November 10th, 2025, Towalton City Council meeting.

I'll now call this meeting into order.

First item on our agenda is a Pledge of Allegiance led tonight by Councillor Sacco.

Everybody can please stand and make a flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

That brings us to our announcements part of the agenda, and our first announcement tonight.

It's a proclamation declaring Saturday, November 29th, 2025, as Small Business Saturday in the City of Twalton.

And we have Anna Leah Jackson from the Chamber of Commerce come on on coming on up with a presentation.

Welcome, Annalia.

Press the button.

Oh, there it is.

Good afternoon, Mayor and City Council's.

She was one of the first people to welcome me to Tualaton, and she taught me that Tualton is shaped like a moose.

And I didn't believe her.

I thought you're kidding me.

And so I went back to the chamber and I got a map out, and sure enough, we are shaped like a moose.

And I thought, I need to do something with that.

So we can't see it.

Yeah.

Can't unsee it.

You can't, yeah, you can unsee it.

So now we've created a graphic where Tualaton is a moose and it's uh shop local.

And so there's some goodies in the bag for you, and um we'll be having these bags on sale.

We also are going to have a business showcase uh to start kick off the holiday season for small business Saturday that is going to be uh proclamation tonight.

Um but our showcase will be on November 21st at the library.

So we're inviting all small businesses to come and uh show us you know network and show us what what they have.

So should I read this or do you want to do that?

Actually, Councillor Gonzalez is gonna read the proclamation.

I love that.

Wonderful.

Okay.

Thank you, everybody, for being here.

Uh the proclamation is whereas the city of Tualeton, Oregon, celebrates our local small businesses and the contributions they've made to our local economy and community.

According to the U.S.

Small Business Administration and its Office of Advocacy, there are now approximately 36.2 million small businesses in the United States accounting for nearly all U.S.

firms and contributing to nearly 46% of private sector employment.

Whereas small business employ nearly half of all private sector workers, approximately 45% of the U.S.

workforce, and are responsible for roughly 90% of net new jobs created from March 2023 to March 2024.

Small business accounts for a net increase of about 1.2 million jobs of 1.00 total.

Whereas small business continues to face post-pandemic challenges, including inflation, supply chain disruption, labor and benefit cost, even as many have have adapted with increased online presence and pivoting businesses models.

Whereas consumers continue to value purchasing from locally owned businesses.

Studies indicate that a very high percentage of Americans believe small business possibilities impact their communities and local economies.

Whereas Tualeton, Oregon strongly supports our local businesses to create jobs, boost our local economy, and preserve our communities.

And whereas advocacy groups, as well as public and private organizations across the country, have endorsed the Saturday after Thanksgiving as Small Business Saturday.

Now therefore be it resolved that the City of Twalton does hereby proclaim November 29, 2025 as Small Business Saturday, and urge the residents of our community to support small businesses and merchants on small business Saturday and throughout the year.

Introduce adopted the 10th day of November 2025.

Thank you.

I'd love to.

I don't know if we anybody take the pictures or just hand it over.

We'll just hand it over.

Okay.

Sure.

Ready?

Thank you.

Thank you, Annalia.

Next up, we have a new employee introduction, uh new policy analyst, Quinn Bruner, being introduced by Sid.

All right.

Good evening, Mayor Bivenick and members of the council.

I'm excited to be here.

My name is Sidson, Urban Renewal Economic Development Manager.

And it's an absolute pro pleasure to introduce Quinn Brunner.

And his first day here was October 29th, so he's like, I think on day nine now.

And uh so uh Quinn has been busy uh the first uh on his first day on Wednesday the 29th, he intended attended the uh CAC downtown CAC meeting.

So that was about a 12-hour day for us and and he still came back, so we're we're excited for that.

Uh so Quinn comes uh to us from the uh city uh of Lake Oswego, where he was a management analyst and also a program.

And a uh uh a program manager there uh in the city's uh manager's office, and that's where he honed his uh skills in project management and working with the community, and so uh super excited to have him on board's a great skill set, great interpersonal skills, project management skills and analytical.

And he's uh he's a great uh thought uh strategic thought partner, being able to see the big picture, but also really get down into the details of things.

Uh so uh Quinn's gonna be working on some exciting projects, and as you know, we've got the uh Southwest Urban Renewal District, and so he's gonna focus on that and try to get that uh some of the projects in there going.

Uh earlier this year, the council uh annexed in 50 acres down in there, and so we're really excited to uh help get that uh uh property redeveloped down there, and also he's gonna take an active role uh working with our CEC and on the downtown revitalization project.

Then lastly, uh doing a lot of economic development work, working with Annalia uh at the chamber and uh some of our other business here in the community.

So, with that, uh there's any questions available for any questions.

Floor is yours, Quinn.

Well, Mr.

Mayor, members of the council, uh thank you for um having me as a member of your team.

Um you're probably the last people I need to tell that this is an exceptionally exciting time to be a part of this community, um, and I'm grateful to have the opportunity to contribute.

Uh so um thank you for having me.

I look forward to working with all of you in the coming weeks and months.

All right.

Well, thanks for joining our team again.

I probably Martha is not a fan of yours right now either.

But welcome uh to Twalton.

Uh you've already made an impression.

I've already heard of you before your email today.

Uh so first impressions have been super positive, let you know.

People appreciate your energy and your initiative.

Uh your email today was fantastic.

So uh welcome to the team, and we all look forward to working with you.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

All right, that brings us to public comment.

Uh public comment is an opportunity to speak to the council on an item that is not on the agenda tonight.

Please keep your comments to about three minutes.

If there's anyone in the room uh who would like to address the council, I'll take them first.

Uh and then after that, I'll go to the folks in Zoom.

I have one person who signed up for public comment, but you don't have to be signed up.

Once the person who's signed up is completed, you can always just raise your hand and come forward to the uh podium.

So I have uh is it Janet Bailey signed up?

Come on up.

Um Ms.

Bailey.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Hi, you guys.

I'm Janet Bailey.

I've lived in Twilighton for 20 plus years.

This is awesome to see everyone like this.

I love to see a community that's involved.

So I'd like to speak tonight regarding a land agreement that I hear going around talking, uh, people talking around town.

So, you know, a lot of harm has happened to a lot of people.

And under um under common law, the power of the government is gained through consent of the people.

I'm a respectable of those who have lived on the land hundreds of years ago, and I honor their contribution to the culture and all they might have taught us.

We could probably do a lot more today about being better guardians of our land.

At now, this moment in time, we are moving forward towards governing with gut with common law.

In the common law, this land has been purchased and sold and purchased and sold and purchased and sold.

And there are many documents and deeds to prove so.

So if a land agreement says that the land belongs to indigenous people or someone else, I disagree and I do not consent.

Primarily because it's not the truth under common law.

I do not consent to a land agreement being part of our schools or any other public meeting because it is not consistent with common law.

I am not alone with disagreeing with a land agreement.

I am just a representative of the people.

Saying that the land belongs to someone else.

So what place would a land agreement have in any school meeting or gathering for this day and this time?

Again, property own owners do not consent to giving up their common law rights.

What is the purpose of this?

What are we doing here?

As a property owner, I claim my rights as property that I've paid for.

So, you know, I'd love to have a copy of this land agreement that I hear everyone talking about.

Can any of you help me?

Do any of you have this land agreement that people are starting to buzz talking about this around town?

I don't know where to get one.

I don't know where to get one.

I think you're referring to a land acknowledgement, aren't you?

Oh, maybe it is.

Okay.

Okay.

So I don't know.

I don't know where to get it.

Do you?

Right now we don't have one.

Where does it come from?

Uh it's something the this is a subject under discussion with our idea committee.

Uh-huh.

Um, and councillor Kinsako is represented on that committee if you want to address it a little bit.

Sure, I can address that.

Um, so um the council has um, so I guess I'll take one step back.

Um, a group of community members um supported a land acknowledgement and brought it forth to uh the city council um probably about two years now ago.

And um the city council has tasked the idea committee to take a look at that, and the idea committee today has made no recommendations to approve a land acknowledgement to this day.

Um so there is nothing being put forward as of today.

Thank you for your clarification because really it there's a lot of buzzing going on, a lot of talking going on about this, and uh you heard what I have to say about it, but there's a lot of talk.

So thank you for your clarification.

Okay, thank you for coming.

Uh anyone else in the room who would like to address council on something that's not on the agenda tonight.

Seeing none baits, anybody in Zoom?

All right, going once twice.

All right, thank you.

Uh that brings us to there are consent agenda.

The consent agenda, those items considered routine, they'll be adopted by one motion unless someone on the council would like an item removed and heard separately later tonight.

Tonight the consent agenda consists of two items.

Item number one, consideration of approval of the work session and regular meeting minutes of October 27, 2025.

And item number two is consideration of resolution number 5926-25 to adopt the City of Towalton investment policy.

Uh would any counselor like one or both of these items removed from consent and heard later tonight?

Or do I have another motion?

I move that we adopt the consent agendas read.

Second.

I have a motion and a second to adopt the consent agenda is ready.

Any discussions on those motions?

Almost favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Abstentions, it's unanimous.

All right.

Uh that brings us to special reports.

Uh special report number one is the outside agency grant awardee, just compassion.

Are they here to present?

Hmm.

Don't see them.

All right.

Uh maybe they're running late, we'll come back.

Uh that makes it easier for Joe Gall to get out earlier.

So Clean Water Services Day of the District Presentation.

Joe, come on up.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Joe Gall, the Chief Utility Relations Officer for Clean Water Services.

And before I introduce the gentleman next to me, I want to acknowledge a few members of the audience.

First, two members of our board of directors are here tonight.

Chair Harrington is here and also Director Jason Snyder.

Notice I called them directors, not commissioners, because they are here as representing the Clean Water Services Board tonight.

And then I also have a member of my team, uh, Shannon Huggins, who uh is on the communications and community engagement team and is a Tualetin resident here tonight as well.

So we have about a 10 to 15 minute presentation and then we'll have questions at the end.

I also want to uh reference this document.

This is a report that's basically an annual report from last fiscal year.

There's a lot of data in there that may be very interesting to you that's not in the slideshow.

Um I can answer any questions that are in there as well.

So the gentleman next to me uh first time visitor to the city of Tualeton.

So Rick Shanley is our interim CEO slash general manager, and he's joining me in these uh visits to our different partner cities, and I would like Rick to take a moment to introduce himself.

So thank you, Joe, and thanks, Mayor and Council, for having us this evening.

Um I'm not gonna read the slide in uh in detail and tell you about myself, but I did want to say I've been with Clean Water for about 12 years prior to taking the interim CEO role.

So in my past capacity, which I'm still doing somewhat, um, I was the chief engineer and water technology officer.

So I know the city is really interested, and Joe's got a resolution in order talking about us coming back and presenting more about rates.

Um I've been really active in the CIP development, um, making sure that we're bringing innovation and and trying to work with industry to bring technologies to keep our CIP costs low, um, partnering with our regulatory affairs group and DEQ to make sure our regulations um are best suited for what we need to do to protect the watershed.

So a lot of um background and and really passion in that area.

Um prior to that I worked for a private consulting firm and Clean Water was my favorite client because they do they do a lot of uh things differently that I think is really what gets gets that group and and the staff at Cleanwater uh excited about work every day.

So um I really just wanted to introduce myself, mostly though I haven't met many of you.

I've met Sherilyn a couple times in my new role.

Um and um just happy to be here.

Um look forward to seeing you in the future, and if there are any things you ever want to ping me about, of course, you know I look forward to hearing from you all.

With that, I'll turn it over to Joe.

And Rick is the engineer, so if I get any tough you know technical questions, I will tap him on the shoulder.

So I am not an engineer.

So some of this uh the council may know, uh just kind of a refresher, but with such a nice audience here in the room and at home.

Uh just some reminders about clean water services.

So we are uh a wastewater and stormwater government utility.

We serve uh the urban area of Washington County.

We have 12 partner cities.

You're one of our partner cities, and then we also provide services in the urban unincorporated area.

Uh Dilloas, uh the Bull Mountains, and other areas uh of the community.

You can see our current budget, 752 million.

I think one of the things that's very unique about CWS is we have an integrated watershed base permit.

We were the countries first to do that.

Um that really drives our business, and that's unique for Clean Water Services.

We have a very close working relationship with the county.

Sometimes people think we're part of the county, but we are not.

We're a separate utility uh that is uh under ORS 451.

The one link to the county though is governance.

So the County Board of Commissioners uh is also our board of directors and serves in that role.

An important commission to the uh board is the Clean Water Services Advisory Commission.

So this commission has stakeholders that represents different groups that uh certainly provide input to us.

So there are reps from the agricultural community that serve on that commission.

There are reps from the business community, the developer-builder community, and the environmental community, who all provide input uh to the district.

There are also representatives for each district for uh tied to the commissioner districts.

And then most importantly, we have a city rep, and that happens to be your city manager, Sherry Lynn Lombos, serves in that role and has done that for many years, and we love her input as part of CWAC.

And you can see how many employees were slightly below 500 employees as an organization.

So who receives services from CWS?

Depending on where you are in the county, you get different types of services.

So Tualaton is one of our seven largest cities that you basically get regional services, and I will go into this in a second from Clean Water Services.

And then the smaller communities that are on the slide in the urban unincorporated areas, they get regional and local services from Clean Water Services.

So they don't have this public work staff, for example, that Tualaton does.

So we provide that local services for those communities.

King City next door, for example, isn't one of those cities.

And then certain industrial customers in our area also get permits from us.

On the back of this report, you can see all the companies in Tualaton that get an industrial permit from us.

Tuolleton has a fair number of businesses that get their industrial permits from us.

I think probably second most after Hillsboro.

And we have that direct relationship in terms of the billing.

I mentioned regional services, so this is what we do, and this is I like to say the big pipes.

So we provide first all of our treatment facilities are operated and run by Clean Water Services.

Everything here goes to the Durham facility in Tiger next to Tigert High School.

We also do all of the pump stations and the 24 inch lines and larger are our responsibility.

Another important part of that regional service is all of the relationship with DEQ on our permit, which I will touch upon in a second.

So we do all the reporting, although and in the document that you receive, you see a lot of data that what Tualaton does, for example.

That's how we do this work together.

So that information is provided to us, and then we report to DEQ on our permit.

The local services are the services that your city does to help co-implement the permit.

So the smaller pipes, 21 inches and smaller are maintained, owned and maintained by the city of Tualaton.

And then all of the stormwater, the local stormwater activities, street sweeping, uh maintaining water quality facilities and things like that, you do within your own city in conjunction with us.

I was the city manager in that city next door in Sherwood.

And before I joined Clean Water Services, I thought I really understood CWS, but I really didn't until I got into the organization.

And one of my lessons, and I always reinforce this when I talk to my city partners, is this five-year permit that really drives the business that we do day in and day out.

So you can see the list of things that we are required to do in as part of that permit.

But it's really something that I didn't realize until I got to Clean Water Services in terms of how important that permit is to the work we do on a day-to-day basis.

This graph shows us where we are.

We're in the 2023 to 2027 permit currently.

We're getting close to you see in June 2027, we have to apply for a new permit.

So we're already planning for that new permit, working with DEQ.

I think the other thing is we're also, besides that next five-year cycle, we're looking out 10 years to what kind of new regulations may be on the horizon that we should be planning for for the future.

You've heard probably about PFOS.

That's something that we're very concerned about, how that would impact the services we provide.

So that's important in terms of the timeline in terms of our permit cycle.

I wanted to just give you a sense of what we spent last fiscal year on various projects.

Many of these projects are multi-year projects.

So that the Norwood Pump Station didn't cost $15,000.

That's just the beginning of the costs associated with that.

So the three bullets at the top of this list are all local projects or projects within the city of Tualaton.

But I also put up there improvements that we are making at the Durham facility because those improvements benefit Tualaton and the other communities that send their wastewater to the Durham treatment facility.

This past week, actually, our board adopted what is called the West Basin Master Plan.

This has been about a two-year effort.

You can see the map here.

The West Basin is the green area.

This is really a 20-year plan for our wastewater wastewater regional system.

And in the green area, there are treat three treatment facilities.

There's one in Forest Grove, and then two in Hillsboro that provide treatment for those communities.

You're in the East Basin, which I'll touch upon in a second.

All your flow goes to our Durham facility next to Tiger High School.

This plan that we just did with the West Basin communities, and we certainly did it with the East Basin, is developed in close coordination with the cities.

So basically, we're looking and asking you what are your plans for the next 20 years?

How do you want to develop?

What kind of industries do you want to bring?

What kind of commercial areas, residential expansion areas?

So we are planning for the future so we can provide that infrastructure when it's needed at the right time, and we don't hold up or slow down any of your aspirations as a community.

The West Basin master plan, like I said, just got completed.

You can see the numbers up there.

So $920 million in conveyance projects through 2045, and another almost 500 million on treatment plan improvements through 2045.

Again, there's three treatment plants in the West Basin.

So that's 1.4 billion dollars over the next 20 years for just the West Basin.

In the East Basin, which is what Tualaton is a member of, or we completed this one in 2022.

You can see the numbers, 301 million on conveyance projects.

A number of those are here in Tualeton.

And then another little over 100 million dollars at the Durham treatment facility over the 20-year time horizon.

These are fairly significant dollars, obviously.

And I think one of the things that's important, and again, I didn't realize this until I got to CWS, is we have fairly healthy reserves because of these long-term investments that are important to fund over the 20-year time horizon.

And this is why rates are so important and SDCs to make sure that they're lined up to support this kind of investment over the next 20 years.

This is a five-year total of what is planned in Tualaton.

You can see $78 million over the next five years.

A number of those projects are trunk lines that are actually local lines that are smaller that are your responsibility that regional funds are actually going toward to pay for that through our CAPP program.

And then a number of pump stations, largely to cons to serve the Basalt Creek expansion areas.

We have three pump stations that need to be built over the next five to seven years to help serve that area that you are going to continue to expand into.

Another important project that I wanted you to be aware of that just is about to kick off.

So you had passed a resolution earlier this year, and one of the things you wanted us to look at was billing.

Really to take a look at the most effective, efficient type of billing.

You have billed on our behalf for many, many decades.

So I'm very excited.

We're going to be hiring a consultant by the end of this calendar year.

We'll be working with our city partners, including Tualaton, to look at what the different alternatives are to billing.

And I think it will be a good project.

It should be completed about a year from now.

We will work very closely with your finance staff who's going to be very busy putting their budget together.

That's why it's scheduled to be a little longer.

We want to make sure we do it right and we ask good questions and get good input from our stakeholders.

So more to come on that.

Again, these are requirements on our permit.

They're due November 1st, a little less than a year from now.

We have, we're just about to kick off.

We had a board work session to talk about this, and we'll be at our advisory committee tomorrow night.

We have some very specific specific limited language around stormwater in our design and construction standards.

Again, we'll work very closely with your city staff on this.

Um, but we have to update those sections by next November 1st.

And then the other heavy lift for us that we're currently working right now with Towallaton is our operating IGA.

So our operating IGA, which is really how we work together.

And uh that IgA has not been updated comprehensively since 2008.

So again, it's overdue.

It's been amended a number of times, but we're working right now with your city uh also working with Washington County.

We've completed Beaverton, Hillsborough and Cornelis, and we've got a number of cities after we are done with Twellaton um to get to that November 1st 2026 deadline.

The other thing I want to mention that was in your resolution, you want to hear more about rates.

So we will be back here hopefully in February with much more information on rate, new rates, rate development, answer more questions that you have about how we set our rates, um, answer questions in terms of the proposed rates that we'll be proposing next year.

So that's on the horizon, and I wanted to make sure that you were aware of that.

And with that, I've covered a lot of ground in a very quick time.

Happy to take any questions you might have.

Questions for Rick and or Joe.

Council Gonzalez.

So thank you very much for uh for being here and presenting to us.

Um I do have specific questions on the on the on when it comes to um the water the water the water quality swales that are throughout the various communities that you guys care for or don't care for.

Can you tell me a little bit about what is the care practices for the water?

Because that's where it all begins.

The water ends up in the catch basin, sedimentation tanks, and move down the system to the into the water quality, and then it goes from there.

Um when I'm out in communities, I I see a not so good care practices that Clearwater performs on these whales.

So can you talk to me about what that looks like?

And then my second question is on the on the fertilizer, the green crystal green fertilizer.

Do you sell that or do you give that away?

Is it is it sold or is it something that just donated to communities?

The the Stara product, um we have a partnership um with Ostara and they pay us for that product, and then they use it in various applications.

I run the water quality swales.

Can you tell them a little bit about what it looks like?

I know that is the lowest hanging fruit for the climate action plan.

You know, that that those have to be cared for, and and some of the requirements with some of the HOAs are quite arduous to maintain them, but when I see this the practice that clear water does, it doesn't match.

You know, the the expectation for homeowner associations is arduous, but Clearwater Services doesn't mean it doesn't maintain the same standards.

So can you talk to me about what that looks like?

On how often are you supposed to be maintaining them, caring for them, replanting them, and those kinds of things.

There's private water quality facilities, and then there's ones that are maintained by actually the city and by CWS.

So the city has a role in this as well.

So it may be specific to whoever the owner is.

Um and if there are drainage swales that are not being maintained, I'd love to hear specifically what those locations are.

Because we do do inspections on a very routine basis.

What is routine?

Is it every one year, three years, four years?

I'd have to get back to you to get a definitive action, but I would do uh I think it's every four years, that's what it is, and when I looked into um I know that I'll be driving our own cities as well.

And then but I also want to delineate who is Clear Water Service.

Because I've worked with in my private sector role, I work with Clear Water Services in caring for these quite and the requirements are quite arduous, but I don't get specific later when I point out the right ones, but I just wanted to just care a general idea of what all the care practices for those, because that is low-hanging fruit for the climate action plan again.

And if we're doing catch basin sedimentation tanks and all those things, it eventually ends up in there.

And if it's not properly cared for or filtered, then then it therefore nothing.

So I just want to hear a little bit about that.

It it is on a three to four year cycle, that's my understanding, but let me confirm that.

Okay.

Um counselor, I'd like to actually get someone that has more expertise to respond to your question more specifically instead of giving you something that may not be fully accurate tonight, but I'm happy to follow up with you directly and share also with the rest of the council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council President Pratt.

Thank you.

Well, I have the um opportunity to go to your training few hour training class.

So it was very enlightening about all that clean water services does and what it takes to keep all the requirements of this permit and how much this affects our community and how much of the stormwater runoff goes into our river.

So it I really appreciate all you do.

Um my only comment is that I um I know these upgrades are probably all needed, but they're huge numbers, as you said.

So when you come back to us in the future, I just um I guess want more detail on how you determine that and how you balance.

I mean, we all know everybody right now, everything's going up more than all our wages are.

So just how you're balancing the needs for improvements to this system with the um need to keep costs down for all our consumers.

Thanks.

Yeah, we'd be happy to share that information with you.

And Council President Pratt, thank you for going to CWS Essentials.

We would love to have all of our local elected partners go through that eventually, and we'll offer the class again in 2026.

So other questions or comments.

Well, thank you both for coming.

Nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you.

Um yeah, and I I've been on the tour of Durham.

Uh the tour you gave going back to the beginning of the Twelfth River and working our way back.

So they're very enlightening tours and Greenwater Services does some fantastic work.

I know we get we butt heads about rates and stuff like that and permitting, but I know we can work it out.

Uh, but very much appreciate what you do.

Um obviously it takes a lot of weight off the cities that we don't have to stand up our own systems that we have consolidated systems, so there's there's efficiency, but there's also sometimes disagreements or um like this planning thing is fantastic.

You know, what came to mind was you know all the changes going on in Salem with housing.

Remember former commissioner Roy Rogers head spinning when it came into where single family zoning went out, and now you can put uh multi-units into what single family was, and that the pipes would have to be redone, all that stuff, and you guys have to deal with that along with city.

So you're in the same boat as us in certain things from Salem, and having to plan that on a 10-year horizon is very difficult.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, thank you.

I also want to mention we have a very good working relationship with your staff.

Uh we love working with your staff.

Uh we don't usually butt heads, but we do have some spirited discussion.

On the political side.

Um staff staff always always has high things to say about you.

But the work that we do, we really do do together.

Uh we could not do the work we do as a district without a strong partnership with our cities.

And I just want to acknowledge that as well.

Okay, great.

Well, again, thank you for coming tonight and taking the time out of your evening.

Thank you.

Nice to meet you all.

Thank you.

All right, so I'll do my uh second call here for just compassion.

Uh they come yet.

Representatives no.

All right.

Okay.

So then we'll move on into the agenda.

Uh that brings us to our public hearing.

We have a public hearing public hearing tonight.

Item number one, consideration of an appeal for or request for review of the architectural review board, ARB, September 10th, 2025.

Decision to approve with conditions AR 24-0002 Lamb Research Corporation's Tux Development to construct four buildings on four lots located at 1115 to 11361 Southwest Levanton Drive, tax lots 2s 122 AA500 and 800.

2S122A 00100, 2S122BA 00100 in the light manufacturing park zone, otherwise known as MP.

I have a script here to read.

It's quite lengthy, so be patient because we want to make sure everything is covered for this hearing.

Uh this is an appeal of a type 3 architectural review board decision for AR 24-000 two made on September 10th, 2022 2025.

Approving with conditions the construction of four buildings totaling 2,0400 2040.

Jeez, 2,000 uh 424.

What the heck I'm talking tongue tight here.

200,000 we'll say roughly 240,000 square feet on four lots comprising 35.96 acres in the manufacturing park zone.

The hearing is subject to Twalton Development Codes type uh four-a quasi judicial hearings procedure.

This approval is de novo, meaning new evidence and argument may be submitted.

AR24-0002 was submitted by McKenzie on behalf of Lamb Research Corporation on July 8th, 2024.

The subject property is 75.96 acres located at 11155 to 1111 361 Southwest Levington Drive.

The site is zoned for Manufacturing Park Planning District and has a frontage along Southwest Levanton Drive, Southwest 108th Avenue, and Southwest Twalton Road.

The public hearing this evening will be conducted as follows.

First, uh the public hearing will be opened and a staff report will be presented.

Then entry of additional correspondence received into the record, followed by inviting testimony in the following order.

First, the proponent, which is Lamb Research Corporation or their representative.

Second, the appellant, Brent Hamilton, and or his representatives.

Then it'll be followed by interested persons in favor of the proposal, followed by interested persons up opposed to the proposal, and uh completed with a rebuttal by Lamb to those things mentioned during the testimony.

The public hearing would then be closed, and then questions of staff, if any by city council, followed by a decision by council.

Regarding testimony, if you wish to speak, please wait for me to ask for testimony and raise your hand or select the raise hand button in Zoom if you're joining us virtually.

I'll recognize those people wishing to speak.

Any questions should be addressed through me.

Please state both your name and address for the record when you come to the podium as the hearing will be recorded.

Please keep keep testimony concise and to the point.

Uh for those folks providing testimony, please limit to about three minutes.

The criteria for approval are contained in TDC 32, 33, 62, 63, 73A through D, 74, and 75.

Specific information regarding the applicable criteria can be found in section 5, applicable to Walton Development Code and Municipal Code sections of the November 10th, 2025 supplemental staff memo.

These are the criteria the council must use in making this decision.

All testimony and evidence must be directed towards these criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or land use regulations which the person testifying believes apply to the decision.

Please relate to any testimony to these listed criteria.

The appeal before the council this evening must be decided based on the criteria.

Despite the importance of other issues that may be raised during the public hearing, the authority of council is limited only to those issues that address compliance with the applicable criteria.

Failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to accord the council and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes an appeal to the land use board of appeals based on that issue.

Failure to raise constitutional or other issues related to the proposed conditions of the approval with sufficient specificity to allow the council to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.

At this time, I ask members of council to disclose any ex parte contacts, bias or conflicts of interests.

Please indicate the nature and extent of the expartheid contact, bias or conflict of interest, and indicate whether you intend to participate in or abstain from this hearing.

Does any member of the uh council have a uh expartheid contact, bias or conflict of interest?

Council Hillier.

Mayor, I will be recusing myself from this evening's proceedings due to the fact that I have already ruled on this as part of the architectural review board.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other counselors?

All right.

Uh does any member of the audience wish to challenge any members' impartiality on this issue tonight.

Okay, seeing none.

I'll go ahead now and open this hearing and staff will present their report.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Bubenock and City Council members and members of the audience.

Thank you for joining us tonight to discuss appeal of AR 24-0002 for LAM research development proposal that was approved on September 10th, 2025 by the Architectural Review Board.

My name is Keith Leonard, associate planner with the City of Twellaton.

With me are community uh development director, Aquila Herd Ravich.

Uh City Attorney Kevin McConnell and City Engineer Mike McCarthy.

Brett Hamilton, the appellant requested the appeal of the ARP's approval.

We received a number of public comments after the ARB uh packet was released in September that have been added to the public record as exhibit F.

The appellants' comments from September 10th, 2024 through October 31st, 2025 are in exhibit C.

The appellant submitted additional comments on November 7th pertaining to the northernmost 108th Avenue driveway that have been provided to the council.

We have also added a petition submitted by the appellant as a supplemental exhibit 8L.

On November 4th, 2025, the appellant submitted a letter dated October 10th, 2025 from the his attorney, Andrew Mulkey, that was addressed to the code compliance officer Brian Levine.

Attorney Mulkey also submitted a letter dated November 3rd, 2025 for the public record, and both attorney letters are included in exhibit K.

Exhibit M is a response we received on November 7th from McKenzie on behalf of LAM Research addressing traffic concerns that provided update traffic counts.

We also added supplemental exhibit N appellate comments regarding 108th North Access and Building G site plan and supplemental exhibit 0 LAMS attorneys response to appellants attorney's exhibit K.

We also received an email at 4 27 p.m.

today from attorney Mulkey addressing the 108th driveway.

And finally, I would like to add to the public record along with the staff report and staff memorandum addressing the appellants' claims and other attachments and exhibits.

The appellant filed an appeal of the ARB September 10th decision on September 25th within the 14-day appeals period.

If the council chooses to approve the appeal, then the ARB decision would be invalidated.

A denial of the appeal would affirm ARB's decision to approve LAM's development proposal.

The subject site is comprised of four parcels totaling about 76 acres located north of Levitton Drive, west of 108th Avenue, and south of Twellaton Road.

All lots are zone manufacturing park.

The site is currently occupied by LAM Research Corporation and is improved with several other buildings associated and associated site improvements.

Current access is provided by three existing driveways from 108th Avenue and three driveways from Levitton Drive.

And this is an area phone of this the site.

The appeal is a type 4A review of the ARB's type 3 decision approving AR-24-0002.

Important dates include the application being submitted on July 8th, 2024, deemed incomplete on July 24th, 2024, and deemed complete at the request of the applicant on December 16th, 2024.

The city sent out three public notice hearing notices due to the applicant asking for the public hearing to be delayed in order to adjust their plans.

The final public hearing notice was sent on May 16th, 2025.

On July 21st, 2025, the city received an up the updated materials that reduced the proposed development size, moved building construction south toward Leviton Drive, and removed an applicant proposed employee access from Twellaton Road.

On August 20th, the planning commission approved the Industrial Master Plan IMP 24-0001 from the site, and the ARB approved the architectural review AR24-0002 on September 10th.

The appellant filed an appeal on September 5th prior to expiration of the appeals period on September 26th.

This is the site plan of the LAM proposal.

The areas shaded in blue are where building construction will take place, and the darker gray areas are where other site development under AR 24-0002 was approved.

Light gray areas have been previously developed.

The Twilaton Road Driveway shaded in light gray will remain closed to LAM employees and is considered an emergency entrance for LAM, while JE will continue to utilize this driveway as they have for years.

As previously mentioned, there are three driveways from 108th and three driveways from Levitton Drive that all existed prior to the submittal of AR24-0002.

The dark gray shaded driveway on Levitton was approved under AR 24-0002 and is planned for truck access.

Employees and visitors can choose from six existing ingress and egress routes on 108th Avenue and Leviton Drive.

A net increase of 544 parking spaces are proposed with the site landscaping, hardscaping, and stormwater facilities.

As I previously mentioned, there are three existing driveways on 108th and three existing on Leviton with one new truck access driveway being constructed from Levanton Drive as part of the previous architectural review approval.

TDC 33.0205 lists the applicable code criteria for large commercial and industrial development, including Chapter 73A through G.

Conditions of approval may be implemented, may implement and require public facilities and services needed to serve proposed developments through Chapter 74 and 75.

Chapter 62 contains requirements for setbacks and other dimensional and use standards.

Environmental requirements are in Chapter 63, including noise regulations, which will be applied to the development on an ongoing basis once approved, development once approved development under AR24 0002 is constructed and operational.

The appellant appeal makes claims in three categories that I'll address individually in the upcoming slides.

We have provided a more thorough analysis and memorandum attachment B.

The first claim category is that LAM's land use applic application did not meet all applicable criteria.

The second claim claims that there were errors made by the applicant.

The final category claims that there were errors made by the city of Twilighton.

The appellants appeal makes claims in three, I already read that one, eh?

Claim one, land use application does not meet all applicable criteria.

A failure to send notice to CIOs as required by TDC 32.125B3.

There's no basis to invalidate the AR's ARB's approval.

The alleged deficiencies did not affect the completeness of LAM application under TDC 32160.

Invalidate the neighborhood development meeting under TDC 32125D or prejudice the substantial rights of any party.

A CIO representative participated early in the process.

Multiple mailed and emailed notices provided ample opportunity over 268 days for public comments prior to the ARB hearing on September 10th, 2025.

Exhibit A, page 7 of the staff analysis and findings is applicable.

Claim 1B, violation of manufacturing park zone and twelve and noise ordinance.

Yep.

Thank you.

Yep.

There is an active city code enforcement investigation that claims of existing noise violations produced by LAM current operations.

Conditions of Rule A25 ensures that any future development under AR24-0002 will be subject to the same environmental and noise standards upon the project's completion and its operation.

Noise valuations would be investigated and enforced by the Code Compliance Division.

Condition of approval A25 from AR24-0002 states the proposed development must comply with the environmental regulations of TDC chapter 63, including noise.

TDC 62.100 from the MP District Regulations has a purpose statement which restricts uses from creating objectionable noise and other nuisances that are evaluated and implemented through the environmental regulations of chapter 63.

This is because there is no criteria or definition for the subjective terms like objectionable noise.

In the manufacturing zone of or parts of the Twilight and Development Code creating a reliance on TDC 63.051 noise to regulate the purpose statement in the manufacturing park zone.

Because alleged noise issue pertains to existing operations and not to unbuilt LAM the unbuilt LAM project, it does not constitute grounds for invalidating the September 10th, 2025 architectural review board approval of AR24-0002.

The city can't enforce municipal or development codes on something that is not constructed or operational.

Exhibit A, page 25 of the staff analysis and findings and condition of approval A25 will ensure compliance with the noise regulations, and if there is a violation, then code enforcement is a proper authority to enforce the noise violations.

Claim 1 C expanded North 108th entrance does not meet new driveway approach criteria.

LAM's proposal connects to a yet-to-be constructed parking area to the northernmost exit existing drive aisle and driveway on Southwest 108th Avenue.

Connecting the North Parking lot to an existing driveway does not invalidate the September 10th, 2025 ARB decision approving the development nor create a need for a new driveway.

It is an assumption on the appellant's part that a large number of employees exit exiting the LAM campus will only use the northernmost driveway from 108th and then turn onto Twellaton Road when there are six existing driveways for entering and exiting the site.

LAM is not proposing any new driveways on Southwest 108th Avenue.

Exhibit A, page 55 through 60 of the staff analysis and findings for AR24-0002 addresses this claim.

Claim two, errors made by the applicant.

Commitments to hold a second neighborhood developer meeting and then not holding it.

TDC 32.120 neighborhood developer meetings describes the neighborhood developer meeting process and what is required.

Requirements include timing of the neighborhood development meeting after a pre-application meeting is conducted, time and location of the meeting, noticing requirements, and documents that the applicant is required to submit as part of the architectural review application.

There's no stated requirements in the TDC or for a second neighborhood developer meeting.

The neighborhood developer meeting was held on June 5th, 2024, in accordance with TDC 32.120.

Exhibit A, pages 9 and 10 of the staff analysis and findings are applicable to this claim.

Claim 2B, traffic impact analysis did not consider additional employee work shifts.

The applicant's traffic study used standard Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE published standard rates for this type of development.

Staff are unaware of any plans by LAM to have multiple shifts.

In accordance with the city's traffic analysis guidelines, the applicant studied the combination of trip generation and street traffic volume with the highest probability of traffic problems developing.

If other shift changes were to be made, the shift changes would be at a time of the day with lower street traffic volumes and thus lower potential for traffic problems.

Exhibit A, pages 59 through 61 of the staff analysis and findings are applicable.

Claim 2C claims that traffic noise and traffic and noise are beyond the scope of the architectural review.

The architectural review process evaluates proposed unbuilt developments for compliance with applicable standards in TDC chapters 73A through 73G with related provisions in chapters 62, 63, 74, and 75.

Under TDC 33.0206, conditions of approval may be applied to ensure adequate public facilities, address development impacts, and implement code requirements.

A transportation impact analysis was reviewed by the city engineer, DKS associates, and ODOT, which all found the study met city and other standards and required no mitigation.

And ODOT found that the study and ODOT found that city and other standards are required no mitigation.

ODOT concurred that all affected intersections meet mobility standards, acknowledged limited capacity for further improvements along Oregon 99 West, and noted that while signal retiming could enhance flow, it is not considered a mitigation under the ODOT policy.

I previously addressed the appellant's claim of noise issues in slide 10, so I won't go back over the claim and how noise violations are addressed.

Exhibit A analysis and findings address transport transportation requirements on pages 59 through 61, and noise is discussed on page 25 with the applicable condition of approval.

AR-25 regulating future noise violations once the development is constructed under AR 24-0002 and operational.

Claim 2D claims that TDC Chapter 62 is not relevant AR criteria.

Chapter 62 Manufacturing Part Zone is the zoning district that LAM's campus is located in and is applicable, applicable to the review of Air 24-0002.

Chapter 62 lists permitted conditional and limited uses, limitations on uses and development standards such as setbacks.

City staff evaluated the proposed development in light of Chapter 62.

It's unclear how this would be grounds for reversing the ARB's decision approving AR 24-0002.

Exhibit A analysis and findings page 22 through 25 are applicable.

Claim 3, errors made by the city of Twilighton.

A failure to provide the last three pages of LAMS noise model to the ARB at their hearing.

The LAMTUX expansion environmental noise model is dated September 10th, 2025.

The city received this model on Wednesday, September 10th, 2025 at 442 p.m., the day of the architectural review board public hearing.

This is at a time most staff are having dinner prior to attending a night meeting if they had to attend one.

A technical printing issue issue initially caused the final three pages of the five-page noise model to be omitted, and the ARB was provided all pages for review and consideration prior to their decision to approve AR24-0002.

There is no requirement in Tweletin development code for a formal noise model in either TDC 32.140 ethical submittal and 33.020 for architectural reviews middle materials.

Community members may provide additional written and verbal comments during the hearing and up until the close of the public hearing comment portion of the hearing.

The timing of the noise model submission does not constitute an error by the city, nor does it provide grounds for to reverse the ARB's approval of error 24-002.

The concern raised by the appellant regarding the timeliness of providing LAMS noise model is not an architectural review requirement, criterion, or reason to overturn the ARB's decision approving AR-24-0002.

Claim three, unnecessary delays in releasing public records.

The appellant made two requests for public records, one on July 15th and a second request on July 21st, 2025, that he spotlighted in his written comments for September 8, 2025, and other comments attached to his comments.

This information is found in exhibit C.

The Deputy City Clerk provided a response on July 15th that new material had not yet been submitted.

The city policy for public information request is that the city shall respond to all requests as soon as practical practical and without unreasonable delay within five day business days or within five business days will explain why more time is needed for a full response.

Lamb officially submitted materials on July 21st and 22nd, 2025.

Access to the updated application materials was provided to the appellant on July 23rd, 2025.

The concern raised by the appellant regarding unnecessary delays in release of public information is not a criterion that is reviewed as part of the architectural review process and is not a reason for reversing the approval of the architectural review.

TDC 32.310 is the section of the development code applicable to the appeal process.

Staff provided memorandum addressing each of the applicants' claims in more detail.

The city did receive additional comments and videos from the appellant and his attorney.

The appellant submitted a petition that is in supplement exhibit L.

The city also received additional testimony from LAM that is included in the council packet as supplemental exhibit M.

Finally, we did receive one emailed comment from the appellant on November 7th, and two additional emailed comments from other individuals that have been made available for the council for their review.

Consideration and inclusion in the public record.

Hearing notices were sent out to all emailed addresses and street addresses that had provided comments pertaining to LAM's architectural review.

The City Council is asked to make a decision on the appeal or request for a review of the ARB's September 10th, 2025 decision, approving AR 24-0002 for Lamb's research expansion proposal.

Council may deny the appeal and affirm the architectural review board's September 10th, 2025 decision, approving the application with conditions.

This would deny the appeal, or approve the appeal and reverse the ARB's AR24-0002 decision and adopt a written order that clearly states the basis for the council's decision.

If the city council identifies approval criteria that are not satisfied and is inclined to uphold the appeal, it must continue the proceedings to allow the applicant an opportunity to modify the proposal or recommend conditions of approval that would allow the application to be approved.

And that ends my long-winded presentation.

Thank you.

So the next step in the public hearing is the entry of additional correspondence received in the director.

I believe that's been completed, correct?

Uh Kevin.

Your Honor, I believe everything is now in the record that was received.

All right.

Now I'll invite testimony in the following order.

Again, it'll be the proponent, then the appellant, uh, then people in favor of the proposal, and those folks oppose the proposal, and then we'll wrap up with rebuttal by Lamb.

So now invite uh Lamb Research and or their representatives to the uh table to present their testimony.

Welcome.

Right.

Okay.

Good evening, Mayor and Counselors.

I'm Ian Sisson, a land use planner with McKenzie.

And I have some slides to share, so I will try to pull those up here just a second.

Okay.

Looks like that's working.

Thank you to staff for the very thorough presentation.

I'll give a quick overview of some of the considerations for land use.

And before I do that, introduce the folks sitting next to me here.

We have Jen Auterness with Lamb Research and Dana Kraftchuk with Still Reeves, our land use counsel.

Other folks on the McKenzie team you may hear from this evening.

We have Brent Arendt, our traffic engineer, and Mike Reeder, uh, one of our architects.

And I'll pass it over to Jen to talk about the background of this project.

Good evening, Mayor.

City Council members.

My name is Jennifer Auternis.

There you go.

Thank you.

My name is Jennifer Auternis.

I'm a facilities director at LAM Research.

I oversee the site master planning for the site.

I've had the pleasure of being a part of LAMS growth over the last 25 years when the site was originally built.

We're the largest employer in Tualeton.

Our site is just over 75 acres, and we occupy LAM manufacturing and office buildings.

We're a company driven by innovation, and as you are aware, we are looking at expanding our RD operations.

The campus expansion is funded in part by the Oregon CHIPS Act, and the project will bring hundreds of jobs and stimulate local business growth.

We've had an outpouring of support.

And on the next slide, you can read some of the quotes that have been submitted by key officials in support of the project.

Regarding the site plan, over the last year we've worked hard to incorporate stakeholder feedback, including neighborhood comments from the neighborhood meetings.

In fact, we put the project on hold for months.

We shifted proposed buildings to the south, away from the neighborhood, and we closed the two proposed driveways that would have spilled out into Towalleton Road.

We received unanimous approval at both the IMP and AR hearings.

And LAM will continue their commitment to comply with all local codes and regulations.

We've spent months redesigning and preparing for this project.

We are eager to get started.

We're excited about the project, and we thank you for your time tonight.

As Jennifer mentioned, there has been a large number of support supporters who wrote letters for the project.

Here's a list of some of those.

One that we're proud of is the project team is a letter of support from Intel, and some of the highlights of that letter spoke to the large number of high-quality jobs provided by LAM and their investment in the community, advancement of STEM education and workforce development, and that the Tux project will strengthen the U.S.

semiconductor supply chain, accelerate innovation and chipmaking, and help ensure Oregon remains a global hub for semiconductor innovation.

This is a recent aerial photo of the LAM campus outlined in orange, and it shows the addition of building G near the South property line on Leviton and new parking along the eastern property line.

So as Keith described, this is a type 3 architectural review, and the proposal includes an office building, a lab building, central utilities building, storage building, expanded bulk gas yard, new parking, circulation, and landscaping, and a new driveway for truck access on Leviton Drive.

As Jennifer mentioned, there is no longer any access proposed for employees to Tualeton Road.

The existing gated emergency access will remain, and that driveway will continue to provide access for the adjacent property JAE.

Also, there's no new access proposed on 108th.

This project would continue to use the northernmost access, improving that and connecting it to the new parking areas that are proposed along the northern boundary of the site.

Here again is the overall site plan, and as Keith described, the new development is shown in teal color for new building area, the expanded bulk gas yard, and then in dark gray are new parking and drive circulation areas.

As for history of this application, two applications, including the IMP.

As for history of this application, two applications, including the IMP, we held a pre-application meeting back in June of last year with the city staff, and then a neighborhood meeting also in June.

And then submitted the IMP and AR applications July of last year.

And as Keith described, we had uh requested delays to the hearing to make some adjustments to the plans, and then came to the Planning Commission for the approval of the industrial master plan in August of this year, and the architectural review board for approval of AR 24-0002 back in September of this year.

For some context in terms of uh of land use and zoning, the property is in the manufacturing park zone and designated as such in a comprehensive plan.

One of the goals and some of the implementing policies here are to support business retention and growth, um, support to Walton's industrial lands as major local and regional employment centers, and to fully develop planned industrial areas.

And then for architectural review, chapter 33 of the Toaleton Development Code includes an extensive list of purpose statements, which are not directly approval criteria for the application, but speak to the reasons for architectural review, which do include supporting local businesses and industry.

I will now pass it over to Dana to speak to the approval criteria.

Good evening.

My name is Dana Krafchek.

I'm a land use attorney at Stoll Reeves here on behalf of LAM.

Um applicable criteria.

You hear this in the script.

Everyone's instructed to have their comments directed at the approval criteria.

Well, why does that matter?

Um there's there's two reasons, I think.

Uh one is in a quasi-judicial application like tonight.

Um, you've probably heard this before.

Your role is you're a judge, right?

Uh you consider the rules that are in front of you, you apply the evidence and the facts, and you make a decision.

That's very different than when you're in your legislative role making policies.

How should things be?

This is how I ought it ought to be.

This is what I want to happen for my city.

This is more of a judge role.

That's one reason this matters.

I think a bigger picture kind of macro reason it matters is rules matter.

Everyone needs certainty.

Everyone deserves certainty.

Stakeholders in the community, they deserve to know what are the rules, what are the standards that are at play here?

Employers that want to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in your community and bring hundreds of jobs early on, need to know what are the rules.

You know, can we make this investment?

Can we get these approvals?

Well, it depends on what the rules are.

That's why it's critically important to have laser focus on what are the approval criteria.

No one's trying to dodge anything.

No one's trying to say that's not important.

What we're trying to do is keep this focus on what are we doing here tonight?

It's architectural review, is what's at issue this evening.

These are the standards, things like materials, things like landscaping, things like height.

That's the purpose of this.

We're not disputing that the community has valid concerns about systemic ongoing issues.

That's just not architectural review.

Um, so I think you're gonna hear some frustration, probably from the community, maybe even from the applicant, maybe in staff's mind, I'm not sure.

Is because I think people are gonna think they're not being heard.

Well, they're not being heard because this is the wrong place to raise those issues.

And so that's going to be a theme that you're going to be hearing from me, being a lawyer in the room telling you.

Um, it's not that those aren't important issues.

It's not that they're not valid.

We're not opining on that.

We're just saying that this is not the form to bring those concerns up.

So that's a long-winded introduction.

Um, related to that, what's the scope of even what's before you?

So separate apart from the approval criteria, you know, concerns about the existing development.

That's not in front of you.

If there are issues with the existing development, the exclusive forum is code enforcement.

That's not me saying that.

That's what your municipal code says.

Your municipal code provides very detailed processes that could ultimately end up in front of a circuit court judge.

That's the forum for existing development.

The proposed development, the office building, the research lab, that's what we're talking about tonight.

Speculation about what could happen next in the future, not relevant tonight.

That would be subject to its own process.

Going back to approval criteria, and I'm gonna get a little in the weeds here.

Not every single thing in your development code is an approval standard.

Not every single thing in your municipal code is an approval standard.

You know, an obvious example is procedural sections.

You know, that that's not an approval criteria.

But as relevant here, there's really three different categories of standards out there.

One are the mandatory approval standards.

We talked about those as development standards in our materials.

We have to meet those in order to get approved.

And if we're we can't show that they're met with our proposal, it has to we have to show that it's feasible for those standards to be met.

So things like what percentage of your site is landscaped.

We have to meet that, and we have.

You've got to control it from here.

I'm not sure how to do that.

It's just the arrow key.

Okay.

Um, on the procedural issues, um, I'm not gonna go into detail in this, but there's this general rule if there's an allegation of a procedural error, and it's essentially no harm, no foul.

And what that means is if the person's substantial rights have not been prejudiced, then a minor procedural error is excusable.

What does substantial rights mean?

It means the right to fully participate and prepare for a public hearing.

Um, the appellant has participated verbally in writing over almost a year now.

So these allegations of things like the CIAO only got emailed notice and not mailed notice of the pre-development meeting, that does not rise to the level of a procedural error that can be the basis for denying this project.

Okay, the noise issues.

You know, I really thought this evening about how much detail to go into in noise.

Because the bottom line is as a performance standard, it's not applicable.

But we know that's what the community cares about.

And I feel like it's sucked us down this rabbit hole of things that aren't applicable to architectural review.

And so I'm going to go into some detail, but keep that in mind that a lot of this information is to provide balance to some of the testimony that's been provided, and so that you're aware of the how very seriously LAM and the city are taking the noise issues, but again, they're not part of the approval criteria.

So in architectural review, these mandatory development standards are in section 73 of your code, A through G.

Where the noise standards reside are in chapter 63.

And that is the section of the code that has these very generally applicable performance standards.

Your code does give you the authority to impose conditions of approval that if those conditions are necessary for the project to comply with mandatory development standards.

Even though it's not required, the applicant provided evidence of both the existing development, it's compliance with the noise standard and the proposed development.

And all of this was provided to the ARB and the record, and we we took it kind of in three chunks because as this process was unfolding, we had our noise expert evaluate the evidence that had been provided.

So some of the neighbors provided an acoustic survey that took a noise measurement from a home across the street from Lamb's property one evening, and that survey measured a noise level at 52 decibels, and the standards 50 decibels.

And so you we got a lot of testimony about all the violations that that LAM is currently in.

So we had our noise expert evaluate that acoustic study first.

And that expert said we're not disputing the measurement that was taken, but there were defects in the methodology.

Basically, they couldn't connect the dots between that outcome and that it came from LAM, and there was a lot of technical reasons why.

So why does that matter?

Well, if you were the circuit court judge or the enforcement officer ruling on this, you would consider and weigh this evidence.

But for purposes of this evening, we think that this sort of difference in opinion in the experts is enough to show you that it is not a foregone conclusion that LAM's existing facility is in violation.

The next thing we asked our expert to do is to see in their own opinion whether LAM's facilities were in compliance with the noise standard.

So task one was evaluate the evidence that's been provided.

Task two was go out there and measure it on your own.

And LAM's noise expert went out in the evening during the quiet periods and took a lot of measurements pursuant to the methodology in the noise code, pursuant to accepted methodologies for DEQ, and they found that at every location the noise standards were met.

Those were the only things that were in excess of DEQ standards.

All of LAM's facilities met the decibel and Hertz standards.

And that modeling shows again, compliance is occurring and compliance is expected.

What this noise signature shows you, and it's a little hard to read, but the the green is basically the areas where it will be 50 decibels or less, and you can see that there is a red outline, that red is where the decibel level would be higher than 50 decibels, but that's all within LAM's property and all on industrial property.

So to the residential area to the north, it is well within the regulated noise levels.

So again, none of this is relevant to the approval tonight, but we don't want to ignore what we know a lot of people in this room care about.

And this is something that we expect that the enforcement officer is taking very seriously.

Why is it confusing you know for us to be talking about this?

Why are we talking about something irrelevant other than just we don't want people to feel ignored?

Um I I think though litigating this in front of this body is confusing.

Um exhibit K has testimony to the hearings of the enforcement officer complaining about how the enforcement proceeding is going.

Are you supposed to do something about that?

No, because this is a different body.

This body is really evaluating only architectural review.

I think these are just really tangible examples of why it's important to stay in your lane in terms of what standard you're applying.

And the performance standard is not really applied as part of this process.

So this is just my my conclusion.

Um even though compliance with the noise standards is not a criterion, they're performance standards.

Um we've given you plenty of evidence to show that we are currently complying with the noise standards, and the the project is is feasible for it to comply.

The next section is um traffic issues.

So we're going to call our traffic expert up here to talk about that.

Um I'm happy to answer any questions or if you want to hold them until the end.

That works too.

You will hold them.

Okay.

Okay.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Brent Arend.

I'm a traffic engineer with McKenzie, and uh I prepared the traffic analysis that was submitted with the application supplemental letter for the AR hearing, and then the November 7th letter that I think you all have addressing some of the appellants' uh concerns.

Okay.

Uh the appellant has provided a lot of testimony related to the access on 108.

And there is a gate there, but the gate uh is open during uh business hours, and it's available for everyone to use, although it is that existing north access is rarely used uh currently, and historically it's been uh little used as well.

Um at build out, we estimate the access will serve about six percent of campus trips.

So about 50 trips in the peak hour is all that will use that driveway.

By comparison, there's other driveways that will have four to five times that volume.

Uh the ones that's down on Leviton, for example.

There's no new access on 108.

Uh the this north access has been in existence since 2001.

And the two other accesses on 108th were constructed with the building G project.

Uh and those are open now.

Uh and then staff's documented this is an existing driveway and provided findings just demonstrate uh the applicable criteria uh in conjunction with the proposed development have been met.

And my letter goes into to detail.

I won't speak to all all the issues, but all the reasons why this driveway meets you know operations with spacing, et cetera.

So it complies with all the standards of Chapter 75.

And uh there was no connection uh between the new parking for building G and this driveway, and no connection is proposed with this application.

Uh if it had been, then you'd see higher volumes on that.

We're intending to limit it to the parking and that new north access is really what all that will use this.

So just for historical reference, this is the uh master plan from 2001, and I actually worked on this project.

Um you can clearly see that parking was always planned at the north side of the campus up near the intersection of Twaleton and 108th.

And yeah, there were two driveways uh planned at that time.

There were three today, but that north driveway there is very close to where that existing north driveway uh exists.

So just to give you a little background on that.

And this is a photo from actually 2002, after uh what we we called phase one back then of uh the campus, those those four buildings on the east side were constructed, and that access was uh provided at that time.

So clarification of impacts.

So a lot of concerns have been raised by the appellants about how this access will impact Twalleton Road.

And what we've estimated is about 10% of the new trips, or about 25 trips in the peak hour, would uh actually find their way onto Twaleton Road between 108th and 115th, the main area of concern, right?

And up to 10 of those trips would find their way down Hazelbrook to the 99W intersection.

Now our our hope is that none of the trips cut through the neighborhood, but being realistic, we know that some will.

Um which now that substantial completion is done at Twalton Sherwood Road, it actually shows less through traffic on Twalton Road, and it shows a small increase in traffic turning to and from 108th, which is likely related to occupancy of building G, which has 500 employees now.

At the time of the counts, uh we did counts in spring and uh spring of 24, and then again in spring of 25, just so we had more current counts.

Um that represents about 10% of the of the trips for building G.

So it's right in line with what we had estimated estimated, so I'm very confident in that 25 trip number.

So then there was testimony about the the elevated crash rate.

Well, there were five crashes over five years at 108th and Twalaton.

There were one, there was one crash reported in this in the same five years at the Twalaton and 115th intersection.

So, first of all, I want to be clear that we can only go go by crashes that are reported.

Doesn't mean that that's how many there were, it's just what was reported and documented.

Um but both intersections have crash rates that are below the average and below the thresholds where you would need to look to mitigation.

So while it's true that we reported a crash rate that was about five times as high, neither one is above that threshold, and no mitigation would be needed.

And then there was also uh testimony about uh you know the impact of cut-through trips uh past the uh school area on 115th and Hazelbrook causing additional conflicts with the school traffic.

But the peak hour in the in the afternoon where we would see those cut-through trips trying to leave the campus and go to 99, that's after 4.30.

So well after the the school gets out, which I believe is uh just after 3 p.m., like at 310, uh if I recall correctly.

So the those trips again they'd be about 10 and they'd be well after uh the peak of the school.

So again, the impacts on Twalleton Road.

Um so there is congestion there, but we did you know, in my letter I addressed how the volumes have gone down now that construction is complete uh essentially for Twalton Sherwood Road.

Uh it's about 125 in the AM and about 350 in the P in the PM.

Um so as was noted before Lamb went away from uh direct access to Twalleton Road based in part on the neighbor concerns, and that's significantly reduced the potential for impacts on Twalleton Road.

Again, about 25 trips, and like I said, 125 reduction in the in the PM peak hour and 350 in the AM.

And I pointed out that the reduction just from the construction being done on Twalton Sherwood Road is a larger reduction than what Lamb would add to the roadway.

So again, both the city and their consultant and ODOT all agree that you know the the traffic analysis shows that all the intersections would be in conformance with Twalaton's requirements, and they agree with the conclusions.

ODOT also concurs.

And especially at Hazelbrook, you know, they agree that it doesn't make sense to mitigate that location because that would only encourage more cut through traffic through the neighborhood if you actually improve those delays of turning right onto 99W, and we don't want to do that.

The other thing I would mention here is that while that particular approach of Hazelbrook to 99 has long delays and may not meet the operational standards of the city or ODOT, ODOT's focus is on the highway flow and keeping that in line with their standards, and that's what ODOT is concerned about.

You probably all know there's a lot of side streets that have long delays and long cues, and they don't warrant a signal or or any other mitigation.

That's just kind of the way it is.

You maintain the flow on the main line.

So ODOT said uh no further analysis of the facilities is required.

So we had actually recommended uh a couple improvements, even though nothing was required.

One of them, as been mentioned before, was to um uh try to improve the left turn coordination uh on 124th between highway 99 and Twaleton Road uh by uh improving the timing.

Uh ODOT may or may not do that, um and the county operates the signal for the city, so it's kind of up to them to agree to do that.

Well, that was our recommendation, whether or not they do.

Uh again, that's up to them, but I think it would help to improve the flow if they could.

Um, but it still meets the standards either way.

Uh and then the second was just to make sure that site distances are are available from each of the driveways and intersections.

So, in conclusion, the application demonstrates compliance with all the applicable criteria.

Uh use of the existing north access with the proposed modifications to widen it is what we're we're modifying it to do.

Uh it meets the applicable criteria for width, spacing, safety, and impacts.

Everything in chapter 75 uh is met.

And the city will review that in detail when they look at the construction plans.

And uh the traffic study complies with TDC's 74 440.

I think that's the end of our presentation.

Oh, yeah, just our summary again.

We've been up here a long time.

Uh any questions for us.

I've got to hold the questions till okay, the end, the end.

Okay, not just the end of our presentation.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Renting break.

Uh, we're gonna take a short bio break uh before the appellant and their representative comes up, so five minutes.

About five-minute break.

And your honor, I just remind the council not to have any conversations with any interested party in the audience to uh while you're on break.

Thank you for your patience on the break.

I'm going ahead go ahead and uh reconvene the meeting and invite uh Brett Hamilton and or his representatives to the table.

Welcome.

Thank you, Mayor Bubinick and City Councilors.

My name is Bret Hamilton.

I live on Calispell Street, and I'm the appellant.

And this is my attorney, Mr.

Mulkey.

Hi, nice to meet you.

So I think the noise issue is well documented and very clear.

So tonight I'd like to focus on four aspects of the traffic.

Necessity, adverse impacts, peak volume, and safety.

The most important number in LAM's traffic study is the total added daily site trips, and that's 2,036.

And that number has stayed consistent for this whole time.

That's new site trips as a result of the Tux project.

And LAM estimates that 10% of that traffic will turn at 108th on Twalleton Road.

So 10% of 2036 is a 203 cars per day entering and exiting Twalleton Road at 108th.

And tonight I will demonstrate that this proposal is both dangerous and unnecessary.

As far as I can tell, LAM has never in the last 17 months attempted to demonstrate that they actually need this entrance at 108th.

If you've seen in our video, you know that Levitton Drive has more than enough room to handle all the tux traffic.

So if Lamb doesn't open this 108th entrance to employees, they will be just fine.

What we are asking for will not put Lamb in any hardship.

Lamb's most recent traffic letter says that the city is looking for ways to reduce the amount of commuter traffic cutting through our neighborhood.

Well, opening the 108th will absolutely encourage Lamb's employees to cut through our neighborhood by going down 115th right into the path of Hazelbrook Middle School students.

And I'll address the traffic peak hour in a second.

The best way to discourage this cut through is simply to keep the 108th axis closed to employee traffic.

And the city absolutely has the authority and the justification to do that.

Adverse impacts.

Lamb claims, Lamb claims that the 108th north axis will not cause significant adverse impacts to the vicinity.

But their data shows that it will.

For example, the Hazelbrook on ramp to Highway 99, it absolutely is in the vicinity of the LAN campus.

It's 1,500 feet away.

That's why the Hazelbrook on ramp was included in the traffic study.

Lamb's added traffic will cause this on ramp to fail to meet performance standards.

And there is no doubt that that would qualify as a significant adverse impact to the vicinity.

So peak traffic volume.

So Lamb is showing, as we said, 203 added trips per day at the 108th intersection.

At the same time, they are claiming that their peak traffic load at this intersection will be less than 25 cars per hour.

So 25 is only 12% of that total daily volume.

And so I've been wondering how on earth can you get 25 cars in the max peak hour to reach 230 cars in the whole day.

But the numbers actually add up because it would take eight hours of peak traffic to reach the total, which I thought was like that's impossible, but it turns out that's exactly what's going on.

So just like rush hour, which is as we know, more than like three hours long, lamb's commuter traffic is spread out over many hours also.

So looking at just one AM hour and one PM hour ignores the other 76% of their added traffic volume.

So Lamb's traffic is not concentrated in a peak or a peak hour.

It's spread over a plateau that is many hours long, just like rush hour.

So safety.

The intersection of 108th is not a safe place to send 200 more cars per day, primarily because of the site distance issues.

Using Lamb's numbers from their traffic study, I want to quantify just how dangerous it is turning at 108th compared to 115th.

We've all used 115th at Twalton Road, so we all hopefully you all know what that intersection is like.

It carries four times the amount of peak turning traffic as 108th does.

And that makes a lot of sense because a lot of people turn at 115th already.

And Lamb's data agrees with this lived experience.

So by comparison, not many people turn at 108th because they know it's dangerous, but just how dangerous is it?

So right now, as was mentioned before, the yearly crash rate is five times higher at 108th than 115th.

But that's not the whole story.

108th only carries one quarter of the amount of turning traffic.

And if you combine those two factors, the number that really matters is the crash rate per turning car.

And that's what we want to look at is apples to apples.

On 108th, the crash rate per turning car is 20 times higher than that same rate on 115th.

Not 20%, 20 times.

That means that if you turn from 108th to Twalleton Road, your risk of getting in an accident is 20 times the risk of that same turn at 115th.

And this matches up with experience.

108th is dangerous to turn out.

Every time I do it, I think to myself, why am I going this way?

Adding more traffic from LAM to this intersection will increase the number of crashes.

And it's not just going to be dangerous for the people who are courageous or crazy enough to turn at 108th.

It will be dangerous for every single car traveling along Twalleton Road who has to go through that intersection.

And for those of us who live here, we don't have another route.

We have to cross that intersection.

Tualleton Road is our only road for local access, and adding more LAM traffic here will be dangerous and unnecessary.

So let's look at how traffic volume and safety interact with each other.

Lamb claims that adding 25 cars per peak hour at Twalton Road at 108th is not a big share of the total traffic road to Twalton Road total volume.

But their problem with their position is that all 25 of Lamb's trips at that intersection are going to be turning, not going straight.

And that's the crux of this issue.

Lamb is comparing cars turning to cars going straight through, and that is apples to oranges.

The best way to evaluate this intersection is to compare the amount of turning traffic now versus after the proposal, and that's when the danger happens.

The amount of traffic turning at 108th right now in the peak hour is 91 in the morning and 66 in the afternoon.

Lamb is proposing to add to those hours an additional 25 cars turning here.

That's a 27 to 33% increase in the amount of turning traffic at 108th and Twalton Road.

And that's the issue.

As a result, we can expect a 27 to 33% increase in traffic accidents at this intersection because the traffic turning is what causes the accidents, not the cars going straight through.

And this is a significant adverse traffic on the nearby residential zone properties.

Everyone who has to take that street and the adjacent streets.

So to summarize, 108th is just a bad place to access Twalton Road.

And the thought of LAM sending 200 more cars per day through this intersection, it's just a really bad idea.

That is why the city is absolutely justified in issuing an access restriction to just keep 108th closed to employee traffic.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for holding this hearing, and thank you for considering our position.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the council.

My name is Andrew Mulkey.

Just for reference, my PO box is on the uh letters that I've submitted, but it's uh 66562 Portland, Oregon, zip code 67290.

I'd like to begin by addressing some of the arguments and statements made by the applicants council about kind of characterizing what many of the noise criteria as simply performance standards.

Um I disagree with that characterization, and I don't believe that it's supported by the plain language in the in the development code.

Um after all, these are criteria that apply to the development of industrial projects as stated in Chapter 63.

And I'd like to remind the council that these are development code standards.

They're in the development code.

They are not in the municipal code, or they're not in the section of the code that talks about code enforcement for existing uses.

I also want to point out that the reference to these standards, the development code does reference the enforcement code standards, but it says development and uses must comply with these standards.

And I believe that the time to address that is currently now.

We, you know, we have to bring an enforcement action, or we have to shut you down, essentially.

Um I don't believe that that's that's not a very logical way to craft a development code.

You should know the city should know what's going in before it issues approval for that use.

Uh and so to that end, um, you know, that there's there's some points that I I do agree with the applicant's council on is that the applicant must show that it's feasible to meet these uh these standards, whether you call them performance standards or just simply standards that you need to meet for the purpose of approving the use.

Um and that is where the applicant has really fallen short here.

Um yes, they've provided a model, um, but I'll point out that that the modeling study was done, I believe, looking at noise five feet above ground level.

Well, that's not what the members of the community who live near the existing plant and facilities are talking about.

They're talking about noise at the rooftop level that travels, you know, it's not blocked by a building.

It travels far into the neighborhoods, and and you can hear it.

It's uh a humming, a pulsing noise.

You can also hear a hissing noise.

Um, and depending on the weather, um, it's you know, stronger or or weaker.

Um, but there are times where um it's that noise is very prevalent.

And so we've submitted, yes, a uh noise complaint into the record, but I I'm not no one is asking you to enforce that noise complaint here, but how it is relevant to you is it shows the types of noises that Lamb's facilities and their equipment create.

Um these are not necessarily noises, at least farther into the neighborhood that exceed the loud noise definition or the 50 decibel level, but they would qualify as a noise disturbance.

Um that is specifically referenced in the development standards and in chapter 63 as what the uses and development that are being approved in this zone in and industrial uses have to comply with.

So you have to show compliance and that compliance is feasible before you get approval for development, before you get approval for building.

Um that is simply so that you don't want to end up in a situation where an applicant spends lots of money and invests lots of time and money to build something that is simply going to result in a noise complaint and a violation of the noise ordinances of the city.

So that's the practical reason why this needs to be considered now, in addition to the legal reasons of showing that you know the applicant has to show that it's feasible to meet to meet those standards now before it constructs and and as it gains approval.

Finally, or not finally, but I I guess the next point I'd like to make on this on this topic is that it's it's really the applicant's burden here to show that it that it can meet these criteria, and what it's provided in the record is simply not sufficient.

Um the applicant is the you know, the person who they know what equipment they're going to be installing, they know where the noise is coming from, um, they've been made aware of of the noises that come from their current facilities, and they have the the knowledge and the expertise to understand all right, what noises need to be canceled out, what what humming and pulsing is being heard in the neighborhoods, how do we cancel that out at the facility so that it's not traveling those distances.

Um yet we haven't seen that information.

What we have is a modeling study that looks at noise produced at five feet above ground level.

That's not that's not what we're talking about, that's not the concern.

Um they've failed to address the combination of noise from the existing facilities and noise that would be built from their new facilities.

And um, yeah, so and then I'd like to point out that what appellant is asking for here is not unreasonable.

It's not for a denial of the plant itself, although technically one of the things we have asked for is denying it if they cannot address these issues.

But overall, it's that no, the zone allows this type of use, but the applicant needs to show that it's going to be able to comply with all of these noise criteria, and they have not done so.

Um, however, um, you know, one thing that could be imposed is a condition that requires LAM to evaluate the noise that's going to be coming, you know, at rooftop and determine what types of equipment are actually currently causing the humming and pulsing and hissing noises, which they haven't they haven't done, but that's something they could do.

And then to simply, if those noises are going to be replicated in the current facility, in order to meet the criteria in chapter 63 to say you need to provide a proposal that will cancel out those noises or otherwise mitigate them so that they are not they're not traveling into the neighborhoods and disturbing people.

So again, I I believe that all of those are very reasonable uh conditions of approval to impose, and that the AR board and by virtue of their authority, the city council has the ability to impose those criteria and the specific manner in which you have that authority have has been explained both in my letter and actually the applicant's letter.

I think we're pointing to the same the same approval criteria standard there, that you have the authority to impose restrictions and conditions of approval that um ensure that the applicant meets meets all the applicable criteria.

And before moving on to traffic, in because it's it's related to this, I just want to point out that the purpose of the IR board.

I mean, it's it's a little bit of a misnomer, at least to me as I read it, that it's the architectural review board.

However, their purpose is much broader than just simply the way a building looks.

In their purpose statement, it says that one of the one of the goals of the AR board is just to, and this is particularly relevant here where we're talking about noise and traffic, but to sustain the comfort, health, safety, tranquility, and contentment of residents to attract new residents and thereby to promote and protect the peace, health, and welfare of the city.

So within this, the AR board does have the authority to require uh impose conditions of approval to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Tualetin Development Code.

Again, that includes Chapter 63.

Um if it if noise were simply something that was to be considered after the fact, it wouldn't need to be written in the development code because the municipal code already takes care of it.

Um it wouldn't even needed to be mentioned, but the fact that it is mentioned here, it's mentioned not only in chapter 63, it's also mentioned in chapter 62, where you know the purpose statement says that the uses allowed here must not cause objectionable noise emanating from the property.

Um so that I think is where you know, certainly where appellant disagrees with the applicant's interpretation of the code, and I would say also disagrees somewhat with the staff's interpretation of the code because those provisions are relevant and they need to be applied here, and the applicant needs to show that it can meet them or that it's at least feasible to meet them.

Um you heard that very same standard from their attorney.

And that's something that they've not done here.

And it's simply a matter of them failing to meet their burden in this case.

Again, for as much as noise was mentioned in these earlier proceedings, it seems like the evidence that the applicant has proposed or submitted related to the noise comes kind of at the last minute.

It came, you know, just at the AR board hearing, and now they come to this proceeding and they say, oh, none of this is relevant.

We just did that as a courtesy.

Um I you know disagree, and I believe that you have the authority to uh disagree as well with that position.

Finally, for traffic, I want to point out some of the facts that the applicant's made or stated in its presentation, specifically related to the northernmost access way that we've all been talking about on 108th Avenue.

Um so, okay, that access was built in 2001, apparently.

Um it's not clear we don't have a permit in the record that approved that access way, so it's not clear what its purpose was and the extent of the use that was actually going to be allowed through that access point.

Um the applicant has said that currently it's rarely used, um, and it appears that maybe it's only used for construction contractors or providing additional emergency access.

And we also heard that it's not currently connected to much of anything.

It's not clear to me quite what it is or is not connected to, but it sounds like it's not connected to the main parking lots that are appellants' concern right now, nor is it connected to the proposed parking lots, um, but that it would be in the future.

Um so it's it's that uh concern that that access is is going to be used as part of LAM's uh facility expansion.

Now, why is that a concern?

So there's evidence in the record that the crash rate at the intersection of 108 and Towallaton Road is above average.

Now, the applicant pointed out it doesn't meet the 90% or 90th uh percentile threshold that the um would say requires further study.

However, there's enough to show that it is a higher risk intersection than other intersections of its type.

Um again, we know that more trips will go through that intersection if it's allowed to be used for this expansion.

Um, and we know that that is going to potentially expose people to greater risk of crash in doing that.

We also know that there's a risk of uh, or that there's a current practice cut through from to Walleton Drive, uh, excuse me, Twellaton Road up 115th and to Hazelbrook and then on to 99, that that currently occurs, and that it the occurrence of that will increase with the uh expansion of the use of that northernmost access on 108.

So all of those kind of facts provide enough enough evidence for this body to conclude that there is a significant adverse impact to the vicinity of relying on this northernmost access for the for LAM's expansion.

And so again, it's not a matter of asking you to you know deny the facility or deny the expansion.

It's simply what appellant is asking for, and what I think many people in the community are asking for is simply a reasonable condition of approval that says, look, we know that there's going to be these increased risks associated with the use of this northernmost access point.

You really haven't told us that it's necessary for your expansion.

It's just something that's there and happens, you're gonna you're gonna be using it.

Um so why not have a condition of approval that says don't connect it?

Continue continue to be able to use it for a construction contractor use and emergency vehicle access, but don't connect it to the main parking lots that are going to be the source of these additional employee trips that were analyzed in the TIA.

So leave it unconnected and and therefore avoid those significant at adverse impacts to the vicinity, not only um increasing the uh the number of trips through uh above average risky intersection um and also you know, I think causing um or contributing towards uh more trips at an intersection, that being the Hazel Dell and Oregon 99 intersection that is already beyond capacity, and finally having the added benefit added benefit of not causing additional cut through of the local neighborhood by other employees that are um exiting through that through that 108 access point.

Finally, I just want to point out this is kind of a technical issue, um, but that I believe that many of the findings um related to these issues from noise and traffic, specifically related to the issues related to the 108 intersection and or the 108 access point.

And um the the additional noise are simply conclusory.

They say, you know, LAM w will meet these criteria, of course, but it doesn't explain why or what evidence shows that LAM will meet the criteria.

Uh and so for those reasons they're they're simply not adequate to support a decision in this case.

And then finally, I'm also concerned that a number of the traffic-related conditions of approval are asking LAM.

I apologize, I can't remember and I didn't write it down off the top of my head, but many of the conditions say, oh, we'll refer to like 3, 11, and 16 or something.

And those are the conditions of approval that are going to show that we meet all these traffic-related impacts and requirements.

My concern is that the way those conditions are are written is that they're going to allow LAM to submit evidence of compliance with those conditions of approval after the fact, after the close of this public hearing, and that there will be no basically ability of the public to view what's being submitted and also to ensure that they are going to be meeting these um otherwise like discretionary criteria that I think require the application of judgment and really should be subject to what this what this proceeding is, which is a quasi judicial proceeding, and it's not clear to me that those standards will be met in that case.

So again, um I believe that appellants ask here is certainly within the scope of the development code, and um this city council is well within uh its authority to require um require and impose these conditions of approval that appellant is seeking again what I think very reasonable considering the use that's that's being proposed here.

Tell us tell us what noises your equipment is going to be producing and your facilities are going to be producing.

Tell us how you're going to mitigate them to ensure that you can meet compliance with these criteria that are listed in Chapter 63.

And then finally simply don't expand the use of the existing access on the northernmost access for 108th.

Um to avoid the uh increase in in traffic risk associated with that with that access weight.

Thank you.

And I guess if you have any questions, we're happy to answer any of them.

I'm not sure.

We'll do it at the end.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So this uh now brings us to testimony from folks uh who that wish to testify in favor of the proposal.

Please limit your comments to three minutes.

I have several folks signed on uh in support of Lamb's application.

Uh so I'll do that first, but you do not have to be signed up, but I will take the sign-ups first.

Uh first sign-up I have is uh Anglia Jackson from the Tualton Area Chamber of Commerce.

Hello again, Mayor and Councillors.

On September 18th, uh the Chamber of Commerce brought Oregon Business and Industries, Angela Wilhelms to the Tualton Country Club for a key leader's breakfast to talk about uh Oregon's competitiveness agenda.

And what we learned there that day was that Oregon's 2025 ranking for business friendliness was 47th in the country, 47th.

The three problems that we need to address, she said, were Oregon is an expensive place in which to live and operate a business.

Oregon creates unnecessary obstacles to success.

Oregon's political culture undervalues the private sector.

Lamb as a business in Tualaton is so incredibly powerful and important to this city.

They are uh Tualeton's largest employer with thousands of full-time employees and contractors.

The Tux Expansion Project represents hundreds of millions of dollars in investment across Tualaton, Washington County, and Oregon.

This company is has such a community commitment.

They've been part of the community for over 20 years.

Beyond jobs and investment, LAM supports local STEM education, girls' leadership programs, and housing assistance for under-resourced families.

Their long-standing record shows they are responsible and engaged and an engaged corporate partner.

Not only that, but the membership in our business community for the chamber voted LAM for their excellent work in the industry, the incredible workforce they employ, and their generosity to the community.

In the the Towalton Area Chamber of Commerce Business Membership voted LAM Research Business Leader of the Year in 2024.

I can't say enough about how incredibly important this company is to this city.

And when we were sitting in that breakfast with Angela Wilhelms, and they were hearing all these problems with LAM.

A Vancouver city councilman stood up and said, listen, we'll give anything to have LAM.

Lamb, listen to us.

Come see us.

We will make it easy for you to come across the river.

Is that what this city wants?

These citizens must understand that LAM research is critically important to the Tiwalleton, critically important.

I'm here tonight because the Chamber of Commerce, their mission is to support, to promote and to advocate for the businesses of Tiwallaton.

And the reason that we do that, and I feel so strongly about it, is because I love this city, and I love these citizens.

And without our business community, we won't have the resources to keep this city as beautiful as it is.

Thank you so much for hearing me.

Next I have uh Monique, Greater Portland Inc.

Good evening.

Hi, Mayor uh City Council.

My name is Monique Claiborne.

I'm the CEO and president of Greater Portland Inc., the public-private partnership responsible for shortening, strengthening trade-sector job growth across the Portland Vancouver region.

Our work is centered on helping employers grow, helping communities thrive, and ensuring that this region remains competitive in the global economy.

Lamb Research embodies exactly what that mission looks like in practice.

Lamb has been an anchor employer in Toaleton for more than two decades, and today they are the city's largest private employer with more than 3,800 full-time employees and contractors.

Their tools power nearly every computer chip in the world, yet they choose to innovate, invest, and expand right here in this community.

LAM's commitment to Oregon goes far beyond the walls of their facilities.

They have invested STEM programs for local students, supported skill building initiatives for girls and underserved communities, and partnered on culturally specific housing stability programs, demonstrating their depth as a community partner as well as a global industry leader.

The project before you today is a continuation of that commitment.

The Tux project represents hundreds of millions of dollars in regional investment, strengthening U.S.

semiconductor manufacturing, improving supply chain resilience, and generating high wage jobs and new opportunities for local suppliers and vendors.

It aligns with the governor's priorities with statewide semiconductor strategy and with the regional economic goals, GPI advances with partners across the public and private sectors.

Lamb has worked thoughtfully and collaboratively with staff and agencies.

This proposal meets the relevant approval criteria and its forward looking growth that's consistent with Tawallatin's economic future.

On behalf of Greater Portland Inc., I offer strong support for LAM's expansion.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this evening.

Thank you.

Next up I have Elizabeth, Westside Economic Alliance.

Good evening, members of the council.

For the record, Elizabeth Mazar Myers, executive director of the West Side Economic Alliance.

We have submitted written testimony.

Excuse me, and sustainable economy.

Since I've submitted the written testimony that I've started that are specific to the project, I want to take a moment to place tonight's hearing in the context of what's happening across our regional and state economy.

As of September, statewide, we are seeing layoffs at the level of five to six hundred a month, numbers not seen since the Great Recession in 2008 and 2009.

From Q2 of 2024 to Q2 of 2025, the private sector in Oregon lost 11,000 jobs.

Lost, shed, those are gone.

And then of course, the University of Oregon report from earlier this year.

My colleagues talked about business uh retention and folks uh uh from uh Vancouver lowering our businesses.

400 businesses were interviewed by University of Oregon.

26% of those talked about having been approached by out-of-state recruiters.

Of that 26%, 68% either left Oregon or expanded elsewhere.

These are real numbers.

We should all be really afraid of this.

And it's more than that.

Our friends at IBW Local 28, excuse me, IBEW Local 48, these are electrical workers.

They have an out-of-work list that just hit 1,000.

It's the same for the uh plumbers and steam fitters, sheet metal workers, everybody's seeing their out-of-work list grow.

And I can tell you on my way to work this morning, as I've seen in so many weeks in the past, my local food pantry.

There's a line out of out that food pantry before the door even opens.

This project is happening on land zoned for industrial use.

It's an expansion of a current campus that will add 600 permanent jobs plus the four to six hundred construction workers that need to finish the build out.

These jobs are needed as soon as we can create them in our region.

And at a time when businesses are taking offers to leave the state or expand elsewhere.

This is a business who's choosing to expand here, choosing to invest in this community, and choosing to expand our local workforce.

When businesses seek to expand in our region, and they are good neighbors who listen to and respond to their community, we should be encouraging them, not putting up roadblocks.

We've heard about the different things that Lamb has done in regards to investment in the community, so I won't repeat those, but I will say we have to remember in specific and in regards to this project.

Lamb did go back to the drawing board and reconsider their campus build out.

They changed the road traffic plans that they had put together.

Thank you.

Look, at WA, we believe that a vibrant economy includes businesses that help move folks to and through the middle class.

This is a project that will help us do that.

Thank you.

Any other folks uh in the room who would like to testify in favor of the application?

Uh basically everybody in Zoom.

All right.

I'll now switch over to those persons interested uh in testifying in opposition to the proposal.

I have one person signed up, but again, you don't have to be signed up, but I will take this person first.

Uh Marius Brieson.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Maris Bryson.

I live on 113th Avenue, just north of uh the Lamb campus of Twilight Road.

Um I'll try to keep uh under three minutes.

Uh yes, uh we need the jobs uh tremendously, and yes, we need the priority taxes into the city coffer, and yes, we need Twilatin to expand and become a livable city.

Uh yes, uh also uh Lamb removed the two roads originally planned on their proposal at the 115th and the Hadden 12.

Um, at this point, I oppose the current LAM plan for expansion for the two main reasons already mentioned, the increased traffic on Toilatin Road and uh current noise condition plus the future noise conditions that they're gonna affect thousands of people living off Tuaratin Road on the north side.

Um the expansion of the campus should be approved once these two uh topics are negotiated and mitigated.

Uh I would like to point out that when Lamb had the only community meeting in spring of 2024, they had the two roads on Toilatin Road access, plus the buildings and all that.

By the time it got submitted to the city, and we had another meeting to review it this year, the plan completely changed.

And community had no chance to review it ahead of time.

Nothing happened for 12 months.

Community was not involved, and we didn't know that they completed completely shifted their buildings to the south of the campus.

I wonder why, because they are gonna make too much noise for the community, and they remove the two roads realizing the accidents they are gonna produce.

Um also I would like to point out that they are ready to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, probably a billion by the end of the project on this campus.

And a lot of that, I don't know how much, but I would guess 20% at least comes from Oregon Chips Act and the federal IRA implemented by previous administration.

And all we're asking is pennies of measures to negotiate the traffic and the noise.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh anyone else would like to uh testify uh in opposition that's in the room come on up.

Please uh state your name and your address for the record, please.

Good evening.

Name is Russell Street, 10085 Southwest Hazelbrook Road.

And anybody in our neighborhood already knows traffic is ugly getting on to uh Twalton Road.

Uh I don't believe anyone here is opposed to Lamb expanding, growing, being a good employer, being a good tax base for the city.

All we're trying to do is put some controls on their traffic to keep our neighborhoods safe and livable.

There is Levington Road, which is an industrial type road that connects to Twalton Sherwood Road and 99.

It is in an industrial area.

So if their traffic goes down, Lamb's traffic goes down to Lovington Road and it backs up.

What is the harm if they have to wait a couple three cycles of a light to either get to Twalton Sherwood Road, which is now pretty much finished and does handle traffic well.

So that's kind of up to the state.

ODOT to fix that if that becomes a problem.

And again, the only thing that we're trying to do is keep our neighborhoods safe and livable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Bonnie Peterson, and I live at 10155, Southwest Jirgens Lane.

I'm right next to Jurgens Park.

And I've been a resident for about 33 years here in Twalleton and have seen it grow incredibly.

When we first moved here, had 6800 people.

And that's to keep our community a favorable place to live and also to work.

Especially since part of my federal taxes and part of my state taxes are going to LAM to build this new facility, which I approve in paying, but I also like to have a voice in protecting the livability of Twilight and which is a wonderful place to live.

And thank you all for doing this wonderful volunteer job.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the room?

Come on up.

Janet Weber, I live at 1797 Southwest 115th Avenue, number five.

So I'm out here on I reside basically on the intersection of 115th and Twalton Road.

Thank you for omitting Lamb traffic coming to 115th.

Appreciate that.

I'm pro-union.

I'm all for jobs.

I'm just like, you know, we're not saying, hey, no Lamb employees.

Yeah, we don't.

We we approve and appreciate the growth that they're doing.

It's just we could just are trying to ask Lamb to be a good neighbor.

And sorry, I didn't have a speech written for this.

You're doing fine.

But um, yeah, it's been a long day.

So um, yeah.

So um, yeah, I am in support of my neighbors for Lamb finding a way to help reduce the traffic on Twalton Road to stand Lovittin.

That that road is always empty, and to show ways to decrease the noise volume as well to make it a happy and livable community in neighborhood.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the room?

I'm not seeing any hands, baits and zoom.

Right?

David, you're up.

He's muted.

Okay.

David, can you hear us?

She's still there or no.

Okay.

All right.

Uh so with that, we'll now uh it's now time for Lamb to provide the rebuttal to the uh applicant and or the uh testimony.

Good evening, uh Dana Kraftchek again, and we appreciate um everyone's comments and um everyone's endurance for still being here this evening this late.

Um I I'm going to address some of the noise issues, and I've asked Brent to come up on some of the transportation issues.

Um it really boils down to on the noise issues, I think whether it's mandatory approval criteria or performance standards.

And why does that matter?

It matters because it's the level of proof that's required at this stage.

Um appellants and I agree that if it's a mandatory approval standard, you have to show compliance with the criteria or that it's feasible to comply.

The difference is if it's a performance standard, it's not that burden of proof because you don't have to demonstrate um compliance with performance standards in advance.

Um it's the city council's job to interpret its code.

Uh we've provided written analysis for why we think it's a performance standard.

We believe that your staff and your city attorney agree that it's applied as a performance standard.

Just one example of why it's a performance standard is in the code section that talks about environmental regulations in the purpose statement, which is not in and of itself a standard, but it helps you interpret your standards.

It says the purpose of these standards are to provide a basis for enforcement.

That tells you it's an after the fact once it's operational.

That's when you're applying this standard.

But it's ultimately up to you.

Um this is an example of if you should approve our application, which we certainly hope you do.

You can hedge your bets and you can make findings in the alternative.

You can say we agree with our staff, we agree with our city attorney that this is a performance standard.

But in the alternative, if a reviewing body determines that it was actually a mandatory standard, here's how it's met.

And and that's the beauty of the record that's before you.

Even though we aren't required to show compliance with the noise standards, we have the substantial evidence in the record shows that the existing facility complies, and the future facility is likely to comply.

It is feasible to comply.

Um, Appellance said we're the experts in our own equipment, and and they're right.

And our um noise expert evaluated exactly the equipment that's proposed in the model, and they studied the current um noise also.

So that is credible evidence that you could base a finding of compliance on, or the feasibility of compliance.

We don't think you need to, but you could make that finding in the alternative.

So in some respects, it's just a bunch of lawyers talking about performance standard versus mandatory approval criteria, because regardless of how you consider it, we meet it.

There were some generalized requests for conditions related to noise.

Why don't you put monitors up there so we can know exactly what's going on, for example?

This is another one where I'm gonna defer to your city attorney.

Don't take it from me.

But if a body is going to impose a condition of approval, two things have to happen.

One, the condition has to be rate related to a mandatory approval criteria.

And second, the evidence has to show that the condition is needed for compliance.

So on the suggestion of well, just take a monitor up there and tell us what's going on.

That meets neither of those standards.

You're not here to approve the existing facility, right?

That's enforcement.

Um and the evidence shows that the existing facility meets the standard.

So that's why we don't just willy-nilly put conditions on because it seems like a good idea.

It has to be aligned with the approval criteria and what the evidence is.

Um, you know, same on future compliance.

The condition 25 is appropriate and legally enforceable.

It says that we have to comply with the with the performance standards of the code.

Um that's all I've got on on noise.

Um traffic, I'm gonna turn it over to Brent to talk about some of these technical issues.

Um, and there's an important reason why.

Traffic is a technical area where experts are needed to explain what all of the numbers mean and what all the standards mean.

And in this case, you've got Lamb's expert, you've got the city engineer, you've got the experts hired by the city, and you've got ODOT all in agreement that the proposal meets all of the approval criteria.

So I think that's important to keep in mind.

Um we understand that there is a community-wide concern about traffic.

There's a systemic existing concern about trips turning left from 108th to Tualeton Road.

Lamb adding trips to that or not.

If you close the North Driveway, even though there's no basis for doing so, there are still going to be cars turning left from 108th on onto Tualeton.

So we we feel like the solution that's been asked for here isn't going to address your your system-wide problems.

Those are bigger conversations that the city should be having.

Um, but you know, with that premise of again, all of the experts that have looked at this from all sides all agree that all of the approval criteria have been met.

Brent, can you address some of the Yeah, you took a little bit of my thunder there.

Again, uh Brent Aaron with uh McKenzie.

So Dana summed it up pretty good.

That maybe what I should say is uh recall that originally we had an access to Twilight and opposite 115th.

And in the process of listening to the neighbors and looking at what the cut through would be if we were to line the driveway up there, where maybe 50% of the new trips plus some of the existing campus trips would find their way out to that driveway.

We shifted the site plan changed.

Uh we kept the focus on to the existing access points.

And because of where the parking has to lay out on the site because of what's available.

Uh again, about six percent of the campus trips would find their way down this north access driveway.

It's a small percentage of the traffic.

And again, we're talking about an estimate of 25 trips uh turning to and from Twalton Road, maybe 10 of them would find their way to cut through.

That's just our our best guess looking at the numbers.

That impact is very, very small compared to what we have before.

So it kind of feels like you know, we were good neighbors, we did something to address the concerns of the neighbors, but they still want you know that that last bit like they don't want any trips, and and we can't keep any trips from from traveling down Twalton Road.

We know some well, and that's the analysis we provided.

And like Dana said, the cities reviewed it, their the traffic consultant, an expert, DKS, they reviewed it, they agree.

In fact, they were very thorough in the review.

They asked us many, many questions during their review that we had to answer.

So uh you can be sure of that.

Um it was very thorough, and and like Dana said, we're all in agreement of how it's going to operate, it meets the standards.

Uh there's no reason to close that north driveway.

Uh it really won't make much of a difference.

Those trips will come out, the other driveways, and if they really want to go to Twalton Road, they'll find a way to get there.

So you know, I think the last thing um I'll say about traffic, and this will conclude our remarks, but we're obviously happy to answer any questions is you know, there's been some conversation about this existing driveway on 108th at the northernmost.

Is it a new driveway?

Is it an existing driveway?

That's another example of the city council having the authority to make findings in the alternative.

Um so an example is it's an existing driveway, so we don't need to apply these standards, but even if we did apply the standards, here's all the reasons why um they're met.

And we've provided those alternate findings in our materials.

Um with that, we request that you approve the ARB and deny the appeal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh the city staff had anything to add specifically addressing a question raised during testimony.

Well, shaking her head, no, all right.

All right.

I'll say with that, I'll now close the public testimonies portion of the hearing.

Your honor your honor.

Were you going to allow uh question questions from uh the council of the uh uh the appellant and people that testified?

Yes, I thought I closed the public hearing, the public testimony section first, then go to questions or no.

I think you should leave the public hearing open.

Okay, we'll do.

All right, so it's not oh it's not closed, it's still open, but now we're gonna do QA.

So now open the floor to city counselors for questions of uh the applicant, um the proponent.

Yeah, I'm sorry, so the appellant, the proponent, or any other folks who raised uh testimony tonight.

Council President Pratt.

I'll start.

Um Mr.

Mulkey.

Um probably do rotating.

Yeah, sorry, I want to do this in certain order.

Um just to kind of hone it down.

I want to be clear of what you're asking.

And what I heard is that you want two conditions of pro of approval.

One is that that Northern Driveway in 108th is not accessible except for emergencies and construction, and that um the noise, that they do a study, a rooftop study for the noise.

Is that correct?

Correct.

That it's specifically for the noise that they show what kind of noises their equipment is going to produce, not at the five-foot level, but at the rooftop level that's going to be propagating potentially out into the neighborhoods, and then two, show that they're going to uh mitigate that noise so that it's not an objectionable noise or that it uh doesn't qualify as a noise disturbance, so that they show that they are that it's feasible that they will be able to meet the uh the enforcement criteria.

Okay, great.

That's all I have for you.

So Kevin.

Would this is I know legal terms are have specific meanings, so um in section 62-100, what is n cause objection or must not cause objectionable noise mean?

Because that's that is the wording in there.

Yeah, and thank you, Council President.

So uh the the city I agree, and I think city staff has uh agreed with the vast majority of what uh the proponent uh has testified to today regarding noise.

We can quibble about whether uh TDC 62100 is technically an official approval criteria or not.

The city believes that it is, and it it is implemented and effectuated through uh the environmental regulations in TDC 63, particularly 63051.

But and that that's how it works.

So when you look at 62 100, uh and it's broader than just noise, it's a purpose statement.

It must not cause objectionable noise, smoke, odor, dust, noxious gases, uh gases, vibration, and it goes on, glare, heat, etc.

And so in city's opinion, uh the their interpretation of the code is that's that's implemented and effectuated that provision through 63051.

And uh that states that generally, and this was the condition A25 that was imposed by the ARB that they comply with the city's noise ordinance.

And the counsel for LAM mentioned uh the she was referencing, she didn't state it, but it's 63010, and that's the purpose statement of a chapter 63, industrial uses and utilities and manufacturing zones and the environmental regulation statutes.

It mentions it states in per pertinent part that these environmental regulations uh are also intended to protect natural areas from the adverse effects of industrial development.

It is intended that the following standards provide statutory authority for the enforcement of regulations regard relating to noise, vibration, air quality, odors, heat, glare lighting.

So it's similar to the language in TDC 62 100.

So it is the city's staff opinion that the only way uh the only condition that could have been imposed was what the ARB did impose, and that's condition A25 to comply with the noise uh uh that the city's noise ordinance and TMC 614.

Uh there's just simply no correlation between the potential impacts of this application and any uh uh other condition besides the condition that was imposed A25, and it'd be difficult to construct one that could pass uh legal muster.

Um so now I I did notice, and I I think Mr.

Mulkey has uh he testified that uh their current the current alleged noise violations on LAMS at LAMS existing development, it certainly shows what kind of noises that LAMS LAM facilities create generally and I think with the connotation is that if the current LAM facilities are violating the noise ordinance, then obviously this application and the the development associated with that is also going to violate the noise, the city's noise ordinance and requesting some conditions to evaluate the noise and and uh uh ensure that there are there are no uh objectionable humming or vibrations or hissing coming from that.

But I I just don't think it's uh would be would pass uh a legal review if this was challenged.

I just it there there's no there's no legitimate planning purpose or objective in imposing any further condition based on the evidence in the record before you because we simply don't know what noise is going to emanate from a applicant from an application and development that hasn't been constructed yet.

So there's a question out there at the of the current facility and the noise level.

That's I mean, is that not determined at this point?

And that's so how do we know what the new facility will be based on that if we're not we're getting two we're getting a lot of different answers, and it's rather confusing.

And and the it's without question that there has been allegations that Lamb's current facility violates the city's noise ordinance, and that's being investigated by the city's code enforcement department.

And so if there are there is a uh alleged, if there is a violation of the city's noise ordinance, there is a mechanism in place for the city to bring that action to the uh municipal, the judicial officer, which is the municipal court judge, that will afford uh both the uh complainant and LAM due process to litigate the matter and and come up with a uh a viable solution.

I I think it's difficult at this point with the evidence in the record to come up with a condition that would uh satisfy some further legal review.

Okay, thank you.

And then um, to the LAM people, I have a question on the um that north parking lot.

So I wrote down um that it won't be connected to um parking G, but I'm not I that map is so small, and I looked at it like a couple days ago.

So can you explain what parking G is?

Is are is that one of the two lots or is it one big lot?

So the parking that was added with building G is immediately along that frontage of 108.

And the two new driveways uh on 108th were constructed for that parking lot.

So what we're saying is there was no connection made to that existing north driveway with building G.

Okay.

And we're not proposing to connect it either.

So you're I guess I'm not understanding why um you're just gonna allow cars to go on there, but you're saying it's such a small amount.

Right, because the there's a small parking lot being added kind of north of the older buildings.

Right.

Okay.

And that and that's a new parking.

If you if you're familiar with where the north parking lot is, right?

It's just to the east of that, there'll be a small parking lot added there.

And so a lot of the people that are working in in building H, because we expect that new parking that was provided with G will pretty much fill up with H plus some overflow.

And most of the people in H would park in that parking lot due north.

And that's where they'd go in and out that north access.

If if we were to connect that north access to the rest of the parking for building G, then there would be more trips from more vehicles from that parking lot that might try to go north and use that driveway.

So we don't want to encourage that, right?

So out of that eight the parking lot by building H, the north parking lot, um how much of that traffic do you expect to go north as opposed to south when they exit?

Yeah, so I don't remember the number off the top of my head, but it's probably about a third of that traffic that would would head out to that parking lot.

The other two-thirds, you know, is heading towards Sherwood or Newburgh or south on I-5, and they're not gonna go out to Twalton Road.

Okay.

That answers my questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

Other questions really?

Um I'm see I have the map right in front of me, so you were hoping that um people who are in building G, H and B would park on the south side closer to Leventon Street, so they wouldn't actually want to leave that section because it's if not they haven't to fish the way all the way through the north section of a hunt the exit, which is inconvenient, which kind of bottlenecks the traffic is going out.

Um so I understand that up.

I understand what she was asking as well.

And Lamb did make changes to the facility, correct, to try to accommodate uh these concerns that they're citing right now, um, which is very applaudable.

I'm sure that cost a lot of a lot of money and time as well.

Um what I wanted to ask, um, and this is for our uh maybe this attorney is the the noise complaints that were filed that were mentioned, when were those filed roughly?

Were they is is this recent?

Is this something that began to uh people began to prepare and file again?

This is just asking questions.

Did they begin to file complaints knowing that they were gonna have this this complaint here?

When were those complaints filed?

And I may have to defer to other staff.

I I believe uh at least some of the complaints came before that.

I think they these are uh potentially long-standing issues with Lamb's current uh development.

They just didn't come in the in the month before business.

Yeah, might have the answer.

Yeah, a longer table.

Um thanks, counselor Gonzalez for the question.

Before you add that, so when they first were considering doing this, they were considering doing this plan before they filed.

I know they were there was when was that first and how is that correlated with the come when the complaints came in?

Okay, I think what you're asking is about probably about the neighborhood developer meeting, when that was um if I'm remembering the timeline right, it was I think spring or June, May or June of uh 2024.

Um what and so what I know of the history of the noise complaints, I think that our code enforcement officer has received noise complaints for I don't know, prior to this whole um application happening, but I'm using my hand because I'm thinking it's about a handful.

Um, but when the architecture review board and the industrial master plan were noticed, we received about um 80 complaints.

And um that our code enforcement officer, he followed up with all of those 80 um because they were actually uh directed towards the land use applications.

So we followed up to say, okay, if would you like to submit a formal complaint like through the code enforcement process?

And of that um of those eighty, there were 32 people who were um basically eligible, meaning they were residents, and wanted to file um a formal complaint.

Then it went from there.

We're still working working on the list and following up.

So thank you.

That you answer the question exactly what I was looking for.

Thank you very much for that.

I think that's all I got for right moment.

Other questions?

Right.

Uh traffic engineer, where do you go?

Oh, he's very blind.

Come back up.

One of my favorite subjects traffic hiding.

So going to uh the appellants stats about the you know 2036 trips uh and his math of 203 trips a day.

Uh can you address that uh based on when you you know your explanation because you say it's 25 trips and is that per day, is that per hour?

And then the second part of the question is I remember peak a.m.

and p.m.

It's not a specific hour, it's multiple hours, if I remember right, because on traffic test before it's like the AM peak runs usually from anywhere from six to nine and PM peak is four to six, it's not one hour.

So can you address those two items?

Right.

Okay.

So first to address what is the peak hour.

The peak hour is the peak of the site, that's what we looked at.

And generally in in the afternoon it's 4.30 to 5.30.

That's where we see the highest volume that happens between three and six.

And we we originally looked at the campus from like three to six because we knew of the neighbor concerns, right?

When we we had an access originally proposed at Twalton, we wanted to know what is that potential during times that school gets out for the middle school there.

Okay.

Uh you're correct that you know most of the traffic will come to the campus in the morning and we'll we'll leave.

It's about a three-hour window.

Uh that that traffic comes and goes to the campus, at least the people that are working kind of that you know, the typical day shift, eight to five sort of thing.

So, but what we looked at is kind of the peak hour within that three.

Okay.

Okay.

Um there was a lot of discussion about what type of use is LAM.

Is it an office?

Is it manufacturing?

And we started looking at, okay, we know how many trips are occurring.

Uh, and this was going back to the spring of 24 when we counted all the driveways.

We said, okay, we know how many people are working at the campus in all the shifts, and we know what the peak hour trips are, what land use correlates well with that.

And we found that research and development correlated very well for both the AM and the PM, probably within a 10% range, right?

So the city and their consultant agreed with us, that's what we went with.

So we validated those peak hours.

We never validated the daily trip number because it's not really used for anything, right?

We don't analyze the daily trips.

We look at what's the peak impact on the road plus the peak of the existing conditions on the road, and that's what we analyze.

So it's and it's about 3.4 trips per employee if you look at that daily number.

So 2036.

I think it's probably a little bit on the high side, but that's what that land use gave us, right?

It was 244 trips for the AM peak hour and 23 for the PM peak hour.

That's what we've analyzed.

The hours before you know, before and beyond that will be lower, but they're probably probably within 60 to 80 percent of what those numbers are.

Okay.

Okay.

And then as you noted, you may you mentioned before, and then it's in your report at the end of the packet that we got that with Towalton Shore Road construction finally completing, yeah, that um traffic relief is occurring on Towalton Road, and that you did another another updated count, and you sort of less road uh vehicles on Towalton Road because they're they're going back to Tualton Sherwood Road.

Right.

And when we did the count originally in the spring of 24, we saw that the volumes were quite a bit higher, and it made sense that the neighbors were saying, hey, the volume is really high here, what's going on?

And and talking with the city, it's like yeah, there there is some impact.

And we looked, of course, with with the pandemic, it was really hard to make an estimate of what that number is.

So I I was thinking it was probably one to two hundred was my best guess.

Uh so for one of the hours that we found it was 125, which kind of took an average 24 and 25 in the spring, and the one we counted at the end of October.

125 less than one and 350 less than the other peak hour.

Wow.

Huge.

Um so we validated what we were thinking.

And I really wanted to know what those numbers were.

As soon as I realized the construction was substantially complete, all the lanes are open.

Hey, let's go check it out because I think that will will show that the volumes were higher, and that drove some of the neighbor complaints.

Now I kind of wish we would have got counts on 1.15th in Hazelbrook as well to see if those numbers dropped also, but but we didn't do that.

Okay.

And Mayor, can I generate it?

Just one more thing.

You go ahead.

Well, I think about how to phrase my question.

It's it's so I um my daughter goes to school there near the Century Cemetery's church there.

I was meandering all through the police station in front of uh the that um Twalton Road.

I would go through that way because it was faster hit 99.

Round corner, I mean basically the fishing tail took it, you know, it took me about 18 to 19 minutes to get to that.

And now the Twalt now that Twenty Shorewood Road is open, you know, I'm like, okay, I need to just test it out.

It took me literally from my house, we live in East Twalleton, okay, on the other side of Highway 5.

It takes me 11 minutes to get from my house all the way to Century, that the pioneer um on Twalton Shorewood Wood.

So I'm no longer meandering through all that anymore, all the way to Twalt to try to avoid all that traffic anymore.

So I am now just going down Twalton Shorewood is faster.

So I was one of those people driving and causing that additional traffic.

I mean, this is just my own example.

And we'll clunk in it because you know we get school on time, and it took about 18 minutes to go from the police station to Twilight Road, 99, make eleven.

It's faster, so I went that way because you go faster than 99 to get to Road Roger Road, make it right.

Well now Twalton Shore is open.

11 minutes from my house all the way past Tobardo.

So that's where I'm going now.

And I would imagine that in the last two years when the construction went going, I'm sure that got exasperated quite a bit in front of Twalton Road quite a bit.

So the question I have, I read your report.

And one of the things always head scratch, I always talk to Mike about it, is the requirements for a traffic light.

And in the study and ODOT and you all concurred that there was no need for a traffic light uh at 115th.

There's not a requirement for 108th.

Mike just general question is when does that trigger that you do need a traffic light?

What do you have to hit?

Because I can I can see folks saying, well, isn't a solution a traffic light?

But I know you can't just slap one in, there's pretty high standards for a traffic light.

There is.

There's so many warrants.

I mean, some of them are based on pedestrians.

I mean, there's ones even that are a system.

Does it make sense to put a signal here in the coordination of a flow?

But most of them are based on volumes.

So there's a peak hour volume, which generally don't want to look at that because why would you build a signal for one hour for the day, right?

Um usually you look at like four hours or eight hours of the day, and then you have certain thresholds.

The side street has to be a certain volume compared to the the main line.

Um and there's kind of different thresholds you can look at.

So it's and just because you meet one or two warrants doesn't mean that you should put one in.

Um there's other decisions.

Obviously, there's funding, there's political reasons, there's you know, all sorts of things to look at.

But for a traffic engineer, it's does it meet the the volume thresholds or are there safety concerns that would warrant a signal?

But I would also caution that you put in a traffic signal and you you might not necessarily reduce the number of crashes, you change the type.

Rear ends are much more common at a traffic signal than at a two-way stop.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Other questions?

That's President Pratt.

Uh Mr.

McCarthy, glad you came up to the phone.

So there's I'm a little unclear about this.

There was discussion about traffic at light at Twelleton Road and 99, but Twalton Road and 99 don't intersect.

So that confused me a little.

But if we're talking about 124th in Twalton Road, or I does Twilton Road, when it hits 124th, have a light there?

I can't remember.

Yes, it does.

Okay, so um, if I'm remembering correctly, our TSP had a thing where we were going to update the software, and that's going to happen in the next year or two.

Is that correct?

Um potentially.

So just for the record, uh, Mike McCarthy, uh city engineer working for the city.

Um I think maybe to help explain a bit of one of the previous questions about the daily volume coming up 108th.

Uh some of that would turn left, some of that would turn right.

So it would be about, I think I had 24 turning left and 21 turning right at the peak hour, add that together.

That's a much higher percentage of that.

And I forget if 200 is the actual number, but of that daily amount.

Uh so some would turn left, some would turn right, some would actually be like people who live in the neighborhood who work at Lamb.

Uh-huh.

So that's the first thing I wanted to mention.

Um, as far as the Twalton Road, getting to 124th and to 99.

Um, there is an existing signal at 124th and Twalton Road.

And we've been working with the county who maintain our signals for us by agreement to get those signals coordinated well.

And they currently have it set um so that uh basically to help facilitate the traffic, particularly turning left from 99 on to one twenty-fourth, to then turn left again onto Twalton Road, since that's a pretty significant volume.

And they're prepared to and have a capacity to increase that flow if that traffic volume were to increase.

Uh so there's a fair amount of rumor they could add to that.

We're not expecting much of that with this particular proposal because the driveways have been relocated to Levanton.

Yeah, that would I guess that's my other question since you understand traffic flows.

Like, if that were to actually happen where Twalton Road started getting backed up, wouldn't people kind of naturally go down to Levanton to avoid traffic?

Probably.

Okay.

Probably, I think they would if uh if they were encountering more delays on the Twalton Road side.

And I think just from what I saw also the kind of where the parking lot would be, driving kind of all the way out that long driveway to Twalton Road is a fairways out of the way to then come back for anybody who's turning left.

Yeah, I guess that's what I'm trying to understand.

The it would it be easier to naturally flow into the parking lot, it would actually be shorter to just go down to Levitton.

Okay.

And go out that way.

And that I think that's why there's only six percent going out the northern driveway to 108.

Thanks.

So while you're up here, no one's mentioned Herman Road.

I mean, because back when there was the discussions of the access on the northern side of the campus, there was a lot of focus on driving traffic down Herman Road and up 108th.

And uh now that Lamb has closed or withdrawn the proposals, having those two entrances there, you know, folks coming from the east, I would assume would go down Herman Road because it's faster.

Uh so therefore they wouldn't ever go towards 108th and Towalton Road, they'd be traversing Herman Road because it's faster.

And didn't we discuss that at one point?

Um I think the the updated traffic study had about three times as much traffic going south on 108 towards Herman Road as it had on Twalton Road.

Um along the north side of the site.

So I think I think the exist the model numbers were showing I think what you're surmising.

Other questions?

Oh and I will just corroborate that we have reviewed their traffic study.

We did hire uh DKS, a private consultant to review the traffic study, and we did find that it met our requirements for traffic studies.

Okay.

Any further questions?

Okay, Councilor Sotto.

I'd just like to ask one clarifying question to Twalton's attorney.

Um so you had mentioned something earlier, and I just want to make sure I have the correct understanding that if um in the in the case that we were to approve this appeal, um what what the next the next steps could be that Lamb could then have an appeal process.

Is that correct and Councillor Sluck I may want to just clarify?

Are you asking that if the council uh uh made a motion to uh uh uh approve the appeal and then essentially side with the appellant tonight?

Correct, yeah.

And then I guess I guess I am trying to understand um you know, if um I guess what would be the next steps into the future if or if we were to provide the conditions that were laid out by the appellant.

Um would there be like an additional approval pro appeals process?

I'm trying to understand what sort of costs would be associated with that for the city longer term if there was an additional appeals process if we were to put these conditions in place, or is that just it if we were to put the conditions uh in place?

Is that sort of the final saying?

Or does Lamb have the opportunity to come back to say I don't agree agree with the decision that the council made tonight?

I would like to appeal to some other body.

I I believe that the matter would be continued, and uh I think this is in the the presentation, it would be continued uh to another date to allow uh the the uh proponent lamb to address those conditions and whether they were able to comply or uh meet those conditions or not.

Uh uh ultimately they could decide to just appeal the matter.

Is there going to be a final decision and appeal the matter uh as they see fit?

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

All right, seeing none, now can I close the public hearing?

Your Honor, I'm just getting my script up here.

All right.

Yeah, start council discussion.

If there's no more questions of city staff or the the appellant or the applicant, it's appropriate to close the public hearing.

All right.

Seeing no further questions, I'll go ahead and close the public testimony portion of the hearing.

Uh the hearing is now closed, and now is discussion among council members.

All right, council president Pratt.

Um I mean this is tough because I think these neighborhood concerns are valid.

And um but I feel the traffic is gonna be there regardless of because I mean this we're adding traffic, we have a traffic problem, and we are adding to it, but I don't think closing off one driveway is gonna make it much different.

And then with the noise concerns me more.

Um I know Lambs been um they closed off one 15th, they've done things.

It um bothers me somewhat that they're arguing back when these people are concerned about the noise and that they're not doing more.

But in my opinion, um I wouldn't support the conditions of the approval, and I hold what the architectural review board did.

Okay.

Others counselor, then counselor Sacco.

Yeah, I I am also concerned about the noise and um the matters that were brought to us about um the traffic and I can see that being I mean, we live in a in the world that's evolving, and that's always gonna be a concern for everyone.

And I with I'm with counselor um Valerie Pratt that the noise is what really kind of concerns me the most.

Um but I also have to respect my uh the architecture board who looked through this and spent hours as well prior to this meeting, um, and what they decided and what they brought to us at the time.

I trust that they also did it their due diligence and that they work really hard to bring um this to uh this application to us in and gave their approval.

So I want to uphold that because they were I trust that that body also is uh very smart and wise and uh what they bring to us, uh I'm sure they've done their their due diligence.

Thank you.

Counselor Sacco.

Thank you.

Um so regarding the traffic, um, you know, I for me um, you know, I I'm have to rely on the the experts and the standards that were presented during this hearing and in the exhibits provided.

Um I know that there are traffic concerns in in To Walleton, um, but just based on the evidence and the testimony, I I don't think that the traffic rises to the level that would justify um not going through with the ARB's um uh what they've already put forward.

Um, and then um there's already a condition in place to ensure the compliance is followed for the noise standards.

Um however, uh you know, and and I also understand that you know we can't measure something that doesn't exist today.

Um, but I also can't um you know Lamb is putting an enormous amount of money into this um into this facility.

I can't imagine that they would do so knowing that they're going to face issues in the future, um that they're that they will sort of self-police this so they can be viable moving forward with the amount of money that they're investing in this location.

Um and um I mean as a city councilor, it's my responsibility to make a decision that serves the best interest of the entire city.

Um, and we heard lots of testimony um about that tonight.

Um, and I also understand what benefits you know, the greater good creates burden for some, and that's also a really hard thing to bear as an elected official.

Um my hope is to make everybody happy.

Um but unfortunately, you know, that's not always possible, but we have certain criteria that we must follow that has been set forth.

Um, and our decision has to be based on that criteria.

Okay.

Um I agree with the other counselors.

Uh what this comes down to me for is criteria, and that's what we have to make the judgment on.

I know I live in a neighborhood, I'm impacted, uh, but we have to make the decisions based on criteria, not on a motion, not on feel, not on assumptions.

Um as was mentioned, closing the northern entrance on 108th.

As was mentioned, closing the northern entrance on 108th.

Is that going to solve the issues of safety at that intersection?

No.

Being a resident neighborhood, we all know the reason for the safety issue at 108th is the trees.

You can't see past the trees, but no one wants to cut those trees down.

Back then when Mayor Ogden was here, we had this discussion, and people went hate crazy about cutting down the trees.

You cut down those trees, you have you have a lot better visual, but no one wants to do that.

We all edge out to get you know get to see past those trees.

But closing down that driveway isn't gonna significantly impact uh the safety of that uh intersection.

You just like Brett said, we all have to, when we go to that intersection, you get our you got your spidey senses up there looking both ways.

Um the sound issue.

I've remembered you know, I've been in that neighborhood over 20 years.

There's been other complaints against sound and they were resolved.

Um there was complaints against the sheet metal manufacturer down there.

Um I'm forgetting the company that's behind LAM had sound issues, they were resolved once the complaint was done, went through the process and the sound issues went away.

So I'm pretty sure all these sound issues that LAM is being uh charged with, they will be resolved, and they will also address any issues in the future.

So based on the two things that would the focus of tonight, you know, the traffic studies, uh the traffic impact and sound.

Based on the criteria, I have to uh uphold the decision of the ARB.

So with that um Mayor, I um would like to prepare a motion, but I would like to ask for a five-minute recess.

Okay.

So we'll do a five-minute recess while the motion is prepared.

So we'll be back at uh let's say 1035.

Into session and uh you were supposed to be ready, Bates.

Come on.

Yeah, now that you will.

All right.

All right, so we're um reconvening the city council meeting of 1110-2025.

We just left off with the hearing on the ARB appeal, and uh Council President Pratt has a motion.

I move to deny the appeal and affirm ARB decision AR24002, dated September 10th, 2025, and direct staff to prepare an order and resolution that incorporates findings to support the council's decision, which includes ARB decision of findings, AR2402, steps staff supplemental staff report dated November 10th, 2025, proponent Lamb's alternative findings demonstrating compliance with TDC 63051 and TDC 74 and 75.

Okay, that's it.

And I'm gonna really quick say thank you to everybody on both sides for caring this much about our community.

Okay.

Second.

I have a motion and a second to deny uh the appeal of the ARB.

Uh any motions on the discussions, uh any discussions of those motions.

Seeing none, Councilor Gonzalez.

I I vote in support.

Okay.

Counselor Sacco.

Aye.

Councilor Reyes?

Yes.

Council President Pratt.

Aye.

Chair votes aye.

It's unanimous.

The ARB decision is upheld, and the deny the appeal is denied.

All right.

So that will be back on a resolution on November 24th.

Right.

As you'll wait for Councilor Hillier to get back up to dias.

I'm gonna scroll the way back up.

I gotta get way back at the thing here.

All right, so that brings us to I think the citizen council, the council agenda.

All right, that brings us to general business item number one consideration of recommendations from the council committee on advisory appointments.

Councilor Reyes.

Thank you, everyone.

Um so once again, we had a great group of people applied uh for the um planning commission, library advisory committee, and idea committee.

Thank you.

For the Planning Commission, we have Ursula Kuhn and Ray Liv for the Library Advisory Committee, Dana Polino, and Melissa Lawrence for the idea committee.

We have Emily Baker, Aaron Stimson, Samantha Peterson, uh Maya Schroeder, Laura Enberson, and Nina Ichi Kawa.

Um I guess to conclude, um I make a motion to adopt these recommendations as read.

I do have a question.

Second.

Okay.

Uh discussions.

Yes, I like to know using the idea's own language is how diverse is the DI committee.

Can you guys share that with me?

Um I I guess I don't know how to answer that that question.

We could pull up, I guess we could pull up the code as what the fallacy that you can't even say what race somebody is.

When you say diversity, equity, and inclusion, you're supposed to be able to say with clear conscience that it is diverse.

But you can't say that.

You have to go.

I mean Councillor Gonzalez, I cannot put everybody on that committee in a box.

I understand, but if it's diversity, I like to see the diversity because I feel that this no longer is diverse or has diverse opinions.

I think it's one-sided now.

Can Councillor Gonzalez can you categorize everybody on this committee?

Well, I think I'm Mexican, proud to say it, and I have no problem saying what people are.

And this idea committee, you can't even say what people are.

I don't think that's for us to decide to categorize.

It is the rules of the idea of the community to be diverse, and if it's not diverse, it is not doing what is supposed to be meant to be done.

Okay.

Can I make a comment?

Sure.

Um at one point not that long ago.

Um Councillor Saku and I had a conversation.

We actually kind of went through because to discuss this concern, and we do have still we have a lot of diversity in this.

We have people from different um ethnic cultures, we have people with different um, we have people with um physical situations, we have people of different ages and um people with different economic backgrounds.

So we were confident that we still have a very diverse group of people representing the large wealth of our community.

That is an excellent response.

So thank you for that.

That is very well uh said.

Okay, thank you.

So a motion and second.

Uh I know this is a verbal one.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, abstentions.

The appointments, recommendations are accepted and unanimously.

Uh moving on to scroll way back up again.

How many page the 949 page packet we got here?

Yeah.

Uh there were no items removed from consent.

Any council communications.

Just want to wish uh everyone a happy Veterans Day, especially veterans.

Um again, the city's event is very 130 people attended it.

Lots of compliments, and again, more and more inquiries from other cities and how they can replicate our breakfast.

Because we do have people from outside our city coming to attend.

So again, we do a fantastic way.

Uh fantastic recognition of our veterans with the signs with their breakfast and every day.

And we have Veterans Plaza, so terrific.

Right.

Uh, do I have a motion to adjourn?

I'd like to say one thing before we do that, please.

I would just like to say, and I sat in the audience for two plus hours this evening and I got to observe civil discourse uh among everyone here and to try to do what's best for our community.

And then I come back up here and I have a whole different um feeling about how the last conversation went.

And so I think I just would really encourage and admonish us to listen to the words that the city manager talked about, that it is our job to set an example.

And when we it people watch and understand how acknowledge how we treat each other, and I think we need to pay attention to that.

So with that, I move to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, opposed, abstentions.

Thank you, good night.

Have a very good evening.

Happy veterans day, Mayor.

Thank you.