[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.