That's on TVC TV.

Walleton Valley C C T TV.

To Walleton Valley Community Television.

CVCTV.

That was a lot.

Okay, and we just go to public hearing or public comment.

Sorry.

Public comment will be first.

Okay, sure.

Now is the time provided for anyone wishing to speak to the commission on any item not scheduled for public hearing.

Comments are limited to two minutes unless additional time is granted by the presiding officer.

The public comment period shall not exceed 30 minutes unless extended by the commission.

Zoom attendees may use the raised hand, which we know is not working today.

Is there any public comment?

Zoom attendees should be able to speak over uh Zoom.

They just again can't see our video.

Uh we should be able to see them if they'd like to.

So if there's anybody on Zoom who'd like to comment, they may do so.

Okay.

Anyone on Zoom choose to comment?

Okay, seeing none.

Moving on to the public hearing.

Tonight we have a proposed initiated amendment to the Forest Grove Comprehensive Plan to remove the City of Forest Grove General Industrial Plan designation from property to be removed from the City of added to the City of Cornelius planning area.

Sure, Alice should have a script in front of you to just the blue type everything in blue.

So reading half of this and half of this is a little bit confusing.

Sorry, everyone.

Tonight's staff is asked that the planning commission adopt a motion recommending approval of the proposed comprehensive plan map amendment.

A decision on the proposal will be based on decision, I'm sorry, on Oregon Land Use Planning Goal 2 and Oregon Revised Statute Section 190.010.

The written staff report for tonight's hearing addresses the decision considerations.

Persons wishing to provide testimony or asked to print your name and address on the public hearing signup sheet located in the community auditorium for your or raise their hand in Zoom during the public testimony period.

I will recognize these people wishing to speak.

When called, please come to the table in the auditorium as the hearing is recorded or wait until you are called upon by the chair to speak via Zoom.

Please state your name and address for the record and keep testimony concise, addressing the applicable decision criteria.

Any questions for the planning commission or city staff should be directed to me.

Staff will provide a report briefly summarizing the proposal, correspondence received, applicable decision criteria, and staff recommendation.

Persons in support, opposition, and neutral about the proposal proposal will be called to the podium or via Zoom to testify in that order.

If you testify, speak into the microphone, state your name and address, and direct your comments to the decision considerations listed in the staff report.

The planning commission may act on this proposal tonight.

However, prior to the conclusion of the hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence.

The planning commission may grant continuation of the public hearing to a time and date certain that is at least seven days from tonight's hearing, or leave the record open for additional written evidence.

If the record is left open, the record shall remain open for at least seven days for the purpose of responding to new written evidence.

Failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to allow the planning commission, applicant, or staff to respond precludes an appeal to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue.

Failure to raise constitutional issues related to the proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specific key to all the planning commission applicant or staff to respond precludes an action of damages in circuit court.

Before we open the hearing, do any members of the planning commission need to disclose any expartate contact bias or conflicts of interest?

If so, please indicate the nature of the ex parte contact bias or conflicts of interest and indicate whether you intend to participate in an impartial manner or abstain from the hearing.

Anyone?

Seeing none.

Moving forward.

We'll provide an overview of the proposal list before the commission this evening.

We'll go ahead and get that loaded.

The PowerPoint presentation will start with the issue statement, go into the purpose of tonight's public hearing, provide some background about the proposal, briefly go over the decision considerations for the commission, provide a conclusion, and then a staff recommendation.

There will be opportunity after the close of the staff presentation for the commission to ask any clarifying questions of staff.

So next slide, please.

Next slide.

So the proposal before the planning commission this evening is a city initiated amendment to the Forest Grove Comprehensive Plan.

Under the City Forest Groves Development Code, the community development director can initiate a comprehensive plan amendment as well as the city council, a specific property owner.

The city council and the planning commission both have authority to initiate comprehensive plan and map amendments, such as these.

In addition, any utilities that are working on property, they also have standing to initiate land use actions such as comprehensive plan and map amendments.

This one is city initiated by the community development director as follow-up to the adoption of the urban planning area agreement that was approved by the city council in April.

Next slide, please.

So the purpose of the public hearing tonight in the specific land use action is to remove the City of Forest Grove General Industrial Plan Designation from property to be withdrawn from the Forest Grove Urban Planning Area and added to the Cornelius Planning Area.

The property is generally located northeast of the 24th Avenue Industrial Area in Forest Grove and east of U Street and north of the Forest Grove and Cornelius city limits.

The yellow line on the vertical yellow line on the map shows the city boundary between Forest Grove and Cornelius.

Next slide, please.

So on March 2nd, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting amendments to the urban planning area agreement between the city and Washington County.

The UPAA amended amendments included modifying the Forest Grove Urban Planning Area to remove property that is subject to tonight's public hearing and removing it from the Forest Grove Urban Planning Area and adding it to the Cornelius Urban Planning Area.

The City Council approved the urban planning area amendments on April 13th, 2026.

The area to be removed from the Forest Grove Planning Area is about 2.6 acres.

It's part of a larger parcel that is that is just shy of 17 acres.

So it's a relatively small portion of a larger parcel that is already in the city of Cornelius Urban Planning Area.

The area currently in the Forest Grove urban planning area is designated as General Industrial on the Forest Grove Comprehensive Plan map.

And that is shown on the image on the on the slide.

Moving the City of Forest Grove plan designation will allow the City of Cornelius to apply a city of Cornelius comprehensive plan designation to the subject property.

These actions will expedite future annexation of the entire parcel into the city of Cornelius.

By virtue of this, future development review will be more efficient since the parcel will not be bisected by jurisdictional boundaries once.

So the review process tonight, this is a type three land use action that has been elevated to type four, which is actually a legislative process.

It's type three from the context that it involves one very specific property, but it's legislative because it affects the comprehensive plan and the comprehensive plan map specifically, which is something that the city council must amend because it's a legislative action and it affects policy.

So it goes beyond just to the uh the development of that specific property policy overall.

So the state law and forest grove development code include four land use review types based on the amount of discretion required in policy implication.

A type four process requires planning commission review and a recommendation to city council, and the city council must approve the map amendment by ordinance.

A type three process, in contrast, uh involves the planning commission making the final decision on the matter.

The planning commission's decision in a type three matter can be appealed to the city council.

But tonight's legislative action only requires a recommendation from the city council after review.

Next slide, please.

So the decision considerations that apply to this proposal include Oregon statewide, statewide land use planning goal two and Oregon revised statutes section 1090.010.

And I'll talk a little bit about what those are here in a moment.

So statewide land use planning goal two deals with land use and it establishes a framework of decisions and actions relating to the use of land.

Under statewide planning goal two, this proposal is classified as a minor plan amendment since it will not have a significant effect beyond the immediate area.

Under statewide land use planning goal, there are two types of comprehensive plan amendments, minor and major.

Major are those that affect a larger areas, established general policy policy, whereas a minor plan amendment is a matter that doesn't really have any impact beyond the specific property that's being reviewed.

Next slide, please.

Statewide Planning Goal 2 also requires the city actions to be coordinated and be consistent with the comprehensive plans of other jurisdictions.

Removing the Forest Grove Comprehensive Plan map designation from the area added to the Cornelius Planning Area removes any potential policy conflicts between the city's comprehensive plan and Cornelius' comprehensive plan and makes sure that the development actions affecting that parcel are consistent only with the Cornelius Comprehensive Plan.

So again, this gets back to the property not being bisected by jurisdictional boundaries.

Only one set of rules would apply to future development of the property, and that would be rules in the Cornelius Comprehensive Plan and the Cornelius Development.

Next slide, please.

Oregon Revised Statute Section 190.010 addresses intergovernmental cooperation and efficiency in local government.

Under ORS 190.010, jurisdictions can enter into agreements such as urban planning area agreements with other agencies.

And in this case, our urban planning area agreement is between the city and Washington County.

Cornelius also has a similar urban planning area agreement that affects the Cornelius Planning Area.

Approval of the comprehensive plan amendment tonight is consistent with ORS 190.010 and the urban planning area agreement, which removes the subject area from the forest grove planning area and adds it to the Cornelius Planning Area.

Again, this is one of the amendments that was in the Urban Planning Area Agreement update that went before the Planning Commission back in March and was approved by City Council in April.

Next slide, please.

So in conclusion, the proposed comprehensive plan map amendment is deemed to be consistent with the two decision criteria, the Oregon Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 2 and ORS Section 190.010.

It's also consistent with what is now in the urban planning area agreement between the city and the county.

So the staff recommendation is that the planning commission adopt a motion tonight recommending that the city council adopt an ordinance amending the forest growth comprehensive plan map to remove the city's general industrial comprehensive plan map designation from the area to be withdrawn from the forest growth planning area and added to the Cornelius plan.

So this concludes the staff report.

I'd be happy to answer any questions the commissioner may have at this time.

I have a question.

And maybe this should be saved for after the public hearing is closed, but you I think it's okay.

Um what was it that prompted this change?

Was it just house cleaning and notice?

Oh, this little piece of this little parcel here is in our boundary, and it probably should be in Cornelius' boundary, and we're just cleaning things up, or was there some future action to follow that's waiting for all this to happen for it to move smoothly through?

Does that make sense?

Does thank you for the question question, Commissioner?

Um my understanding is that there's been some interest um in terms of development of the property.

And so Cornelius was taking a closer look at the uh at the property, and it became apparent that uh when the property, if it were to be annexed under the old urban planning area agreement, it would be bisected uh by jurisdictional boundaries.

So part of the property would be in forest grove and part of it in Cornelius.

The county was going through a process of updating urban planning area agreements throughout the county, and there was an opportunity uh to amend the Cornelius Urban Planning Area Agreement and also the Forest Grove Planning Area Agreement at the same time to address that.

So kind of a confluence of some developmental interest happening at a time when it was a convenient time to fix this little issue.

It was fortuitous.

The uh the timing was good in that the county was going forward with and making other amendments to or proposing other amendments to urban planning area agreements countywide.

And the primary intent uh for the county to initiate these amendments is to try to make the urban planning area agreements consistent among all of the jurisdictions in terms of the wording and process.

Uh, there were some nuances in each each of them, and they were trying to clean that up.

And since they were going through that process, the time was good.

So any future development would be um considered by the Cornelius Planning Commission and not by the Forest Grove Planning Commission, correct?

That's correct.

Thank you.

I have I guess two follow-up questions that you may have answered, and I just missed one you said and it was outside of city limits today.

Like would this then need to be annexed by Cornelius to be buildable, or or does that not matter?

This is a good question, also.

Um the urban planning area agreement addresses the area within the urban growth boundary.

Even that even if it's outside of the annex.

Some of it is outside of the city limits currently.

And for those areas, and in the case of the the Forest Grove Comprehensive Plan, we have designations for all of the areas within Forest Grove's planning area inside the UGB.

And then when they're annexed, when those properties are annexed into the city, typically the zoning district that corresponds to the comprehensive plan designation is applied to the property when it's annexed.

So in this case, if it was if that property were to be annexed into the city of Forest Grove, it has the general industrial comp plan designation, it would get the general industrial zoning designation upon annexation.

Okay.

And so by making this amendment, um the entire property rules will receive City of Cornelius zoning after it's annexed.

But annexation is required before developing.

And then my only other question, this is because I'm curious.

Um, is it also zoned as general industrial inside of the Cornelius plan?

Like do you know?

It's a similar similar designation.

We in the Forest Grove we have two industrial designations, general industrial and light industrial.

Um the difference between the two really is that in the general industrial zone, you can have more intensive activity, slightly more intensive activities, but you can also have unenclosed outdoor storage and light industrial activities have to take place within a building.

Cornelius has similar similar requirements.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I have two.

Um, so what is the impact on forest grove losing this few acres?

I understand the benefits to Cornelius, but is there a financial or tax movement of dollars since we're kind of giving this land away, or is it more of a purchase?

So the in terms of the fiscal impact, it's it's it's really unknown.

The 2.6 acres that was in the forest growth planning area was mostly undevelopable because of floodplain uh slope, um, some wetland area.

And so is the portion of the property that was largely it was less developable than the larger piece, it's already in the city of Cornelius Planning.

So theoretically, the fiscal impact to the city would be the loss of any property tax revenue if the property were to develop after being annexed into the city, but development on that forest grove portion um would have been relatively minor, if anything at all.

Okay.

And then knowing we're about 17 acres into an industrial um uh impact for Cornelius.

Is this going to be a data center?

That I don't know.

Um I haven't heard uh specifically what the use might be.

I know they've had several inquiries, but they don't have a as far as I know, a land use application that's been filed or even a pre-application schedule points.

So I really don't know.

Okay.

I can just see the public going, no, don't give away 2.6 acres if that benefit Cornelius to add a data center, because I know that's very uh a hot topic and heated in the city of Forest Grove.

Yeah, in the region.

May I ask a follow-up question?

Um if I understand correctly, if we did not take this action, we the City of Forest Grove would not be able to annex the whole 17-acre parcel anyway.

Is that correct?

Because it's adjacent, or I mean it's part of the Cornelius urban area planning, whatever UPAA.

That's that that's correct.

The the 17, so 16.83 acres, so just about 17 acres was already in the Cornelius planning area, so that would have gone into that will go into Cornelius regardless of this action, if and when that property is annexed into the city.

Um it looked like, and I don't know specifically what the history is behind how the urban planning area was defined uh for this location, but it looked like that basically the line was just continued from where the city limit line is straight up and it bisected the property.

There was probably not much uh thought given to that and what it would mean on a specific parcel basis, and it only became apparent when looking at it further for possible development.

But so it could have been a situation to answer your question, Commissioner, that only it only the set 16.83 acres could have been annexed into the city of Cornelius, and then at a later date, the 2.6 acres could have been annexed into the in the forest grove for development, possibly.

But since it's all one larger parcel under one ownership, that gets really cumbersome because likely at the time of annexation, the property owner would want to bring the entire property in at the same time, and then there'd be some issues with how the development rules were applied if bisected by the jurisdictional boundary.

So it would complicate the action did not, if we if this proposed action didn't take place, then the property owner would find themselves with um probably a desire to divide their parcel and split off the piece that would belong to Forest Grove and the piece that would belong to Cornelius, we'd get the 2.6 acres potentially, which is not very developable, as you mentioned, and so not a high target for us to annex anyway.

I'm guessing, right?

Right.

And that's correct.

The property owner could seek a partition through the county before annexation or after annexation, partition the property based on where the city limit boundary would be at that time upon annexation.

But uh so if this action is approved, then the property owner needn't do any subdivision of his property, he simply can take the whole thing and get it annexed into the city of Cornelius if if that all works out for them, and then rely on the city of Cornelius' planning commission or the community development process there to approve or not approve any future development, which we don't know what that is right now.

Okay, that's correct.

Okay, uh staff.

Has anyone signed up to speak in favor of the proposal?

Okay.

Has anyone signed up to speak in opposition of the approposed being none?

Um, has anyone signed up to provide neutral testimony?

Okay, moving on.

Uh the public testimony portion of this hearing is now closed.

Need to do that louder.

That was good.

Would any commissioners like to comment on the proposed?

I guess it just feels a little weird that we don't know what's coming down the pipe.

Not that it's up to us to decide whether we like it or not, because we're not talking about the city, a forest grove community development being the ones to do this, but this feels like something's being carefully planned, and we're not seeing the whole picture.

But this feels like something's being carefully planned, and we're not seeing the whole picture.

Is that I would agree.

I would agree with that.

Now I had a uh I guess my initial thought was maybe the county owned this land.

But now I'm hearing property owner.

Yeah.

That's that's correct.

It's privately owned.

So this property owner is going to gain 2.6 acres of forest grove property.

No, no, it's county property right now.

Okay, that's where I get it.

It's private privately owned, but currently unincorporated, so it's not in the city yet.

So it's under county jurisdiction right now, but before development can occur, it has to be brought into a city, either Forest Grove or Cornelius or both.

And unless this action happened, it would be both, right?

Which would be challenging.

Any other comments?

Okay.

Is there a motion on the proposal?

I move that we um recommend to the City of Forest Grove City Council that they um enact an ordinance to implement this proposal.

How's that that close?

Good enough.

Is there a second?

I second it.

Thank you.

I will now call for a vote on the motion.

Yeah, please call the roll.

Commissioner Anderson.

Uh I Commissioner Birdall.

Yes.

Chair Ellis.

I hesitantly say yes.

Commissioner Farrell.

Yes.

Commissioner Rivera.

Yes.

Commissioner King.

Yes.

Okay, that passed.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on to the business meeting.

Um has anyone had a chance to read the meeting minutes.

I have an approval.

Anyone want to make a movement?

Recommend that we approve the minutes.

A second.

Thank you.

Brian.

You need to do a voice vote on that on the approval of minutes.

Okay.

Everyone in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

No.

Thank you.

Brian?

Thank you.

Well, uh for the director's report, I just want to say tonight is a night of introductions.

Um, first of all, I want to introduce you all.

If you have not met Autumn King, she's our new planning commissioner.

Uh Autumn joins us from Boise, Idaho, if I recall correctly.

Yeah.

Um, so Autumn was new in town and wanting to get involved and put in her application as all of you did.

And um and was chosen uh enthusiastically to uh serve on the planning commission.

So she's new, as I know all of you have all been new at some point and intimidated and scared by the whole thing.

Uh but I hope that you all uh take your opportunity either after the meeting or whenever uh to introduce yourself to Autumn if you haven't already and uh make her feel welcome and know that uh you know all the things that she doesn't know yet, she will know, and that she knows that uh that you're all here to help her.

Uh Autumn, do you want to introduce yourself at all or do you want to say anything?

I'm just excited to be here.

Thank you.

I also uh I don't believe you have met the new uh assistant city manager, Kimmy Zell, who is uh our lone audience member tonight.

Uh Kim joined us from the city of Tiger uh back in late December, early January.

Um, and uh she brings a wealth of experience to the position both in the public sector and private sector.

Um so we won't do the introductions, uh individual introductions right now, but I hope after the meeting you'll feel free to stick around and say hi to Kim.

Um she's already uh doing a bang up job, really getting her her uh her teeth into the meat of the uh forest grove issues.

Uh she is the uh supervisor for community development, so she is our new Jesse, if you will, as far as community development's concerned, at least.

Um, and uh we welcome Kim and uh hope that you all again will introduce yourself to her.

Uh as far as news, we've talked about the TV highway access management plan before.

Uh, this is again the plan that staff is working on in conjunction with our consultant.

Um looking at driveway accesses on TV Highway and how we can try to uh consolidate, eliminate, uh better utilize uh access management on the TV highway corridor, sort of from Quince Eastward.

There are, I believe, 38 driveway accesses onto that small section of TV Highway.

And any of you who have traveled down that uh corridor know that A, every single driveway access is a conflict point, potential conflict point.

And there are some kind of hot spots where we have seen lots of collisions.

Unfortunately, we have seen a couple of deaths over the last five years or so.

Um and so this plan would be sort of a structured way to gain control of those accesses and put in development code amendments that would guide development in the future uh to sort of reduce the number of conflict points and consolidate those accesses and uh kind of uh ameliorate the sort of the uh potential for crashes and and fatalities and injuries on the corridor.

Um that work has been continuing with the consultant uh with engagement from the community.

Um starting in August, we will be beginning property owner outreach.

Um, and of course, that's kind of the meat of the issue because a lot of property owners will be affected by uh potential closures and consolidation of driveways, and so that will be interesting.

And that work will come to you kind of like tonight, how you had a uh legislative amendment to the comprehensive plan or to the development code.

We'll come to you in that fashion, and you will have ample opportunity to talk to uh sort of uh sink your teeth into how that plan looks and how it operates, and ultimately recommend a plan uh to city council for how that will take place.

Uh also working in community development right now, the uh housing capacity analysis is working through.

That's uh uh state mandated.

Uh you might have known this in previous iterations as the housing needs analysis.

It's now the housing capacity analysis.

Um has a bunch of sort of different elements to it that basically looks at how uh how we will eventually provide housing of sort of all income strata to the city of Forest Grove, and that's based upon a context contextualized housing need, uh, how much housing is needed by different income types and everything.

Uh that will come again as a legislative amendment before the city or before the planning commission recommendation of the city council.

You will have input on this.

Uh most likely have a work session on this before it actually comes to you as an amendment.

Um the housing production strategy.

So if the housing capacity analysis is sort of the the what needs to happen, the housing production strategy is sort of uh how it's gonna happen.

Um and that has to happen within a year after you pass the housing capacity analysis.

And so there will be a lot more housing work coming up to the planning commission.

Uh, but as of right now, we are sort of in the sort of uh 33% phase of the housing capacity analysis as we've worked through so far.

Um also on the housing uh front, there are a number of uh things and different different bills that come through the legislature, uh both in 2005, 2025, 2026, 2005 is 20 years ago.

Um House Bill 2138, House Bill 4037, Senate Bill 974.

You don't need to remember all those, but if you want to look those up, you're free to.

Uh there are a lot of changes to uh basically what will be amendments for development code uh that relate to kind of how housing gets processed, what notice requirements there are, um, whether or not things are handled at the planning commission level at the staff level, uh, who has appeal rights and all that sort of stuff.

Um there's uh new decision flows for residential review, just a for instance now that uh, you know, if if somebody wants to up zone for greater density in housing, that now can get handled at the staff level uh without a public hearing.

Um that's a really big change.

Um so there are a number of things like that that'll be coming before you.

Uh, we're looking to have a work session with the planning commission on all those sorts of issues, uh, probably in uh mid to early or early to mid-fall, uh, with our sort of usual round development code amendments coming to you in winter.

Uh not going to commit to you know, November, December, whatever, um, but you know, fall and winter is when to expect us to start working on those things among our usual sort of other housekeeping items or development code.

Uh we'll notice over the year little inconsistencies in the code we hadn't noticed before.

And so you'll see, like when we have the definition last time of building constructed that were reverse, we brought that to you amongst a lot of other things.

You'll see that in winter, and so we'll move forward with that.

Uh next planning commission meeting, uh, just a quick poll.

Um, we have the July 6th or July 20th available to us as meeting dates.

July 6th is, of course, the Monday after the July 4th holiday.

Um, and so we need to meet at some point in July and kind of want to take a poll as to whether the 6th or the 20th would be preferable for you all.

20th for me.

Yeah, I can't make 20th.

20th, yeah.

The 20th.

Okay.

We will mark that down for the 20th then.

Um back to the Twalden Valley Highway Access Ums.

What's your estimate of the timing for when specificity will be enough that individual land loaners are suddenly paying close attention and wondering about things and likely end up here?

We're about there right now.

I mean, we have some specific recommendations on a course of action.

Um I don't know that you'll see them come here sort of of their own volition outside of a land use process.

Um not to say that they couldn't show up during public testimony like we had this morning or this or this evening, uh, you know, during public comment.

Um, but it it's likely that we are at that point where when we start doing engagement, uh, that you might start hearing things from people, you know, even people just stopping at the grocery store and wanting to talk, uh, things like that.

Um, but there is enough specificity in the plan in the draft plan right now, um, that uh there will be some sort of room for them to kind of and is that being uh communicated to property owners along that corridor?

It will be, yes.

Yes, that's what the whole uh property owner outreach is going through.

Right.

A lot coming on that on that rate.

Do you anticipate some of that may be contentious?

Absolutely.

Well, I shouldn't say absolutely that's not fair.

Uh it certainly could be uh in staff's experience, uh closing down accesses or uh consolidating accesses can be a contentious issue.

Tends to get people's attention, doesn't it?

It tends to, yes.

I certainly would like to be aware of the plans in sufficient detail such that uh if somebody asks me what the heck is going on, I can do that.

I certainly don't want to have ex parte conversations, but you know, a general understanding of what's happening would be useful.

It'll it is on the website right now, the draft plan.

Uh you're welcome to look at it.

And if you can't find it, by all means, reach out to me.

I can't.

I'll be on that project sheet that you get.

Yeah, yeah.

When we talked about today.

Anyway, that's all I have.

If you guys have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer them.

But that's the sort of goings on in community development.

All right, I guess this meeting is a chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Ellis.