The Bell Urban Renewal Agency will meet an executive session pursuant to ORS one nine two point six six zero paragraph two and E to E to conduct deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real property transactions.

No decision being made in executive session at the end of the executive session, we will return to open session.

All right, we will go ahead and call to order our business meeting of the Ben City Council tonight.

Thanks everyone for being here.

We'll start with our roll call on your inn, Councillor Platt.

Steve Platt, he him.

Megan Norris, she her.

Oh, Melanie Keyboard, she her.

Sorry, missing one there.

Hi Briley, heel Mendez, he him.

Gina Franzo says she here.

And Councillor Perkins is excused tonight.

All right.

Um, so that will move us into good in the order with a couple of proclamations.

So we'll start with um Arbor Day, Councilor Mendes.

Yeah, well, this is uh a distinct pleasure because not very many people know that my middle name is is tree.

The way the way that my mom tells it, she says, uh, I'm lucky that tree wasn't my first name.

Whereas in eighteen seventy-two, the Nebraska Board of Agriculture established a special day to be set aside for the planting of trees.

And whereas this holiday called Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world to recognize the value of trees and their positive benefits to human welfare and a healthy environment.

And whereas the city of Bend is celebrating twenty-three years as a tree city USA.

And whereas trees can be a solution to combating climate change by sequestering carbon and by providing shade that moderates urban temperatures, reducing the need to actively cool our homes and buildings.

And whereas trees clean the air, produce life-giving oxygen, and provide habitat for birds and other wildlife, all of which contribute to human health and well-being.

And whereas Arbor Day is a call to action for all citizens to join in an effort to promote the good health and beauty of our local and global environments.

And whereas Arbor Week in Oregon is held the first full week of April each year.

Now, therefore, the Bend City Council does proclaim that Friday, the 24th of April 2026 be designated Arbor Day for the City of Bend.

I move acceptance of the proclamation.

Second.

All right, move by Councillor Riley, second by Council Franzosa.

All those in favor?

Aye.

And uh we have four groups to accept the proclamation today.

Uh from Save Bend Green Space, we have Robbie Silverman.

We have the City of Bend Urban Forester, Ian Gray, and we have a teacher from Pacific Crest Middle School and the National Junior Honor Society advisor, Jane Shyne.

And we have students from Pacific Crest Middle School, Dash, Fiona, Kira, and Tyler.

I would love, let's see.

Can we invite all of them up or we don't have enough chairs?

We don't have enough chairs.

If there was anyone that wanted to make a statement, yeah, we will take a picture after we're done with this.

But if there was anyone who wanted to say anything and accepting the proclamation, um, come on up and sit down.

Is Robbie here?

Robbie, you're here.

Robbie, you want to say anything or come up to the chair.

You know me, I know you.

But I don't know if Ian wants to make remarks.

Why don't you come up, Bobby?

And you come on up.

And we'll start with you too.

Yeah.

Please go ahead.

Oh, okay.

Chair.

So I would just say the um fortuitously, we now have a planting event on the 24th at Pacific Crest Middle School, and we have what are we what about 60, 7th, and 8th graders to plant 31 trees along with some uh residents from the local community.

So, yeah, I'm really excited to make that happen.

All right, I'll be super quick.

We have about 150 students at Pacific Rest that are involved in our National Junior Honor Society.

Um, last year they completed over 4,000 community service hours.

Wow.

And so we're really excited to participate with Ian and our school's green team as well.

Um, within 24 hours, we had six C volunteers and 12 parent volunteers ready to roll, and so we're really excited to participate.

Thank you.

All right, great.

Well, um Safe Bend Green Spaces honor to be uh part of this Arbor Day proclamation.

Um we are a 501c3 nonprofit that advocates for the protection of green spaces in Bend that connect people with each other and nature.

Our vision is a bend that balances growth with saving trees and green spaces for the health of our community.

As we celebrate Arbor Day this year, we want to take the opportunity to commend City Council for enacting Bend's Tree Protection Code, establishing the new urban forestry program, and appointing Ian Gray as our first urban forester.

These are all very important steps in helping to achieve that vision of Ben with a thriving tree canopy across all areas of the city.

To put it another way, Healthy Trees, Healthy Bend, which happens to be the slogan of the volunteer-based community effort to inventory and assess the condition of trees on city property launching this spring.

Kudos to you, Ian, for developing and leading this um vital project.

Um I have to take the opportunity also to say um in the face of all this progress, um, a huge percentage of Ben's trees are under attack.

As council reassesses the protection of juniper trees under the tree code, we ask that you recognize that juniper trees make up most of the tree canopy on the east side of Bend, where major development is slated.

If juniper trees are not inventory per preservation andor mitigation, Ben risks a dangerous drop in overall tree canopy, one that will be extremely difficult to reverse.

So thank you once again, mayor and counselors for commemorating Arbor Day and supporting efforts to plant and protect trees in Bend.

Thanks, Robbie.

All right, can we take a photo?

Okay, sorry.

Yeah, you go right here.

Okay.

Um I have one.

Okay.

And I think we have it all.

Okay, okay.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Squeeze it a little bit, please.

Thank you.

Thanks, everybody.

Thank you.

Alright, next is our Dark Sky Week proclamation.

Well, great.

Thank you.

Particularly this evening when we have four brave astronauts that are that are on their way into those dark skies right now.

Boy, we wish them uh uh fair solar winds and following uh telemetry, I guess, as they as they go there.

Um but yes, um I'll start out with the uh proclamation we'll have some folks come up afterwards.

So um, whereas International Dark Sky Week is observed in April on the week of the new moon, and the experience of standing beneath the starry sky night inspires feelings of wonder and awe and encourages stewardship of our shared environment and our magnificent skies, and the dark skies are an integral aspect of the sustainability of Oregon's wild ecosystem ecosystems as a key environmental factor in bird migration, insect pollination, and human sleep patterns.

And Oregon's dark skies are a significant natural resource with seven accredited international dark sky places to date.

Sun River, Primeville Reservoir State Park, Oregon Caves National Monument, City of Antelope, Oregon Outback Sanctuary, the Cottonwood Canyon State Park, this and the City of Sisters.

And the Eastern Oregon holds the world's largest dark sky sanctuary and an area of the largest pristine night sky in the contiguous 48 states.

And astro tourism, including stargazing, astronomy star parties, and dark sky photography is an evolving facet of outdoor recreation with real economic benefits for communities across Oregon, and which promotes the mitigation of light pollution.

Now, therefore, the City Council of Bend Oregon does hereby proclaim April 13th to the 20th, 2026 to be International Dark Sky Week in Bend Oregon, and encourage all Oregonians to join in this observance.

Second.

Well, great.

And and we've got some folks that are going to be able to come up and talk a little bit out about this.

We've got Brandon Matthews and Janine Dagostino from Dark Skies, Oregon here.

And is Taylor here with Q and here, yeah, Taylor, uh, as well.

I thought maybe you could talk about the field uh when you come up there as well.

So Taylor McEwan from the Bend Elks.

So uh, can you put the all field slide up?

So Taylor, can you tell us a little bit about what we're looking at?

Right.

Yeah, so those are uh two aerial views.

Um took with a drone of the stadium um at night.

Uh the one on the left is the before, and then the one is after.

Um it's kind of hard to notice at first, but if the more you stay at it, you can kind of see the difference, um, especially in the light over spill in the roads on the other side, because we are inside of a neighborhood practically.

Um, and that practically um brought down the light over spill to zero.

Um, and it was quite substantial um all around the stadium down Roosevelt, down fifth, and down Wilson.

Um that's um helped the neighbors a lot um with lights during their um any time they're in use, and then also on the flip side of that on the field as well, uh, made it a lot brighter.

Um, their LED lights and they're more efficient.

Um I think it's about 60% more efficient in terms of energy.

And um it's just a lot safer for all the community members using the fields, uh, especially with our team and other like little leagues and high school teams too.

Great, thank you.

Thank you for that.

Just happened to be happening during this time.

So thanks very much for going through that process, Taylor.

Go ahead, Brandon.

Yes.

Uh I'd like to thank the City of Bend and this council for recognizing dark skies as something worth protecting.

Uh this kind of official recognition matters and helps to establish precedent for Central Oregon and beyond.

Most people alive have never seen the Milky Way from where they live.

Light pollution is quietly erased something humans have looked up to for all of our history.

And this is not only a human loss.

Harsh artificial lighting disrupts wildlife migration, nesting, and feeding patterns.

Affecting the very ecosystems that make Central Oregon such a special place.

Responsible lighting isn't about living in pitch black.

It's about being intentional and prudent.

This means shielding lights downward, lighting only what needs to be lit, and most importantly, using warmer-toned lighting.

The Bidnight Sky Alliance is dedicated to helping promote these ideas of responsible lighting in order to protect a wonderful and unique natural resource.

We are a fledgling group that is looking to collaborate with government and local businesses to advocate for these responsible lighting practices.

And to that end, this proclamation means a great deal to the community.

But this proclamation is only the beginning.

We hope that this is the start of Bend and all of Central Oregon.

It's becoming a place where residents can step outside on a clear night, look up, and see what humans have always seen.

A sky full of stars.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we take a quick picture.

That's perfect.

We're both right.

Okay, all right.

All right.

So good.

Good.

Yeah, we can do that.

Two, three.

Okay.

The official one.

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right.

So that will bring us into our council action and reports.

Um there was one letter that um has been put together based on a template that was forwarded to Council all to support um the Bendicell Lake Wildlife Passage proposal.

Just wanted to officially get council's head nods on that, and we'll get that submitted.

Okay.

Um and then we're into Council Reports.

Counselor Françoza.

Thanks.

Um, not too many meetings, official meetings in the past two weeks, but um lots of conversations, including with the old Bend neighborhood and the Southern Crossing neighborhood, um, and also some conversations with folks who are invested in the core area urban renewal area and eager to work with the city to um get that plan moving.

So that's all I have.

Councilor Mendez.

Uh yes, thank you.

On uh March 26th, the City of Bend Accessibility Advisory Committee met to approve their draft work plan.

This is a committee that is very ambitious.

It's a two-year work plan, and they have plans to members are participating in all kinds of events across the city, uh, film festivals, lunches, um, other exhibitions, and um it's uh they're very ambitious, and it's I think it's fantastic.

Um, the Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization policy board met uh yesterday on an irregularly scheduled um off-cycle meeting to accommodate uh schedules, and uh basically just covered normal business updates um to the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan and other um unified working plan.

I forget what it I forget the acronym, so excuse me, but uh it was uh it was a busy meeting.

Okay, so many acronyms and that's all okay, Council Randall.

Phew, I I unfortunately missed the MPO meeting yesterday, and I thought I was gonna get um like hazed, but you didn't do it, so you have to be quiet now.

Um so I wanted to express um gratitude for people who organized the No Kings rally this past weekend um for just for making that happen and for the thousands of people who showed up and for having a peaceful event here in downtown Bend.

Um and at Drake Park.

I attended an Edco Pub Talk at Open Space, um, and those are always great opportunities to just engage with the business community, meet some new folks, and hear a whole bunch of business stories about what people are doing in the community, both big and small.

And I just wanted to give a shout out to um Amy Stahl at Metolius T.

She's the founder there, and her talk was just super inspirational for me personally, and I think for many in the audience around her company's commitment to a triple bottom line and how she's making that happen right here in Bend, Oregon.

Um, so it was just really inspiring.

And then I know the mayor is going to talk a lot more about this, but I just wanted to acknowledge the passing of Warm Springs Chief Delvis Heath Sr.

Um earlier this week.

And I wanted to just let him and his people know his family and the and the rest of the members of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs that they're in my thoughts right now with his passing.

Thank you.

All right.

Councillor Norris.

Yeah, I attended the city club meeting last week, which is always a is a great organization, just really good dialogue, always interesting issues.

It was on the mapping process for the Dissutes County Commission, and our mayor was on the panel.

She did a great job.

Thank you.

And standing up for Bend, and just appreciated those that conversation.

And then I attended uh League of City training on community engagement.

So it was just interesting to hear from different cities across Oregon and how they're engaging in their community and showing up and swapping stories and just uh learning different ways to engage.

It's very informative.

That's it.

Great.

Counselor Platt.

Spring break was last week for the teachers in the crowd.

So that was that was nice.

I did go to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.

And I'll tell you, I'm just always amazed at what our committees are doing for us.

And here was another example of just working hard to get community development broad grants out in a really meaningful way to get food to food banks, to just get uh to get access and and resources to folks here locally.

So I really appreciate what they're doing and all the folks who are involved and contributing to their city on a purely volunteer basis.

And that's it.

Great, thank you.

Um all right, a few things to announce on my end.

Um the committee applications are open if you want to try to join a city committee.

We have um some openings, some of them are a little limited, but you may qualify.

But um Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, um, the Bend Economic Development Advisory Committee, the Accessible Advisory Committee that Councilor Mendez just uh mentioned, and human rights and equity commission all have openings, so anyone who's interested can go to our website to find out more there.

You can apply up through the end of uh this month.

Um, I had sent a note to council that I'd like to do our flower basket sponsorship for DBBA again.

Just want to make sure that's okay with everyone, and we'll get that done.

Okay, seeing head nods.

Um, I had a request um from um someone who works with our National Guard to just recognize and make a statement that April is the month of the military child, and that is just um a recognition of the the the families and especially the children of our members of our military and what they go through.

Steve is nodding his head.

Um so they are um encouraging people to um participate in Purple Update, which is a statewide event to visibly show support by wearing purple on April 9th, 2026.

Um, they have an actual teen panel of teens that are military children that are part of the organization with the National Guard.

Um, and the quote from this particular teen whose name is Grace was here in Oregon, we don't really have a military base, so military kids and teens don't often have as much of a voice or get as much recognition.

This day is a way to honor and celebrate military kids and show support for the difficult experiences they've been through.

Um so um just wanted to mention that.

And then I also wanted to mention there's a lot of stuff that goes on this time of year, but um some important things.

Um, yesterday was Transgender Day of Visibility, which I'm gonna read a little information that's from the um GLAAD website about that.

It is a day to raise awareness about transgender people, is a day to celebrate the lives and contributions of trans people while also drawing attention to the disproportionate levels of poverty, discrimination, and violence that they face compared to non-transgender people.

Um this day was created in 2010 by trans advocate Rachel Crandall.

Crandall, the head of Transgender Michigan, created the day in response to the overwhelming majority of media stories about transgender people that were focused on violence.

She hoped to create a day where people could celebrate the lives of transgender people while simultaneously acknowledging that due to discrimination, not every trans person can or wants to be visible.

Um so with the increasing um attacks on our trans community across the country.

Um I just want to make sure that we are saying to our trans community, we see you.

Um we value you are an important part of this community, and um, we hope that if you are um able that you can be visible and be yourself in Bend.

Um finally, as um Councillor Riley mentioned, um, we want to send our condolences to the Warm Springs tribes on the passing of Chief Delvis Heath Sr.

Um he died Sunday and he was uh buried at sunrise this morning.

He was 87.

And I'm gonna read some information from an OPB article about him.

As chief, he played an important dual role to uphold and remind members of his tribe of their traditional ways and values and to educate the outside world what it meant to be a sovereign nation.

Um Heath was instrumental in helping the outside world, including politicians in Salem, understand the Treaty of 1855 and what it meant to be a sovereign nation.

The treaty created with Warm Springs Reservation on a small portion of what have been the tribe's 10 million acre territory.

Oregon became a state three years later using that land.

In his early days as chief Heath became friends with Republican Governor Vic Ateya and later Democratic Governor Ted Kulangovsky.

On one trip to Salem in the 1990s, He told the Oregonian he was visiting the state capital for a straightforward reason to remind people we are a nation within a nation.

Kulungowski remembered Heath on Tuesday as someone who wanted to make sure the state understood what it meant to be sovereign, that the tribes have their own government judges, court systems, and are independent of state government.

He educated all of us.

Kulungoski said he educated me.

So there's more information in that article on OPB if people want to learn more about the Chief.

Um the the tribal chiefs um serve for life.

So he's been serving for quite a long time and it will be um difficult to fill his shoes.

I know.

Um we are still with have our relationship with the Confederated Tribes of Worm Springs and are working on when our next joint meeting will be.

Um but just wanted to acknowledge that.

And if folks see the flags at half mass today, that is why.

So acknowledge the passing of uh the Warm Springs Chief.

Okay.

Uh I think that's all I have for tonight.

So we will move into our visitors' sections.

We have one person online and a few people in person.

Um so we'll start with our online person.

We can get that set up.

This is the time to talk to council directly about city issues.

Um please address council as a body and not as individuals.

Please keep comments respectful and non-disruptive so that we um don't have to ask you to stop or leave if you become disruptive.

I don't think we'll have any issues with that tonight.

So we've got Jonathan Westmerlin online.

So we'll get that set up and then he can kick us off.

Jonathan, you can unmute.

I'm not on the Zoom, actually, so I can't see if he's good evening, Mayor and Councillors.

Okay.

Uh for the record, my name is Jonathan Westmoreland, and uh I hope after my last public comment, you guys see me as an ally and not an adversary.

Earlier today, I sent you four related documents, the latest issues of signals and safeguards, a proposed Ben's surveillance procurement framework, a companion memo, and a staff tools appendix.

I'm not asking you to to adopt these materials tonight.

I'm asking for a practical first step.

At the last public contract subcommittee meeting, one of the slides stated that the purpose of the public procurement is to foster public trust, fairness, honesty, and best value.

I think that's exactly why these materials deserve staff review.

At a neighborhood district meeting last month, the city emphasized that Ben plans decades ahead for growth, land use, transportation, sewer, and water.

I would like to see that same long-range thinking applied to privacy and surveillance too, because those decisions also shape the future.

Bend is building for residents.

Because the public contracts committee meets on April 10th and does not meet very often.

I'm asking you to direct staff to review these materials in advance and begin a discussion there about whether BIN should develop a more consistent surveillance procurement framework.

My request is simple.

Please have staff review the documents I sent this morning and start the conversation on April 10th.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jonathan.

All right, we will go to um in-person comment next.

So you can come on when I call your name, come on up to the chair here and start by telling us your name and whether you live in the city of Ben, and then you'll have two minutes to give your comment.

We'll get the timer up here, which is this big box here.

It will flash yellow at you when you have about 30 seconds left.

Um so keep an eye on that.

And we'll start with Ben Leach.

Great.

Oh good.

Come on up.

Um my name is Ben Leech, and I split time between Walla Walla and Bend with hopes of moving here full time in the future.

Um, but I own a small business down on Wall Street called Cascade Cottons.

It's a little t-shirt shop.

Um, and I sorry, that's very personal.

This has nothing to do with any, I waste, I'm wasting all your time.

I apologize.

No, yeah, we want to hear it.

Go ahead.

I have two water mains into my very small business, and I might be the only person that has to suffer from this because the building used to be split, but it's been combined into one building for like 40 plus years at least, through the three businesses I could talk to before me.

I called the city water department, and they said there's no way we can combine your bill, it seems ridiculous.

I'm paying for 40 cents worth of water on my last bill, I'm paying 157 dollars.

So, like the bar Rio next to me that uses a hundred times the water I use.

I I have four girls who go to the bathroom and wash their hands once a day.

Um so I mean, just on this one bill alone, it's like $1,885 a year that I'm paying more than other people.

And they the city engineer, uh, I think his name is Mike, I apologize.

He said, You gotta go to city council.

They're the only ones that can untie my hands and combine your two bills.

So you're paying one sewer fee.

What because you're not using it, but just simply because we have two meters.

The other option is for me to remove the meter, but that's unsafe for the six to twelve foot line that would be going to the meter.

So I have to dig up the road all the way back to the city water main and put a copper plug in there.

So we're talking about closing down part of Main Street for for 40 cents worth of water each month.

And he's like, if you could just get the city council, they're the only ones that can change the policy for you to be able to change your bill.

Um so I don't know if I'm doing that right here, or if that's something in private I can write you guys.

I don't know how to do that.

Well, I think our city manager can probably respond to this.

Yeah, so can I I'm gonna uh I our public works director is here, so I'm gonna ask that maybe talk with you out the hall and see if we can give a little more information and see what we can do.

I just we probably need a little more information than we have.

Yeah, that's a that's totally cool.

You just said you ought to talk to city council.

So that's no okay.

You're on the right track.

We'll get we'll get some more information and we'll see what we can do.

Perfect.

So we'll wait at the hall, I'll see if we can't.

Yeah, so you guys are appreciated.

All right, next is Brendan Breed.

Council and staff, thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Also, thank you for the breadth of work that you do.

I appreciate public service.

Um, as you know, I'm an organized with energized band, a chemical engineer in the R and G industry.

I just wanted to make two quick points about the round table coming up next week on the climate impact fee.

First, please don't carve out any exemptions for R and G just for my time working in the industry.

I don't see any way the Cascade can make a cost-effective program for ratepayers uh for R and G exemptions.

The public utility commission finds that Cascade has quote insufficient assumptions about the cost of RNG.

The city should align with our public utility commission, our state energy strategy, and what just the entire low carbon fuel market.

Save RNG for the hard to decarbonize sectors.

We don't have a lot of it.

We shouldn't be using it in buildings.

Second ask, implement the policy starting in April 2027 that would be aligned with our building code update, which is already pushing builders towards heat pump adoption whenever they're putting AC in new houses, which frankly we we need in central Oregon.

Um this policy is the biggest opportunity for Ben to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

Um we we didn't have a winter this year.

We have the worst snow drought of any western state.

There is a significant opportunity cost to any more waiting.

Um staff's recommendation to push out implementation another 20 months based on speculation about the next legislative session and speculation about how Pacific Wars RFP process is going to pan out.

In my opinion, is not a sound basis to make policy decisions on.

Um so again, we we can't afford to wait anymore.

Try something.

You're building in checkpoints to update the policy, rely on that, but don't keep pushing out.

We we can't kick the bucket anymore.

Thank you.

Thanks, Brennan.

All right, Priscilla Calleris.

Good evening, council and staff.

I'm Priscilla Calledos, Aya Sheher Pronouns.

I'm a Ben resident and the events and outreach manager at the environmental center.

I work in the environmental center in the environmental center space to serve my community.

It is always easier for people to sit back and say it's not my problem, but we need people to have community and connections to the place that we all live, work, and play.

You all have the opportunity to help protect this community with the climate impact fee.

New residential buildings are the best opportunity that Ben has today to make progress on climate and ensure clean affordable energy.

I have two requests for you as you go into conversations next week at your round table.

Do not carve out any exemptions from the policy.

We need strong climate action and can't afford for the impact fee to get any weaker.

Number two, implement the fee starting in April 2027 to align with the latest building code update.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Christy Millennium.

Hi, Mayor Keebler and counselors and staff.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment today.

My name is Christy Mellum.

I'm a Benn resident, and I'm urging you to pass a strong climate impact fee as soon as possible.

Um I'm concerned that the current proposal has been watered down at a time when federal climate protections are being rolled back.

Um, local leadership matters more than ever right now.

Um, this is a moment for courage, not compromise.

Um, in Bend buildings account for about half of our carbon emissions.

Um transitioning to all electric homes is one of the most impactful steps we can take.

It also helps lower costs for residents over time.

Um, a stronger climate impact fee is a practical first step, and we can also generate revenue to support energy efficiency and a more equitable transition.

As a young person, I really feel the weight of what's ahead.

Smoke built summers, extreme ESNOLess winter, are really shaping our lives.

I care deeply about this place and its rivers, forest mountains, and community, and I want PJ Generations to be able to thrive here too.

A 20% fee just isn't enough to meet this moment.

Please take meaningful action and pass a strong policy without delay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chrissy.

All right, that concludes our public comment for this evening.

Thanks everyone for coming in to give us your comments.

That will move us on to the consent agenda.

I move to approve the consent agenda.

Second.

All right, moved by Council Norris, second by Councilor Francis.

All in favor.

I'm okay.

Before we get into the meat of our agenda, I did want to ask council's consent to just move one item around.

Um Council Norris has to make some recusals tonight.

So we're trying to combine um have item 12 just move up a little bit to be right after item nine, and we'll just be in change of the order.

So unless anyone has a problem with that, we'll go ahead and do that.

Okay.

So item 11, too, or just 12.

Just 12.

Needs to move up to under item nine.

Because you're recused on both 10 and 11.

Right.

Okay.

All right.

So that will get us to items five, six, and seven.

Why don't you go ahead, Council North, before we read the captions?

Okay.

I am going to be recusing on items five through eight because I'm an employee of Hayden Homes, and these items would have a financial impact on my employer.

So I'll be leaving the dais.

All right, thank you.

And then Ashley, if you want to read, we're gonna do five, six, and seven together.

This is a quasi-judicial public hearing and first reading of an ordinance to amend bent comprehensive plan policies pertaining to the Stevens Road Tract Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Area.

This is a quasi-judicial public hearing and first reading of an ordinance to amend the Bend Development Code, Chapter 2.7, special planned districts, refinement plans, area plans and master plans to create legacy village planned development, an approximately 260-acre major community master plan.

And this is a quasi-judicial public hearing and first reading of an ordinance to NX265.7 acres of land in the Stevens Road Tract Urban Grout Growth Boundary Expansion Area.

All right, so I'm gonna open the public hearing for items five, six, and seven, and turn it over to Ian.

Okay.

Um I'm gonna read uh a procedural statement that is going to apply to all three of these items.

We're gonna do one combined public hearing.

Um the first element of the process is to give decision makers an opportunity to declare any ex-party contacts or site visits related to these applications.

Councillor Platz.

Yes.

Uh part of my part of my role just getting up to speed on the council since I've since I've got on I've and learning more about the how home building industry in the city.

I've spent time talking with most of the major builders uh in the in the city and and talked about the challenges of of building um in our city, specifically with Hayden homes.

The conversations that I've had have revolved around what's the impact of a tree code on building generically.

What's the impact of our proposed electrification fee generically on building homes?

How hard is it, in fact, to get commercial um into neighborhoods?

And so I've I've leaned on them and other builders as expertise.

I still feel as though I can be very um uh uh um non-biased in this discussion, but I want to acknowledge that I've had those discussions with Hayden Homes.

Thank you.

Sounds like these were general conversations and not about these particular applications.

That's correct.

Okay.

Anything else?

Seeing none.

Does anyone have any actual or potential conflicts of interest or other personal interests that would interfere with the ability to serve as an impartial decision maker in any of these items?

Seeing shaking of heads, hearing none.

Is there anyone present who wishes to challenge uh any of the decision makers on the basis of bias or personal interest?

Looking around the room, seeing a few shaking heads, hearing no challenges.

Uh the next step is to read a statement explaining state law.

All testimony, argument, and evidence must be directed to the applicable criteria in the Bend Development Code and comprehensive plan that the party believes are applicable to this matter.

The failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity for the decision maker or other parties to respond to the issue will preclude an appeal to the land use board of appeals on that issue.

The failure of the applicant to raise a constitutional issue or other issue regarding a condition of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the decision maker or other parties to respond to that issue will preclude a claim for damages in circuit court related to that issue or condition.

And then finally, if prior to the end of the public hearing tonight, any party requests additional time to present testimony argument or evidence, the decision maker that's the council may allow either a continuance or additional time in its discretion for parties to submit additional testimony argument or evidence to the record or to resume a continued hearing at a date certain.

That's it.

Thank you.

So how this is going to go is we're going to have a presentation from staff.

We're going to have a presentation from the applicant.

I'm going to be a little more formal tonight.

I'd like folks on the dice to raise your hand and be acknowledged before speaking.

So we're not having too much crosstalk and we are being very clear on the record.

We are going to ask informational questions during these presentations.

Let's avoid deliberation until we get to that point.

We also have to take public comment if there is any.

I will tell people there's nobody signed up at the moment.

But just in case there is, we will ask for that as we get done with the presentations.

So we will start with you, Karen.

Thank you.

So there are, as Ian mentioned, this is one public hearing, but there are three applications that we require three separate motions.

We have in front of us tonight for the Stevens Road Track property, a comprehensive plan text amendment, a master plan, and an annexation.

So the background on this property, it as I mentioned, was mentioned was labeled the Stevens Road Track Property by the Department of State Lands.

And that is what all this middle uh information is in the record.

Right before the planning commission uh hearing, the applicant renamed this area legacy village.

So all the adopting um documents have the name uh legacy village in it.

This property is immediately east of Stevens Ranch.

Um it is approximately 260 acres, um, and it is um on the edge of the urban both growth boundary with the not landfill to the south.

This property was acquired by the state of Oregon from the Federal Bureau of Land Management, BLM in the 1990s, and managed by the Department of State Lands to benefit the state's common school fund.

In 2021, the Oregon legislature passed House Bill 3318 specifically for this property to allow the city of Benn to expand our urban growth boundary with very specific requirements.

Uh that there was a minimum residential density, and all of these I'll get into in future slides.

A housing mix that exceeds the proportions in the city housing needs analysis, um, a minimum acreage for affordable housing, and development of concept plan and subsequent comprehensive plan policies.

So those housing requirements that I mentioned that there it must exceed an overall density of nine units per gross residential acres, uh which is the highest um in any community master plan and bend.

Uh, the housing mix must exceed the uh needs in the 2016 housing needs analysis, which is a 10% of the units housing units must be town homes, and 35% of those units must be duplex, triplex, quadplex, or multi-unit or apartment style units.

And uh that 2016 housing needs analysis um update is underway by the growth management um uh division, but um the this data is um based on that 2016 analysis.

House Bill 3318 also had very specific housing uh affordable housing requirements.

At least 20 acres of the residential land must be for deed restricted affordable housing and broken down as such.

12 of the acres must be available for up to for households earning up to 60 percent of the area median income.

Six acres must be available for up to 80% of the area median income, and two acres within um uh the area uh available that that 80% of those units must be affordable uh for for up to 80% of the area of median income.

And those 20 acres would be conveyed to the city to then go forth um with the process of how that would be developed.

In the um the tracks that uh are available for 80 percent um area meaning income priority would be given to households and at least with in which at least one individual is employed by an education provider to the extent permitted by the law under the pattern of power housing laws.

Uh so back in uh so the this House Bill 3318 here and hold on one second, we have a question.

Just go back.

I just want to make sure just to confirm this.

So the process that went through this, because this happened some of this happened before I joined the council.

These basic criteria were um adopted into our code through the steps that we had to go through defined in the law, right?

So they become part of the criteria that we're using tonight to evaluate if the applicant meets the criteria or not.

Correct.

And that's yep, I'm getting to that.

So these are straight straight from the law.

Yep.

Um, and then subsequently um in 2022, the next year, um, as directed by the state law, uh, the city developed a concept plan for this property.

It um hired a consultant to evaluate site conditions, um, looked at land needs and a market analysis, particularly for the commercial areas, um, engaged the public in a process that develops certain uh guiding principles, um, and developed three alternative concepts, which varied by unit count, the housing mix, how much commercial land, and the open space uh or park size.

Um, then of those three, um, one was selected and uh then I believe um I think only the mayor was um on council at that time in terms of who's here tonight.

Uh and so um this was adopted by resolution, and um it did include a graphical representation of how that um how that concept plan uh the preferred alternative looked like it involved uh 2,487 total dwelling units, uh include medium and high density along the community park in the central area, uh also along Wilderness Way, that east west collector street, and near Stevens Road to the north.

It included multiple areas of market rate, high density housing, um, specifically five acres of um Main Street commercial on uh Wilderness Way, an additional seven acres of mixed employment um land designations at the south end, and a large uh community park.

Um and so then um these were all uh preliminary locations and a graphical representation of that concept plan.

So then the follow following year it was actually adopted by the council in 2023, and we had a few more council members on who were aware of this.

Uh so that all that um was the concept plan was uh adopted or approved by the Department of Land and Community Conservation Development because we kind of had to do check-ins with the state along the way.

Um the next step was to develop comprehensive plan policies.

Those specific numerical requirements that I just mentioned directly from House Bill 3318 were incorporated into specific comprehensive plan policies with the city.

Uh the uh language for the bill that required areas designated for adequate employment lands based on that market analysis.

Um, that um was shown to be five acres of commercial and seven acres of mixed employment um land uh based on um that specific policy 160.

The language in 383 House Bill 3318 that um required areas designated for recreational and open space was reflected in the policy that required 39 acres of recreational and open space designated uh public facilities specifically that included a community park.

Um the bill also required that there's adequate infrastructure to support walking and biking, which is reflected in the two policies that required seven acres of trail corridors and a green green loop of multi-use trails around the perimeter and a century located path.

Um then just a few more from the bill.

Um it required land use regulations that comply with applicable wildfire planning and development, um, and that uh policy um required that the master plan must show that wildfire risk can be mitigated, which was fulfilled with the applicant's submittal of um uh homeowners um HOA CCNRs, um, which are very reflective of uh the um existing um uh rules and regulations that the city is looking at, both for building and for landscaping, and find the adequate capacity for sewer and analysis, which is very standard for our own process, um, which requires a sewer analysis and um in this case coordination with the AB Water Company.

So just to give a big um timeline of everything that I just discussed, again, we started back in 2021 with adoption of House Bill 3318.

We adopted the concept plan in June 2022.

In 2023, uh this property was added to the urban growth boundary uh the following February that uh conference of plan uh policy, um, all those policies were added, um, as well as the conference plan map designations.

And then in September, the Department of State Land selected Hayden's homes to purchase the site.

And in November, Hayden Homes submitted these three applications, and we're here this spring with these hearings.

And again, the Department of Land Conservation and Development DLCD approved the concept plan and the subsequent conference of plan text and policy amendments along the way.

And we have been in constant contact with them with all of these legislative steps.

So to first the first of these applications is a conference of plan policy amendments, and I'm bringing these forth first because the master plan is based on the adoption of these conference of plan policy amendments.

The first is it would remove that concept plan image that I shared earlier and references to the concept plan because that is an basically old graphical representation.

We now have the master plan submitted by the applicant.

And so then the next one is an amendment to allow flexibility in the location of affordable housing.

There were several in this concept plan restrictions on adjacency to the park and the commercial areas, but also there needs to be distribution of these affordable housing areas, and so in order to work allow all of those concepts to work together.

And that but multi-use path that connects to the community park because that was really key in that public engagement process that the affordable housing parcels could partake in that enjoyment of that park.

And so all of those would have a multi-use path connection to that park.

And then the more numerical amendment to one of the policies is well, first I'll kind of start with the overall policy.

The overall policy, as I mentioned, required that minimum number, 2,487 units.

It also then broke it down to how many acres with that in each residential designation, and then how many units within each of those zones.

And so all of that will remain the same.

The overall number of the units, the overall number of acres with each in each of those zones, the amendment acreage for affordable housing, everything remains the same.

But the part of that policy that's changing or is proposed to be amended is reducing the market rate dwelling units from 480 to 300 in those 12 acres of RH designated lands for market rate housing.

All of the requirements in that policy would remain the same.

The amendment to the policy 11158, it currently requires 18 acres of affordable housing within the RH zone, and it says each of them must be six acres.

And this amendment would allow some flexibility.

There would still be one lot, six acres in size, but the others would be two and a half to ten acres in size to allow some different potential layouts and flexibility and development.

But again, the overall acreage would remain the same.

And so this is the criteria for these comprehensive plan policy amendments.

And you'll see all of these applications have very consistent or or are similar criteria.

First, it's consistent with the statewide planning goals, as you'll see in the um in the staff report that is consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies, and yes, these are our comprehensive plan policy amendments, but that it's consistent otherwise with all of the other policies, uh, that there's adequate public facilities concurrent with development, and that kind of goes with the concurrent master plan, that there's evidence of change in neighborhood or community or mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan map regarding the property.

Part of this is again this was a visual representation back in 2022, and things have been fine-tuned over time in terms of the utility availability and topography and everything else, and so there's obviously some moving around of some designations.

Um there was uh in terms of just mapping variability, um, the acreage slightly changed, but it was the composite plan policies are the dictating factor in terms of the number of acres.

And then consistent with the transportation planning rule, and again, this kind of goes more with the master plan and the annexation, and I'll get to that in a moment.

So again, the master plan is now called Legacy Village, and it will include that minimum 2,487 units.

As you may recall, 10% of those housing units must be townhomes, and the applicant is proposing 11%.

There is a requirement for 35% of those the overall housing units to be Plexas or multi-unit residential units, and that the applicant is proposing 58%.

So there's 3.8 acres more than required in this proposal than is required in the House Bill.

The master plan includes 39.5 acres of permanent open space, which includes a 23-acre community park.

This was developed in tandem with the with the Bend Parks and Recreation District in terms of the size that they needed as well as the location.

It includes 10 acres of trail aligned with a BPRD high desert trail alignment along the western boundary, and 6.5 acres of additional open space throughout the community.

Resulting in this graphical representation.

And you can see along the left boundary with the pink line is that trail system, and then there's also trails along each of the arterial roadways, Stevens Road, Ward Road, and Ferguson Road, as well as Wilderness Way that cuts east-west and as well as a local street that bisects the property north-south or a north-south local street.

This middle north-south-south multi-use pathway connects all of those affordable housing parcels to the central park as well as the central main street area.

The areas outlined in dashed blue are the 23.8 acres of affordable housing that will be conveyed to the city.

This also includes that five acres in pink that you see just north of Wilderness Way for commercial lands, and then the purple that's in the north of Wilderness Way near Ward Road, as well as near Ferguson Road for mixed employment, and that's the seven acres that are required by the policies.

There is an off-site requirement on Highway 20 and Ward Road or Hambey Road in terms of adding some capacity to that roundabout, providing a contribution for intersection improvements to the county for Ward Road and Bear Creek Road, expansions of the wilderness way roundabout that was currently constructed, and then also the 27th and Ferguson Road roundabout that is currently in design by the developer of Stevens Ranch.

And then there was also going to be a movement restriction at Reed Market and Pettigrew Road.

But those two last two would not be the construction of those roundabouts at this time because they're not warranted yet.

So the master plan approval criteria requires a consistency with the relevant statewide planning goals addressed in the planning or in the staff report that is consistent with the Ben Conference Plan map.

Again, this rearrange the placeholder designations but keeps with the acreage requirements and the policies that it's consistent with the relevant policies in Chapter 11 as amended by that previous application, that there's adequate sewer and water capacity with development and there was a utility analysis memo or analysis submitted by the applicant with a subsequent meta memo written to the file for by the city in terms of sewer capacity and the working with ABN on water capacity and the applicants can speak more to those conversations.

And then finally compliance with the transportation analysis requirements in the code and this results in the transportation mitigation table that is in the legacy village master plan code which is exhibit A of that application ordinance.

That all properties must have access to commercial goods and services within one half mile.

And that includes the areas designated general commercial and mixed employment.

And all of the properties are within a half mile of that central main street commercial area, not including either of the ME zones, but we're also including those as well.

And so this is definitely met.

This is superseded by the comprehensive plan policies for this property, which as I mentioned was 10% townhomes and 35% either milled hill housing or multi-unit development, which they are exceeding both, and the 20 acres which must be provided to the city for deed restricted affordable units, which again there's they're exceeding that by 3.8 acres.

And there is approximately 15% planned of this property, but that's also to meet those comprehensive policies that I mentioned earlier.

And that includes the 23 acre community park, which is larger than neighborhood park, it's a different standard for BPRD.

And as this is a major community master plan, the applicant has requested some deviations to the underlying code.

There are some proposed deviations to the residential lot sizes, setbacks, and lot coverage.

These are smaller proposed lot sizes in the RS zone, 2500 square feet compared to Stevens Ranch, the minimum lot size is 2800 square feet.

Caraway recently adopted master plan 2700 square feet, and the city standard is 4,000 square feet.

For the setbacks, essentially the setbacks that this applicant is proposing is similar to what's been adopted in Petrosa, Easton, Stevens Ranch, and the Caraway master plans.

So there is some precedent for that.

And back to the residential lot sizes, I want to mention that those lot sizes that the applicant is proposing for the RS zone is essentially to match the lot sizes and dimensions in the RM zone, medium density residential.

And so there's different unit types that are larger than the RM zone, but this is essentially making those lot size and dimensions equal between those two zones.

And then in terms of block length and block perimeter, the underlying code in chapter 3.1 of the Bend Development Code indicates that there's a numerical standard, and that if you exceed it, you must provide a mid block corridor.

But it doesn't say how much you can exceed it or when where you need the mid-block quarter.

And this applicant submitted some clear and objective standards for a legacy village.

And I can go into more depth on that if you are curious about that.

But there is an underlying code, the block parameter, maximum block perimeter is 2,000 lineal feet in the residential zone and 2,640 feet in the non-residential zones, and making this a blanket 3,000 lineal feet across the master plan.

And it these did do include specific requirements of when that to mid-block pathway would need to be provided.

Moving on to the commercial uses and the development standards, as we mentioned that policy for the commercial area really called it a main street area in order to kind of facilitate that.

So the building has to be closer to the street.

So the people's front doors wouldn't have to face views of the landfill.

So finally, moving on to the annexation, all of the criteria pretty much we've talked about to this point in terms of consistent with policies.

School district does have a need for an elementary school in this area, however, and so there is not a parcel for such a school on this property because there is one already shown on the Stevens Ranch property.

And plus they have access property at the High Desert Middle School site too.

So and then parks, as I mentioned, they work closely with both the city and the applicant has worked closely with CPRD on the park needs in this area as well as trails.

Okay, great.

Who's here from the planning commission?

You want to come on up and just let us any summary anything you want to add to Karen's presentation about the deliberations of the planning commission.

Hi.

And please introduce yourselves to you.

Hello, I'm Katie Schneider.

I currently serve on the Planning Commission.

With the comprehensive plan policies for Stevens Road Tract, Planning Commission unanimous unanimously voted to recommend that city council adopt the ordinance.

As well as surrounding, as well as pedestrian and bike trail systems throughout the proposed master plan.

Okay.

Can I ask a question?

Sure.

Is there anything from the two who voted against it?

Was there anything in terms of their reasoning for voting against it that were grounded in the criteria that we have to use to evaluate this plan?

I mean, it sounds like some of the discussion may have not been directly relevant to all the criteria necessarily, but was there some that was directly relevant to the criteria, some of the dissent?

Um I don't recall actually, but there's any staff can answer that question.

There was some discussion about the commercial area.

Is this been a concern and many of the uh community master plans with the adoption of Senate Bill Eight, which is now adopted into the city and code in compliance with state law that allows affordable housing on commercial property?

So there was concern um that this commercial property would remain um or be available for commercial uses.

And uh so that was part of the discussion.

Um and the um in terms of the acreage of the uh the commercial property that was dictated by a market analysis that led to the concept plan that led to this master plan.

Uh and there is not as much of a danger in um in um this becoming affordable housing like we have in other master plans because there's 23 point acres of affordable um uh housing acreage for in this master plan itself required by the house bill.

Uh so that was a concern, but um is not necessarily um one that would be applicable to this master plan.

Because it's that's not relevant to the criteria for our evaluation of this application, right?

The concern, I understand the concern, it's valid concern, and we've been working hard to try to address that concern encoding the bill that was just passed, which I'm assuming doesn't apply here.

Yes, okay, but um as proposed it is compliant with the conference upon policies and the house bill itself, yes.

Karen, can you say again when the planning commission meeting was?

February 9th.

Okay, so that was before the end of the session when the bill passed to make changes to the SBA bill.

Correct, right?

Okay, great.

Any other questions before our planning commissioner steps back?

Um it's related.

I don't know if it's by the planning commissioner, though.

Karen, can you just remind me?

So it's five acres for commercial general, and the other two parcels that are mixed employment, those look even smaller than five acres.

Is that right?

Uh together, I there's seven acres.

Seven acres total totally.

Um about Mike's question regarding, sorry, Councilor Riley's question regarding um the criteria.

I mean, how the the comprehensive plan and the bend development code, um the specific master plans for this area all refer to complete communities, um, and those are defined as mixed use.

So um how so it would seem that commercial and mixed employment zone properties or parcels would actually and whether or not those stay consistent with those uses, that seems like it would actually be very relevant to those criteria.

Yes, it is compliant with that criteria that it has five acres of commercial land and seven acres of mixed employment land.

Okay, yes, that it has the acres, but not necessarily that they actually are developed in that way.

That's yeah, go ahead.

It was like a a state ordinance or statute that says that they can do that with the land, so it is still compliant.

We do urge Hayden to maybe work with developers if they can to make sure that that the commercial stays commercial and is developed as such.

So I think the nearest commercial is a mile away on 27.

I guess I'm trying to just understand though with respect to the criteria what we are supposed to because when we've got evidence on the ground that previous master plans have counselor, is this deliberation or a question?

I'm sorry, I'm just trying to keep us tight.

Yeah, and I mean I'm I'm I'm guessing I'm trying to formulate a question to try to get an answer.

Um if they're if they're if they're just showing a square on a map, that's all that we have to development.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

I have a question for staff, but not for things.

Okay, yeah, thank you.

If you if you want to hop back, thank you for that insights.

Yeah, and for coming.

And and keeping in mind we have the applicant to present too, so we'll be able to ask them questions directly, but yeah, go ahead.

Okay, I'm gonna try to get as many questions as I can in four minutes.

Um the master plan code has a transportation mitigation element that requires coordination with Cascadie's transit of when and where a transit stop will be constructed.

Is the developer required to build a mobility hub?

Or how is how is transit access being met?

Yeah, that is simply coordination with CET.

This one as opposed to like Timber Yards that has a specific modibility hub.

Um, this master plan doesn't specifically require that.

It it may be who knows in the future, but it it's all about what CET needs.

Okay.

Um, thank you.

Sorry to pay off.

I'm just trying to be efficient.

You we have plenty of time.

I'm just gonna be able to do that.

I feel it, I feel the heat.

No, I just I just want to make sure we're focused for staff and we're gonna deliver.

You can ask them any questions you want.

Um how much discretion do we have in deciding whether to grant the reduction of the minimum number of market rate dwelling units in the high density residential uh zones?

Is that I mean that's not grounded in code, so is it 100% discretion or correct?

That number did not come from the House bill.

Um, that came from development of the concept plan and the subsequent conference of plan um amendments.

There are other um belts and suspenders to all of this in terms of there's a minimum number of acres and a total number of of units, and so um there are other boundaries of uh of how much um the applicant can be.

I think the question that's a question was probably for the developer, which is what are the consequences of refusing that?

But that sounds like that's a developer question.

Is there anything in our code that regulates an ownership type like homes to rent versus homes to own?

No.

Okay, um, no, it's all based to area median income and the marker is.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Um, but thanks for clarifying that.

And then what is it in our code that requires the wider roundabout at 27th and Ferguson?

I I didn't catch the first part of that question.

What is what is it in our code that requires the wider roundabout at 27th and Ferguson?

And I can uh allow um our assistant city engineer to talk about that, but that came from the transportation analysis.

Okay.

Um can we just ask the developer to conform to our current multi-use path standards, which would be 10 feet wide instead of eight feet wide?

I know they're only bound by eight feet, but can we just ask them to do 10 instead?

We can ask whatever we want.

Well, we can require them to do here our standards, but maybe that's a question for the applicant.

So in terms of local streets, um, there is no multi-reapant use path requirement, six feet sidewalks on each side.

Um, on collector streets and um and arterial streets, there is that wider path.

However, um, because there is the requirement to connect these affordable housing parcels to the the community park, um that local street is being expanded.

That's why I said kind of an enhanced, that's not a formal word, but local street to expand that um six feet sidewalk into an eight eight foot multi-use pattern.

The spine the spine north-south spine, yes.

Thank you so much.

Yeah.

Any other questions for Karen?

Well, I'm gonna have the staff questions, but I want to ask the applicants some questions first.

Okay, yeah, we can have yeah, we can we can bring Karen back up, so let's have the applicants come up and present.

Grab yourself an extra chair if you need it.

I want to plug in just to make sure I have use here of the expecting a long conversation, Joe.

Hopefully not okay, Mayor, counsel, thank you for your your patience here.

Let me get the presentation shared.

Okay.

So thank you for your time and attention this evening.

My name is Joey Sheer.

I'm a planner with AKS Engineering and Forestry here in Bend.

We are a consultant for the applicant and the developer Hayden Homes.

And I'm gonna try and keep the presentation relatively short.

Karen did a very good job as usual, kind of going through in detail all of the kind of key criteria that these applications are required to be reviewed against.

We also have you know 500 pages of uh material that we have in the record and um a team of folks here to try and answer questions.

So I have about a dozen slides.

Um and then I would just request that if there are any questions about this project, and we've we've heard some of those already.

Please give us a chance to answer those before the record is closed so we have a chance to try and communicate our position, why plans are the way they are, and answer any questions that you might have.

So the application that is before you this evening or the applications are the product of uh a team effort.

We've been working for over a year with Hayden Homes, the other consultants with the city uh with the Department of State plans, Ben Parks and Rec, ODOT Deschutes County, the school district, uh among many others, in order to kind of put together what we think is an approvable uh major community master plan.

As I mentioned, several members of our team are present here this evening to try and answer any questions.

Um but before we launch into the meat of uh the application, I'm gonna turn things over to Jen Covitz to do a little intro for Hayden Homes and give a little more background about the property.

Yeah, absolutely.

So good evening, Mayor, counselors Jen Kopitz, she, her community engagement and government affairs manager for Hayden Homes.

Uh, first and foremost, I just wanna thank council and city staff and state staff for the little years of work that you have put in to bring us to this milestone.

We Joey mentioned we've been working for over a year.

This House Bill passed in 2021.

So we we are we really stand on the shoulders of a lot of work that have led us to today.

So thank you.

Um Hayden Homes, uh, I'll spare you a long introduction.

We are proud to have built uh over 2100 homes in Bend since we began uh just up the road in Redmond in 1989.

And um next Tuesday, I think as many of you know, we are going to celebrate the ribbon cutting at Parkside Place, the um affordable housing and UGB pilot uh project made possible by House Bill 4079.

And as you consider the next milestone for this, the Stevens Road Tract uh public private housing project.

I want to just uh shout out what Hayden Homes and the City of Bend have been able to accomplish at Parkside Place.

Um so we exceeded the uh legislative requirement of 30% affordable units, and we are delivering 40% deed restricted affordable units.

Um we are delivering 108 of those as rental units in the first phase.

Um they're going up right now.

The market rate that we're achieving without subsidy begins uh at homes priced at 434,000, which is 294,000 below Ben's current median sales price, and that means that these market rate unsubsidized homes are priced so that uh Deschutes County householders earning 81% area median income and above can purchase that without being housing cost burdened.

So we did this together, and we want to thank you.

Next slide, please.

Um Hayden Homes is really honored to have been selected for the opportunity to purchase the Stevens Road Tract, which as you've heard, we've we've proposed the rename of Legacy Village.

And when uh DSL selected Hayden Homes, um, they cited both our housing nonprofit first story and our uh ability to deliver that housing that our local workforce can afford, as some of the the reasons that we were chosen.

I also want to say that for our nonprofit first story, 15% of those homeowners are educators, and that really aligns with the spirit of this bill, dedicating um our prioritizing, excuse me, uh percentage of that affordable housing to educators.

So there's a natural alignment here for us.

And I just want to say that you know at Hayden Homes, we really take seriously the House Bill's stated purpose to address, as you see in this highlighted section, um, what they stated as an acute housing crisis, and we really feel like we are um prepared to help uh bring to life the plan that the city and state worked so hard to put together.

Thank you, Joey.

Thank you.

Um so as Karen mentioned, this property is at the southeastern edge of the city.

The subject property is here on the slide outlined in yellow.

It's east of 27th Street, and between Reed Market and Stevens Road to the north and Ferguson Road to the south.

It's 261 acres and butts the east side of the Stevens Ranch Master Plan, which was annexed into the city back in 2021.

As we all know, there's a lot happening in Southeast Bend and the Southeast Area Plan and Stevens Ranch Master Plan.

And what that means is that there are a number of kind of existing and planned destinations for future residents, so commercial recreation, schools.

And that's all within relatively close proximity to Legacy Village.

And on top of that, and we'll get into this a little bit more.

Legacy Village lays the framework for this mix of uses within this new community to supplement everything that's happening around it.

So quick couple slides here, just a closer look at the 261-acre property.

You see how it abuts uh Stephen Stevens Ranch.

Stevens Road there forms the northern boundary, and you can see Ferguson Road on the southern boundary.

Topography and vegetation is pretty standard for the east side of Bend.

Here is the conceptual layout, kind of there with Stevens Ranch.

You see how we extending streets from Stevens Ranch to the West for kind of this consistent coherent development pattern.

And this is a summary of the Stevens Road Track Legacy Village by the numbers.

The concept plan and comp plan policies adopted by the city require a minimum of 2,487 homes.

All of the infrastructure planning that we've done, coordination with the city for sewer water transportation is planned around approximately 2,500 homes, so a little bit above that minimum requirement.

Less than one-third of the homes are planned to be detached single family, meaning more than two-thirds will be middle housing or multi-family housing.

And this is consistent with the bill and also the city's housing needs analysis, as Karen had summarized.

And then we have also been coordinating with BPRD on the location and size of the community park.

That moved around a little bit from the concept plan originally adopted by the city.

We moved it to the south side of Wilderness Way so it was more centrally located and further away from the plan park that BPRD believes is going to be constructed soonest in Stevens Ranch.

And then this location also helps preserve what's probably the most significant rock outcrop within this larger property.

We mapped it out for BPRD, gave them a map that they could kind of put on their phones to kind of geolocate in real time.

And we got uh emailed back from their planner that their landscape architects gave our new location two thumbs up, so we are we are proud about that one.

Um so this is a closer look at Legacy Village.

It's a complete community of residential commercial and recreational uses, providing kind of this range of housing types for households of different sizes, ages, and incomes.

The original concept plan had most of the multi-family and affordable housing kind of more centralized around Wilderness Way, concentrated in the middle and northern parts of the property.

What we've done with this plan is try to disperse the range of housing types across the community and then kind of tie them together with this network of these wider multi-use paths that ring around the perimeter, uh, but also east-west and and north-south on the spine that was that was mentioned earlier.

The blue dashed areas uh show the land plan to accommodate the deed restricted affordable housing.

Uh the dashed pink lines show the network of these multi-use paths.

And then this approach is really trying to take land and transportation planning to help connect neighbors together and connect homes with these commercial areas, the parks, the recreation areas, and kind of the broader amenities that are beyond this property.

Commercial lands are just one element of a complete community, but one that we certainly understand has received a lot of attention here recently in Bend.

While Legacy Village is fulfilling its requirements under the comprehensive plan to provide certain uh acreages of commercial and mixed employment.

This slide also shows that Stevens Ranch is planned to provide more than 43 acres of commercial land.

So, what this means for for future legacy village residents is that there's going to be more than 50 acres of commercial land within a relatively easy walking biking distance, and these connections are going to be made not just on regular city sidewalks but on these these wider multi-use paths.

And portions of these paths are part of the city's low stress network.

Another critical element of a complete community is housing that is affordable to a wide range of incomes.

As Karen mentioned, the bill requires 20 net acres to be conveyed to the city for affordable housing, including at least six acres for households at 80% AMI or less.

12 acres for households at incomes of 60% AMI or less, and then another two acres at 80% AMI for housing prioritizing employees of the school district.

So while the bill and the comp plan required kind of this this 20 net acres, as has been mentioned, and what Hayden is very proud about, and is consistent with the work at Parkside Place, is that this plan actually provides more.

So this plan provides nearly four additional acres to the city specifically for affordable housing.

So the the key takeaways.

House Bill 3318 intended to address the acute housing crisis.

That is the legislation that set in motion, all the steps, all the planning work that the city's already done and kind of where we are here today.

Consistent with the bill and the comprehensive plan, legacy village provides this complete community with commercial opportunities, at least the that 22,487 homes, the required amounts of market rate housing and affordable housing.

We can get into the questions about the number of units on the RH land.

Recreational opportunities, multimodal transportation system, and regional transportation and other infrastructure improvements.

And equally as important, making sure that this project is mitigating its impacts on these larger infrastructure systems, and so that's what's included in the transportation mitigation plan.

And so that is the end of our formal presentation.

We anticipate there's plenty of questions, and we welcome the opportunity to try and answer them.

All right, council, let me know if you want to start with any questions.

RL, you want to go first?

Sure.

Um, so what would the consequence of refusing to grant the reduction of the number of minimum market rate units be?

So the reason for that change is that under the assumed density adopted with the original concept plan, that that came out to be residential development in the RH zone, about 40 units an acre for the market rate housing.

To put housing on the ground today, we don't think that's viable at the edge of the city.

There, there are no other examples at the edge of the city of that level of density being built.

So what we have proposed to do in order to be able to achieve housing near term is reduce the density to potentially 25, an average of 25 units an acre for the RH zone, but make sure that we're still providing the same number of units by kind of blending those units across multiple zones.

So while the density is decreasing in the RH zone, we're providing the same number of units, and we think we're doing it in a way where it's actually the market can accommodate it, and that housing will be built sooner.

Fine question.

Can you describe so 25 units to an acre versus 40 units?

Is 40 units to an acre like a five-story building of condos versus 25 is town homes, or like what is the formula.

Yeah, so if you're at 25 units an acre, you're looking at probably three or four-story kind of walk-up apartments.

Um to 40 units an acre, yeah, you're you'd be looking at five, six, seven-story potential buildings.

So, Joey, can you this follow-up a little bit more?

Can you say when you say they're being dispersed?

So we're not saying they have those units are now gonna be in other RH zones.

What is how is Hayden accommodating the other units that are gonna go into different places?

Is that that that larger plex number, or where is that?

Yeah, so we're we're assuming a slightly probably higher than minimum required density for the RS and RM zones in order to meet that that total unit count.

And we're we're also with the multivariable equation we're trying to meet here.

We're we're still providing the mix of housing, right?

And we're actually exceeding by quite a bit the the um minimum amounts of that the plexes and the multifamily.

Got it.

Is that what drove the reduction in the lot sizes also?

Is the need, I mean, in order to be able to place the number of units across the whole development?

Yes.

These lot sizes are pretty small.

So relative to what we see in the community.

Hopefully, when we do these presentations, we make this look pretty easy.

Uh I can tell you that it's not.

And so the map, you know, taking the concept plan, which reflected a lot of work that the city had done.

Um we need to look at that now, like how how can this actually be buildable?

Uh what part of that effort was kind of looking, well, is there really a difference for the for this master plan to have some very clear distinction between the RS and the RM zones, and what we decided is for the types of communities that Hayden Homes is building, there that's kind of an artificial cleavage.

And so what we're doing is basically kind of blending the RS and the RM together to create gentle density.

Um, and we think that that is going to make this project more viable and get housing on the ground faster.

And what's what's viable mean?

I mean, tell me more about why you're what you mean when you use that word.

It means that they can build a product that people are going to want to purchase and live in.

Does it mean desirable essentially?

Demand.

Well, and then it can be financed, right?

Um, I you know, I don't know without a clear proof of concept that they're gonna be you know financing readily available to build five, six, seven story.

Oh, you're gonna be a financing project.

At the edge of City of Bend.

But with recent middle housing law changes, we know that smaller lots are selling, we're selling them right now.

Karen listed a couple of other communities that have dropped their um minimum lot size that have been approved in other master plans.

And so that those middle housing laws are showing us what is viable, and we're doing that right now.

And so it that this helps align with more of that middle housing reality that we're in now.

So I guess I'm still kind of hearing about a combination of sell, you know, they're selling, meaning they're desirable, people want to live in them, but there's also a concern about financing, right?

Up front, whether you're whether you're whoever you're getting your your financing from that's risky, we're not gonna and they're making that financial decision based on whether or not they think it will sell, right?

Yeah, so it's that and so the the point I would also make is you know, reducing that the RH count to 300 in the RH zone, that's a minimum.

I think if market conditions change, there's a proof of concept here.

This this huge project is gonna be built out over 10, 15 plus years, and say in the future, 40 units an acre is viable and it in it and attractive in this area.

That what we're proposing doesn't preclude that, but it does allow us to get going today.

All right, other questions, Steve?

Joey, two questions.

The the park flipping to the south end of Wilderness Way right there, is that what drove the you need a half mile waiver now because that north that north unit of high density housing is now greater than a quarter mile away?

Um for the proximity to the proximity, is it what it's like?

They flipped to the south side, is that why you needed that?

Correct.

So it's a little bit more, it's actually a little bit more centralized.

Um and it like I said, it's there's a BPRD's the park that they BPRD thinks is going to be built soonest in Stevens ranches, kind of on the north side of that project.

So it's also kind of moving that to equally more equally distribute their their park lands in the open space.

But that's the group that's kind of uh a little above a quarter mile away, right?

Uh that that RH at the north end.

At the north end, yes.

Okay.

Um and then secondly, um, I I don't know if it's gonna come up later, but can you describe the phasing plan as you envision it?

Uh so that's a very good question.

We do have a conceptual phasing plan right now.

We we think the project is going to be built from south to north.

So left to right on the screen.

Left to right on the screen, um, and that's basically kind of due to the availability of of sewers really driving that sewer water.

Um, and so we've tried to, as part of part of this again, multi-variable equation we're trying to solve here, you know, and the RS and the RM zoning, we're trying to kind of create a good mix of housing along the way, which will help the project be successful because there's a more of a variety of housing with each phase, not not huge phases of uniform housing type, uh, but that that is feeding into the phasing plan.

When we get to tentative subdivision, we will have a much more defined phasing plan.

Um, but yeah, conceptually, we're moving from from south to north.

And so you envisioned some of that mixed employment kind of being developed at the same time the houses going, or I mean that's the other thing.

So we we also did distribute some of the non-residential lands and some of the multifamily kind of across the site a little bit more.

Um here we're gonna have infrastructure available in the early phases for the ME.

Um, the the challenge really at the edge of town is like can the market um kind of absorb that that commercial land and is there that demand?

We recognize it's uh an amenity for this community.

Uh so we want it to be successful, but ultimately we don't necessarily control the the market conditions to make it so.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, I had a question.

We received a letter from um the Department of State Lands in favor of approving this project tonight.

I just wanted to ask where you were at in the in the scheme of closing the sale on this land.

I know that the money that goes from this sale will go into the common school fund, which I I know they would really like to have.

So what is the status of that and is it predicated on land use approval?

And if you can share that, if you can't, that's okay.

But I wanted to ask.

Yeah, so the we have not closed.

Um, and obviously, land use approval is uh an important condition of a sale being finalized.

So yeah, that the we're well on our way, but we have not closed yet.

Okay, great.

Ask one other question.

Yeah, sure.

Just to see if you you're agreeing with me.

If I'm understanding the sort of the math on all this stuff, 240, 2,487 units are required, right?

Under state under that's driven by the minimum density of nine units per net residential acre.

So if you've subtract out the numbers, I think I've seen you all put up there that leaves about 760 units that the city has to that have to be built on the affordable housing.

Is that amount within the ballpark there?

Yeah, under 800.

I think it's I think it's maybe a little bit higher than that, but right around that number.

But it might be closer to 800.

That 800 is the ballpark that been.

And I'm gonna ask staff the same question, but my understanding from a prior concept plan before we have this amended plan before us is that that number that the city was going to be responsible for on that number of acres was a lower number and not lower number of units.

Um, so therefore that relative density on that total number of acres would also have been smaller.

So am I am I understanding the math on this correctly?

Maybe this is a better question for staff, but I wanted to see if you all are basically.

And I'd be uh happy to have staff answer that.

We have not changed any sort of assumptions looking at the concept plan that was adopted as far as density across the affordable lands that will be dedicated to the city.

Now we're giving four additional acres, and so that's going to increase the overall number.

But as far as density or assumed units per acre for these affordable lands, because we are not developing that, we have not changed any of those assumptions.

But even with the number if it's closer to 800, and this will be higher.

But if that's 760, it sounds like it's a bigger number on that 23.8 acres.

I got 32 units per acre, just doing the math before.

So at 800, it's going to be higher number.

That's quite a bit higher than the 25 you're saying is viable.

So I'm just um frankly, I was concerned about it.

That's not just keep it as a question, Mike.

So that's a good question.

So that does frame the question.

I need to be a good one.

That's an important distinction.

So that was the when the city regionally went through the concept planning process, those were the assumptions that the city thought would be viable for the lands that they received as part of this project.

From the market rate housing, we see challenges in financing for that higher density.

I don't know that we're seeing the same challenge in financing because of significant subsidies for that higher density for deed restricted affordable housing, the programs available to kind of bridge the gap between the financing.

So we're looking at projects around town that are closer to that that density for the affordable housing.

So the number is different.

Um again, we're not we're not proposing to change the the city's number for the affordable housing lands that they're taking anecdotally recent uh affordable housing projects in Bend are very close to that density, but from the market rate um RH lands, we're trying to achieve a density that again to use the term viable, we think is more viable.

All right, um is there anything else staff wants to add to that?

And maybe just to help you interrupted earlier.

Yeah, I'm gonna have staff answer, and I saw Ariel and I will call on him.

Don't worry, go ahead.

When this was proposed, we reached out to Housing Works and asked just to be like, okay, if there was something that you wanted to build, what could you build like per acre density-wise?

And and they said between 33 and 35.

So we're we're in that sweet spot.

Okay, thank you, Rachel.

Are your questions?

Um yes, so the city is asking you to contribute to this expanded roundabout on 27th and Ferguson hasn't even been built yet.

It's planned to be single lane and then it's apparently gonna be closed down and built again.

My question is uh will kids be able to get to high desert middle school walking and biking because currently there's no sidewalk facilities, there's no bike facilities there.

Would you are you gonna be contributing to that as an off-site improvement or so we'll let Joe answer the transportation?

Yeah, for the for the record, Joe Bestman, traffic traffic engineer, trans site consulting.

So there's a number of different efforts going on here.

If if you've been out here recently, you see the new multi-use sidewalks of Stevens Ranch is building.

There's now that that roundabout being designed at 27th and Ferguson.

It doesn't just provide a vehicular connection, but it provides pedestrian crossings back to the CAP lands that are all south and and west of there.

CEP is also working to form a local improvement district of sorts or a supplemental SDC methodology to finish constructing a whole pathway that goes down to high high desert middle school and beyond that all the way over to Caldera High School.

That connects to the 15th Street sidewalks that build into Russ's plan 15th Street and Ferguson roundabout.

Bottom line is we're gonna have a really really well connected grid of 10 foot wide multi-use paths throughout this whole entire area, just not immediately.

You know, they're they're they're going to happen sequentially in pieces.

Thank you.

Last last two questions.

Can we just ask you to conform to the current multi-use path standards and build them to 10 feet instead of eight feet?

Yes, I believe you're referring to the local north-south street.

And as Karen mentioned, that's a that's a non-designated low stress route.

It's a local street.

So the standard there is six foot.

For roads that are designated local streets that are designated as a low stress network, the standard is eight feet.

While we're not designated for a low stress network, we're still providing that eight foot.

And I think more importantly, there's no driveways that directly access onto that that pathway system.

Our thought is if you're a cyclist and you're not eight years old or or have some other you know mobile mobility issue, that you're going to be on the street and that this the speed of the street's going to be low enough to support that.

Okay.

And the last one is are you planning to build a mobility hub or transit stop?

We're we're well ahead of CET's plans for this area.

Right now there's no transit supportive density out here, obviously.

And so what they want us to do is just be flexible.

And we've told them we'll we'll check in as we build these phases and say, do you need a transit stop here?

If you if you do, we're gonna put that in.

We have a lot of excess right-of-way along, especially along the east side of the ward road corridor.

We're we're dedicating the full hundred feet of ride-of-way, even more in certain places.

So there's there's definitely space.

We just don't know where to place those yet.

And would you build it, or would Cascadie's transit have to pay for it, or the city, I guess?

I think we've made it clear to them.

We're we're willing to build the transit pads that's in our mitigation table.

If it's a mobility hub or something larger that takes a lot more infrastructure and costs, like we were looking at over on Cooley Road.

I I assume we would have them pay for that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes.

Council Franzosa.

Thanks.

Um thanks for the presentation.

Um this looks like a really cool community.

Um, so I uh want to try to just get a better understanding of what um Hayden Homes intends to actually build versus what you'll work with partners to build.

Um so the the commercial and the mixed employment, is that something Hayton Holmes plans to build, or is that something that a developer partner would build?

Yeah, so we um we are a home builder, that's what we're experts at, and we are not experts at um master plan communities like Brooks Resources, for example.

So we would, as we do in all the states we build with commercial components, uh work with developer partners.

You know, I I recognize council that there is um there's there's a valid community concern about commercial, and I know that um with the the amendment that passed to House Bill 4037, that got some of the way, but there's still concerns and we totally understand.

And and you know, I I am here, Hayden Holmes is here to say that we have absolutely no intention of rezoning the five commercial or the or the seven mixed uh employment.

We are committed to delivering this in the a community of this size with this much housing, you know, we we feel confident that it can support those things, and and we I'm I I want to verbally reassure that.

I do I do too.

And I and I think honestly, I I think the likelihood of that land getting converted is is minimal because of the change that was passed because the parcels are so small.

I I agree.

If you were to take 20% of a five-acre parcel, you don't have enough to do affordable housing.

Um but my my concern more is that you know we we put these master plans together, we put bike paths, we put roads, we put locations for different housing, and we would never dream of not building all of that.

But what never what gets on the plan but never seems to get built in bend is the commercial and the mixed employment?

Um, and so I I do think that there's a there's a real difference there, and and I don't understand why um why we're not treating the the commercial in the same way.

Um so I guess my question to you is um my question to you is how would you how would you propose um you know the city go about holding a developer accountable just like we do um hold developers accountable accountable to build the bike paths that they plan for and the sidewalks that they plan for and the roads that they plan for and the housing that they plan for.

Pardon?

I can make correct.

Oh, yeah, sure.

So I think that's a good question.

I and I it's something having worked on a number of master plans, having been before council and planning commission, that's the concern we hear.

I I would make a slightly different analogy.

I think it's more analogous to the challenge to provide affordable housing.

Um, and the only way you do that is with a bunch of incentives and subsidy, like that's how you bridge that the gap between something that a community recognizes that it needs, but something that can't be provided under normal market conditions, right?

And so uh I think every conversation we've had with Hayden Homes, you know, they're already looking for for partners to be doing this type of work to be doing this kind of development that they they don't necessarily specialize in.

Um under market conditions, we've got to allow for the market to do it.

And the the key thing in in all the projects that I've been involved in is making sure there are enough rooftops for those commercial users to be able to justify the cost um to be successful.

Thank you.

That's a good answer.

Okay, but you've given a you've given us a market study that says that it can support it.

So which we don't get from a lot of developers.

So the market study was done by the city and done six.

We did that with our to decide how much to make the squares.

And so I I would also point out that compass commercial commercial, and when you look at pre-COVID, when I think this market study was done to today, the vacancy rate among commercial across the entire city is doubled.

So it's there's just a change in the clarify this was on post-COVID.

The study was.

Yeah, yeah.

Thanks for that.

Thank you.

All right.

Other questions for the applicant.

This is your chance, folks.

All right, anything else that you want to add?

Um Karen mentioned there's been very light public comment on this.

We have the DSL letter.

Um, anything else you want to address before there's been a lot of public involvement around this property over the last um four years, so not entirely surprising.

Yeah.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much.

Thanks for your work to help make this deal.

Yeah, we're excited.

Any other questions for staff?

Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on the the what in our code requires them to build something at 27th and Ferguson in terms of a wider roundabout, but it sounds like we have a less robust requirement for walking and biking.

What is your what is your question?

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

My question is.

Maybe retrain your phrase.

That requires a wider roundabout at 27th and Ferguson for drivers who don't live here yet and who don't even exist yet, but we don't have a plan for getting people to the places they want to go without driving.

So uh 27th and Ferguson is being designed now based on the Stevens Ranch master plan, which only required a single lane roundabout for the amount of trips going through it.

Um there's a second analysis done by Joe's team looking at the number of trips that are going to go through 27th and Ferguson, and Joe determined that part way through the build out of Stevens Ranch and part way through the build-out of Stevens Road Track, Legacy Village, they're going to need additional lanes on the west side of both Wilderness Way and then also 27th and Ferguson.

So do we have any discretion over?

I mean, I I feel like these kids have dealt with no no sidewalks and no bike paths for decades.

Now they're finally going to get it maybe in some long drawn out phase, but then we're also going to ask them to cross four or six lanes of traffic on what are currently the highest crash roundabouts in our city at other places.

So I feel like to me, this is there's so much to like about this project, and then the really ugly parts that are small.

I feel like you hold up a mirror to us, and you're like, well, that's actually part of your code.

So I'm just trying to get a better sense of like where this comes from and what we need to do to change it because this is the one thing that's like ah, we're we're not we're falling short here.

Well, we we are still getting uh you know well lit connections across those roundabouts.

There'll be crosswalks, north-south, east-west, uh, wide sidewalks in those areas with on ramps and off ramps for bicycles per roundabout design manual.

Um the applicant also just of uh complications with phasing and how things are gonna work on the construction of Ferguson, they don't know that they'll get the north portion of the um the land dedicated to build the full width of Ferguson.

They're going to put in a two-lane road and then build a multi-use pathway that they're not required to build on the south side of Ferguson to make sure that we have that connection.

So, one of the first things that's happening before that uh well it will go in with the roundabout is a large multi-use pathway along the south side of Ferguson that'll connect to those initial phases of the development.

Not our quote, our code, it's just the transportation impact analysis that says you need a wide around about here.

Uh the additional yes, the additional vehicle lanes, yes.

Karen, is this part of the transportation planning rule?

No, that has to do with the coordination with Odot and County.

I think just to name something, I'd think these are the kinds of things that come up in these these documents, these documents and these processes that are almost like they're not related to the criteria for approval.

I think we all understand that, right?

But they're the kinds of stuff as counselors were trying to probe to be able to understand in different settings in a different venue.

How do we start to address this kind of stuff?

So what ends up.

Sorry, go ahead, council.

No, just you think that's the point.

It's come up, it came up recently, and it's probably going to continue to come up in these kinds of settings.

It's almost like you know, if you've done facilitated group things, that's a parking lot.

We're gonna talk about another time.

This is some of that kind of stuff that it's not related to the approval criteria tonight, really, but but it's a concern about how do we ensure that all those kids are gonna walk to that middle school, ideally not be driven by their parents because it's gonna feel safe to get there.

So a portion of our code and and part of the required transportation analysis, whether it's you know for a single building on a site or something larger like a master plan like this, we do have requirements that they look at key destinations like schools in the area and make sure that there's a continuous connected pathway there.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I'd like to ask a follow-up question of Karen.

Sure, and and maybe Ian.

And we are drifting into deliberation here a little bit, council, so let's try to keep the the questions as questions.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Um, I'm looking at the comp plan, Karen, and you know, trying to apply this criteria around complete communities and the comp plan in the same chapter as this criteria for Stevens Ranch, it defines complete communities as having amenities needed for daily living, um, parks, open spaces, shops, and services.

And so um, I guess I I guess again, my question to you is why do we have to determine the criteria met based on the plan when we're seeing the evidence on the ground isn't actually delivering like all the other criteria around bike paths and sidewalks and roads and water and sewer and everything that gets delivered in every project that we approve.

It always gets delivered, but the commercial and then the all the commercial uses don't get delivered.

And so I guess like how I don't feel good about saying yes to that criteria, so can you maybe help me understand why why you found the finding to be in your finding you found it to be met?

And the requirement for uh um compliance with the comprehensive plan policy specifically have to do with chapter 11 for the this property.

Um so uh it has very specific items that must be addressed.

The word complete community is fleshed out in all of those other uh policies, which includes all of those minimum acreages as um indicated by the applicant that you can set the table, but you just can't make people eat in terms of uh when that when that uh commercial development would occur.

Yeah, and I guess you can play the lots, um, but in terms of when a business owner is interested.

Part of the reason I'd like us to keep it to questions is that I don't um agree that we have not delivered complete communities or that we have not delivered commercial when we have neighborhoods that are still developing and lots that are ready to be developed, right?

So, but I think the question is good on what are the criteria and how does that fit with the the comprehensive plan?

And just to be clear, Council Friends that the part that you quoted is not from the section that is on this area, right?

It's from the chapter as a whole.

It's from chapter 11, yeah.

Right, so the chapter, you know, starting at figure one eleven seventeen and then moving on is that is the comp plan uh that we're talking about today, right?

That applies to this tract of land.

Is that correct, Karen?

So Derek is a policy in um this the Stevens Road tract uh that says a new complete community that accommodates dense development, focused primarily on providing affordable and market rate how these in in a mixed-use multimodal community.

Right.

That's what's in the comp plan for this area.

Correct.

Okay, great.

Did you have a question?

See?

No.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions for staff?

And I wanted to clarify when you ask the about compliance of transportation planning rule.

The uh transportation mitigation plan is compliance with the transportation planning rule.

It's just through the avenue of chapter 4.7 of the Ben Development Code.

Got it.

Thank you for that clarification.

I just want to ask one more question.

I don't know if it's for Karen or Fitzground, so I don't know if it's for now, or if it's for deliberation.

But if council uh wanted to embed in here into the development of this land a criteria to actually develop the commercial in concert with the residential, um, how would what are some options for us to do that?

Uh I can I can at least try to address that.

Um Karen was talking about these specific comprehensive plan policies that apply to this property, and the the first one, 11153 says focusing on the master plan, it has to be consistent with the policies 11154 through 11170, which outline coming from the concept plan what has to happen next.

Those policies, they do touch on complete communities a few times, but what those policies say is that there's an overall planning concept and a complete community aspect of that planning concept is met by establishing these zoning designations.

So on certain property, and it says there's got to be five acres of commercial, there's got to be seven acres, I think of mixed use and industrial.

Those policies describe where that commercial has to go.

Um they don't say anything about what specific allowed uses have to be developed, and they don't say anything about when that has to be developed or who has to do it.

So right now, what council is doing is considering whether these applications are consistent with the applicable policies.

The applicable policies don't at this point say anything about when something has to be be developed.

So that's that's kind of what you're looking at.

Um that is obviously a product of legislation at the state level, which didn't say anything about commercial um development other than in the preamble, then that led to the concept plan, then that led to the comprehensive plan policies, all of which have been approved by the state.

So that's those are the rules that council has to apply to these applications.

If the question, I mean, the question seems to be can council change the rules?

I mean, is that that's not the question?

Okay, the question is when development applications come before council, they include roads and they include waters and they include sewer and they include bike lands and they include the locations for housing, and that always gets built.

And it's without almost without question.

We would never dream of allowing a developer to go forward with housing without putting in certain bike paths and things like that.

But we're letting that happen without realizing the complete community goal.

And I know it means something because it's in the code and it's in master plans.

I know it means something.

So I'm trying to figure out how we take it from words into action on the ground in the city.

Yeah, I think you know, one, if you're talking about a couple of fairly recent master plans, though those are still developing.

I think we actually have an active application for commercial development in on one of them.

So I think have they delivered as soon as some people might have hoped.

Maybe not, but is it accurate to say they haven't delivered?

I I don't think it is because time will tell.

Can we just answer my question though?

I didn't hear a question, counselor.

So maybe we can rephrase a little bit and try to say what are the legal pathways because I think I understand answer your question, but one one thing you've mentioned is is that the plans that have been approved haven't delivered on or developers haven't been held to what they're required to do.

What they're required to do under the policies at issue is designate certain property for certain uses.

They are not required to build those uses or develop those uses on a particular timeline.

So it's the designation that is required by the policies and the approvals.

So to say that somebody hasn't done it or that they haven't been held accountable.

Um, I don't know that that's actually accurate.

One, because time will tell, but two, the accountability is in designated designating certain properties for certain uses.

It's not to build, it's not to develop or on a certain timeline, at least not the way the policies are written.

Right, we're in a land use setting here.

Did you have another question?

No.

Okay, I mean any other questions for staff um applicants hearing this conversation.

Is there anything else you would like to put on the record before we close the public hearing?

And we are gonna close the public hearing, unless there's an objection to that.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay, final chance for questions before we go to close and um ask for public comment.

Okay.

We will close the public hearing on these three items.

Um no one has signed up to comment on these items.

I'm just gonna ask the room if anyone here is here to comment on these items, five, six, and seven around legacy village.

I'm seeing none.

Um, so we will move on to deliberation or yes, deliberation next, right?

Yeah, I mean, if if there was somebody here to speak, we'd reopen the public hearing.

Yeah, I just remembered that, but I knew that there wasn't anyone.

Sorry about that.

It was a little bit out of order.

Okay, we are on to deliberation.

Um reminder that we have three motions in front of us for these items, um, and that we are in a land use setting, quasi judicial land use setting, and we are talking about whether this application meets the criteria for all three of these motions.

So I'll just say um I I don't believe that the criteria is met.

Um because I don't believe that the previous standard that under which all the previous applications has been approved have been approved, that a box on paper means that we're actually gonna get the plan that's being put forward.

Um I do believe the developers come forward with master plans and comp plan amendments with an intent um to build what they're showing on those plans.

Um and everything gets built except for the commercial.

So um there is there is something is wrong because we're not we're not achieving complete communities.

So um, well, I I love the way that this plan looks.

This is great, this is what our community needs.

We've seen many of these that also look great.

Um, and I that is where I stand on this.

Council, can I ask you to be a little more specific?

Which criteria you think is not met?

Because you said the standard 1111, 11154 um is the one referring to the um complete community.

Thank you.

Okay.

I I just had a question about Council Franzos's um so I mean I'm sympathetic to one in commercial amenities sooner than later.

Um, but I don't understand what you are saying isn't happening because if if if we were to ask or require, which I don't think the code does, require this developer not just to build homes, but to build commercial ready buildings or something like that.

Is that is that what you're asking for?

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, we see other developers in band and in other cities um come forward with plans like this that have commercial and residential, and they actually you know have you know the plan behind the scenes that we don't have to review and and they execute it and they actually build the commercial along with the residential, along with the bike pass along with the roads and everything like that.

And so um, so we we you know some of them come forward and it works, and others come forward and it doesn't work, and so I'm yeah, I guess I guess I mean our our code doesn't you can't require them to build something the in the same way that we can for our you know a transportation facility.

Um we can designate it, but we can't well that's what I believe we can.

Yeah, I think that is.

I think that is what we've promised everyone by putting complete communities in our code.

I mean, that's uh we put parks in the code.

Like I think that is the promise that um we as an agency, a public agency are making to people, and so that's why I believe that we should stand behind it.

Mike.

I I would just say that I think I'm sympathetic to your concern.

Um I think the criteria before us for this development are basically is there a box that's designated on the land and you know, the property, and that that's what we have to make our decision on.

I think the question of the del the question for the community largely is about how quickly we get this stuff delivered to right and how does it show up?

And many people are feeling like it's we're not delivering on the complete community promise because it doesn't happen fast enough.

And this whole discussion just it emphasizes for me the importance of us needing to spend as a council some focus time with staff support and eventually engagement from the development community and looking at what's done in other places in two parts.

We heard from the applicant say incentives are really important.

I have heard from other parts of our development community that there might be some policy tools that we could use, and you know there's some that have been suggested that are sort of performance standard, somewhat of analogous to transportation.

You hit X number of homes, you have to do Y.

And you do, and that's related to commercial.

That's not currently in our policies, so we don't have the ability to hold these folks or others to that.

And I think we need to think through the implications of it.

And I think that is what I'm frustrated.

We're not, it's not clear to me when we're gonna be doing, especially the policy discussion portion of it.

There's some um time that we're gonna spend, I hope, on incentives.

So and maybe that's scheduled on forgetting.

So okay, well, but it's good to know.

But I think we we need to get to that because I think that's what's coming up over and over again here on the dias and also out in the community.

So you know, I'm comfortable with this.

I'm pleased to hear that housing works, is comfortable with that density number that we're talking about because with that 800 units up across 23.8 acres, that's about um my math says about 33 uh units per acre that they feel like they can do that and it's viable that works.

It does concern me a little bit that I hear the private sector say it's not viable and viable means a combination of both people want to live in it and people are willing to finance it and it's sort of sort of virtuous or not virtuous snowball effect there um cycle, and and that we're applying we're we're we're having people who live in affordable housing a different standard there than what others might find desirable.

So it just it worries me a little bit, but I'm c I'm pleased to hear that one of our important partners in the community thinks that that they can do good projects with that kind of density.

All right, thank you.

Steve, anything else?

You know, I I ran for this job because teachers and firefighters and cops were not able to afford based on their AMI levels here, and so the thing that drives me to a yes on this on this project right here is that affordable component.

And when I look at what we've got set for our five-year plan right now, and our incentive is incentives, we're we're over we've we've we've met above 80 percent.

This is gonna help.

This is what I'm looking for to help us build out over time those 60 and below and 80 and below AMI projects.

And yes, I counselor Francosa, I I acknowledge the concerns and and and counselor Riley as well, and at the same time, my North Star is building out these uh these AMIs that are gonna that are gonna really serve our whole community.

Um so that's what's driving me to a yes on here, in along with the fact that it meets all the criteria outlined by staff that we can vote on tonight.

Thank you.

Yeah, um, I'll just wrap up by saying as the only person on the dais here that was on council in 2021 when we ran the HB 3318 bill.

This is an incredible moment to see that our efforts to try to accelerate and bring housing to the city and to bring affordable housing and affordable housing for educators, which is really cool, um, has now reached the point where we're gonna start seeing shovels in the ground um sooner rather than later.

And it is gonna be in a community that um is is gonna a lot of people are gonna want to live in because of the concept plan and the work that Brian's team and the community did together on the concept plan um because of the work we've continued here through your efforts to master plan um and the work that was put in the bill in the first place that's really trickled all the way down to this moment and said, here's what we want, um, and here's what we're getting, uh, which is great.

And the the millions of dollars that are gonna go in the common school fund is it almost feels like a bonus, even though that was one of the driving factors in in getting the state legislature to approve this, um, because there it is a win-win.

It is a win for our community, it is a win for um schools, it is a win for educators.

Um, so um I'm definitely in support.

I think um the I just wrote a list here of the ways that we're sort of exceeding a lot of the things that we we thought we would get, more land for affordable housing, more open space is required, more middle housing that's required.

Um I really appreciated the conversation and the discussion of spreading those units around so that we can have things that we can build and and that are viable to um to sell in the market, which is important when you are building a housing um uh economy like we are trying to do in Bend.

Um, I think just to speak to the the commercial um side of it, um I I would really urge you um Council Franzosa to take this energy and the the land use setting is is not the place for this energy.

It feels like we're trying to hammer uh a nail with a hot dog, right?

It's just it's the wrong tool.

Um, not that your concerns are not valid, but this is not the venue to um to do the the type of work that I think you want to do to Matt to me.

That is around what council Riley talked about.

If we are giving incentives, we have a lot more control about how we can ask people to develop and when um or if we're changing policies, you know, we can look at that.

But when we're talking about a land use, it is really it's about um what the land use is gonna be designated on.

It is not about um I don't think it's legal to require people to build spec commercial um through the land use process.

There may be some other ways that we can that we can subsidize or incentivize or um regulate in a way that makes that happen more often.

Um but um it's not that I don't share the concern, I just don't think that is the appropriate criteria for for tonight, and I think this application does meet the criteria, and I'm happy to vote yes on it.

So I move for the first reading of the ordinance to amend Ben comprehensive plan policies pertaining to the Stevens Road tract urban growth boundary expansion area.

Second.

All right, moved and seconded.

All right, moved and seconded any further discussion.

The last thing I just want to say is the transportation impact analysis, not for the for the approval.

That's that's the really ugly part that I still feel like we need to work on.

But otherwise, I I agree with what the mayor said.

There's a lot to like in this project.

So much work for years that went into it.

Um really appreciate all of your effort.

So thank you.

Thanks.

All right, all those in favor of the motion.

Any opposed?

All right, next motion.

I move for the first reading of the ordinance to amend then development code chapter two point seven, special plan districts, refinement plans, area plans, and master plans to create the legacy village master plan development.

All right, move by Council Riley, second by Councillor Platt, all in favor.

I and opposed?

No.

And I move for the first reading of the ordinance annexing two hundred and sixty-five point seven acres in the Stevens Road Tract Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Area, assigning signed districts and requesting jurisdictional transfer of the abutting rights of way.

What was that?

Second.

Okay, there we go.

Councilor Riley moves Councilor Clapp with the second.

All those in favor?

I and opposed no.

All right.

Thank you, everyone, for being here.

Thank you for all the work that went into these presentations.

Thank you to the staff.

Let me take like a five minute stretch break, and then we will get back into the agenda.

All right.

Yeah.

We're gonna reconvene here.

Are we online actually?

Great.

Okay, so we're gonna reconvene on, and we are on to item number eight now.

This is the first reading of an ordinance amendment code Title Nine Buildings to adopt discretionary section R three two seven wildfire hazard mitigation residential building code standards.

Tonight we're bringing forward the ordinance to adopt section R three twenty-seven.

Just a kind of a high-level overview of this is the optional section of the Oregon Residential Specialty Code that cities can choose to opt into locally that establishes home hardening standards for new residential development.

This is aligned with council goals for the biennium of the wildfire resilience, um, evaluating and updating code reflects best practices.

So applying R 327 citywide is consistent with that previous declaration.

Um so this would just kind of preserve that.

Um the biggest question um before council tonight is just kind of when this new code should take effect.

I think that was um the idea was to kind of have some more discussion on that.

Okay, so yeah, this is coming out of that work session where we had agreed to move forward in this manner.

So questions or thoughts from council.

Why wouldn't we do it as soon as possible?

I mean, that's I'm I'm supportive of that, and um, we've had a couple of development groups or at least one write in and say that they support this, and I don't think we heard any concerns about getting this on the books in the normal course.

So any other thoughts?

I mean, I would align it with um the new building code that's um it's for some reason there's a fall date that the new building date in October.

But it's not actually enforced until January, is that correct?

It'll be October 1st.

Can you if you're talking to us, can you come up to the mic and introduce yeah?

Um it's a doctor.

Oh, yeah, sorry, J D assistantly official.

Thanks, yeah, absolutely.

Um yeah, it'll be adopted in October, and then there's a grace uh grace period for it to April 1st of next year.

Yeah.

That's pretty far.

Yeah, yeah, I'm I'm doing not excited about going through another another summer uh right now where we're where we are at like sooner rather than later.

Okay, so I think the motion as written would just have it apply in a normal course right now.

Um, unless there's something different, maybe someone can make that motion.

Well, what's the soonest we could do as soon as you could do is if we did by emergency, which was which means you have it has to be unanimous.

Uh so it's still first reading and then second reading, and then it would be in effect.

Right at the second reading.

The second reading, which would be April 15th.

So I guess if someone wants to propose that, just add um by emergency at the end of the motion.

Is there support?

I mean, would there would people support that?

Uh I actually don't, and I I'm I may I feel like I should have my decision made by now, but I'm I'm uh considering voting no on this just because um I I don't feel that it's consistent.

I I do understand that we have a council goal to look at um codes and policies, but um in legitimately my heart of hearts and memory of memories.

I um was hoping and thinking that we were um starting with the new fire department employees role is more of an outreach um and to work on working with our neighborhoods and um working on firewise certifications and and things like that.

Um and so and this the building code um update is is probably something that we should do at some point in time.

I just feel like there's a there's a higher priority right now, and so I I feel like on no vote kind of sends a message that there's a higher priority, and that's to really educate people on what protects their houses, and that's um removing vegetation from around the zero to five foot area, keeping all the junk that you have around your house out of that zero to five foot area and things like that.

So that's why I'm really um kind of conflicted on this.

Um how quickly we're moving on this um this is yes.

I mean, in all fairness, I think um we're doing the education front too.

I mean, we have um Melissa is going to neighborhood district meetings, and we you know we uh talk about it at um the you know the town hall and so I I mean I don't feel like it's a binary choice.

I feel like we're doing both.

Does that I mean is but you feel like we're this signals priority, I guess.

It does yeah, exactly.

Yeah, and um well I'm not gonna propose an emergency, but uh oh, we can't if Gina votes no, so we can't do an emergency.

Yeah, good question.

Yeah, Mike.

So my understanding that the research shows that um generally it's a combination of both home hardening as well as defensible space, but home hardening is one of the essential first steps, right?

And that that that the data shows that that actually is what really um prevents fire from spreading from home to home, or if fire's coming in um to be better able and more likely to withstand ignition into something.

Yes, good evening, Mayor and Counselors.

Um, Melissa Steele, Deputy Fire Marshal for Ben Fire.

Um, so home hardening also goes hand in hand with defensible space.

And um, I understand that there's the educational component, but with all the research that we have been doing and in lots of different studies shows that education does not inspire action.

And so when education, we can educate all that we want, but people are still have barriers to performing some of these uh defensible space and home hardening techniques that we're asking them to do.

Um we also can't fire code our way out of anything, right?

But at least we have something in code that would be written that could say something like for our future generations, we need to build houses the right way, and we need to start as soon as possible.

So they work hand in hand.

Thank you.

So you think that Melissa, that's the key for me.

Is this new homes?

This is and you know, we're adding 80%.

I keep putting that over the next 20 years, and these homes will be built to that standard for future generations for their defensibility and their insurability as they go forward because I think that's going to be a key component.

And having this code, I think bolsters our argument that we make when we go to broader insurance providers and say this is something we're looking to help you help us with in terms of affordability.

And we also have most of the community.

I mean, if we adopt this, then we've joined Sisters has already adopted it.

Deschutes counties is about to go into effect.

Today today.

Yeah, okay, so it's in effect.

And then um Redmond, I know is considering it.

It's they are gonna be a little farther out, but our whole region, so builders, if they're doing more than just building a home here or having to kind of adapt to these new set of standards.

So all right, ready for a motion.

Second.

All right, move by Councillor Platt, second by Council Mendez.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

No.

Okay.

We are gonna move on to item nine.

So we'll have Councillor Norris come back out.

Nine and twelve, right?

And then 12 after nine, yes.

Council's asked uh to authorize a contract amendment with Cascadia Partners LLC for the city and then growth plan for phase one services in the 2025-2027 by NEM.

And I have in this whole question.

One moment.

Assembly.

Bad time.

Sorry.

I just saw many of you are fueled by cookies tonight.

So I'm Brian Rakens, senior strategist, uh, and here to talk with you tonight about the growth plan contract amendment.

I'm with the community development department in the growth management division.

Um council, you've been briefed fairly extensively over the past two months on the growth plan, and uh this is uh one of the major steps that you can take towards advancing that work.

So tonight we're gonna be focusing on contract amendment.

Uh and this contract amendment and the growth plan will advance almost every goal.

I would say every goal will be advanced, some clearly more than others.

Um, in particular, housing, economic prosperity, accessible effective governance, transportation infrastructure, climate resiliency.

I think those are mainstays and major elements of this project.

Public safety will get attention in the first phase and more so later.

Um so the process of procurement began this summer where we should request for proposals.

We see we had a competitive open process, we selected Cascadia partners.

Um the first contractor approval uh from uh city manager uh was for 159,177 dollars to begin setup work.

And there are a lot of time-sensitive tasks because we have a pretty compressed schedule.

So we started that work um early.

Um and so now we're bringing a larger contract amendment to you uh for a not to exceed amount of two million seven hundred thirty-nine dollars, two hundred and eighty-two dollars, excuse me, for services in this biennium.

Um that and the total contract amount are both within the materials and services contract or materials and services budget line item in the growth management division.

So you've already budgeted for this work, and future contracts will be budgeted and negotiated in the next two biennific, because this project could run until 2030.

Uh and estimated total costs across all phases, including this would be 7.2 million dollars.

So all the big pieces are coming together in this uh contract amendment approval is uh is the last and and most meaningful.

So the new state rules that guide the housing uh that essentially guide housing and all the work we're going to be be doing in the next couple years uh associated with the owner rules, those were uh effective in January of 2026.

Um the Department of Land Conservation and Development.

They approved our climate-friendly and equitable communities major report just about a week ago.

That essentially establishes our targets and measures associated with CFEC.

Very important piece of work to come together.

And DLC approved our alternate dates request earlier this summer to align with the sequential review approach.

And we are still awaiting DLC's approval for the sequential review.

And so the city council approved that, the county approved that, and now it's on the state's desk.

I expect that within a week.

City boards, commissions, and partner agencies have also been briefed and are supportive.

And for those with a sense of humor, this is a photo of Salem, Oregon.

This is where the rules and laws come from.

I can see Anthony there.

It's so beautiful.

It's it's gorgeous.

So the team.

This is a uh a multidisciplinary team, I think, first and foremost.

And I, you know, throwing the word expert around is is a little bit dangerous.

It sets very high expectations, but I'm gonna say it anyway.

I just did.

I think they're expert in their field.

They're extremely experienced.

I was counting up over 200 years of their experience on the project team members between all of them.

Um, Cascadia Partners is the prime consultant.

They provide all facets of urban planning services across the West, so it's not just Oregon.

Um, but they have, I think, a particular specialty in making sure that the plans that they create are grounded in market reality.

Um, and so they also have expertise and equity focused engagement as well as spatial analytics associated with this kind of planning.

Eco Northwest, they're focusing on core deliverables for housing, employment, and housing production.

Um, and then we have Kittleson associates focusing on transportation planning, DKS and associates focused on transportation modeling.

Both of those transportation firms have expertise across both of those disciplines, but they have a particular strength that we're playing to in this contract.

And then Walker Macy for urban design climate resiliency, uh in a relatively small role.

Um, this group of firms, um, they're Oregon firms, um, and they also have local experience and local routes.

A number of the uh team members live in Bend.

Um, Kittle Son Associates has a full office here.

Um, Echo Northwest, why most of their folks don't necessarily live uh in Bend, they're con they have an office here in town.

Um, and so they they are um they're locals as well.

And for the folks that don't necessarily live here, they have been working in Bend for decades and have a really good sense of the community.

Um they have been advisors, members of this team, advisors to DLCD in their recent uh housing rulemaking.

So they've been on the inside working with the agency on those rules pertaining to the project, and advisors to um Oregon Department of Transportation on the transportation planning rules.

Um they have a wide span of clients, smaller than small in Bend, larger than Bend, uh, and across the West, and I think they can bring that expertise and experience into this project.

Um I I think really importantly, they've been delivering local successes, at least some or some are all these team members have been developing local successes for Bend in a number of projects.

Legacy Village, for example, involved three or four of those teams, uh team members in that project.

So Eric wanted me to touch on efficiencies, um, recognizing the budget amount.

And um, so we spent a considerable amount of time negotiating the scope of work, working with the consultant uh very actively over the past month and a half, and really focusing on trying to put the consulting team in the best place across these different deliverables with all these different team members.

So rebalancing roles of the consulting team, streamlining uh the number of staff that are working on the project, all those things are important cost containment measures.

Uh self uh self-performing of different deliverables in growth management communications in the Office of Performance Management.

So essentially the city staff are taking on more responsibilities and delivering those in the project rather than having the consulting firm provide those services for us.

I think the form of engagement overall is really important in that approach to engagement, which we've discussed before and trying to talk about multiple subjects at different touch points over time will deliver efficiencies, and then also they're developing a lot of these tools, and then we are expected to deploy them.

So if you look deeply into the scope, you'll see that they're here and they're providing those services and support.

They'll be with us for some of the way to train us on the tools to show up to uh different events, but there's an expectation in this that the city city organization will take it beyond that.

Um, and then some kind of internal stuff that doesn't sound real exciting, but is actually really important in cost containment as well as efficiency, creating a spatial data portal so that we can share our data back and forth elegantly, so we can leverage the information and data analytics that are coming out of the project for other city uses and better internal communication systems as well.

And then also there are elements of this project.

We're investing in things now that we will use later.

And I think filling gaps that have been in the organization, no fault to the organization, but this is an opportunity to do some things now that we will carry forward in the coming years that will make it much more efficient and effective.

In particular, some of the transportation and land use modeling tools.

We'll bring those on into the project so that we can use them in the project and then carry them through beyond this for use in the monitoring of those climate-friendly and equitable communities targets, as well as experimenting with new online engagement tools.

This is a breakdown of the contract amendment, more or less by the type of work.

You'll see transportation stands out.

However, when you sum up all those other bars, what you'll see is that it's about one-third transportation, two-thirds other planning type activities.

So transportation receives close to a million dollars worth of services, much of that in transportation modeling for this phase.

Comprehensive plan, this came up in some of our discussions with council.

The comprehensive plan, you look at that, it's a small bar.

And that's because in phase one, uh, city staff is going to be doing a lot of that work in-house, and we've already begun that work.

Um, land capacity and need, that's our core deliverables.

These core deliverables are around our buildable lands inventory, our employment opportunities analysis, those core deliverables, that's land need and capacity.

Growth planning and urbanization are a lot of supportive, uh supportive services in order to contextualize this project and make it meaningful and inform our comprehensive plan.

Uh, engagement and government governance is also receiving a considerable amount of resources because without that, uh, the rest of the project doesn't, it really doesn't have the impact and connection with the community that we are hoping for.

Um, and of course, project management and contingency services.

Uh Councilor Riley asked me to add this slide.

Um, so this contract is for the first phase of work essentially to run through the biennium.

Some of the work in this contract will be done in this biennium, and other we're starting certain tasks that will then move be completed in the next phases of work.

So it's not a clean line.

We're starting some of the work that we're then gonna have to budget for and contract for in the following phases.

So the work that is included in this contract amendment is in the first bullet points or dots of one and two in that 2026 to 2027 time frame where the focus is really on identifying our future needs and some of these major policy drivers, determining our existing capacity in the deliverables that you see in the slide, such as a contextualized housing need, employment opportunities analysis, uh, as well as our housing capacity analysis of buildable lands inventory.

So the big question is okay, what are what do we need?

What do we need in terms of our 20-year land needs for employment and housing?

So those are that's the big question we're going to answer from a deliverable standpoint.

Um I have a detail more detailed graphic here.

I recognize it's a longer.

I was joking with the more detailed one than this.

No, no, no, absolutely not.

A lot.

I can I am happy to go through all of this, as you know.

I I am so excited to talk about this, but I also recognize I should probably rein myself in at this moment.

Um this is really designed to help me discuss and answer your questions.

Um if you want me to cover it briefly, I'm happy to do that.

Um, so this is the first, more or less the focus of the project in the first in this biennium in this fiscal biennium.

Um, and so we have our mobilized tasks of setting up our project management and governance structures, creating our data portal, that work is underway.

We're in the process of then selecting a modeling tool for land use and transportation.

Ultimately, we will pick that tool, we will use that through the project, get our staff up and trained and beginning to run that with the hope that through this project that our staff can take on a stronger and stronger role in that.

The framing portion of this is work related to scenario planning that we will bring to the council in an August workshop, which uh I think is scheduled or it's getting close.

I'm gonna meet with the mayor and talk about that.

But we're planning for an August workshop with the city council, probably off-site to make it much more kind of enjoyable than no offense to the table here, um, but something that's a little bit more comfortable and more relaxed for everyone.

And lack of windows.

We can have windows.

We have a publicness of public workshop.

We can do that.

Yeah, everything the public works campus does everything, so we'll go there.

Um, we're we're really pointed towards that workshop, and that's kind of the kickoff of the project.

It's a it's a it's gonna be I think an exciting big learning opportunity, and to get some of your input that will then drive our consideration of these subjects as we move forward in that framing, figuring out our land needs.

So, what is the contextualized housing need tell us about how we're going to affirmably further fair housing and tailored housing needs in terms of type, location, and characteristics of the units that we need with a particular focus on underserved community members, and also I would say the nuts and bolts of Oregon planning on a buildable lands inventory, the economic opportunities analysis, and housing capacity analysis.

So we're that's the framing.

Um, so it's a little bit of education background, city council guidance, and then the core deliverables.

The plan and engagement uh line that you see there is uh a step that I'm really really excited about.

Um part of the the the contract includes visioning, and that's really about working with the community and the council to identify what are the what are our goals, what are our values, and what are our principles related to how we're going to grow and working actively with the community to decipher what are those values that they have and and how what are these?

What is the community thinking in terms of those subjects?

Of course, the city council ultimately will adopt that vision.

So that will be your responsibility during the project in phase two.

But in phase one, we're beginning that.

So if you can imagine you have your kickoff, we have a workshop, and then shortly thereafter we roll into visioning and a really big public outreach effort.

Um, this detailed in in the scope of work.

Um that community visioning also can influence these deliverables and in particular the second phase deliverables around how we're gonna grow up and how we're gonna grow out.

Strategize.

Um, this is really getting more tactical, I think, with with the city council on a couple different subjects.

One on the transportation system.

So we're beginning our transportation system plan update slowly but steadily in phase one of this work.

Um, and so talking about our system goals, objectives, performance standards, performance standards.

Well, how how will you, council?

How do you want to define the success and how we're going to rank and evaluate our system as we grow?

So you'll establish those.

Um we're gonna work on inventories of our system and existing conditions, how's our current system operating?

And we're gonna learn those things as well as starting to test our efficiency measures that come out of community visioning.

Um, and then adopting so city council within this bianum would it would adopt the draft package one of our contextualized housing need, as well as the um the buildable lands inventory, economic opportunities analysis, and the first phase of the housing capacity analysis.

So those are two adoption points in another form of engagement.

So if you can imagine engagement is almost they're connected, of course, um, and they're very connected through this team's proposal, but we have kind of higher level on visioning, and then we have I would say kind of more tactical engagement as well.

Um you'll see community impact analysis, which is really a it's a system and a an analysis both spatially and historically of how our community has come to be where it is.

It's a it's an analysis of past patterns and practices of discrimination.

It involves a very spatial analysis of concentrations of underserved community members.

It also is analyzing how we're going to meet the various legal requirements and have a framework for considering equity in all of the deliverables, not just the ones that are required, but throughout the entire project.

Um then that also influences our communication engagement uh strategy, which we will finalize.

We will also be investing in an online engagement tool that is new to the city.

We pull those things together.

We will begin focused engagement with stakeholders with different members of the community in smaller environments in association, also separate from community visioning, but we'll complement, so we're bringing those things up, and then after the city council workshop, we'll begin our um our governance structure, which we've talked about, which is city council as well as our um we're calling it the city the joint committee working group at this point, not the committee of committees.

So we're we're we'll we'll find a better name, but we we we had to move away from committee of committees.

Um so that's when we'll start our governance.

So I'm happy to answer any questions.

You'll see the issue summary with even more detail as well as a recommended motion.

Thanks, Brian.

Any questions?

Excited to kick this off and get it going.

Really big project.

Yep, go ahead.

I move to authorize a contract amendment with Cascadia Partners LLC for the City of Benn Growth Plan for an increase to the contract amount for phase one services in the 2025-2027 biennium, not to exceed 2,739,282 exactly for a total contract amount not to exceed $2,898, $459.

Moved by Council Francisa, second by Councillor Riley.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, unanimous.

Thank you, Brian.

Thank you.

Thanks so much.

Alright, we're gonna pull up item number 12 now.

So if we Eric is here, there he is.

Council is asked to adopt a resolution authorizing eminent domain for properties along the F road as far as a NEF corridor improvement project.

I think we're in there.

Good evening, Council.

My name is Eric Forster.

Uh I'm assistant city engineer on the CIP engineering side of the house.

Um with me is Todd Johnson, senior project engineer for this project.

Um this is a revisit of the NEF Corridor Eminent Domain Resolution that you saw back in December.

Um, where inadvertently we did not have the legal descriptions with the project.

Um and then in addition to that, um, further communication with business owners uh there on NEF Road.

Um, the realization that maintaining access to their businesses um necessitated um a couple other files just for uh temporary construction easements um to tie them in and maintaining that um access to their properties.

Um I understand council is pretty familiar with this project.

Uh the it's the 10-foot path that's gonna be running along Neff.

Um let's go into the next slide here.

Oh, I hit the wrong button.

Apologize.

So uh the path starting there on the east side of Pilot Bay Middle School and running the full length of NEF down to Eagle Road.

Um, the parcel shown on the screen here are the 15 parcels.

Um, and the yellow the ones in yellow are the newer ones.

Um so communication is happened with um these property owners and then also just identifying that this mechanism is a way for um the city to maintain um schedule certainty if um appraised values aren't close to what maybe property owners believe the value of the encumbrance that we're either taking or using their property in some fashion, or if they're just non-responsive, um it gives us a tool to maintain the project.

So being part of the synced here, um that's the resolution that we're looking for council to make tonight.

Okay, any questions multi-use path?

All right, I moved to adopt a resolution exercising the power of eminent domain if agreement cannot be reached with property owners for the acquisition of portions of up to 15 parcels necessary to construct the NAF corridor project and authorizing the city manager to take steps necessary to implement the resolution.

Second, all right, move by council Mendes, second by councillor Platt.

All in favor.

All right, any post?

Nope, unanimous.

Okay, thanks, Eric.

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right, we're gonna hop back up to item number 10.

Council Norris, you want to go ahead?

Yes, um, I am recusing on items 10 and 11 because I'm an employee of Hayden Homes, and there these items would have a financial impact on my employer.

So I will be meeting.

All right, thank you.

And are we are we talking are we talking about 10 and 11 together or right?

Okay, actually, go ahead.

Yeah, council is asked to adopt a resolution to authorize the city to enter into clean water state revolving funds loan agreement with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to finance the Azalea and Windsor Sewer Project in a total loan amounts not to exceed $2,900,000.

And council is asked to authorize a contract with C Bar L Development LLC for construction of the Azalea and Windsor Sewer Project.

Good evening, Council.

Um, Drew Wells with the project engineer with the engineering department presenting on the construction contract for the Azalean Windsor Sewer Project.

Uh and my name's Kimmelettez, I'm the assistant finance director, and I'll be talking about the loans project.

Um since Jason Sear was here presenting on the King Hezekiah and Fargo project at the last council meeting.

I'll skip the uh history on the Septic Sewer program.

Um this is the second part of the seventh selection that was um selected last October, or excuse me, October 2024.

Uh these are the two project areas, Azalea, just north of Reed Market and west of Pettigrew, and then Windsor Drive is uh just off of North Knott Road and west of Brosser House.

Um we will be doing full with payment restoration and traffic closures with local access for both areas.

Overview of Azalea, we've got 1675 linear feet of sewer main, 21 service laterals.

Uh you can see here the dotted properties are the ones that sign the application for the the uh program and the non-dotted are the ones that did not sign Windsor area uh 2355 linear feet of sewer main with 33 service laterals and again the dotted ones were the ones that sign.

We'll note that uh we are looking to close Broster House uh full closure.

We've limited that to the summer when school's out.

Um, but we do need to close that for um construction of the sewer main along that short stretch there, and we'll be doing some public outreach with a uh information booth and pop up and doing a broad outreach prior to the closure.

Hey Drew, can I ask you a question?

This is a good example of what I tried to ask about last time.

So there's that little teeny tiny cul-de-sac there.

So will a main be taken down that cul de sac to the end of that cul-de-sac, even though those people haven't signed.

Not with this project, no.

We'll look to stub out to the north.

So if they do their own application in the future, um, they would have a way to connect to the manhole we'd put in the intersection of Brosner House and Windsor.

Wow, so they didn't sign, so they miss out.

Correct.

Do you go back to them and ask them like hey, second chance?

I mean, they they always have the opportunity to program was never designed for city to make outreach.

Actually, that was not what was requested by neighbors.

They wanted to do it themselves, and they didn't want the city coming around and asking people to sign up.

Um, and so that's the way the program is structured, is that the neighborhoods put together their applications because that's that's the way they wanted the program.

And it's budgeted and grant and you've got the grant now, right?

So yeah, so that's the same.

Drew, any idea why this is a lower take rate on this on this property?

A lower what take rate and the people who signed up just I'm not sure why.

Okay.

Thanks.

Then the call de stack you're referring to is Windsor Court.

Yeah, yeah.

No, that that one's receiving.

Yeah, Windsor Court will get it.

This one down here, I don't recall the name of it.

Oh, Windsor Court will get a maiden.

Is that the one?

That's what I was asking about.

Yeah, yeah, okay.

Yeah, we'll we'll do one down that's a good one.

It will get, yeah, okay, even though they didn't sign.

Okay.

Oh, I thought you were talking about that little stubby cul-de-sac that's white.

Yeah.

No, I was asking about yeah, Windsor.

Yeah, and everything in red is getting served.

Sorry, my mouse isn't showing, but yeah, any of the we're getting Windsor Court with all those red properties, those all get services.

Okay.

So then maybe there was sounds like there was confusion about when my question was, so I'll just ask it again.

So the ones without the dots that didn't sign, will you go back to them and give them an opportunity to join or no?

For all the properties in red, whether they have dots or not, so they'll get sewer laterals to their property, and then they it's oh it's from there, it's there.

Yeah, yeah.

Um, and I guess good opportunity to follow up on your question from last time.

Um, out of the 230 properties that have connected to date, roughly, about 90 that didn't sign.

Um did take advantage of the connection distance.

Yeah, cool.

Uh overview of the project timeline, uh, committee selection in October 2024.

This is the second part of the second project of that selection designed through 2025 and looking to start construction probably mid mid-April, late April this year, and be done by October.

And overview on the project budget is 1.9 million dollars is a low bid with C bar L and a total estimated project cost of just over two million.

And then, yeah, as was mentioned previously, this project is being funded by a clean water state revolving fund loan, bit of a mouthful, so I'll refer to it as CWSRF.

Um that's rose is worse.

Yeah, um, the loan amount is not to exceed 2.9 million.

However, um, consistent with all of our other CWSRF loans, the amount drawn and borrowed will only be the amount to complete the project, and the um final loan amount will be adjusted to the amount that were drawn down.

Um this loan is also eligible for principal forgiveness up to 50 percent of the final loan amount, so we'll only pay back the 50 percent that remains um of what we originally drew down.

Great.

All right, any other questions, council?

All right, I think we have two motions, 10 and 11.

To adopt a resolution authorizing a clean water state revolving loan fund agreement to finance the azalea and Windsor Sewer Project in a total loan amount not to exceed 2,900,000 and substantially the form presented to council and as approved by the Department of Environmental Quality.

Second, all right, move by Council Francis, second by Council Mendez.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All right, next motion.

I move to authorize a contract with C Bar L Development LLC and substantially the form presented to Council for Construction Services for the Azalea and Windsor Sewer Project in an amount not to exceed $1,907,607 and 60 cents.

Second.

All right, moved by Council Mendes, second by Councillor Platt.

All those in favor.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, that gets us to city manager's report.

Yes, sir.

Yes, I'll be quick here.

So I mentioned in the council memo last a couple weeks ago about the recycling cart inspection program.

Uh so there's as part of the recycling modernization act compliance.

There's gonna be folks out in uh from the waste haulers inspecting our looking in the bins.

Looking in the bins.

So I this kind of like a public service announcement.

I shared that all with you.

There'll be public uh press releases from the the haulers, but one until two will know that was taking place.

Um couple other announcements.

We have the Hawthorne uh Connection Franklin open house next week on the 7th at the Newbore Newberry Hotel from 4 30 to 6 30.

Uh also a reminder that April 8th, next week it was mentioned the round table for our electrification policy.

That is going to be at the public works campus from 4 to 6 p.m.

Uh, and we've had diverters installed recently, and we've put a lot of information out in the community, and I want to make sure that some of that information is also gonna go in the council memo that includes just some factual information.

Um, so just giving you a heads up to look for it.

So if you get our interacting with the community and there's some concerns, it's it's new for Ben, so I think there will be some reaction to that.

We want to make sure we're equipping you with uh good information there.

And I think that's it.

Yeah, that's it.

All right, great.

We are adjourned.

Thanks, everybody.

Thanks everyone.