Full Text
Woodburn Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 22, 2024 Convened: The Planning Commission met at 7:00 p.m. both in person and through a public online/virtual session via Microsoft Teams. Roll Call: Chair Ellsworth Present Vice-Chair Hernandez-Mejia Present Commissioner Bartel Present Commissioner Berlin Present Commissioner Bravo Present (Late) Commissioner Corning Present Commissioner Lassen Present Staff Present: Chris Killmer, Assistant City Attorney Chris Kerr, Community Development Director Colin Cortes, AICP, CNU-A, Senior Planner Introduction: Chair Ellsworth opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and asked staff to begin roll-call. Chair Ellsworth led everyone through the Pledge of Allegiance. Minutes: Chair Ellsworth asked for any corrections, additions, or modifications for the July 25, 2024, minutes. Vice-Chair Hernandez-Mejia commented that a correction was needed, specifically in the “introduction” section where Chair Ellsworth needed to be changed to Vice-Chair Hernandez-Mejia, as Chair Ellsworth wasn’t present in the last Planning Commission meeting. Chair Ellsworth entertained a motion to approve the minutes with the presented corrections. Commissioner Corning made a motion to adopt the corrected minutes. Commissioner Berlin seconded. The vote was unanimous 6-0, and the minutes were approved. Business from the Audience: None. Communications from Staff: None. Public Hearing: Chair Ellsworth stated that the Planning Commission has one quasi-judicial public hearing tonight and gave a summary of what a public hearing is. CU 24-02 Chair Ellsworth opened the public hearing for CU 24-02: 2540 & 2600 Newberg Hwy (Oregon Hwy 214) and gave a quick summary of this public hearing item. Chair Ellsworth asked if there were any conflicts of interest, ex-parte, or contacts and there were none. She asked if there were any site visits, and a few Commissioners said just driving by it, as the proposed project’s property is next to a major intersection on Newberg Hwy. She asked if there were any challenges to the Commission and there were none. Chair Ellsworth asked for the public hearing statement. Assistant City Attorney Chris Killmer read the public hearing statement. After the statement, Senior Planner Colin Cortes gave his presentation for CU 24-02: 2540 & 2600 Newberg Hwy (Oregon Hwy 214). He entered the staff report, its attachments, and written testimony into ---PAGE BREAK--- Woodburn Planning Commission August 22, 2024 2 the record, of which there were eight letters of testimony from testifiers other than the applicant, copies of which were on the dais and online on the meeting webpage. Most of the testimony received was in opposition with a few exceptions. Commissioner Bravo joined the Planning Commission Meeting in person during the presentation around 7:22 p.m. After the presentation concluded, Senior Planner Cortes asked if anyone had any comments or questions. Commissioner Corning asked about Oregon Way and how is it going to get significantly wider and Senior Planner Cortes stated that as the road approaches HWY 214, it grows a little wider because the turn lane comes into existence for people who are turning left. There will be no change on the East side next to those houses, but on the developer's side, they would have to dedicate additional right-of-way to the city, which will give extra room to add the planter strip and sidewalk. Commissioner Berlin commented on the road near the proposed project site and said it needs to be widened. Senior Cortes explained the regulations that the city only requires 2-3 lanes for the road. Vice-Chair Hernadez-Mejia asked about the office space that’s part of Phase II and what is considered a good condition to maintain, because if a bad condition is attached, then the office space can take years to develop and how would it look like during this process. Senior Planner Cortes explained that the developer would have to lay down a curb on the property; this is to prevent both employees and visitors from using the bit of leftover area for additional parking. He then references a general city nuisance ordinance, which requires the property owner to maintain their property's appearance and it calls attention to the owner to not use the undeveloped land for anything else such as large vehicle storage or junkyard. Chair Ellsworth asked what the red triangle indicates on the sitemap and Senior Planner Cortes said that’s the vision triangle the applicant needs to indicate to show Staff that they followed the vision clearance requirement. Chair Ellsworth asked about the traffic plan, in terms of where traffic was going to enter and exit the property and whether someone could go from one property to the other. Senior Planner Cortes explained that the entrance from the highway can only be one way. The exit is located at the Southeast of the property, and that would be the two-way entry and exit point. Chair Ellsworth asked if any of the Commissioners online had any questions for Staff. Vice-Chair Hernandez-Mejia asked a clarifying question about Oregon Way and the two-way lane. She asked Senior Planner Cortes to explain on an aerial map of the site how it would look like, which he did by showing her where on the map and explaining how the applicant would construct it. Vice-Chair Hernandez-Mejia expressed concern about traffic safety and that drivers could legally turn into the property and Senior Planner Cortes assured her that the Staff has consulted with other departments and professionals to make sure no traffic laws were violated. Commissioner Corning asked if there was a light signal on that corner and Senior Planner Cortes said correct. She asked about the U-Turn proposal 2 years ago and Senior Planner Cortes said that the applicant removed that proposal because it would make drivers move across two lanes, which was deemed unsafe. Chair Ellsworth commented that she had one last question for Staff, and it was about deliveries from semi-trucks and fuel trucks and whether would they exit from Oregon Way, due to the one-way entrance from the highway. Senior Planner Cortes said yes that was correct. She then asked where the median would be located, and he said that’s to be determined by the Public Works department as they are the ones who work with the applicant in developing ROW and other street improvements. What he understood was that the median would be a little distance south of where the south property line is, somewhere in front of 953 and 952 Oregon Way. Staff and Planning Commission talked a little bit more about this issue. Chair Ellsworth asked if anyone had more questions. Since there were none, she moved on to the testimony of the applicant. Testimony by the Applicant: Mark Shipman, Land-Use Attorney from Saalfeld Griggs PC, 250 Church Suite 200 Salem, OR 97302. Applicant Shipman is representing the property owner and applicant in the hearing this evening. Applicant Shipman brought with him Mr. Joe Bessman, who is the traffic engineer. He also has Mr. Don Sidu, who is one of the property owners, and Mr. Ron Ped, their architect. He addressed the letter from Tonkin Torp from Mr. Peterson, and he mentioned that instead of addressing each concern, he was going to talk about the major concerns. Then Applicant Shipman stated that he’ll have Mr. Bestman talk about traffic. Applicant Shipman stated that after the end of their rebuttal, ---PAGE BREAK--- Woodburn Planning Commission August 22, 2024 3 they requested that the record be kept open for a while, as this is an important application to their client. Applicant Shipman stated that City Staff did a great job with the process, and he addressed to the Commission that the staff report, and conditions of approval are different than the first time the project was presented to them. He then addressed Mr. Peterson's letter, stating that Mr. Peterson has two themes in his letter: one being general questions and the other being about traffic. Applicant Shipman started to discuss the general, which Mr. Peterson stated was the same plan. Applicant Shipman discredited the statement, reiterating Senior Planner Cortes’s presentation from earlier and mentioning why it was different. He complimented Staff with their thorough analysis and findings, creating conditions of approvals that fit with the proposed project. Applicant Shipman stated that Staff also worked with the applicant to make sure specific features were met, such as landscaping, architecture, and many others have been changed from the previous plan since the last hearing. Applicant Shipman stated that Mr. Peterson talked about inadequate findings, referring to determinations of compliance and whether they are feasible with the conditions of approval. He said that they would address this in their response letter and that they would be able to rebuttal that the findings and analysis that Staff conducted are accurate and how they tie in with the conditions of approval. Finally, Applicant Shipman addressed the last issue from Mr. Peterson’s letter about the applicant not meeting their burden of proof, to which Applicant Shipman believed that statement was wrong and said that the staff report is very thorough in covering the concerns. He said if they are short in meeting criteria standards, they will make sure those needs are met, and he then gave Mr. Bessman time to speak about traffic concerns. Joe Bessman, Transight Consulting LLC, 61721 Splendor LN Bend, OR 97702. Mr. Bessman started by listing the criteria for a traffic study and informed the Commission that all the departments agreed that the applicant was following the development code. He then explained what the difference is between the old and this current proposed traffic plan. The new plan is trying to avoid accidents, which he provided the example of removing the U-turn element from the past plan and having vehicles enter only from Newberg Hwy and leaving from Oregon Way. Mr. Bessman talked about the oppositions other concern regarding the driveway. He explained that what was presented doesn’t restrict right-lane only turns well enough and Mr. Bessman agreed. He said that if a condition was added to make it more right lane turn only, that would be great and used Lawson Ave as an example. Mr. Bessman wanted to point out that 214 is under ODOT jurisdiction and they are the ones who review any work going to be done in that area and make sure the work complies with their requirements. Mr. Bessman requested that during the open record period to work with Staff to condition this site to work with ODOT and provide a design that can make sure that the driveway doesn’t cater to right-turns out. Mr. Bessman than talked about the concerns about how the trucks are going to get on the property and that the opposition provided truck diagrams. Mr. Bessman expressed that they have a very well-designed and generous site, stating that it’s got 36-foot-wide drive isles that theirs enough room for queuing and for trucks to move around in. Mr. Bessman mentioned that there is a dedicated spot for fuel trucks to sit and load. Mr. Bessman explained that if it’s not enough for some reason, they can block off the fuel dispensers south of the site. In short, they have a lot of circulation options to make this site work. Chair Ellsworth asked Senior Planner Cortes to display the site map so they can see what the applicant is talking about, whom Mr. Bessman explained the plan again with the visual. Mr. Bessman stated he’ll explain more in the response letter, and he can answer any questions. Commissioner Corning expressed that the most people are concern more about how the truck will leave the driveway onto Oregon Way and not how it moves on the property. Mr. Bessman stated that there was a comment about that concern, and he said that like at most traffic signals, the truck drivers wait for the traffic light to turn green and when the queue is clear, and a truck can move out easily from the site. Mr. Bessman said he has seen it work. Chair Ellsworth asked if any of the Commissioners had questions, which there were none. She asked the applicant if they had any additional testimony, and they said none at this time and they will wait for the rebuttal. Chair Ellsworth moved onto the testimony of proponents and opponents. Community Development Director Chris Kerr asked Chair Ellsworth to explain the rules of testimony and to inform the audience that there will be timer in place to give everyone a chance to speak tonight, which she does. ---PAGE BREAK--- Woodburn Planning Commission August 22, 2024 4 Testimony by the Proponents: Norman Mabee, 950 Evergreen Rd #219 Woodburn, OR 97071: Mr. Mabee stated that he is in-favor of the proposed gas station. He believes that if it’s rejected, the whole process will be back to square one, where they might go with a different plan. Mr. Mabee stated he likes the view from his backyard and what Mr. Don Sidhu has proposed will still grant Mr. Mabee his backyard view. Mr. Mabee said that the city needs a competitive price in gas in that area of Woodburn. Bryan Galbraith, 590 Troon Ave. Woodburn, OR 97071: Mr. Galbraith said that his in-favor of the proposed gas station. He agreed to what Mr. Mabee said. Mr. Galbraith added that the property has been sitting vacant for a very long time and that it would bring great competition to the other gas stations with stores. Mr. Galbraith mentioned that in terms of access, what’s being proposed would be a lot easier to access than trying to get to a gas station located right off the freeway, as that area is like driving through a zoo because it’s sharing an area with fast food places and another gas station. Mr. Galbraith stated that he was a former truck driver, he knows what it’s like to be driving large vehicles and moving around in small areas. He stated that truck drivers don’t like being in situations like that, so they will go make deliveries earlier and make sure they don’t stay too long. Mr. Galbraith's final thought was that truck drivers are considerate and want to move as productively as possible. Carla Galbraith, 590 Troon Ave. Woodburn, OR 97071: Mrs. Galbraith is in favor of the proposed gas station. She stated that the site currently sits in a negative reminder of what happened with the bank bombing. Mrs. Galbraith stated that if the city can put something that could bring more joy and generate income for the community that would be great. She then mentioned gas prices and that the only gas station that has the better prices is Safeway, which is across town, and it’s clustered with traffic, and it’s located in a cramped spot. Her final thoughts were that the proposed station is in a good area in terms of safety and accessibility. Alma Shevchenko, 489 Turnberry Ave. Woodburn, OR 97071: Ms. Shevchenko stated that she is in favor of the gas station. She agreed with what Mrs. Galbraith said about the space needing to be used for something positive. Ms. Shevchenko added that if the space is vacant, it’ll attach homeless folks will use it as a camp. She stated that the new gas station would create new jobs for the community. Ms. Shevchenko commented that she sees a lot of U.S. Gas Markets both across the state and out of state, and they do an amazing job on cleanliness. The building and landscaping are well done, and she concluded that she’s all in favor. Rick Hascall, 2832 Olympic ST. Woodburn, OR 97071: Mr. Hascall said he’s a business owner of the Burn Fitness Gym in Woodburn. Mr. Hascall stated that he’s in support of a business like the U.S. Market Gas Station at the proposed location, instead of a vacant lot. He stated that he agreed with everyone about the U.S. Market being able to bring competition to the other gas stations in the area. Mr. Hascall's final thought was that the developer of the project is a member of this community, and that Mr. Don Sidhu wants to improve and help the community. Todd Mitchell, 377 Ironwood Terr. Woodburn, OR 97071: Mr. Mitchell stated that Mr. Don Sidhu has been a part of the community for 20 years and commented on his character of being a kind family man. Mr. Mitchell said that Mr. Don Sidhu raises money for charity and that he is community-oriented. He commented the vacant lot is an eyesore and that he agreed with Mr. Galbraith about the nightmare of trying to navigate the gas station and fast-food areas, pointing out Arco’s poorly lit area at night. Mr. Mitchell stated that he’s been to other U.S. Gas Stations that Mr. Don Sidhu owns and commented on how well- kept and well-managed. His final thought was that he was in favor of the project and that it would be a good thing for the community. Amar Sidhu 7501 35th Ave NE Salem, OR 97303: Mr. Amar Sidhu stated that he works for Mr. Don Sidhu, and that he is related to him as he is his nephew. Mr. Amar Sidhu gave a bit of backstory about his uncle’s life and how he has become a pillar of the Woodburn community. He talked about the importance of using the vacant property and how hard it is to maintain it when there’s nothing on it and the homeless are trying to use it as a camp. He commented that those who live in the apartment can see the vacant ---PAGE BREAK--- Woodburn Planning Commission August 22, 2024 5 property become a homeless camp since there’s nothing on the property. Mr. Amar Sidhu mentioned the Arco gas station and the overpricing, stating that it’s an issue for the community. He noted the charity work his uncle has done for the community. His final thoughts were that his in favor of the U.S. Market gas station. Testimony by Opponents: Michelle Harrison, 924 Oregon Way, Woodburn, OR 97071: Ms. Harrison is in opposition to the project. She stated that she lives right in the middle of this mess and claimed that traffic will enter more in the senior estate's residential area for both going and leaving the gas station. Ms. Harrison said that it won’t be easy for anyone who lives there and who pays their taxes. Her final statement was that the gas station will not work at the proposed location. Anne Reslock, 1375 Quinn Rd, Woodburn, OR 97071: Ms. Reslock is in opposition to the project. She thanked the Planning Commission for allowing her to speak tonight and she mentioned she came to the first hearing about this project a few years ago. Ms. Reslock stated that she is opposed to this project for two reasons, which are the traffic, and that the property sits on the corner of residential housing on Oregon Way. Ms. Reslock explained the traffic situation on Oregon Way to 214 and how it’s changed in the last two years, due to new housing and commercial development. Her final thought was her concern about the traffic from 214 into residential and that the neighboring lots next to the proposed project location already is backed up with traffic. “Bobbi” (Louise Roberta) Reiner, 950 Evergreen Rd, Unit 212, Woodburn, OR 97071: Ms. Reiner is in opposition to this project. She gave a quick story about how she her and husband ended up in Woodburn. Ms. Reiner explained that she didn’t want to smell the fumes the big semi-trucks would create if the gas station was placed there, as she lived next to one growing up. She gave her history of being a truck driver and a bus driver for 36½ years. Her final thought was explaining how she saw how semi-trucks drive in and out of similar properties and how they take up too much space and block traffic from moving. Paula Kilgore, 636 Oregon Way, Woodburn, OR 97071: Ms. Kilgore is in opposition to the project and stated that she lived at her home address for 13 years. Ms. Kilgore talked about the increased traffic and how people speed on 214 and Oregon Way. She talked about how semi-trucks take up a lot of space when turning and don’t leave a lot of room for other vehicles. Ms. Kilgore talked about the site map and how a semi-truck entry would not be feasible that people drive recklessly on 214 and that it’s unsafe for pedestrians. Her final thoughts were that she agreed that the property is an eyesore and that something needs to be there, just not a gas station and she presented a petition from her neighbors who are in opposition. Nancy Ferguson, 950 Evergreen Rd, Unit 323 Woodburn, OR 97071: Ms. Ferguson stated that she’s in opposition to the project. She lived in Woodburn for a very long time, and she said she has seen how 214 has changed into a very hazardous area in terms of traffic, being noisy all the time, and reckless driving. She’s concerned about the fumes from the gas station and how it would affect the health of those who live nearby. Ms. Ferguson commented that she didn’t see any logical changes in the traffic to allow cars to move in and out of the property without holding traffic up. Ms. Ferguson commented that she has neighbors who moved away due to the fumes from the gas station. Her final thought was that there could be other things that could be placed on the property that would be much better than a gas station. Don Zehrung, 966 Oregon Way, Woodburn, OR 97071: Mr. Zehrung requested to have the site map be projected and that he is in opposition to the project. He stated that his house is directly across from where traffic would be moving onto Oregon Way and how many times his house would be flashed with headlights at night. Mr. Zehrung mentioned that he knows Mr. Don Sidhu very well and agreed with the positive things that were said about him. Mr. Zehrung stated that the main issue here is the traffic and the amount of people that would be accessing the proposed facility would be catastrophic as that area has experienced accidents already. His final thought is that he is very concerned about the traffic and that 214 is a hazardous area to drive in currently. ---PAGE BREAK--- Woodburn Planning Commission August 22, 2024 6 Jan Duncum, 980 Oregon Way Woodburn, OR 97071: Ms. Duncum is in opposition to the project. She said that she is the second house straight across the vacant lots and it’s a traffic nightmare. Cars block off her driveway when waiting to get onto 214 and the area is already so tight that it’ll be hard to have vehicles move in and out of the proposed project property safely without blocking traffic. Ms. Duncum stated that 214 has become dangerous because people are speeding and doing reckless driving late at night. Ms. Duncum final thought is that Oregon Way is not the place to put all this traffic on. Marilyn Sbardellati, 1675 Quinn RD Woodburn, OR 97071: Ms. Sbardellati stated that she is in opposition to the project. She stated that the location is one of the most inappropriate places to put a gas station, as there is only one way to enter the proposed location from 214 and only an exit onto Oregon Way. Ms. Sbardellati agreed with everyone before her about the increased traffic coming into residential areas from new developments. She said that traffic from 214 increases the more traffic will enter residential areas to avoid traveling on 214. Her final thought was that yes, the empty lots are an eyesore and that it needs developed, but it needs to be a low-key business that won’t cause traffic delays. Rebecca Hayes, 950 Evergreen RD #205 Woodburn OR, 97071: Ms. Hayes stated that she’s in opposition of the project. She stated that she’s in agreement that Woodburn should work with locale investors to bring in locale business and that the vacant property is an eyesore, however there are things that need to be addressed. Ms. Hayes claimed that Woodburn is going backwards if they put a gas station there, as it would increase traffic and air pollution problems. She suggested that something low-key like office spaces can go in that spot and that there needs to be more green spaces along the freeway. Ms. Hayes final thoughts was that 214 can’t be expanded anymore because there isn’t room to expand, and traffic is worse in every part of Woodburn now. Robert Moore, 943 Oregon Way Woodburn, OR 97071: Mr. Moore is in opposition of the project, and he lives in one of the properties that back up to the proposed location. He stated that he hears a lot of the noises coming from 214 that the other testifiers had mentioned, which are from racers and speeding motorists. Mr. Moore also had two questions: one asking if he store would be 24 hours and the other is about the office space being 24 hours which are a concern because of the lighting from the property going into the residential area. His final comment was that if a gas station is stationed off the freeway, the gas will always be expensive regardless of who owns it. Anna Phillips, 2329 Oregon Court Woodburn, OR 97071: Ms. Philips stated that she is in opposition to the project. She stated that she’s impacted by the traffic from 214 even though she lives on Oregon Ct. Ms. Philips commented that she needs to look both ways before leaving her driveway and cars speed down her street at speeds of 40 – 50, which she was nearly hit by these cars. Her other concern is how its going to affect property values, as the houses on Oregon Way will be affected by any changes. Ms. Philips final comment is that once the folks are either gone or wanting to sell their homes, they might have trouble selling due to expensive housing rates due to 214 because no one wants to buy homes with high traffic. Mick Harris, an attorney from Tonkon Torp. 888 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97204: Mr. Harris is from the law firm Tonkon Torp who represents Woodburn Fast Serve LB Group, who own properties in Woodburn. Mr. Harris wanted to discuss some of the comments from the letter his colleague David Peterson wrote to the Planning Commission and to clarify what they meant in comparison to applicant’s attorney’s interpretation. He also talked about traffic and how the other businesses near the property who use 214 to enter and exit the property, causing traffic delays. He’s in opposition to the project. Danny Draper, 993 Lawson Ave. Woodburn, OR 97071: Mr. Draper stated that he’s been in the gas station business for 31 years and listed off the different properties he’s managed in that time, and he has helped in designing multiple gas stations. Mr. Draper talked about the vehicle circulation and how the applicant’s designs don’t match the traffic from 214 and their way of navigating traffic won’t work. He then talked about the gas trucks and how the designs don’t match those vehicles movements either. Susan Huggins, 910 Oregon Way Woodburn, OR 97071: Ms. Huggins stated that she lives on Oregon Way and is in opposition to the project. She talked about the traffic and brought up the same points as the other testifiers in opposition. Ms. Huggins main concern is about the convenience store aspect and the ---PAGE BREAK--- Woodburn Planning Commission August 22, 2024 7 type of clientele that would use the store. She’s worried that those customers will go to the store late at night and potentially cause trouble. Ms. Huggins expressed this concern as she, like many other senior citizens, who live nearby live alone. Chair Ellsworth asked if there was anyone who hasn’t spoke yet to come up and testify, which there were none. Some audience members wanted to ask questions, so Chair Ellsworth had reminded everyone that tonight is only for taking testimony and not answer questions, as that would be done on a later date. Chair Ellsworth allowed Ms. Anne Reslock, Ms. Rebecca Hayes, and Ms. Jan Duncan to add last minute comments before moving onto rebuttal by applicant. Rebuttal by Applicant: Applicant Shipman stated on behalf of the applicant/owner, they request that the Planning Commission keep the record open and close the hearing. The also requested to provide the applicant 32 days to be able to respond to the letter from Tonkin Torp and the testimony that was given tonight in opposition and allow any other testimony to be put on record until 5 p.m. on Monday, September 23, 2024. Applicant Shipman explained that they need time to address all the testimony and to make sure everyone’s comments and concerns are met. Applicant Shipman also requested this following timeline: any additional interested parties whether in support or opposition have a 14-day rebuttal period until 5 p.m. Monday, October 7, 2024, and the applicant’s final rebuttal period shall continue for a period of 10 days and shall end at noon on October 17, 2024. Applicant Shipman stated that applicant agreed to extend the 150-day time limit this evening by granting an additional 60 days to the city to review the application and that Applicant Shipman will verify the extension in a formal letter to the city next week. Applicant Shipman stated that he can take any questions from the Planning Commission. Chair Ellsworth asked the Planning Commission on what they want to do next, and most agreed that then need the extra time to review the new materials and testimony that where presented. She then asked Assistant City Attorney Killmer on what that process looked like, and he explained on how to go about this process and Director Kerr then simplified his explanation and offered to post a timeline on the city’s website to show what’s due. The Planning Commission discussed this topic a little more then moved onto how to close the hearing but to keep the record open. Assistant City Attorney Killmer gave guidance to Chair Ellsworth on how to proceed with closing the public hearing but leaving the record open for written testimony. Chair Ellsworth asked Applicant Shipman if they were done with the rebuttal, and they answered yes. Chair Ellsworth stated that she is going to close the public hearing and leave the record open for written testimony for an additional 32 days until 5 p.m. on Monday, September 23, 2024; any additional interested parties whether in support or opposition have a 14-day rebuttal period until 5 p.m. Monday, October 7, 2024, and the applicant’s final rebuttal period shall continue for a period of 10 days and shall end at noon on October 17, 2024. Chair Ellsworth stated that the applicant has agreed to extend the 150-day time limit this evening by granting an additional 60 days to the city to review the application and will verify the extension in a formal letter to the city next week. After that, Chair Ellsworth stated that she closed the public hearing. Director Kerr requested Chair Ellsworth to add that the Planning Commission is expected to come back on October 24, 2024, for deliberation and a final decision on this matter, which Chair Ellsworth recited to the public. Director Kerr mentioned that Staff will post this information online as well for the public to see. Chair Ellsworth encouraged the public to submit any additional questions they have about the project to the city and to review the materials about the project on the city’s website. Chair Ellsworth thanked everyone for coming in and giving their position on the project. She assured the public that the Planning Commission takes it seriously and that they want to hear from the public about these proposed projects. Business from the Commission: None. Updates from Staff: Director Kerr said there are no new updates. Adjournment: Chair Ellsworth entertained a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Corning moved to adjourn the meeting and both Vice-Chair Hernandez Mejia and Commissioner Berlin seconded. The vote was unanimous, and the meeting was adjourned around 9:18 pm. ---PAGE BREAK---