[0:05] live captioning test.

[0:06] .

[0:11] >> all right.

[0:17] Bend city council will not meet

[0:19] to consult with legal counsel

[0:29] with litigation to be filed.

[0:31] Representatives of the news

[0:34] media are directed not to report

[0:34] [Inaudible] As previously

[0:36] announced.

[0:39] No decision MAY be made at the

[0:42] end of the executive session

[0:43] we'll return to session at 6

[0:44] P.M..

[0:46] Thanks.

[3:34] Order -- there's an echo from

[3:35] someone.

[3:35] Good.

[3:38] We'll go ahead and call to order

[3:40] the bend city council business

[3:43] meeting for tonight and start

[3:54] with roll call with councillor

[3:54] platt.

[3:57] >> councillor perkins is excused

[3:57] tonight.

[4:00] We'll go into good of the order

[4:02] and start with information and

[4:03] then ask for council.

[4:06] So I'm going to invite molly

[4:07] heiss from neighbor impact to

[4:09] come up to the table and this is

[4:12] just going to be receiving

[4:13] information about the snap

[4:15] benefits issue that is going on

[4:17] with the delay of snap benefit

[4:19] money to people in our

[4:22] community, a couple quick stats.

[4:25] 34% of people in oregon are

[4:28] struggling to cover basic

[4:31] expenses and 27,000 rely on snap

[4:34] to keep food on the table in

[4:34] oregon.

[4:36] I thought this was a timely

[4:38] topic we want to hear about for

[4:39] our community.

[4:41] Molly's going to talk and then

[4:44] I'll have an ask for council.

[4:45] >> indeed.

[4:49] Good evening mayor kebler and

[4:51] esteemed councillors.

[4:54] thank you for inviting us here

[4:55] to talk about it.

[4:58] I'm the deputy executive

[4:59] director of community services,

[5:05] that includes oversight of the

[5:09] regional food bank.

[5:13] We are the regional food bank in

[5:15] partnership with feeding america

[5:17] and oregon food bank.

[5:18] Here to just create more

[5:20] information around the need and

[5:22] talk about what we're doing.

[5:27] My stats are slightly different

[5:31] in that I have 23,405 central

[5:33] oregon households without food

[5:34] assistant as of NOVEMBER 1st.

[5:37] That includes 9001 as reported

[5:41] by the oregon department of

[5:42] human services local branch

[5:45] office in bend alone.

[5:48] We supply food across central

[5:51] oregon to 57 partner agencies

[5:53] and we maintain and operate 15

[5:55] mobile pantry sites, taking food

[5:58] out to communities and regions

[6:00] across central oregon that don't

[6:03] have access to food resources.

[6:05] We're going out to food deserts

[6:08] with the mobile food pantry to

[6:09] help deploy.

[6:10] The network has experienced a

[6:13] cut prior to the snap

[6:13] disruption.

[6:15] We lost commodities from the

[6:19] federal government, 28% of our

[6:22] food volume that we're used to.

[6:24] The thing of significant note of

[6:25] this disruption and government

[6:28] shut down, the last time we were

[6:30] flooded with food commodities.

[6:32] We had a significant amount of

[6:34] food to move, almost more than

[6:35] we could handle.

[6:38] This time is extremely

[6:38] different.

[6:40] We had a shortage we were

[6:43] informed of in MARCH and started

[6:45] feeling by MAY and that has

[6:47] disrupted food flow across

[6:50] central oregon and to our

[6:51] partner agencies and mobile

[6:51] distributions.

[6:53] One thing that is really

[6:56] interesting, every meal provided

[6:59] by -- for every meal provided

[7:03] by food banks, snap serves nine.

[7:04] It's the problem that no system

[7:06] can respond to and meet the

[7:07] need.

[7:10] If you think of the fact that we

[7:11] need $7 million a month to

[7:14] respond to this across oregon

[7:16] and we bring in millions of

[7:18] pounds of food a year and that's

[7:20] not enough to meet the need.

[7:23] The need is real.

[7:29] Snap also fuels our local

[7:30] economies.

[7:33] Up to $1.80 in grocery spending

[7:36] is snap dollars and creates a

[7:38] one month benefit loss will pull

[7:40] about $7 million out of grocery

[7:42] stores and those are the

[7:44] appropriate response mechanism

[7:45] to help support with snap

[7:46] purchases.

[7:48] They have staff and regional

[7:50] locations.

[7:52] Food banking is not built to

[7:55] deploy these kinds of resources.

[7:57] We function and our partner

[7:58] agencies function with

[7:59] volunteers.

[8:02] So even if we did replace the

[8:04] $7 million deficiency, we could

[8:06] not respond in the same way.

[8:09] What we are doing though is we

[8:10] are raising emergency funds,

[8:14] which is part of why I'm here

[8:15] today.

[8:16] And purchasing extra food to

[8:18] fill the gaps to help to the

[8:21] best of our ability to make the

[8:23] partner agencies whole so our

[8:24] neighbors across central oregon

[8:25] are fed.

[8:27] We are not able to fully meet

[8:28] every need.

[8:31] We have seen 100% increase, we

[8:33] got reports from partner

[8:34] agencies today, in their

[8:35] volumes.

[8:38] And that's in the last week and

[8:39] a half.

[8:42] We are providing grocery cards

[8:43] to head start families.

[8:45] That is the project I was on

[8:46] this week.

[8:49] We went to locally owned grocery

[8:50] stores across the communities

[8:52] that head start families are in

[8:54] to make sure the revenue stayed

[8:57] in the community and they had

[9:00] local access to use those gift

[9:00] cards.

[9:03] We are also drawing down our

[9:04] reserves to help contribute and

[9:07] purchase more food to flow into

[9:08] the system.

[9:11] The other piece is supporting

[9:13] our employees, we're a hunger

[9:14] organizations and we're not

[9:16] going to let employees impacted

[9:19] by the snap disruption go

[9:20] without.

[9:23] No single effort can solve this

[9:25] crisis, but every contribution

[9:26] helps someone eat today, this

[9:29] week or this month.

[9:31] One of the interesting and

[9:33] relevant pieces around

[9:34] contributions to neighbor impact

[9:36] is because of our food

[9:39] purchasing power, we're able to

[9:41] stretch every dollar three fold.

[9:44] So, we can turn $1 into $3 worth

[9:44] of food.

[9:46] The impact of that is that when

[9:48] you are giving cash to families

[9:50] or supports to families to use

[9:53] in a retail outlet, we can

[9:55] actually pump more volume with

[9:57] an investment into the food

[9:59] system as a whole.

[10:02] Shelves will run low and lines

[10:04] will grow long but we'll face it

[10:05] together is our attitude.

[10:09] That is why we're here and

[10:10] appreciate the invitation and

[10:12] every dollar feeds someone.

[10:15] we've had some -- the community

[10:18] has stepped up in folds and

[10:18] gotten contributions from

[10:21] private donors.

[10:24] We had a contribution from

[10:25] pacific county and pacific

[10:25] source.

[10:29] The money flowing out of the

[10:30] governor's office that she

[10:35] released for the month is in

[10:36] flux.

[10:38] We'll get about $250,000 of that

[10:39] to neighbor impact and that is

[10:49] still in the contracting

[10:50] process.

[10:52] We're working as if that money

[10:54] is moving forward and covering

[10:56] balances with the reserve and

[11:02] refueling the cover

[11:02] ffers.

[11:05] We have an online food drive for

[11:06] people to contribute to the

[11:07] system.

[11:10] You can go through and select

[11:13] bulk purchases, potatoes,

[11:14] apples, onions, things like

[11:16] that, rice and beans.

[11:18] That's been something that the

[11:19] community has been really

[11:19] engaged in.

[11:21] We've gotten a lot of people

[11:22] writing checks and saying they

[11:24] want to be a part of the

[11:26] solution.

[11:30] Volunteering is also a key

[11:31] factor of this with additional

[11:33] people coming into the system.

[11:37] Every food pantry and hot meal

[11:38] site, every agency needs extra

[11:39] support.

[11:41] So whether it is true to your

[11:42] heart to volunteer close to home

[11:46] or come volunteer at a regional

[11:49] food bank, our warehouse up in

[11:52] redman, please engage in any way

[11:54] you are able to or your

[11:55] constituents might be able to.

[11:57] Some of the most needed items if

[11:59] people are dropping off at a

[12:02] local food pantry or our

[12:05] warehouse or regional offices,

[12:09] tuna, canned chicken, soups,

[12:11] peanut butter, fruits, ready to

[12:18] eat meals and pasta.

[12:21] Lastly, it is non partisan and

[12:24] doesn't take political positions

[12:26] but this situation was created

[12:27] by political inaction.

[12:31] We urge leaders to restore the

[12:32] safety nets that support

[12:34] millions of americans.

[12:35] Denying food to people is cruel

[12:37] and failure of government to

[12:39] meet basic obligations.

[12:41] We so appreciate the city of

[12:44] bend leaning in to an

[12:46] opportunity to support people in

[12:47] central oregon.

[12:49] >> thank you very much, molly.

[12:50] I appreciate the statement and

[12:51] all the information about what

[12:52] you're doing and hearing that

[12:54] our community is stepping up.

[12:56] I want to encourage in this

[12:57] moment, anyone who is able to

[12:59] give or help to think about

[13:00] doing that.

[13:02] I also wanted to see what we can

[13:03] do as a city.

[13:05] I'll turn to eric on options for

[13:06] us to help.

[13:08] >> first off, we want to help.

[13:09] We're instituting a food drive

[13:11] at all of our campuses.

[13:14] We're going to partner with our

[13:15] fire department who has

[13:17] externally facing campaign as

[13:18] well.

[13:21] We're going to have drop off

[13:22] bins at our locations and we're

[13:24] going to do active things.

[13:26] I also want to entertain the

[13:28] idea of council contributing

[13:29] some financial resources.

[13:31] As you know, we just got good

[13:34] news from the county assessor

[13:35] and property tax revenue came in

[13:37] a little higher than projected.

[13:44] In the range of 10-20 thousand

[13:44] dollars contribution.

[13:47] that's just a starting point to

[13:49] sort of start the discussion to

[13:50] see what you're comfortable

[13:50] with.

[13:52] >> this is not something that is

[13:53] ongoing every month, we're doing

[13:55] -- this needs to be fixed and

[13:57] you are right, this is a failure

[13:59] of government that we're letting

[14:00] people go hungry.

[14:02] We want to step in to help but

[14:04] this is not a permanent solution

[14:07] in any way, shape or form.

[14:08] Any thoughts for councillors?

[14:10] >> I'm fully supportive of a

[14:11] contribution.

[14:13] I think we need to step in and

[14:14] help and appreciate you taking

[14:19] the lead and helping the

[14:19] community.

[14:22] >> I agree.

[14:24] I think we should entertain

[14:24] $20,000.

[14:25] I just want to echo the

[14:26] statement you made about the

[14:29] government failure.

[14:31] I mean, this is in many ways, I

[14:34] can be more political than you

[14:35] can perhaps.

[14:39] A failure of the current

[14:40] administration to just --

[14:42] implications of many decisions

[14:43] being made in washington D.C.

[14:45] And the administration and those

[14:46] in power in congress.

[14:49] It is very frustrating they're

[14:51] being cruel to people in our

[14:56] community, people across the

[14:57] country.

[14:58] >> just to emphasize, if people

[15:01] want to help, you mentioned

[15:02] donating, buying food,

[15:03] volunteering.

[15:07] It sounds like there's a big

[15:09] disproportionate affect of

[15:09] donating.

[15:11] This is not how we're going to

[15:12] be able to fix through

[15:13] individual people stepping up.

[15:15] We can try to lessen the impact

[15:19] of it, but there's no

[15:20] substitution for this.

[15:21] Our federal government needs to

[15:23] step up and fix this.

[15:24] >> I'm fully supportive.

[15:27] I agree with councillor riley,

[15:28] the 20,000.

[15:30] >> is everyone okay with that?

[15:30] >> I am.

[15:33] The one thing I wanted to add,

[15:35] the complicating factor I can't

[15:36] get over.

[15:37] You said the last time the

[15:39] government was closed, you were

[15:40] flooded with commodities and

[15:43] this time it is the opposite.

[15:47] Just making this even harder for

[15:47] you.

[15:49] >> absolutely, yes.

[15:54] We found out this MARCH that

[15:56] commodities we're going to be

[15:57] turned off.

[15:58] We weren't sure if it was

[15:59] temporary or not.

[16:02] We started to feel the effects

[16:03] with the food volumes at the

[16:07] banks in MAY of 25 and partner

[16:11] agencies reported really feeling

[16:12] it about JULY.

[16:13] In speaking with our food

[16:15] program director who has been

[16:19] here 10 years now, this is just

[16:19] unprecedented.

[16:21] We have not had a snap

[16:24] disruption since the 60s.

[16:25] And then, again, with the

[16:27] government shut down last time,

[16:30] we were flooded hand over foot

[16:42] with commodities.

[16:44] Central oregon stepped up and

[16:46] filled the gap with food

[16:48] donations and brought us within

[16:51] the 12-13% range but it is still

[16:52] a gap and heading into the

[16:54] disruption with the gap and

[16:56] shortage of food, it is an

[16:57] incredible blow to the system

[16:59] and people that are hungry.

[17:08] >> we thank you and I think we

[17:11] have unanimous direction and we

[17:13] will continue to get this

[17:14] problem fixed as soon as

[17:15] possible so people can get out

[17:16] of the situation.

[17:17] We appreciate everything you and

[17:18] your organization do.

[17:22] >> that's amazing.

[17:34] Thank you.

[17:36] >> so council action and support

[17:39] and speaking of advocacy, there

[17:41] was a letter on the public lands

[17:45] rule for blm, an advocacy

[17:46] organization that had a sign on

[17:50] request to a letter opposing the

[17:51] recision of this pretty

[17:53] important rule that protects our

[17:54] public lands.

[17:56] I just wanted to make sure

[17:58] council was okay with signing it

[17:59] on our behalf.

[18:03] It is due next week.

[18:03] Okay.

[18:05] And then we have some

[18:05] appointments.

[18:10] I don't know one of our M.P.O

[18:12] folks, do you want to explain

[18:18] why we're looking at some staff

[18:21] as alternates.

[18:22] >> transportation planning for

[18:25] our area, the thing unique about

[18:28] the bend mpo, it is comprised of

[18:30] mostly the city of bend plus a

[18:33] couple of out lying areas and in

[18:36] our case we have a unique

[18:37] make-up with the city oregon

[18:41] department of transportation and

[18:42] deschutes county is the three

[18:43] primary members.

[18:46] We have been in the process of

[18:49] updating the bylaws to change

[18:53] the make up of the parties in

[18:58] the mpo to basically give the

[19:00] city two full representatives,

[19:02] odot would get one, deschutes

[19:03] county would get one and then

[19:07] we've been trying to find a way

[19:09] to get east transit a full

[19:10] voting member.

[19:12] The reason we're asking for

[19:13] staff alternates here, currently

[19:16] the bylaws require at least two

[19:22] of us in this case, councillor

[19:22] oh

[19:23] riley and myself to be present.

[19:26] If two members are not present,

[19:30] they cannot conduct business, no

[19:31] matter how many other are

[19:33] present unless we have staff

[19:34] alternates.

[19:36] In order to -- if we cannot

[19:39] make it, we would like to have

[19:42] the ability to ask for a city of

[19:45] bend staff person to serve in

[19:47] our place and so in order to do

[19:50] that, we have identified three

[19:55] people, ryan ryan

[19:57] brian rankin,

[19:57] david abbas and janet hruby.

[19:59] I think they would be able to

[20:01] step in and represent the city

[20:02] in order to conduct business in

[20:04] the case one of us is absent.

[20:05] >> okay.

[20:07] Anyone have issues with that?

[20:08] Trying to make sure they can

[20:10] meet and do their business.

[20:12] I think we'll -- do we need a

[20:15] motion to approve the

[20:15] appointments?

[20:16] >> yes.

[20:16] >> okay.

[20:17] Someone make a motion.

[20:19] >> I move the appointment of

[20:22] brian rankin, david abbas and

[20:25] janet hruby as alternates to the

[20:27] bend metropolitan planning

[20:30] organization policy board.

[20:32] >> second.

[20:34] >> all right.

[20:37] All in favor?

[20:37] Okay.

[20:38] Great.

[20:38] Okay.

[20:40] So we are going to move into

[20:42] council action and reports and

[20:45] we have a couple of schedule

[20:45] requests.

[20:47] This is the first meeting of the

[20:47] month.

[20:51] We'll get with those and start

[20:52] with yours council member riley.

[20:54] >> I'm asking the council to

[20:58] take back up the question about

[20:59] whether or not -- just not

[21:02] quite a year ago, it will be a

[21:04] year in DECEMBER, that we had a

[21:06] discussion about whether or not

[21:09] we should apply the

[21:09] concentration limits for short

[21:12] term rentals that apply to the

[21:16] underlining residential zone to

[21:18] the cn zone, the neighborhood

[21:20] commercial zone.

[21:23] It is grandfathered zone in the

[21:25] books for three properties in

[21:27] the old towne community and done

[21:29] away with in 2006.

[21:31] If I understood it, I rewatched

[21:32] the recording today.

[21:35] It came to us with a code update

[21:36] package with the recommendation

[21:39] to amend the code that way so

[21:42] the underlining concentration

[21:44] limits would apply under the

[21:46] current rules, they do not apply

[21:48] to the three properties.

[21:50] My pitch to all of you, a year

[21:52] ago what happened is that was

[21:54] the night we were dealing with

[21:57] the one time expansion of the

[21:59] ugb and south end of the

[22:00] community and making this

[22:02] decision after 11:00 at night.

[22:05] We were all pretty exhausted and

[22:07] tired and I don't think we were

[22:08] thinking particularly clearly.

[22:10] We basically said let's table it

[22:12] and there was a motion to table

[22:12] it.

[22:13] I do think it is something we

[22:14] should finish.

[22:17] It is a piece of unfinished

[22:18] business and said we would come

[22:19] back a year ago.

[22:20] I would like to come back and

[22:22] finish the discussion.

[22:25] I'm not advocating for any

[22:26] resolution tonight, just trying

[22:30] to get it back on the agenda to

[22:30] make a formal decision about

[22:35] what was presented to us by the

[22:42] planning commission.

[22:43] >> thoughts?

[22:45] >> I have a question.

[22:47] I was just curious why -- I

[22:50] understand it was a legacy zone

[22:52] in this one neighborhood, but I

[22:56] think the idea was to retain

[22:59] neighborhood commercial.

[23:02] There are other commercial

[23:03] convenience and commercial

[23:05] general, which encourage the

[23:10] same type of mixed use

[23:11] development on these properties.

[23:13] I'm curious why we're just

[23:15] focusing on these and this zone

[23:17] and not looking at all of the

[23:19] commercial zones the allow

[23:19] residential uses.

[23:23] It is happening in other zones

[23:25] where developers are using the

[23:27] middle housing code to build

[23:29] housing units and converting to

[23:30] short term rentals.

[23:33] We're seeing sort of loss of

[23:34] neighborhood character and

[23:36] intention we kind of set up with

[23:36] that zone.

[23:39] I don't know -- I know this is

[23:42] not a time for deliberation, so

[23:45] I don't mean to derail -- the

[23:47] request but I just want to make

[23:49] sure we're not making -- I

[23:54] don't know, a one-off action and

[23:57] that we're looking at this from

[23:58] a policy perspective.

[24:01] >> I hear councillor riley

[24:02] asking about neighborhood

[24:06] commercial in relation to short

[24:10] term rentals and council member

[24:12] franzosa asking more broadly.

[24:14] Is the request specific to

[24:15] neighborhood commercial or short

[24:17] term rental?

[24:19] >> my intention tonight was for

[24:21] these three properties and piece

[24:24] of business we didn't finish.

[24:26] I get the point about looking at

[24:35] it more broadly.

[24:36] There's an example where they

[24:39] came in middle housing in the

[24:41] commercial zone and housing and

[24:43] now they're being rented as

[24:45] short term rentals and not

[24:46] contributing to help meet the

[24:48] housing need in the community.

[24:50] I think it is a larger policy

[24:50] question.

[24:53] You know, this is a little

[24:54] different issue here with people

[24:58] wanting to have the same set of

[25:00] rules for their zone applied, so

[25:03] it's not exactly the same issue.

[25:07] But I think this is a piece of

[25:08] unfinished business.

[25:10] My main concern if we mix these

[25:12] together, what does it do in

[25:13] terms of delay of discussion.

[25:15] I would like to get it resolved

[25:16] relatively quickly.

[25:19] We said we were going to resolve

[25:22] it 11 months ago.

[25:24] >> so, would the process be we

[25:27] would basically start from zero

[25:28] on the three properties, notice,

[25:30] planning commission, that whole

[25:30] --

[25:31] >> I think so.

[25:35] What I'm sort of hearing council

[25:37] discussion is was the scope of a

[25:39] work session.

[25:39] >> that was well.

[25:41] >> just to go back to your

[25:43] question, I think our intention

[25:45] would be just to couple this

[25:46] with the next housing package in

[25:48] the spring.

[25:50] We have to notice for all sorts

[25:51] of other things we would do

[25:53] related to housing.

[25:56] We would just put this on, so it

[25:57] would be efficient to have that.

[26:00] If you wanted to have a broader

[26:00] policy conversation about the

[26:03] scope of that, we would need to

[26:04] do it sooner rather than later

[26:05] to decide if we're going to

[26:10] include it in the package or

[26:10] not.

[26:13] >> and the proposal for the

[26:15] neighborhood commercial zone,

[26:16] the three properties is short

[26:18] term rental rules written today

[26:19] would apply to them.

[26:22] >> they are currently exempt

[26:23] from the rules.

[26:26] There's no concentration limits.

[26:28] There's no guidance other than

[26:29] you can do whatever you want.

[26:32] >> in the discussion last year

[26:34] was around is that the right way

[26:35] to do that.

[26:37] I want to be really transparent,

[26:38] we received a neighborhood

[26:40] petition from neighbors who are

[26:41] looking at a specific

[26:43] development they are looking to

[26:46] not allow to do short term

[26:47] rentals and I expressed last

[26:50] year and again, worry about

[26:51] legislating from one property

[26:53] that people are opposing

[26:54] development on.

[26:56] I'm supportive of the first

[26:58] thing eric said, adding this to

[27:00] the housing code package in the

[27:02] spring and I'm not saying which

[27:03] way we're going to vote but it

[27:06] is fair to put it back in and

[27:06] finish the discussion and decide

[27:08] what we want to do.

[27:09] >> that's fine.

[27:11] That's how we would do this,

[27:11] right?

[27:13] We have to do the notice and go

[27:15] back through the planning

[27:16] commission.

[27:18] >> that work is already done.

[27:20] But if you want to change the

[27:22] scope, we would need another

[27:23] work session.

[27:25] >> I'm not interested right now

[27:27] in scheduling a larger work

[27:27] session around this.

[27:29] I think this is hanging out

[27:32] there, let's finish the

[27:33] discussion and maybe a jumping

[27:37] point to the next discussion.

[27:39] >> I'm not interested in

[27:41] redesigning the short term

[27:43] rental policy we have.

[27:45] I'm just interested in it

[27:47] applying to all zones that allow

[27:48] residential uses.

[27:52] >> I think that's a larger

[27:54] conversation though than -- we

[27:55] would need to have more research

[27:57] and more ideas on the impact of

[27:59] that for property owners.

[28:01] >> I'm hearing two questions.

[28:05] Does the majority of council

[28:08] want that one legislative change

[28:11] for that limited amount of

[28:12] properties to come back and then

[28:14] maybe also interest in a work

[28:18] session on the broader policy

[28:18] question.

[28:20] >> can we answer the first

[28:20] question first?

[28:24] Just to put it in the code

[28:27] package in the spring.

[28:29] >> I don't see it as a bigger

[28:30] policy discussion.

[28:33] It is residential allowed in

[28:34] commercial zones.

[28:36] It is yes or no.

[28:37] Why are we picking.

[28:39] >> it sounds like we have a

[28:41] majority to move forward.

[28:43] >> to the second question.

[28:45] >> councillor franzosa, maybe it

[28:47] is not big or broad, but it is

[28:48] different.

[28:59] That was the point.

[29:01] >> that topic is work session

[29:02] worthy.

[29:03] I think we need a work session

[29:05] on that and then direction from

[29:05] council.

[29:07] >> yeah, we didn't have a

[29:08] request to make that work

[29:09] session request today.

[29:12] It is jumping off of mike's --

[29:13] I would prefer to move forward

[29:15] with this item and then after

[29:17] done with that code, I'm willing

[29:20] to do a work session on the

[29:21] other topic.

[29:22] I wasn't prepared to really talk

[29:24] about that further today.

[29:26] i didn't know that was going to

[29:28] be asked for.

[29:32] >> maybe future work session.

[29:33] >> okay.

[29:36] The second one is councillor

[29:39] franzosa interpretation of state

[29:40] housing policies.

[29:41] >> thank you.

[29:45] Last year city council adopted

[29:47] state housing loss.

[29:49] We're seeing these code

[29:51] revisions are having unintended

[29:54] consequence, the loss of land

[29:54] for neighborhood commercial

[29:56] space, which is resulting in

[29:57] residential only development.

[29:59] And so I want to be clear, we

[30:01] were just talking about the

[30:04] neighborhood commercial zone,

[30:06] this is -- little c

[30:08] neighborhood commercial space, a

[30:09] variety of commercial zones that

[30:10] allow for mixed use.

[30:12] But now we're seeing residential

[30:18] only development in the lands,

[30:19] so this loss of neighborhood

[30:21] commercial space will make it

[30:24] challenging if not impossible to

[30:29] achieve our goal for complete

[30:30] communities and even climate

[30:31] friendly areas.

[30:33] My request is a work session to

[30:35] discuss and grapple with the

[30:37] competing factors of complete

[30:39] communities and affordable

[30:40] housing.

[30:41] I envision this discussion, what

[30:44] does that mean to me?

[30:46] It could include options for

[30:48] council to take action, such as

[30:51] further tweaks to the code

[30:53] language or advocacy for policy

[30:55] change at the state level.

[30:57] Basically, I would be asking

[30:59] that staff present some ideas

[31:00] that they MAY have with the

[31:03] ultimate goal of affording every

[31:05] resident in bend regardless of

[31:06] income, housing and convenience

[31:09] of basic services within a

[31:12] reasonable walk, bike or ride

[31:12] within their home.

[31:14] I hope it can be scheduled at

[31:17] the earliest possible date due

[31:20] to the housing crisis and loss

[31:21] of commercial neighborhood land

[31:22] I have seen.

[31:24] >> I have a follow-up question.

[31:26] That is a broader conversation

[31:28] than I think the narrow

[31:29] interpretation of a couple of

[31:30] statutes you said.

[31:34] I was looking for the statute in

[31:37] the development code and never

[31:38] quite got the cite.

[31:41] Are you asking us to zero in on

[31:47] how staff interpreted state law

[31:49] into code or a bigger

[31:49] discussion.

[31:52] How narrow are you -- your

[31:53] request is narrow but hearing a

[31:54] bit more tonight.

[31:56] >> I don't know that my request

[31:57] was that narrow.

[32:01] I think I used exactly these

[32:03] words about losing commercial to

[32:04] affordable housing and being

[32:08] sort of unintended consequences

[32:09] and competing interest there and

[32:13] our goals being pitted against

[32:14] each other.

[32:16] I am not an attorney.

[32:17] I don't know.

[32:19] I think I can read the words

[32:21] though of the state statute and

[32:23] the words of the code and

[32:25] they're not the same.

[32:26] Would an attorney agree or

[32:28] disagree, I don't know.

[32:29] That's why I would like staff to

[32:33] sort of present the options,

[32:34] including the code language

[32:37] matter but maybe some other

[32:39] options so we don't lose more

[32:40] neighborhood commercial.

[32:43] I think that's the concern which

[32:44] we have sort of heard about from

[32:45] our community.

[32:47] >> I share that concern and I

[32:49] think it's a bigger

[32:49] conversation.

[32:52] Eric, can you tell us how that

[32:55] bigger conversation fits into

[32:56] what we're doing?

[32:59] >> there is a strategy and

[33:00] action around complete

[33:00] communities.

[33:01] I think one of the things we

[33:07] have been talking about,

[33:09] feasibility study to look at how

[33:11] we can support the -- how the

[33:13] market can support neighborhood

[33:14] commercial and our growth plan

[33:16] to really look at that code and

[33:18] look to see if there's barriers

[33:20] or other things we can do from a

[33:22] code perspective.

[33:25] I think more of a nuances of

[33:26] intersection of state law and

[33:28] our code, that is something

[33:30] probably a little more -- that

[33:32] is a little more nuanced and

[33:35] maybe where we can start but it

[33:37] can grow into the other items

[33:38] that are council goal related.

[33:40] >> I'm fine with that, if we

[33:42] just focus on the difference

[33:43] between the statute and the

[33:43] code.

[33:45] >> I think we need to talk about

[33:46] that.

[33:48] I have a follow-up on what you

[33:49] have brought up tonight I wanted

[33:51] to ask about that is not a work

[33:53] session request but I have a

[33:54] meeting with the state

[33:56] deligation on friday.

[33:58] I would like if council would

[33:59] allow me to start talking about

[34:00] it with them.

[34:02] What I would like to do is say

[34:03] here's what's happening on the

[34:05] ground and they have sort of

[34:07] heard about this and start to

[34:09] think about this state law and

[34:11] our ability to plan and how is

[34:12] that going to work going

[34:15] forward, if we're going to have

[34:16] laws that are passed that

[34:17] override zoning.

[34:19] if council is okay with me

[34:20] starting that conversation with

[34:22] the deligation, there could be

[34:23] an opportunity upcoming and I

[34:25] want to move quickly on that.

[34:27] I'm not going to take a position

[34:29] on anything and they MAY have

[34:31] ideas on solutions around that.

[34:33] But if that's okay, I would like

[34:36] to do that friday to get the

[34:37] ball rolling.

[34:38] >> yeah, I support that.

[34:39] >> for sure.

[34:42] >> I think from my perspective,

[34:45] I do think we have been hearing

[34:47] about this now for a while from

[34:48] different parts of the community

[34:50] in the north and south.

[34:53] I'm not sure I agree that the

[34:56] wildflower is exactly the same

[34:57] issue going on.

[35:00] We made the decision to reduce

[35:02] that commercial -- it was

[35:06] pretty straightforward on that

[35:06] one.

[35:07] Unless there's something else

[35:09] going on I don't know about yet.

[35:11] There's a valid concern about we

[35:13] have these nice plans on the

[35:15] books but if some of the land is

[35:18] going to get eaten up in the

[35:21] short to medium term while we

[35:25] wait to have enough households

[35:26] to support the complete

[35:28] community and then we can no

[35:29] longer provide it because

[35:31] there's not space to do it, we

[35:32] can't deliver on the promise.

[35:35] I think that tension is a really

[35:35] important tension that the

[35:37] council should explore.

[35:39] And that's -- for that reason,

[35:41] I support what councillor

[35:42] franzosa is asking for.

[35:45] I think it's the policy question

[35:47] I'm most interested in.

[35:49] Part of it is, is there a fix to

[35:50] the state law.

[35:52] Do we need to think about

[35:54] tweaking our code slightly.

[35:55] is there something we have

[35:58] authority to do in the interim

[36:02] short of state law being

[36:02] changed.

[36:04] I'm not sure when I heard when

[36:05] we might get to that.

[36:07] I think the policy discussion is

[36:07] valid.

[36:10] Even if the answers are maybe

[36:11] not what everybody wants to hear

[36:14] or what I want to hear, we need

[36:16] to explore it and communicate it

[36:19] to the community.

[36:19] >> yeah.

[36:22] >> just in terms of framing that

[36:25] work session, to look at our

[36:26] development code state law and

[36:28] see if there's room for any type

[36:30] of changes there and see how

[36:31] possible that is.

[36:33] I know he's done a much deeper

[36:34] dive.

[36:37] >> yeah, I will say my

[36:39] perspective is that the changes

[36:43] that council adopted late last

[36:51] year to implement sb8 and house

[36:51] bill 3395, the language from

[36:55] those bills is incorporated

[36:56] pretty directly in our code.

[36:59] The sb8 says land zone for

[37:02] commercial uses can qualify for

[37:02] affordable housing.

[37:05] We had to wrestle with what that

[37:07] means and we have some new

[37:08] terms.

[37:10] But I think we have incorporated

[37:13] the requirements of the two

[37:15] bills pretty directly and

[37:17] squarely within code.

[37:18] If council is asking can we hear

[37:21] more about that and see if

[37:22] there's any room to make changes

[37:27] to sort of make sure we're not

[37:28] deprioritizing the goal and

[37:30] other things we could advocate

[37:31] for, I think there's something

[37:33] to talk about.

[37:36] I want to set expectations.

[37:40] Sb8 is pretty straightforward.

[37:43] I think.

[37:46] hb3395 creates a different path

[37:47] for affordable housing and

[37:50] fairly straightforward and

[37:51] requirements are taken almost

[38:09] whole into the code.

[38:11] >> I recall the conversations

[38:14] and the legislature chooses

[38:16] different definitions of

[38:17] affordable housing when they

[38:18] pass a bill.

[38:19] I'm less interested in that than

[38:21] the bigger policy conversation

[38:24] on how are we supposed to plan

[38:25] for neighborhood commercial

[38:26] given state law and given how

[38:28] things are playing out in bend

[38:29] right now.

[38:30] I think as long as we have the

[38:32] space to talk about that and the

[38:33] community can understand that.

[38:36] If we get into code stuff, I

[38:38] don't want to get too deep into

[38:39] that without losing the bigger

[38:40] picture in the work session.

[38:43] >> I watched the session, the

[38:44] council session from 2024 where

[38:47] the code was adopted and there

[38:49] was not any deliberation --

[38:51] there was deliberation on income

[38:53] qualified but that's not what I

[38:54] think are the different word

[38:59] choices from the state statute

[39:00] and local code.

[39:02] I'm concerned we're sort of

[39:05] leaving an issue unaddressed

[39:07] that is having an impact on the

[39:07] community today.

[39:09] >> I think there's support here

[39:10] to have the conversation.

[39:12] I think we're trying to frame

[39:13] the scope right now.

[39:15] >> yeah.

[39:17] I would say there are

[39:18] opportunities that we should

[39:19] look at.

[39:23] I'm not questioning what we did

[39:24] was aligned with state law.

[39:27] It was pretty clear at the time

[39:28] it was.

[39:31] Can we retain the alignment with

[39:32] state law and consider other

[39:34] options that support us moving

[39:38] and ensuring we continue to move

[39:45] in a complete direction.

[39:48] Are there other ways that we can

[39:49] get that outcome.

[39:52] >> I'm wondering if this work

[39:54] session idea or scoping there of

[39:56] is maybe informed by the

[39:57] discussion the mayor might be

[39:58] having.

[39:59] I want to make sure --

[40:02] >> that's a good point.

[40:04] I wonder if we could -- I think

[40:06] there's support for a

[40:07] conversation here, either work

[40:10] session next week, maybe finish

[40:10] this conversation after maybe

[40:12] eric you look at the work plan

[40:16] and what's upcoming to see when

[40:20] it will fit in.

[40:20] And I can bring the information

[40:22] from the deligation, if they say

[40:24] this law is not going to be

[40:25] touched, forget it.

[40:27] Or if they say there's an

[40:28] opportunity to amend, that might

[40:30] be part of the conversation as

[40:31] well.

[40:32] Does that fit with what you were

[40:33] talking about?

[40:35] There's support for the work

[40:37] session, it is figuring out when

[40:38] and how to have the

[40:38] conversation.

[40:40] >> let me look at the schedule.

[40:43] We might be able to fit it in.

[40:44] There are already items related

[40:45] to council goals.

[40:47] Maybe we can group it together.

[40:50] I just don't have that -- let

[40:51] me --

[40:53] >> by next week you can bring it

[40:54] to us?

[40:55] >> that's fine.

[40:59] >> does that work?

[41:04] Okay.

[41:05] Okay.

[41:08] Who is echoing again?

[41:08] Eric.

[41:08] okay.

[41:09] All right.

[41:10] That was the last of the

[41:12] schedule requests.

[41:23] Thank you for the conversation.

[41:25] Councillor, kick us off with the

[41:25] report.

[41:28] >> I did a ride along with the

[41:29] officer to see and learn about

[41:33] the issues he's dealing with and

[41:35] trying to keep our folks living

[41:37] homeless on the streets safe and

[41:39] the folks who need to use the

[41:39] streets safe.

[41:42] I attended the old bend

[41:42] neighborhood party.

[41:45] They put the block trailer to

[41:46] great use and it was very fun.

[41:51] I attended central oregon

[41:57] caucuses business summit in

[41:59] redman and heard about a lot of

[42:01] job losses and underscored the

[42:04] work we take as a city.

[42:07] Public contract subcommittee met

[42:10] and had a great discussion about

[42:12] keeping competition open and the

[42:13] methods we choose for the major

[42:25] public contracts coming up.

[42:27] Building of better bend lecture

[42:29] on community micro grids.

[42:31] Thank you to those who put the

[42:31] lectures on.

[42:34] The city is a sponsor of those.

[42:37] Today I met with ben duncan, a

[42:39] consultant helping the city to

[42:40] assess the equity goals and

[42:42] align with the work the city

[42:43] does and it was a wonderful

[42:44] discussion and I'm excited to

[42:46] see what he recommends for us.

[42:50] And finally, I attended barry

[42:52] washington memorial unveiling

[42:55] and that was -- there was

[42:57] incredible community outpouring

[42:59] of support for his family and

[43:03] seemed to mean a lot to them for

[43:04] us to all show up.

[43:05] That's it.

[43:09] >> we did have a long break.

[43:11] An extra week.

[43:14] >> bend metropolitan planning

[43:15] organization met on

[43:15] OCTOBER 17th.

[43:17] One of the thing es

[43:19] s we discussed,

[43:23] we had some challenges relating

[43:25] to an agreement with the oregon

[43:26] department of transportation

[43:29] about whether or not a new iga

[43:33] is necessary, a new

[43:34] intergovernmental agreement is

[43:36] necessary for the bylaws we

[43:37] implemented over half a year

[43:37] ago.

[43:39] We decided to move forward with

[43:41] the bylaw updates to the

[43:43] greatest extent we can without

[43:45] an update to the agreement.

[43:47] So this essentially means the

[43:50] recommendation will be to have a

[43:51] four member policy board, two

[43:54] members from the city, one

[43:56] member from deschutes county,

[44:03] one from oregon department of

[44:04] transportation.

[44:06] City of bend accessibility

[44:07] advisory committee met

[44:08] OCTOBER 23rdrd.

[44:11] One of the things we heard was

[44:14] an extensive account of one

[44:16] community member's experience

[44:18] navigating our city while blind.

[44:20] It was pretty eye opening to

[44:22] hear about some of the

[44:23] challenges, especially around

[44:25] navigating things like

[44:26] roundabouts and the importance

[44:29] of making our city accessible to

[44:32] people with different abilities.

[44:35] So, it was moving to hear about

[44:37] and I hope we'll have an

[44:38] opportunity to take action on

[44:41] some of these items as we move

[44:41] forward.

[44:45] On friday, the oregon

[44:46] metropolitan planning

[44:47] organization met and the one

[44:49] thing I wanted to highlight from

[44:50] the conversation is to my

[44:53] knowledge, the governor has not

[44:55] yet signed the transportation

[44:57] package the legislature passed.

[45:00] One of the things people have

[45:03] said she MAY be waiting on is

[45:06] when she signs that, the

[45:09] signature gathering effort to

[45:10] potentially pass a referendum on

[45:12] the package begins.

[45:14] And one thing that I wanted to

[45:17] make sure people are aware of is

[45:21] depending on what is in that

[45:26] referendum, if it is just the --

[45:28] depending on what focus on

[45:31] revenue gathering it is, it MAY

[45:33] be that all the new funding for

[45:37] things like transit or safety

[45:39] initiatives or maintenance,

[45:41] depending on what is in the

[45:42] referendum

[45:45] referendum, all of that gets put

[45:47] on pause until NOVEMBER 2026.

[45:49] Right now we would expect to get

[45:51] new transit funding as early as

[45:51] JUNE.

[45:53] If the signature gathering

[45:54] effort is successful, none of

[45:58] that happens and everything is

[45:59] put on pause.

[46:00] If you are thinking about

[46:02] signing to put it on the ballot,

[46:04] the real consequence is all of

[46:06] the funding in the case of

[46:09] transit is only two years of

[46:10] additional funding anyway gets

[46:11] put on pause.

[46:16] And there were a couple of other

[46:17] items.

[46:25] Reid market had a big turnout on

[46:28] -- last monday.

[46:30] Lots of interest in the market

[46:33] and great to see the turnout and

[46:35] a lot of city staff there from

[46:37] multiple departments.

[46:37] Thank you.

[46:39] >> all right.

[46:39] Councillor riley.

[46:42] >> I was mostly out of town for

[46:44] the last couple of weeks.

[46:46] Before I left, I attended the

[46:48] open house for the new state

[46:51] parking program, mountain view

[46:52] community development is

[46:54] bringing online up on the north

[46:55] end of town.

[46:58] It was great to see one more

[47:00] place to have I believe there's

[47:03] five or six -- five units there

[47:05] that can house some people that

[47:07] need that and help them

[47:09] transition into more permanent

[47:11] housing in the community and

[47:12] really appreciate their work

[47:13] they're doing to make the sites

[47:15] available in our community.

[47:18] That's it.

[47:20] >> okay.

[47:21] Councillor norris.

[47:22] >> we had family from out of

[47:26] town, I attended the parkside

[47:27] place legislative tour.

[47:30] We had the governor visit and

[47:31] other state legislators.

[47:34] It was a great event.

[47:38] It was a really good example of

[47:40] a project public-private that

[47:43] has a good amount of affordable

[47:45] housing and great to see

[47:48] buildings out there going

[47:48] vertical.

[47:50] And it was really well attended.

[47:54] I know there was a tour after I

[48:00] couldn't participate in.

[48:02] >> councillor platt.

[48:05] >> thank you for carpooling with

[48:05] me.

[48:06] >> in an electric vehicle.

[48:08] That was great.

[48:10] >> what they're doing there --

[48:11] >> that green shirt on.

[48:13] >> it is really impressive.

[48:15] I'm just so thankful for what

[48:18] they're doing.

[48:20] Interestingly given the state of

[48:22] our flying right now, eric king

[48:26] and I had a chance to do a ride

[48:28] in our local air space here from

[48:29] our airport.

[48:32] Tracy williams set that up for

[48:32] us.

[48:35] Somebody who has done a little

[48:38] bit of this in my background, I

[48:41] was impressed with some things

[48:43] like fixed wing patterns.

[48:45] Sort of innovative.

[48:46] They have them on opposite sides

[48:49] 0 of the airport and that's the

[48:51] kind of thing that matters when

[48:53] aircraft are flying in the same

[48:54] piece of sky.

[48:56] We used to say it is a big sky

[48:58] out there, but when everybody is

[48:59] come together the same place to

[49:18] land, it gets small quickly.

[49:21] I'm thankful they're mindful of

[49:25] those kind of conflict points.

[49:27] And then also the memorial

[49:27] dedication.

[49:28] That was great.

[49:30] And one other thing I really

[49:33] enjoyed being a part of, with

[49:35] the bend schools and oregon

[49:37] department of education, I got a

[49:40] chance to go call families.

[49:43] And compliment them for their

[49:46] students really improving their

[49:47] attendance to school.

[49:49] We wrote post cards and called

[49:49] families.

[49:52] And it is just really neat to

[49:54] have families say, oh my

[49:55] goodness why are you calling and

[49:57] then say it is a good thing.

[49:59] And thank you for what they're

[50:01] doing to get your student and

[50:03] learner to the classroom every

[50:05] day because it does matter.

[50:06] That was another great thing to

[50:08] be a part of.

[50:08] Thanks.

[50:09] >> thanks.

[50:12] Yes, I was on the tour with the

[50:14] governor who came and toured a

[50:15] couple of places that we have

[50:17] been working on as council to

[50:22] provide more housing for the

[50:22] community.

[50:26] Good conversations with

[50:27] legislators and talked about

[50:29] expansion in the thick of right

[50:29] now.

[50:30] and how they're trying to

[50:32] provide more housing.

[50:34] We're grateful for the governor

[50:35] and legislators who came to

[50:37] visit in bend.

[50:39] And looking to bend as a leader

[50:41] in this area and hoping to

[50:42] continue the good work across

[50:43] the state to help with the

[50:44] housing crisis.

[50:46] I also attended and spoke

[50:49] briefly at the barry washington

[50:49] memorial dedication.

[50:51] It was great to have the family

[50:54] here and good moment for them to

[50:56] see the realization of the

[50:59] permanent memorial.

[51:01] There's been an informal

[51:03] memorial there since barry was

[51:03] killed.

[51:06] I'm proud this was a process led

[51:08] by the family with the help of

[51:11] community advocates and some of

[51:13] our staff that were very

[51:14] involved, including our mobility

[51:16] department staff and getting

[51:19] this installed in the

[51:19] right-of-way.

[51:21] I want to thank kathy as well at

[51:23] the city for all of her work

[51:24] with the family to make this

[51:25] happen.

[51:27] It was meaningful to them and

[51:29] how many people showed up to the

[51:29] event.

[51:32] I went on the ride along with

[51:33] code enforcement.

[51:34] I recommend everyone do that.

[51:36] It is eye opening on how our

[51:39] code is working and what

[51:41] resources are needed to enforce

[51:42] it and how people are

[51:44] experiencing homelessness on our

[51:45] streets.

[51:47] Unfortunately still in bend.

[51:49] I think I have been continuing

[51:51] to meet weekly on the district

[51:52] mapping advisory committee for

[51:53] the county.

[51:54] We had a meeting today.

[51:56] i advised people to please pay

[51:57] attention to that.

[51:59] We are approaching referring a

[52:01] map to the commissioners by the

[52:02] end of the month.

[52:04] We are meeting weekly but meet

[52:05] in the middle of the day and not

[52:08] seeing a lot of folks give input

[52:10] I think because of the meeting

[52:10] time.

[52:13] If folks have input, please

[52:14] e-mail and let us know.

[52:17] And then finally I'll highlight

[52:20] that mayor pro tem perkins and I

[52:22] got to visit a local small

[52:24] business born and grown here in

[52:27] bend and it was great to talk

[52:29] with the business owner and

[52:30] employees about their business

[52:33] and how they have received

[52:35] assistance through grants and

[52:38] trying to grow and provide a

[52:40] really robust living wage for

[52:40] employees.

[52:42] And we spoke to employees about

[52:43] cost of living and

[52:44] transportation and all the

[52:48] issues that our workforce is

[52:56] seeing here.

[52:56] Is

[52:57] thank you for the reports and

[52:58] we're going to move into the

[52:59] visitors section.

[53:01] This is time for members of the

[53:02] public to offer public comment

[53:03] to the city.

[53:05] We have in person commenters and

[53:07] I think one person online and a

[53:07] couple more here.

[53:10] If you are here to talk about

[53:12] item 5 which is a public

[53:14] hearing, I'm going to set your

[53:15] note aside and we're going to

[53:16] call you then.

[53:18] That includes folks online, if

[53:20] you're signed up for item 5.

[53:25] You will not be called right

[53:26] now.

[53:28] We are going to have folks come

[53:30] up to in person come up to the

[53:31] table, state your name and if

[53:34] you live in the city of bend.

[53:35] You will have two minutes to

[53:36] speak.

[53:38] Ashley is getting the super cool

[53:39] timer up.

[53:41] Make sure you look over, the

[53:43] little light will turn yellow

[53:44] when you have 30 seconds and

[53:46] then I will ask you to wrap up

[53:49] to give everyone time to speak

[53:49] tonight.

[53:51] Please address us as a body and

[53:54] not as individuals.

[53:56] Please no disruptive language

[53:57] that will disrupt the meeting.

[53:59] If you are breaking the rules

[54:00] for public comment, I'll let you

[54:02] know and ask you to stop.

[54:05] If you can't stop, I MAY take

[54:06] away from your time or ask you

[54:08] to leave.

[54:12] Let's start with jim elliott.

[54:42] Come on up.

[54:44] >> hello councillors.

[54:47] I've lived in bend for 23 years.

[54:50] I was here two years ago, I'm

[54:51] sure you remember because I

[54:55] brought this photo of my son.

[54:56] Now, come on.

[54:59] I'm not going to do that again.

[55:02] Adam who was killed on his bike

[55:05] in brooklyn in MAY 1st of 2023.

[55:07] It was two years ago when I

[55:09] appeared before you because I

[55:12] came here to ask you if you keep

[55:15] him in mind and other bikers and

[55:17] pedestrians as you use the

[55:21] transportation bond money.

[55:22] I'm here today to thank you

[55:23] because wow, there's been

[55:25] changes made to the positive

[55:27] that I know it's not easy

[55:29] because motor vehicle drivers

[55:31] I'm sure are saying what are you

[55:33] doing out there with these new

[55:35] bike lanes and changes in the

[55:36] intersections.

[55:37] But it is so important.

[55:40] The other reason I'm here is

[55:42] what jim is going to speak to,

[55:46] the world day of remembrance in

[55:48] which we think about our loved

[55:51] ones and citizens who have been

[55:54] killed on our streets.

[55:59] Jim, go ahead.

[56:01] Thank you.

[56:04] >> I'm a resident of bend.

[56:06] Thank you for the opportunity to

[56:08] speak about the world day of

[56:10] remembrance for road traffic

[56:10] victims.

[56:12] On NOVEMBER 16th people and

[56:13] cities around the globe will

[56:15] pause to remember the nearly

[56:18] 1.2 million people who have lost

[56:20] their lives and nearly 30

[56:23] million people injured due to

[56:27] road traffic crashes in the past

[56:27] year.

[56:29] This terrible toll affects the

[56:31] families and friends of the

[56:32] victims and those that provide

[56:33] the emergency services and care

[56:35] to them.

[56:36] We cannot ignore this

[56:38] unnecessary violence any longer.

[56:39] Bend is not immune.

[56:42] We've had over 600 traffic

[56:44] crashes in the first 10 months

[56:47] of the year.

[56:48] One fatality.

[56:50] In addition, people in the

[56:52] community are mourning loss of

[56:55] the loved ones in other cities.

[56:57] Bend invites the city council

[57:00] and community to join us at

[57:01] 11:00 A.M. On sunday

[57:02] NOVEMBER 16th.

[57:04] Community members will speak

[57:07] about the loved ones they lost

[57:10] and moment of silence and

[57:12] followed by informal ride.

[57:13] Please join us as we remember

[57:18] those who have been affected by

[57:22] road traffic violence and mrenl

[57:23] pledge

[57:27] to continue to keep it safer for

[57:32] the community.

[57:35] We're asking you to modernize

[57:37] the standards so safe choice is

[57:39] easy on every block.

[57:40] Let us continue to build a city

[57:42] that the ability to drive does

[57:45] not determine the ability to

[57:46] live.

[57:47] >> thank you.

[57:50] >> I forgot to say I'm here with

[57:52] families for safe streets,

[57:54] founded 12 years ago in new york

[57:56] city but going nationwide and we

[57:59] have a chapter here.

[58:00] There's another citizen that

[58:02] couldn't be here tonight, she

[58:04] lost her brother in JULY in new

[58:04] york.

[58:09] >> thank you for sharing.

[58:16] Michael baker.

[58:17] >> good evening.

[58:21] I'm a resident of bend for eight

[58:22] days.

[58:25] So -- I'm the brand new -- the

[58:28] honor of being the new ceo for

[58:31] boys and girls club of bend and

[58:32] we're looking forward to getting

[58:34] to know each of you and

[58:36] increasing the services at the

[58:38] boys and girls clubs.

[58:40] I'm thrilled with the board of

[58:42] directors that we have in place

[58:44] and honored to be representing

[58:46] the children that come to our

[58:46] facilities.

[58:48] I will tell you and you'll hear

[58:51] me talk about it on a regular

[58:53] basis and I'll be here on a

[58:55] regular basis, we know the magic

[58:57] number is 105 days.

[59:00] If we can get a child to attend

[59:04] boys and girls club 105 days

[59:06] they're twice as likely to

[59:08] graduate high school on time.

[59:09] We'll do that here in bend as

[59:10] well.

[59:12] Hopefully be able to do that

[59:13] here and recognize the children

[59:15] that this year will have

[59:18] attended 105 days.

[59:21] I'm happy to report that --

[59:22] only being here eight days,

[59:24] pulling the most recent report,

[59:26] we have nearly 50 children

[59:26] -

[59:28] qualifying for that honor.

[59:30] And we would love to present

[59:32] them with their gold membership

[59:33] cards here with the mayor and

[59:34] council.

[59:36] So looking forward to doing

[59:37] that.

[59:39] Again, want to thank each of you

[59:41] for continued support over the

[59:42] years and encourage each of you

[59:45] to come down and take a tour.

[59:48] We are the best kept secret here

[59:49] in bend.

[59:50] Thank you for your support.

[1:00:01] >> thank you for being here.

[1:00:02] >> thank you mayor and members

[1:00:06] of council for letting me speak

[1:00:06] today.

[1:00:10] I am a hair stylist at the salon

[1:00:16] off of colorado avenue.

[1:00:20] With the new development, it

[1:00:22] seems that parking has become

[1:00:24] very limited and I guess a lot

[1:00:27] of our customers are having a

[1:00:31] really hard time parking there.

[1:00:35] It seems that I keep hearing he

[1:00:37] said she said -- I guess I just

[1:00:40] really want to get to the bottom

[1:00:42] if there's a plan, if there's

[1:00:44] going to be a parking structure

[1:00:45] or what not.

[1:00:49] We're all really affected by it.

[1:00:51] I don't know if I can make it

[1:00:52] last for two minutes.

[1:01:01] >> you don't have to.

[1:01:03] >> we can kind of grab you in

[1:01:03] the hall.

[1:01:05] >> there's a private parking lot

[1:01:07] at the box factory.

[1:01:09] That private owner controls but

[1:01:10] also the public streets.

[1:01:12] We've talked about a publicly

[1:01:15] managed parking district for the

[1:01:15] streets.

[1:01:17] David can give you more

[1:01:17] information.

[1:01:19] He's here with the glasses.

[1:01:19] >> okay.

[1:01:23] There we go.

[1:01:27] Thank you.

[1:01:34] >> mike fanning

[1:01:36] >> good evening.

[1:01:38] I'm a resident of bend and I'm

[1:01:40] here to alert you to a real

[1:01:45] problem we have in northeast

[1:01:45] bend with the development that

[1:01:47] you approved as part of the

[1:01:48] master plan.

[1:01:50] In FEBRUARY of 2020.

[1:01:53] Right now thousands of northeast

[1:01:55] bend families do not have a true

[1:01:56] neighborhood center where

[1:01:58] community can gather, shop for

[1:02:00] groceries, dine at restaurants.

[1:02:04] In 2020 you approved the master

[1:02:06] plan presented with a specific

[1:02:09] grocery store anchored

[1:02:09] commercial center.

[1:02:12] You moved the urban growth

[1:02:14] boundary for the plan and

[1:02:16] codified it was a binding

[1:02:17] obligation.

[1:02:18] Access to commercial goods and

[1:02:22] services number one on the list.

[1:02:23] We purchased the homes trusting

[1:02:26] the applicants would develop the

[1:02:27] plan.

[1:02:29] After using the markets to sell

[1:02:31] hundreds of homes and approval

[1:02:32] for the development, the

[1:02:34] applicant sold the land.

[1:02:36] The new owner has indicated his

[1:02:37] vision is completely different

[1:02:38] than what you approved.

[1:02:41] In fact, the new owner wants to

[1:02:43] divide up the 18 acre site that

[1:02:47] was supposed to be the market in

[1:02:48] 17 separate plots sold off

[1:02:49] separately.

[1:02:50] This is not close to the master

[1:02:52] plan you approved.

[1:02:54] Since thousands of people in

[1:02:55] northeast bend need this

[1:02:59] commercial center, the community

[1:03:00] alliance as well as other

[1:03:01] homeowner associations are

[1:03:03] asking you to exercise your

[1:03:04] authority to pause all activity

[1:03:06] on this piece of property which

[1:03:11] includes pausing all permits,

[1:03:14] any further subdivision of the

[1:03:16] land until the master plan

[1:03:18] compliance is adhered to.

[1:03:19] All northeast bend residents

[1:03:23] deserve this community.

[1:03:27] The loss of commercial space

[1:03:28] will rid it the character and

[1:03:30] further the city's goal.

[1:03:33] Part of the property is being

[1:03:34] allocated toward low income

[1:03:35] housing and we talked about this

[1:03:37] earlier in the meeting.

[1:03:39] The master plan you approved can

[1:03:41] still be a reality but only if

[1:03:44] we all act now.

[1:03:54] Thank you.

[1:03:58] >> david green.

[1:04:00] >> good evening mayor and

[1:04:00] councillors.

[1:04:02] I'm a resident of bend and

[1:04:04] representing bend bikes tonight.

[1:04:05] We're asking the city of bend

[1:04:08] and bend parks and recreation

[1:04:10] district to increase the

[1:04:11] coordination about paths through

[1:04:12] bend.

[1:04:14] Park and rec paths have become

[1:04:16] an important part of the low

[1:04:18] stress network for people

[1:04:22] walking, biking and rolling

[1:04:22] >>

[1:04:23] .

[1:04:24] These trails are important

[1:04:25] transportation routes.

[1:04:27] They're some of the most

[1:04:29] pleasant ways and safest ways to

[1:04:32] get across town.

[1:04:33] There's already some really fine

[1:04:35] coordination between the park

[1:04:36] district and city.

[1:04:38] The shared responsibility for

[1:04:40] the river front street is one of

[1:04:41] those examples.

[1:04:42] The existing agreements for

[1:04:47] maintenance of some of the paths

[1:04:48] that is joint park and rec and

[1:04:50] city is another.

[1:04:53] there are real big problems

[1:04:54] also.

[1:04:57] Only e-bikes without a throttle

[1:04:59] are allowed on park district

[1:05:00] trails.

[1:05:02] Differing rules between city and

[1:05:03] park district facilities reduce

[1:05:06] the value of the system.

[1:05:08] For example, the bike share

[1:05:10] bikes are all throttle based and

[1:05:15] not allowed on the park district

[1:05:16] trails.

[1:05:18] Some of the trails also end at

[1:05:19] sidewalks which creates big

[1:05:22] questions about how ebikes can

[1:05:23] use the trails.

[1:05:26] Way finding needs to be

[1:05:28] coordinated, routes that use a

[1:05:30] combination of facilities need

[1:05:32] to be marked so people can

[1:05:36] easily travel the routes across

[1:05:36] town.

[1:05:38] People shouldn't have to

[1:05:39] recognize the difference between

[1:05:42] jurisdictions when they are

[1:05:44] riding on these trails.

[1:05:46] So we think this coordination is

[1:05:48] needed but it is also within

[1:05:49] sight.

[1:05:53] We have made a similar request

[1:05:55] to bprd and will send you a

[1:05:59] letter in the next few days

[1:06:02] asking for this.

[1:06:03] Thanks and please let us know if

[1:06:05] we can help.

[1:06:07] >> thank you, david.

[1:06:22] And craig sheets.

[1:06:24] >> I've gone to every port in

[1:06:27] california, I finished up

[1:06:28] portland, I finished up

[1:06:28] vancouver.

[1:06:30] I have two left and then going

[1:06:32] to the great lakes and you can

[1:06:34] see what we're speaking about

[1:06:35] here, attack on oil.

[1:06:37] That would be to the oceans and

[1:06:39] then devastate to the great

[1:06:40] lakes.

[1:06:45] Everybody back here can see

[1:06:45] that.

[1:06:46] containers come from other

[1:06:47] countries and need to be

[1:06:49] checked, they're not.

[1:06:51] They're checking 3% of 30

[1:06:53] million a month coming into our

[1:06:53] country.

[1:06:55] Here's where bend comes into

[1:06:56] order.

[1:06:58] These trains load up right off

[1:07:03] the ships as you can see.

[1:07:05] Endless trains.

[1:07:06] L.A. Has so many it's not even

[1:07:07] funny.

[1:07:08] You can see it is going through

[1:07:11] the forest along the rivers.

[1:07:18] I know because I rode fright

[1:07:18] eight

[1:07:20] trains for seven years.

[1:07:21] Starting on rivers.

[1:07:25] As I said, the great lakes.

[1:07:29] I will be on my way to the great

[1:07:31] lakes.

[1:07:35] United states has the most

[1:07:36] deceased children from

[1:07:36] narcotics.

[1:07:39] We are the highest rate of

[1:07:42] killing our kids in this country

[1:07:46] from availability of narcotics.

[1:07:48] And meth labs that rotate

[1:07:51] through hills.

[1:07:53] You have some fancy -- you

[1:07:55] never know where it is coming

[1:07:57] from, they rotate and take

[1:07:58] turns.

[1:08:00] Another good place to hide them,

[1:08:03] out on the ocean.

[1:08:07] And they helicopter it back in.

[1:08:09] Appreciates you letting me

[1:08:10] speak.

[1:08:10] >> thank you, craig.

[1:08:13] We have your documents up here.

[1:08:16] >> yep.

[1:08:17] >> thanks.

[1:08:19] And online commenters.

[1:08:21] They're not for item 5?

[1:08:23] >> one is for five.

[1:08:27] >> the one we'll do now is not

[1:09:04] for item 5.

[1:09:05] >> hello?

[1:09:06] >> we can hear you.

[1:09:07] go ahead.

[1:09:10] >> thank you.

[1:09:13] Just a quick note as one who was

[1:09:18] mentioned in the resignation

[1:09:20] letter of -- and as an

[1:09:21] individual, I would like to

[1:09:23] support the city of bend's

[1:09:27] intent to conduct an independent

[1:09:31] review of the circumstances

[1:09:32] -

[1:09:35] leading to his resignation.

[1:09:39] We say we remain committed to a

[1:09:43] fair and objective process

[1:09:45] without undue speculation or

[1:09:46] rumor.

[1:09:48] However, I'm seeing in

[1:09:50] reporting, comments from city

[1:09:52] hall that seem to be underlining

[1:09:55] the spirit of this commitment.

[1:09:58] So, just very quickly in

[1:10:04] reporting on opb, he's thanked

[1:10:07] by eric king for his long list

[1:10:11] of accomplishments for over two

[1:10:11] years.

[1:10:15] His supervisor says he has made

[1:10:18] us a better organization and

[1:10:19] will be missed.

[1:10:22] The chair of human rights and

[1:10:30] equity commission has called his

[1:10:30] resignation a big disappointment

[1:10:36] and she described him as such an

[1:10:41] integral part of life in the

[1:10:41] city.

[1:10:43] Councillor franzosa said I'm

[1:10:47] really concerned the departure

[1:10:51] will be leaving us -- not

[1:10:53] leaving us well positioned to

[1:10:55] meet the council goals on

[1:10:56] equity.

[1:10:58] Surprisingly enough in other

[1:11:01] reporting, we hear comments from

[1:11:06] city hall such as demonstrates

[1:11:11] inconsistent statements,

[1:11:11] behavior and actions.

[1:11:15] Just to sum up, I do hope this

[1:11:17] review process goes through

[1:11:18] giving everyone a chance to

[1:11:20] speak freely without retaliation

[1:11:22] and address facts.

[1:11:30] And not speculation.

[1:11:32] >> thank you foster.

[1:11:32] Okay.

[1:11:35] That's it for the visitors

[1:11:35] section.

[1:11:37] That will move to item four.

[1:11:39] Consent agenda.

[1:11:41] Did you want to pull something

[1:11:42] in.

[1:11:45] >> I wanted to pull item b.

[1:11:47] >> the 15th and ferguson

[1:11:48] roundabout project.

[1:11:50] Is there a motion to approve.

[1:11:52] >> I move to approve without

[1:11:55] item b.

[1:11:56] >> second.

[1:11:58] >> all in favor?

[1:12:00] All right.

[1:12:01] Item b, council riley.

[1:12:04] >> I was just basically have a

[1:12:05] question I hope someone can

[1:12:06] answer.

[1:12:07] I think it's important the

[1:12:08] community hears it.

[1:12:10] We've had questions about the

[1:12:12] ferguson and 15th roundabout.

[1:12:14] And I just wanted to make the

[1:12:15] point that I believe there's

[1:12:19] going to be an opportunity for

[1:12:20] public engagement in 30% design.

[1:12:22] If you could speak to that

[1:12:23] quickly.

[1:12:25] I just wanted to make sure it is

[1:12:27] out there and people know

[1:12:28] roughly when ryan.

[1:12:30] >> there we go.

[1:12:36] So, thank you for the question.

[1:12:40] So, the amendment tonight is to

[1:12:41] progress beyond the 30% design,

[1:12:42] the final design.

[1:12:46] No, it is full design.

[1:12:48] We haven't started yet.

[1:12:50] We'll follow our standard

[1:12:51] outreach process and come out

[1:12:53] around the 30% with design

[1:12:55] alternatives and then probably

[1:12:59] more follow-up.

[1:13:02] We're talking to the hoa board

[1:13:04] now, but there will be plenty of

[1:13:05] comment period times.

[1:13:07] >> and an open house.

[1:13:08] >> standard open house process

[1:13:08] for the community.

[1:13:09] All that.

[1:13:12] >> I bring it up, it has been a

[1:13:15] big concern for the two

[1:13:17] neighborhood districts down

[1:13:17] there.

[1:13:19] We got a question and input on

[1:13:21] the design recently and kind of

[1:13:23] the implication that I read into

[1:13:25] it, we have to do it, it is too

[1:13:26] late.

[1:13:28] I want people to know --

[1:13:29] >> haven't even started yet.

[1:13:33] >> it is really important for

[1:13:35] them associated with this and

[1:13:37] I'm glad we're moving forward

[1:13:39] with it quicker than originally.

[1:13:45] With that, I move we authority

[1:13:45] ze

[1:14:08] the contract for the project.

[1:14:08] >> second.

[1:14:12] >> moved and seconded.

[1:14:15] All those in favor?

[1:14:15] All right.

[1:14:17] Thank you.

[1:14:17] Okay.

[1:14:18] That will move us to item 5

[1:14:23] which is a public hearing.

[1:14:24] Oh, yes.

[1:14:25] These are my item number five

[1:14:26] people.

[1:14:28] I'm going to open the public

[1:14:30] hearing and we will start with

[1:14:31] councillor norris.

[1:14:35] >> I need to declare a potential

[1:14:39] conflict out of abundance of

[1:14:39] caution.

[1:14:43] I am permitted to participate in

[1:14:45] the deliberation and vote on the

[1:14:45] item.

[1:14:46] >> great.

[1:14:48] We will start with our staff

[1:15:05] presentation when they're ready.

[1:15:06] >> good evening, council.

[1:15:10] Pauline hardie with the planning

[1:15:11] department and the principle

[1:15:13] planner with the planning

[1:15:14] department is with me.

[1:15:16] We're here to give you an update

[1:15:18] on the proposed amendments and

[1:15:19] can answer any questions you

[1:15:24] have following our presentation.

[1:15:26] So, over the past couple of

[1:15:27] years, staff has been working on

[1:15:29] identifying areas for

[1:15:31] improvements to the bend

[1:15:33] development code to update

[1:15:35] various standards and processes

[1:15:38] to align with city practices and

[1:15:39] state law.

[1:15:41] The amendments include several

[1:15:43] simple ones for clarification.

[1:15:44] Going through the code, you

[1:15:48] probably saw a lot of

[1:15:53] corrections to ambiguities and

[1:15:53] conflicts.

[1:15:55] There were code updates that

[1:15:57] addressed modernization, looking

[1:16:00] at the rear setbacks for the low

[1:16:03] density residential districts

[1:16:05] and new bicycle parking options

[1:16:08] and various design standards

[1:16:09] throughout the code.

[1:16:14] Process improvements include

[1:16:16] updates to procedures, deschutes

[1:16:19] design review, noticing

[1:16:20] requirements, duration of

[1:16:22] approvals and extensions and

[1:16:27] modifications of approval.

[1:16:28] For the modifications of

[1:16:30] approval, one of the amendments

[1:16:37] includes creating a new process

[1:16:39] for determine

[1:16:41] ing similar use or

[1:16:42] change of condition of approval.

[1:16:43] We have used that throughout the

[1:16:45] years and now we have a process

[1:16:47] we can use.

[1:16:49] An example would be back in the

[1:16:51] day when we required parking for

[1:16:53] accessory units and the state

[1:16:54] changed the law they can go

[1:16:57] through the process now and

[1:16:58] amend conditional of approval.

[1:17:01] We received a phone call today

[1:17:03] about legal lot of record

[1:17:03] determinations.

[1:17:05] We codified our process and

[1:17:06] there might be an additional

[1:17:08] process we want to look into.

[1:17:10] We didn't have time today but

[1:17:12] can bring it back if necessary.

[1:17:16] We are creating a new minor

[1:17:18] process, simple type one process

[1:17:19] to help a lot of projects.

[1:17:24] We are proposing to clearly

[1:17:29] identify the process, type cc,

[1:17:31] cc for city council.

[1:17:32] An example of this which we

[1:17:34] already do, the major master

[1:17:35] plan process.

[1:17:36] They go through the planning

[1:17:37] commission, they hold a public

[1:17:40] hearing and makes a

[1:17:41] recommendation to the city

[1:17:43] council and they are the final

[1:17:45] decision maker.

[1:17:46] The code is the type three cc.

[1:17:53] We are replacing our declaratory

[1:17:56] ruling chapter with 4.10.

[1:17:58] Three of the interpretations and

[1:17:59] determinations are remaining the

[1:17:59] same.

[1:18:03] We are adding a new one for

[1:18:04] determination of similar land

[1:18:04] use.

[1:18:06] In the development code above

[1:18:12] every use table says please see

[1:18:13] 4.1.1400 to do a determination

[1:18:14] of similar land use.

[1:18:16] There was never a process in the

[1:18:18] code, we're creating the process

[1:18:19] and identifying the different

[1:18:21] processes depending on the

[1:18:22] request.

[1:18:26] If they are site specific, and

[1:18:29] if they affect city wide

[1:18:30] regulations, we create a

[1:18:31] legislative process.

[1:18:34] A lot of clean up for

[1:18:36] interpretations and

[1:18:36] determination.

[1:18:39] As with a lot of code updates

[1:18:40] lately, we make sure we're

[1:18:43] consistent with the oregon

[1:18:44] statutes and administrative

[1:18:46] rules.

[1:18:49] The proposed amendments to

[1:18:50] implement the 25-27 goals.

[1:18:52] the first being the housing goal

[1:18:54] that states to develop and

[1:18:56] implement strategies to meet

[1:19:00] community housing needs and

[1:19:04] reduce homelessness.

[1:19:07] The action is to adopt the code

[1:19:11] and processes improvements that

[1:19:14] remove barriers and speed up

[1:19:16] medium housing and affordable

[1:19:19] housing and the proposed

[1:19:21] standards updates several

[1:19:21] processes.

[1:19:23] The first one is providing

[1:19:25] additional time extensions to

[1:19:27] site plan review and land

[1:19:29] revision applications.

[1:19:31] Today site plan review

[1:19:33] applications are good for two

[1:19:33] years.

[1:19:35] This will add an extension to

[1:19:37] single phase and extension to

[1:19:39] the first and last phase of site

[1:19:41] plan applications.

[1:19:45] This proposed amendment adds

[1:19:49] extensions to phased land dwogz

[1:19:50] application

[1:19:51] division applications.

[1:19:53] The benefit of adding the

[1:19:55] extensions gives larger projects

[1:19:59] like subdivisions or large

[1:20:00] apartment complex building an

[1:20:03] extra year to two years to get

[1:20:05] the development completed.

[1:20:07] The amendments stream line

[1:20:08] review processes by better

[1:20:10] organizing standards and

[1:20:10] procedures.

[1:20:12] When an applicant has to --

[1:20:15] submit a narrative, they're not

[1:20:16] going through all these

[1:20:19] different chapters where several

[1:20:19] requirements live.

[1:20:21] It will be better organized and

[1:20:22] more timely for the applicant

[1:20:23] and staff.

[1:20:26] The amendments stream line a

[1:20:28] review process for expansion of

[1:20:32] existing multi family

[1:20:32] developments.

[1:20:35] Today it has to go through a

[1:20:37] full site plan review

[1:20:37] application.

[1:20:39] We've had where all they want to

[1:20:42] do is add one to two, maybe

[1:20:43] three units and instead of

[1:20:45] having to go through a full

[1:20:46] process, the recommendation

[1:20:48] would be they would just go

[1:20:50] through the type one process.

[1:20:53] The updates also reduce severe

[1:20:56] set back in the low density

[1:20:59] residential district.

[1:21:02] Today is 20 feet and down to 10

[1:21:02] feet.

[1:21:10] This will allow more room.

[1:21:15] This just allows more usable

[1:21:15] space.

[1:21:18] The amendments also implemented

[1:21:21] transportation and

[1:21:21] infrastructure goal with the

[1:21:23] action to update transportation

[1:21:25] design standards and

[1:21:28] specification for all users

[1:21:30] aiming for zero fatalities.

[1:21:33] After looking at a lot of other

[1:21:35] codes, realizing our bicycle

[1:21:36] parking chapter was pretty

[1:21:39] outdated.

[1:21:41] We updated it to include secure

[1:21:43] and convenient bicycle parking

[1:21:45] with short term and long-term

[1:21:47] bicycle parking requirements.

[1:21:48] We didn't go through and

[1:21:50] increase bicycle parking numbers

[1:21:52] or spots required, we just

[1:21:53] identified requirements for

[1:21:56] short term, which means it is

[1:21:58] going to provide parking for

[1:21:59] customers or people there two

[1:22:00] hours or less.

[1:22:02] And then we identified parking

[1:22:04] requirements for long-term, for

[1:22:06] residents or employees that plan

[1:22:13] to stay for over two hours.

[1:22:14] In addition, we added additional

[1:22:17] options to meet the parking

[1:22:18] requirements.

[1:22:21] We already allowed u-racks but

[1:22:23] the proposed code amendments

[1:22:27] would allow vertical wall

[1:22:30] mounted racks and for oversized

[1:22:42] bicycle parking like cargo

[1:22:44] bikes.

[1:22:45] Planning commission

[1:22:45] recommendations.

[1:22:49] We have two commissioners here

[1:22:52] with us tonight.

[1:22:53] And they held their public

[1:22:56] hearing and voted 7-0 to

[1:22:59] recommend approval of the

[1:22:59] amendments.

[1:23:01] They did have some discussion

[1:23:03] and as parts of your package of

[1:23:06] amendments, it includes an

[1:23:07] amendment to simplify the design

[1:23:11] requirements for exterior

[1:23:11] buildings.

[1:23:15] At staff's request, they added

[1:23:18] an amendment for easy reference

[1:23:21] in the tables.

[1:23:22] Just want to make sure the

[1:23:24] public knows that they go to the

[1:23:26] commercial tables, there is this

[1:23:30] option to convert to residential

[1:23:30] uses.

[1:23:35] The bend central district, this

[1:23:36] was a group effort almost.

[1:23:39] I worked with the core area

[1:23:41] advisory board and planning

[1:23:43] commission on amendments to help

[1:23:46] buildings who just want to redo

[1:23:48] the facades.

[1:23:49] Simplify the process.

[1:23:51] And there was definitely support

[1:23:54] from the planning commission as

[1:23:56] well as the core area advisory

[1:23:57] board but interest in making

[1:24:00] sure if they were to redo the

[1:24:02] front facades, there is still

[1:24:05] windows or transparency or

[1:24:06] glazing maintained.

[1:24:07] We still want a walkable

[1:24:08] environment.

[1:24:09] The planning commission's

[1:24:11] recommendation is included in

[1:24:14] your packet, that if they're

[1:24:18] going to go through the simple

[1:24:20] process, meet the minimum

[1:24:27] requirements of the central bend

[1:24:27] district.

[1:24:31] i asked the planning commission

[1:24:34] to fix something very

[1:24:34] repetitive.

[1:24:36] During the public comment period

[1:24:37] as well as at the planning

[1:24:39] commission public hearing, we

[1:24:42] did hear from bend park and

[1:24:43] recreation district about a

[1:24:46] request to stream line the

[1:24:50] review process to the special

[1:24:52] interest overlay zone.

[1:24:54] The request is to simplify the

[1:24:55] process for fuel reduction and

[1:24:58] forest health in this area.

[1:25:00] The request is similar to the

[1:25:06] proposed amendments in your

[1:25:09] packets, the deschutes waterway

[1:25:11] overlay district for tree

[1:25:12] removal and we heard from bend

[1:25:15] park and recreation district and

[1:25:17] homeowners association.

[1:25:19] So the bend park and recreation

[1:25:22] district is simply asking we

[1:25:24] have the same review process as

[1:25:27] we are on the water way overlay

[1:25:28] zone.

[1:25:30] Through this process, I have

[1:25:33] learned different definitions,

[1:25:36] one being fuel break versus fire

[1:25:37] break.

[1:25:39] So staff is recommending adding

[1:25:43] a type one amendment for the asi

[1:25:47] as well as definition for fuel

[1:25:47] break.

[1:25:51] A fire break is -- I worked

[1:25:53] with the fire marshal object

[1:25:53] this.

[1:25:56] A fire break cuts everything

[1:25:56] down.

[1:25:59] A fuel break helps to prevent

[1:26:02] fires from spreading and this is

[1:26:03] the process the fuel break, what

[1:26:06] they have been using.

[1:26:09] They recommend that we have a

[1:26:11] definition for fuel break and

[1:26:14] also amend the code in the area

[1:26:17] instead of using the term fire

[1:26:19] break, use fuel break.

[1:26:21] And then the additional

[1:26:23] amendments would be to the asi,

[1:26:27] areas of special interest in

[1:26:28] section 2.2.700.

[1:26:31] I guess I'll go through them

[1:26:32] real fast.

[1:26:35] Basically saying the weeds are

[1:26:37] exempt and they can remove them.

[1:26:39] If they want to remove trees,

[1:26:45] the type one review process and

[1:26:48] then prohibit removal of

[1:26:51] vegetation that is protected.

[1:26:54] We did receive a comment as well

[1:26:57] entered into public record from

[1:27:00] the central oregon irrigation

[1:27:01] district.

[1:27:03] They requested that we take it a

[1:27:06] step further and not have a

[1:27:06] review process.

[1:27:08] Staff is recommending that we

[1:27:10] still move forward with the type

[1:27:11] one review process.

[1:27:13] In my work program, I'm going to

[1:27:15] be coming back with a major

[1:27:18] clean up to the waterway overlay

[1:27:18] district.

[1:27:20] At that time, we can look at

[1:27:22] different processes.

[1:27:24] But for this code amendment just

[1:27:41] proposing the type one review

[1:27:41] process.

[1:27:43] I want to give background on

[1:27:45] proposed amendments for council.

[1:27:47] When is the definition of open

[1:27:48] space in the bend development

[1:27:50] code reading it is any property

[1:27:52] or area of land or water set

[1:27:55] aside designed or reserved for

[1:27:56] public or private use for the

[1:28:02] purpose of providing recreation.

[1:28:04] Our definition for open space

[1:28:08] does address and allow public or

[1:28:09] private use.

[1:28:11] The development code master

[1:28:15] plans adopted in 2017 has a

[1:28:17] requirement since then that all

[1:28:19] community master plans provide

[1:28:22] minimum of 10% of gross area as

[1:28:23] public or private open space.

[1:28:26] And it gives examples such as

[1:28:29] parks, squares or plazas, multi

[1:28:30] use paths.

[1:28:34] they have to be at least 20 feet

[1:28:34] wide.

[1:28:37] Tree preservation areas and

[1:28:40] included public or private

[1:28:42] recreational facilities.

[1:28:45] Just to give you an idea

[1:28:45] >>

[1:28:47] , on

[1:28:49] the master plan we've had 14

[1:28:50] master plans under development

[1:28:52] and looking at the master plans,

[1:28:54] we have gotten a variety of

[1:28:57] parks and variety of homeowner

[1:28:59] association community centers

[1:29:00] and pools.

[1:29:04] And lots of open space tracks.

[1:29:06] Lots of trails.

[1:29:07] Protected areas of special

[1:29:14] interest as well as urban plaza.

[1:29:17] In 2022, I did a site visit to a

[1:29:18] master plan area.

[1:29:21] It is a fenced in drainage

[1:29:21] basin.

[1:29:23] I wanted to make sure when we

[1:29:27] say you have to provide 10% open

[1:29:28] space public or private, that it

[1:29:31] couldn't just be a fenced in

[1:29:32] drainage base.

[1:29:34] I proposed an amendment to the

[1:29:37] planning commission, city

[1:29:40] council in 2022 trying to get

[1:29:49] across that that does not count.

[1:29:51] I went back and listened to the

[1:29:53] minutes for the planning

[1:29:54] commission work session back in

[1:29:54] 2022.

[1:29:57] From the minutes, it does state

[1:29:59] that commissioner payne asked

[1:30:01] about master plan open spaces

[1:30:03] and I clarified it can be public

[1:30:04] or private but must be useful.

[1:30:06] The whole intent of the usable

[1:30:08] open space is used by the people

[1:30:10] who live there or the communty

[1:30:11] or both.

[1:30:14] And then in 2022 in the planning

[1:30:16] commission held their public

[1:30:17] hearing, I again clarified the

[1:30:21] open space needs to be public

[1:30:23] and usable or open to the master

[1:30:24] plan area.

[1:30:26] Like a community pool.

[1:30:27] The city council in 2023 had the

[1:30:29] public hearing and I wanted to

[1:30:31] make it clear it was open to the

[1:30:33] public and the reason behind

[1:30:35] this, we don't want to see a

[1:30:38] fenced off drainage basin not

[1:30:39] available to anybody.

[1:30:42] In this master plan there are

[1:30:45] plenty usable to the public with

[1:30:47] easements on it and several

[1:30:48] multi use trails.

[1:30:49] So, they were fine.

[1:30:51] I just when I saw it, I wanted

[1:30:53] to make sure it is not counted

[1:30:54] as open space.

[1:30:57] The public was intended to mean

[1:30:58] it is usable by people.

[1:31:00] The proposed amendments are not

[1:31:02] to change the status quo of what

[1:31:05] we have been doing since 2017,

[1:31:09] it is just to clarify.

[1:31:11] If there is interest in

[1:31:12] providing even more clarity

[1:31:14] about the fenced in areas, the

[1:31:16] mayor suggested a potential

[1:31:18] amendment for the council to

[1:31:20] consider up on the screen to

[1:31:22] clarify any public or private

[1:31:24] open space must not be fenced

[1:31:27] off unless related to a park or

[1:31:30] public or private recreation

[1:31:31] facility included to tennis

[1:31:34] courts, driving ranges and ball

[1:31:35] fields.

[1:31:37] We have always allowed the

[1:31:40] private facilities but this

[1:31:42] clarifies they can't be fenced

[1:31:46] off like drainage basins.

[1:31:47] The public process so far has

[1:31:49] included a planning commission

[1:31:52] work session on SEPTEMBER 8th.

[1:31:53] Planning commission held a

[1:31:54] public hearing.

[1:31:57] We have two commissioners here

[1:31:57] on SEPTEMBER 22nd.

[1:31:59] Tonight is before the city

[1:32:02] council with the first reading

[1:32:04] and if we move forward, the

[1:32:05] second reading would be

[1:32:08] NOVEMBER 19th with effective

[1:32:10] date of DECEMBER 19th.

[1:32:13] So, amy and I are here to answer

[1:32:14] questions you MAY have.

[1:32:18] Make sure I didn't forget

[1:32:18] anything.

[1:32:18] Yes.

[1:32:21] >> thank you pauline, very

[1:32:21] thorough.

[1:32:23] There were amendments that came

[1:32:26] in from the comments from

[1:32:26] planning commission.

[1:32:29] Do you have amended motion for

[1:32:31] us to include all of things you

[1:32:32] have put on the screen.

[1:32:32] >> I do.

[1:32:41] >> questions

[1:32:43] >> councilor amendez.

[1:32:46] >> bicycle parking short and

[1:32:47] long-term.

[1:32:51] Difference between the rack.

[1:32:53] Inverted u shape racks are gold

[1:32:53] standard.

[1:32:54] Easy to use.

[1:32:56] You can walk up and they are

[1:32:57] done.

[1:32:59] For long-term we require minimum

[1:33:01] of 25% and for short term

[1:33:05] parking we require minimum of

[1:33:07] 50%.

[1:33:09] Is that different?

[1:33:11] Why not 50%?

[1:33:18] >> let me get to that page.

[1:33:23] >> it is page 68.

[1:33:24] >> long-term they have

[1:33:30] requirement of 25% minimum.

[1:33:34] Also provides additional

[1:33:34] options.

[1:33:42] I think when we went through and

[1:33:43] I am trying to think of the

[1:33:45] table.

[1:33:47] We tried not to require more

[1:33:48] than today.

[1:33:50] Because minimums they can

[1:33:51] provide more.

[1:33:53] What we see a lot in

[1:33:55] applications and we added

[1:33:55] flexibility.

[1:33:56] Walkable areas.

[1:34:01] a lot of apartment complexes

[1:34:02] have indoor walkable for bicycle

[1:34:06] parking and also have boxes and

[1:34:07] the vertical racks.

[1:34:09] They can provide minimums.

[1:34:12] I am not sure if that is getting

[1:34:16] to your question about the 25

[1:34:16] versus

[1:34:21] 25versus 50.

[1:34:24] >> we have more e-bikes and

[1:34:24] heavier.

[1:34:26] For some people who are maybe

[1:34:29] not quite as able bodied to lift

[1:34:32] one up to the wall, it seems

[1:34:35] like an opportunity to make sure

[1:34:38] we have ample accessible parking

[1:34:40] not rely on maybe easier to

[1:34:44] provide from developer

[1:34:47] perspective less usable for

[1:34:52] residents, I guess.

[1:34:54] >> it sounds like we are trying

[1:34:56] to be consistent with what we

[1:34:57] required before.

[1:35:02] Maybe you can say more about

[1:35:02] that.

[1:35:03] >> trying to think.

[1:35:05] I don't have it in front of me.

[1:35:23] Maybe I do.

[1:35:27] I kind of think the old code

[1:35:33] only allowed u racks.

[1:35:36] The current code we have some

[1:35:44] options for long-term parking.

[1:35:45] Bicycle storage.

[1:35:48] Can be provided in bicycle

[1:35:55] storage room, lockers, racks

[1:35:56] secure storage inside or outside

[1:35:57] knowledge.

[1:36:03] At ground level unless ramp.

[1:36:05] Minimum depth and width six feet

[1:36:08] easily accessible approved.

[1:36:13] Space within dwelling units or

[1:36:18] porches are not counted towards

[1:36:19] satisfies requirements.

[1:36:21] >> 25% should be increased to 50

[1:36:26] to have more u racks versus the

[1:36:27] wall?

[1:36:29] >> imagine people riding

[1:36:31] bicycles.

[1:36:34] Seems strange different standard

[1:36:35] for short and long-term.

[1:36:36] people use both.

[1:36:40] I recognize these a

[1:36:43] these amendments are

[1:36:44] policy neutral.

[1:36:47] It is something that caught my

[1:36:48] attention.

[1:36:52] I wanted to see if there was

[1:36:53] explanation.

[1:36:56] >> I found the rest of it.

[1:36:56] Our current code said except for

[1:36:57] residential uses.

[1:37:00] That is where we get the storage

[1:37:01] rooms more often.

[1:37:09] Minimum of 75 required bicycle

[1:37:12] parking must be u style racks

[1:37:18] outside the building.

[1:37:21] 75% minimum outside u rack

[1:37:24] easily accessible to everybody.

[1:37:26] >> no proposal to change that?

[1:37:30] >> that is down to 50 short term

[1:37:34] plus 25% long-term still gets

[1:37:35] 75% u racks.

[1:37:38] Breaking it out for short term

[1:37:40] and long term bicycle racks.

[1:37:43] Another example like a hotel

[1:37:44] would want to put all bicycle

[1:37:49] parking inside and none outside.

[1:37:52] In the code nothing to say u

[1:37:55] racks outside available to

[1:37:55] public.

[1:37:56] Maybe restaurant or friends

[1:37:58] stopping by for less than two

[1:37:59] hours.

[1:38:02] 50% and 25% is what we did.

[1:38:09] What we also did is if they are

[1:38:11] located because it is an or.

[1:38:15] The long-term can be 25% u

[1:38:16] racks.

[1:38:18] Located in lockable area with

[1:38:20] racks complying with spacing

[1:38:20] standards.

[1:38:23] Can also include wall racks.

[1:38:25] 5% of those if there is more

[1:38:29] than 20 for oversized bicycle

[1:38:29] parking.

[1:38:30] Those are also u racks.

[1:38:34] >> we end up with fewer minimum

[1:38:37] required inverted u is that

[1:38:37] right?

[1:38:39] >> no short term, I believe, is

[1:38:40] 50%.

[1:38:47] We can bump up the long-term as

[1:38:47] well.

[1:38:50] >> we are talking about

[1:38:51] minimums.

[1:38:52] Other questions on any of the

[1:38:54] code changes?

[1:38:56] >> I have questions about the

[1:39:03] fuel reduction.

[1:39:03] Switching employees.

[1:39:06] I am glad to see the change from

[1:39:07] fire break to fuel break.

[1:39:09] That makes a lot of sense.

[1:39:12] I do want to have a discussion

[1:39:13] here about the appropriateness

[1:39:17] of having fuel reduction as land

[1:39:21] use process of any type.

[1:39:25] It is not a new land development

[1:39:28] or land use, right?

[1:39:33] >> I will ask for collin or

[1:39:37] renee to help.

[1:39:39] >> it is not new development,

[1:39:39] right?

[1:39:45] Or new land use.

[1:39:47] It's a wildfire risk mitigation

[1:39:52] kind of activity, right?

[1:39:54] >> correct.

[1:39:56] >> so how did it end up in

[1:39:57] development code going before

[1:40:01] planning department anyway?

[1:40:02] Why isn't it?

[1:40:06] It seems like it is fire

[1:40:07] department.

[1:40:10] >> tree preservation has been

[1:40:12] decided that resides in the

[1:40:13] development code.

[1:40:16] We have the staffing,

[1:40:18] infrastructure ability to

[1:40:19] regulate through our development

[1:40:21] code trees whether associated

[1:40:24] with development or not.

[1:40:27] With the work that we did and

[1:40:29] adoption of new tree

[1:40:31] preservation code is good

[1:40:31] example.

[1:40:33] Still preservation requirement

[1:40:35] for existing properties one acre

[1:40:36] or larger.

[1:40:38] Whether or not they have

[1:40:39] development proposal or not they

[1:40:42] have to preserve trees, can't

[1:40:42] cut them down.

[1:40:45] The laws would come into play

[1:40:46] here.

[1:40:49] If you have tree regulation, we

[1:40:51] need to have permitting system.

[1:40:54] If we didn't require some form

[1:40:58] of review there wouldn't be

[1:40:58] ability to decide whether or not

[1:41:03] they were doing either fire

[1:41:05] mitigation or clear-cutting.

[1:41:07] We would say, well, we have to

[1:41:09] excuse property from all tree

[1:41:10] regulations because we would

[1:41:12] have to do some form of review

[1:41:14] to see if they were just doing

[1:41:16] fire mitigation or something

[1:41:17] beyond fire mitigation.

[1:41:20] We would have to have standards

[1:41:22] applying to it and review to

[1:41:23] understand if they were

[1:41:24] complying with those.

[1:41:30] That is a permit.

[1:41:32] >> the application is probably

[1:41:35] accompanied by letter from

[1:41:40] probably fire department, right?

[1:41:42] >> the fire marshal's office.

[1:41:45] >> creation of fuel breaks and

[1:41:50] association with fire prevention

[1:41:50] authorities.

[1:41:52] Necessary to mitigate fire

[1:41:56] hazards and last is qualified

[1:41:58] professional if deceased

[1:42:06] if diseased or

[1:42:06] hazardous.

[1:42:14] >> we have urban forester.

[1:42:17] >> we have code that requires

[1:42:19] people to remove excess fuel

[1:42:22] from property.

[1:42:24] They have to come and get

[1:42:24] permit.

[1:42:26] How long does it take to get

[1:42:28] through type one land use

[1:42:29] process?

[1:42:31] >> this is only in waterway

[1:42:32] overlay zone.

[1:42:35] I don't know why I am having

[1:42:37] hard time with that.

[1:42:41] Special interest protected

[1:42:41] areas.

[1:42:42] >> how long does the process

[1:42:43] take?

[1:42:47] >> type one is typically 30-day

[1:42:48] 30-days.

[1:42:51] >> decision is issued in 30-day

[1:42:53] 30-days?

[1:42:54] >> yes.

[1:42:54] >> okay.

[1:42:58] I didn't think that was intent

[1:43:03] of urban forester to review the

[1:43:06] mitigation by landowners doing

[1:43:07] responsible thing.

[1:43:08] >> as pauline said in the river

[1:43:10] corridor and areas of special

[1:43:11] interest.

[1:43:14] These are areas that have been

[1:43:16] deliberately set aside.

[1:43:18] Something that needs higher

[1:43:19] level of review.

[1:43:23] >> just clarifying if someone is

[1:43:25] talking about own your zone.

[1:43:27] Not going to trigger this

[1:43:30] process unless they live in

[1:43:32] water lay overlay zone will not

[1:43:34] trigger this process?

[1:43:35] >> right.

[1:43:37] >> thanks for the questions.

[1:43:39] Any other questions from council

[1:43:43] before we do public testimony?

[1:43:46] >> I have one or two.

[1:43:53] I am curious and this is

[1:43:54] super-techy.

[1:43:59] I am curious about the why all

[1:44:00] overhead doors must be less than

[1:44:04] 8 feet wide except when they are

[1:44:05] garages?

[1:44:07] What is the point of that?

[1:44:09] >> I should have had the slide

[1:44:10] in here.

[1:44:12] We received applications where

[1:44:17] it looks and acts like garage,

[1:44:19] they don't have driveway and no

[1:44:20] second access.

[1:44:24] They say not a garage.

[1:44:25] It fits vehicles.

[1:44:27] >> this is a residential house.

[1:44:30] They are building an accessory

[1:44:33] dwelling unit on first floor two

[1:44:34] roll up garage doors.

[1:44:35] Saying not a garage.

[1:44:37] we have nothing in the code to

[1:44:39] say that is a garage.

[1:44:42] We are providing clarity on roll

[1:44:45] up doors 8 feet or wider, get

[1:44:47] car in there it is garage.

[1:44:50] That helps us when they are only

[1:44:56] allowed one access.

[1:44:57] We know there will be illegal

[1:44:59] access with the garage.

[1:45:01] If they put in the garage they

[1:45:01] won't have access.

[1:45:03] We can address it then.

[1:45:05] There is a lot of those roll up

[1:45:08] doors where they are just

[1:45:10] entrances into the living space

[1:45:13] and less than 8 feet wide.

[1:45:15] We know those are not going to

[1:45:17] be parking vehicles.

[1:45:18] We needed something in the code

[1:45:20] to clarify what is garage door

[1:45:22] and what is not garage door.

[1:45:25] I had a great picture but it is

[1:45:27] not in the powerpoint.

[1:45:30] >> what about 2.3.500

[1:45:33] architectural standards?

[1:45:34] I read this today.

[1:45:37] It is foggy now, I have to

[1:45:37] admit.

[1:45:39] I was curious about the why

[1:45:41] behind that one again.

[1:45:43] What is the point of this?

[1:45:47] What is driving this?

[1:45:50] On page 2 of the summary where

[1:45:56] it is talked about.

[1:46:00] Establishing design standards

[1:46:04] prior design starts for

[1:46:06] triplexes and quadplexes and

[1:46:10] architectural review standards.

[1:46:13] >> this one is the architectural

[1:46:16] review standards are ground

[1:46:18] floor level windows.

[1:46:21] Easy to do on commercial

[1:46:21] buildings.

[1:46:24] All middle housing was in

[1:46:26] commercial design standards.

[1:46:32] We have window designs in mixed

[1:46:32] use.

[1:46:35] It is allowed duplex and triplex

[1:46:36] and quad.

[1:46:41] You would go to design standards

[1:46:44] for duplex and triplexes and

[1:46:44] quads.

[1:46:51] >> it applies to these types of

[1:46:51] developments?

[1:46:51] >> yes, it doesn't change

[1:46:52] anything.

[1:46:56] We don't want commercial design

[1:47:00] standards to apply.

[1:47:02] >> just regarding open space.

[1:47:05] I am not incline to disagree

[1:47:06] with your recommendations.

[1:47:09] Curious because as I read it, it

[1:47:11] seems that it is up to the

[1:47:14] developer if they want to meet

[1:47:14] open space requirement with

[1:47:17] public open space or private

[1:47:18] open space.

[1:47:21] I guess what are the safe guards

[1:47:22] the community has?

[1:47:24] We are not really allowing gated

[1:47:26] communities any more.

[1:47:28] >> those are not allowed.

[1:47:30] >> private roads not allowed.

[1:47:33] What are requirements?

[1:47:36] How is park space designated in

[1:47:39] master plan, how is connectivity

[1:47:42] through trails or easements that

[1:47:44] have connectivity?

[1:47:47] >> there are two-parts of that.

[1:47:54] One code amendment is 3.4500

[1:47:56] park search areas.

[1:48:00] Anything over 10 acres to this

[1:48:01] particular section.

[1:48:03] If they have a park that is

[1:48:05] identified on the bend park and

[1:48:07] recreation district park search

[1:48:10] area map, they are required to

[1:48:11] enter into discussions with the

[1:48:12] park district.

[1:48:14] If there is not identified need

[1:48:16] for park in the area they don't

[1:48:18] have to enter into those

[1:48:22] negotiations or discussions.

[1:48:24] Second one we have open space

[1:48:29] area in 4.5 for master plans.

[1:48:31] Whole other section for

[1:48:33] connectivity requiring

[1:48:36] connectivity through master plan

[1:48:36] area.

[1:48:38] You are guaranteed connectivity.

[1:48:40] if park search area they are

[1:48:41] required to meet with park

[1:48:42] district.

[1:48:44] If there isn't they can propose.

[1:48:46] In this one in particular it is

[1:48:50] open space tracts and a lot of

[1:48:51] trails.

[1:48:52] >> the connectivity requirement

[1:48:54] not just within the master plan

[1:48:57] but from the master plan out to

[1:49:01] the rest of the adjacent land?

[1:49:02] >> yes.

[1:49:02] >> thanks.

[1:49:04] >> any other questions?

[1:49:04] Okay.

[1:49:07] We will move to public

[1:49:07] testimony.

[1:49:09] I think everyone is here on open

[1:49:10] space.

[1:49:11] I hope you were paying attention

[1:49:13] and could hear.

[1:49:15] We welcome comments.

[1:49:17] Online comments this time.

[1:49:20] I saw them raise their hand.

[1:49:21] They are ready to go.

[1:49:23] Same rules for public comment.

[1:49:25] Two minutes.

[1:49:27] All same rules apply.

[1:49:30] Speak to the item in this public

[1:49:32] hearing which everyone is going

[1:49:33] to do.

[1:49:38] No problem.

[1:49:40] >> good evening.

[1:49:44] I am cary quada.

[1:49:46] We care about protecting what

[1:49:47] makes bend unique.

[1:49:49] The trail is more than just a

[1:49:52] path through the forest.

[1:49:54] Living symbol of bend connection

[1:49:56] to nature, recreation and

[1:49:56] community.

[1:49:59] The surrounding area which links

[1:50:02] directly to the trail provides

[1:50:05] vital open space for families,

[1:50:06] hikers and cyclists.

[1:50:08] Turning this land over to

[1:50:10] commercial development

[1:50:13] compromises integrity of canopy

[1:50:17] trail and bend's identity.

[1:50:19] It belongs to everyone to

[1:50:21] replace with something to

[1:50:22] benefit a few.

[1:50:24] We ask the council to clarify

[1:50:27] how it aligns with bend

[1:50:31] commitment to sustainability,

[1:50:33] transparency livability

[1:50:35] commitments residents expect to

[1:50:35] be honored.

[1:50:38] When developed the canopy trail

[1:50:42] and open space will be lost

[1:50:42] forever.

[1:50:44] We urge council to protect this

[1:50:50] area choose legacy over short

[1:50:52] term gain and save the trail.

[1:50:57] >> we will go to in person.

[1:50:59] Mark gentle.

[1:51:00] >> hello, mayor, council.

[1:51:02] Thank you for the opportunity to

[1:51:02] speak.

[1:51:06] Resident of bend.

[1:51:09] When they added in 2023 that

[1:51:14] open space must be open to the

[1:51:18] public, it is perfectly

[1:51:18] plausible.

[1:51:21] It is good to hear that that was

[1:51:23] the intent.

[1:51:25] It raises a bigger broader

[1:51:26] policy question.

[1:51:27] I would recommend that because

[1:51:29] this wasn't really taken up at

[1:51:31] the planning commission, there

[1:51:33] wasn't discussion about it.

[1:51:34] This is the first time we have

[1:51:37] heard this was the rationale for

[1:51:38] putting those words in.

[1:51:40] Now the rationale for taking

[1:51:42] same words out two years later.

[1:51:50] I recommend that you table this

[1:51:52] particular portion of this

[1:51:54] ordinance, send back to planning

[1:51:57] commission, let there be more

[1:51:59] robust dialogue, particularly on

[1:52:02] the broader policy question of

[1:52:03] how do you connect?

[1:52:08] How do you avoid disputes among

[1:52:11] neighbors when they see an open

[1:52:14] space or trail and it turns out

[1:52:15] it is private?

[1:52:18] Is it going to be marked as no

[1:52:18] trespassing?

[1:52:19] is that the direction the

[1:52:24] council really wants to go in

[1:52:26] allowing this broad nonspecific

[1:52:29] authority for developers to make

[1:52:31] their own ad-hoc decision about

[1:52:34] whether there is going to be

[1:52:38] anybody or just nobody but us to

[1:52:39] access this property?

[1:52:42] I think it is broader

[1:52:43] discussion.

[1:52:46] I appreciate your time and

[1:52:49] attention be.

[1:53:00] >> karen johnson.

[1:53:01] >> good evening.

[1:53:04] I am karen johnson.

[1:53:10] I just dropped my hearing aid.

[1:53:12] The land use for the old farm

[1:53:14] district speaking on behalf of

[1:53:18] the board.

[1:53:22] Bend development code 4.5.200. E

[1:53:24] e.4 concerning green space in

[1:53:25] master plans.

[1:53:29] 10% of the land must be green

[1:53:34] space private or public.

[1:53:35] If it's private section b

[1:53:38] requires dedication if it is

[1:53:40] parks department or city or to a

[1:53:42] private corporation such as

[1:53:44] homeowners association.

[1:53:46] You look at (2).

[1:53:51] If so the private open space

[1:53:53] must be located in a tract

[1:53:54] including open space easement.

[1:53:55] What does that mean?

[1:53:59] Open space easement.

[1:54:03] Property right.

[1:54:04] Particular individuals.

[1:54:06] It means public.

[1:54:07] Section d.

[1:54:17] It says that the use -- it must

[1:54:20] be open to the public.

[1:54:21] Presumably the public is getting

[1:54:22] the easement.

[1:54:25] What this proposal does is

[1:54:29] eliminate being open to the

[1:54:30] public.

[1:54:32] Allows developer to create open

[1:54:35] space as part of master plan.

[1:54:38] Exclude public from every square

[1:54:40] inch of it that would include

[1:54:41] trails.

[1:54:42] Bend parks and rec is trying to

[1:54:46] do a trail system including

[1:54:48] entire city as written.

[1:54:51] As proposed written it would

[1:54:53] eliminate the right of people to

[1:54:57] take a trail to a master plan.

[1:54:58] I green with the prior comments.

[1:55:00] I think this needs to go back to

[1:55:02] planning commission to define

[1:55:04] exactly what they mean.

[1:55:07] To say an area is fenced off and

[1:55:09] can be private.

[1:55:10] Fenced does not mean people are

[1:55:11] excluded from it.

[1:55:15] As written right now you could

[1:55:16] have tennis court but public

[1:55:21] would be able to use that tennis

[1:55:22] court.

[1:55:24] Is that the way the city wants?

[1:55:26] It needs to say so.

[1:55:30] I think this has very bad policy

[1:55:32] and it should go back to

[1:55:35] planning commission for further

[1:55:35] study.

[1:55:40] Thank you.

[1:55:42] >> thank you.

[1:55:58] Roberta silverman.

[1:56:01] >> resident of bend.

[1:56:03] Requirement of 10% open space

[1:56:06] public or private in master plan

[1:56:07] developments is a good thing.

[1:56:10] One of the most powerful levers

[1:56:12] city has to balance growth

[1:56:15] providing open recreational

[1:56:18] green space to keep bend a

[1:56:19] livable city.

[1:56:21] Removing must be open to public

[1:56:24] requirement creates dangerous

[1:56:26] loophole in which developers

[1:56:27] fulfill 10% requirement with

[1:56:29] private open space closed and

[1:56:33] off limits to general public.

[1:56:37] It already exists in town.

[1:56:38] Eliminating must be open to

[1:56:40] public requirement is not small

[1:56:42] change to clean up code

[1:56:42] language.

[1:56:45] It amounts to loss of public

[1:56:48] benefit taxpayers and neighbors

[1:56:51] reasonably expect from

[1:56:53] entitlements granted at this

[1:56:53] scale.

[1:56:56] Code requires negotiation with

[1:56:57] bend park and recfor acquisition

[1:57:00] doesn't guarantee success.

[1:57:02] Removing public access shifts

[1:57:05] bargaining power away from bend

[1:57:07] parks makes it easier for open

[1:57:08] space private.

[1:57:09] Matter of equity.

[1:57:13] Public access ensures open space

[1:57:17] available to everyone including

[1:57:21] renters and seniors and kids and

[1:57:22] workers.

[1:57:24] Please continue to safeguard the

[1:57:26] bend open space and retain

[1:57:30] existing public access clause.

[1:57:44] In code 4.2.0.

[1:57:46] The planning commission did not

[1:57:48] look at that in their session.

[1:57:49] >> I want to give you a chance

[1:57:52] if there is anything you want to

[1:57:55] expand upon about your

[1:57:57] deliberation and anything scott

[1:58:08] or susan you want to speak to?

[1:58:13] >> you talked about esoteric

[1:58:14] code language.

[1:58:16] This pack age was steeped in it.

[1:58:19] I guess any other questions you

[1:58:20] had for us?

[1:58:23] >> open space was there is park

[1:58:24] district does assessment where

[1:58:26] parks are needed.

[1:58:28] Requirement is that if there is

[1:58:31] development that is going where

[1:58:33] parks and rec identified there

[1:58:35] is need for a park, they have to

[1:58:36] put a park.

[1:58:38] They can put private open space

[1:58:41] in there but they have to work

[1:58:43] with parks and rec.

[1:58:45] Trails are open.

[1:58:46] Connectivity is requirement

[1:58:48] separate from open space.

[1:58:51] We did have discussion.

[1:58:54] It wasn't robust discussion

[1:58:55] because pauline explained map

[1:58:57] and parks and rec assessment

[1:58:59] they do for where they need new

[1:59:00] parks in the community.

[1:59:03] The question is do we trust

[1:59:04] parks and rec to tell us where

[1:59:05] we need parks?

[1:59:08] I am former board member of

[1:59:10] parks and rec.

[1:59:11] I will say I trust parks and rec

[1:59:15] to tell us where we need parks.

[1:59:18] >> those parks are all open to

[1:59:18] the public.

[1:59:20] They are public parks.

[1:59:23] >> the developer could not meet

[1:59:25] need for public park through

[1:59:27] private open space?

[1:59:30] >> correct, correct.

[1:59:32] >> anything else to add?

[1:59:33] >> thanks for working on this.

[1:59:37] You both have big stacks there.

[1:59:38] Highlights and tabs.

[1:59:41] You took a look at it.

[1:59:42] >> yeah, yeah.

[1:59:47] Talking about windows in the

[1:59:49] district for remodels.

[1:59:53] The devil is in the details as

[1:59:56] you see a little word change.

[2:00:03] >> it was not our intent nor was

[2:00:04] it my belief reducing amount of

[2:00:05] parks we were going to have in

[2:00:07] the city.

[2:00:09] >> there are things like the

[2:00:10] laws fire mitigation.

[2:00:14] A lot of times when we have

[2:00:15] these piecemeal also talking

[2:00:18] about three properties that are

[2:00:18] unique.

[2:00:21] It needs to be part of bigger

[2:00:22] discussion.

[2:00:25] Fire mitigation plan, shouldn't

[2:00:27] do it piecemeal through this and

[2:00:28] that.

[2:00:29] Every planning commission

[2:00:32] meeting we bring up diversity of

[2:00:34] neighborhoods to get it

[2:00:35] commercial.

[2:00:36] If that is something the city

[2:00:37] council wants planning

[2:00:40] commission to look into, huge

[2:00:42] concern about commercial areas

[2:00:52] going away and having the

[2:00:53] neighborhoods.

[2:00:54] >> we are not allowed to because

[2:00:57] we are required to follow city's

[2:00:58] work plan.

[2:01:00] >> outcome of work session we

[2:01:01] have.

[2:01:02] >> you can tell us to do it.

[2:01:06] We can't tell you to do it.

[2:01:13] We can ask you to tell us.

[2:01:15] >> thank you for bringing that

[2:01:17] up and for being here and

[2:01:19] speaking with us tonight.

[2:01:21] Appreciate that.

[2:01:23] >> anything you want to clarify

[2:01:29] before we deliberate?

[2:01:32] >> I wanted to share what the

[2:01:35] master plan is for connectivity.

[2:01:39] It reads multi-modal connections

[2:01:40] must be divided on site in

[2:01:45] compliance with city of bend

[2:01:47] transportation plan and parks

[2:01:50] recreation and green pace plan

[2:01:52] and existing plans and trail

[2:01:56] systems adjacent to master plan

[2:01:58] must be continued through entire

[2:01:59] master plan separate from open

[2:02:00] space.

[2:02:02] They have to meet connectivity

[2:02:07] through aligning with tsp, bend

[2:02:09] park and rectrail plan and

[2:02:13] providing the connectivity.

[2:02:14] >> the transportation system

[2:02:18] plan is public.

[2:02:18] >> okay.

[2:02:21] We can move into deliberation on

[2:02:23] the package.

[2:02:24] Pauline we need to see the

[2:02:29] amended motion, I think.

[2:02:30] Any further discussion for

[2:02:31] council?

[2:02:35] I want to clarify our code right

[2:02:37] now since 2017 have the ability

[2:02:40] for master plan neighborhoods to

[2:02:43] have private open space, public

[2:02:45] open space or combination of

[2:02:45] both.

[2:02:49] What we have seen is usually

[2:02:50] combination of both.

[2:02:52] Park area we see parks in the

[2:02:54] master plan areas.

[2:02:56] This change tonight is not

[2:02:58] changing what has been happening

[2:02:59] since 2017.

[2:03:03] Not creating that.

[2:03:06] That d was not in the code until

[2:03:11] 2023 specifically to deal with

[2:03:15] what pauline was worried someone

[2:03:15] might claim was open space.

[2:03:18] We want people to access open

[2:03:20] space depending on the ownership

[2:03:21] of the open space.

[2:03:24] I am comfortable moving forward

[2:03:25] tonight.

[2:03:26] Bigger conversation to have

[2:03:29] about master plan code and about

[2:03:32] this public private open space

[2:03:33] thing we can't resolve tonight.

[2:03:35] This is cleanup palm lean is

[2:03:37] trying to make clear to

[2:03:39] to remove

[2:03:40] in consistency.

[2:03:43] I am willing to have bigger

[2:03:46] conversation as we look towards

[2:03:47] the growth plan.

[2:03:49] I think that fits very well in

[2:03:50] there and we can look at the

[2:03:52] policy ramifications of how open

[2:03:55] space is defined currently.

[2:03:57] I think what we have got tonight

[2:04:02] is a cleanup inconsistent part

[2:04:03] of statute added two years ago I

[2:04:05] am okay with cleaning that up.

[2:04:07] The rest of the package makes

[2:04:08] sense to me as well.

[2:04:11] I want to acknowledge, yes, when

[2:04:14] people saw that in truncated

[2:04:17] form in package it is alarming

[2:04:18] no public open space.

[2:04:21] That is not what this means

[2:04:22] tonight.

[2:04:23] Any other thoughts.

[2:04:25] >> I would be interested in

[2:04:27] having the larger conversation

[2:04:29] at some point in the future.

[2:04:31] I think there is in some cases

[2:04:34] there have been incidents where

[2:04:36] developer has provided private

[2:04:39] open space that they have been

[2:04:42] turning to the park district and

[2:04:42] besiege them to take over

[2:04:45] because they can't afford to

[2:04:49] maintain it or already used

[2:04:49] cheap playground materials.

[2:04:51] I would like to have that

[2:04:53] conversation when keeping

[2:04:54] neighborhoods open.

[2:04:55] Also recognizing there are

[2:04:57] certain amenities that are

[2:05:00] probably better kept private.

[2:05:01] Things like private pools.

[2:05:04] There is more to this

[2:05:04] conversation tonight.

[2:05:08] I think we also have I want to

[2:05:10] see us have the best connected

[2:05:11] neighborhoods we can.

[2:05:14] I think that you characterize

[2:05:16] this accurately.

[2:05:18] Not a big change.

[2:05:20] Policy neutral.

[2:05:21] Let's have that conversation

[2:05:22] another night.

[2:05:26] >> other comments?

[2:05:29] >> no, that is it for public

[2:05:30] testimony.

[2:05:34] >> I would like to make a

[2:05:38] proposal on the asi and the fuel

[2:05:39] reduction.

[2:05:40] I did notice in the public

[2:05:42] testimony from parks district

[2:05:46] and in conversation with coid

[2:05:49] that exempting public agencies

[2:05:51] from having to go through land

[2:05:53] use for fuel reduction on public

[2:05:55] land they are chartered to

[2:05:58] maintain on behalf of the public

[2:06:03] and trust seems like an

[2:06:06] excessive sort of jurisdictional

[2:06:06] oversight.

[2:06:08] In sort of out of respect for

[2:06:12] those agencies responsibility to

[2:06:17] all constituents I would favor

[2:06:23] exempting public agencies from

[2:06:24] fuel.

[2:06:28] >> it is a lot of acronyms.

[2:06:30] Exempting public agencies on

[2:06:31] public land.

[2:06:33] >> is that something we didn't

[2:06:36] have that asked to planning

[2:06:36] commission.

[2:06:38] Is that something planning

[2:06:41] commission discussed around

[2:06:43] exemption versus type one

[2:06:43] process?

[2:06:48] >> it was briefly discussed.

[2:06:50] Also mentioned that the city

[2:06:52] also goes through the process.

[2:06:56] We don't exempt ourselves.

[2:07:00] It did not go much further than

[2:07:01] that.

[2:07:04] >> I think park and recreation

[2:07:05] district offered that.

[2:07:08] >> probably in public letter.

[2:07:10] >> they raise that request.

[2:07:12] >> planning commission did not

[2:07:13] recommend that?

[2:07:17] >> I do notes believe planning

[2:07:18] commission made that

[2:07:18] recommendation.

[2:07:20] >> I am seeing nods from

[2:07:20] planning.

[2:07:22] Do you want to explain why you

[2:07:23] didn't make that recommendation

[2:07:28] at the podium?

[2:07:31] >> we had a recent interaction

[2:07:34] with parks and rec about

[2:07:35] development where they were

[2:07:37] removing a lot of trees.

[2:07:39] We felt it was excessive during

[2:07:40] planning commission because it

[2:07:42] was along the river.

[2:07:43] We had oversight.

[2:07:45] It required a lot of work to get

[2:07:46] trees retained.

[2:07:49] Our feeling was there is a value

[2:07:51] in having public process to look

[2:07:53] at the resources in our

[2:07:55] community that ones they are

[2:07:58] gone they are gone for our

[2:08:00] lifetimes.

[2:08:01] When pauline explained city is

[2:08:04] required to go through same

[2:08:07] process we didn't feel it was

[2:08:10] appropriate to allow others to

[2:08:12] have a different process than

[2:08:15] what the city held itself to.

[2:08:16] >> thank you for that

[2:08:16] information.

[2:08:18] Other discussion on this topic

[2:08:19] from council?

[2:08:21] >> we hold the city to the same

[2:08:24] process requirements we hold the

[2:08:27] special districts.

[2:08:32] >> in favor of exempting the

[2:08:33] city as well.

[2:08:35] I trust the city staff and these

[2:08:38] other public agencies they are

[2:08:39] consulting professionals

[2:08:40] including fire department and

[2:08:46] the county forester and wildfire

[2:08:49] experts in determining the

[2:08:50] fields.

[2:08:52] More fields they remove more

[2:08:57] expensive the project is.

[2:08:59] >> is there other support for

[2:09:00] that idea?

[2:09:04] I see show of hands if there is

[2:09:04] support.

[2:09:06] >> I feel like it is a lot to

[2:09:07] consider right now.

[2:09:10] I am working through having been

[2:09:13] former parks board director

[2:09:15] thinking about the projects,

[2:09:17] tree removal in drake park

[2:09:19] where, yes, city is partner

[2:09:20] involved in that.

[2:09:23] I feel like I am not able to

[2:09:26] resolve that question right now.

[2:09:27] >> the drake park removal

[2:09:29] related to development not fuel

[2:09:29] reduction.

[2:09:32] This is just fuel reduction we

[2:09:35] are talking about here.

[2:09:37] >> sounds like there is not

[2:09:39] support to add that to the

[2:09:40] motion at this time.

[2:09:44] Do you want to make the motion

[2:09:45] pauline has on the screen.

[2:09:46] >> I move for first reading

[2:09:48] ordinance amending bend

[2:09:53] development codes bdc title one

[2:09:55] introduction title two land use

[2:10:00] district title 3 design title 4

[2:10:01] aplie kiss and title 5 make

[2:10:02] changes to standards and

[2:10:04] processes and amending

[2:10:08] definitions and sections 4.1.600

[2:10:11] deschutes river design review

[2:10:14] procedures.

[2:10:15] 2.7.7 0 upland areas of special

[2:10:18] interest overlay zone and

[2:10:23] 4.5.200 community master plan as

[2:10:23] presented.

[2:10:24] >> second?

[2:10:25] >> second.

[2:10:25] >> all right.

[2:10:29] Moved by councilor mendez.

[2:10:33] Second by councilor platt.

[2:10:34] Further discussion.

[2:10:35] In favor aye.

[2:10:37] Any opposed?

[2:10:39] All right unanimously passed.

[2:10:41] Identified issues for the

[2:10:41] future.

[2:10:43] Thank you to the planning

[2:10:46] commission and everybody that

[2:10:47] wrote in with comments.

[2:10:49] If you have further questions or

[2:10:50] input send those to us.

[2:10:52] We want to have that bigger

[2:10:54] discussion about open space

[2:10:54] continuing.

[2:10:57] We thank you for being here.

[2:10:58] Okay.

[2:11:03] We are on to item 6.

[2:11:04] Councilor platt go ahead.

[2:11:06] >> as school district employee I

[2:11:09] will recuse.

[2:11:10] >> councilor platt steps off.

[2:11:11] Item 6.

[2:11:13] >> second reading of ordinance

[2:11:16] to amend the comprehensive plan

[2:11:21] and re-zoning 1 point 3 acres

[2:11:26] adjacent to pacific crest middle

[2:11:28] school you ar10 to residential

[2:11:32] urban medium density rm.

[2:11:32] >> notion and second.

[2:11:34] >> move second reading adoption

[2:11:39] by roll call vote amending bend

[2:11:42] map to redesignate rezone

[2:11:44] approximately 1.93 acres of land

[2:11:49] in northeast portion of the lot

[2:11:56] 1711 5d00300 from urban reserve

[2:11:59] uar-10 to residential urban

[2:12:01] density rm.

[2:12:01] >> second.

[2:12:05] >> moved by norris.

[2:12:07] Second mendez.

[2:12:07] >> frances.

[2:12:11] >>, riley, mendes, norris.

[2:12:12] >> kebler.

[2:12:12] >> yes.

[2:12:20] >> that will get councillor

[2:12:21] platt back and do the city

[2:12:22] manager report.

[2:12:25] >> I want to highlight

[2:12:25] performance metric.

[2:12:27] We walked through council goals

[2:12:29] at last meeting and new

[2:12:33] dashboard in place.

[2:12:34] Just remind council aggressive

[2:12:41] goal for housing units 3942 over

[2:12:41] biennium.

[2:12:43] 35% increase over last couple

[2:12:45] years.

[2:12:46] Numbers load up every night from

[2:12:50] the system.

[2:12:53] Permitted 901 housing units

[2:12:55] since fiscal year.

[2:12:57] Where we are in the fiscal year

[2:12:59] that was noteworthy.

[2:13:03] I want to qualify.

[2:13:07] We want to watch it closely.

[2:13:11] 901 for housing units.

[2:13:13] I think that is good news I

[2:13:16] wanted to share there.

[2:13:18] On construction project updates.

[2:13:21] Franklin we switched traffic

[2:13:21] today.

[2:13:24] One lane now eastbound traffic.

[2:13:25] Project on track to be finished

[2:13:29] by end of year.

[2:13:32] Bear creek opened couple legs

[2:13:33] private development that will

[2:13:35] open by end of the week.

[2:13:37] Going well.

[2:13:41] Additional closures for paving

[2:13:42] that is going well.

[2:13:45] Holding on the only project with

[2:13:49] ems still planning to do work in

[2:13:50] NOVEMBER.

[2:13:51] Thing are on track with that.

[2:13:53] I will let you know if something

[2:13:54] changes.

[2:13:56] I want to hand out budget in

[2:13:56] brief.

[2:13:58] This is an effort by a number of

[2:13:59] staff.

[2:14:03] Thank you to communication

[2:14:07] staff, city manager office,

[2:14:09] roger policy analyst and finance

[2:14:10] staff.

[2:14:12] really taking a deeper dive.

[2:14:15] This is 600 page document that

[2:14:19] you all approved in JUNE

[2:14:21] distilled into a couple pages

[2:14:23] includes accomplishments and

[2:14:24] goals this year.

[2:14:27] How the process works, budget

[2:14:29] process works.

[2:14:33] Includes new faq for question

[2:14:34] section to hit the top line

[2:14:35] questions the community has

[2:14:36] about resources.

[2:14:39] It is an effort to live up to

[2:14:43] that value of transparency and

[2:14:47] fiscal stewardship.

[2:14:49] Hot off the press and on the

[2:14:49] website.

[2:14:52] Fairly expensive to print.

[2:14:54] The more online the better.

[2:14:56] We have a couple printouts.

[2:14:58] If you are speaking in front of

[2:15:00] groups and want to hand this

[2:15:14] out, just let us know.

[2:15:14] >> 432?

[2:15:15] >> you can get that online.

[2:15:17] >> I see the new brand showing

[2:15:18] up in here.

[2:15:21] >> this is a test run of some of

[2:15:26] what that looks like.

[2:15:28] >> rob is going to talk about

[2:15:30] the proposed review process for

[2:15:32] city manager.

[2:15:35] >> thank you, mayor kebler.

[2:15:38] Good evening, city council.

[2:15:39] Purpose for my visit tonight is

[2:15:42] to propose and kickoff the 2025

[2:15:44] city manager review process.

[2:15:46] I sent packet to council

[2:15:47] yesterday afternoon.

[2:15:49] If you did not receive them I

[2:15:54] have paper copy here for you.

[2:15:57] The last review was done in MAY

[2:15:59] of 2024.

[2:16:02] They occur every 12 to 24 months

[2:16:04] since I have been here for

[2:16:06] approximately 15 years.

[2:16:11] The purpose of review correlates

[2:16:12] performance with council

[2:16:15] priorities and prerogatives.

[2:16:17] Part a is city manager review

[2:16:21] form housed in appendix in the

[2:16:21] document.

[2:16:23] Second performance measures

[2:16:26] aligned with council goal also.

[2:16:27] Accomplishments tied to goals.

[2:16:30] This is council's process.

[2:16:31] I am here to help administrator

[2:16:37] it and support council.

[2:16:39] I proposed steps and timelines.

[2:16:42] They are substantially similar

[2:16:45] to the process that occurred

[2:16:47] over a decade since I have been

[2:16:49] with the city.

[2:16:51] NOVEMBER 5 kickoff of process.

[2:16:55] Council takes a look and says,

[2:16:56] yes, proceed forward.

[2:16:58] Between 6 and 18 of NOVEMBER is

[2:17:02] time allowed for council to

[2:17:05] solicit feedback from staff and

[2:17:05] stakeholders.

[2:17:08] B is listing of direct and

[2:17:10] indirect reports of city

[2:17:10] manager.

[2:17:13] On NOVEMBER 19 I will e-mail out

[2:17:17] an additional resource document

[2:17:18] to council which will contain

[2:17:22] city manager's self-assessment,

[2:17:24] two-parts, goal status and

[2:17:26] supplemental information as well

[2:17:29] as review form.

[2:17:31] Review form is attachment a.

[2:17:33] That form how it works each

[2:17:37] councilor completes their

[2:17:39] quantitative assessment on the

[2:17:41] form, sends back to me.

[2:17:43] I compile results to single

[2:17:44] document.

[2:17:46] Council's voice of the city

[2:17:47] manager assessment.

[2:17:49] I will talk about that in a

[2:17:51] second at the last date.

[2:17:54] That is currently scheduled for

[2:17:55] DECEMBER 3.

[2:17:57] Three step process.

[2:17:59] Step one council convenes in

[2:18:01] executive session and looks at

[2:18:05] results of those assessments on

[2:18:06] attachment a.

[2:18:08] I will compile those into

[2:18:09] composite rating.

[2:18:12] council reviews that and has

[2:18:12] discussion.

[2:18:14] Council drafts the public

[2:18:17] statement during that executive

[2:18:17] session.

[2:18:18] Step two.

[2:18:20] City manager enters into

[2:18:21] executive session for discussion

[2:18:23] of work performance directly

[2:18:25] with council.

[2:18:27] Finally, step three is council

[2:18:29] presents public statement as

[2:18:31] previously drafted in exec

[2:18:33] session and come posssive

[2:18:35] ratings and authorizes and

[2:18:36] discussions modifications to

[2:18:37] employment agreement.

[2:18:39] That all happens in one council

[2:18:41] meeting between exec session and

[2:18:43] regular business session.

[2:18:44] Three attachments.

[2:18:47] Proposed review form, direct

[2:18:49] indirect report contacts and

[2:18:52] some sample questions to spur

[2:18:53] conversation or thinking about

[2:18:55] what to ask folks.

[2:18:57] With that I am open to any

[2:18:59] questions or feedback from

[2:19:00] question.

[2:19:03] >> quick note before questions.

[2:19:04] All

[2:19:07] I have spoken to you and

[2:19:09] answered questions related to

[2:19:12] concerns raised by departing

[2:19:12] employee.

[2:19:16] City is conducting third-party

[2:19:16] review.

[2:19:18] Our goal and we will meet it to

[2:19:20] get that done in NOVEMBER.

[2:19:22] To the extent that is

[2:19:25] information relevant to the

[2:19:28] process rob is describing

[2:19:29] council will have that.

[2:19:32] >> prior to DECEMBER 3 executive

[2:19:32] session?

[2:19:34] >> correct.

[2:19:35] >> thanks, rob for overview.

[2:19:37] Any questions about this?

[2:19:39] If it wasn't clear how we have

[2:19:41] done this the past few times i

[2:19:44] have done it we divide up the

[2:19:46] direct report contacts and

[2:19:51] schedule on our to talk with

[2:19:52] those folks using the questions

[2:19:53] rob used you are not limited to

[2:19:54] those.

[2:19:56] Bringing notes back to the

[2:19:59] meeting where we discuss eric's

[2:20:00] performance and what we heard

[2:20:03] from folks we talked to that

[2:20:05] worked in the past to speak to

[2:20:08] the direct reports from our

[2:20:08] perspective.

[2:20:10] Any other questions?

[2:20:11] >> can you elaborate more.

[2:20:15] This is your e-mail yesterday

[2:20:16] the first I heard of the timing

[2:20:20] of this processor what it would

[2:20:20] entail.

[2:20:21] Can you just explain maybe why

[2:20:24] the timing was chosen?

[2:20:26] >> I take direction from the

[2:20:27] mayor.

[2:20:29] The mayor and city manager

[2:20:31] discussed this is a good time to

[2:20:35] conduct it in the normal 12 to

[2:20:37] 24 months so it was scheduled.

[2:20:40] >> we had done it in MAY

[2:20:41] previous year.

[2:20:44] With two new councilors.

[2:20:47] I thought 10 months to work with

[2:20:50] eric to use that with your

[2:20:52] evaluation.

[2:20:52] >> not uncommon from previous

[2:20:55] experience, too.

[2:20:56] >> I am not familiar.

[2:21:00] I see in our DECEMBER meeting we

[2:21:04] will talk about the city manager

[2:21:05] manager's employment agreement.

[2:21:07] Has that been shared with us.

[2:21:09] Can you share that with us so we

[2:21:12] can be familiar with it?

[2:21:13] >> absolutely.

[2:21:14] >> lastly, I would probably ask

[2:21:19] for a little bit extended

[2:21:22] timeline to receive this

[2:21:23] third-party investigation report

[2:21:26] before moving forward with that

[2:21:28] DECEMBER 3rd meeting.

[2:21:30] I would ask we schedule the

[2:21:32] actual meeting once we have the

[2:21:35] report in hand and determine if

[2:21:36] there is any further

[2:21:38] conversations we want to have

[2:21:41] with staff or stakeholders or

[2:21:42] further investigation if there

[2:21:44] is anything in that

[2:21:44] investigation report.

[2:21:47] >> I think that would be wise to

[2:21:48] hold that executive session on

[2:21:49] the third.

[2:21:49] If

[2:21:52] if that is the discussion to say

[2:21:54] we are not following through

[2:21:55] with this today or finish this

[2:21:58] today and need more time we can

[2:21:58] do that.

[2:22:00] I don't want to lose that

[2:22:01] opportunity to move forward in

[2:22:03] DECEMBER before the end of the

[2:22:04] year.

[2:22:04] >> absolutely.

[2:22:06] >> I am fine with that if the

[2:22:07] rest of council is.

[2:22:10] >> I think that we need to be

[2:22:12] open to that.

[2:22:13] That is a piece of information

[2:22:15] to inform the discussions we

[2:22:17] would essentially extend the

[2:22:18] discussion to the following

[2:22:20] week's work session or the

[2:22:21] following business meeting.

[2:22:24] Whatever makes sense timing

[2:22:24] wise.

[2:22:25] >> we have the option to do

[2:22:26] that.

[2:22:29] >> that would be an outcome of

[2:22:30] executive session.

[2:22:34] >> any other questions?

[2:22:38] >> I will pull names out of the

[2:22:41] hat and divide up reports to

[2:22:42] send to everybody who to talk

[2:22:42] to.

[2:22:45] Take it upon yourselves to reach

[2:22:50] out to those folks and schedule

[2:22:52] time 20 to 30 minutes to talk

[2:22:55] with folks to get the ball

[2:22:57] rolling in next couple weeks for

[2:22:58] the executive session.

[2:23:01] >> how many meetings per

[2:23:02] councilor?

[2:23:03] >> around two or three

[2:23:06] department heads.

[2:23:10] >> I did two.

[2:23:11] >> standard questions.

[2:23:12] >> rob has example questions.

[2:23:14] Your conversations with not

[2:23:16] limited good prompts to get

[2:23:17] information.

[2:23:24] I invite folks to look at the

[2:23:26] rubric and think of questions to

[2:23:27] fill that out.

[2:23:30] Thank you, rob, appreciate it.

[2:23:31] >> that is it for the meeting

[2:23:32] tonight.

City Council Business Meeting

Agenda

Transcript