[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