Bend City Council Work Session – September 9, 2026
Bend City Council Work Session – September 9, 2026
The Bend City Council held a work session on September 9, 2026, beginning at 4:00 p.m. Topics included the annual tree code review and follow-up from the March 11 work session, a recap of the August 31 Developer Roundtable covering employment site readiness and system development charge (SDC) relief, updates on the General Obligation Bond transportation capital improvement program (CIP) – including GO Bond prioritization, the Olney Ave/8th Street intersection, and Greenwood Avenue quick-build data – and the joint City–Bend Park and Recreation District shared framework. Council provided direction on several items and referred others to advisory committees.
Discussion Items
Tree Code Follow-Up
Staff presented data from the first two annual review periods (2025 and 2026). In 2025, 819 housing applications on one acre or less were exempt (95% of total), while 40 land division/site plan applications were subject to preservation standards; in 2026 those numbers were 467 exempt and 15 subject. Most applicants met clear‑and‑objective standards, with only 10 in 2025 and 1 in 2026 choosing the mitigation path. In‑lieu fees collected totaled $63,000 in 2025 and $0 in 2026. Staff proposed two recommendations: (1) Allow fee‑in‑lieu reimbursements for trees voluntarily retained and verified healthy after three years. (2) Expand tree preservation incentives (e.g., reduced setbacks, increased lot coverage) for priority trees on lots one acre or smaller. Staff also sought direction on three items from the March 11 work session: allowing required street trees to count as mitigation, exempting trees in future public rights‑of‑way, and adopting special regulations for western junipers.
Council discussion: Councilors broadly supported the two staff recommendations. Mayor Kebler, Councilor Perkins, and Councilor Platt favored counting street trees toward mitigation, while Councilors Méndez, Franzosa, and Riley opposed that change. Councilors agreed not to pursue juniper‑specific regulations. The direction given: advance only the fee‑in‑lieu reimbursement and small‑lot incentive proposals; street‑tree mitigation, right‑of‑way exemption, and juniper changes are not moving forward at this time.
Developer Roundtable Recap
Sarah Hudson and Cyrus Mooney presented outcomes from the August 31 Developer Roundtable, focusing on two main policy areas.
Employment Site Readiness: Three options were discussed for industrial zoned lands: (1) full deregulation of tree preservation requirements, (2) a flat per‑acre fee, and (3) a tiered per‑acre fee based on tree density. Roundtable participants strongly preferred option 1, citing competitiveness and complexity. Council discussion revealed support for option 2 (flat per‑acre fee) as a compromise, with some councilors suggesting a discount if developers exceed minimum greening standards. Council also supported allowing on‑site rock crushing and grading to prepare industrial sites. Direction: staff to bring back a code amendment package incorporating a flat per‑acre fee for industrial lands, along with associated grading/rock crushing allowances.
SDC Relief Programs: Two concepts were considered: (a) a time‑limited SDC exemption for non‑residential adaptive reuse projects in the core area (or city‑wide), and (b) an SDC exemption for grocery stores on the east side. Roundtable participants strongly supported the core‑area approach and did not think the grocery store exemption would be decisive. Council directed staff to prepare a five‑year SDC exemption for the core area (beyond the Bend Central District) for eligible projects meeting the minimum development standards review threshold (i.e., tenant improvements, change of use, adaptive reuse). Council asked that an evaluation and capacity analysis be included. The grocery store concept was set aside pending further data from an urban renewal study. Other ideas raised (extending SDC credit look‑back from 10 to 12 years, fast‑track permitting for tenant improvements, etc.) were deferred to the next meeting on September 16 for prioritization.
GO Bond Prioritization
Ryan Erster and Garrett Sabrin presented the current GO Bond program status. The bond resolution (No. 3218) originally allocated about $180 million to projects; with successful grants the total delivery is now about $244 million. Unallocated funds are estimated at $28.1 million, but staff recommended setting aside $9 million as contingency for four major projects (e.g., Hawthorne overcrossing, Empire–ODOT coordination), leaving approximately $19 million for new commitments. Council discussed priorities for these funds:
- Empire Highway 20 / US 97 interchange: Council expressed strong interest in contributing $8–10 million to help build a full connection, contingent on ODOT matching and timely delivery. Staff will invite ODOT to present to TMAC.
- Neighborhood Street Safety Program (NSSP): Several councilors supported allocating a portion of the funds to continue NSSP projects through the bond period.
- Hawthorne overcrossing connections: Councilor Riley and others noted the importance of completing the bridge landings to catalyze the Bend Central District.
- Colorado Avenue improvements: Council directed TMAC to analyze both river‑crossing and parkway‑interchange needs at Colorado, with an emphasis on congestion relief.
- Boyd Acres key route: Council asked TMAC to evaluate cost‑effective alternatives to the $13 million preferred option, such as a $3 million option with protected bike lanes.
- Council decided to keep the analysis within the six existing bond‑resolution categories to avoid scope creep.
Direction: TMAC will develop scenarios based on these priorities and return to council with recommendations, including an “escape clause” if ODOT cannot move forward on Empire within the bond timeline.
Olney Ave/8th Street Intersection
Carrie Harris and Kayla (DKS Associates) presented a detailed evaluation of a signalized alternative versus a partial multi‑lane roundabout. The signal option would require significant right‑of‑way acquisition (two parcels, $400–500k each) and trigger relocation review, with a total cost of about $5 million. The roundabout option had lower right‑of‑way impacts, preserved existing driveway access, and better aligned with the city’s roundabout‑first policy. Both alternatives would meet future capacity needs for 20 years. The existing intersection is failing for six hours daily; traffic is projected to grow 15–20% over 20 years. Staff recommended the roundabout.
Council discussion: Councilors Méndez and Franzosa opposed the roundabout – Méndez called for more holistic measures (transit, demand management), and Franzosa raised safety concerns about multi‑lane roundabouts and questioned the data. Other councilors supported the staff recommendation. Mayor Kebler and Councilor Riley noted the roundabout addresses east‑west congestion and meets bond goals. Direction: proceed with the roundabout design, including enhanced pedestrian/bicycle crossings and coordination with the Norton key‑route improvements. A resolution of need for right‑of‑way will be brought back for council action.
Greenwood Avenue Quick‑Build Update
Ryan Erster provided data from five evaluation periods (May 2024 through March 2026). A 215‑foot curb extension was removed to lengthen the left‑turn bay. Post‑construction data show: average pedestrian/bicycle volumes increased (e.g., east of Hill Street from ~100–150 to 300–400 per day); 85th percentile speeds decreased; average travel time increased by 8–10 seconds; crash counts over comparable six‑month periods are similar (10 pre‑construction, 11 post‑construction). Vehicle volumes dropped. Staff recommended maintaining the current configuration until the Franklin Avenue and Hawthorne Overcrossing projects are complete and operational, allowing a system‑wide evaluation. Council concurred.
Joint City–Bend Park and Recreation District Shared Framework
Eric King presented the draft framework. Councilor Méndez suggested removing the specific mention of “Placer AI” (a technology vendor). Mayor Kebler noted that minor edits had been incorporated. Council directed staff to bring the framework to the October 7 meeting as a resolution for adoption.
Key Outcomes
- Tree Code: Staff to develop code amendments for fee‑in‑lieu reimbursements for voluntarily retained trees (verified after three years) and expanded incentives for priority tree preservation on lots under one acre.
- Developer Roundtable: Staff to prepare a flat per‑acre fee for tree preservation on industrial lands, along with supporting rock crushing and grading allowances. Staff to draft a five‑year SDC exemption for adaptive reuse projects in the core area using the minimum development standards review threshold.
- GO Bond Prioritization: TMAC will develop spending scenarios for approximately $19 million in unallocated funds, with guidance to prioritize Empire/Highway 20 interchange (up to $10 million, subject to ODOT partnership), neighborhood street safety, Hawthorne overcrossing connections, Colorado Avenue improvements, and cost‑effective solutions for Boyd Acres. A contingency of $9 million is reserved for major project cost overruns.
- Olney Ave/8th Street Intersection: Council endorsed the multi‑lane roundabout alternative; staff will proceed with design, right‑of‑way acquisition, and engagement with ODOT on the Norton key route crossing.
- Greenwood Avenue: Current quick‑build configuration will remain in place through completion of Franklin and Hawthorne projects.
- BPRD Shared Framework: To be presented for adoption at the October 7 council meeting, with minor edits.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, so we'll go ahead and call to order our city council work session. Um I don't actually is Gina online. I don't see her video. Okay, so Council Franzosa is going to join us virtually. Um Councillor Norris is recused on this first item on the tree code, so she'll join us after that item is done. And so hopefully we will see Council Franzosa pop in here soon, but we're gonna go ahead and get started with our tree code follow-up first. So we're ready for those staff. And there's principles agreed. Of course, always one. I turned my hand years ago. All right. Good afternoon, council. I am here uh today to go over our annual review of the tree preservation code and some follow-up from a work session the council held in March. I am here today with Renee Brooke, our planning manager, Nia Gray, our city of Bend Urban Forester. So the purpose of today's work session is to go over the annual review, and I will um highlight our first annual review, which was um 2025, and then this annual review and compare them, and then the follow-up items from council's March 11th work session requested additional information from staff to bring back regarding possibly using street trees as mitigation credits, uh trees located in the future right of ways to be excluded from tree preservation, and then a little bit more discussion on Western Juniper regulations. So again, for um staff recommendation for council consideration. We have two that we'd like to propose. One is to discuss fee and loo reimbursements for additional tree preservation. I'll go into more detail about this. Another one is to expand the tree preservation incentives for voluntary um tree preservation on smaller lots. The three that uh staff still needs direction on from the March 11th work session is again using uh required street trees to satisfy mitigation requirements, exempting trees located in future public right-of-ways from tree preservation, and uh standards for western junipers. So, first we'll go over the annual review of the tree preservation code, and again, the two review periods. Um, the 2025 review period was about 13 and a half months, and then the 2026 review period is a little over 11 months, so a little bit different, but it is an exact two years that we've had the code in these review periods, and since the end of the 2026 review period of August 16th, I just checked before um coming in here today, and we haven't had any additional data, so it's still relevant. The tree preservation standards apply uh to all our zones, they apply to partitions and subdivisions, they apply to site plan review applications, so development for like a commercial building or an industrial building or an apartment complex, and then they also applied to um dwelling unit um applications on properties larger than one acre. So as you recall anything under one acre under for development of housing is exempt. So the applications that are subject to the tree preservation code in 2025 included 40 land division and site plan review applications, and this last review period was only 15 applications, and then for the properties over one acre, those are very small. 2025 we had two residential lots, and in 2026 we had one residential lot. The number of applications that are exempt because they're for the development of housing on one acre or smaller in 2025 was 819 applications and 467 this last review period. So overall applications requiring preservation or mitigation in 2025 was almost five percent of our total applications, and in 2026 was three and a half percent of our total applications, so almost 95 percent were exempt because they are one acre or smaller for the development of housing. The preservation options that applicants proposed in the green represents the 2025 review period and the blue is 2026. For those proposing clear and objective standards, so it's either the 20% priority trees and our priority trees are the 20 inches or greater, or 25% of the total DBH on site. If an applicant proposes either of these, they're 100% done, they do not have to mitigate. So in 2025, we had 26 applications comply with the clear and objective standards and not have to mitigate, and 14 this last year. If an applicant can't preserve the 20% or 25%, they have the option to do a minimum of 5%, and then they do have to mitigate. And in 2025, we had 10 applications, and it's last year we had one proposed that option. And then we had two do the discretionary track in 2025. That's where they they can't preserve the 5%, and maybe they're an industrial site or there's topography issues, they can go discretionary track and remove as many trees as they need, and then they have to mitigate. So in 2025, we had two, and then this last year we had one, and then the one-acre sites are smaller. Uh they still have to comply with the code, but they have the option of just removing trees mitigating. We had four last year, and then this year. So just a little data to show the number of trees that will be replaced on site or assessed to be replaced on site in 2025 is almost 1,400 trees as this review period is 70 trees, and the money that has been assessed or collected the payment in lieu in 2025 was 63,000, and we are not um we did not assess any money to be collected this review period. Uh we are proposing an additional incentive to retain more trees for council to consider. So sometimes, and we've heard this from developers, on site, it is possible to preserve some additional trees due to construction standards changing or other things that can change in the field. Uh staff is supportive of this recommendation to consider them paying in lieu for these trees, but if they are successfully retained after three-year period, then they would get uh credit back. Uh they would have to identify these trees as potentially being preserved so that we can make sure that the root protection fence is up during the whole time and they are actually being protected, and then we have them identified and that they are retained healthy for at least three years. Question? If you have on this slide, please. Yeah, so I'm just curious what's the basis of three years versus two years. Three years of doing two years within our code. Okay.
openpublica.com