Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

West Linn Planning Commission: Hearing on City Operations Facility - Feb 4, 2026

City Council & Planning Commission — Wednesday, February 4, 2026

BodyWest Linn, Oregon

SessionCity Council & Planning Commission

DateWednesday, February 4, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 3:33:12

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:03

Okay, good evening and welcome to the Westlyn Planning Commission.

0:08

Today's date is Wednesday, February 4th, 2026.

0:12

And it is 6.01 p.m.

0:15

First on the agenda this evening.

0:17

We will call to order and roll call.

0:22

Good evening, Commissioners.

0:25

Do we have adjacent Commissioner Evans?

0:29

Commissioner Dodds.

0:35

Commissioner Jones.

0:37

Present.

0:38

Commissioner Wobotney.

0:41

Here.

0:42

Commissioner Kachariski.

0:45

Here.

0:45

Commissioner Commissioner Dietz.

0:47

Present.

0:48

Chair Shulte Hill.

0:50

Here.

0:50

We have six members in attendance.

0:54

Okay, next on the agenda, we have public comment related to land use items not on the agenda.

1:00

Is anyone here to speak to land items not on the agenda?

1:17

None are no comments off uh for items not on the agenda.

1:22

Okay, next on the agenda, we will begin our public hearing.

1:27

So evening.

1:32

Tonight we are holding a public hearing regarding application number CUP-25-02, DR slash dash 25 slash 02, WAP-25-01 for a conditional use permit, class two design review, and water resource area permit at 23800 and 23834 Salamo Road.

1:58

The proposal is for construction of an operations complex servicing the city of Westland's public works, environmental services, parks and recreation, and water and streets departments on two vacant lots.

2:12

This is a quasi-judicial decision.

2:14

Unlike in legislative hearings where personal opinion may come into play, quasi-judicial rulings must be grounded in the relevant code, and if the application meets the code, the commission must approve it.

2:26

The hearing will proceed as follows.

2:28

After the preliminary legal matters, staff will make a presentation, followed by the applicant.

2:34

Then anyone who wishes to address the issue will be given the opportunity.

2:39

Finally, there will be time for rebuttal by the applicant.

2:42

The applicant will have 20 minutes initially plus 10 minutes for rebuttal.

2:47

All requests to speak during public testimony have been received.

2:52

Commission members may ask questions of the applicant, staff, or anyone else who testifies.

2:58

If participating remotely, please remember to use the hand icon if you wish to ask questions.

3:04

Please keep yourself on mute until you are ready to speak so everyone is heard clearly.

3:18

Thank you, Chair.

3:21

There we go.

3:22

The applicant has the burden of proving that the application is consistent with the city of Westland's Community Development Code, comprehensive plan, and any applicable municipal code provision.

3:32

The criteria that must be addressed in this hearing are Chapter 11, Residential R10, Chapter 32, Water Resource Area Protection, Chapter 41, Building Height, Structures on Steep Lots, Exceptions, Chapter 42, Clear Vision Areas, Chapter 46, Off-Street Parking, Loading and Reservoir Areas, Chapter 48, Access, Egress, and Circulation, Chapter 55, Design Review, Chapter 60, Conditional Uses.

4:01

Chapter 96, Street Improvement Construction, Chapter 99, Procedures for Decision Making Quasi-judicial.

4:09

As the Planning Commission is sitting quasi-judicially, any testimony, argument, or evidence that speakers give us must be directed at these criteria or at some other criteria in the code or comprehensive plan which you believe should apply to this decision.

4:24

If your testimony would be repetitious, but you would like the opportunity to appeal the decision, you must have signed the sign-in slash testimony form.

4:33

Only those who have appeared before the planning commission in person or in writing will have standing to appeal this decision to the city council.

4:41

Prior to the conclusion of the first public hearing on an application, the applicant or anyone who takes part in the hearing may request a continuance or ask that the record be left open to present additional information.

4:53

If there is such a request, the planning commission will either continue the public hearing to a date certain or leave the record open for at least seven days for additional written evidence, arguments, or testimony.

5:06

Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to allow the commission and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the land use board of appeals based on that issue.

5:17

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

5:30

So now I'll ask the council or I apologize, the planning commission.

5:35

Do any members of the planning commission wish to declare a potential or actual conflict of interest or bias?

5:44

Okay, I'm seeing shaking heads.

5:47

Do any members of the planning commission wish to report any site visits or ex parte contacts?

5:56

Go ahead.

5:59

Um I received uh an e uh a phone message um from the public because my phone number is out there uh to ask a question.

6:09

I advised that I was going to be sitting on the planning commission tonight, and I could not respond.

6:16

So I don't even know what the question was.

6:19

Um that was as far as it got.

6:21

Great.

6:22

And you feel that you can participate uh without any bias in the process.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Engineering And Infrastructure████████████████████████████████████████40%

Procedural█████████████████████21%

Environmental Protection███████████11%

Water And Wastewater Management████████8%

Public Engagement██████6%

Transportation Safety████4%

Public Safety████4%

Emergency Management████4%

Legal Process█1%

Summary of Proceedings

Planning Commission Hearing on New City Operations Support Facility - February 4, 2026

On Wednesday, February 4, 2026, at 6:01 p.m., the West Linn Planning Commission convened a quasi-judicial public hearing regarding application CUP-25-02/DR-25-02/WAP-25-01 for a proposed City of West Linn Operations Support Facility on two vacant parcels (23800 and 23834 Salamo Road). The hearing included a staff presentation, public testimony from a dozen residents and neighborhood representatives, a rebuttal by the applicant team, and a commission vote to continue the hearing to February 18, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. The decision to continue, carried 7-0, allows additional written testimony and further commission deliberation.

Public Comments & Testimony

Rob Causey (neighbor across Salamo Road) described a long-standing failure of the city to maintain screening vegetation as required under a prior conditional use permit (CUP). He questioned the enforcement process and urged the commission to ensure future conditions are enforceable.
Terry Cummings (former planning commissioner and city councilor) argued the site is a historic landslide hazard area and that the city should conduct an independent comparative analysis of alternative sites. He urged denial, stating the project does not provide an overall benefit if it compromises emergency response.
Robert Jester (Barrington Heights Tanner Neighborhood Association president) expressed general support for the facility, noting it would improve fire suppression access and water supply for the hillside. He raised concerns about construction parking, traffic merging from the steep slope, and long-term traffic control needs.
Carrie Cummings cited the 1969 landslide that destroyed a city reservoir and three homes, arguing the site remains unstable and that the application fails criteria 60.070(2) and (3).
William Relyea (former city councilor and neighborhood association president) testified that in 2021 the city purchased the 33-acre property from ODOT for $390,000, with knowledge that the site was unstable and only suitable for temporary debris laydown. He stated ODOT passed on developing the land due to stability concerns. He urged the commission to consider site-specific constraints not addressed in the staff report.
Roberta Schwartz (Savannah Oaks Neighborhood Association) presented historical landslide maps (Dogami, West Linn Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan) showing the site in a “very high” landslide susceptibility zone. She argued that no federal or state agency accepted the property, implying known risks, and that the project would endanger workers and neighbors.
Ed Schwartz echoed his wife’s testimony, adding that a full traffic impact analysis (TIA) should be required because the trip generation study showed 256 average daily trips—above the city’s threshold. He contended the use exceeds incidental vehicle storage allowed under the CUP and that the application fails to meet Comprehensive Plan Goal 7 (hazard avoidance).
Michael Capkin criticized the lack of a noise study and traffic analysis, questioning the city’s rejection of a TIA based on marginal trip counts. He argued the site’s zoning (R-10) may not permit the proposed fleet maintenance uses and requested that the record be left open for additional written testimony.
Carrie Oakes, a West Linn resident, stated the project would pave over wetlands and a stream buffer, mitigating only half of the 15,120 sq ft permanent impact. She argued the application did not adequately demonstrate avoidance, as required by water resource criteria, and noted the single access road is vulnerable to landslides.
David Dodds encouraged the commission to continue the hearing to March 4 to allow more public input and to seek direct comment from ODOT regarding the sale.

Discussion Items

Staff Presentation: Aaron Goodell presented the project: a 33‑acre site with five buildings totaling ~40,000 sq ft, including warehouse, fleet maintenance, offices, and storage. The application requires a conditional use permit (CUP), water resource area permit (WAP), and design review (DR). Staff recommended approval with six conditions, including compliance with municipal noise standards and final stormwater and building permit reviews.
Applicant Team Rebuttal (Jeff Dunn, Sid Scott, Alex Simpson, Ajib Collas, Matt Bell):
- Noise: Offered to conduct an acoustic analysis as a condition of approval.
- Traffic: The trip generation study recorded 256 average daily trips; the city’s TIA threshold is 250. Traffic engineers concluded a full TIA was not warranted because the existing site already generates similar trips and Salamo Road operates at Level of Service A with no planned improvements needed.
- Soils/Geotech: Ajib Collas explained the 1960s landslide was man‑made due to road construction, not a natural failure. The design of buildings and access road accounts for the known weak layer (Vantage horizon). The geotech report found no active slumping or sliding.
- Wetlands: Alex Simpson confirmed that the Oregon Department of State Lands concurred with the wetland delineation. Project impacts are limited to 15,120 sq ft of buffer (not the wetland itself), with 7,560 sq ft of enhancement mitigation proposed.
Commission Questions:
- Stormwater: Alex Simpson described a cartridge filter vault and underground detention system sized for 2‑, 5‑, 10‑, and 25‑year storm events, discharging at pre‑development rates. Maintenance expected every 3–5 years, manageable by public works staff.
- Discrepancy on heritage trees: Commissioner Jones noted the arborist report did not identify Oregon white oaks as heritage trees or priority habitat. The applicant said they will provide clarification at the next hearing.
- Zoning: Staff affirmed the property was designated R-10 after purchase; the use as a public support facility is conditionally permitted in that zone.

Key Outcomes

Motion to Continue: Commissioner Dietz moved to continue the public hearing to February 18, 2026, at 6:00 p.m., and to leave the record open for written testimony until that time. The motion passed unanimously (7‑0).
Requests for Additional Studies: The commission indicated they may request a traffic impact analysis and a noise study as conditions of approval. The applicant offered a noise study as a friendly condition.
Next Steps: The hearing will resume on February 18; members of the public may submit additional written evidence before the meeting and testify orally at that hearing. The commission will deliberate and vote after hearing all remaining testimony and closing the record.

Meeting Transcript

Okay, good evening and welcome to the Westlyn Planning Commission. Today's date is Wednesday, February 4th, 2026. And it is 6.01 p.m. First on the agenda this evening. We will call to order and roll call. Good evening, Commissioners. Do we have adjacent Commissioner Evans? Commissioner Dodds. Commissioner Jones. Present. Commissioner Wobotney. Here. Commissioner Kachariski. Here. Commissioner Commissioner Dietz. Present. Chair Shulte Hill. Here. We have six members in attendance. Okay, next on the agenda, we have public comment related to land use items not on the agenda. Is anyone here to speak to land items not on the agenda? None are no comments off uh for items not on the agenda. Okay, next on the agenda, we will begin our public hearing. So evening. Tonight we are holding a public hearing regarding application number CUP-25-02, DR slash dash 25 slash 02, WAP-25-01 for a conditional use permit, class two design review, and water resource area permit at 23800 and 23834 Salamo Road. The proposal is for construction of an operations complex servicing the city of Westland's public works, environmental services, parks and recreation, and water and streets departments on two vacant lots. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Unlike in legislative hearings where personal opinion may come into play, quasi-judicial rulings must be grounded in the relevant code, and if the application meets the code, the commission must approve it. The hearing will proceed as follows. After the preliminary legal matters, staff will make a presentation, followed by the applicant. Then anyone who wishes to address the issue will be given the opportunity. Finally, there will be time for rebuttal by the applicant. The applicant will have 20 minutes initially plus 10 minutes for rebuttal. All requests to speak during public testimony have been received. Commission members may ask questions of the applicant, staff, or anyone else who testifies. If participating remotely, please remember to use the hand icon if you wish to ask questions. Please keep yourself on mute until you are ready to speak so everyone is heard clearly. Thank you, Chair. There we go. The applicant has the burden of proving that the application is consistent with the city of Westland's Community Development Code, comprehensive plan, and any applicable municipal code provision. The criteria that must be addressed in this hearing are Chapter 11, Residential R10, Chapter 32, Water Resource Area Protection, Chapter 41, Building Height, Structures on Steep Lots, Exceptions, Chapter 42, Clear Vision Areas, Chapter 46, Off-Street Parking, Loading and Reservoir Areas, Chapter 48, Access, Egress, and Circulation, Chapter 55, Design Review, Chapter 60, Conditional Uses. Chapter 96, Street Improvement Construction, Chapter 99, Procedures for Decision Making Quasi-judicial. As the Planning Commission is sitting quasi-judicially, any testimony, argument, or evidence that speakers give us must be directed at these criteria or at some other criteria in the code or comprehensive plan which you believe should apply to this decision. If your testimony would be repetitious, but you would like the opportunity to appeal the decision, you must have signed the sign-in slash testimony form. Only those who have appeared before the planning commission in person or in writing will have standing to appeal this decision to the city council. Prior to the conclusion of the first public hearing on an application, the applicant or anyone who takes part in the hearing may request a continuance or ask that the record be left open to present additional information. If there is such a request, the planning commission will either continue the public hearing to a date certain or leave the record open for at least seven days for additional written evidence, arguments, or testimony. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to allow the commission and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the land use board of appeals based on that issue. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues related to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the city or its design to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. So now I'll ask the council or I apologize, the planning commission.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com