West Linn Hearings Officer Appeal Hearing AP-26-01 – May 27, 2026

The City of West Linn Hearings Officer, Tommy Brooks, convened a quasi-judicial public hearing on Wednesday, May 27, 2026, beginning at 6:01 p.m. in Council Chambers and virtually, to consider AP-26-01, an appeal by the Savannah Oaks Neighborhood Association of the Planning Commission's 4-3 approval of the City of West Linn Operations Center (CUP-25-02/DR-25-02/WAP-25-01). The agenda had listed the hearing at 6:00 p.m. The hearings officer stated that he would base his decision solely on the record, that the hearing was de novo, and that a written decision would follow after an extended written record.

Procedural Objections and Rulings

• Appellants' counsel, Andrew Mulkey, raised written objections: the city council allegedly could not delegate appeal authority to a hearings officer under the development code, the delegation violated the land use code amendment process, and Planning Commissioner Evans was allegedly not a resident when the Planning Commission decided the case.
• City staff responded that the charter and home rule give the council authority to delegate, the delegation was administrative and not a land use decision, no substantial rights were prejudiced, and Commissioner Evans remained a resident through the March 4 decision because he closed on a Vancouver home March 5 and recorded the deed March 6; any lower-level error would be cured by de novo review.
• Hearings Officer Brooks took the objections under advisement for the final written decision, but preliminarily ruled that the appeal could proceed, citing ORS 227.165 as authority for hearings officers.
• Staff planner Aaron Gaddell presented a procedural timeline: the application was first submitted July 18, 2025, deemed complete December 17, 2025; Planning Commission evidentiary hearings were held February 4, February 18, and March 4, 2026; the commission voted 4-3 to approve on March 4; the decision was mailed March 12; the appeal followed; city council delegated appellate authority on April 14; the decision deadline was extended to July 31, 2026; public comments and a revised application were submitted by the hearing date.

Applicant Presentation

• Morgan Lovell, city public works support supervisor and project manager, said the existing facility was built in 1937 for about 2,500 residents while the city population is now just under 28,000; the current site lacks modern seismic, office, training, and 24-hour emergency accommodations and causes overflow parking in adjacent neighborhoods. She emphasized the project relocates existing staff, equipment, and services without expanding services.
• Architect Sid Scott, Scott Edwards Architecture, described a 33-acre site with approximately 5.7 acres (17%) developed; two main buildings on a lower basalt bench, an upper service yard, covered storage, truck wash, fueling, and de-icer facilities; buildings voluntarily designed to Seismic Category 4; mass plywood structural system; and natural buffers to nearby residents.
• Attorney Zoe Powers said the applicant's response addressed the 16 basis-of-appeal bullet points in six categories. She argued the former ODOT right-of-way is automatically zoned R-10 by attachment to adjacent zoning; the project qualifies as a public support facility because public works and parks staff deal directly with citizens; and fleet repair is incidental to the overall facility.
• She noted the applicant voluntarily prepared a traffic impact analysis and noise study after the Planning Commission decision. The TIA used actual trips from the existing facility and showed intersections at Level of Service B, better than the city's LOS E standard; the noise study showed DEQ and local standards would be met without mitigation.
• On water resources, Powers said there are minor encroachments into buffer areas but all development is in previously developed areas, no direct impacts on water resources, invasive species would be replaced with native vegetation, and stormwater outflows would be metered to match or be lower than pre-development peaks.
• On geotechnical issues, she described a multi-phase Columbia West Engineering investigation over more than two years, including five borings, 13 test pits, seismic surveys, groundwater monitoring, and laboratory testing. She said the 1960s landslide was human-caused during I-205 construction, the problematic Vantage Horizon was removed by state corrective work, current foundations would sit on stable basalt, and independent peer reviews were completed by an internal reviewer and Fulcrum Georesources.

Appellant Presentation

• Ed Schwarz, Savannah Oaks Neighborhood Association treasurer and one of the appellants, said the association is not opposed to an operations center but opposes this location because of landslide susceptibility and a single access point from Salamo Road. He argued the Planning Commission should have denied the application under community development code chapters 48 and 60 and Comprehensive Plan Goal 7, and that the site's one entrance-exit creates unacceptable public safety risk for emergency equipment.
• Schwarz argued the property was not zoned through proper quasi-judicial procedures; the public support facility definition is not met because the facility does not deal directly with the public on a daily basis; the primary fleet repair function is not incidental; the traffic impact analysis and noise study should have been submitted with the application rather than as late conditions; and ODOT records about the landslide remediation are partly lost.
• He concluded by asking the appeal to be upheld and the application returned to the Planning Commission with direction to find a safer, more geologically stable location.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No member of the public signed up to testify in support of the underlying application.
• Roberta Schwartz, a Savannah Oaks resident, argued the zoning process was improper and criticized the city council for referring the matter to a hearings officer; she described years of neighborhood involvement and asked the officer to weigh future liability.
• Matt Evans, a 28-year West Linn resident, said the Oregonian's coverage of the project underscored his concerns, cited Water System Master Plan maps showing hazards at the Salamo Road site but not at the existing Norfolk/Sunset facility, and raised concerns about snow/ice access and the single point of failure.
• Bill Relia, former planning commissioner and city councilor, said he supported the process that allowed the city to purchase the property but not this specific facility; he submitted an error of law and error of facts brief. He cited ODOT's Pioneer Mountain to Edyville project cost growth from $130 million to $173 million, later scrapped when an ancient landslide moved again, costing about $345 million to redesign, and said landslide-susceptible development has occurred at about 450 sites in Oregon over the last 10 years.
• Teresa Cummings, former planning commissioner and city councilor, said Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue had previously raised access concerns in another case and that the project lacked meaningful public alternative-site engagement; she stated city engineers had internally decided on the site in 2017.
• Michael Capsian said the city should have required a noise study by a licensed acoustical engineer earlier, that the acoustical consultant's certification may not be recognized in Oregon, that the Planning Commission's final written order was never voted on, and that stormwater storage should be above ground; he requested remand or, alternatively, an open record period.
• Kathy Halleck, a West Linn resident since 2001, asked the officer to grant the appeal, warning of financial and public-safety risks from landslides, carbon monoxide, asbestos in brake dust, and emergency access failures.
• Ed Schwarz, speaking as a resident, presented a letter from retired structural engineer J.B. Rupert, who recommended a second geotechnical review and concluded the site should not be considered because it has only one access road; Schwarz said most codes require two access roads for emergency facilities.
• David Dodds argued the late traffic and noise studies were either unnecessary or should have been produced much earlier, and that submitting them during the appeal was as inappropriate as a site redesign; he asked that they be set aside or the matter remanded.
• Carrie Oakes, appearing virtually, a 28-year resident and neighborhood association representative, said the process was one of the worst she had seen, that she did not receive mailed notice of the Planning Commission decision or appeal hearing, that record review was inaccessible to her as a wheelchair user, and that documents were posted shortly before the hearing; she supported upholding the appeal or remanding to the Planning Commission.

Applicant Rebuttal

• Zoe Powers responded that Salamo Road is posted at 30 mph at the entrance and has a median turn lane and acceleration lane; the road is already a primary snow route; the late TIA and noise study are appropriate in a de novo hearing; and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue has approved the emergency access.
• She said ODOT's lost records are why the applicant relied on two years of site-specific geotechnical investigation. She argued the code does not require redundant access or elimination of all hypothetical risk, only reasonable mitigation; occupied buildings are founded directly on shallow basalt shelves, and engineered structural fill with geogrid reinforcement will be compacted and tested under geotechnical supervision.
• She said the access road grade is about 8%, less steep than the roughly 14% slope at the existing facility, and that the opponents' engineer, J.B. Rupert, is a structural engineer, not a geotechnical engineer, and therefore not qualified to provide the landslide expert opinion.
• Powers also noted there have been 17 public engagement opportunities and four public hearings on the project. She said about 130 pages of opponent testimony were filed that day, and the applicant requested two seven-day open record periods so parties could respond to material filed at the hearing, rather than a remand.

Key Outcomes

• The hearings officer closed the oral hearing but kept the written record open.
• The first open record period for any participant to submit written materials will close June 3, 2026, at 5:00 p.m.; a rebuttal period will close June 10, 2026, at 5:00 p.m.; and the applicant's final legal argument is due June 17, 2026, at 5:00 p.m.
• The hearings officer noted the open record periods add time to the city's 120-day decision clock, and the applicant agreed to confirm that in writing.
• Hearings Officer Brooks stated he will issue a written decision with findings addressing the factual and legal issues raised. Objections to jurisdiction and qualifications remain under advisement and will be resolved in that written decision.