[0:04] to call to order the August 26, 2026 planning commission meeting. Roll call,

[0:09] please. Lesley. >> Uh, thank you. Commissioner Thor Nash

[0:13] » here. Commissioner Gillow >> here.

[0:16] » Commissioner Jackson >> here.

[0:18] » Commissioner Davis >> here.

[0:19] » Commissioner Low is absent. Uh, Vice President Saka

[0:24] » here. >> And President Jones Gallardo

[0:26] » here. >> Thank you.

[0:27] » We have a quorum present. So we will proceed with our agenda items. The

[0:31] planning commission emphasizes addressing issues in a respectful and

[0:35] timely manner. We ask all parties to hearings and administrative matters

[0:39] during our meetings to assist us by participating in respectful and direct

[0:43] testimony and comments. There have been several disruptions

[0:47] during public meetings lately and I want to begin by setting the expectations for

[0:51] everyone. We will not tolerate disruptions that preclude the commission

[0:55] from being able to conduct its business and hear from the community. Those who

[0:59] cause disruptions will be asked to watch the meeting from the conference room

[1:02] across the hall or leave the building. This is deemed a first general warning

[1:07] for all attendees. Any person who disrupts the meeting will be provided

[1:12] with one individualized warning. Any further disruptions will result in that

[1:16] individual being asked to watch the meeting from the conference room or

[1:20] being removed from the building altogether.

[1:22] To keep the space welcoming, inclusive, and accessible for everyone, and to

[1:26] avoid disruption, we ask that all comments be shared respectfully. For

[1:31] virtual testimony, either during the communications and non-aggenda items or

[1:36] during the public hearings, virtual testimony will only be taken by those

[1:39] who have pre-registered prior to 3 p.m. And testimony will be heard in the

[1:44] following order. Those who are in person, then those online who have

[1:48] pre-registered.

[1:51] First on the agenda is communication and non-aggenda items. If you are here to

[1:55] provide testimony on either of the public hearings on the agenda this

[1:59] evening, please fill out a blue card so we can call you up once the public

[2:04] hearing is opened and your comments can become part of the record and you can

[2:07] just hand the cards over to staff. Bri over there uh will take the cards from

[2:12] you. Um, if you wish to comment on a non-aggenda,

[2:18] now is the time to do so. Please fill out a green card uh for public comment

[2:23] and hand it to our administrative team. Uh, when you are called on, please use

[2:28] the microphone at the public comment table. The microphone is live when the

[2:31] green light is on. You will have three minutes to provide your comment. If you

[2:36] feel you have to publicly express support for a comment or viewpoint, we

[2:41] ask that you use a quiet, non-disruptive method, such as snapping your fingers,

[2:45] thumbs up, or jazz hands. Uh, clapping, calling out, or making any verbal

[2:51] outburst interferes with people's ability to hear clearly. These these

[2:56] disruptions will not be tolerated. Again, to keep the space welcoming,

[3:00] inclusive, and accessible for everyone to avoid disruption, we ask that all

[3:05] comments be shared respectfully. All right. Uh Bri, do we have any green

[3:10] cards yet? >> Not yet.

[3:13] » All right. We will give folks a moment to fill up green cards. I see people

[3:18] filling out cards.

[3:42] Okay. All right.

[3:48] All right. Uh I just see blue and blue. Okay. Okay. Uh we have no one

[3:56] pre-register or sorry uh we have uh no one in person this evening for uh

[4:02] communications and non-aggenda items. Uh Bri, is anyone online pre-registered for

[4:08] public comment or non-aggenda items? >> No one is pre-registered for this

[4:11] evening. >> Thank you, Bri. Moving on to the next

[4:15] item on the agenda, approval of minutes. Consideration of the May 13, 2026

[4:21] planning commission meeting minutes. Are there any corrections or discussion of

[4:25] these minutes? Do I have a motion?

[4:29] » Commissioner Saka. Motion to approve May 13, 2026 minute.

[4:33] » Do I have a second? >> Commissioner Jackson, I second.

[4:38] » I have a motion from Commissioner Saka and a second by Commissioner Jackson to

[4:42] approve the May 13, 2026 Planning Commission minutes. All those in favor,

[4:46] please say I. I. >> All opposed?

[4:51] Any abstensions? Motion carries.

[4:57] All right, moving on to the public hearing portion of our agenda. If you

[5:01] are here and wish to provide testimony in support or opposition on this matter,

[5:05] please fill out a blue card and give it to our administrative team. We will send

[5:10] you a notice of decision using the contact information provided on the blue

[5:14] card. If you are not registered to speak but wish to receive a copy of the notice

[5:18] of decision, please fill out the sign-in sheet at the back of the auditorium with

[5:22] either your mailing address or email address. If you are attending virtually,

[5:27] please email community development hillsboro.gov

[5:35] to receive a copy of the decision. Do any of the commissioners wish to state

[5:40] any exparte contacts or wish to declare a conflict of interest or bias for any

[5:44] of the agenda items? If so, please speak now.

[5:52] Our first public hearing is development review 03825C.

[6:00] The applicant Matt Newman of Northwest Engineers LLC.

[6:06] legal tax slot two 203 on Washington County assessor's tax map one and is in

[6:13] November 2150. The request con consider approving a

[6:19] order for a consolidated development review, conditional use, and flood plane

[6:24] activity for the development of a 10,000 square ft recreation building with major

[6:30] adjustments to set back on a lot approximately 4.3 acres in size and

[6:35] zoned. Order number 8501 is available. Mark,

[6:42] please share the OS video.

[6:48] All public testimony and evidence submitted must refer to applicable

[6:52] approval criteria which are listed in the staff report or other land use

[6:56] regulations or criteria you believe may apply to the decision. Any testimony or

[7:00] written evidence needs to be specific and detailed so the city can understand

[7:04] and respond to each criterion or issue discussed in the testimony. Failure to

[7:09] raise an issue before the record closes prevents an appeal to the land use board

[7:14] of appeals based on that issue. >> Failure by the applicant to raise an

[7:18] issue before the record closes prevents an action for damages in circuit court

[7:22] based on that issue. >> All testimony and evidence that

[7:25] addresses the approval criteria will be responded to prior to the closing of the

[7:29] record.

[7:33] » Thank you, Mark. The staff have any updates or additional information that

[7:37] they wish to provide? >> Staff does not.

[7:41] » All right. Staff report, please. Ruth. >> Good evening, President and

[7:46] Commissioners. I am here tonight to present a staff report to you

[7:53] with a new element that is hopefully going to

[7:58] make it easier to view the small print.

[8:06] This is not.

[8:20] So, um, as I mentioned, my name is Ruth Klein. I'm a senior planner with the

[8:24] planning division and this is for the review of ICC.

[8:32] This map here shows a context of this property being located out in the

[8:39] northern portion of Hillsboro.

[8:50] Ah, I'm still getting the hang of it. But

[8:54] it's going to be cool once I get the hang of it, you guys.

[9:02] It's okay. This is

[9:07] a zoomed in portion that starts to show you the constraints that this site is

[9:13] facing. Um before it was developed as a Islamic center, it had a single family

[9:21] home on it and several barns and um the eastern side is the flood plane along

[9:28] with natural resources on the site.

[9:37] The application before us today is consolidated. The development review has

[9:43] consolidated within it the conditional use, the flood plane activity, and the

[9:48] major adjustments. I'm going to go through each of those individually and

[9:52] explain what they mean. Uh conditional use is an application

[9:59] process that an applicant applies for when a proposed use has the potential

[10:05] for increased impacts to the surrounding area that a um standard use would not.

[10:12] The particular impacts for this use is they have a large number of attendees

[10:18] and very particular traffic flows um associated with services. Uh the

[10:24] original approval uh granted 297 attendees in 2016 and this conditional

[10:31] use is increasing it to 500. The conditional use in 2016 was unique

[10:39] in that it also um spoke about frontage improvements and in that it stated that

[10:46] it would defer the phase one improvements to phase two. It did um

[10:52] direct the applicant to dedicate right ofway along their frontages that did

[10:57] occur. The decision also called out what the

[11:02] phase 2 review triggers were. Uh new buildings, expansion, intensification of

[11:07] use, or significant increase in vehicle trips. All of that is what's occurring

[11:12] here. And so we're evaluating those frontage improvements tonight.

[11:20] The development review is the site plan specifics. So, this is a multi-purpose

[11:27] building that's going to serve a lot of different uses. Um, social activities,

[11:32] educational activities, services, um, recreation.

[11:38] There's also a gravel parking lot that's going to be paved and a circulation

[11:43] pattern set up. That's, um, uh, one way for increased safety.

[11:48] There's an entry plaza that is facing Helvatia, a water storage tank, and I'm

[11:55] going to talk more about that later, a replacement septic system, trash

[12:00] recycling enclosures, and landscaping. They also have frontage improvements on

[12:07] Northwest Talvatia Road with a right-hand turn lane. And um a portion

[12:12] of Pubil's Creek has a fee inl um Pubil's Street has a fe for the creek

[12:18] crossing.

[12:22] Here is what it looks like visually.

[12:30] So the existing building here,

[12:37] proposed building here.

[12:41] This right here has under it the demolition of a barn and a replacement

[12:46] with a viewing platform out into the natural resource area that is here.

[12:53] This is the existing house that got converted to assembly space.

[12:59] And this is the water tower right here.

[13:05] What you're seeing right here is this in this red area is a landscaping buffer

[13:10] that's required in industrial plan districts when you're on the boundary.

[13:15] And as you can see, a significant amount of this development activity is

[13:19] occurring within that um landscape buffer, which is where the major

[13:24] adjustments originate from. What's also unique, um, I can't remember

[13:31] ever working on a project that had a water tower. So, this is related to it

[13:36] being in the far northern area of Hillsboro. The utilities aren't out

[13:41] there yet. They are still on septic and water. And there's been significant

[13:47] coordination to make sure that the water supplies are um, sufficient in cases of

[13:52] emergency. the water flows are there and um working with the city for alternative

[13:58] um paths to make that happen.

[14:15] There is one condition that I wanted to call out a revision to. The condition

[14:22] was originally written with the assumption that the applicant had

[14:26] already um received approval to do a fee in lie of um undergrounding the

[14:33] utilities. That process has not actually um taken place yet. So, the condition

[14:38] has been updated to include first the um explanation of the undergrounding

[14:45] process and then um the return back into the language of if um you elect to not

[14:53] underground because you qualify as a type A project and you pay that fee in

[14:58] lie, there are some requirements as far as relocating of PGE poles due to those

[15:04] improvements onto the on the site.

[15:13] major adjustments. Again, um this is getting back to that 50-foot rural urban

[15:19] edge. It is a landscaping edge that has um some very specific standards as far

[15:27] as the type of landscaping within it. The building is 38.4 feet. parking is 20

[15:36] feet and the water tank is as close as 10 feet to the property line on

[15:41] Halvatia. So you can see that there's um some

[15:45] significant encroachments there. The proposed qualifying public benefits

[15:52] um are the entry plaza which would be visible from the um public rightway on

[15:59] Helvatia. It's something that is not required by code. So, it does um count

[16:04] as something that goes above and beyond. The landscaping treatment um is on site

[16:12] as far as the use of natives with on the site itself. Um it's not a requirement

[16:18] of the uh of the um of the development code for this particular site.

[16:25] The two items that the applicant did propose and there was not sufficient um

[16:31] information to explain how they would work operationally is the viewing

[16:36] platform and the community garden.

[16:42] So the um community garden is right out here. You can see that it's

[16:49] within the natural resource area. the um that area is managed by clean water

[16:57] services and there is still um pending review of uh what can and cannot incur

[17:05] within that um resource boundary. So that's the first item of concern. The

[17:12] other item is how logistically it would work. There's more details in the staff

[17:17] report talking about access to the site for the public. Um monitoring of it um

[17:23] as far as making sure that um it remains a community garden. There are logistics

[17:28] there that um staff simply um cannot see a path forward as far as how to u make

[17:34] that function as a community benefit. The other item here is a viewing

[17:41] platform which again right here is very internal to the site

[17:50] and um is not easily accessible for the public. Um and it would not be uh

[17:57] something that uh staff would be concerned on the

[18:03] applicant's behalf as far as security um for accessing these two amenities.

[18:13] Here is an elevation

[18:18] north elevation. West elevation is facing towards uh Halvatia. North

[18:23] elevation is facing towards Pubil Street.

[18:31] Lastly, um there is a requested flood plane alteration.

[18:37] This is for the portions of the building parking and um some grading that's

[18:42] occurring in the flood plane overlay. None of it is occurring within the

[18:47] floodway itself. This is the um area where flooding may occur.

[18:53] There are conditions that have been placed on the project to um receive

[18:58] confirmation that the structures have been um elevated out of the flood plane

[19:05] and also that the cut and fill is balanced on the site so that the site

[19:11] maintains its capacity when there is flooding.

[19:16] Here's

[19:20] a visual.

[19:30] So this is more information on the major adjustments and their benefits.

[19:39] the um urban rural street edge and the screening of the parking and utility

[19:44] features, utilitarian features includes the water tower. Um there's a condition

[19:49] within the project that says it needs to be reviewed by a landscape architect. We

[19:54] don't at this point in time know what the height of that tower would be, so

[19:57] what type of screening it may need. And then there is also um comments in there

[20:04] related to the planting of white um of white oaks, Oregon white oaks. Those

[20:10] have some specific soil and irrigation requirements. So those would need to be

[20:14] reviewed as well at the permitting stage.

[20:20] Here is a landscaping plan that was originally submitted. you'll have before

[20:26] you a um updated plan set that was submitted by the applicant. This is

[20:33] something that um was a late arrival, so it would be reviewed um in detail during

[20:38] the permitting stage

[20:48] » and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

[20:52] » Thank you, Ruth. Does the commission have any questions for staff?

[20:56] Commissioner Thrash. >> Um, yes. This is Commissioner Thrash.

[21:00] Um, two questions. So, the water tower, am I to understand it's needed for fire

[21:05] reasons? Is that what you meant when you said

[21:08] » water flow? >> It's both fire and water supply for the

[21:12] site itself. >> Okay.

[21:14] » Daily water supply. >> Okay. Um, so we know that it's needed,

[21:18] but we don't know how big it needs to be yet or how high it needs to be. They've

[21:22] done preliminary calculations but not finalized what those calculations would

[21:27] be. >> Okay.

[21:28] » So we have um if it needs to change right now they are estimating a

[21:33] particular diameter for it. I think it's 25 or 26 feet in diameter. Um if that

[21:38] needs to change we'll um we'll look at doing a modification as necessary. Um

[21:43] the height of it hasn't been established yet, but there's an understanding that

[21:48] um it needed to be moved out of the vision clearance area due to its um it's

[21:52] going to be of a height that would impede vision meaning around the corner

[21:56] like when people for traffic >> at the corner publes and

[21:59] » Okay. Um the other question for the Hap Street

[22:04] improvement, I think I'm understanding that there's going to be a sidewalk

[22:07] there. >> Is that correct? Yes, this is the

[22:11] applicant site plan here and

[22:16] sensitive.

[22:21] So sidewalk down along this area here wrapping around this in this natural

[22:28] resource area here the applicant is making sure that their grading works so

[22:33] that the when the project to the north I'm sorry nope the east of it this is um

[22:40] north is on the left hand side in this image when that project develops um they

[22:45] would then use that fee and loo to create that connectivity there with this

[22:50] project. >> Okay. So, and I'm haven't been out there

[22:53] in a long time, but I'm trying to visualize. I don't think that there's

[22:56] any sidewalk on the what would be the south side at this

[23:00] » ditch and nothing. >> Okay. So, in terms of thinking about

[23:04] public access to like the entry plaza, unless you like I mean I guess

[23:10] theoretically you could walk on Helbisha, but it would not be my

[23:14] preference for safety reasons. um

[23:17] like a like is it staff's opinion that even though it's unlikely that somebody

[23:23] would be walking who was not already going there and potentially parking

[23:27] their car that it still qualifies as a public benefit because it's not allowed.

[23:32] It's it's required. Sorry. The code. >> Yeah. It's challenging to um to say how

[23:39] often this would be actually used as a public benefit, but the way our public

[23:43] benefit standards are structured, anything that goes above code can be

[23:47] considered by the planning commission as a public benefit. Whether you feel that

[23:53] this as a package is all sufficient when compared against the adjustments, that's

[23:58] something that you would be debating to. >> Okay. Thank you.

[24:02] » Thank you, Commissioner Throne Mash. Vice President Saka,

[24:05] » I have a question regarding um the conversation that you were able to have

[24:09] with the applicant in regards to public benefit. Thank you for outlining your

[24:14] thoughts on the community garden and the viewing platform. Were there other

[24:18] options that were discussed? Um this is a project that I took over so

[24:25] I don't know for certain if other um public benefits were discussed. Um

[24:35] it's uh you know these are good ideas. They're just um the logistics of making

[24:40] them work is um is unfortunate. I I don't see how that could happen.

[24:46] Thank you, >> Commissioner Davis.

[24:51] » Uh, yeah, I've got a couple of questions. Um, in regards to this the

[24:56] the streets that this about sub two, is Halvishia Road two lanes or three lanes

[25:04] in that area? >> I'll have um Joseph Hoff respond to

[25:07] that. >> This is uh for the record, this is

[25:10] Joseph Hoff, the city of Hillsboro transportation assistance manager.

[25:13] Hell Facial Road's currently two lanes. Uh today it's planned for um to be three

[25:19] lanes. >> Okay. So it will eventually my the

[25:23] reason why I'm asking that is um to me I would think that having traffic enter

[25:28] from the south end with the flow of traffic and then exiting on the north

[25:33] end and using that other street is kind of an area to wait for lefthand turns

[25:39] maybe a little safer. So just a a thought.

[25:45] Um then

[25:50] the other question I had is what is the current plan for when the city will be

[25:54] bringing utilities to that area?

[26:00] » Utilities um and frontage improvements are all dependent on the developments

[26:05] themselves. So, we don't have um an ability to say with certainty that when

[26:11] these improvements will happen and when they'll match up with each other. Um

[26:16] there have certainly been pre-application meetings where um

[26:20] interest has been expressed in adjacent sites, but again, that's, you know, the

[26:24] private property owner's decision on when they want to develop.

[26:29] » Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff?

[26:33] Commissioner Gillow >> Ruth have a couple questions. Um,

[26:40] what is the city's policy uh when water

[26:46] quote becomes available? Uh, the property to the east is under

[26:53] consideration. At least that's what the information I

[26:56] have. I presume that they will be expanding water uh under their site.

[27:02] Probably will create a I don't know 12in loop system which will make it much

[27:08] closer. How close does the water get before you're

[27:14] required under our city utilities to abandon a reservoir and or a well system

[27:20] and you must hook up? >> Do we know? Um, so two things I want to

[27:27] show you. First, the current location of the utilities.

[27:36] So on these um they are nice because north is up. On the left hand side

[27:44] you'll see the water and the distance from the site.

[27:48] On the right hand side, you'll see the sanitary sewer lines in the distance

[27:53] from the site. The way it works in the city is if there was a utility line um

[28:03] within proximity to the site, um there's a certain amount of negotiation

[28:09] if it's extending farther beyond the property line, but in most instances, we

[28:14] would require that extension. in this instance is too far to require that

[28:20] extension um for the water in particular. There's

[28:24] also some needs for that to be a looping line for um san uh safety reasons and

[28:30] the for the water. So let's say to get back to your question, they develop with

[28:36] a septic system and a water tower and then four or five years later the

[28:42] properties to the east um and south develop and the water lines are abudding

[28:47] the property. If their septic system fails um then they cannot repair it.

[28:53] They need to extend and connect to those lines. the um well water in the city,

[28:59] you are not required to connect to water if you're on a well. So as long as that

[29:04] well remains functioning, they can continue to use it.

[29:11] So, it's my understanding with the uh that

[29:15] there's an application that's been submitted

[29:18] for the development to the east and they're going to be extending sewer and

[29:24] water. We can argue how relatively close it's

[29:28] going to be to this site. Mhm. >> I without

[29:35] getting into negotiations or whatever, it seems to me it would be not

[29:39] unreasonable for the city to

[29:43] ask that developer to consider. That's not a condition that I'm implying

[29:49] that I would impose or recommend we impose. I'm just saying there's an

[29:53] ability here to get out from underneath uh

[30:00] which kind of gets to my next question, which is the water tank.

[30:03] » Uh, it is interesting. It's going to be

[30:09] pretty dogone close to the new rideway and the deceleration lane. And

[30:18] I know I've never seen a car drive off a road onto somebody else's property and

[30:23] hit something. But that's a disastrous event waiting to happen. Uh if that

[30:30] should occur on Helvatia, somebody going northbound in particular and

[30:37] that I don't know what I see is landscaping

[30:42] and I don't see much distance between the deceleration lane and people

[30:46] driving. I think it's 50 miles an hour is the speed limit there on Havvesia. I

[30:51] think it it it strikes me as an accident, if you will, waiting to

[30:57] happen. And there doesn't seem to be much of a barrier to stop any car if it

[31:02] happens to fly off the road. And that's disastrous for this property owner. So,

[31:08] that's kind of my first concern about that. Um

[31:13] second question in the staff work that was done the implication

[31:19] was that uh there's a certain amount of gallons per

[31:25] second that has to be produced or proven that comes out of but we don't know that

[31:31] for a fact yet apparently or do we?

[31:37] That is one of several items that we don't know for a fact yet. There are

[31:42] quite a few items that are conditioned. >> Okay. So, that that gets to my point is

[31:46] this is just one of many conditions that I'm looking at is if they can't meet it,

[31:52] we don't have a site plan. I mean, like we're approving something

[31:56] that's really not a final anything. So, I'm I'm scratching my head

[32:02] just just a little bit here trying to understand. And I realize that we are

[32:06] have the ability as uh the city and the commission to attach conditions, but

[32:13] there's a lot of whatifs here. That's just one. Let me let me get to the next

[32:18] one. The cut fill in the staff report says hasn't been approved yet by

[32:26] the city or clean water services. Has it? Because if it hasn't,

[32:32] we really don't have a final land use plan for the parking lot.

[32:37] » To be fair for the cut and fill, that's something that gets approved on site

[32:41] with the movement of the soil. It gets >> Yes, I would agree.

[32:45] » Yeah. >> Okay. But it's subject to

[32:48] » just the city's approval or clean water because it's in the

[32:51] » this the city is the flood plane manager. So, we would um we would review

[32:56] that clean water services service provider letter is is still pending. Um

[33:02] you'll see in several places in the conditions that say um you need to come

[33:08] back for a modification if you're deviating from this plan in any way.

[33:12] There's a very strong staff awareness that there's a lot of unfinished items

[33:17] on this um on this uh application. we

[33:24] have, you know, a preference by the applicant to move forward and I city

[33:30] preference to find a way to approve an application. Um, this one happens to

[33:35] need a lot of conditions to be approvable and I've put caveats in there

[33:40] to say if you're deviating anyway, we need to reassess

[33:44] um what's what's happening on the site. If the caveats end up having to make a

[33:52] lot of changes, >> and I'm not saying they're going to,

[33:56] then the public's not going to see that, just

[34:00] the staff. >> No, that would be so modifications would

[34:04] come back to the planning commission. >> Okay.

[34:06] » Yeah. So it's the applicants been made aware that they are proceeding at their

[34:11] own risk with this level of >> the half street improvements on um

[34:19] the local street that's a city requirement.

[34:23] » Yeah. Hubil is a city street and Halvata is a county road.

[34:28] » Okay. And there was something in the staff report that alluded to the fact

[34:33] that the uh entrance off the local street

[34:39] should be 150 ft back from the intersection, but there was some debate

[34:44] about whether or not it's back 150 ft. And

[34:49] uh well, is it or isn't it? >> It does not appear to be. This is

[34:55] another item where the applicant will need to demonstrate that they've moved

[34:59] it back as far as they can visually. They've shown that that it they've done

[35:04] that based on um the natural resource boundaries here, but then we run into

[35:08] that cycle again of the natural resource boundaries not being

[35:12] » if it's not back 150 ft, >> is Washington County going to have a

[35:16] problem with permitting the right-hand turn lane?

[35:22] Washington County has not expressed a problem with this particular location.

[35:27] They've been in several conversations with the city and the applicant and seen

[35:31] this location. Their concern is more with ensuring that the improvements

[35:38] themselves get done in such a manner um again with

[35:43] that proximity of the building to the edge of the property line. um figuring

[35:48] out how to run utilities down that um down that front edge and the logistics

[35:53] associated with that. >> Okay, my last area is traffic.

[35:58] » I read the traffic report and I I rarely read them all, but this site plan drove

[36:06] me to have to read the traffic report. Took a several cups of coffee to get

[36:12] through it. Um,

[36:18] I'm not sure I quite grasp or understand through the staff report why we have an

[36:23] entrance and an exit system the way we do. But leaving that aside,

[36:30] uh, the exiting at the south end of the property where you can come

[36:36] out going north or you can come out going south.

[36:41] that has historically been there. If if you look at the aerial, you can see the

[36:47] traffic has gone come out and gone south,

[36:51] but we're now increasing

[36:55] the site significantly in terms of vehicular movement. Uh I

[37:01] think the traffic analysis said that the at least at the Friday evening early

[37:09] Friday evening late prayer that the traffic movement going south was 97

[37:14] vehicles.

[37:18] But I didn't see anything there from Washington County.

[37:22] There's nothing there. And I'm kind of just openly questioning what's

[37:28] what's the safety consideration. You're increasing the traffic. You're adding

[37:35] 10,500 square ft. And we're expecting more cars to go south on a two-lane road

[37:43] where people are going 50 miles an hour plus. So, can you

[37:48] give me some idea of what we should expect or not expect in terms of traffic

[37:54] safety?

[37:58] Anybody from the staff? >> Yes, this is Joseph. Um, again, for the

[38:04] record, um, uh, Washington County worked with the

[38:08] applicant on this, uh, layout here. Um there was kind of initially there was

[38:13] some discussion of just having just one access and that access would be on pools

[38:17] and and there would be no access at all on health road. That was initially what

[38:21] Washington County u directed the applicant to do. But after multiple

[38:26] conversations, they worked um with the traffic analysis. They've uh came up

[38:31] with this kind of one um way movement of having the ingress go through go onto

[38:37] publes and and use that driveway and exit out on um Halpatia Road. And um I

[38:44] guess um some of the uh safety logic there is that like when you're um if it

[38:50] was the other way around with the egress going off of Pubil Street that right

[38:54] turn lane could you know impede the intersection sight distance for the

[38:59] people wanting to make the left turn out. So that way if we shift it um have

[39:03] the egress instead on Halvesia road they would have better sight distance um to

[39:08] be able to um enter Halvatia road through that direction.

[39:19] I'll add as far as safety considerations too, one of the most important things is

[39:24] the street frontage improvements on both of these streets is going to give the,

[39:29] you know, remove the ditch, provide the standard um sidewalk and um in some

[39:34] places, you know, the planter strip areas, some of it expanded. I think that

[39:39] that more urban street lends itself as well to people um following those rules

[39:47] and understanding the boundaries of where they should and should not go.

[39:50] » Well, I would agree with you as it relates to going northbound, going out

[39:55] of the southbound. because there's no longer a ditch and it's more of a kind

[39:58] of a gravel whatever you got some ability to if you misjudge

[40:05] southbound you got nothing you got to ditch

[40:10] and it just

[40:14] I I'm having a hard time buying the safety aspect

[40:20] of the traffic design and the safety of people coming out

[40:25] of this site. I don't think people that belong to this particular uh facility or

[40:33] belong to any other type of ch church affiliation when people leave a service

[40:38] they have a habit of getting in their car and beating feet. Okay. And it just

[40:44] strikes me as Havvesia is a 50 m an hour. Once people get out past shaft or

[40:51] whatever the road is down at the end, they're hauling.

[40:56] Uh they're going northbound and they're coming in southbound, too. And it just

[41:01] seems like there's just not enough safety consideration when people kind of

[41:06] make a bad judgment. there's no way to pull off, pull over. Particularly if

[41:11] you're going southbound, at least when you're going northbound, you might have

[41:15] a more of a scallop ditch or the right-hand turn lane if push comes to

[41:22] shove if you misjudge that. That's just my my concern. The my other concern, Mr.

[41:28] president is there's a lot of whatif conditions

[41:33] and I I want to state I want to thank the staff for conditioning this

[41:41] application to get it to where it needs to be but quite frankly this application

[41:48] strikes me as not ready for prime time for an approval to be perfectly honest

[41:53] with you. Thank you.

[41:57] Did staff want to respond to any of that before I go to my questions?

[42:04] » If um after the applicant's presentation and testimony, we want to talk more

[42:09] about procedurally if there is a possibility to either extend the

[42:14] application or you know discuss the the other option is um you know discussing

[42:20] the formatting of a denial based on our reasons. We can work with you through

[42:23] that. That does lead a a little into my line

[42:28] of questioning is where do we know where we're at on the 120day clock with this

[42:33] application?

[42:36] » If the applicant does not grant a um 120day extension, there is time for one

[42:43] more planning commission meeting. Um that would be so not the next planning

[42:49] commission meeting but the one after that. So we have enough time to prepare

[42:51] the revisions. There's time for one of those. Okay. So, the the late September

[42:56] meeting would there is time for that >> if the applicant did not want to grant

[43:02] an extension, >> right?

[43:03] » Okay. Uh have uh has staff had conversations with the applicant about

[43:09] about potentially extending the deadline if that could po the or the timeline if

[43:15] that if we feel that might possibly help move this application to a more stable

[43:21] footing or we reached a they they want an answer.

[43:25] » The they have conveyed to us that they very much wanted to move forward to this

[43:29] particular date and receive an answer. >> Okay. Uh, and I I'll ask the applicant

[43:34] the same question. So, giving them a giving them a heads up. Um, but I wanted

[43:39] to see where where staff was at on that. Any other questions for staff?

[43:43] Commissioner Thrash. >> Um, yeah, thank you. Um, so something

[43:49] that just occurred to me um is that is that the existing prayer hall is

[43:54] entirely within that pink landscape buffer that's there. Um, can you help me

[44:00] understand like is it this particular application that triggered that

[44:06] landscape buffer requirement or is it that the previous conditional use permit

[44:11] allowed them to build within a landscape buffer? Does that make sense?

[44:16] » Yeah, absolutely. So, um, that building, that existing prayer hall was a

[44:21] pre-existing non-conforming use that was part of the original residential

[44:25] homestead. >> Okay. So when they originally um

[44:29] occupied the site, that was already there. So there was nothing that got

[44:32] triggered, right? >> Okay. And so it's just the improvements.

[44:36] Okay. Thank you. >> Um and can you also I don't know if I I

[44:39] feel like you had at the beginning a um a slide that showed like where the

[44:47] natural resource overlay and where the flood plane is.

[44:52] I'm trying to understand like what would be possible on this site if they had to

[44:57] not have anything in this landscape up. >> So um the vegetated corridor runs along

[45:05] this clean water services regulatory um natural resource runs right along the

[45:11] northern edge of eastern edge of all of those parking spaces.

[45:15] » Okay. um the flood plane. I'll scooch back to that

[45:27] um significantly covers a lot of the site and that's why there's this

[45:32] continuing balance cut and fill activity.

[45:35] » Okay. Thank you. That's all I ask.

[45:39] » Any other questions for staff before we move on to the applicant?

[45:45] No. Okay. Uh, at this time I would like to call for the applicant's

[45:49] presentation. Will the applicant please come forward, state and spell your

[45:53] names, and identify approximately how much time you will need for your

[45:57] presentation.

[46:02] » I'll push the button first. Beautiful.

[46:05] » Good evening, Matt Newman, NW engineers. Um, we have

[46:12] um it's just it's just me testifying, but um our client Muhammad Son is

[46:19] online. He's um out of state right now and he he's prepared to testify. He

[46:25] requested this. Um so Bri should have it. Um,

[46:31] my address 2920 Southeast Brookwood, Sweet G,

[46:38] 97129. Uh, we've been told our at our our zip

[46:43] changed. It was one 92 uh 7123. So, it's changed. Needs to be updated on the on

[46:49] these reports. I'd like to speak to Mr. Gillow's

[46:55] comments for sure, but I want to um because I think we are ready. There are

[47:01] some there are some questions and we're we're prepared to talk about those. But

[47:05] as far as the the design, uh we have a full understanding of the

[47:11] um of the limitations on this property. Um

[47:17] we have had many meetings with not only city but also county staff

[47:22] and we've had multiple consultants uh working with us architects. We do have

[47:28] an understanding of this water tank. It's not a tower. It's a water tank.

[47:32] It's about 27 is big. 27 ft wide about 16t tall but

[47:40] it goes up to a a dome. So it's two or three feet taller than that. um the

[47:47] architects and other consultants have done um um calculations to know what the

[47:54] fire um flow requirements are and uh they've sized it accordingly.

[48:01] So we're confident on the size may change a little bit but we're confident

[48:05] on fire flow and all that. We prefer not doing it. We prefer that there was a

[48:09] water line. However, in talking to Twelton uh Valley

[48:14] Water District, um it's uh they would require that it be

[48:19] extended. In fact, they said they didn't want it done um until it can be funded

[48:25] and extended all the way up to West Union to looped and that they said

[48:30] that's well over a million dollars to do it. So, that's the water issue. Septic

[48:34] or sewer, I should I should say, is the same issue. Um

[48:39] so that's where we are with um currently the the uh site is on well and septic.

[48:47] Um, I'll just talk briefly on some of these

[48:52] issues that were raised. Um, plus a couple in the staff report I want to

[48:57] talk about and then Mohammed will get on and talk about um do a test testify.

[49:05] Um,

[49:08] I would like to thank staff for all the help we've had. Uh, you may recall we

[49:14] were here in I believe it was February for a hearing. Um, actually, could you

[49:19] put that site plan back up? Um,

[49:24] and we at the time we talked about the

[49:28] constraints of the site. Um in prior meetings we talked about you know how

[49:35] can you get this it's it's size of a gym um on the site and we had initially

[49:42] proposed it uh closer to the road and we after meeting with staff moved it so

[49:48] it's it's tied up against the existing prayer hall. Again that was an existing

[49:54] uh barn when they bought the property. They went through in 2016 to convert it.

[50:00] um the it's it's the dimensions that they that

[50:05] they need for a gym and that's kind of how they've come up with this. We we

[50:10] actually did change it somewhat from what they they wanted. We knew we needed

[50:14] to get to meet ADA. We needed a sidewalk all the way around it, which is shown.

[50:19] We clearly needed vehicle access. Um we we know about the flood or we knew

[50:28] about the flood plane at the time. Um that that graphic that Ruth had up, it

[50:33] shows the um uh 188

[50:39] flood plane elevation. Um and it's for this existing site, it's

[50:47] inches to a foot into the flood plane. Um

[50:51] the uh requirement a after meeting with staff

[50:56] was that this gravel parking lot would need to be paved. Uh would need to meet

[51:04] um landscape requirements and such. So we've designed it to meet all that.

[51:10] There was a a big meeting um with um the traffic engineer

[51:18] um Washington County traffic engineers Jindy Zoo who was in this meeting

[51:27] I'm sure you were as well and others and

[51:33] after that meeting looking at different access locations it was decided this was

[51:38] the by everybody this was the best circulation

[51:43] plan for the site and the reason is uh the county was was not concerned

[51:51] apparently of the vehicle trips going south.

[51:55] They were concerned with stacking on the road. So if we had

[52:02] proposed the south as an entrance, there could be stacking on the road.

[52:10] The property next door, who knows when that's going to develop. It hasn't they

[52:14] haven't dedicated right away. Um so that was the issue. So they now they have

[52:18] asked when one changes one uh uh road design change than what you see here is

[52:26] they want us to do a about a 400t with the turn lane and so it's it's much of

[52:32] the frontage will be wider. They've also asked for a half street which we're not

[52:38] opposed to. We were what we were opposed to was the timing of it and we can talk

[52:43] about that or Mohamad can. Um, we always planned to have a sidewalk, always plan

[52:49] to do the full improvements on pools. Um,

[52:55] there's a there's a condition in there requiring that

[53:00] going um that we have to be one and a half ft above the flood plane going over

[53:05] the uh um we have to do a profile showing that

[53:11] the future road over the covert will be 1 and 1/2 ft above the flood plane. So,

[53:16] so we've we've run profiles. We've had the whole thing surveyed. We've run

[53:19] profiles for Pulse Road will definitely be wider. Um, it has to be raised up

[53:26] from the entrance. Um, elevated, I should say. Um, so that

[53:33] was so as far as traffic, that's the circulation plan that everyone felt was

[53:37] the safest option and there was no other option

[53:42] uh in in in everybody's mind. we it wasn't it would not make sense to to

[53:47] just have one entrance because then um you have the stacking problem on

[53:52] Helvatia itself here you have plenty of room for stacking all the way around and

[53:58] then um when they're when their meetings end which is not not evening it's

[54:04] afternoon it's early afternoon um the stacking is on in the parking lot so

[54:10] it's not the stacking is not in the in the on elevation.

[54:16] Um,

[54:21] I want to talk for a minute about the public benefits

[54:27] and I want to specifically talk about and it was in the staff report

[54:34] um pages uh

[54:39] three I should say uh four four to seven. And in here, um, staff's talking

[54:46] about, um, adequacy of public benefits, um, this viewing platform, the community

[54:55] garden, um,

[54:59] landscape plan deficiencies, which so we can address all those, um, and, uh, the,

[55:05] uh, CWS service provider letter and the no net

[55:12] rise documentation

[55:15] uh flood plane permit.

[55:21] I uh I asked our uh environmental consultant Jack Dalton to respond to

[55:27] some of these. I just like to summarize it. Um

[55:33] the uh regarding the the um clean water services

[55:39] provider letter, we do have one Uh it did not address the water tank which

[55:46] Clean Water didn't care about. Uh they tell us um it

[55:53] there was a question though about this flood plane permit.

[55:58] So what we have to do when we do flood plane alterations or permits is we have

[56:04] to do a balanced cut and fill and then a number of uh calcs to show

[56:10] that it's that it meets FEMA requirements. Um the building itself has

[56:16] to be there's a condition in there has to be uh

[56:21] 189.4

[56:24] four, I think. But we're actually going to be 190 because the existing prayer

[56:28] hall, we've surveyed that the finished floor of the existing prayer hall is

[56:31] already higher. So, we're we're going to meet the we're going to meet that

[56:34] condition automatically. Parking lot um is conditioned to be at the

[56:42] 100red-year flood plane. I believe that's correct. That's right. Yeah.

[56:45] Right. So, so like I said, it's much of that that is um

[56:52] um that we're impacting is inches into the

[56:56] flood plane, maybe up to a foot in in some places. So, we've done we've

[57:01] calculated estimated the the cut at about 350 yards. It could be more could

[57:07] be more by the time the all the dust clears, especially since we have to ra

[57:12] have to raise pools some in the flood plane.

[57:16] um and we have to remove an equal amount of

[57:22] of soil from the flood plane. So what we're proposing

[57:26] um uh is within that uh clean water services

[57:33] vegetated corridor which is directly north of the parking lot. It's 50 ft

[57:37] wide. As a matter of fact, the the um the

[57:45] it's just a it's a uh it's a buffer requirement has to be planted. Clean

[57:50] water service letter required that that's where we're taking the dirt.

[57:54] That's where we're removing the dirt. Um it's a about a foot across much of the

[58:00] site um where those bridges are and we are removing that from the flood plane

[58:07] and we'll use that in our in our burm uh which is uh along Halvata. It's about a

[58:14] 4ft high burm. So that's our balance. That's our balance cut and fill. Um

[58:20] we're confident about that. Obviously, we got to run the the uh calf final

[58:25] civil, but we're pretty confident on that we can certainly meet meet it. So,

[58:30] so Jack Dalton has discussed this with clean water services.

[58:34] Um he's discussed this current site plan with them. Um he says the only rem

[58:40] remaining item um uh for clean water service is to issue a this is a revision

[58:46] to their to their uh service provider letter is uh they have to review the

[58:52] proposed mitigation planting. So what that means is

[58:58] they're they're okay with the uh a cut in the buffer. They're okay.

[59:05] We can talk further about the uh the community garden. Um Jack is of the

[59:11] opinion it's we probably should just lose it because there's other other

[59:15] things that come up. We can talk about that. Um but they're okay with the rest

[59:20] of it. There are there's mitigation um planting pretty much the entire east

[59:26] side of the site as you can see on there.

[59:30] Much of that is wetland. It's just it's just a field. you can farm a field. Uh

[59:36] you don't need a you don't need a DSL or core permit to farm.

[59:40] They could plant an orchard if they wanted. That's one thing he suggested.

[59:44] Um but we are proposing um you know full

[59:50] mitigation of that of that of not only the clean water services buffer but some

[59:54] of that wetland as well. Um, regarding the the

[1:00:02] we'll call it viewing platform. I do um we do take issue with some of the

[1:00:08] comments in the staff report. Um we believe it's a public benefit.

[1:00:14] Um the it is a it's an old barn. It's an old

[1:00:18] it's an old building. It's concrete floor. We've we do have approval from

[1:00:23] Clean Water for that. So, it's not like we're asking for something from Clean

[1:00:26] Water. We've already been been approved for that as a viewing platform. It

[1:00:30] encroaches into the buffer, as you can see, but it's but they allow that

[1:00:34] because it's existing. So, all we're doing is taking down the building, but

[1:00:38] keeping the foundation, keeping the uh concrete pad. And um

[1:00:46] I noticed there's uh comments, well, it's not

[1:00:50] um what's the benefit to the public? I think we can um we we'll let Muhammad

[1:00:55] talk to this, but I think he we can uh propose some public access to it through

[1:01:00] the along the sidewalk. Um and there's uh um I I did submit a

[1:01:08] updated landscape plan to you. Um we had actually had that, but apparently it

[1:01:13] didn't get in the record. So, I wanted to drop that off. But on you'll notice

[1:01:16] on that um sheet the the landscape architect proposed a um a sitting area.

[1:01:29] um

[1:01:35] I think that's

[1:01:45] Yeah, I think that's uh that's um that's it from me and I'd like to uh introduce

[1:01:50] uh uh Muhammad

[1:02:00] Hello. Can you hear me? >> We can hear you, Muhammad.

[1:02:04] » Okay, thank you. Um, yeah, my name is Muhammad Sawan. I am uh one of the uh

[1:02:09] ICC board of trustees members. Um, so first of all, thank you for your time

[1:02:14] this evening. Thank you to the uh to the staff for uh what's now going on almost

[1:02:19] two years of work on this. I think our first pre-application meeting was in the

[1:02:23] fall of 2024. We are uh um but uh you know I've uh

[1:02:29] I've been in the area for 30 years, most of that at Intel until recently retired

[1:02:33] and now with a consulting firm, but I um ICC uh is a is a nonprofit organization.

[1:02:41] Um it's uh it's the only mosque in Hillsboro. Um, it is a uh it's important

[1:02:47] obviously to our community, to the larger Muslim community in the Portland

[1:02:50] area, but it's also really important for Hillsboro in terms of attracting

[1:02:54] residents uh and visitors to the area. You know, when people when Muslims um

[1:03:00] you know look for places to live, they they they map the where the mosques

[1:03:04] mosques are and they you know you know t you know they gravitate towards those

[1:03:10] areas. So we're we are heavily committed to our people. are heavily committed to

[1:03:13] Hillsboro and Washington County. Um the other thing I'll say because there have

[1:03:17] been some questions about you know safety and the environment and that is a

[1:03:21] you know that is non-negotiable for us obviously that is a a value not even a

[1:03:26] priority. Um so we're fully committed to any improvements that are required for

[1:03:30] those reasons. Um, I think the challenge with this project is is it is in a

[1:03:36] difficult area, but again because of those heavy commitments to our

[1:03:40] community, our large Islamic and growing Muslim community and the Hillsboro area,

[1:03:46] you know, we've been trying determined to really make this work. Um, the the

[1:03:51] and it so those are some of the challenges. The other challenge is um we

[1:03:55] are a nonprofit organization. every uh penny we spend comes from our

[1:04:00] community's donations. So you can imagine how difficult it is to raise you

[1:04:05] know $1.5 plus million you know for a project like this. And so my only

[1:04:10] request and what I've you know continued to stress with our engineering and

[1:04:14] architectural team as well as with the staff is anything that we can do to help

[1:04:20] obviously with the boundary condition of meeting all safety and environmental

[1:04:24] requirements. anything we can do to help you know reduce our costs um you know we

[1:04:29] would love. I think everyone has been very you know reasonable and practical.

[1:04:33] I think the two things that I actually liked some of the questions that were

[1:04:37] that were raised in the discussion here. Um some of two of the things that we've

[1:04:42] struggled with um are um you know what on Halvatia Road um the east side of

[1:04:49] Halvatia Road. We're fully in favor of the right turn lane northbound on Puvo

[1:04:54] and the Del lane. Those are required from a traffic and safety perspective.

[1:05:00] Um we even support the sidewalk. um that was questioned earlier. Um but we do we

[1:05:05] do ask that the that the requirement for widening um the um the east side of

[1:05:13] Calvatia um uh along our frontage um B we're committed to it because we know

[1:05:19] that at some point it's required but we would ask that the time the condition be

[1:05:23] written so that it allows flexibility based on some kind of reasonable trigger

[1:05:28] in the future when it's actually needed. that will help us reduce you know

[1:05:32] hundreds of thousands of dollars. The water tank was uh was uh mentioned uh

[1:05:37] that is also something we really struggle with because our well our

[1:05:41] current well today has capacity for our own water supply needs. This well is

[1:05:45] purely for or this I'm sorry the tank is purely for uh you know fire uh

[1:05:50] protection, fire suppression um uh uh needs. Um, and so that I that one is a

[1:05:57] hard one for us to swallow as well because it's expensive. Nobody wants a

[1:06:01] tank like that, you know, so close and and visible, so close to a major road

[1:06:06] and visible. Um, so uh, but unfortunately the, you know, our our

[1:06:10] neighboring properties, they they our neighboring property has pushed out

[1:06:14] their project to a point where we ourselves don't want to wait. But if the

[1:06:18] if the team has any um has any ideas on how to help us you know minimize avoid

[1:06:24] that cost. We've even talked about could we you know could we annex to you know

[1:06:29] to Twin Valley um you know fire and rescue because they apparently have

[1:06:33] these tanker trucks that you know that wouldn't require a tank or is there some

[1:06:37] other solution. Point is those are the two big costs that um that uh we are you

[1:06:43] know we would love any ideas the Halvatia half full half streetet

[1:06:46] improvements and then the uh the water tank. Now we did um we um the president

[1:06:52] asked if we were interested in moving forward. We are interested. We've we've

[1:06:55] been working on this for a while. Um we are uh wanting to push forward even

[1:07:00] though our neighbors have delayed their project. We um

[1:07:05] um we even came in I think our first um uh first uh hearing was on February 25th

[1:07:12] if I remember the exact date right and I think the planning commission was

[1:07:15] actually ready to approve it but we asked that it be held we as the as the

[1:07:21] um you know as the applicant asked that it be held because of two um cost

[1:07:26] impactive conditions the full half streetet improvements along Halvatia

[1:07:30] widening the full you across our both frontage and the uh the condition at

[1:07:36] that time was written around extending the water line from you know where Ruth

[1:07:40] showed it on Shaw um you know roughly 2,000 ft or so to you know to provide

[1:07:46] you know fire um you know fire protection you know water supply um so

[1:07:50] we act we are the ones but everything else at that time was actually the

[1:07:54] commission was ready to pro approve it so I am it is interesting to me and

[1:07:59] maybe there's different people here than last time there are a lot other points

[1:08:02] being raised. I think Matt did a nice job addressing some of those uh or a lot

[1:08:07] of them. Um but um but we were expecting this to be, you know, uh fairly

[1:08:11] straightforward knowing that we still have some open things to tidy up as we,

[1:08:15] you know, as we finalize our design and actually get into permitting. But

[1:08:18] anyway, that's uh that's it um from me. But thank you again for your help and

[1:08:22] appreciate any support and you making this as easy as possible for us.

[1:08:28] » Thank you, Muhammad. Uh, and thank you for joining us from wherever you are.

[1:08:32] Thank you, Matt. We're going to ask you all some questions now. Uh, I I will

[1:08:38] answer uh the the point though, Muhammad, it is the same commission.

[1:08:42] None of our members have changed. Just I guess we've asked uh noticed a few more

[1:08:47] questions that we had. But does the commission have any questions for the

[1:08:50] applicant?

[1:08:54] Commissioner Brillo >> in the uh

[1:09:01] » in the landscaping plan that was presented to us tonight. I I appreciate

[1:09:06] that. Uh where the barn is, it is going to be or the shed that's going to be

[1:09:13] demolished.

[1:09:17] um the landscape and I've heard your

[1:09:22] comment which is well we will tear down the barn and we will keep the the

[1:09:28] platform as is and hopefully that can be not to put words in your mouth but can

[1:09:35] be used as a a benefit. The landscape plan uh shows a

[1:09:42] possibility uh of uh adding tables, benches, umbrellas and interpretive

[1:09:49] exhibit. Um but basically they are deferred to a later date. Um,

[1:09:57] so my question to you, would any of those improvements

[1:10:05] be worthy of your considerations so that the commission might be able to view the

[1:10:12] platform as a public v benefit recognizing that the uh staff said

[1:10:18] perhaps it's not. Uh but I'm also taking forth your comment which is we can work

[1:10:24] out the issue of public access to that that platform. It seems in my opinion if

[1:10:34] you can work out the access which I think it would appear that it

[1:10:39] can be done uh and you have the platform uh and

[1:10:47] some if not all of the uh items can be laid on that platform. That would seem

[1:10:54] to me to be a very worthy public benefit, at least in my perception,

[1:11:01] perhaps more so. Other commissioners may disagree with me, than the plaza

[1:11:07] entrance directly right off of uh

[1:11:14] Elvatia Road. I I'm I'm not trying to put you on the spot.

[1:11:19] I'm just asking if that is worthy of consideration

[1:11:23] uh on your all's part uh at least from my standpoint since we seem to be as a

[1:11:31] commission always struggling and worrying about what is a a legitimate

[1:11:36] viable public benefit to projects. And trust me, you're not the first one. Um

[1:11:44] um I'm looking for something that just strikes me as a little bit more of a

[1:11:49] public benefit than uh what the staff reporter says, well all of these the

[1:11:56] only one that the staff feels, it's my words, comfortable with is the plaza

[1:12:04] that's at the new front door. So,

[1:12:10] have I rambled on enough? I apologize. >> No, it's it's okay. I'm I'm happy to

[1:12:15] answer that from from an uh an owner perspective. That is what you described

[1:12:19] is exactly our vision for that um that viewing platform. It was for our our

[1:12:23] community members and for the public. And we we fully plan to um place tables,

[1:12:29] chairs. I'm not sure about the interpretive exhibit. We haven't really

[1:12:33] I mean I think that was a thought we had kicked around at some point, but the

[1:12:36] point is we do plan to to do everything you described. And like Matt said, you

[1:12:40] know, there is walk sideway paved access. You can see it off of Pubil's

[1:12:45] and and from the entry plaza to that area. Um so we uh we we that was that's

[1:12:52] our plan and we're fully supportive of that.

[1:12:55] » If I can add um of course the the entry plaza was was proposed because it's the

[1:13:03] front door. It's we we get it. It's there not going to be too many

[1:13:08] pedestrians. maybe people on bikes. Um but uh but we also and we discussed this

[1:13:15] with staff. It's not shown on this plan, but we discussed this with staff that um

[1:13:20] they want to to build a wall um for security and traffic safety. So it' be

[1:13:27] it would go in front of that um plaza and around in front of the water tower

[1:13:33] and kind of around the corner not not so it be blocking sight distance but

[1:13:38] um six foot wall obviously a gate opening so you can walk in but it would

[1:13:42] be lockable um is the is my understanding um

[1:13:48] Mohammad could could speak to that but that was our thinking is it was really

[1:13:52] for safety but >> but the plaza was put there because it's

[1:13:55] the entrance and you see it from the road. But we were quite encouraged about

[1:14:00] the um this platform because it's it's right there that the the

[1:14:05] uh um creek and the vegetated quarter, it's all going to be planted. It's going

[1:14:10] to be a even though it's not a a mapped habitat area, it's it's a it's a it's a

[1:14:16] wide um landscaped area, all native vegetation.

[1:14:27] Vice President Saka, >> can I This is the first time I'm hearing

[1:14:30] about a wall. Can Can I stop, please? >> Yeah. Um heard about it last week. Um

[1:14:38] I'm grateful that they brought it up so that we can um identify for them. In

[1:14:43] that meeting there was uh and I believe I have a condition in there saying you

[1:14:48] need a modification if you're going to propose it. There's a lot of ripple

[1:14:51] effects for it. Um the first is that it needs to be outside the pee. So outside

[1:14:57] the 8 foot pee, there's already a restricted pee there because of the

[1:15:02] existing building. We have BMS and landscaping that's being proposed along

[1:15:07] that frontage um that's supposed to be a landscape buffer and is already reduced.

[1:15:13] and um then the height of it as well um as if it goes in front of the entry

[1:15:19] plaza then it negates the effect of it. It also is why I brought up the idea of

[1:15:24] the um practicality of the community garden and the viewing deck because I'm

[1:15:29] hearing from them security um concerns and wanting to wall off the site. So

[1:15:34] that does not seem to me to be a creation of an a publicly approachable

[1:15:40] um project. If I can add to that, um, we we weren't

[1:15:46] talking about a wall where the burm is. Um, it was really just in front of the

[1:15:50] and it' be gate. It'd be a gate, a wall and a gate. Um, with opening, you could

[1:15:56] see through it, but not um uh but for vehicle and and just safety. Um, and

[1:16:02] then in front of the uh um water tower, it can't we were told by uh staff it

[1:16:09] can't be in the pee. So it would be it'd be at 8 ft 8 ft behind the property line

[1:16:14] and it would just go to that just that little section of the of uh from either

[1:16:18] side of the um existing building. >> So this is why a site plan is so

[1:16:24] important because then again you're getting into vision clearance issues

[1:16:27] with a wall. It's not just you know it's fences are easier. walls um they still

[1:16:34] have challenges, but walls are a whole another magnitude as far as um locating

[1:16:38] them and and incorporating them into the site.

[1:16:42] » Yeah. Can I can I make make some comments because I'd like to clarify

[1:16:45] some things. The the quote unquote wall, this was actually something that we as

[1:16:51] owners had requested after um you know the you may have heard that a bullet was

[1:16:56] accidentally fired into the side of our existing prayer hall. uh fortunately was

[1:17:01] an accident. It was not a hate crime, but there have been hate crimes um and

[1:17:06] attacks on other uh religious institutions around around the country.

[1:17:10] So, we had thought and we were honestly we were only talking about at the entry

[1:17:16] plaza because that is going to be like Matt described the main entrance and

[1:17:20] people will congregate there. We we were afraid of two things. one, a car

[1:17:24] driving, you know, on Helvatia, veering off the road and going into a crowd of

[1:17:30] people, and two, um, you know, some kind of, you know, you know, um, hate crime

[1:17:36] of some sort, a shooting, anything that could happen at a, you know, a

[1:17:40] congregation of people. Um, so we not talking, we, you could call it a wall or

[1:17:44] a fence. We were looking for something that would be somewhat protective, but

[1:17:49] we would consider it more of like a, you know, a solid fence of some sort where

[1:17:54] in the past we had thought about keeping it open. Um, but we can also consider

[1:17:59] ballards or something. We just need to keep people safe as our high pri highest

[1:18:02] priority which I'm sure this commission would agree with.

[1:18:10] Commissioner Fromsh, >> I think I have a question for you as a

[1:18:16] professional I'm pointing to the person at the desk for those who are listening.

[1:18:21] Um, in your professional career, have you

[1:18:28] previously gotten to this point with an application,

[1:18:33] been in front of a planning commission somewhere where so many things were

[1:18:37] unresolved and you ended up with a completed

[1:18:44] um building at the end.

[1:18:48] like is this is because I think we're identifying that there's quite a lot

[1:18:52] that's unresolved here and it sounds to me like the staff and you are hearing

[1:18:58] different things from each other and our decision making has to occur with what's

[1:19:03] in front of us in the record not what you all are proposing verbally and I'm

[1:19:08] questioning whether or not this is a sort of normal part of this

[1:19:12] » I've been before Hillsboro Planning Commission many times over the years and

[1:19:15] yeah we've had to come back a month later with some revisions. I personally

[1:19:22] I don't think there's much that is not this this this wall fence issue is we

[1:19:28] could come back with a with a with a plan for it a design. Um we could come

[1:19:34] back with more detail on on the uh PL or I should say the uh platform. Um but the

[1:19:40] other is is is engineer other is related to engineering. I don't see

[1:19:46] the traffic as a as a un as a unresolved issue. We could get a maybe another memo

[1:19:52] from the traffic engineer and something from the county, but this is what they

[1:19:56] decided. But yeah, I've over the years

[1:20:00] um uh even in this this body come back um uh for a second hearing to

[1:20:10] improve on a project um change it in some manner and uh and so I I think we w

[1:20:17] we would welcome that. we'd welcome the a continuence to the uh September

[1:20:21] whatever day that is um provide something back to Ruth in at whatever

[1:20:27] time she needs. >> So from I I'll just speak to my

[1:20:31] perspective on this one. So we have to decide about the public benefit part

[1:20:36] like that's our main function here is to decide whether or not the adjustments

[1:20:39] that you've requested because of the limitations of the site um whether the

[1:20:45] proposed public benefits weigh in favor of allowing you to do that um

[1:20:51] without knowing whether the public benefit you've proposed will actually be

[1:20:56] accessible to the public via because it may have a fence or a ballard or

[1:20:59] whatever in front of it. It's really difficult for me personally to make a

[1:21:02] decision um because it's difficult to decide whether or not the public will

[1:21:09] have access to that thing or not without those things being resolved. Um that's

[1:21:15] where I struggle with this and I would think I would support the idea of

[1:21:21] continuence and giving you a chance to really iron these things out so that we

[1:21:24] can decide based on what's actually in front of us. um as opposed to verbal.

[1:21:30] » Well, I will I will uh pass that to Muhammad, but that's my recommendation.

[1:21:37] » Yeah, I I have no issue with with that. Um um I will clarify one thing. We are

[1:21:42] keep we are this property and the viewing platform will be accessible to

[1:21:46] the public. You know, if we put a fence, you know, I'm going to call it a fence

[1:21:50] at the entry plaza, it will have an unlocked gate that is just for physical

[1:21:55] a physical protection. Similarly from poo bowls it's going to be open. We're

[1:21:59] not putting a a flat fence around our entire property here. Uh so so it will

[1:22:04] be accessible. But I I have no problem with continuation. Um though the one

[1:22:08] thing I do ask though is if we can um you know I had sent uh you know I sent

[1:22:15] the request by email but also verbally made the you know mentioned it here. I

[1:22:20] would like um in that you know next review to close I I would like serious

[1:22:26] consideration of allowing us to defer the rest of the Halvatia half street

[1:22:34] improvements really the widening of Halvatia outside of the um obviously the

[1:22:38] right turn the northbound right turn lane and the del uh taper and the

[1:22:43] sidewalk. No issues with th those. We just I'd just like to ask that we if

[1:22:48] we're going to extend that we try to formally close could consider that

[1:22:52] seriously and formally close that as well.

[1:22:56] » Thank you, Muhammad. Commissioner ask anything else? No. Commissioner Davis,

[1:23:01] did you have a question? >> Yeah, Commissioner Davis, I was just

[1:23:04] going to kind of echo off of um my fellow commissioners with that. Um, I I

[1:23:09] don't think I would feel comfortable, you know, voting on this until we had

[1:23:13] more of a scope of what that wall or ballard would look like for the entire

[1:23:19] property. Um, a lot of times public benefits are perceived, right? Um, so

[1:23:24] when people are driving down the road and they're seeing a structure that has

[1:23:27] a six- foot tall wall around it, that wouldn't look like much of a public

[1:23:32] benefit to me driving by as just a citizen of the city of Hillsboro. So,

[1:23:38] um, you know, having access to those things, you know, that's a a road there.

[1:23:42] There's not a place to park on the side of the road. So, really the only access

[1:23:45] is from the actual property itself. And that wouldn't look very welcoming,

[1:23:51] right? So, um, I I would definitely want to see more information on that before

[1:23:55] we make a decision.

[1:24:03] discuss. >> Uh we uh the question from Commissioner

[1:24:07] Jackson to me was if we were going to have time for uh discuss uh we are in

[1:24:11] questions and discussion with the applicant. So if you have a if we we we

[1:24:17] are still in the public hearing uh portion of this. So if you do have

[1:24:21] comment or discussion you want to throw out on the table. Uh but real quick uh

[1:24:26] if you're were you going to go on to something slightly oh additionally.

[1:24:30] Okay. Okay, Commissioner Jackson. Um, I find this one really tricky because it

[1:24:38] is such an interesting location and plot and so

[1:24:43] it's really hard like the public benefit part for me

[1:24:48] already just because this is not like a easily accessible place in general.

[1:24:55] We're not going to have a lot of people I imagine walking and

[1:24:59] on this path. I for one would not be walking on this. Um I don't go walking

[1:25:04] down Halvatia very often. I don't think most of us do. Um

[1:25:09] and I actually like understand the concerns of safety. I think that's

[1:25:14] that's a valid concern. So it's really it is tricky. Um,

[1:25:20] but I think I think I'm kind of what the rest of you were that maybe this needs

[1:25:24] to come back and with a little more thought and kind of workarounds on that

[1:25:30] because it's yeah, it's a tricky one because I'm not quite sure how you get

[1:25:33] around some of these issues with the public benefit and also, you

[1:25:40] know, keeping that safety mind. I do think that's important as well. So,

[1:25:44] yeah, that's just my comment I have. >> Thank you, Commissioner Jackson.

[1:25:47] Commissioner Throsh, can you provide us with the actual date that's available

[1:25:52] for the next >> Yes. So, it would be September 23rd and

[1:25:58] a 4-week extension of the 120day deadline.

[1:26:03] » We would need a four-week extension to for that. Um so the meeting so you would

[1:26:10] not so there's one meeting on the 9th >> that would mean a turnaround of tomorrow

[1:26:15] for preparation material so that by default then we head to the next meeting

[1:26:20] which is the 23rd September 23rd which is four weeks from tonight

[1:26:25] » but you said that would require an extension on the 120 days.

[1:26:29] » Yes. Uh yeah a four-week extension of the 120day period.

[1:26:33] » Okay. and they can limit the extension to that to that scope. Okay.

[1:26:39] » Um I'd also it doesn't you don't have to agree to it, but I'd like to make a

[1:26:43] request that the applicant also provide the clean water services service

[1:26:47] provider letter which would give confirmation as far as whether the

[1:26:51] community garden is allowed in the wetland and the septic drain fields are

[1:26:55] allowed in the wetland.

[1:26:58] » Um Matt, is that something that could be could be provided?

[1:27:04] I believe it's uh two weeks out. So, yeah. Okay. And and by the way, the

[1:27:08] septic was never proposed in the wetland. It was in the buffer. But

[1:27:14] » uh anyway, we can I believe we can provide that maybe within two weeks.

[1:27:19] » Okay. Wonderful. >> Can I get a verbal confirmation from the

[1:27:23] applicant that's on the online that that timeline works?

[1:27:29] » Yeah. And I appreciate you asking. I mean, I think I think it's the right

[1:27:33] thing to do. It's not ideal, but it's that's the right thing to do if we can

[1:27:36] close some of these things that were talked about.

[1:27:40] » Okay. Um, with that, I'd make a motion to continue the public hearing until a

[1:27:44] date certain of September 23rd. >> I second the motion.

[1:27:48] » All right. We do still have to accept public testimony.

[1:27:52] » Oh, that's right. >> Uh, so is anybody here to do that?

[1:27:55] » There is actually there there is >> on this particular agenda item

[1:27:59] » on this item. Yes. Ann, I got this. I got I gota I gotta

[1:28:04] come. >> Sorry about that.

[1:28:05] » Hold on just a second. >> I do hear from

[1:28:08] » uh so we will we will get to the motion for a continuence in in just a moment.

[1:28:12] Okay. >> I did want to quickly just take the

[1:28:15] commission's temperature on uh Muhammad's request for the uh some sort

[1:28:22] of delay or extension on or the timeline of the expansion of Helvatia.

[1:28:29] since that is something question. >> Okay.

[1:28:33] » Really? >> It's not us. That sounds like there's

[1:28:36] like transportation questions and all that that just needs to be clarified

[1:28:40] with staff because it wasn't clear to us here. There was no there was limited

[1:28:46] consensus between staff and the applicant.

[1:28:48] » Okay. I he brought it up a couple times. I wanted to make sure that that I uh

[1:28:53] that it got at least a check. Um, I I like the idea of a continuence. I

[1:29:01] just think there's too many unresolved things. I think we're with this last uh

[1:29:05] last little push, we'll we can get there. Uh, I I absolutely agree. Safety

[1:29:11] is top priority. I want uh the the members of this uh of this establishment

[1:29:17] to be able to go and enjoy their worship in peace and with peace of mind that a

[1:29:22] car is not going to uh veer into the entry plaza. uh while and this this is

[1:29:28] like Commissioner Jackson pointed out the the difficult part of our job

[1:29:32] weighing that between public benefit and that is that's that's why we volunteer

[1:29:38] to be here on Wednesday nights is to thread that uh figure out how to thread

[1:29:42] that needle. Um so if no more questions for the applicant, I'd like to call for

[1:29:48] testimony from the the public. Uh Dirk Nudson has signed up to testify. So,

[1:30:01] oh, um, Derk, before you start, I got I'm going to

[1:30:06] read my little blur before I let you go. All right. First, we will hear from

[1:30:10] people who are in here here in person as I read your name from the blue card.

[1:30:14] Already did that. Please come forward to the chair and table. You already did

[1:30:17] that. You'll be given three minutes to provide your testimony. All right. Is

[1:30:22] yours, sir? I have three minutes. >> Thank you for having me. I I didn't come

[1:30:27] tonight to speak about this, but um this church used to be my neighbor in Old

[1:30:31] Loreno. They were in the uh Unitarian Church there for a number of years. And

[1:30:35] although I have no affiliation with them in any way, this is a really high

[1:30:39] quality organization and I appreciate the fact they serve the Muslim

[1:30:43] community. So, I want to be very supportive. Um I feel like we're talking

[1:30:47] in a vacuum here. Do any of you know that there's a 750,000 foot data center

[1:30:52] going adjacent to this right now that's in planning? And I don't understand why

[1:30:57] we're not seeing that. Maybe staff can't show you the map, but pubils and shop

[1:31:02] are both going to have to be completely developed out, including in front of

[1:31:06] them. And so I feel like it's not fair to you guys. It's not fair to them, but

[1:31:11] maybe we're not far enough along yet. So looking at their map looks great. and

[1:31:16] the concerns you have all valid but a small church versus 750,000 square

[1:31:23] feet at the end of pubs there's a massive best battery array going there's

[1:31:29] also a massive BPA power line that runs just through there so there's not a lot

[1:31:34] of potential on publes for road traffic is also developing a future power

[1:31:41] station AC uh directly north of this so traffic capacity on pupils is going to

[1:31:47] be minimal truly. Um they've had to come before you for

[1:31:52] conditional use. That's the way our code works. Um that data center does not have

[1:31:58] to come before you. The data center does not have to offer a single public

[1:32:02] benefit. So I want you to internalize that. I appreciate they need to do that.

[1:32:07] So did the jet uh hanger going in, but they no longer have to do that. Um, I

[1:32:13] think having the church is a public benefit.

[1:32:17] Um, the wall could be an earth and berm. We allowed Intel to do that. They've got

[1:32:21] fill dirt, so that's something Matt could work on, planted out with trees.

[1:32:26] As far as other things, water, sewer, fire, that's all going to come shortly

[1:32:33] when the data center and the best array starts to go through final planning.

[1:32:39] As far as public benefit, I would support anything they're doing.

[1:32:46] I think some trees and a nice forest to block out the view of this massive data

[1:32:51] center you're going to see as you head to Elvisha Tavern.

[1:32:54] The big water pipe also requires plantings and tributaries. So that

[1:32:59] entire tributary could be planted with trees and grasses and things that will

[1:33:03] help cool our water and all the runoff that's to come from the north and to the

[1:33:08] east. So, I see a lot of things that could benefit the community. Um, and

[1:33:11] maybe when they come back, they can deliver a home run for you guys. And I

[1:33:16] wish you could see everything on one map. That would be a great thing for

[1:33:18] planning to do for all of you. Thank you for everything you do for Hillsboro.

[1:33:23] Thank you. All right.

[1:33:29] Um, uh, Bri, do we have anyone online

[1:33:33] pre-registered to testify on this item? >> No one is pre-registered this evening.

[1:33:37] All right. Uh staff, any comments on the testimony or any additional staff

[1:33:42] information to provide? >> Not at this time. Thank you.

[1:33:47] » All right. Uh would the applicant like to respond or present a rebuttal to the

[1:33:51] public testimony? Rebuttal testimony shall be limited to responding to the

[1:33:55] evidence and testimony presented without introducing new evidence.

[1:34:00] No. All right. Uh, do I have a motion from

[1:34:06] the commission to close or continue the hearing?

[1:34:09] Now, >> can I ask a question real quick?

[1:34:12] » Uh, Commissioner Davis, >> can we ask that the staff does include

[1:34:15] other future developments that are currently in consideration for that

[1:34:19] area?

[1:34:22] » Well, I feel like the relevance would be for the water and sewer possibility.

[1:34:27] I feel like that was asked, but there is a potential that there could be future.

[1:34:32] It's all um so we would love for this applicant to wait until those utilities

[1:34:38] are out there or even for a decision to be issued for them so that then we can

[1:34:43] cross condition and incorporate um infrastructure coordination that

[1:34:48] benefits um benefits them. But at this point in time we don't have anything um

[1:34:54] that is legally binding. So we can certainly show it but you need to keep

[1:34:58] in mind that it's just a visual. It's nothing that's um that's guaranteed that

[1:35:03] we can base a decision on. >> Okay,

[1:35:05] » that's why it's not in there.

[1:35:09] » Commissioner Thromsh, >> I move to continue at the public hearing

[1:35:13] until the date of September 23rd. >> Commissioner

[1:35:18] Commissioner Jackson, I second. >> All right. I have a motion by

[1:35:21] Commissioner Thraw Nash and a second by Commissioner Jackson to continue the

[1:35:27] public hearing to dates uh date certain of September 23rd, 2026.

[1:35:34] Uh all those in favor, please say I. >> I.

[1:35:39] » All those opposed, any abstensions? Motion carries.

[1:35:45] Uh we are going to uh break for a 10-minute recess. Uh be back at 7:45

[1:35:55] p.m. to continue on to the next public hearing

[1:36:12] » public testimony. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:36:17] » All right. We are back.

[1:36:22] We are back.

[1:36:28] Got everybody's attention. Okay. Uh Bri, is it recording? I didn't hear the

[1:36:33] voice. Okay. All right. Uh moving on to the uh second public hearing for this

[1:36:40] evening. Community Development Code Amendment 00426

[1:36:46] data and energy storage. The applicant is the city of Hillsbor. Uh there legal

[1:36:51] is not applicable. Request consider making a recommendation to city council

[1:36:56] on a community development code amendment addressing data storage and

[1:37:00] energy storage use definitions and allowances. Order number 8502 is

[1:37:07] available. The staff have any updates or additional

[1:37:11] information that they wish to submit? >> Um, I do Good evening, commissioners. I

[1:37:16] do have one additional piece of public testimony that came in by email about an

[1:37:21] hour and a half ago. I printed it out for you all. Um, there's also a copy uh

[1:37:25] in the for the public. There's a copy in the binder back there. Um, this is the

[1:37:30] only piece of written testimony that wasn't included in a previous staff

[1:37:33] report. >> Okay. Thank you, Rachel.

[1:37:37] staff report, please, Rachel.

[1:37:46] And while she pulls that up, the if you're looking in the back, it's it's

[1:37:49] got the blue and yellow banner at the top of Indivisible in the center. That's

[1:37:54] the new piece of testimony that we just received.

[1:38:24] Good evening, commissioners. For the record, my name is Rachel Marble. I'm

[1:38:27] the code and policy project manager in community development, and I am here

[1:38:32] this evening to talk to you all about a proposed community development code

[1:38:36] amendment that's specific to data and energy storage.

[1:38:42] So, um, we had a work session about two or two weeks ago, not about two weeks

[1:38:46] ago, um, where we kind of gave an overview of the recent, um, past couple

[1:38:51] months conversations at city council, um, and went over the work plan, um, as

[1:38:57] far as the work that has been directed, um, by council. And so, um, this code

[1:39:03] amendment is the phase one code amendment that came out of that work

[1:39:07] plan. Um so we will go through um the data data storage and processing use and

[1:39:13] then talk about energy storage and generation after that and then I will

[1:39:17] give a summary of the kind of next steps and timeline and the engagement that

[1:39:22] we've done uh in the past two weeks.

[1:39:27] So, just as a reminder, we did um go over this at the last at the work

[1:39:31] session, but um this is kind of a summary of code feedback that we

[1:39:37] received to date through previous work sessions from council. Um the box on the

[1:39:44] left hand side is are the items that are are being addressed in the phase one

[1:39:48] code amendment. The items that are outside of that box are items um that

[1:39:52] aren't addressed but are going to be addressed in phase two. The second code

[1:39:57] amendment um will be kicking off this fall um and will be following um

[1:40:04] economic and environmental impact studies that were also a part of that

[1:40:08] work plan. Um the request for proposals for consultants for those studies are

[1:40:14] going are um aiming to go out this week and they'll have a three-week open

[1:40:19] period before closing and we'll select a consultant. Those studies are um or

[1:40:25] aiming for them to take three three to five months. Uh and the phase two code

[1:40:29] amendments will be informed by some of the work that analyses that come out of

[1:40:33] those. So um I there's going to be a lot of

[1:40:40] text on these slides so my apologies on that. Um but I'll aim to kind of

[1:40:45] summarize where there's been changes from the staff report. There were there

[1:40:50] was an updated revised version of some of the language that was included in the

[1:40:54] supplemental staff report that you received this afternoon and I

[1:40:58] highlighted or changed the color in red where there was a change um from the

[1:41:03] previous version that you received. Um the changes that we were made were based

[1:41:08] on um comment that we received both from the public and from um industry and

[1:41:14] utility partners um trying to capture some of that feedback. So this is the

[1:41:20] use category establishment of the use category for data storage. Um this was

[1:41:25] originally just titled data storage but um we've renamed it data storage and

[1:41:29] processing. Um it did already cover processing but the title didn't reflect

[1:41:35] that. Um so we wanted to acknowledge that data storage this C use category is

[1:41:40] more than static storage and is meant to capture um data processing as well. Um,

[1:41:46] we also added um a uh sentence at the end to acknowledge that it um does

[1:41:52] include facilities that are specifically for artificial intelligence computing um

[1:41:57] to uh ensure that they're not um falling under or or applicants don't um ask for

[1:42:05] them to fall under a different use category that they're truly intended to

[1:42:09] fall under this this use category in the code.

[1:42:13] So um that's the the first part uh is the use category itself and then I'll

[1:42:19] talk about what's being proposed as far as where they're being proposed to be uh

[1:42:24] prohibited and limited in the code. So just as a reminder of where they're

[1:42:28] currently allowed. Um this is a list of all of the zones. Um they are currently

[1:42:32] allowed in all of the industrial zones which are the zones on the left. Um, the

[1:42:37] only zone that has a limitation currently is the IS industrial sanctuary

[1:42:41] zone, which is the asterisk there. Um, there are limitations currently in the

[1:42:46] Jackson East sub area and in the Meek sub area of the IS zone. Um, they're

[1:42:52] also currently allowed in four other zones, the commercial general zone, and

[1:42:57] then three of our urban center zones, which are mostly found in Amberlenn.

[1:43:03] So that uh this is a map of what the that looks like instead of just a list.

[1:43:08] Um the all of those zones uh this is not showing every zone in the city. This is

[1:43:12] just showing highlighted the zones where data centers are currently permitted.

[1:43:19] Um and just to go back, sorry, all of the blue zones, the shades of blue on

[1:43:24] this map are the industrial zones and then the red is commercial. Uh, and the

[1:43:28] the pink and green are the urban center zones.

[1:43:34] So, as far as what's being proposed in the amendment, we're proposing that it

[1:43:39] would be prohibited in all of those zones previously mentioned except two.

[1:43:45] Um, and those two being the IP industrial park and is industrial

[1:43:50] sanctuary. And that they be limited in those two zones by acreage. Um, and I

[1:43:56] have I'll show another map in just a minute to show you what those two zones

[1:43:59] specifically look like in the city and where they're located. Um, so the

[1:44:05] current proposal is that in the IP industrial park zone, they be limited to

[1:44:10] 215 gross acres total. There are currently 203.17

[1:44:16] acres of um constructed or in process um in permitting data centers in that zone.

[1:44:25] And then in is industrial sanctuary the proposal is that the existing

[1:44:30] limitations in both Jackson East and Meek sub area remain as they stand in

[1:44:35] the code um because those were contextual to those areas when they were

[1:44:38] planned and then that all the other sub areas in the is industrial sanctuary

[1:44:44] zone be limited to 310 gross acres total. Um I will note that um there's

[1:44:51] there are currently 292.29 29 acres total and that was uh a error in the

[1:44:57] first staff report um that was corrected this afternoon in the second staff

[1:45:02] report. So it was originally report uh reported as 297 acres. It's actually

[1:45:06] 292.29. Um so that's what currently stands today

[1:45:11] as far as in process or constructed data centers in that zone.

[1:45:17] As far as u so sorry go back really quick. So those totals of what is being

[1:45:23] proposed as the limitations um allto together are about 68 ac or there aren't

[1:45:30] about they are 608 acres total across those two zones um with Jackson East

[1:45:35] included.

[1:45:38] Um so again this is where uh the zones that they're currently allowed in.

[1:45:43] showing you the previous map and then this is uh a map of the IP and is zones

[1:45:50] um where those limitations would be. Um and obviously the map uh or not

[1:45:56] obviously the map is only showing properties that have been annexed. There

[1:45:59] are some properties in the North Hillsboro area that will be zoned is

[1:46:04] once they're brought into the city once they're annexed. Um but they are not

[1:46:08] accounted for in the the acreage totals that I'll give you now. Um, just to give

[1:46:13] you an idea of what that size comparison looks like, um, that box is is

[1:46:20] approximately representing 608 acres. Um, and that's not showing a location of

[1:46:26] data centers. That's just to give you kind of a comparison on the map of of h

[1:46:31] uh the acreage and what that looks like in the zone, which in the IP and is

[1:46:35] zones, there's current currently within city limits 3,841

[1:46:39] acres. So the allow uh the permitted or limited

[1:46:44] 608 acres would be about 15.8% of those two zones specifically and

[1:46:50] about 9.7% of the city's employment land uh in general which is a larger number.

[1:46:57] It's about 6,200 acres. Um the employment land doesn't just account for

[1:47:02] industrial zones. It accounts for um other zones as well including commercial

[1:47:06] and mixed use. Um so when um we discussed at the work session um how we

[1:47:14] kind of arrived at this proposal um I um explained that um our city's economic

[1:47:23] opportunity analysis um adopted economic opportunity analysis

[1:47:29] um projected that we would need six to 10% of the city's employment land for

[1:47:34] data center use uh in the future. Um and that uh that was a few years ago.

[1:47:40] So um this 9.7% is on the higher end of that 6 to 10% um but still falls within

[1:47:47] that projected range.

[1:47:52] So that's uh and I should have clarified at the beginning of that these acreage

[1:47:57] caps are for data centers as a primary use of a site or standalone data

[1:48:01] centers. So the amendment also um includes

[1:48:07] language for uh to limit data centers as an accessory use. Um currently there's

[1:48:13] not limitations in the code for accessory uses as far as um how how in

[1:48:19] comparison to the primary use on the site. Um generally in the code um

[1:48:23] there's a very general definition of accessory uses and what makes something

[1:48:27] accessory to a primary use. Um so this would be adding some limitations around

[1:48:33] data centers as an accessory use and um it would be allowed with limitations.

[1:48:39] Those limitations being that it would need to serve exclusively serve the

[1:48:44] primary use on the site tenants or partners. Um it would not be allowed to

[1:48:50] lease data storage processing or computing services to third parties. And

[1:48:55] then um the current proposal for acreage or for limit size limitation is that it

[1:49:00] would not be able to exceed 30% of the gross acreage of the site.

[1:49:07] In addition to that, um there is some language that was added um based on a

[1:49:13] conversation at a council work session um allowing uh some limited ability for

[1:49:21] uses to transfer accessory use ability offsite

[1:49:27] and um there was some edits that were made to this as well. Um it was pointed

[1:49:32] out that there was not a a receiving zone for this and um that it it didn't

[1:49:37] limit where the capacity could be transferred um which was an oversight

[1:49:41] definitely. So uh the limitation was added that the um if if a use was

[1:49:48] wishing to use this provision and transfer their data center capacity

[1:49:52] offsite. Um it would need to be located in an industrial zone. um the the

[1:49:57] receiving site. Um it would need to be transferred still used exclusively

[1:50:04] um to serve that the function of the primary use can't again can't be used um

[1:50:10] as leased data storage space and it would be need to be transferred to an

[1:50:15] affiliated location. Um the reason uh for part of the reason

[1:50:20] for this um addition was due to industry feedback on sites that have more than

[1:50:28] one location in Hillsboro and um for for example healthcare sites that have more

[1:50:34] than one location in Hillsboro and a desire to be able to have their data

[1:50:39] storage capacity centrally located versus dispersed throughout their their

[1:50:43] sites. Um so that's what this is aiming to capture um is the ability to

[1:50:50] centralize that um and do that um have that data storage be more efficient um

[1:50:56] at a central location or at a a location not central lo uh sitewise but at a

[1:51:03] location that's kind of um serving multiple sites um in the city.

[1:51:10] Um so that's uh data storage and processing. Um I can pause there um for

[1:51:18] questions or I can cover energy storage as well and then do questions after

[1:51:22] that.

[1:51:25] Um, Commissioner Jackson, um, as far as the

[1:51:31] primary use, um, is that going to be defined anywhere in the code just

[1:51:37] because I know with technology specifically that could evolve and

[1:51:41] change? Is that going to be like more defined than just the word primary use?

[1:51:50] as far as what makes something what makes a data center a primary use of a

[1:51:57] site, >> right? Like maybe so if they're if if

[1:52:01] it's meant to be like okay where they has to be primary use and that

[1:52:08] organization decides we're steering in a totally different

[1:52:12] direction now our use is changing that would change what that primary use would

[1:52:16] be like how is that going to be um considered in the code if that makes

[1:52:21] sense. >> Um I think it makes sense. So um the way

[1:52:24] the code works now for for all of the uses essentially is it defines the use

[1:52:30] categories and tells uh like lists uses that are considered falling under that

[1:52:36] use category in the code and I didn't include the um full text of this but

[1:52:40] there are examples of this use included under this um use category. So the way

[1:52:45] the use categories are structured, it gives characteristics of the use

[1:52:49] category, examples of the use, um examples of accessory uses to that use

[1:52:54] and then um exceptions or clarifications where it might be um there might be uses

[1:53:01] that could be confused as that use and we want to make a clarification saying

[1:53:05] no, that's actually a different use. Um and then it it defines accessory. So, if

[1:53:12] it's not meeting the accessory use >> um definition, essentially it's it's a

[1:53:18] primary use of a site. Um you know, any applicant development application when

[1:53:22] they come in, they're defining their primary use of the site. Um and that's

[1:53:27] um that's a part of their development application. And so when they're

[1:53:33] defining the primary use, that impacts a lot of things down the line, too, like

[1:53:36] how we assess fees um based on what primary use of the site it is. um you

[1:53:41] know when if a building comes in as a primary use of an office for example and

[1:53:47] then they want to convert to something else later they would have to go back

[1:53:50] through permitting to do a change of occupancy or a change of use to let us

[1:53:53] know that they're they're changing the use of that building. Um so it's defined

[1:53:57] when they go through land use what the what the primary use of the site is. Um

[1:54:01] and then would be um subject to change either through land use or building or

[1:54:05] permitting if they wanted to convert it to something else in the future.

[1:54:09] » Okay. Thanks, >> Commissioner Jackson. Just one

[1:54:11] additional add to that for the record. Dan Diaz, um, in community development

[1:54:16] code section 12.10.10, it's a a few sections ahead of what

[1:54:21] Rachel showed on the screen is really where that what Rachel just described is

[1:54:24] outlined. So, if the commission or the public or anybody else would like to

[1:54:27] look at that specific language more, um, that's just the the specific reference

[1:54:31] if you'd like. >> Thank you.

[1:54:37] » I'm done. Um yeah, this is Commissioner Kash. I'm

[1:54:43] gonna probe at the um the max acres bit a bit. Um so my understanding and you

[1:54:52] can help me make sure I'm correct is that even if we annex new industrial,

[1:54:58] you know, is or IP land that the total gross acres would control. Is that

[1:55:03] correct? >> The total Yeah. The reason I pointed

[1:55:07] that out is just that the the current number that I had for,

[1:55:12] sorry, let me go one more. Oh, no, too fast.

[1:55:15] There it is. Um, that current acreage for the IP and is zones only accounts

[1:55:20] for properties within city limits. Properties outside city limits don't get

[1:55:24] zoning until they annex. Um, so the what would change in that scenario is not the

[1:55:29] total acreage cap. What would change is the percentage of how much is is allowed

[1:55:34] to be data center because it would it would go down because there would be

[1:55:37] more acreage in the city. >> Okay, great. So I did understand that.

[1:55:41] Um and then the next question I have is kind of the same thing is kind of about

[1:55:45] vacating buildings. So let's say you know there is some question about

[1:55:49] whether data center um business plans will hold and how how certain they are

[1:55:56] over time. So, let's have a scenario where some some um company drops out of

[1:56:02] the the um data center business and they have an empty building. Um

[1:56:08] when so then presumably that would open up space in that cap. Is that correct?

[1:56:15] » Um it wouldn't it wouldn't until somebody changed the occupancy or use of

[1:56:20] that building. >> Okay. So, if somebody was to come back

[1:56:24] and say, "Oh, good. there's a data center available and I can put my

[1:56:27] servers in there. Um, then they would have to reapply and then they would have

[1:56:31] to deal with whatever cap whatever amount of data center was available and

[1:56:35] whether or not they could then have what they wanted again. Is that right? Am I

[1:56:39] explaining that correct? >> I I think I understand the question. Um,

[1:56:43] so the inventory that's attached as exhibit ZC C is meant to capture all of

[1:56:50] our currently um in process or uh

[1:56:56] constructed data center sites. So say one of those sites decided to no longer

[1:57:01] be a data center anymore. um we wouldn't remove that off of the capacity rules

[1:57:06] until somebody purchased that building and said, "I'm doing I'm changing the

[1:57:10] occupancy of the building and it's no longer a data center. We're going to do

[1:57:13] manufacturing instead." Um but when they did that, we would

[1:57:18] » release that capacity back into the pool as it were um to

[1:57:24] a a new development application, but we wouldn't do that until the occupancy of

[1:57:28] the building had been changed. >> Great. I just wanted to understand how

[1:57:31] that would work. Thank you,

[1:57:36] » Commissioner Davis. Um, so I have some questions in regards to some of these

[1:57:40] caps as well. Um, going to the primary use type.

[1:57:47] If a development um or a piece of land that is currently, you know, a lower

[1:57:53] intensity data center were to decide that they want to redevelop into a much

[1:57:59] higher intensity data center. How is this going to restrict that? Because

[1:58:04] that could utilize the same amount of space on the ground for acreage, but

[1:58:09] it's actual drain on the resources could be exponentially higher.

[1:58:15] » Yeah. So, that's not addressed in the phase one code amendment. Um things like

[1:58:19] energy use and building height and um setbacks, how the buildings are

[1:58:24] constructed, um those are not being addressed in the phase 1 code amendment

[1:58:28] and would be addressed in the phase 2 code amendment. Um so to go back to your

[1:58:33] initial question uh this we're we're in this phase limiting it by acreage of the

[1:58:39] site. So if there was a site that was an existing data center and uh well right

[1:58:44] now they can't submit any applications because there's a moratorum. that if uh

[1:58:48] if if their moratorum ceases to exist when it ends um if it ends and council

[1:58:54] doesn't elect to extend it then um it wouldn't be regulating based on uh

[1:59:00] intensity of the site at this time during phase one. It would just be

[1:59:04] looking at the acreage. So um that would be something that we're going to address

[1:59:09] in phase two based on um information we get from the environmental and economic

[1:59:15] impact studies. Okay, Commissioner Davis, can I just

[1:59:18] clarify one additional piece of your question? Is you're saying that if the

[1:59:22] building the structure footprints changed, but really the equipment inside

[1:59:25] and therefore the demands on say power infrastructure changes.

[1:59:29] » I mean, it doesn't even necessarily have to be the same building. if they were to

[1:59:31] wipe that building out and rebuild it into say like a Google data center like

[1:59:36] the city of the Dallas is dealing with right now

[1:59:38] » where they're now expanding not only with new data center they're but they're

[1:59:43] also expanding the original data center that's been there for 20ome years

[1:59:47] » um and and increasing its ability to to compute more data and it's utilizing a

[1:59:54] lot more electricity a lot more water >> one additional piece I'll just add into

[2:00:00] uh Rachel's response which was was very accurate is I think it's important to

[2:00:05] also remind the the commission that when we're looking at these uses and their

[2:00:10] impacts on infrastructure Rachel's absolutely right we're conducting the

[2:00:13] studies right now to continue to update our knowledge and awareness of

[2:00:17] utilization of of services but there is a land use review component that is

[2:00:21] really looking at the site development the facility itself to a degree the

[2:00:26] utility demands and somewhat in conjunction with that there separate

[2:00:30] utility reviews that are happening some of which happen at the city level some

[2:00:33] of which are also happening within our our uh utility partner. So in the

[2:00:38] situation just for a couple of quick examples maybe this helps even with

[2:00:41] future questions. If there was an existing building that's a data center

[2:00:46] today and they were coming in and also going to use a higher density set of

[2:00:51] equipment or significantly change power loads or water loads, they would have to

[2:00:55] go they may not trigger a land use piece the way it's currently structured or

[2:01:00] being proposed in this phase one code amendments, but they would still have to

[2:01:03] go back and work with PGE for example to say we're increasing our load amount

[2:01:07] that could put them into the large load study where those utility impacts and

[2:01:11] serviceability are still being considered or if they were also going to

[2:01:15] significantly increase their water usage beyond what we currently see, they would

[2:01:18] have to then also coordinate and get permitting in with the appropriate water

[2:01:22] utilities and the plumbing codes and plumbing permits and the like as well if

[2:01:26] those systems were changing. So, I hope that that kind of helps. Whereas if

[2:01:29] they're scraping it or expanding the the building footprint as well as densifying

[2:01:34] or changing the equipment and that's changing the loads that puts a far

[2:01:37] greater emphasis of now even more so you're having the land review in

[2:01:42] addition and in conjunction with those utility reviews as well. So I hope that

[2:01:45] kind of helps to where I think your question was also going why I wanted to

[2:01:47] clarify. >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh the second part of my

[2:01:50] question is in regards to the accessory um portion of it uh with 30% threshold.

[2:01:58] Um just curious so if if this is allowing 30% but this doesn't have say

[2:02:03] like an acreage limit on it because this does not fall within that. Correct.

[2:02:10] » Correct. >> Okay. So if you have like a very large

[2:02:13] plot of land they could potentially 30% could still be very large data center.

[2:02:18] Um the other part of that is uh you know go back to redevelopment with all of out

[2:02:24] of all of the industrial land in Hillsboro this could potentially allow a

[2:02:30] lot more data centers still as an accessory usage. Correct.

[2:02:35] » Um I mean yes this isn't seeking the current structure of the code is not

[2:02:40] seeking to prohibit them entirely. Um the direction that we were given was to

[2:02:46] seek to limit and prohibit them in certain zones. Um so

[2:02:52] yeah, you are correct. Um as an accessory use with limitations, it would

[2:02:57] allow additional data center capacity use. Um the intention of the accessory

[2:03:03] use piece is not for standalone data center companies to be using that. It's

[2:03:09] for industry who has data storage and cap and and processing needs um that

[2:03:15] serve their primary use on the site. Um and we have plenty of industries and

[2:03:21] businesses in Hillsboro that rely on data centers to do their business. Um so

[2:03:27] we don't want to eliminate that opportunity from the code um but are

[2:03:31] instead seeking to find a way to limit it so that it's not taken advantage of.

[2:03:36] Um, and so that a data center that truly is a primary use isn't using this uh to

[2:03:41] construct a a standalone data center.

[2:03:46] » Okay. Um just just out of curiosity and um maybe you showed it on a previous

[2:03:51] slide, do we know how much acreage would be total

[2:03:57] um for all of those two zones that we're proposing to allow data centers in so

[2:04:02] that we could kind of figure out about what if this you know worst case

[2:04:06] scenario every single one of these plots obviously that's not going to happen but

[2:04:09] if every single one of these built out to 30% data

[2:04:12] what would we be looking at >> if are you asking If every single lot in

[2:04:18] the IPNI zone used 30% of their site for a data center,

[2:04:22] » obviously worst case scenario. >> Yeah. I mean, if there's 3,841

[2:04:27] acres in this in the city limits in those zones, so 30% of that is

[2:04:34] a little above. Yeah. >> Um I I wish I was better at math off the

[2:04:39] top of my head. 1,200 acres, 1300 acres if every single site in those two zones

[2:04:44] was using their capacity. >> Okay. So, still quite a bit.

[2:04:52] » Rachel, there's I want to focus myself on phase one. Can we look at that slide

[2:04:59] one more time just to clarify the questions and the conversations that

[2:05:05] we're going to have that we're focusing on addressing the phase one amendments.

[2:05:10] So, can I just pause here for a moment so I can just make sure I take notes.

[2:05:33] Thank you.

[2:05:50] Can we sh >> I have one more question. Um Rachel,

[2:05:53] could you just for the sake of everybody here and the sake of people listening

[2:05:57] online, um can you um describe a general list of those businesses that we have in

[2:06:04] Hillsboro that rely upon accessory uses of data centers? I know that you

[2:06:07] mentioned healthcare as one one industry that had asked to make sure that it was

[2:06:13] possible for them to have an affiliated location. like do you have other just

[2:06:17] sort of general broad categories of businesses in Hillsboro that use them?

[2:06:22] » Commissioner Thrral Nash Dandas, for the record, I'll do my best to answer that,

[2:06:25] but that frankly is also a good one to continue to engage um the different

[2:06:30] industries in the region and the community, but the the I'll give you

[2:06:33] industry categories that we're aware of that are reliant upon and using data

[2:06:38] center capacity in Hillsborough. ranges from uh governmental entities uh state,

[2:06:44] local, uh regional. Uh it includes the healthc care industries. It includes uh

[2:06:51] the advanced manufacturing industries and many of the subsets there including

[2:06:54] high-tech, biotech, uh various life sciences. The outdoor athletic and

[2:06:59] apparel industries are using data center capacity. Here we have financial

[2:07:03] institutions and insurance companies using uh data center capacities. Here we

[2:07:07] have law firms using data center capacity here. Um, we have social media

[2:07:13] firms using data center capacity here. We have 911 call centers and

[2:07:17] transportation entities using data center capacity here. I'm sure I'm

[2:07:21] missing a couple. Um, we have higher ed research uh using data centers here. Um

[2:07:27] so I hope that covers uh the nature of that and that really is the underpinning

[2:07:32] of why the accessory portion of this we feel is important is because it what

[2:07:36] it's trying to do is distinguish somewhat of allowed data capacity

[2:07:41] consumption of resources with that data center capacity really being there to

[2:07:45] support the underpinnings of the rest of our economy. Because if it data centers

[2:07:49] we have to remember are both a industry unto themselves and frankly a type of

[2:07:53] infrastructure. And so if the infrastructure capacity is not

[2:07:56] available, it could start to significantly undermine some of those

[2:07:59] other key target components of of the local economy. So I would encourage that

[2:08:03] be at least considered as part of the policy conversation. I hope that hits

[2:08:08] close to the mark of your question. >> Yeah, just a range of the different

[2:08:11] kinds of industries that use them here in Hillsboro would be was what I was

[2:08:14] after. So thank you, >> Commissioner Jackson.

[2:08:18] Um, so you listed the different industries that it sounds like pro most

[2:08:23] primarily are using for just data storage currently. Is there anything in

[2:08:29] the code to identify um AI separately from those industries?

[2:08:35] » Yeah, this came up in the work session with council as well. AI is I think

[2:08:39] really important. So what I would ask commissioner if you don't mind is if you

[2:08:42] wouldn't mind defining your understanding of what you're referring

[2:08:44] to with AI there and then we'll do our best to try to respond because that can

[2:08:47] mean a lot of things in a lot of scenarios. We just want to make sure we

[2:08:50] hit the question appropriately. Yeah, I mean

[2:08:55] to me I large language models and um the like

[2:09:01] things that are creating you know images from other images those kind of things

[2:09:06] like that you know not necessarily I mean I know like it's being pushed in a

[2:09:11] lot of different industries to varying degrees of people who in those

[2:09:16] industries wanting that or not. Um, so it's more like again whether because

[2:09:20] we're categor if we're categorizing things, if we're putting this kind of in

[2:09:24] its own categorization because um I I just look at that as a concern as far as

[2:09:32] job creation and the impact on job creation.

[2:09:38] » I'll do my best to answer this from the information staff has had available to

[2:09:41] this. Um and again some of this I we're hoping maybe comes out of especially uh

[2:09:46] some of the economic and the environmental uh studies we are are

[2:09:49] launching. There are to our knowledge not the

[2:09:54] hypers scale large language model data centers in Hillsboro

[2:09:58] um that we're aware of from a staff standpoint. That's not to say there

[2:10:02] aren't AI functions and data centers looking at things like the human genome

[2:10:07] and how to come up with certain cures or or health related impacts or significant

[2:10:13] artificial intelligence programs looking at various technology uh development

[2:10:18] research and development or design or modeling or in some cases transportation

[2:10:22] or environmental design or modeling or power grid uh modeling and efficiency

[2:10:27] modeling. So that's why it becomes very tricky as to when we get the question of

[2:10:31] is AI happening in Hillsboro. It is, but AI means a lot of different things to a

[2:10:36] lot of different people. And so I hope that answers to the best of staff's

[2:10:39] knowledge and ability what is currently here in our community and what we may

[2:10:43] anticipate on the horizon or not. Um, and starts to parse out some of the

[2:10:46] community concerns and understandings of the different types of AI that are out

[2:10:51] there.

[2:10:57] Go ahead, Rachel.

[2:11:02] » Okay. So, next we'll move on to energy storage and generation. Um, this uh this

[2:11:09] new use category. Previously, energy storage and generation was uh fell under

[2:11:15] the utility facilities category. So this is pulling those uses out of the utility

[2:11:20] facilities and uh kind of further defining them as their own use category.

[2:11:25] Um multiple things would fall under oops fall under um this use category

[2:11:32] including um battery energy storage systems best facilities um solar um

[2:11:39] energy systems or solar panels um wind energy uh generation power generation

[2:11:46] and then um other essentially other types of power generation that the

[2:11:50] statute defines um which we are not seeking to permit in the city. those

[2:11:54] other uh kind of catch all of other other facilities category.

[2:12:00] Um just to go over a couple of changes to the exceptions. Um so um the

[2:12:07] exceptions here really seek to clarify where power generation um is an

[2:12:13] accessory use and not considered the primary use of a property or of a site.

[2:12:19] Um so um the first being that um we wanted to clarify that roof mounted

[2:12:24] solar energy systems are permitted um outright as an accessory use and not

[2:12:29] limited um in any zone essentially. Um those are um

[2:12:37] not um impacting land availability um because they're roof mounted. They're on

[2:12:42] buildings. Um so we're not seeking to limit them by acreage. Um the second

[2:12:47] exception here is to clarify that solar um panels when they're accessory to

[2:12:55] certain uses are permitted outright in all zones and those uses would be

[2:12:59] residential uses. So if somebody has um residential solar at their home um

[2:13:04] institutional uses um so if it's um a um government organization, a research

[2:13:11] organization, educational organization and infrastructure use. So, if it's

[2:13:17] accessory to a utility facility, um for example, if um our water department

[2:13:23] wanted to have solar generation at one of their sites, um they would be able to

[2:13:28] do so. Um and then um a clarification was added

[2:13:35] to um the exception that um allows power generation as a backup in emergency

[2:13:43] situations. um to clarify that that's not um for that's for intermittent

[2:13:49] emergency use, not for um continuous use and not for a primary uh primary power

[2:13:57] generation or primary power source on a site. That was uh that word was added.

[2:14:02] Um so that's um the use category itself. And then as far as where we are uh what

[2:14:10] we're looking at for use restrictions for this use um there's two different

[2:14:14] concepts included um the first concept um being what we uh kind of proposed

[2:14:22] originally and looked at in the work session um that it would be prohibited

[2:14:26] as a primary use in all zones and that best facilities and solar systems uh

[2:14:32] would be permitted in industrial zones with per site acreage. limitations. Um,

[2:14:38] a second concept was added after discussions with our utility partners

[2:14:42] based on um, information that we got um, about kind of the needs the needs of

[2:14:48] those partners. And um quite frankly seeking to um I think our intention with

[2:14:56] this piece in the code is not to prohibit them in the city entirely but

[2:15:01] to seek to site them in appropriate locations where they're um not the the

[2:15:09] um not a primary in you know primary use of a site that's using a lot a large

[2:15:14] amount of land. It's a land intensive use with low employment. So we want to

[2:15:18] seek to site it um really intentionally and encourage collocation of that those

[2:15:23] facilities where possible. Um so as a primary the second concept would include

[2:15:29] allowing best facilities as a conditional use um as a primary um use

[2:15:36] on a site with a maximum site size of 12 acres and then allowing it as an

[2:15:41] accessory use. Um and it's been split into two um two different uses within

[2:15:46] that category. the best facilities and the ground mounted solar systems, solar

[2:15:50] energy systems. For best facilities, it would be 30% of the gross acreage of the

[2:15:55] site, not to exceed six gross acres total. Um, and it would not have carry

[2:16:01] an acreage limitation when it's colllocated with transmission and

[2:16:04] distribution facilities. Um the intention there is to be able to capture

[2:16:10] um land that we know land capacity that we know is available in BPA corridors

[2:16:17] for example um where we can't site employment uses under those facilities

[2:16:23] but um battery storage could very easily be cited there. So um aiming to kind of

[2:16:28] strategically locate those in places where that land could not really be used

[2:16:33] for something else. and then separately ground mounted solar

[2:16:37] energy systems, solar panels. Um the same site limitation for accessory use,

[2:16:43] 30% of the gross acreage, not to exceed six gross acres total. Um and then

[2:16:48] there's some additional um kind of exceptions that were put in there um so

[2:16:52] that it fit into the code better um where we have some other kind of

[2:16:56] requirements and and energy goals um sustainability goals. So those things

[2:17:02] specifically were are um again colloccated with transmission and

[2:17:07] distribution facilities. Um the second being when uh no limitation when they're

[2:17:12] used as a climate action element for parking lot design um which is is there

[2:17:17] uh one of the um options or climate action elements that were a part of the

[2:17:23] climate friendly and equitable communities um code that we adopt were

[2:17:28] required to adopt. Um so solar providing solar on site is one way to um mitigate

[2:17:36] for um parking on a site. So we don't want to limit that um as an accessory

[2:17:41] use of a site since it's um one of the options available to applicants when

[2:17:46] they're trying to mitigate uh for parking lots. And then um also lastly

[2:17:52] when it was when it's being provided as a public benefit through a land use

[2:17:55] decision. We didn't want to um make those subject to the cap as well since

[2:18:00] those would go through a public hearing um and would be before you all to decide

[2:18:06] if that's an adequate public benefit or not. Um but that um we wouldn't want to

[2:18:11] have a limitation there that that an applicant wouldn't be able to propose

[2:18:15] that um as a public benefit since it is uh sustainability and green building

[2:18:20] elements are in the code today as public benefit options.

[2:18:25] Um, and that's it on energy storage and generation.

[2:18:29] » I have a quick question and then we'll go to Commissioner Thash. Uh, on the um

[2:18:34] I think it was back one uh slide the intermittent. Yes. Number three. Uh who

[2:18:42] decides if it's uh that it's an emergency situation? Is it just their

[2:18:46] facility saying, "Oh, it's a little cloudy out today. We think that's an

[2:18:50] emergency because we're sad." or do they have to wait for uh the fire department

[2:18:56] or the city or OEM to declare some sort of emergency?

[2:19:03] » Um that's not that's not defined in the code um as far as what an emergency

[2:19:08] would be. Um the intention of this um this exception was um kind of at a

[2:19:17] request from our internal um our internal utilities, public works and

[2:19:22] water um because they do have sites that need power generation availability um

[2:19:28] for when when power is out and goes down to be able to provide public services.

[2:19:34] Um, so that was the intention of of the exception um to make sure that they

[2:19:40] still were able to do um to have generators and power generation on site

[2:19:45] whenever there's a power grid failure. Um, but there's not a definition of what

[2:19:51] an emergency situation is. I think the intention is for when power is not

[2:19:55] available through the grid um that it's an emergency situation. Would it be

[2:20:00] possible to to add that little blurb of, you know, power grid failure or

[2:20:06] something something like what you just said onto number three? So that way it's

[2:20:11] it it doesn't somebody doesn't abuse it as, oh, we're feeling a little sad

[2:20:16] today. That's quite the emergency. Let's let's ramp this let's turn this baby on.

[2:20:22] President Jones Gallardo, we'll take that note as possibly amending that

[2:20:26] maybe after we get through public testimony and come back on deliberation.

[2:20:29] We come back. One other piece I might suggest we look to then cross compare

[2:20:33] with your question or concern with is the state uh permitting tied to many of

[2:20:38] those typically their generators as well because I believe and I want to double

[2:20:42] check myself on this um that there's stipulations in there that if they're

[2:20:45] permitted and installed as an emergency generation there's limitations versus if

[2:20:49] they're installed as a more permanent energy source they're considered

[2:20:54] differently there as well and perhaps we can bring those requirements together to

[2:20:58] to be reflected in this code and I think to question or concern as well.

[2:21:02] » All right. >> Does that sound okay?

[2:21:03] » Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Thes. >> Um,

[2:21:09] yeah. And I will point out that DEEQ does indeed have um permitting

[2:21:14] requirements and like run times that they're allowed to use over a certain

[2:21:17] amount of time. So, and I forget what exactly they are, but there are

[2:21:20] limitations on diesel generators in particular. Um

[2:21:27] um my question is with the two concepts that you've been I'm I'm unclear as to

[2:21:32] whether or not we are meant to recommend one or the other. Is that what we're

[2:21:35] intending to do this evening? >> That's correct.

[2:21:38] » Okay. So whenever we take a vote, we need to make clear um which one of these

[2:21:44] we'd like council to approve. >> Yes, you would. Yeah, I would uh have

[2:21:48] you in your motion select one of the concepts as part of your recommendation.

[2:21:53] » Okay, great. Um I had a list of what in the original sort of code that you put

[2:21:59] forward before the supplemental staff report I had a list of like things that

[2:22:02] I was concerned about we were missing and you got all of them except one and

[2:22:06] so I'm going to ask about one. Um the so one of the things that in the

[2:22:11] sustainability world people talk about a lot is agrovtaic. So it's like farm farm

[2:22:16] uses of of solar either to power things on their own farm or to al export to the

[2:22:23] grid. I'm a little unclear as to whether or not that falls under sort of the

[2:22:28] groundmounted solar energy system part would it do you think?

[2:22:34] » Um I'm not an expert on that type but I do believe those are ground mounted.

[2:22:39] » Okay. And so we think that it would that um would it then be 30% of the gross

[2:22:46] acreage of a farm or like how would we how would the how

[2:22:51] would somebody who owns farm acreage who wanted to take advantage of ground

[2:22:56] mounted solar like how would they figure out

[2:23:00] how much they were allowed? >> Important point of clarification. This

[2:23:04] is applying to areas that are only inside city limits in an urban

[2:23:08] environment. Not to say we can't have agricultural uses doing that. So I just

[2:23:11] in terms of scale of conversation here, >> okay,

[2:23:13] » but I think this is really indicative of what we've talked about in terms of the

[2:23:16] data centers, some other pieces. It would be if we had an agricultural use

[2:23:20] in one of our areas that wanted to do the agrovoltaics it and that was

[2:23:25] accessory to their farm use. It would be 30% of their site.

[2:23:29] » Okay. >> Up to 30% of their site.

[2:23:32] » 30%. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure I understood how that would

[2:23:34] apply to that. Thank you. Any other questions at this point for

[2:23:40] staff? Commissioner Jackson, >> I know uh with the best facilities, one

[2:23:46] of the concerns um community members have had is about like fires and

[2:23:52] extinguishing it cuz it's a little bit different than a typical fire. Um, is

[2:23:56] there anything that could be added to the code or will be added to the code in

[2:24:00] regards to that and um having something in place

[2:24:06] to make sure that that's doesn't become a potential future problem.

[2:24:12] » Yeah. So, I think um that that's one of the aspects that will be examined in the

[2:24:17] environmental impact analysis as far as safety goes. Um, all of those facilities

[2:24:24] are required to meet fire and life safety standards in the building code

[2:24:27] and fire code already um because they go through permitting um with the city. Um

[2:24:34] but if we were going to seek to add additional standards around like

[2:24:38] setbacks or um additional safety standards or things like that, um those

[2:24:43] are something we would consider in phase two and we would want that to be

[2:24:46] informed by not only our studies but also by industry partners. um technical

[2:24:51] feedback from you know industry that's constructing these facilities um to get

[2:24:57] feedback before we adopt you know code language um that provides additional

[2:25:03] limitations >> on on the note of like setbacks or

[2:25:07] locations because we're kind of talking about locations on here um and I don't

[2:25:12] know if this is going to be part of phase one or phase two but I know one of

[2:25:17] the concerns I've had is locations in like proxim somebody to schools. Um, is

[2:25:22] that going to be addressed in this first part?

[2:25:25] » That would be addressed in phase two. Um, anything like buffers from schools,

[2:25:30] um, natural resources, residences, um, parks, I think we're also included in

[2:25:34] that, um, or open spaces, um, are going to be examined in phase two.

[2:25:39] » Okay. What we can potentially send along uh as part of phase one, it definitely

[2:25:44] will also inform phase two as Rachel noted is as I think the planning

[2:25:48] commission rate may recall the building and the fire codes are not locally

[2:25:51] established and set policies. They typically come either from an

[2:25:54] international codes level or state codes level. Um, we do have building staff

[2:25:58] that participate on those boards and are trying to both provide information

[2:26:01] inputs into that as well as receive the best thinking around uh safe

[2:26:06] construction as well as fire response in the event of these emergencies. So, we

[2:26:10] can bring that piece, but I just want to be clear to re reinforce what Rachel

[2:26:14] said that is going to fall probably in a much bigger way with the phase 2 code

[2:26:18] amendments. The other piece too is much like with the data center conversation

[2:26:22] with better energy storage, we get into different scales of size. So keep in

[2:26:26] mind there is battery storage happening in public buildings and hospitals and

[2:26:30] schools and industrial buildings and even people's homes with things like

[2:26:33] Tesla walls right now. And so what we're really thinking and looking at right now

[2:26:39] is what is the scale? What is the location of these impacts especially of

[2:26:42] this more utility scale um infrastructure as well. So just thought

[2:26:46] I would add that into the the response as well.

[2:26:50] » Thank you. >> Commissioner Davis, did you have a

[2:26:52] question? I saw you reach for your No. Okay. Anybody else over here?

[2:26:59] Right, Rachel? >> Okay, just uh two more slides to go. So,

[2:27:03] um I gave an overview, a summary of the engagement that's happened thus far in

[2:27:08] the supplemental staff report this afternoon, but just to touch on it here.

[2:27:13] Um we opened a survey um on what month is it? August on August 12th.

[2:27:20] Um, and we've had over 900 responses so far to the survey. Um, it's going to

[2:27:25] remain open until September 6th. Um, the the um if if

[2:27:33] uh you are able to make a recommendation um this evening, it will is scheduled to

[2:27:38] go to city council on um September 15th. So, the survey would close in time to um

[2:27:46] capture that feedback as a final report to council.

[2:27:50] um at their um first reading of the ordinance. Um we've done um

[2:27:57] three different inerson engagement um opportunities events at the Tuesday

[2:28:02] night market um last night and the week before. Uh and then we were also at the

[2:28:07] Hillsboro Saturday market this past weekend. Um we were able to talk to a

[2:28:11] lot of folks at the booth um and answer questions that they had. Um, we really

[2:28:17] wanted to provide an opportunity for people to be able to have conversation

[2:28:20] and ask questions um because there's been opportunity for public comment um

[2:28:25] so far at city council meetings, but there's not been an opportunity for

[2:28:29] anyone's to ask questions and to get responses, you know, real time. Um, so

[2:28:34] we wanted to have that inerson engagement opportunity and we had some

[2:28:38] um really good engagement and questions um and got um also gave information

[2:28:43] about the survey as well. But um had some good conversations at the markets.

[2:28:48] Um and then um lastly did want to clarify because I think it was maybe

[2:28:53] misreported that there will be public comment as well um uh at the city

[2:28:59] council meeting on the 15th. Um so tonight will not be the last uh public

[2:29:04] comment available or opportunity available.

[2:29:08] Um and then again just on the schedule um it's currently scheduled for

[2:29:12] tenatively f first reading at city council on September 15th and for a

[2:29:17] second reading on October 6th um uh for adoption if if approved.

[2:29:24] » Uh on the last slide question regarding the

[2:29:28] community engagement are we able to get any sort of data from the existing

[2:29:33] survey or do we need to wait until it closes? Um I was I I did pull data and I

[2:29:40] gave kind of like a high level summary but we will provide like a final report

[2:29:44] of that when we go to council on the 15th and I can make sure that it's

[2:29:47] forwarded to you all as well. >> Please and thank you. Okay.

[2:29:52] Uh any well do you have anything else before we turn to just more questions?

[2:29:58] Nope. >> No questions.

[2:29:59] » All right. Any other questions for staff?

[2:30:02] » Yeah, I do. >> Commissioner Davis. Um, so just out of

[2:30:06] curiosity, I'm sure there's specific reasons for this, you know, this being

[2:30:10] phased into one and phase two. Um there's know obviously with the

[2:30:16] testimony that's been given to us from the community here um and some of the

[2:30:20] questions that we've raised since the work session as well. Is there a reason

[2:30:24] why some of the items that are now currently in phase 2 could not be looked

[2:30:28] at more for phase one if they're not directly resulting from the uh studies

[2:30:34] that are currently being done? Um so um not necessarily but the reason why it

[2:30:41] was broken into two different phases was to be able to show meaningful progress

[2:30:46] had been made during the moratorum. Um we um if council wants to extend the

[2:30:52] moratorum in November past the 120 days um we have to demonstrate that we've

[2:30:58] made progress substantial progress towards a permanent solution. Um so um

[2:31:05] kind of direction was to break apart the code amendment into um two pieces and to

[2:31:12] start with defining the use and looking at zones and prohibited and limited

[2:31:17] zones um and to start with that because those were um are our decisions that are

[2:31:23] um don't that we have information on and can make decisions on. Um I think the

[2:31:30] the pieces um I don't know if there are specific pieces that you would wanted to

[2:31:36] call out from that phase too, but pieces like um adequate buffers and what that

[2:31:42] looks like. Um we don't have meaningful data to make that an informed decision

[2:31:48] at this moment. Um and that's something that we would want to um have be an

[2:31:53] informed decision in the code. Um, so that's why that that piece was pushed to

[2:31:58] or placed in phase two. Um, but we still we don't want to um push out everything

[2:32:03] from phase one to phase two and say like let's just make a holistic decision

[2:32:06] because we do want to be able to show that if if if council elects to extend

[2:32:11] the moratorum, we we need to be able to show that we're making progress.

[2:32:15] Um, what about something like the the portion about considering elevating

[2:32:20] review process requirements for public hearing so that that can go into effect

[2:32:25] sooner um so that we do have a little bit more of a say in in what's going on

[2:32:30] with these approvals? >> Yeah. Um, so the um there weren't any

[2:32:36] included for data centers as far as type three reviews. There was a type three

[2:32:40] review included for best facilities, the conditional use. Um so um there wasn't

[2:32:47] um it's not yeah it's not being included in

[2:32:52] this time. It's certainly something that you can make as a recommendation to city

[2:32:55] council. Um with the moratorium in place we're not accepting any new applications

[2:33:00] at this time. So um it wasn't necessarily time-sensitive to make it a

[2:33:04] type three decision when we're not processing any or accepting any new

[2:33:08] applications right now. um which is why it was kind of pushed to phase two for

[2:33:14] um data centers. >> Yeah, I think that my concern with that

[2:33:18] is that the moratorium will be up soon and that there will possibly be some

[2:33:24] within that time frame between when that is lifted and when we're looking at

[2:33:29] phase 2 actually being enacted. >> Sure. So I would say that if um you know

[2:33:37] the as you all know um a type three decision is discretionary but it's

[2:33:41] beholden to approval criteria. So if we don't have approval criteria to back

[2:33:45] that up and we are just saying it's a type three decision the same approval

[2:33:49] criteria that apply today would apply still apply as a type three decision.

[2:33:54] Um, so if we were to make it an elevated review process in order for that to be

[2:33:59] meaningful, we would want to have approval criteria in place that are

[2:34:03] different that are um, reasons for it to be discretionary. Um, because otherwise

[2:34:09] you would you all would be making the decisions based on the same criteria

[2:34:12] that staff is currently making the decisions based on.

[2:34:17] » Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff?

[2:34:22] No, we are now going to move on to the public testimony part of the hearing.

[2:34:28] Uh uh if you wish to comment on or provide testimony on this item, there

[2:34:34] are blue cards at the table in the back of the auditorium. If you haven't filled

[2:34:38] one out already and you'd like to provide testimony, please fill it fill

[2:34:43] it out and you can bring it over to Bella and Bri over here. uh and then

[2:34:48] they will uh add you to the queue. Uh as we move into testimony, if you feel you

[2:34:53] have to publicly express support for a comment or viewpoint, we ask that you

[2:34:58] use a quiet and non-disruptive method such as snapping your fingers. Y'all are

[2:35:02] doing great at that. A thumbs up or jazz hand or any other non-disruptive method.

[2:35:13] All right. Uh first we will hear from people who are here in person. Uh as I

[2:35:17] read your name uh from the blue card, please come forward to the chair and

[2:35:22] table. You will be given three minutes to provide your testimony. There is a

[2:35:26] timer sitting there on the desk so you can track your own time. There are also

[2:35:31] timers on either side of the auditorium uh that will show your time. Once your

[2:35:36] three minutes are up, I will uh thank you for your testimony and we'll move on

[2:35:41] to the next individual who signed up to testify.

[2:35:45] All right. Uh, and I apologize if I mispronounced

[2:35:50] any names. I will do my best. Um, Paige Mendescino.

[2:36:03] Good morning, Paige.

[2:36:07] Yeah. Hit you'll hit the little button when you're ready.

[2:36:14] » Okay. Well, um, good evening, um, everyone and thank you for your time

[2:36:18] this evening. Um, I, so I'm going to preface my remarks, um, uh, first by

[2:36:22] saying I wrote these prior earlier today prior to I think the release and and

[2:36:28] provision of, um, one of the updated um, staff reports. And so some of my remarks

[2:36:36] may not be um, as relevant, but I'm going to go ahead and read them as they

[2:36:40] were prepared. So just please bear that in mind. Um, I'm speaking tonight

[2:36:44] regarding um the proposed phase one code amendments for data storage and energy

[2:36:50] storage. Um, and I I'm asking this body to consider a a pause um for several

[2:36:57] reasons. So, first, the timing of this amendment feels premature to me. Um the

[2:37:04] as a resident of Hillsboro, the city uh I am aware that the city council enacted

[2:37:09] uh a moratorum specifically to study the environmental and the economic impacts

[2:37:14] of data centers. And according to the city schedule, those studies will not be

[2:37:19] completed until at least December. Um yet phase one appears to be asking you

[2:37:25] to lock in um zoning rules and acreage limits. And uh it is my feeling and

[2:37:32] belief that we shouldn't be setting permanent land use allowances before we

[2:37:37] have the environmental and economic data to guide those decisions.

[2:37:42] Um, second, while we appreciate that staff included uh the the term

[2:37:46] artificial intelligence in the definition, the code appears to lack

[2:37:51] physical enforcement triggers. Without measurable standards such as contracted

[2:37:57] megawws or power density per rack, it will be difficult for city planners to

[2:38:03] distinguish what is a high power AI compute cluster versus standard

[2:38:08] manufacturing or R&D. Third, the proposed rules for accessory

[2:38:13] data centers appear to create loopholes or the potential for loopholes. Section

[2:38:18] 12.10.370 allows accessory data storage on up to

[2:38:23] 30% of a site's gross uh land acreage on a 50% on a 50 acre industrial site. For

[2:38:30] example, that's a 15 acre uh footprint. Because phase one does not appear to

[2:38:35] restrict floor area ratios or power draw, that accessory uh usage could

[2:38:42] easily dwarf the primary industrial use at that site. Um further, and I'm

[2:38:48] looking at my time here, um the uh the amendment appears to allow companies to

[2:38:55] transfer accessory data storage capacity offsite. I understand some of the some

[2:39:00] of that restriction was spoken to. Um but this does continue to create the

[2:39:05] possibility of a backdoor to distribute uh data uh data c uh capacity in a way

[2:39:11] in which the I think the code amendment was was not um uh was not anticipating.

[2:39:18] » Thank you, Paige. >> Thank you. All

[2:39:21] right, Jana Nelson.

[2:39:43] I won't be as clear and concise as Paige because I was a little busy today.

[2:39:48] Anyway, um, reading over this, my biggest concern

[2:39:52] is that we've added and processing. If you attended any city council meetings

[2:40:00] over the past few months, you would have heard hours and hours and hours of

[2:40:06] testimony from people saying AI was a big concern. And now we're adding to

[2:40:13] this data storage and processing and that's artificial intelligence.

[2:40:19] And it's left a wide open room for them to bring in

[2:40:26] more AI, which is what we have spoken about over and over and over again. And

[2:40:33] I feel like all of that information is public record and something that the

[2:40:37] staff should have been looking at. So, I'm a little disappointed that we have

[2:40:43] spent hours at city council meetings expressing our concerns and staff has

[2:40:48] avoided looking at that.

[2:40:53] Um, so I think that processing needs to be taken off of that. And along with

[2:40:58] that, I'll just echo what Paige mentioned as far as the the accessory

[2:41:03] data centers that if you're going to do something like that, then there needs to

[2:41:08] be a limit. Um, I can't have build a one floor building and then the next six

[2:41:17] floors be my accessory. There needs to be a cap on how big these

[2:41:22] get to be. And I feel like staff is misleading

[2:41:28] um you as far as who uses these data centers.

[2:41:33] They made it sound like this is for us for businesses here. That's not how data

[2:41:39] works and we all know that. So it's not for just Intel or just for Providence.

[2:41:48] Any company can come in here and use the data. That's why there's six very large

[2:41:55] Trans-Pacific cables coming into Hillsboro. So, this isn't for Hillsboro.

[2:42:01] There is no benefit to us. And then lastly, I will leave it at we

[2:42:07] spent an hour and a half discussing a mosque

[2:42:12] and what the benefit to the community was.

[2:42:19] Where's the benefit of to the community for these with these data centers? It

[2:42:23] does absolutely nothing for us. The only people it's benefiting

[2:42:30] is Hillsboro, not the people of Hillsboro. Thank you.

[2:42:35] » Thank you, Jano. >> Simone Campbell.

[2:43:10] Good evening, planning commission peoples. My name is Simone Campbell and

[2:43:14] I resign or I reside here in Hillsboro. The staff report from MA Rachel Marble

[2:43:19] dated August 19th, 2026 as the purpose of this amendment is to define two new

[2:43:25] use categories, data storage and energy energy storage and generation and to

[2:43:30] address where these uses are allowed within the city. I support updating the

[2:43:36] code, but phase one of this amendment creates problems it doesn't solve.

[2:43:41] First, phase one explicitly excludes protections. Page two of the staff

[2:43:46] report lists what phase one does not include. Update development and design

[2:43:50] standards like building height setbacks. Consider sustainability or green

[2:43:54] building requirements. Look at buffers or distance requirements along national

[2:43:58] re natural resources, schools, and parks. Consider elevated review process

[2:44:02] requiring public hearing. staff says that those will be considered in the

[2:44:07] phase 2 amendment, but phase two isn't until after the governor's data center

[2:44:11] advisory committee reports and enterprise zone discussions start in

[2:44:16] 2027. Second, the acreage caps don't limit

[2:44:20] anything new. The staff report says that the industrial park cap is 215 acres.

[2:44:25] Exhibit C shows 203 acres already existing, approved, and vested. That

[2:44:30] leaves 11.8 acres. The industrial sanctuary cap is 310 acres. You already

[2:44:36] have 297 acres. That is 96.5% of the cap filled before this amendment passes.

[2:44:44] Third, you're prohibiting data storage in 10 zones where it's currently allowed

[2:44:47] outright. That includes industrial general, commercial general, and all the

[2:44:51] urban center zones. But you keep in industrial park and industrial sanctuary

[2:44:55] where it's already at capacity. So phase one reszones the city to concentrate all

[2:45:00] future data centers into two zones that are already full while pushing every

[2:45:05] standard that protects schools, parks, and neighborhoods to a phase two that

[2:45:08] won't happen for months or years. The approval criteria for a text amendment

[2:45:14] in section 12 uh 1801 140 says the C CDCA must address an issue of or issues

[2:45:21] of concern on a variety of properties and be desirable, appropriate and

[2:45:26] proper. The moratorum council passed on July 27th is only 120 days. It expires

[2:45:31] in late November. If you pass phase one now with no buffers and no public

[2:45:35] hearings and phase two slips, you've legalized the highest impact version of

[2:45:39] the these facilities with the fewest protections. Phase one should be the

[2:45:43] floor for protection, not the ceiling for industry.

[2:45:47] My ask before you recommend this to council, amend order 8502 to move

[2:45:51] buffers from schools and parks and type three public hearing requirements into

[2:45:55] phase one. Don't wait for 2027 to decide if kids at Liberty High School deserve a

[2:46:00] setback from a 30 megawatt AI computing facility. We can define use today and

[2:46:05] add basic protections today. One doesn't preclude the other.

[2:46:11] Thank you, Simone.

[2:46:16] » Durk

[2:46:22] and Dirk, did I say your last name right earlier? Nudson Kudson. Okay, apologies.

[2:46:45] Thank you. Um, as you know, I've submitted extensive testimony. Um, I

[2:46:50] want us to remember that we're passing a code. It's not easy to do the CDC

[2:46:54] amendments, right? You guys have done them before. Council's done them. This

[2:46:57] could last for years. And as we're meeting and as the time's going by,

[2:47:03] there are people um in the city, in the community here, our mayor included, who

[2:47:08] are meeting with land owners out in the 1700 acres happening this year, talking

[2:47:13] about tomorrow, talking about 2,000 acres of advanced manufacturing. Okay?

[2:47:18] So, what you do tonight may never get changed other than the additions of

[2:47:22] phase two. It may stand forever. So, it's really important that you get it

[2:47:25] right and I thank you for your work. Um there's a few things and I'll point out

[2:47:30] in the red line CDC 121 370B staff added in red that data that

[2:47:37] data centers include a include AI facilities at scale under Oregon land

[2:47:43] use law. The phase at scale is legally undefined without clear metrics.

[2:47:47] Corporate attorneys will easily argue that a 10 or 20 megawatt GPU cluster is

[2:47:52] just smallcale R&D and Hillsboro will be helpless to stop it. You think they have

[2:47:57] the best land use lawyers in the world? You better bet they do. And they will

[2:48:00] run over us because we didn't define at scale. And I've done a lot of land use.

[2:48:06] I'm sure Dan and I could talk about this later. I think we need to limit it to

[2:48:11] something like 2 megawws or 15 kilowatts or something that reflects a big use. PG

[2:48:17] thinks two um two megawws puts you in a massive commercial use category. So, um,

[2:48:23] you heard other people talk about the 30% cap. I mean, 30% of 50 acres with a

[2:48:29] fourstory high data center like the one we have going up on Sul Road right now

[2:48:33] is 2.8 million square ft of accessory data center. That would be on a 50acre

[2:48:38] site. So, I see that clause is a Trojan horse. It's the same thing that they

[2:48:42] tried to do on the 1700 acres and that's why that bill went down. So, don't be

[2:48:46] duped. We need that to be limited to a percentage of the overall building.

[2:48:50] Primary use, if it's accessory use, should never be more than 20% maybe or

[2:48:56] used to 30%. So if I build a million square feet, I can have a 300,000t data

[2:49:01] center. If that's not enough to help my company, I don't know what is. Got a few

[2:49:05] minutes left. Um Bess, I'll leave alone. That's a big

[2:49:09] issue. Um I'd just strike subsection four. this

[2:49:15] transfer thing. We had 10 meetings and at no time did council ever bring it up.

[2:49:20] If it came up in a work session, it must have been the only one I missed. So, I

[2:49:24] would just throw that out or make it a conditional use. And as far as phase

[2:49:28] two, you guys have the power and the obligation to pass some kind of a

[2:49:32] sighting requirement from schools. Okay? Just say it's a quarter of a mile unless

[2:49:37] you want to apply for a conditional use and come in and then have a hearing over

[2:49:41] that like what you just did with the church. I'm a little bit over, but in

[2:49:45] closing, 13 of the buildings approved in the 17

[2:49:50] enterprise zone deals are all AI. I have factual information on that.

[2:49:54] » Derek, >> so Mr. Diaz and I need to talk about

[2:49:56] this, but we have a lot of AI coming to Hillsboro and they're all switching out.

[2:50:01] » Thank you, Derek.

[2:50:10] Jacks, >> they're not here. All right. Thank you.

[2:50:19] » As were we? Uh Mike McTurnin.

[2:50:30] » Yeah. Don't

[2:50:42] All right, great. Uh, thank you for hearing me. Uh, I think everybody who's

[2:50:46] spoken already has kind of addressed a lot of the issues with this uh, proposed

[2:50:52] code. Um, I I think it's really important that we

[2:50:57] get this right the first time and I think that's what everybody's speaking

[2:51:00] to. Um, as I understand it, this was meant to increase the power of the city

[2:51:05] to regulate the types of buildings and the amount of new construction in our

[2:51:08] industrial areas, but it was also meant to address the public concerns in

[2:51:12] regards to the new construction and the lack of trust in the city to looking out

[2:51:17] for their best interests. As it stands, this order does not address either of

[2:51:22] those issues in a thorough enough manner. Whether this is intentional or

[2:51:26] not, it stands as it stands, the order has too many loopholes which can be

[2:51:31] exploited in the future. And we've heard from all the people who talked so far

[2:51:36] about how these loopholes could be exploited, how we're leaving these

[2:51:39] openings, and why we can't leave them. The changes asked for will go a long way

[2:51:46] towards create closing these loopholes and creating a regulatory framework

[2:51:50] which will be useful not only now but in the future, which is what we're trying

[2:51:53] to do. Failing to enact these changes would

[2:51:58] confirms worse people's worst fears about the city and how they organize

[2:52:04] their policy against the people. In terms of the accessory use,

[2:52:12] we see that the city staff is leaving these giant

[2:52:19] openings.

[2:52:22] If you're going to regulate this and you're going to say that there's caps on

[2:52:26] data centers, then why aren't we capping the amount of space in the accessory use

[2:52:31] and why are we allowing these companies to transfer these things offsite? I

[2:52:37] agree that it's disingenuous of the city staff to

[2:52:42] say that this is all being used for health care and that this is going to

[2:52:46] affect how jobs are created here. I think what they're leaving open is

[2:52:52] opportunities for people to come in just like with the

[2:52:55] 1700 acres and exploit our code to do whatever they want.

[2:53:02] Okay. The point of the moratorum, the point of all these code amendments is to

[2:53:07] get this right the first time. To rush through the land use and then ignore all

[2:53:13] the environmental concerns is folly.

[2:53:19] it also.

[2:53:24] So, in closing,

[2:53:29] I think you should either ask for more detail from the staff on how these rules

[2:53:35] are going to be regulated. And listening to you guys talk, I think

[2:53:39] getting clear clearer definitions is more important, but also consider this

[2:53:44] environmental. Thank Thank you, Mike.

[2:53:50] MNA Munoz.

[2:54:04] Hey, good evening everybody. Um, let me start with a thank you. I felt so good

[2:54:10] sitting in my seat hearing your questions and I felt like the people

[2:54:15] have somebody asking the questions that we have and it's been a long time since

[2:54:20] I felt that way coming in front of a board. So, thank you so much for asking

[2:54:24] the questions that I know you heard from people because that's why I'm here. So,

[2:54:29] I'm Ma Munos and I'm running for Senate here in district 15. And the reason why

[2:54:34] I'm here is because I find myself being kind of the like the Lorax. I used to be

[2:54:39] a teacher, but now I'm like the Lorax. I get to speak for the people. And so when

[2:54:45] people hear things are going on, they ask me to speak up. And that's why I'm

[2:54:50] here, right? Because I'm not in the seat yet, but already I have some information

[2:54:55] that I think is really important. I do think that you've seen the paper and

[2:55:00] heard about why I won. is because everybody hates data centers. And what

[2:55:06] I'm hearing is that the people of Washington County don't want one more.

[2:55:11] We have 33. We've approved 23 in this sneaky way while we all yelled and

[2:55:17] screamed for it not to happen. In the meantime,

[2:55:22] in Salem, they were going to have one. And everybody got together and that

[2:55:28] council is banning data centers. They won't have one. And I have to tell you,

[2:55:34] it makes us look really bad, right? Because we're going to have 50 in this

[2:55:40] community. And we're afraid. We're scared of what this is doing.

[2:55:45] We're doing environmental impact studies now. We have 30 of these. What happened?

[2:55:53] So, I heard that the reason why we're not moving everything in this first

[2:55:58] phase from that list of requirements is because we need to make substantial

[2:56:02] progress. And I have to tell you, we're at risk. We need to prioritize making

[2:56:08] substantial progress toward building trust with the community that voted this

[2:56:14] government in. And that's going to take us giving the community time to come and

[2:56:20] protest a better review process and by keeping these things away from the

[2:56:25] schools. I can't tell you how many emails I get every day of people that

[2:56:29] are concerned that these things are coming around their neighborhood, their

[2:56:34] schools. And what we heard from Marorrow County is that there was research there

[2:56:39] about cancer and miscarriages specifically.

[2:56:43] and Amazon said, "Eh, we'll settle. Here's the money." So, it it's not a

[2:56:49] good look for us to keep siding on the side of corporations when voters ought

[2:56:55] to be making the decisions here. That's who put this government in place. So, I

[2:57:01] urge you today to add in the very minimum a better review process and

[2:57:07] safety from a school. Our people are really asking us for it.

[2:57:11] » Thank you so much.

[2:57:17] Brown wildfire.

[2:57:26] » All right. I hope so.

[2:57:31] » All right. It's ironic that we're here discussing how to use land that doesn't

[2:57:34] belong to you. And shout out to all the working people who have shown up to

[2:57:38] remind everyone that we don't want data center reform. We want them gone. My

[2:57:43] family was just talking about how PGE sent a notice that they are talking

[2:57:47] about increasing electricity rates by 13% because the the power grid is

[2:57:51] already being maxed out. Gary, Indiana, the uh they're already seeing power

[2:57:57] outages where workingclass people are facing these power outages while these

[2:58:01] data centers face none. Y'all are talking about all these businesses using

[2:58:05] data centers for the local economy, but stay quiet about all the working-class

[2:58:09] people using public transportation that just got cut. The idea that AI can be

[2:58:13] applied to genetics and medicine, by the way, comes from Larry Ellison, the top

[2:58:17] donor to the IDF and co-founder of Oracle, whose first client was the CIA,

[2:58:21] but that was scrapped because of how unique people's eugenics are. Dandas,

[2:58:26] the fact y'all need to do more community engagement shows us how disconnected you

[2:58:31] are from the community and our struggles because as Jana mentioned, we have been

[2:58:36] expressing there are hours of footage of us expressing that we don't want them.

[2:58:40] No means no. Did y'all not learn that? It isn't consider It isn't surprising

[2:58:45] considering we had to wait 3 hours to speak for 3 minutes. It's also

[2:58:49] interesting to see that we working people get three minutes, three minutes

[2:58:52] to speak and an applicant got an hour to speak because what does that say about

[2:58:56] your priorities? And it's not surprising considering the government has pushed

[2:59:00] damaging things into our communities before such as lead, asbestos, fracking,

[2:59:05] tobacco, cloned meat, and more. And they're only doing this environmental

[2:59:09] study after the backlash. They didn't do this proactively. And this is from a

[2:59:13] book I read when I was in fifth grade. It's called Among the Hidden. in it. Uh,

[2:59:17] third children are illegal to have. And this is from the perspective of Luke,

[2:59:21] the an illegal third child. Uh, his dad just got a letter from the

[2:59:26] mail. The department, sorry, in the mail. Department of Human Habitation

[2:59:29] Environmental Standards Division. Can't be anything but bad news, Dad said. No

[2:59:34] use ruining a good meal. It has come to our attention, he read loudly. Well, so

[2:59:39] far I understand it. Then he read silently for a while, calling out at

[2:59:42] intervals. Where's that dictionary? Matthew, look up reciprocity. They're

[2:59:47] going to take they're going to make us get rid of our hogs. What? But those are

[2:59:50] our bread and butter. Doesn't matter because the fancy people building their

[2:59:55] houses here don't want them. The bill arrived two weeks later and the

[3:00:00] day that dad came back, uh, he talked about the Willicker farm. Willicker says

[3:00:06] they raised everyone's taxes because of them fancy new houses. Makes our land

[3:00:10] worth more. It's only good if we're selling and we ain't. All it means for

[3:00:14] us is that the government thinks they can take money. They can get more money

[3:00:17] out of us. And then later on when he's talking to another adult, he says, "The

[3:00:21] government justifies keeping everyone else in poverty because people seem to

[3:00:24] work the hardest when they're right on the edge of survival. The government

[3:00:27] does try to make sure that the pe that the most people survive. The ones who

[3:00:30] cooperate do survive. If you've heard your parents talking about other

[3:00:33] farmers, you'll know that nobody loses their farming.

[3:00:36] » Thank you.

[3:00:43] Debbie.

[3:00:52] » All right, guys. You have a lot of work cut out in front of you, and we're here

[3:00:56] to support you, but we want you to know you have

[3:01:00] Hillsboro City in your hands. I've been here 45 years and I want to be here as

[3:01:08] long as I can. But I have a son that just decided to buy a house in my

[3:01:15] subdivision and I didn't tell him that I was

[3:01:19] concerned about Hillsboro and what they're doing with the data centers.

[3:01:25] Each one of you

[3:01:29] need to come together and make the right decision for the people. Not for the

[3:01:35] city, for the people. We have been here for a long time and we deserve

[3:01:42] everything you can give us. We trust you. We elected you

[3:01:50] and we want you to help us. None of us want data centers. None of

[3:01:57] us. But we're stuck with them. AI is here. So, you have to make good use of

[3:02:06] what we're allowing.

[3:02:10] If we're going to have data centers because they support the businesses,

[3:02:16] they should only support the businesses in our community.

[3:02:20] We don't need data centers that are doing stuff for other

[3:02:27] other states or, you know, whatever. Um,

[3:02:35] I don't think it's realistic to think that there's not going to be another

[3:02:39] data center here in Hillsboro, but that's what I want.

[3:02:45] I want a moratorum forever. I know that's not realistic,

[3:02:52] but you need to come together and keep our city.

[3:02:59] If we have all the data centers that they want to put in, there will be data

[3:03:05] centers and no people. There will be no schools or churches.

[3:03:10] The people will leave. We won't have land to grow food.

[3:03:17] And I appreciate you guys. I appreciate all the dilemas you've got. And I wish

[3:03:26] you the best. I wish us the best. I figure I've got another 15 years to live

[3:03:33] here in Hillsboro. And I just hope that my kid makes it

[3:03:38] through. He goes, "Mom, you're going to a data center meeting?"

[3:03:43] He doesn't realize. and I'm right on the edge. I'm on the

[3:03:49] corner of Evergreen and Gleno, so the data centers are right there.

[3:03:56] Thank you. >> Thank you, Debbie.

[3:04:02] » Denise Care.

[3:04:23] We could limit verbal disruptions from the audience that that would be uh

[3:04:27] preferred. Thank you, Denise. Go ahead.

[3:04:33] » Uh good evening, commissioners. My name is Denise Care and I've lived in

[3:04:39] Hillsboro for 40 years. Um there's a couple interesting things I've observed.

[3:04:45] Um most of these people testifying are people who are many times twice your

[3:04:50] age, have lived here twice as long, and probably have a little more wisdom.

[3:04:57] Um so let's see. I I have a couple things.

[3:05:03] First of all, the phase one, the poll I found was

[3:05:08] frankly poorly riitten. There were no clear definitions.

[3:05:13] The terms weren't defined. If I didn't uh speak English as a

[3:05:18] primary language, I would absolutely have no clue. And I do speak English as

[3:05:24] a primary language, and I don't even have half a clue.

[3:05:28] Um, it's ambiguous.

[3:05:31] There's a a feeling of getting the cart in front of the horse.

[3:05:38] Um and um it really needs to be written in a at a

[3:05:44] level where an eighth grade person can understand what's going on.

[3:05:49] Um another point I have is uh isn't there currently a lawsuit

[3:05:55] against Hillsboro against data centers? What happens if that lawsuit What

[3:06:00] happens if the city of Hillsboro fails and those 17 applications, the rush to

[3:06:06] the enterprise zone, uh are illegal? What What are you going to do then? I

[3:06:13] mean, I'm curious. I really am curious. Um

[3:06:18] so, uh it's it's not just what you say, it's what you don't say.

[3:06:25] Um I just

[3:06:30] nobody wants data centers. Data centers want us.

[3:06:35] Uh data centers want our land and our natural resources. They want to exploit

[3:06:40] the uh property prices and the the lack of a sales tax and everything else. And

[3:06:45] it's it's not to benefit people in Oregon or Hillsboro. is to benefit out

[3:06:51] of stators and and in this way I feel like this

[3:06:57] whole process is a little bit deceptive and manipulative

[3:07:01] Dan um and it's been like that for a long

[3:07:06] time hasn't it over five years

[3:07:12] um so I don't work for Intel I know that

[3:07:18] Intel has a great number of employees employees in this in Hillsboro. And when

[3:07:21] you put this poll out, don't you think the results are going to be just a

[3:07:26] little bit biased because people want to satisfy their employer? Maybe their

[3:07:30] employer has even said, "I want you to do this."

[3:07:34] Thank you, Denise

[3:07:38] » Sarah.

[3:07:50] Um, hello. I just want to point out that in the packet that was sent out I think

[3:07:55] to you guys it did say that of the survey only 12 to 13% of people were in

[3:08:01] favor of no restrictions to data uh centers. So um the people have maybe

[3:08:06] spoken um obviously the people have spoken to add my voice I am anti- any

[3:08:12] data center and I would like us to figure out ways to disassemble the ones

[3:08:15] that we already have. Um I'm not an expert in all of this. I agree like that

[3:08:21] a lot of this is kind of worded in a way that is not accessible to um the general

[3:08:26] population. Um what I do know is that the decisions that you make about how

[3:08:34] our land is used impacts all of us. Um and it impacts our children and their

[3:08:42] future. And that is um what I want you guys to hold as you're making the

[3:08:47] decisions. Um the um uh people have said they don't want data

[3:08:55] centers. You're looking at these amendments. what I without any really

[3:09:01] knowledge of what all of this exactly means or the

[3:09:05] specifics of of computing power and all of that would like you to think of is

[3:09:12] when you're deciding how to write things that determine what is and isn't allowed

[3:09:20] with this specifically. you were thinking about how you're writing that

[3:09:25] to create the broadest restrictions possible so

[3:09:30] that it is the hardest possible to actually have data centers in our town

[3:09:36] because that is what people are clearly saying. So if you say we can't outright

[3:09:39] ban them, let's make it as hard as possible. Let's put all the onus on the

[3:09:43] people and that that the corporations that want to build these and make it as

[3:09:47] difficult as possible because that will be the best harm reduction for our town

[3:09:54] if you can't actually say no we're not going to allow this anymore which to be

[3:10:00] fair um everything is made up the laws were made up the um the whatever the

[3:10:06] zone that allowed these applications to go in that was created we can create new

[3:10:11] things, right? We can decide that we want things to be different. Um, that's

[3:10:15] a choice that you make. Um, I also want to say if we're doing environmental

[3:10:19] impacts um, uh, studies, it needs to be

[3:10:23] cumulative. If we're looking at standalone at like each individual

[3:10:27] building zone, whatever, as what that impact will be just alone, we're not

[3:10:33] getting the full picture, right? Because it's cumulative. They're pulling from

[3:10:36] the same water sources. They're pulling from the same energy sources. So if

[3:10:39] we're looking at what the actual impact on our community is, we need to look at

[3:10:43] that cumulatively altogether, what's already here and what they want to add

[3:10:47] because that will give you the clear picture of how it's going to impact us

[3:10:52] long term. Um, and I think that is it. Thank you.

[3:10:58] » Thank you, Sarah. Aaron Nichols.

[3:11:15] » Good evening. Um, thank you very much for your time. Thanks for being here. I

[3:11:19] know it's late. Um, I appreciate you're here to to better the communities. Um, I

[3:11:25] read through the proposed code amendments. Uh, and like many others

[3:11:28] here, I feel they're just simply inadequate to the moment. Um, I'm not

[3:11:32] going to go through all the reasons. I think that other people have stated them

[3:11:34] as well or better than I would, but I do want to add a few things. Um, one is

[3:11:39] that Hillsborough is relatively wealthy and a relatively well-run city. Um, and

[3:11:44] a lot of other cities will be looking to Hillsboro for this. Um, the city of

[3:11:48] North Plains, even the city of Forest Grove, they don't have the staff. they

[3:11:51] don't have the ability to make this level of code um when they're fighting

[3:11:56] against the wealth of of these corporations. Hillsboro may. And so I

[3:12:00] think we we really do need to get this right. Um and I I you know I think it's

[3:12:06] incumbent on you all as planning commissioners, us as advocates to get it

[3:12:09] to get it right or at least in the ballpark. um the proposal that as it

[3:12:13] stands now I think leaves too much open to to interpretation by by land use

[3:12:17] layers too much um to do later we're in the moratorum because there's a clear

[3:12:22] threat to public health and a clear threat to the economic well-being of the

[3:12:25] city and I think to our farmland um these amendments um and I think many of

[3:12:30] us will acknowledge that they they don't solve these threats they don't solve the

[3:12:33] problem um and so we you know we're not setting we're not setting limits on what

[3:12:38] can be next to schools we're not limiting air pollution for instance

[3:12:42] Um, and I think most concerning to me or at least most relevant to me, um, I came

[3:12:47] here 5 years ago or so when the URA was being expanded and said that, you know,

[3:12:50] if Hills uses up its land wastefully, the thousand acres it has from its, uh,

[3:12:55] from the, uh, from the grand bargain, there's not more farmland coming. And

[3:12:59] that's still true. I'd say more true now than it was. Um,

[3:13:04] I think I guess in conclusion, um, I believe that, uh, that given the risks

[3:13:10] and the the kind of the general weakness of these proposed code amendments, this

[3:13:14] proposal should probably be returned to staff and they should come back with a

[3:13:17] very maximalist set of codes that could adequately protect us, not billionaires.

[3:13:22] Um, and over time, if that if we find that to be too too strong, we could make

[3:13:27] it more flexible. But I think the large corporations, they can handle a little

[3:13:30] friction for a few years. That's fine. if if they need if if that's what

[3:13:33] protects us, that's acceptable. Um I think the conditions that could lead to

[3:13:38] the end of a moratorum are adequate protection for the community and for the

[3:13:42] city um not adequate protections to be able to build more data centers. Thank

[3:13:46] you. >> Thank you. Aaron

[3:13:50] Sandra,

[3:13:53] » can I have can I >> uh Commissioner Thes can I ask how far

[3:13:58] we are through our stack? We have two more. Sandra and then Gilberto.

[3:14:04] » Okay, great. >> So, yeah.

[3:14:06] » May I request a break after everybody's >> Yes. I'm already there. All right,

[3:14:12] Sandra, whenever you're ready. >> Perfect. Um, my name is Sandra. Uh, I

[3:14:17] obviously don't want data centers at all. Um, but I do want to start off by

[3:14:21] reminding everyone that this is not our land. Uh, this is not your land to give

[3:14:25] away to corporations. Um, and I want you guys to remember that. Um,

[3:14:31] is also, I mean, not land for you guys to kill or profit off of. And I want you

[3:14:37] guys to really think about a question. Um, when all of our perfect farmland has

[3:14:42] been used, where are you guys going to eat? What are you guys going to feed

[3:14:45] your children? And I want you guys to think about that. when you guys are

[3:14:49] giving away this land basically for free and then also taking away money from

[3:14:55] vulnerable children. I mean, Title One schools are suffering, right? Um, and

[3:14:59] you guys are still taking money from them. Um, and I just think that's so

[3:15:04] messed up. Our children deserve a lot more. They really do. Um,

[3:15:11] again, what's going to happen when every single resource has been taken? Um, I

[3:15:15] mean, what's going to happen when every single drop of water has been poisoned

[3:15:18] and when our air is no longer breathable? These corporations are not

[3:15:22] going to care about you. I mean, they're not going to invite you guys to their

[3:15:24] little safe haven bunker that they've built 50 years from now, right? They

[3:15:28] don't care about you guys. They don't care about us. And that's also something

[3:15:32] that I need you guys to remember um when you guys are making these decisions for

[3:15:37] us. Um, I don't want another data center on any

[3:15:43] single inch of land ever again. We have more than enough and we've destroyed our

[3:15:49] economy and we've destroyed our land more than enough.

[3:15:53] » Thank you. >> Thank you, Sandra.

[3:15:59] Uh, Gberto

[3:16:13] » this one right here. >> Yeah.

[3:16:14] » Yep. You're you're good to start talking.

[3:16:16] » Great. >> Uh, never given public testimony before,

[3:16:19] so >> you're doing great.

[3:16:22] I would just like to preface this by saying that pretty much everything that

[3:16:27] everyone has said before me is I'm just going to like tack that onto the front

[3:16:31] of what I'm saying. Uh and then I wasn't going to testify until I realized that

[3:16:36] nobody was really talking about processing power. Um,

[3:16:42] you know, our phones can do a lot and yes, most of that is going back and

[3:16:46] forth between things like a data center, but we also have a lot of technology

[3:16:50] that can process power a lot more efficiently uh and a lot more

[3:16:56] effectively. And we now have uh features in some of

[3:17:02] these uh AI tools to manufacture images, videos, all that stuff. And it takes way

[3:17:12] more processing power than it should. Like none of this is optimized. And it's

[3:17:17] very obvious that more data centers is like there there's

[3:17:22] no there's no number that we're going to reach where the developers don't want to

[3:17:27] build data centers anymore. They want to store absolutely everything about us and

[3:17:34] and also give us, you know, the tools to make uh AI generated slop um to uh

[3:17:41] whether it's, you know, maybe you're just making a funny video uh

[3:17:45] and polluting water while you do it, or maybe you're making a video about a

[3:17:51] former president that is like super racist about him and his wife. I don't

[3:17:54] know. So, I Are there some things that are pretty

[3:18:00] cool? Like, yeah, maybe I don't have to copy paste a few things for my work load

[3:18:06] or whatever. Um, but most people aren't using that way. Aren't using it that

[3:18:11] way. Like, nobody I I I have yet to see a like a responsible AI use type of code

[3:18:20] and things like that. Like, we have no regulations on the use of AI. And so as

[3:18:23] long as anybody can use it and use up all the processing power of all these

[3:18:28] computers, we're basically just giving people the keys to

[3:18:33] light our Can I say bad words? Light our stuff on fire. Light our things on fire.

[3:18:38] Um so maybe step one is don't make any more of

[3:18:45] them because I, you know, some of those images are still pretty good. um with

[3:18:50] the 33 data centers that we have um I don't see an increase in quality

[3:18:54] happening uh with one more 20 more and

[3:19:02] yeah that's that's that's what I have. Thank you.

[3:19:04] » Thank you. You did great for your first time.

[3:19:10] » All right, that is all the in-person testimony. Bri, I do believe we have one

[3:19:14] person pre-registered online. >> We do have one person pre-registered.

[3:19:18] I'm going to unmute Adam and then you have three minutes to speak.

[3:19:31] Well, thank you. Is can everyone hear me?

[3:19:35] » We can hear you, Adam. >> Great. Good evening. Long evening,

[3:19:40] right? Um, thank you for the time to give this

[3:19:44] verbal highle feedback on the proposed amendment for limiting energy storage in

[3:19:49] Hillsbor. I am the first person who uh who wants to talk about uh battery

[3:19:55] storage instead of uh data centers. My name is Adam Capage and I'm the director

[3:20:00] of outreach and communications at Renewable Northwest. We're a nonprofit

[3:20:05] renewable energy advocacy organization and our members are a combination of

[3:20:09] renewable energy businesses including battery energy storage developers as

[3:20:14] well as environmental and consumer groups. We've got a broad coalition

[3:20:18] almost 100 members. Um we've been following the staff's process thus far,

[3:20:23] but I had not seen the two specific concepts outlined tonight about battery

[3:20:28] storage specifically. So it's hard to speak in detail to such specific

[3:20:32] proposals except to say that I really appreciate the sentiment behind concept

[3:20:36] two which acknowledges the value placed on battery systems by the local utility.

[3:20:42] These are important utility facilities. They allow they support the grid

[3:20:49] uh reduce outages and allow renewable energy uh

[3:20:56] intermittent renewable energy to go onto our grid reducing pollution. That's what

[3:21:02] battery storage is all about. I would like to flag an area of question for the

[3:21:08] commission's consideration um which is the proposal to address energy storage

[3:21:12] and generation at the same time in this permitting process. Um there are two

[3:21:16] issues with this proposal which differ from the original plan I I believe which

[3:21:22] was to focus only on energy storage. That's what I that's what I thought the

[3:21:27] county commissioners or I'm sorry the the Hillsboro city council had voted on

[3:21:32] was to just do energy storage. And that's because first as a practical

[3:21:36] matter energy storage and generation projects like solar are have different

[3:21:40] qualities and and services for the electric grid. They're a different set

[3:21:44] of sighting considerations. So it's more cons it's more complicated to consider

[3:21:48] both at once. And second, energy storage but not generation is considered a

[3:21:54] utility facility. This is a specific legal term for purposes of sighting,

[3:21:59] which means it's not considered a conditional use. It it it and and and

[3:22:04] storage is defined as a utility facility um under under case law, which was just

[3:22:11] confirmed today by the land use board of appeals. And we haven't had time to

[3:22:16] fully digest this decision. and it was literally released today. But we'll

[3:22:19] follow up with more information about how this impacts the sighting of

[3:22:24] storage. So for both these reasons, just that storage and solar are different and

[3:22:30] that storage is a utility facility, we'd advise not putting energy storage and

[3:22:35] generation in the same permitting categories.

[3:22:38] » Thank you, Adam.

[3:22:42] All right. Uh, that was all the online pre-registered testimony. Uh, let's take

[3:22:48] a, uh, short 10-minute break. It is 9:32. Let's reconvene at 9:42.

[3:22:55] Thank you.

[3:23:01] » Good evening, everyone. Come on over. Have a seat. We're ready

[3:23:06] to continue. Thank you so much to President Jones Gallardo who ste um

[3:23:11] stepped away for this evening. I'm Commissioner Saka and I will be

[3:23:14] presiding over the rest of this meeting. I'm going to ask for some clarity here.

[3:23:22] We've completed our testimony. Does staff have any comments on the testimony

[3:23:28] or any additional staff information to provide at this time?

[3:23:32] » No, not at this time. >> Okay. Thank you.

[3:23:36] Do I have a motion from the commission to close or continue this hearing?

[3:23:47] » I move we close the public hearing. >> Commissioner Davis second.

[3:23:51] » Right. I have a motion from Commissioner Thall Nash and a second from

[3:23:55] Commissioner Davis to close this hearing. All those in favor say I. I.

[3:24:02] » All those opposed? Any abstensions?

[3:24:07] Motion carries. All right. I'm going to look out for

[3:24:11] staff for some clarity. But at this time, I believe the planning commission

[3:24:16] is going to open up some deliberations, provide some thoughts and comments or

[3:24:21] any questions at this time. Am I clear? >> That is correct. uh Vice President Saka

[3:24:27] and what staff is happy to answer any questions as part of that deliberation

[3:24:31] that the commission may have. And the other request we would make is that if

[3:24:35] the commission is going to direct staff to make any additional changes to the

[3:24:40] proposed code amendments or if you would like us to bring additional information

[3:24:43] back that you try to be as clear as possible and have as much consensus

[3:24:47] across the commission as possible. We will take notes and at the end of

[3:24:50] deliberation try to respond back with what we think we heard

[3:24:53] to make sure there's alignment and we can get to a final motion. this evening.

[3:24:57] » Thank you so much. >> Thank you.

[3:25:00] » All right, commissioners, anyone ready to start the deliberation process?

[3:25:07] » Go ahead, Commissioner Davis. >> Commissioner Davis. Uh, so I had some

[3:25:14] some critical questions for the city staff uh this evening. Um, and and I

[3:25:19] understand that there's a lot of pressure from the city staff right now

[3:25:24] to try to get something on the books to show considerable

[3:25:29] um progress has been made due to the moratorum. Um it it's something that I I

[3:25:36] feel like that we can still show that there's been considerable progress made

[3:25:41] even if we don't say yes to phase one today. um because you can show that

[3:25:48] we've had all of these meetings, we've had public testimony, uh all these

[3:25:52] public hearings, you're taking surveys, you're getting feedback, and so there's

[3:25:55] still definitely a lot of back and forth dialogue going on right now. I don't

[3:25:59] feel like we're at a place right now where phase one is ready. I feel like

[3:26:03] there's more that it can be added to phase one and that I I would hope that

[3:26:09] the city council would also agree with that. um such as things like buffer

[3:26:14] zones that that we could potentially add to schools and parks and things of that

[3:26:19] sort. Um and then also with um the accessory definitions and limits on

[3:26:28] those, I feel like 30% based off of the the plot of land is too

[3:26:33] much. I feel like we need to limit that more. Whether that's a lower percentage

[3:26:39] or whether that's basing it off of the actual development

[3:26:43] size instead of the the the the land size.

[3:26:49] So, that's where I'd like to start off with anyway.

[3:26:56] » Okay, >> Commissioner Jackson. Um I second what

[3:26:59] Commissioner Davis said. Um, I'm most concerned with that like third

[3:27:05] I mean there's a lot of things I'm concerned about but like the 30% gross

[3:27:08] coverage or acreage hearing that that could be up to like

[3:27:12] 1,200 to,300 acres that's that's a lot. And so I understand

[3:27:19] like the um direction you were given from city

[3:27:23] council was not to prohibit but to you know find

[3:27:27] some restrictions and I just feel like that's just

[3:27:32] it doesn't feel like it's restricting that much when we're giving access to

[3:27:35] that much space. So I would like to see um again I'm not an expert. I don't know

[3:27:42] what the fix is to that, but there's got to be a way to cap that amount of space

[3:27:47] a little more. Um, and then um I know you like the push back a

[3:27:56] little bit. Maybe it wasn't pushback's not the right word, but like on the my

[3:27:59] AI question. Um, like I my concerns with the AI is that I've seen in my own job

[3:28:05] like pushes for that to take over tasks that would be like my task in my job

[3:28:10] classification. I'm seeing that in other fields too where there's these pushes to

[3:28:14] replace people and those jobs with AI. So that's why I kind of wanted some

[3:28:20] definitions for different types because I think it's important to really think

[3:28:24] about what kind of tech we're bringing in and

[3:28:29] be thoughtful, mindful because the last thing we should be doing is taking jobs

[3:28:33] from our um community members. And um I know that the um

[3:28:43] the school perimeters, some of those barriers are in phase two. Um

[3:28:51] but I'm going to just say as a parent whose kids school is one of the places

[3:28:55] where data centers going in really close, um I it's not just about like

[3:29:01] yes, it's about the environmental stuff, but it's also about the sound, the

[3:29:04] droning. I think that's extremely distractive and disruptive and I would

[3:29:11] love to see that brought in more to phase one if we could do at least

[3:29:15] something to some effect with some of these areas particularly schools. Um, I

[3:29:22] think there should be some kind of decent barrier there to protect um, our

[3:29:27] students and um, I know I understood the the type three recommendation like why

[3:29:35] you wanted to hold off on that. I don't since we're already having to do a phase

[3:29:40] two and it would be my hope that city council

[3:29:45] would not let the moratorum lapse before finishing

[3:29:49] phase two um and getting making some significant progress. I don't know that

[3:29:54] it would hurt to add that um phase that type three part in at this stage because

[3:30:00] I think that's a really important factor too is to have that type three um uh

[3:30:04] land use application there. So um and I also like there was a comment about um

[3:30:11] this is going to be more for phase two with the environmental impact studies

[3:30:15] just for future to think about. I did like I did um here and it makes sense to

[3:30:20] me to make sure we're looking at the cumulative

[3:30:23] um impacts and not just individual spaces. So um and it's late so I'm

[3:30:30] probably forgetting some things but that was like the that's my recommendations

[3:30:34] going forward.

[3:30:37] » Thank you Commissioner Jackson. Go ahead Commissioner Thash.

[3:30:40] » Um this is Commissioner Thrash. I have a question for staff. Have you been um

[3:30:44] given direction by the city attorney or outside council about what actually

[3:30:49] constitutes significant progress when it comes to extending the moratorum?

[3:30:54] Do we is it sounds like a squishy standard. I don't know if there's how

[3:30:58] much discretion is involved in that. >> Um it is a discretionary standard and

[3:31:03] it's just something that we we have to show. Um so we would just need to

[3:31:08] adequately demonstrate that we're meeting that that standard. um and it's

[3:31:13] not defined. >> Okay. And so city council would be the

[3:31:16] ones that decide like they feel like there's been adequate pro progress made

[3:31:20] so they feel like they could make a vote to continue a moratorum.

[3:31:25] » Yeah. So if it if city council wished to extend the moratorum um they would need

[3:31:30] to make findings that they're meeting the criteria one of which is that

[3:31:36] they're make we've made progress towards a permanent solution. Um so they would

[3:31:41] yeah make findings demonstrating that as a part of the uh resolution to extend um

[3:31:48] and there would be a second public hearing as well as a part of that

[3:31:52] extension process. >> Okay. The reason I'm asking is I like I

[3:31:57] absolutely hear everybody's desire to have more stuff put in this phase. Um, I

[3:32:03] also don't want to put the whole process at risk by

[3:32:08] trying to get city like delaying the process to get city staff to put things

[3:32:12] in that they're already planning on putting in, I guess, is what I want to

[3:32:14] say. Um,

[3:32:24] I don't think rushed processes create good

[3:32:30] law. I don't think that saying I want

[3:32:35] something quickly necessarily produces a great product.

[3:32:41] Um, and I'm concerned that city staff is already

[3:32:47] overloaded, working at a pace faster than we know

[3:32:50] that they generally do when it comes to these code amendments.

[3:32:54] Um, and I think if we want good policy,

[3:33:00] we should allow them the time and we should allow them their phases. Um,

[3:33:08] I believe that city staff will bring us back all the things that they have told

[3:33:12] us that they will with

[3:33:17] actual data from folks that do this work so that we can so that instead of saying

[3:33:24] I want a setback that we have some idea of what a reasonable setback or a good

[3:33:28] or effective setback would be. Um, we don't know if there's a distinction

[3:33:34] between a 50-foot setback and a 100 foot setback when it comes to EMFs or or

[3:33:41] noise or anything else. Like I have zero basis and I think staff currently has

[3:33:46] like zero basis for making a determination of what would be a good or

[3:33:50] reasonable or effective setback or what would be good or reasonable or effective

[3:33:55] criteria to put in a type three consideration

[3:34:00] for these things. And I want this if we're like we heard from every everybody

[3:34:06] that they want us to do this right and I agree with them. And I think saying

[3:34:14] not only do we want you to do this re phase one really quickly like at I don't

[3:34:18] know three or four times the pace that city staff generally does these kinds of

[3:34:22] code amendments, we want you to also make decisions and bring them forward

[3:34:28] for us to make decisions with just no no basis

[3:34:35] um for that decision- making. And I absolutely understand the the desire to

[3:34:40] be responsive to what we hear, right? We hear I mean we all have all heard very

[3:34:45] consistently particularly the concerns about schools

[3:34:49] and particularly the concerns about making these things public making these

[3:34:52] things based on a public hearing. Um I think staff has an intention of

[3:34:57] responding to that and I want to give them the time to do that. Um so that's

[3:35:03] what I would say about it. Thank you, Commissioner Thash.

[3:35:13] » Let me just start out by thanking the person that testified tonight as to my

[3:35:18] age and other people's age because that was a wonderful thought uh that I'm

[3:35:24] that I'm that young. So, I will take that as a compliment. Um, but setting

[3:35:29] that aside, um, I agree with what the last commissioner

[3:35:35] said. I think, um, we need to slow down.

[3:35:42] Uh, and quite frankly, um, my opinion is if

[3:35:49] that doesn't cut it for the council, then they can appoint a new planning

[3:35:53] commissioner as far as I'm concerned. But I think we need to slow down. Um,

[3:36:01] I don't

[3:36:04] I think we need to move forward with tightening up a variety of things that

[3:36:10] we heard tonight in terms of or expanding on the definitions or the 30%

[3:36:18] that Commissioner Davis talked to. Um, I think uh

[3:36:27] perhaps the staff can focus on one or two,

[3:36:33] not all but one or two items that are performance related. Uh,

[3:36:41] uh, my personal preference would be to focus in on noise.

[3:36:48] um uh and see what other communities are doing, what standards have they set x

[3:36:55] number of feet from a school or any other non-industrial use, if you will,

[3:37:01] and see if we can't deliberate on that a little bit more in earnest on the ninth.

[3:37:05] Um I I hear what the staff says about the

[3:37:10] public hearing and the type two versus the type three. Um,

[3:37:18] I I I I guess I'm kind of torn, you know, because

[3:37:24] one, our land use process is supposed to be clear and objective, so people can

[3:37:28] come in and file an application and know what you're doing. But we have a moving

[3:37:32] target here, unfortunately, at least from my perspective. Um,

[3:37:41] I'm not going to sit here and say that everybody that I've heard on all these

[3:37:45] hearings represents the totality of the community, but they did take the time to

[3:37:49] show up. Um,

[3:37:55] I think we just have to move towards a type three. Uh quite frankly, and in

[3:38:00] terms of um stat data center applicants, there's just simply going to have to be

[3:38:06] more forthcoming about who they are, what they're doing.

[3:38:15] convince the community that what they're doing that the noise is not an issue

[3:38:19] that they're not using water or they are using water that they they have clear uh

[3:38:26] criteria in their relationship between what they're using for energy and what

[3:38:30] PGE and others want. Just be open and honest. I think we we've got too much

[3:38:41] opinion out there as to what is wrong or what is right. And I think

[3:38:49] these applicants have a responsibility to overcome this issue. I don't think

[3:38:54] it's a big ask to come in and be very clear.

[3:38:59] I'm ABC company. We're working for so and so. That's our current people. this

[3:39:04] is the this is how much energy we're using. This is how much noise we're

[3:39:08] using. This is how much water we're using.

[3:39:11] And just be upfront in a public hearing. And I think if they're honest, I think

[3:39:17] it's easy to defend yourself about what you're doing. Now, it may be we'll come

[3:39:21] back and have more iterative conditions on a public on a type three, but right

[3:39:27] now we can't win this public perception game under the process that we got.

[3:39:34] We can't do type twos. It just won't work. We're not going to convince

[3:39:38] anybody. And even if we have a type two with 15 additional standards, it's still

[3:39:44] not going to satisfy everybody because they didn't get to hear

[3:39:50] that standard met in a public forum. Now, I know that may gripe a lot of

[3:39:55] people, but I just I think at this point,

[3:39:59] we have more hysteria, more misinformation,

[3:40:04] more whatifs, people talking about they know because I

[3:40:10] think at a public forum than you know there that are angels on a on a pin. We

[3:40:18] gota we got to get this we got to get people off this treadmill including the

[3:40:24] staff and and the council. We just need to give people a whole lot of

[3:40:27] information. I don't think personally that if we do things that way in a type

[3:40:32] three that that's going to slow anybody up all that much

[3:40:37] quite frankly. I think just being upfront with everybody about why we have

[3:40:42] data centers. What are they used for? Let's get rid of

[3:40:47] the mystery. And the best way to do that is in the public forum and sunlight.

[3:40:53] That's the best disinfectant as far as I know.

[3:40:56] I I'm sorry I went on too long here. The It's still not going to satisfy

[3:41:02] everybody because there are a lot of people that

[3:41:06] don't want data centers. The problem that I see with that is that's a

[3:41:10] non-starter. We have elected people in this community that have said

[3:41:16] we're not going to abolish data centers. We're going to try to rein them in and

[3:41:20] try to be a little bit more upfront about when we do approve them. So, let's

[3:41:27] get on with it. Let's have a little bit more performance criteria that we can. I

[3:41:32] think noise certainly is one. Maybe setback. I don't really know. Um,

[3:41:39] I have yet to hear any information that that water use is an issue as a

[3:41:43] performance criteria because it's what I've heard in the public forum and no

[3:41:48] one's disputed it yet that water is an issue. Now, maybe it is, but I haven't

[3:41:53] heard it from the staff. I've heard it from some people that water is an issue,

[3:41:58] but as far as I've been able to discern from all the public comment that water

[3:42:02] is not an issue. So, we we need to clarify that. Should it be a performance

[3:42:07] standard or not? Well, Mr. Gorilla, we don't need worry about water because the

[3:42:12] people that come in don't use water for cooling.

[3:42:15] I don't know. Let's just get some clarity on that. And as much as we can

[3:42:19] put forward back to ourselves and come back on September 9th, we can have more

[3:42:26] discussion about what we're hearing from the staff

[3:42:33] and where we think we're going. Are we

[3:42:37] headed in the right pace? And we may decide on the ninth it's still not the

[3:42:42] right pace. We need to slow down even more. I don't know. I want to give the

[3:42:47] staff an opportunity to bring back more

[3:42:51] stuff to us, a little bit more clarity. I agree with Commissioner that the 30%

[3:42:57] issue is a little fuzzy wuzzy. Let's nail it down so that the majority of the

[3:43:02] people in the planning commission are comfortable with what we're talking

[3:43:06] about. My own experience on accessories is

[3:43:10] accessories have always been a percentage of the square footage of the

[3:43:16] primary use. I'm not saying that that's where we need to be, but I'm just saying

[3:43:22] my own experience is accessory uses have always been a percentage

[3:43:28] of primary use. Maybe we need to make that a little bit different, but I think

[3:43:33] it needs to be tightened up. So, I I want to give the staff a chance. I think

[3:43:41] we're going to have to bite the bullet on some stuff. I think we're going to

[3:43:44] have some tough conversation on the ninth based on what comes back from the

[3:43:47] staff. Um, with all due respect to the public, I

[3:43:52] don't need another three hours of somebody tell me

[3:43:56] that they don't want data centers. My problem with that is I can't do

[3:44:01] anything with that as a deliberative issue because the council has set the

[3:44:06] form about what it is that they're willing to go forward with. So for me,

[3:44:11] it's about economizing my time. Let's go forward.

[3:44:21] » Thank you, Commissioner Gillow. It's a long night, but I feel like I I I

[3:44:27] got to acknowledge uh the community that came out tonight

[3:44:33] and the fact that you all are able to read this community development code. I

[3:44:39] mean, it is written in this legal ease, right, where it's really hard for us to

[3:44:43] understand. And I have to commend the work that staff has done in providing

[3:44:48] these definitions. We got color-coded maps, y'all. Staff was zooming in for

[3:44:53] us. Okay. And breaking everything down so that we would be able to have the

[3:44:57] kind of conversations that we've had tonight.

[3:45:01] It is the respect that we have for staff where I can agree with my fellow

[3:45:07] commissioners that perhaps we do need a little bit more time. Every time we have

[3:45:14] this conversation, we're hearing from the community. staff is taking that

[3:45:19] information in, doing their research, and refining and refining the code. I'm

[3:45:26] optimistic that with additional time from everything that we've heard

[3:45:30] tonight, from everything that continues to come in in writing that staff will

[3:45:34] continue to use that and continue this iterative process of creating a

[3:45:39] development code that is more in alignment to what we as a community

[3:45:43] desire. When I'm hearing from my fellow

[3:45:48] commissioners, I understand how staff wanted to be

[3:45:52] really effective in breaking down the code in phase one and in phase two. And

[3:45:57] what we've consistently heard from community is that there's certain

[3:46:01] aspects of phase two that they want to hear from now. And I'm hearing from the

[3:46:06] community, I'm hearing from my fellow commissioners that we want to talk more

[3:46:10] about those buffer zones. That is something important on this dis and from

[3:46:15] our community. I'm grateful for Commissioner Gillo

[3:46:21] providing context that usually in community development code we talk about

[3:46:26] things in percentages and it's usually 10% this 30% this and we've heard from

[3:46:32] community that is there a way for us to do something different. What I'm

[3:46:36] advocating for is that we give staff time to be iterative in this process.

[3:46:43] Can we go a little bit further? If it not just 30%, perhaps we could put a

[3:46:48] number or a cap on the acreage that is allowable in those accessory use areas.

[3:46:57] I want to we're using some language and I want to make sure that I define it. So

[3:47:02] what we as a city have done so far with data centers, they've been type two and

[3:47:06] they haven't been open to this public forum. Type three applications is what

[3:47:12] our fellow commissioners are advocating for so that these companies can come

[3:47:17] before us. We can come not just when it's an emergency like this, but start

[3:47:24] developing our own awareness about what these companies are doing. we're able to

[3:47:29] ask them these questions and they're able to be as honest as possible and

[3:47:34] that will support us again in being really really iterative in an

[3:47:39] everchanging industry. And so as I'm hearing my commissioners talk about that

[3:47:44] and t I'm want staff to hear this. We that's another opportunity is there

[3:47:51] for data centers could we make it that those are just going to be type three

[3:47:56] applications and I know it's going to take some time to kind of go through and

[3:48:01] look at the law of that a benefit of having these data centers present in a

[3:48:08] public forum is we need to be able to educate ourselves on the reality of data

[3:48:14] and data processing. And it that is going to happen over

[3:48:19] time. We're not the ones who are going to

[3:48:22] define AI for our community. Um those companies will have an opportunity to do

[3:48:27] it for us.

[3:48:32] With that, I am also very much in agreement that we

[3:48:39] as the commission can clearly define what we want to hear back from staff and

[3:48:46] perhaps have deeper deliberation and more specific deliberation on September

[3:48:51] 9th.

[3:48:58] Can I ask a clarifying question, staff? If we were to work with you guys to try

[3:49:05] to propose some sort of a buffer zone and we set an actual distance on that,

[3:49:10] is that something that after these impact studies are done that could be

[3:49:14] amended again to reflect what those should indicate?

[3:49:22] » Commissioner Davis, thanks for the question. Um yeah, so we can absolutely

[3:49:27] take uh requests and feedback on buffering from the schools now and and

[3:49:31] try to run through some examples or scenarios and come back with some

[3:49:35] recommendations. You know, we could take a look. These are somewhat arbitrary

[3:49:38] numbers, but somewhere to help we buffer other uses and conflicts. Look at a 500

[3:49:42] foot buffer, a 1000 foot buffer. Somebody mentioned a quarter mile. We

[3:49:47] could try to run those too um and put those off of all the known school

[3:49:51] facilities um in the area. um that could potentially make its way

[3:49:56] into a phase one. I would want to, you know, we can respond to that here at the

[3:49:59] end of tonight's deliberation if there's consensus amongst the commission. I

[3:50:02] think I heard that as a somewhat common thread. Uh and I think that's something

[3:50:06] our staff could do and turn around with reasonable thoughtfulness and and

[3:50:10] hopefully informative information back to you on a continued meeting to the

[3:50:14] 9th. Um and then to the second part of your question, yes, any policy that the

[3:50:18] commission adopts can be amended um with initiation by the commission or the city

[3:50:25] council uh in a in a future and subsequent effort. Um and so as we've

[3:50:29] shared, I'll just respond back to I think a comment commissioner thr Nash

[3:50:33] made in a few of the comments uh we heard from the public this evening. It's

[3:50:37] not as though we don't have any data as it relates to the phase 2 work. We know

[3:50:42] very factually and we've not seen any counterfactuals to this that data

[3:50:47] centers are not using hardly any water in the city of Hillsbor. It's about 1.4%

[3:50:52] of Hillsborough's total water usage and it's predominantly limited to toilet

[3:50:57] flushes, sink usage and a little bit of initial charge of closed loop systems.

[3:51:01] Um irrigation of landscaping is also there. Um, we are going to do the phase

[3:51:07] 2 studies to make sure the facts and the data that we have and the trends upon

[3:51:12] which the industry is going can come back in and stay as fresh as possible

[3:51:16] with the phase 2 code work. But whether it be noise, whether it be water usages

[3:51:20] or other things, we absolutely can try to do some things now. buffering would

[3:51:24] be a relatively clear one I think for us to be able to

[3:51:28] turn around in a couple of weeks and both keep this moving but add a little

[3:51:31] bit to the scope of phase one as you're you're requesting some of the other

[3:51:35] pieces. Um I'll go to subatomic or subaudible noise for example is one that

[3:51:40] we've heard raised that is one we need to do a lot of data on we don't have

[3:51:44] much in that way right now and so that would be something we would be harder

[3:51:47] pressed I think is staff to meaningfully bring something forward for a phase one

[3:51:51] really is more appropriate to wait for phase two and then at any of those

[3:51:55] stages they can always get updated the next phase or at a later date. So I hope

[3:51:59] that completely answers your question. Yeah, that that answers that.

[3:52:05] » Um, I had a follow-up question and it just left me. Hold on just a second.

[3:52:10] » You want me to just go on until it comes back?

[3:52:12] » Yeah, go ahead. >> So, I just want to restate what I just

[3:52:15] heard. So staff is you would have enough time to bring us information about the

[3:52:21] buffer zone, but when it comes to noise, we really want to give you all the

[3:52:26] additional time that you asked in that environmental analysis that um to bring

[3:52:30] that data back to us. >> Yeah. And we can take these one by I'll

[3:52:33] go ahead with your your question. >> Yes. I wanted to go back to the water

[3:52:36] because I know that you're saying like the water usage we currently have. Is

[3:52:41] that going to be part of the plan for the code though is to ensure that that's

[3:52:46] still maintains in the future because while that might be like what's

[3:52:50] happening now like I would hope that we would maintain like something that says

[3:52:55] in the code where we're not going to end up you know the way Eastern Oregon is or

[3:52:59] some of these other places where you know we're having people who have brown

[3:53:04] water coming out of their faucets like I would what what are we doing in for the

[3:53:07] code in that phase to ensure that. >> Yeah. And that's why things like that we

[3:53:13] we really think are better suited for phase two. I want to acknowledge what

[3:53:17] we've heard this evening, but back to what staff started with is we there's a

[3:53:23] a couple of different ways that broader package in phase 2 could go. It could be

[3:53:26] certifications of certain efficiencies of systems and buildings that we require

[3:53:31] that on the construction or operation of facilities that would benchmark that. We

[3:53:35] can try to put utility thresholds in caps. I think that's one that is far

[3:53:39] trickier to to predict and can become quite outdated because let's switch

[3:53:43] gears off of a data center context just for a minute. But if we were to go to

[3:53:47] homes and say here's your kilowatt threshold, you can't go above that and

[3:53:52] all somebody says but it's getting hotter and I really want to put an AC

[3:53:55] unit in and that's going to increase my my utility bill each month by 30%. It

[3:54:00] it's it's a very different scale but that's kind of where it's very hard to

[3:54:05] protect those type of things. And then on the power pieces we've talked about

[3:54:08] that is happening really with the power utilities in terms of their evaluations

[3:54:12] especially for the large load users. And so we're trying to find ways to connect

[3:54:14] those but that's the that's the time we need

[3:54:18] for those assessments and that's the additional time to really craft

[3:54:20] thoughtful and digestible and understandable language in phase two of

[3:54:25] what realistically would that look like in terms of us codifying in our land use

[3:54:29] code. You get a 100 drops of water and at 101 drops of water no go. and what

[3:54:34] happens if that's not really what we want or intend. And so that that that

[3:54:38] needs work uh ahead. So I hope that kind of answers your question. The pieces

[3:54:42] that we could move forward, I would just say now from the consensus, if I can

[3:54:46] just start the echo back of what we think we heard from commonalities and

[3:54:50] maybe take these one by one and just kind of get a rough sense of did we

[3:54:54] capture so Rachel I can take that and get our staff mobilized and and

[3:54:58] effective there. I'll start with the uh the notion of buffering. I think we

[3:55:02] heard that from at least four of you, maybe all five of you. I think we can go

[3:55:07] back and try to look at buffering, uh, run through a couple of map exercises

[3:55:11] based on the assets. Um, we can start with a 500,000 ft, you

[3:55:18] know, quarter mile buffer just so to understand like what does that include

[3:55:21] or doesn't include. We will try to tie it to some degree of impact, but this is

[3:55:25] where it's it's a little difficult of what is the cause of the buffer. I've

[3:55:29] heard noise. We have noise thresholds that we enforce at the property

[3:55:32] boundaries of decibel levels across all uses. Um, but we could try to do that.

[3:55:36] Is it impacts of something else? It would help us to understand that. But

[3:55:41] yes, we could walk out of here. Rachel, I'm looking at you. She'll throw

[3:55:44] something at me if if she thinks we can't do this or she'll speak up. But we

[3:55:48] can probably map and put that. And what I would propose if we do that,

[3:55:53] we do it with the limited zone and capacity that we've proposed in this

[3:55:57] phase one package, not for all the zones across the city of like solidify that

[3:56:02] step down too. But I haven't heard that, but just to clarify that point of what

[3:56:05] we would analyze. So on the buffering piece, any thoughts

[3:56:09] or questions or would you like to move forward with that? Just to clarify, you

[3:56:14] would just give us the buffering information in the IP and the IS zones,

[3:56:18] not necessarily in what we've heard from the public when they're talking about

[3:56:22] the closeness to schools. >> Would you mind pulling up the slide in

[3:56:27] the presentation from the staff report this evening that shows the cap? It's

[3:56:32] the one with that percentage threshold in the zone map of IPIS. Rachel, I'll

[3:56:38] try to give a visual just to make sure hopefully that words can get confusing

[3:56:41] still of intent versus what we're actually talking about.

[3:56:53] So what we could try to do being mindful of where

[3:56:58] the limited areas in which data centers would potentially be allowed with phase

[3:57:01] two as it's or phase one as it's somewhat structured right now. That's

[3:57:05] okay. That was the right map though. >> Yeah. Um,

[3:57:11] we could take that map. Obviously, we could put the existing

[3:57:17] data centers on there because they're existing today. And what we could do is

[3:57:21] buffer off the put the schools in and off of the known school locations. Run a

[3:57:25] 500 foot buffer on the schools, a thousand foot buffer on the schools to

[3:57:29] show then, okay, data centers with the limited acreage capacity that we

[3:57:34] proposed in phase one, unless you want to change that would be allowed up in

[3:57:38] that area, but not within those buffers. And if you wanted to incorporate that,

[3:57:41] we could take that and then draft that buffer language into the code as well to

[3:57:46] say data centers are not allowed within 1,000 ft of schools in those areas, new

[3:57:52] data centers in those capacities. If that would be helpful and responsive to

[3:57:56] both the the commission's desire and the public uh feedback we heard.

[3:58:02] » Rachel, anything I'm missing on that front or that you want to add?

[3:58:09] I have a question. >> Sorry, just to clarify because there

[3:58:12] were different numbers um that were discussed. So, if you have direction on

[3:58:18] numbers on what that buffer looks like, that's great. If not, and you want us to

[3:58:23] bring options and what that would look like, we can do that, too. Just for

[3:58:28] everyone's clarification, a quarter mile is 1320 ft. So, we were using feet and

[3:58:34] miles. So, Yeah. So, um

[3:58:40] that's what that would look like. And then, um just to make sure that I'm

[3:58:44] understanding also clearly, um would that buffer are we are you

[3:58:52] asking that that buffer be applied to standalone data centers or

[3:58:58] um accessory enterprise data centers as well?

[3:59:02] » That was going to be my question. >> Oh, okay. But yeah, so so I just have a

[3:59:06] thought here. Um, one,

[3:59:12] here's my here, here's my thought. So, according to what the proposed language

[3:59:19] is, we only have what, 30 acres left. If we were to approve primary uses, we have

[3:59:26] like 30 acres left for primary uses. And so, the question then becomes the

[3:59:31] accessory question. and maybe the transfer question, but those my

[3:59:37] understanding of the code is that you can you can you can only have you can

[3:59:41] only transfer into the industrial part. Is that correct? So you're still just

[3:59:46] dealing with 30 acres within or you can you're still only dealing with the

[3:59:51] industrial part that's up there in blue. It's like I used to do GIS for a while.

[3:59:58] Until you we nail down that percentage of accessory use,

[4:00:05] I think this analysis may end up being slightly meaningless

[4:00:10] because it depends on how much land is going to be allowed to be used for the

[4:00:17] accessory use, what that buffering would look like on a map.

[4:00:23] So, if you're requesting from staff that we potentially change those percentages,

[4:00:30] I think you want them to wait until we actually have that number

[4:00:36] before you use staff time making this analysis

[4:00:40] based on my understanding of how GIS analysis works and how kind of

[4:00:48] like because the like theoretically a lot of this map is going to end end

[4:00:54] end up being access possible for accessory use right yes nodding yes I'm

[4:01:00] understanding that correctly >> that would be the candidate areas where

[4:01:03] the accessory use could be transferred into or occur again it can occur

[4:01:08] » so I I guess I'm just thinking like again I like I really understand this

[4:01:12] desire to get to an answer and to get things in this phase one but I also

[4:01:18] think you may be asking for a lot of work that may not ultimately yield a

[4:01:25] whole lot of actual information that's that's useful for making decisions and

[4:01:32] getting things in the code >> because I think that analysis can

[4:01:36] absolutely be done but there's things Yeah. Yeah. Exactly.

[4:01:40] » I was just going to also clarify from a staff from a I think you're just

[4:01:44] suggesting to not have us do work that might not be meaningful. I will also s I

[4:01:50] will just say that from from a mapping perspective it would not be very

[4:01:54] difficult to map a 500 foot,000 foot 1320t buffer from

[4:02:01] schools in all of the zones. We have that data already because we have

[4:02:05] buffers from schools for marijuana facilities. So um so we do already have

[4:02:11] a map that's the shows those buffers already. Um it's 1,000 ft for marijuana

[4:02:16] facilities. Um I already have that map. We have that map online. Um I could very

[4:02:21] easily re have our GS team reapply that to like the industrial zones for

[4:02:26] example. Um because we already do already have that

[4:02:30] wouldn't be creating new um new data at this point. Yeah.

[4:02:34] » But Commissioner Thrash, I think your point is still valid that we can that's

[4:02:37] why we're offering this. can run this but really what that policy benefit to

[4:02:42] you and to the effect of the concerns raised might still be a little bit mixed

[4:02:47] because we do need to land the percentage of the accessory to really

[4:02:51] understand and it won't necessarily be 1300 acres but what does that look like

[4:02:56] so I guess the question I would come back to on that first common theme is

[4:03:01] with what we just discussed would you like staff to evaluate buffers from

[4:03:05] schools we can run the thousand foot pretty quickly and pretty handily and

[4:03:09] then bring that back to show what would that look like and and definitely

[4:03:12] separates near-term development activity from the

[4:03:16] schools until we get into phase two if that's of interest to the commission.

[4:03:20] » How do we feel? >> I' I'd like to see it if it's not since

[4:03:24] it's not going to be that much extra work. I'd like to see

[4:03:28] » Okay. And I feel that meets the needs of the commission and what we've heard from

[4:03:32] community. So, gratitude for bringing that phase 2 element into this phase. Uh

[4:03:38] the other part that I'm hearing also is clarity on accessory use this

[4:03:43] percentage. Um do we have any any comments from

[4:03:49] staff about what additional clarity you all need from us?

[4:03:54] I don't think so. I have Yeah, that's I did. Did Did you go down your whole

[4:03:58] list? Sorry. I um so I have Yeah. consensus on looking at the accessory

[4:04:02] use and further limiting um either either and or further limiting the

[4:04:08] acreage and or looking at a different way to limit whether that's um floor

[4:04:13] area, gross floor area or some other um figure. And I think we we can bring back

[4:04:19] some options for that. Um the definitions and looking at making sure

[4:04:24] we're addressing um all types of data centers and uses, the buffer to schools

[4:04:32] and some options for that. And then um I also heard consensus around a type three

[4:04:38] review process. I didn't um and wanted to clarify on whether that you wanted

[4:04:44] that applied to standalone and accessory um for data centers or one or the other

[4:04:52] or both and um yes and um and the energy

[4:04:58] generation facilities. I will say that I will um

[4:05:03] I will uh for energy storage specifically look at the definition um

[4:05:10] that came out of that luba decision today to make sure that we're consistent

[4:05:14] with that. So um if I find that it needs revisions based on that luba decision,

[4:05:18] we'll bring that back to you to you all. But um if we could get maybe like uh it

[4:05:26] sounds like consensus was a desire for a type three review. So maybe thumbs up on

[4:05:31] that applying to standalone data centers.

[4:05:37] » I I would personally like to see it on all three.

[4:05:40] » Okay. So all three being standalone data centers, accessory use data centers, and

[4:05:44] then energy storage and generation. Okay.

[4:05:54] in not to. Okay. So, remember when we had a

[4:06:02] previous meeting where we talked about shifting from a type two to a type three

[4:06:08] and you were able to provide us these two scenarios.

[4:06:12] If this if it ends up being beneficial for you to show us there's a couple of

[4:06:17] scenarios where it might be better uh for these type of energy storage uses to

[4:06:24] remain a type two then definitely if possible provide us that context.

[4:06:35] And then for the community type two meaning it would not come to a public

[4:06:39] hearing type three public hearing. We hear you.

[4:06:49] » Is there anything from what staff ran through that you feel was missing from

[4:06:54] the common points of feedback from the commission?

[4:07:00] » Recognizing I know it's getting late, people are tired because cuz if there

[4:07:03] is, we'd want to catch it now if possible. If not, then what we would

[4:07:07] suggest is that the commission make a motion to close the meeting and continue

[4:07:14] your meeting and your deliberations to we would recommend your next regularly

[4:07:18] scheduled planning commission meeting of September 9th uh at 6 p.m. And what

[4:07:23] staff would do is bring that package with a supplemental staff report back

[4:07:27] and you would continue these deliberations based on this feedback and

[4:07:30] direction. Hopefully, we hit the mark pretty close and then from there

[4:07:34] possibly be in a spot to make your recommendation to council um or figure

[4:07:38] out what else would be needed in the conversation.

[4:07:41] » The only thing that I heard Commissioner Jackson talk about was water usage and

[4:07:47] Commissioner Grill, just because the community hasn't brought that up. If you

[4:07:51] all if we could just provide context there so that it's clear and in um on

[4:07:56] the record.

[4:08:04] And can I ask a procedural question too?

[4:08:10] » Wasn't I wasn't asking you. >> Um,

[4:08:14] so are we holding the record open for

[4:08:18] written comment on whatever you bring back or did the closing of the public

[4:08:22] hearing take care of that? That's up to the planning commission. But as we sit

[4:08:26] right now, the public hearing is closed and we would be responding only to your

[4:08:32] deliberation and direction at this point in time. We would not be seeking I mean

[4:08:36] people could still comment but technically we are going to try to focus

[4:08:39] to get the policy package responding to the public comments that were heard

[4:08:43] during the scheduled and noticed public comment period and letting us really try

[4:08:48] to get a a responsive policy package based on your feedback and direction

[4:08:52] this evening. Okay, got it. >> Yeah, there is the potential to reopen a

[4:08:57] public hearing at your next meeting or continue that, but that's up to you for

[4:09:01] to decide. But as we stand right now, staff would come back with the response

[4:09:06] points that you've asked us to and then let you continue your deliberation and

[4:09:09] moving towards a decision.

[4:09:15] » Any comments from commissioners? >> Okay.

[4:09:19] » All right. Can I get a motion or do do we do we need clarity on how to state

[4:09:24] this motion?

[4:09:32] » Um I move to uh close this meeting at and move it to oh sorry

[4:09:40] and continue it to September 9th 2026 at six. What was there for final

[4:09:48] delivery? for final deliberate deliberation. It's

[4:09:53] late. Sorry. And based on feedback given to staff.

[4:09:59] Anything else? Any add? No. Okay. Do I have a second?

[4:10:03] » Commissioner Davis. Second. >> All right. I have a motion

[4:10:08] by Commissioner Jackson and a second by Commissioner Davis to close this hearing

[4:10:16] and continue on September 6, 2026 with deliber

[4:10:24] » September 9th. >> Hey, September 9th. Don't come on the

[4:10:28] 6th. uh September 9th, 2026 >> at 6 PM.

[4:10:37] » All those in favor say I. >> I.

[4:10:40] » I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? Motion carries.

[4:10:48] Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Unfinished business? None. Do any commissioners

[4:10:52] have any communications or reports for discussion?

[4:10:58] Yeah. >> All right. There's a little out of

[4:11:02] order. I believe this meeting is adjourned.

[4:11:09] » I thought it was Lesie >> all night.

[4:11:14] » I'll make I'll make it brief. >> Yeah. No, thank you, Vice President.

[4:11:19] » Oh my lord. Hold on y'all. Y'all can't go anywhere. We got a final item for

[4:11:23] this evening. >> The administr

[4:11:28] The administrative monthly report presented by our development services

[4:11:32] manager Leslie Hamilton. Leslie, can may we have the admin monthly report,

[4:11:37] please? >> Yes. Thank you, Vice President Saka. The

[4:11:39] admin report is a little beefier than usual because we haven't had meetings

[4:11:43] with an admin report. I think it captures generally uh some of the things

[4:11:48] you don't see in front of you. ADUs um um raising canes is moving their

[4:11:54] footprint uh things like that. uh some temporary uses and uh a big uh project

[4:12:01] going up in the SU corporate park. So you'll see um uh 178,000 square foot not

[4:12:07] data center going up there. Um very industrial use up there. So just a broad

[4:12:12] range. Um if you have questions I can answer them otherwise.

[4:12:18] » Thank you Leslie. We do not have a work session this evening. If there's no

[4:12:22] further business, the planning commission is adjourned at 10:36

Hillsboro Planning Commission Meeting August 26, 2026

Transcript