, I guess, uh, as director Bateshell said, I think probably the recommendation would be more limiting square footage rather than trying to limit the consumption of power or water because it's so variable.

What method is the most effective for restricting them to use

If I may jump in as well, one of the things that I think is challenging when you talk about usage is what happens later on if usage goes above that and you think about from a code enforcement perspective. It's much easier to regulate a square footage than it is usage and how do you get access to that data, especially the power usage, which we wouldn't have access to that data. I think Director Bateshell's recommendations potentially on size and also review process, because a conditional use permit review process is more than just even a discretionary review path.

Can we do both?

Yes. So currently right now, the way it appears in the use table is restricted for all four. So what that means is that we can't approve anything above the 25,000 square feet and the fact that it has to be an accessory use. So you couldn't just come in and do a standalone 25,000 square feet. You would have to go through a review process, show that you have a primary building, a primary use, and that this is incidental and in addition to it. So functioning very much like the one that we have in town and how we see that built out. That's restricted, but that would be allowed by right. That is something that whether they go through the DRB process or through the Track 1 administrative process, since it's a clear and objective standard, staff could review that and approve it the way it's written now. IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO LIMIT IT FURTHER THAN YOU COULD ESSENTIALLY RATHER THAN HAVE IT BE LISTED AS R RESTRICTED, HAVE IT LISTED AS C FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THEN WHAT THAT DOES IS IT FORCES IT THROUGH A SUBJECTIVE PROCESS AND PUTS IT THROUGH. YOU CAN STILL LEAVE THE LIMITATION ON SIZE, TOO. SO IT'S LIMITED TO THAT SIZE, WHETHER IT'S 25,000 SQUARE FEET OR IF YOU WANT TO DO LIKE A 5% OF THE You could do it by percentage or square feet. Percentage also gets to square feet essentially through a mathematical equation. But that would require it to both meet that, but then also go through the development review board track. A conditional use permit is essentially for, is to say like, it can be, like it can be a use in this area because it's somewhat comp, maybe complimentary, but it's conditional because we're going to condition it upon you doing X, Y, or Z. So the community's having an opportunity to make sure that it actually is consistent with development that surrounds it because we're not sure that the use itself always would be, which is kind of what I'm hearing from you in your discussion is that it, It might be okay in certain circumstances, but it also might not be. And so we'd want to have an opportunity to review that. And so you could have more of an opportunity for them to do more analysis on what would their projected utility needs be. And that's something that then can be considered because it's a conditional use. Therefore it's a discretionary process and we can condition the project further. So you could look, again, there's multiple sub-districts, so you could look at it from what do we want to allow in the high-tech sub-district, since we're looking at potential high-tech industries in that area, and call for that to either be a restricted use there possibly, but then condition it in all the other areas, have it be a conditional use in all the other areas. You could have it be a conditional use everywhere. You could have it be not allowed in areas that aren't the high tech and then in high tech have it be conditional. It's sort of how much oversight do you think the development review board should have essentially in reviewing these projects is really what it'll come down to. Um, and so you might not know exactly what that combination is, but if you want to give us some feedback, at least on the sub districts or where you're leaning in terms of type of process, then we can hone in on, you know, is that a conditional use permit and where percentage of building, how do we determine what is a reasonable percentage for an accessory use?

Because if we're going to put a limit, if we say 15%, do we know if that's reasonable?

I would imagine anything that's 15% or below seems reasonable to me in the sense that it is accessory to the primary. You have something else that's taking up 85% or 85%. The other thing that staff could do is after this meeting, if you give us a range of percent that you're interested in, we can also go and assess the... the property that we have now and look at what is the total square footage of their overall like use on their entire site and how much of, what percentage does their data center occupy? Because it's clearly an accessory use that was permitted through that process. And so we could look at what does that percentage represent and that could be, and if it's in line with the range you give us, then that's what we could put back in the table.

I'm probably, I think it makes sense in the high tech that we put kind of a limit. I'm not sure in the other regions if there's a need for a data center, a craft. Unless you're gonna call the guy's personal computer a data center, I don't see where craft would need it. I guess I'm saying only allow data center in a accessory use at a certain percentage of building square footage in the high tech area is kind of where I would lean.

Without the additional component of a CUP or not? I still like the conditional use.

Both of them together. Both of them together.

Is there also a way you can limit ownership where one company doesn't buy 10 lots and then they want 15% at all 10 and then they connect it up?

It would be interesting to see what Siemens is from the whole property versus the building that the data center is in.

And I guess that's my other question with Siemens is like, that's in a separate zone, right? So while I like precedent and saying, well, this one company has it, this is a completely separate area. So do we even necessarily need to factor in what Siemens is doing in something that's already been approved versus in a completely new area that we're building out?

Well, I think it gives us a basis for maybe what a reasonable percentage is. Yeah.

Now I would be curious, I don't know if there's a way, like is it meeting their business need or are they doing anything else to... I don't know if there's somebody you guys can talk to in that.

We are aware that it is just for the use of their business. It's not like they're leasing it out to another company who's also utilizing it from a data center perspective.

But they're not also supplementing with other locations to get this accomplished?

No, it's just for their purposes, correct. And yeah, we could absolutely get a data point. It would be based on the square footage of the uses. So we wouldn't be looking at the square footage of property as the basis, what we'd look at is the square footage of use, if we add it all up, and let's say they have 200,000 square feet, and the data center is 35,000 square feet, and I'm literally just pulling numbers out of the air. And then we would determine, okay, that's the accessory use, what percentage is that, and that would give you a data point that You don't have to use that data point, but it could be informative for you.

What happens over time? We're talking about at the moment of build-out, but let's take the scenario that Commissioner Candrian mentioned a moment ago. A developer comes in, they have a large... area and they do genuinely want to build a data center as an accessory for their business. They're going to use it as is like Siemens. But as we're seeing with Siemens right now, they're contracting and they're selling off portions of their property or getting rid of it. So does that percentage still factor in? We're not talking about permitting for development now. We're looking at down the road where that data center maybe at some point, like heaven forbid, Siemens leaves Wilsonville, but they do it gradually and they divest all of their properties at piecemeal. What happens to that portion that is the data center today? And imagine that that were in Basalt Creek. And how would we handle that? How would that work? And maybe while we're talking about that, as we were talking about these other things, I think one of the things that occurred to me is I wonder if we're indexing on the wrong things here. That if the things that we're worried about are water usage and power usage and and those kinds of things, if those are the things that we're worried about, rather than making this something that's solely the responsibility of land use decisions, could this be something where, again, I don't know the legal frameworks here, but could this be something where the city has to actually license the data center to operate in Wilsonville, and that license needs to be renewed on a regular basis, and to get the license, they have to show what their power usage is, what their water usage is, and they have to meet certain standards so that they don't end up consuming more than their fair share. That's maybe a real rookie novice question, I really don't know, but I wonder if indexing on the land use piece of it is really the important part, or if our concerns are on these resource usages outside of land, if there's different ways for us to get at restricting those in a more meaningful way.

Those are great questions, ones of which I probably don't have all the answers. I don't see a path by which though we could restrict that once it's been entitled and allowed to be a use. So much to Attorney Geil-Hinman's point about enforcement, it's like how would you code enforce on power consumption, especially if we don't have that data, or on water consumption. or through like a business license process, which is how we would license a lot of those things. Is it possible there might be? Yeah, I do think that the decision you're making around thinking about the limitation and how many sub-districts it could be in, the maximum potential size of it, so another option is if you're looking at like a 10%, accessory use, you can also max it out at 25,000 square feet. So it can be 10% of the use and not to exceed 25,000 square feet. So let's say you have 500,000 square feet of building. You can't have 50,000 square feet of data center. You're still maxed out at 25. So you can kind of do any combination we're talking about, but that inherently to some degree limits the amount of, I mean, the purpose of those square footage limitations is to limit the amount of power that they're using. you don't tend to see the type of consumption of water or power in these smaller data centers that are supportive of just, they're really doing the business of what's on site as opposed to massive warehouses that are just full of the data, and now I'm out of my wheelhouse, computation that's coming in and going back out. That has a lot more consumption. But again, you could across the board, what's the other one? P for prohibited, I think. You could put prohibited across the board as well if we're really concerned about it and we want to see how things go over the next five to 10 years to make that determination at some future date. So I think this is a great discussion. I don't think we have all the answers for you, but it's really about whether you feel comfortable allowing it in all the sub-districts, some of them, and what restrictions you want to put on it, and then what process. It sounds, I think I'm hearing that there's some, definitely a desire to limit, maybe some prohibit, and I think there's a, I'm seeing a lot of head nods for, no matter what, it probably should go through a conditional use process that's going through the public process. But you all should discuss that more.

I think I'm hearing it from multiples. that we want to discourage large data centers from being built. So the mechanism to do that is probably a percent of square footage with a total square footage limit, conditional use permit or process. But then to only allow that in maybe the high tech. almost doesn't make sense for me in the craft, so let's just prohibit it. And then what other ones would we prohibit? But I think ultimately what I'm hearing from just about everybody is we don't want, I was down in Arizona, there was a 1,000 foot by 1,200 foot data center. There were four of them being built side by side. Right? That's not what we want. Clearly, the area wouldn't allow that. But I think we're being pretty precise in saying, we don't want to encourage you. We want to say, don't build it. We don't want you to come. Right? But we don't want to discourage a high tech company from coming in and having a data center that fits their business need.

Yeah, I think that's maybe where we should define data center better because we still don't really have a definition. I didn't see it in there. If I missed it, I apologize. We do not. But, you know, because if it is a company where they host a server for the company, that's one thing, right? Again, my concern is from what I have read in media from other jurisdictions is they have found, you know, they have identified loopholes to say, oh, well, you know, we can do this, and then all of a sudden, it's something that nobody wants. And so if that seems to be the trend, my preference would just be to say, then fine, you just can't do it, period. I don't know, I equate, I was thinking it's like giving a kid a cell phone and you're like, well, you can only use it for, you know, for this and this. And then like all of a sudden, like five weeks later, you're like, wait a second, like why is TikTok here and Instagram? And you weren't supposed to be on it. Anyway, it seems like it's one of those things where like you give them an inch and then all of a sudden you're gonna be like, wait, wait, that's not what we wanted. And so I think maybe just defining what we say is a data center or defining what a company could do to host a server that works internally just for the benefit of that company, not external facing, might be more useful than having a blanket category of data center where regardless of what restrictions we put in place, that kind of opens up Pandora's box where if we said, here's what a company can have, that might be a better way to address it.

Yeah, because Siemens is probably using it for internal proprietary storage, right? Correct. It's not using it for e-commerce or farming out their server panels to external users. If that's what we want to say, then yeah. Because high-tech companies, I mean, I work for a high-tech company. Yeah, we have internal servers that are behind our firewalls and We're a big company, so we probably have a pretty good sized data center in one of our buildings. But again, it's proprietary and it's just for us. So I don't know if you want to include that in a definition or maybe define two different ones, internal data center versus external data center.

My colleague, in response to that, my colleague Amy here has just informed me that the state is working on an official data center definition at this time. Well, that's interesting. So that might be something to pay attention to.

We might be able to tap into that.

That might be a good time when the state puts in regulations, as opposed to some of the times when everyone's like mad that the state put in regulations.

We could just say that's what the state said.

So in four years when that definition comes out. So one of the thoughts that's running through my head right now is that this is actually a lot more complicated I think than we give it credit for. We're traveling down a lot of different roads talking about data centers themselves. It seems like an awful lot of research to even find out accurate answers to what we're talking about because this is so new to all of us. So I have a little bit of concern over that. So I'm not really sure exactly what I'm saying other than this might be something that we have This is not the right term, but some sort of stop gap as part of this plan, and it may be something that we need to revisit with council direction in the future because it seems like it's evolving pretty quickly, and we're a little bit behind the eight ball on it right now.

Just to piggyback on that, is it a scenario similar to the height waivers where it could be revisited in 10 years when you know, nuclear fission has been commercialized and now you can have your own small contained nuclear plant and you don't draw on the power grid or something. You know what I mean? Like, is this something where we say no at the start and then 10 years from now it's all built out and no one cares or 10 years from now it's not built out and we need to find other tenants and we're like, okay, let's revisit it.

Yeah, I mean, Commissioner, that is an avenue, and that would obviously be something we would take to council and express this is where the Planning Commission sits right now. Obviously, they may feel differently. They may guide us in a different direction.

So do we add a percent limit, a square footage limit, and then say conditional use permit to start with?

So I'm hearing that from, I believe, you and Commissioner Constantine. I'm hearing... I think prohibit everywhere from commissioner Candrian. So I, it would be beneficial for me to hear from the other three commissioners in order to have an understanding, uh, for us when we present to council. And as we think about redrafting this for your, the adoption package.

Can I ask a question around the conditional use approach? How robust is that if an application comes in, and how well does that position the city to be able to make a defensible decision to say, no, we don't want this? Does it end up depending on the land use board and the state, or if there's a disagreement, or how does that work?

Great question. The conditional use permit process is fairly discretionary. It essentially puts the city in a path of us being able to determine whether it's something we think is suitable in that area or not. Because it is specifically called out not as an allowed use. So like anything that's in the table that's allowed, it would be very hard for us to not allow it. We could potentially put conditions on it, but it would be difficult for us to not allow it. The things, if it goes through in the table as restricted to 25,000 square feet, and as an accessory, and we feel it meets that definition and that size, then it's also very hard to limit it beyond that. But once it's in that conditional use permit category, it's really dependent upon, it could be or it couldn't be suitable for this area. And so it really places you in a position to be able to deny it if there's evidence that it would not be conducive to that parcel, to that area. And so in an example where maybe it was substantially larger or you didn't have certainty, you had evidence that it would draw a lot of power or water and the area is already potentially

At its close to its maximum capacity all of those would be reasons why you could deny that as a as a use and I don't know if the attorney would like to add on I would just add so I pulled up the General standard here so I can read it because I think it I think it's helpful to your question It's so it says this is section four point one eight four sub one conditional use of property may be granted by the DRB after concluding a public hearing A land use that is, quote, conditional is one that is generally not compatible with surrounding uses unless mitigating conditions of approval are established. In acting on applications for conditional use permits, the DRB may establish conditions of approval that are found to be necessary to implement the comprehensive plan or to assure compliance with the standards of this code based on the information in the record. And then it goes through basically how you would authorize a grant or denial. I'm getting all these flashbacks to building height waiver. Because one of the things that you all could do is there's a bunch of standards in here and how the DRB would evaluate a conditional use permit application. What could be for this is to say, in addition to these generalized standards here, here's additional considerations that the DRB should be factoring. if there's a conditional use permit for a data center in this area. So if there's particular concerns that you wanna make sure that the DRB is addressing, well, that the applicant's addressing and the DRB is confirming have been adequately addressed, that could be something that is also then added specifically for data centers through a conditional use permit process. So I guess to say there are a lot of levers that we can pull to limit. One of the other things I was actually just noting too is kind of to the point about, you know, when properties get sold off, like a lot of times you'll see in some of these campuses they have multiple parcels. One of the things that you could say is that for accessory buildings or uses that are data centers, they have to be on site. They can't be on an adjacent property. And so then you can't get, I mean, while a, company may have multiple sites, they can't have all their data centers for all their sites in one location that now is 100,000 square feet or whatever the case may be. So yeah, there's a lot of levers that we can pull here. And back to Miranda's point, getting some additional feedback from the other commissioners would be helpful to figure out what we bring back as far as recommendations. Commissioner Hendricks.

I like the idea of the conditional use permit. Um, I feel like it keeps the options kind of open for us and, but still within our, our control. And I also am just like, when we're talking about all these different levers, I'm like, it's hard for me to like commit to one thing. Cause I am trying to process what are all those options. So I think, um, yeah, for now I'm interested in, in the conditional use permit and then, square footage. I mean, the data point I think would be interesting for Siemens just to have something to kind of help visualize or understand. So I'm comfortable with the team looking into that.

Commissioner, do you also like the concept of restricting it in certain sub-districts and allowing it in, say, high-tech? Can I get a thought on that?

Yeah, I'm comfortable with prohibiting it in

in all but high tech? All but high tech.

And that's similar to what you... That is what Commissioner Carr is stating. Yes.

That's probably still not...

I don't think that makes sense, yeah.

I think we're speculating on something that we don't really know about. So like today, I think Commissioner Kandrian had said something to this effect this meeting and last time we talked about this, but what is a data center? Could somebody have a small tower, a PC basically that's operating as a data center and And what's it for? I think especially as we see technology evolving, a craft industrial usage may actually have use for a data center 10 years from now. We don't know. I don't know. I can't see the future.

So then do we prohibit it to be more specific but allowing it in high tech so that we're very specific in what we're saying? And then it can be changed later, right?

I would go more of the route of having it be conditional, but allowing it in all of the districts to kind of leave the door open for creative development that may happen in the future that we can't anticipate today, because we don't know what computing is going to look like five years or 10 years or 50 years from now.

Well, that gets to the definition of what a data center is. Exactly. It's a laptop in somebody's back, in somebody's craft. Is that a data center?

Yeah, is this a data center? Like 50 years ago, this is a huge amount of compute. So I guess by leaving it open but making it conditional use across the board, maybe we make it so that we have a more defensible position where we evaluate on a case-by-case basis.

I'm the other the other thing that I don't want to prohibit it because I do believe right data centers do bring a lot of tax revenue to like that's a big component of why we want them even though they don't provide a lot of jobs, right? They provide a lot of tax revenue that would benefit the community. Is that correct? That's what I keep reading.

Yeah, we're still building value. Yeah, I couldn't speak to that about tax revenue. No?

I mean, a lot of times they're being built because they were getting tax breaks. So then you're kind of in a catch-22. But I don't think we have anything set up specifically right now. But previously, some of the jurisdictions, they were building because they were getting tax breaks as an incentive to build.

And if it's positioned as something that is only allowed as an accessory building, then maybe the thing that we're getting our tax revenue off is whatever the primary use of the area is or the development is. So maybe that, even if it ends up not being a high tax revenue opportunity for the data center itself, we could still end up.

Yeah. Okay. I just... like where they are building and there's a lot of like growth and development that gets invested into the community too. So I want to be careful there. Um, again, I think conditional use and building some criteria around that and not, I agree, not knowing the future and like technologies changing so quickly, like who knows what storage is going to look like and computing power is going to look like in 10 years. I mean, there's books, but my mind couldn't imagine what it looks like today. So I think I want to keep that open, but definitely don't want it to eat up all the resources that prevent us from developing our community further.

Well, it would seem, and Director Bashell might disagree, but probably your safest bet then would be leave it as conditional in the four sub-districts so it gets a further analysis through a process through the city, but also keeping your percentage and a maximum of 25,000 square feet so you can't, no more than 25,000 square feet, but a percentage of your total structure would probably be the safest bet to go, but this is not my decision. I'm the messenger here. I'm just trying to make sure I have clear understanding of what you'd like.

That's the kind of the consensus. I would just say I think we should dial in the definition of data center.

Absolutely.

Before. Even if the state. That's still my concern is someone exploiting this. Yeah. And it becomes something we didn't want or didn't envision.

Like even if we're anticipating the state's going to come up with a definition, can we come up with something in the interim that if it does take four years. Of course. We've got something in the meantime. I like that idea.

We can have one put together by tomorrow, I'm sure. We can move faster than that, so yeah. I have that on my list to add, create a definition of data center that'll work for us that we would bring back.

And I've heard multiple levers in terms of restriction, accessory, size, as well as the definitions, making it be on the same property having it all go through a conditional use process and through that conditional use process, adding the criteria to relate to infrastructure usage as criteria that will be reviewed. I think when we present this to council, we will likely present that there was kind of a split between whether, that all of that was unanimous, but there was sort of a split between whether to just allow it in the high tech sub-district or to allow it in all sub-districts. And then we'll go from there and you'll see definitely some refinement to that table. I envision like five footnotes already, so. I know. We'll see, but I think I have faith in us.

Yes, we can get there. Well, we need more pages, right? Well, I mean, the easiest is we just prohibit it, and then we don't have to worry about trying to.

He's not wrong. Yeah.

Less than a thousand pages, Chris. Easy.

I'll do my best. I'm getting a little wordy, huh? I like to talk, so, you know.

We're so focused on the desks, everything else is really great.

It is really great.

No, this is an excellent conversation, though. This is exactly why we come to you. This is great feedback for us, and it gives us something to go back and hone in on, and I really appreciate it. This is why we do these, so this is a great work session.

Thank you.

I would like to zoom back out just for a second to the questions and make sure that, because I know we kind of got lost down this data center path, a very good one, and I'm glad that we have the direction we've received tonight, but I just want to make sure that if there were any other comments or questions around the dais that we get those since we are doing final preparation for the hearing.

I just wanted to echo what others said in that I think All of our past comments have been appropriately applied. I like the changes that have been made, and I think we're down to the final I to dot, so to speak.

Thank you.

I agree. Is there any other comments or questions?

No, I would agree. Yeah. That's great.

Thank you. Yeah. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thanks, Chris. Thank you.

All right. Hearing no further discussion, thank you. That concludes this work session. Our next work session all right is for chapter four code enforcement. The work session is a chance for our planning commission to gain additional understanding of and provide guidance on ongoing legislative projects prior to a public hearing. City staff, Amanda, will you please present?

Thank you, Chair and Planning Commission members. Again, Amanda Geil, Hinman City Attorney. As I mentioned when I started the Building Height Waiver Project, I had never presented in front of Planning Commission and now I'm doing it twice in one night on two different projects. So tonight we're going, this is sort of a kickoff for the Planning Commission around some work that's been going on actually for about a year and a half now with the City Council around an update to the city's code enforcement processes. Of particular relevance for the Planning Commission is the Planning Commission is tasked with making recommendations for any changes to Chapter 4. While the bulk, the substantive changes really are occurring in Chapter 1 of our code because Chapter 1 and enforcement generally is also addressed in Chapter 4, the Planning Commission will be reviewing and potentially recommending updates to Chapter 4 in relation to this overall code enforcement project. So for Planning Commission, so really this is mainly informational. I'm happy to answer general questions, but the bulk of the discussion will actually be at your next Planning Commission meeting in September to go over the actual potential updates to Chapter 4. So tonight we're gonna just go through the background of the project, identified issues that led to this look at our code enforcement process generally, then an overview of our current process, a review of the process particularly to chapter four, which is our development code, the review of code enforcement processes that we've looked at in other jurisdictions, recommended updates that we're bringing to city council, and then next steps. So by way of background, um, again, this is tied to a city council goal. So the 2025 to 27 council goal number two is around public safety. Uh, the first outcome under that goal was to look at streamlining responses to code enforcement challenges. And the particular strategy 2.2 is looking at updates to Wilsonville code chapter one, where our general code enforcement regulations live. That chapter and in particular the code enforcement regulations generally come from the 1980s. So it's well in need of an update. City staff, as we've processed through code enforcement issues, we've definitely noted that it lacks some specificity and some tools we think would be very helpful in getting to compliance with people who are in violation of our code. So after this council goal was established, a city interdepartmental team was formed that is led by legal, but we really get support from all departments because really our code touches every department in the city. So we've been working with planning and engineering to make sure that we're addressing issues in chapter four that relate to code enforcement and some of the experiences that they've come across. We then also, after we established the interdepartmental team, the legal team did a comprehensive review of the Wilsonville code. You'd be probably not shocked because you're in the code a lot, but I was shocked at how much code enforcement is talked about throughout the code despite the fact there is specific regulations in chapter one. There's not just a simple reference back to chapter one in a lot of circumstances. There's times where it references chapter one but then adds little additional things so so we did a comprehensive review of the code enforcement we looked at other jurisdictions processes that especially jurisdictions that might have updated their code since the 1980s to see how they're approaching code enforcement now i've also through a national international organization municipal lawyer organization i'm a part of They have a whole section on code enforcement, so we've been going through some of the code enforcement trainings that they have to see what are other jurisdictions even across the country doing, being mindful of their approaches to code enforcement. And then we've looked at particularly while generally we think chapter one should be where code enforcement lives and outlines that, there are specific instances where that shouldn't be applied to certain parts of our code. And so we're also documenting the places where other processes should be used for various reasons. So the issues that we've identified, and we'll get into the specifics, well, it's in your packet, but we'll also get into the specifics in this presentation. But the first is around the inflexibility of the penalty. So we have violations that go up to $500 per violation per day. But what we find is, especially if you're dealing with an individual or a company who knows better, sometimes $500 is not enough to get them to comply. They see that as a cost of doing business. So sometimes that's just not the stick that we need sometimes to get them to take the carrot. We also have outdated penalties. We have a provision around misdemeanors and a lot of our code talks about charging people with misdemeanors for certain violations. We don't prosecute misdemeanors in our municipal court so that provision effectively is not used at all. We also have, as I mentioned, inconsistent procedures throughout the code. I'll actually point out one that is in our chapter four, a couple that's in our chapter four specifically. So what that means is instead of just being able to go to chapter one and say, okay, this is what I need to do, you need to go to chapter one and also whatever other code provision to see, okay, are there additional enforcement things that I need to take into account? when I'm doing enforcement. There's a lack of clarity around these applicable regulations because they're kind of all over interspersed throughout the code. We particularly want to see some additional flexibility in approaches to enforcement and this actually gets really at the heart of what Wilsonville believes in when it comes to enforcement is that it's always a compliance first approach. We'd rather have compliance than force people to pay fines. And our code actually doesn't, in a lot of ways, promote a standardized structure for getting to compliance. We kind of do it through negotiations because we find that those are effective tools, but those are really just agreements that we're creating rather than that being codified in our code. And then our current processes can be very costly for the city. We actually just went through a code enforcement process that because our regulations don't have these really clear mechanisms for us, the city had to incur about $60,000 of costs for consultants and for hiring people to do some corrective action. And then, Miranda, do you remember what the cost was for city staff time on the Fouché matter?

Yeah. It was...

Hold on.

That was just the...

and the remainder is staff time, which I believe was like $50,000, $50,000 to $60,000. Part of that was because we had to prepare for a potential trial, but that did not include city attorney time, that was only for community development staff.

My time didn't get billed, but that's all right. So it can be very expensive. And we've had other examples where we're in an enforcement compliance process for, we have one that took two plus years to get to completion on the stormwater issue.

Yes.

So it's a lot of staff time. There's costs associated with that and a lot of times because we are taking a compliance first approach, those are costs that don't get recouped by the city. So all this to lead to looking at our current code enforcement process. So like I mentioned, it's mainly in chapter one. Our violations are not exceeding $500 per violation per day and they need to be enforced consistent with ORS chapter 153. That's the chapter that governs violations. So again, you start with our code, but then you have to go to this other source to figure out, again, what are the processes that are available to us. And essentially what that is is it's a citation. A lot of times when we have a code enforcement issue, staff identify it. We try to get to compliance, and if we can't, we have to have our police department go out and issue a citation. So again, you talk about the time and resources that it takes to go through an enforcement process can get pretty expensive pretty quickly. We also have the misdemeanors provision, like I mentioned, we don't enforce any of this. So while this exists in our code, this is not something that we utilize in Wilsonville. not that i'm aware of but uh you never know what happened in the 80s you know i wasn't around then but not that i'm aware of um as as far as i know especially because i think wilsonville is always contracted with clackamas county sheriff's office and so i don't envision that clackamas county sheriff's office would issue misdemeanors because they'd have to then be prosecuted by the Clackamas County DA's office, and we handle all of the citations. We, meaning city staff, handle all the citations that are issued by the PD through our municipal court. So I would be surprised if there was ever that as far as a code violation goes. So specifically related to chapter four, the general provisions governing code enforcement live in Wilsonville Code section 4.025 and 4.026. Generally speaking, they authorize the planning director or the planning director's designee to engage in the code enforcement process, and they refer back to chapter one as far as violations go, so the charging of the fine and the like. There also is a provision where the council can authorize the city attorney to file suit for things like a preliminary injunction, or a temporary restraining order, those kinds of things to potentially prohibit, to stop an enforcement, a code enforcement, a code violation from occurring or as it may be. But again, there's all these nuances. The sign enforcement, for example, as I mentioned, it limits fines to $100. So again, even though chapter one says fines can go up to $500, the code enforcement provision says fines are limited to $100. It refers back to Wilsonville Code 4.025, but not 4.026. and also has very similar language to the third bullet point about the additional enforcement processes. So you see differences and also duplication throughout the code. It's not just a chapter four problem. This is very common. Land divisions refers only back to 4.026. And basically the difference is 4.025 is the general overarching code enforcement. 4.026 is about new development. So that's where the distinction is. But why they don't reference both, I don't know why. And then in tree preservation, it refers to fines back into Chapter 1, but it also includes a mitigation process, which that's one of those things that we would probably say needs to be retained. We want to make sure that people replant trees when they cut down trees in violation of our code. But then it says that compliance is enforced by the city attorney or law enforcement officers rather than the planning director who is authorized under the original provisions to do the enforcement. So again, oddities throughout, and I'm not necessarily sure why any one of those provisions, what the reasoning behind those provisions, those nuances might be. So then we looked at code enforcement in other jurisdictions, and specifically wanted to look at jurisdictions that have relatively recently updated their code enforcement. So we looked at Beaverton, McMinnville, Tigard, Tualatin, Westland, and Woodburn. What we were particularly interested in was in Beaverton, McMinnville, Tigard, and Tualatin, they all have explicit provisions around compliance agreements. Now like I mentioned, we basically already do that. But the other party has to agree to that, that it's not something that's outlined in our code. So we think that it's important to codify that. We found that to be an effective tool, and we think that it would be an important thing to just have in our code, since we're basically already doing it. So these cities already have that expressly called out. McMinnville and Tigard also have a completely separate administrative process that's outside of the municipal court system. So McMinnville has it running through the city manager's office. Tigard has it running through a hearings officer. And those are for the civil code violations, so non-criminal, so not your traffic or anything that might be a violation of the Oregon Vehicle Code or Oregon Criminal Code. So as we've been working through this, we've really kind of honed in on the McMinnville and Tigard approaches as examples to model off of an administrative process. So what we are looking at doing is proposing an update that will generally be an administrative process rather than a citation by a police officer that then goes through our municipal court. So the recommended updates, as I mentioned, so chapter one, what we're looking at is a standardized administrative process. Where that will begin is a notice of violation that's issued by authorized employees. So for chapter four, it would be planning director or designee. So they issue a notice of violation saying, hey, we've observed this violation, here's the code provision, here's how we believe you're violating it. and it'll lay out a corrective action. So you have so much time to correct, to come into compliance, or if, especially if there's not sufficient time to do that, you can, the violator could enter into a compliance agreement. If the corrective action is not in compliance, If there's a need for the city to do something, so we need to get on site because there's a health safety issue or whatever the case may be, there's also a process for us to issue a notice of corrective action and costs if we have to incur costs as part of that corrective action. If the corrective action is not taken that there will be a notice of civil penalty. So there will be a fine assessed. And that fine we are recommending be scaled based on several criteria. This is modeled after actually a couple things that are already in our code under our building code. We have a matrix for assessing fines at different levels. And then also for our erosion and sediment control permits we also have a matrix. So it makes the fine range much larger and also looks at things like intent, expertise in the area, past violations, ongoing violations, severity violation, those kinds of things. And then what we're also recommending is that the protest and appeal process go to the city manager and then to the city council. And then we will be listing exemptions to this chapter one administrative process. So under Oregon law, we are required that all traffic laws have to be issued by, you have to have a citation issued if you violate traffic laws. We're also going to include parking violations in that. We are required under the state building code to have a specific enforcement and appeals process, so that will remain separate. We are required by the federal and state, we are required under the Clean Water Act that is enforced by the EPA and through DEQ to have specific code enforcement around industrial users that go into our wastewater, our sewer system, so that will remain separate. So there's a few kind of nuances where we will have expressly listed exemptions, so then people know, staff and a community member will know, okay, if it's under one of these, I'm going to that chapter, I'm going to that section, but if it's anything else, it's gonna be under chapter one. So our proposal for chapter four is basically to conform to the chapter one updates. And we'll be very explicit about those nuances about things like the tree preservation where we want mitigation plans, those kinds of things. And then also to clarify responsibilities of certain city positions. I didn't put this on the slide, but it is in your packet. It's one of the attachments where Like I mentioned, the city attorney position is mentioned as part of enforcement, law enforcement officers are, the planning director is, community development director is, and the building official is. So we want to make sure that the appropriate position is the one that is responsible for the enforcement as appropriate. So those are additional recommended updates that we will be bringing back. So as next steps, we are planning council work sessions in August and September to go over the whole range of updates because there's quite a few. We are planning a work session with planning commission to specifically review chapter four in your September meeting. We will bring chapter one to you as well since it's referencing chapter one so you have some context of what chapter one is about, but really what we're looking for is a recommendation on the updates to chapter four. Assuming that that all goes according to plan, we plan for a Planning Commission hearing for the Chapter 4 updates in October and then a Council hearing on all the code updates in November with an effective date of January 1, 2027. And if you've been following along at all on code enforcement, we are also updating our nuisance code separately. It's already been through minor updates to the nuisance code, but that's already all been through the council process, but we will be packaging that as another ordinance for council to consider, and all of that will be effective January 1. So then we'll have templates ready to go for those individuals in the city who will be part of the enforcement starting January 1, 2027 is the plan. So I think, yeah, that's the end of my slides. So I'm happy to answer any questions that you all have.

I don't know which one of you lit up first.

Thank you. Okay, this is fantastic. I'm excited for cleaning up some of the latent issues that have been in our code. I think this would make it more understandable and easier to navigate both for city staff and for the people in the city. But when there's a change like this, maybe people who have become accustomed to one way of operating have to adapt to another way of operating. Do we have communications plans as well for announcing that January 1st?

Yeah, so we have a Let's Talk Wilsonville page that's dedicated to this code enforcement project generally. So there will be information that we're putting out through that and also through the Boone's Ferry Messenger, our kind of standard outreach. I will say, generally speaking, Wilsonville is very good about not needing to get to the point of citations. It's actually pretty rare that we get to the point where we have to issue citations. So I don't think that people are very used to the citation process because that's not very common. It's actually one of the things that we've noted is that I would think that it'd be very challenging for a municipal court judge to evaluate code enforcement issues when he maybe gets one a year. And that's even pretty rare, I would say. But yes, we will engage in a public information campaign as well.

Yeah, thanks. I like the fact that we researched other cities around us to make sure we're at least in the same ballpark, so to speak. Well, okay, Tiger, whatever. Yeah, okay. Don't like the comments about the 1980s, by the way. I take offense to that, but that's all right. I'll get over it. And then is it possible to take some of these exceptions from section four and move them into section one or do they belong in section four, chapter four?

I think based on our review, pretty much everything will be in chapter one with the exception of the specific mitigation process for tree preservation. There might have been one other thing around, I can't remember, I'd have to go back and look from our notes from that meeting, but the vast majority of it can all go to chapter one.

We can clean up four by moving some of this stuff into one, but with this, Yeah, the mitigation process makes sense.

Yep.

What's wrong with the 80s, right? Nothing.

A lot of good things came out of the 80s.

I just want to say, if you want to make some money for the city with the election season coming up, you could try to do the sign enforcement on the political signs, since nobody seemed to follow those ever, myself included. But that was just because I was following the lead of others.

Our code compliance person is very busy picking up signs. I'm just being blunt.

I really wanted to do the three signs per block, but anyway, just throwing that out there.

I was curious, Amanda, because usually, like, Kalina, what made this priority? This is always on the backlog of things to do.

Well, it's my own fault. As I like to say, I'm very good at assigning myself work. So when city councils go through their goal setting, what the city department heads do is we come in and we talk about what have we done within the last couple years? What are we currently working on? What are things that we see for the future? And I just happen to say, hey, I don't think this needs to be a council goal, but I really think that we need to do some updates to our code enforcement because we, Miranda, in particular around some of the land use issues and code violations that we've been experiencing, our code has been very challenging to work within. and we have to get a little creative in getting compliance. And so from those experiences, those kind of recent experiences that we had had and how challenging it was for us, how much city staff time was being spent on it, I made that statement and then it became council goal number two, item number 2.2. So it was my own fault.

No, I love clean up of these kinds of things.

Yeah. My whole team thanks me for it.

No, that's great. What happens when people don't comply, they get the fines, and they don't pay the fines, and it's an administrative matter? What happens in that case?

Yeah, so generally speaking, if it gets to the point where we cannot get compliance, we have had police go out and issue citations. So we just recently, we're hopefully wrapping up the compliance on one where we couldn't get compliance. We had the police go out, issue a citation, and that kicked off the $500 per violation per day. that for this particular violator was not sufficient to get them to comply. And so we ended up getting to the point where the pressure of having to go to court and then the court assessing that fine finally got that violator to come to the table and enter into an agreement with the city. But that agreement still has taken well over a year to get to, I think it was signed back in July last year, right?

Correct, and actually a number of provisions within it were not completed. Were not complied with. And complied with as required. However, it appears hopefully that we are, that there will be complete compliance within a few months.

And one of the other things that we're adding in as part of this is, So we have these violations, we have these fines. What happens if somebody is assessed a fine? It lives within our municipal court as a recorded fine, but our code is really silent about how we go about collecting that fine. So additional things that we're including in here is number one, that these fines get recorded in our city lien docket. What that basically means is it gets recorded as a fine that is owed It doesn't generally get, it doesn't get, it isn't required to be paid off until the sale of the property occurs, but it is recorded against the property and encumbers the property for that period of time. We also are including things like stop work orders. So if it's ongoing development that we can issue stop work orders and they can't continue to work on the property, not allowing them to be issued other permits. So in this particular example, this particular violator was pulling permits on the adjacent property and we didn't have a mechanism to say, you're in violation over here, you shouldn't be able to pull permits over here. There's nothing in our code that said that we could do that. So we're going to add some additional levers that, again, levers that we can pull to gain compliance through this administrative process.

Okay, great. Thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah, I look forward to reading that. Yeah. Yeah, like a little cleanup. Anybody else have anything else? Any questions? All right, great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Hearing no further questions, that concludes this work session. All right. Moving on to informational. no we did administrative in the beginning and now we're you guys are keeping my toes all right next on the agenda is informational item for city council action minutes This is a chance for the planning commission to learn more about this specific topic. No public comment will be taken on this agenda item. If the public has questions or comments on the topic, you're encouraged to reach out directly to city staff. This time I call for city staff. Well, no, there's no staff presentation for either one of these. Um, do we have any questions for staff about the city council action minutes? No. Okay.

Just a warning to have them wear a flak jacket at the next council meeting.

A flak jacket.

That was a lively city council.

All right. And the next information item was the 2026 Planning Commission Work Program. There's no presentation. Any questions or commentary about that?

Chair Seminova, I have just a couple items. One is I just want to point the attention to all commissioners to the November item. Because of the Veterans Holiday, your meeting will be on the 12th instead of the 11th. That is a Thursday. And at that meeting, we will actually have a community conversation. You will host that meeting as the Committee for Citizen Involvement. and this will host our annual housing cost burden meeting and we'll also be presenting the annual housing report at that meeting. So I just want to make sure you make note of that special date and kind of special meeting. It won't be a typical Planning Commission work session and hearing.

It's up to you.

And then my only other announcement slash question is, as you're aware, for the Housing Statutory Compliance Part 2 project that Ms. Reibold was here, I believe it was last month, to present on, we will be having a conversation sometime in September with a group of folks, including arborists and other technical professionalists, as well as engagement experts around the clear and objective tree standards. So we'll be thinking about that and we wanted to find out if there was a representative from the commission who would like to participate in that meeting as essentially kind of a liaison to this group and to help inform what might come back in front of the commission at your work session in October.

Is it specifically about trees or is it?

It will specifically be about the component related to the clear and objective tree standards. So that chapter or that section within chapter four is, as we discussed last time, very subjective. It's very much like one component of design like any other. And state law requires us now to have a clear and objective tree code. So we are going to be writing that so that we have two paths within that section of the chapter. So we'll be having a meeting and one of the things we want to discuss with the arborists is like what makes the most sense from the perspective of like these are the objectives that the council and the community has around tree preservation. So what would be the measurables that make the most sense to write a clear and objective code on? That also would be easy for arborists to assess when they go out and do an assessment. So we want to be able to have those conversations with them as well as other policy folks who think about code writing to sit down and have these conversations. So we wanted to invite somebody from the commission if somebody would like to serve.

I'll do it. Yeah. Well, wait, do we, does it scheduled yet?

It is not scheduled yet. So we would be reaching out to you to schedule that, but we anticipate it being in September. Okay, perfect.

I'll volunteer.

All right.

Thank you.

Great. We're volunteering. I appreciate that. If an email can be sent out when it's scheduled for, that would be great.

Okay, yeah, we can share that.

Even if we don't attend, maybe there's commentary, input we can provide to what's being discussed.

Yeah, and there's also a Let's Talk Wilsonville page being created for it. We plan on hopefully having... at least one question up for the community at the party in the park next week. Next week or in two weeks? Next week. Are you sure?

We did our calendars. Oh, okay.

It's the 20, Thursday the 20. I think it's next week. It's the 20th, isn't it? It's the 20th. I was right. Okay, so anyways, now that we've resolved that, you all should attend Party in the Park next Thursday, the 20th. It'll be a great event, and you can participate in a very brief, probably one-question or two-question tree survey. So we're just trying to get input from the community on what they value about trees in their community.

Perfect. Thank you. A volunteer event as well.

Yes, thank you for reminding me, Ms. Simmons. This year we are combining the volunteer appreciation event, so there will actually be a specific booth set up for our volunteers, and so we hope that all of you will stop by that and enjoy it. I am not sure what will be provided this year. We've provided socks in the past, and those socks are nice. Yeah.

Awesome, thank you, Miranda. All right, we've concluded all of our informational items and all the scheduled agenda items. Do I have, I don't need to motion. This meeting is adjourned at 8.42 p.m. Thank you.