{ "city": "bend", "canonicalVideoId": "bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting", "source": { "meeting": { "fileName": "bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting.json", "path": "data/cities/bend/source/meetings/bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting.json", "sourceStem": "bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting", "variantCount": 1, "variantFiles": [ "bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting.json" ], "metadata": { "videoId": "bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting", "title": "City Council Business Meeting", "date": "2026-04-01", "committee": "City Council Business Meeting", "detailUrl": "https://bend.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=873", "videoUrl": "https://bend.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=873", "attachments": [ { "title": "Agenda", "url": "https://bend.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=873" } ], "videoProvider": "granicus", "videoProviderId": "873", "rawData": { "date": "2026-04-01", "clipId": "873", "agendaUrl": "https://bend.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=873" }, "transcriptSource": "official-subtitles" } }, "transcript": { "fileName": "bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting.srt", "path": "data/cities/bend/source/transcripts/bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting.srt", "sourceStem": "bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting", "size": 216059, "variantCount": 1, "variantFiles": [ "bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting.srt" ], "rawHash": "260e4579e30282d22620b1cb0c7200f464c0ef7ddd3e9c7dc450f79a6ea5ae98", "textHash": "75097f2fe049937d095b57b7e6aa92ba455c6d9dd19cad0fe549d3930385b524", "entryCount": 2925, "wordCount": 19516, "speakerCount": 4, "speakers": [ "Discussion", "Mike", "Opposed", "Take" ], "urls": { "srt": "/bend/api/source/transcript/bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting.srt", "text": "/bend/api/source/transcript/bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting.txt" } } }, "parsed": { "persistedAt": "2026-04-14T03:48:24.114Z", "canonicalVideoId": "bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting", "meeting": { "title": "City Council Business Meeting", "date": "2026-04-01", "committee": "City Council Business Meeting", "videoUrl": "https://bend.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=873", "detailUrl": "https://bend.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=873", "attachments": [ { "title": "Agenda", "url": "https://bend.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=873" } ], "sourceVideoId": "bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting", "sourceFileName": "bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting.json", "metadataVariantCount": 1, "metadataVariantIds": [ "bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting" ] }, "transcript": { "sourceFileName": "bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting.srt", "sourcePath": "/Users/thedjpetersen/code/seacc/data/cities/bend/source/transcripts/bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting.srt", "variantCount": 1, "variantFiles": [ "bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting.srt" ], "entryCount": 2925, "wordCount": 19516, "speakerCount": 4, "speakers": [ "Discussion", "Mike", "Opposed", "Take" ], "hash": "75097f2fe049937d095b57b7e6aa92ba455c6d9dd19cad0fe549d3930385b524" }, "tags": [ "city:bend", "org:bend-city-council", "meeting:bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting", "committee:city-council-business-meeting", "year:2026", "month:2026-04", "date:2026-04-01" ], "text": "all right, we will call to order our business meeting of\nthe bend city council tonight,\nthanks for being here.\nsteve platt, he/him.\nnorris. She/her.\nmike riley, he/him.\nmendez, he/him.\ngina franzosa, she/her.\nand councilor perkins is\nexcused and proclamations, arbor\nday, councilor mendez.\nthis is a distinct pleasure\nbecause not many people know\nthat my middle name is tree.\nAnd the way that my mom tells it lucky that tree wasn't my first\nname. Whereas, in 1872, the nebraska\nboard of agriculture established a special day to be set aside\nfor the planting of trees;\nand whereas, this holiday, called arbor day, is now\nobserved throughout the nation and the world to recognize the value of trees and their\npositive benefits to human welfare and a healthy\nenvironment; and whereas, the city of bend\nis celebrating 23 years as a\ntree city usa; and whereas, trees can be a\nsolution to combating climate change by sequestering carbon\nand, by providing shade that moderates urban temperatures, reducing the need to actively\ncool our homes and buildings; and, whereas, trees clean the\nair, produce life-giving oxygen, and provide habitat for birds\nand other wildlife, all of which\ncontribute to human health and\nwell-being; and whereas, trees in our city\nincrease property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our\ncommunity;\nand whereas, bend community members have expressed their\ndesire to maintain a healthy\ntree canopy because it protects the character of our community\nand provides all of the other benefits described above; and whereas, tree planting\nactivities engage people of all ages in understanding the\nimportance of trees and proper tree care, and promote the\nwell-being of this and future generations;\nand whereas, arbor day is a call to action for all citizens to\njoin in an effort to promote the good health and beauty of our\nlocal and global environments;\nand whereas, arbor week in\noregon is held the first full\nweek of APRIL each year. Now, therefore, the bend city\ncouncil does proclaim:\nthat friday the 24th of APRIL 2026, be designated \" arbor day\"\nfor the city of bend.\nI move acceptance of the proclamation.\nsecond.\nmoved by councilor riley and second by councilor franzosa,\nall in favor. >> aye.\nand we have four groups to\naccept the proclamation today, from save bend green space we\nhave robby silverman.\nAnd the city of bend urban\nforester, ian gray.\nAnd teacher from middle school\nand national honor society adviser, jane shine.\nAnd we have students from middle\nschool, dash, theona and tyler, can we invite all up?\nwe don't have enough chairs.\nIf anyone that wanted to make a statement, we will take a\npicture after this. And if anyone wanted to say\nanything to accept the proclamation, is robby here?\nYou want to say anything.\nyou know me --\nI don't know if ian wants to make remarks.\nwhy don't you come up robby\nand start with you two.\nForitously we have planting\nevent on 24th at middle crest\nmiddle school and we have eighth graders to plant 31 trees along\nwith residents of the community, yeah, really excited to make that happen.\nI will be super quick, we\nhave about 150 students at pacific crest that are involved\nin the national honor society\nand last year completed 4,000 community service hours and\nexcited to participate with ian\nand our school's green team as well.\nWithin 24 hours we have 60 volunteers and 12 parent\nvolunteers ready to roll.\nWe are excited to participate. Thank you.\nall right. Great.\nwell, save bend green space\nis honored to be a part of this\nproclamation and a 501-c\norganization and our vision is\nbalancing bend for the growth of saving trees for the health of\nour community.\nAs we celebrate arbor day this\nyear we want to commend city\ncouncil for enacting bend's tree\ncode and establishing urban\nprogram and establish ian gray to be arborist across areas of\nthe city. to put another way, healthy\ntrees, healthy bend.\nWhich happens to be the slogan\nof the volunteer based effort to inventory and assess condition\nof trees launching this spring.\nAnd kudos to you ian for leading this vital project.\nAnd take the opportunity, in\nface of all of this progress a\nhuge percentage of bend's trees are under attack.\nAs council reassesses the juniper trees under the tree\ncode ask that you recognize that\njuniper trees make much of the\ncanopy on the east side of bend\nwhere development is slighted.\nBend could risk a dangerous drop\nin overall tree canopy, one will be extremely difficult to\nreverse.\nThank you mayor and councilors\nfor commemorating arbor day and for protecting trees in bend.\nthanks robby.\nTake a photo. Thanks everybody.\n[Applause]\nAll right, next is our darksky week proclamation.\nwell, great, thank you it's\nmy honor to be doing the darksky proclamation once again this\nweek, and particularly this\nevening when we have four brave\nastronauts into those darkskies\nand wish them fair winds and\nfollowing following, whereas, international dark sky\nweek is observed in APRIL on the week of the new moon; and\nwhereas, the experience of\nstanding beneath a starry night sky inspires feelings of wonder and awe, and encourages\nstewardship of our shared environment and our magnificent dark skies;\nand whereas, dark skies are an integral aspect of the\nsustainability of oregon's wild\necosystems as a key\nenvironmental factor in bird migration, insect pollination,\nand human sleep patterns;\nand whereas, oregon's dark skies\nare a significant natural resource, with seven accredited\ninternational dark sky places to date- sunriver, prineville\nreservoir state park, oregon caves national monument, city of\nantelope, oregon outback\nsanctuary, cottonwood canyon state park, and city of sisters;\nand whereas, eastern oregon\nholds the world's largest dark sky sanctuary, and an area of\nthe largest pristine night skies\nin the contiguous 48 states; and whereas, astro-tourism,\nincluding star gazing, astronomy star parties, and dark sky\nphotography, is an evolving facet of outdoor recreation with\nreal economic benefits for communities across oregon, and which promotes the mitigation of\nlight pollution. Now, therefore, the city council\nof bend, oregon, does hereby proclaim APRIL 13-20, 2026, to\nbe international dark sky week\nin bend, oregon, and encourage all oregonians to join in this\nobservance.\nI move acceptance of proclamation.\nsecond.\nmoved by riley and second by mendez. All in favor.\naye.\nand great, we have folks that\nare able to come up and talk about this.\nWe have brandon matthews and\njeanine from dark skies oregon\nand taylor Mccuen from the bend\nthose are two aerial views of the stadium and the one on the\nleft is before and the one is after.\nAnd hard to notice at first but\nthe more you stare at it, you can see the difference and the\noverspill of roads, because we\nare inside of a neighborhood practically.\nAnd that practically brought\ndown the night sky to zero and\nquite substantial down roosevelt and fifth and wilson.\nThat helped the neighbors with lights when in use.\nAnd on the flip side of that on\nthe field as well, made it a lot brighter.\nThey are L.E.D. Lights and more efficient.\nI think 60% more efficient in terms of energy.\nAnd a lot safer for all the community members using the\nfield especially with our team and other little leagues and\nhigh school teams too.\ngreat, thank you, that just\nhappened to be happening dhurg time -- during this time, thanks\nfor that process, taylor. Go ahead, brandon.\nI would like to thank the\ncity of bend and this council\nfor recognizing dark skies as worth as something protecting.\nAnd recognition matters and help establish precedent for city\noregon and beyond.\nMost people alive have never\nseen the milky way.\nAnd this is not only a human loss.\nHarsh artificial lighting interrupts wildlife and nesting\nand feeding patterns.\nWhat makes central oregon a special place.\nResponsible lighting isn't living in pitch black, it's\nabout being intention sxal prudent.\nThis means shielding lights\ndownward and lighting only what needs to be lit.\nAnd warmer tones.\nAnd the bend night sky is\nprotecting a wonderful and unique natural resource.\nAnd we are a group advocate for\nthese lighting practices and to\nthat end this proclamation means\na great deal to this community. This is the only beginning.\nAnd hope it's a start of bend and central oregon where\nresidents step outside on a\nclear night and look up and see\nwhat humans have always seen, a\nsky full of stars.\nthank you. Take a quick picture?\n[Applause]\nall right, so that will bring\nus into our council action and reports. There was one letter that has\nbeen put together based on a\ntemplate that was forwarded to\ncouncil all to support the bend\nto suttle lake wildlife proposal and get council's head nods on\nthat and get that submitted. And councilor reports.\nCouncilor franzosa.\nthanks not too many official\nmeetings in the past two weeks.\nBut lots of conversations including with the old bend\nneighborhood and the southern crossing neighborhood.\nAnd some conversations with\nfolks who are invested in the\ncore area renewal area and eager\nto work with the city to get that moving. >> councilor mendez.\nyes, thank you, on MARCH 26,\nthe city of bend advisory committee met to approve their draft work plan.\nThere is a committee that is very ambitious.\nIt's a two-year work plan and they have members participating\nin all events across the city. Film festivals. Lunches.\nAnd other exhibitions. And they're very ambitious and I\nthink it's fantastic.\nThe bend metropolitan planning organization met yesterday\nirregularly scheduled off cycle\nmeeting to accommodate schedules.\nAnd basically just covered\nnormal business updates to the metropolitan transportation\nimprovement plan and other\nunified working plan, I forget\nthe acronym.\nSo excuse me but it was a busy meeting. >> okay.\nThat's all. >> councilor riley.\nfew, I unfortunately missed mpo meeting yesterday and\nthought would get hazed.\nYou didn't do it, and express\ngratitude for those organized\nthe no king's rally this weekend\nand to showing up and having a peaceful gathering.\nAnd I had a talk to meet with the business community and meet\nnew folks and what people are doing in the community.\nAnd give a shoutout to amy\nstall, and the founder and her\ntalk about company commitment to triple bottom line and making\nthat happen here in bend, oregon. Inspiring.\nAnd I know that the mayor talk\nabout this and passing of warm\nsprings chief earlier this week and let him and his people know\nand the family and rest of the members of confederated tribes\nof warm springs they are in my thoughts with his passing.\nthank you. Councilor norris.\nyeah, I attended the city\nclub meeting last week, which is always a great organization,\nreally good dialogue. Always interesting issues.\nIt was on the mapping process for the deschutes county\ncommission and our mayor was on the panel. Did a great job.\nthank you.\nand standing up for bend and appreciated that conversation.\nAnd then I attended league of city training on community engagement.\nJust interesting to hear from different cities across oregon\nand how they are engaging in their community and showing up\nand swapping stories and learning different ways to\nengage. Very informative.\nThat's it. >> great, councilor platt.\nspring break was last we're\nfor the teachers in the crowd, that was nice.\nI did go to the affordable housing advisory committee and\ntell you, I am amazed what our\ncommittees are doing for us and example of working hard and\ncommunity development and grants\nout in a meaningful way.\nTo get food to food banks and to\nget access and resources to folks here locally.\nI really appreciate what they are doing and all the folks\ninvolved and contributing to\ntheir city on a purely volunteer basis, that's it.\ngreat, thank you. All right a few things to\nannounce on my end. The committee applications are\nopen if you want to try to join a city committee.\nWe have some openings, some are\nlimited but MAY qualify.\nAnd affordable housing committee\nand bend economic development and advisory community and human\nrights and equity commission all have openings.\nAnyone interested can go to the website and apply to the end of\nthis month.\nI sent a note to council to do\nour flower basket for dbba again\nand make sure that is okay for everyone.\nAnd seeing head nods.\nI had a request from someone who\nworks with our national guard to recognize and make a statement\nthat APRIL is the month of military child.\nThat's a recognition of the families and especially the\nchildren of our members of sxhlt\nwhat they go through -- steve is nodding his head.\nAnd they are encouraging people\nto participate in purple up day,\nit's a statewide event to wear\npurple on APRIL 9, 2026. They have a team panel of\nmilitary children that are organization with the national\nguard. And the quote from this teen who\nis named grace, here in oregon\nwe don't have a military base so military teens don't have a\nvoice or get recognition.\nAnd this day is to honor\nmilitary kids and for the\ndifficult experiences they go through. And want to mention that.\nAnd a lot of stuff goes on this\ntime of year, important things.\nYesterday was transgender day of visibility, which I will read\ninformation from the glad website.\nIt's a day to raise awareness of\ntransgender people and celebrate their lives and the violence\nthat they face compared to nontransgender people.\nAnd created by crandall, created\nthe day in response to the media\nstories of transgender people focused on violence.\nHoped to create a day to celebrate the lives of\ntransgender people and due to\ndiscrimination not every trans-person wants to be visible.\nAnd with increasing attacks\nacross the country and we want\nto stay to our trans-community. We see you and value you and\nimportant part of this community\nand if you are able to be visible and yourself in bend.\nAnd we want to send our\ncondolences to the warm springs\ntribe on chief, died sunday and\nburied at sunrise this morning. And 87.\nAnd read from article, as chief\nhe played an important dual role\nto uphold the tribe traditions\nand values and educate the\noutside world what it meant to\nbe sovereign nation and treaty\nof 1855, and created a small\nportion of what would be the tribe as territory and oregon\nbecame a state using that land.\nAnd he was friends with\ngovernors, on one trip on salem\nin the 1990s and told the oregonians that he was visiting\nthe capital to remind that we\nare a nation within a nation. And remembering him that the\nstate understood what it meant\nto be sovereign and the tribes\nhave their own judges and independent of state engagement\nand educated all of us and me. There is more information on\nlearn about the chief. The tribal chiefs serve for\nlife, he has been serving for a long time and difficult to fill\nhis shoes, I know. And we still have our\nrelationship with the confederated tribe of warm\nsprings and working on when our\nnext gathering and the flags at\nhalf staff is honoring the passing of warm springs chief.\nAnd visitor's section and we\nhave one person online and a few in-person.\nAnd this is the time to talk to council directly about city\nissues. Please address council as a body\nand not individuals. Please keep your comments\nrespectful and nondisruptive so\nwe don't have to stop you to leave.\nI don't think we will have\nissues with that tonight.\nJonathan westerman online and\nget that set up and kick us off.\njonathan, you can unmute.\ngood evening mayor and councilors.\nFor the record, I am jonathan westmorland. I hope after my last public\ncomment you see me as ally and not adversary.\nEarlier today I sent four\nrelated documents, signals and safeguards and proposed\nframework and companion memo and staff tools appendix.\nI am not asking you to adopt\nthese materials but for a first step.\nAt last contract subcommittee\nmeeting one slide is to foster\npublic trust and fairness and honesty and best value.\nI think that's why these\nmaterials deserve staff review. At a neighborhood meeting last\nmonth that bend plans for land use, transportation and sewer\nand water.\nSee that same long-range\nthinking for privacy that shapes\nthe future for bend for residents. Because the public contract\nmeeting meets on APRIL 10 and does not meet often and ask\nstaff to review the materials\nand begin a discussion whether\nbend should have a more consistency framework.\nMy request is simple, please\nhave staff review the documents that I sent this morning and\nstart the conversation on APRIL 10. >> thank you jonathan.\nAll right we will go to in-person comment.\nNext you can come -- when I call\nyour name come up to the chair and tell us your name and\nwhether or not you live in the\ncity of bend and two minutes to give your comment.\nGet the timer here and flash\nyellow at 30 seconds.\nAnd start with ben leach.\nCome on up.\nmy flame is ben leach, I\nsplit time between walla walla\nand bend, but I own a small\nbusiness on wall street, a teacher shop.\nSorry very personal, I am\nwasting all of your time.\nI have two water mains into my small business and maybe the\nonly person that suffers from\nthis and it used to be split and\ncombined in one building 40 years. I called the city water\ndepartment and say no way to\ncombine your bill, I pay $157,\nthe bar rio, next to me that\nuses 100 times the water I use,\nI have four girls that go to the bathroom and wash their hands\nonce a day.\nJust on this one bill it's $1885 a year I am paying more than\nother people and the city engineer, I think his name is mike.\nI apologize. You have to go to city council\nand only one that can untie my\nhands and pay one sewer fee and\nnot using it and because we have two meters.\nThe other option is to remove the meter and unsafe for the\nline to the meter. I have to dig up the road and\nput in a copper plug in there.\nAnd talking about closing down\nmain street for 40 cents of\nwater and to city council and change the policy to change your\nbill.\nI don't know if I can do that\nhere or write in private. >> our city manager.\nour public works director is here and ask that he talk to you\nout in the hall and get\ninformation and see what we can do. >> totally cool.\nTalk to city council.\nyou are on the right track and get information.\nmeet out in the hall.\nawesome. Appreciate it.\nnext is brandon reed.\ncouncil and staff, thank you\nfor the opportunity to comment. Also thank you for the BREADth\nof work that you do, I appreciate your public service.\nAs you know I am an organizer of\nbend and chemical engineer and make two points on the climate\nimpact fee.\nAnd first do not carve out objection\nout -- exceptions for rmg, cascade\nhas insufficient assumptions\nabout the cost of rmg, the city\nalign with the entire carbon\nmarket and save for rmg.\nWe don't have a lot.\nAnd second ask, implement policy\nin 2027 and pushing builders to\nheat adoption with heat in new\nhouses that we need in central oregon.\nThis is the biggest possibility for bend to reduce greenhouse\ngas emission.\nWe didn't have a winter and the\nworse snow drought than any\nwestern state and an opportunity\ncost and staff recommendation to\npush out 20 months based on\nspeculation about next\nregulation and how it pans out.\nAnd not a sound basis to make policy decisions on.\nAnd again we can't afford to\nwait more, try something, update\nthe policy, rely on that and\ndon't keep pushing out.\nWe can't kick the bucket anymore.\nthanks ben.\nNext speaker.\ngood evening council and staff.\nI am priscilla, she/her pronouns.\nAnd bend resident and event outreach manager at\nenvironmental center. I work in the environmental\ncenter space to serve my community. It is always easier for people\nto sit back and say it's not my problem. But we need people to have\ncommunity and connections to the place that we all live, work and\nplay.\nYou all have the opportunity to help protect this community with\nthe climate impact fee.\nNew residential buildings are the best opportunity that bend\nhas today to make progress on climate and ensure clean,\naffordable energy.\nI have two requests for you as you go into conversations next\nweek at your roundtable. Do not carve out any exceptions\nfrom the policy. We need strong climate action.\nAnd can't afford for the impact\nfee to get any weaker.\nNumber 2, implement the fee\nstarting in APRIL, 2027 to align with the latest building code\nupdate. Thank you.\nthank you.\nChristie millen.\nhi, mayor kebler and councilors and staff, thank you\nfor the opportunity to comment today.\nMy name is christie, I'm a bend\nresident and urging to pass a\nstrong climate impact fee as soon as I am possible.\nI am concerned that the current\nproposal is watered down at the\ntime that federal climate protections are rolled back and\nleadership matters. This is a moment for courage and\nnot compromise and in bend\nbuildings account for half of our emissions.\nAnd this would help lower costs for residents over time.\nand strong impact fee is a\npractical first step and\ngenerate revenue for economic transition.\nAs a young person and what is\nahead, hot summers and snowless\nwinter are shaping our lives and\nI care about this place and want\nfuture generations to drive here too.\n20% fee is not enough at this\nmoment and take a strong action. >> thank you everyone for coming\nin to give us your comments. Move on to consent agenda.\nI move to approve the consent agenda.\nsecond.\nmoved by councilor norris and second by councilor franzosa.\nAll in favor. >> aye.\nbefore we get into the meat\nof our agenda, ask council to\nmove one item around, councilor\nnorris, have item 12 move up to\nbe around 9 in change of the\norder, if no one has a problem, do that.\nitem 11 and 12?\njust 12 needs to move under 9.\nYou are recused on 10 and 11.\nThat will get us to items 5, 6 and 7, go ahead caption norris.\nI will recuse on items 5-8,\nbecause I am an employee of\nhayden homes and these items\nwould have financial impact on employer.\nI will be leaving the dais. >> thank you.\nAnd ashley, we will do 5, 6 and\n7 together. Joo quasi-judicial public hearing and first reading of an\nordinance to amend bend comprehensive plan policies pertaining to the stevens road\ntract urban growth boundary\nexpansion area. Quasi-judicial public hearing and first reading of an\nordinance to amend the bend development code, chapter 2.7, special planned districts,\nrefinement plans, area plans and master plans, to create the\nlegacy village planned development, an approximately\n260-acre major community master plan.\nQuasi-judicial public hearing and first reading of an ordinance to annex 265.7 acres\nof land in the stevens road tract urban growth boundary\n(Ugb) Expansion area. I will open the public hearing\nfor items 5, 6 and 7 and\nturnover to ian.\nI will read a procedural statement for all items.\nThe first element of the process\nis to give decision makers an\nopportunity to declare any ex\nparte comments or site visits\nrelated to these applications. Platt. >> it's part of my role to get\nup to speed on the council since I've got on.\nAnd learning more about that. And home building industry in\nthe city. I have spent time talking with\nmost of the major builders in\nthe city. And talked about the challenges\nof building in our city.\nAnd specifically with hayden homes the conversation I had\nrevolved around what is the\nimpact of a tree code.\nOn building generically.\nWhat is the impact of a proposal\nfee and how hard to get in neighborhoods.\nAnd lean on them and other\nbuilders I feel I can be very nonbiased in this discussion but\nI want to acknowledge that I had\nthose discussions with hayden homes. >> thank you.\nsounds like general conversations and not about\nthese particular applications.\nthat's correct.\nanyone have an interest with\nthe ability to serve as impartial member.\nSeeing shaking of heads.\nAnyone that wishes to challenge\nthe decision makers on basis of bias or personal interest.\nLooking around the room, seeing shaking heads.\nAnd next step, explain state law.\nAll testimony and evidence directed to the bend\ncomprehensive plan that the\nparty believes applicable to\nthis matter and the failure to\nraise with specificity to\nrespond to the issue will preclude to the land board use\nof appeals.\nAnd the failure to raise an\nissue or other issue of approval\nwithout specific specificity\nwill preclude to damages related to that issue.\nAnd finally if prior to the\npublic hearing any party present\nadditional time, the council MAY\nallow a continuance or time for\ndiscretion for parties to submit\nevidence to the record or resume to a date certain.\nthank you, how this goes, we will have a presentation from\nstaff, have a presentation from the applicant.\nI will be more formal tonight, I would like folks on the dais to\nraise your hand and acknowledged\nwhen speak and clear on the record. And ask informational questions\nduring these presentations and avoid deliberation until then\nand take public comment, no one signed up and in case there is\nand done with that at the end of the presentation.\nStart with you, karen.\nthank you, as ian mentioned\nthis is one public hearing but three applications and require three separate motions.\nWe have in front of us tonight,\nfor the stevens road tract property a text amendment.\nA master plan and annexation.\nSo the background on this\nproperty, as I mentioned was\nlabeled the stevens road tract\nproperty by the department of state lands.\nAnd what all of this middle information is in the record.\nAnd before the planning\ncommission hearing the applicant\nrenamed this area legacy village.\nAll the adopting documents have\nthe name legacy village from it. This property is immediately\neast of stevens ranch.\nApproximately 260 acres.\nAnd it is on the edge of urban\ngrowth boundary with knott land\nto the south.\nThis property was acquired from\nthe state of oregon in 1990s and\nmanaged by department of state lands to benefit the states'\ncommon school fund.\nIn 2021, the oregon legislature\npassed house bill 3318 for this property to allow the city of\nbend to expand our urban growth development with specific\nrequirements.\nA housing mix that succeeds the\nproportion in the housing need analysis.\nand minimum acreage for\naffordable housing and comprehensive plan policies.\nThose housing requirements that\nI mentioned, must exceed an\noverall density of nine units\nper gross residential acres.\nThe highest of any community\nmaster plan in bend. The housing mix must exceed the\nneeds housing needs analysis,\nand minimum 10% townhomes and\n35% of those units must be\nduplex, triplex, quadplex or\nmulti-unit apartment style units.\nAnd that 2016 announcement is\nunder way by the growth management division but the\nstate is based on that 2016 analysis.\nHouse bill 3318 had very specific affordable housing\nrequirements.\nAt least 20 acres of the residential land must be for\ndeed restricted affordable\nhousing and broken down, 12\nacres available for households\nearning 60% of area median income.\nAnd six acres for 80% of area median income.\nAnd two acres, 80% of those\nunits must be affordable for up\nto 80% of area median income.\nAnd those 20 acres, they the city to go forth with a process\nof how that would be developed.\nIn the tract that are available\nfor 80% area median income,\npriority would be given to households in which one\nindividual is employed by\neducation provider to the extent permitted by the law.\nBack in -- so this house bill 3318. >> karen we have a question.\ncan you go back, and make sure and confirm this.\nThe process that went through this, some of this happened\nbefore I joined the council. These basic criteria were\nadopted in our code through the\nsteps defined in the law; right. So they become part of the\ncriteria we are using tonight to\nevaluate if applicant meets the criteria.\nyeah, I am getting to that, straight from the law.\nAnd then subsequently in 2022,\nthe next year, as directed by\nthe state law the city developed a concept plan for this\nproperty. It hired a consultant to\nevaluate site conditions.\nLooked at land needs and a\nmarket analysis particularly for the commercial areas.\nAnd engaged the public in a\nprocess that developed certain guiding principles.\nAnd developed three alternative concepts that varied by unit\ncount and housing mix and\ncommercial land and the open space or park size.\nThen of those three one was selected.\nAnd then I believe, I think only\nthe mayor was on council at that time.\nIn terms of who is here tonight.\nAnd so this was adopted by resolution.\nAnd it did include a graphical\nrepresentation of how that\nconcept plan -- alternative looked like.\nInvolved 2,427 dwelling units\nand high density in the central area.\nAlso along wilderness way, that\neast-west collector street and\nnear stevens road to the north.\nAnd included market rate house\ndensity housing and five acres\nof main street commercial on wilderness way.\nAnd additional seven acres of\nmixed land at south end and a\nlarge community park.\nAnd then these were all\npreliminary locations. And a graphical representation\nof that concept plan. And then the following year it\nwas adopted by the council in 2023.\nAnd we had a few more council\nmembers who were aware of this.\nAll of that was a concept plan\nadopted or approved by the department of land and community\nconservation development.\nWe had to do check ins with the\nstate along the way.\nThe next step was to development comprehensive plan policies.\nAnd those numerical requirements\ndirectly from house big 3318\nwere incorporated into specific comprehensive plan policies in\nthe city.\nAnd language from the bill that\nrequired designation of areas adequate employment land and\nbased on that market analysis. Was shown to be five acres of\ncommercial and seven acres of\nmixed employment land based on\nthat specific policy 160.\nThe language in house bill 3318\nthat require areas designated\nfor recreation and open space\nwas in policy that had 39 acres of residential and designated\npublic facilities specifically\nthat included a community park.\nThe bill also required that there is adequate infrastructure\nto support walking and biking.\nWhich is reflected in the two policies that required seven\nacres of trail corridors and green loop, multiuse trails\naround the perimeter and a site\nspecific located path.\nAnd then just a few more from\nthe bill, required land use regulations that comply with\napplicable wildfire planning and development. And that policy required that\nthe master plan must show that\nwildfire risk can be mitigated.\nWhich was fulfilled with the\napplicant's submit of hoa-ccnr's\nthat are very reflective of the existing rules and regulations\nthat the city is looking for\nboth for building and landscaping. And adequate capacity for\nsteward analysis that is\nstandard for sewer analysis and\nin this case coordination with avia water company.\nTo give a big timeline of everything that I discussed.\nAnd started in 2021, with the\nadoption of house big and\nadopted the plan in JUNE 2022.\nAnd in 2023 this property added.\nAnd the policies added and the map designations.\nAnd then in SEPTEMBER, the department of state lands\nselected hayden homes to purchase this site.\nAnd in NOVEMBER hayden homes submitted these three\napplications and here this spring with these hearings.\nAnd again the department of land conservation and development\ndeals, approved the concept plan and the subsequent plan and text\nand policy and amendments along the way.\nWe have been in constant contact\nwith them with all of these legislative steps.\nTo first -- the first of these\napplications is a comprehensive plan policy amendment.\ni bring this forth first because\nthe master plan is based on the adoption of these comprehensive\nplan policy amendments.\nThe first is, it would remove\nthat concept plan image that I\nshared earlier and references to\nthat concept plan.\nBecause that is basically old graphical representation, we now\nhave master plan submitted by the applicant.\nAnd next one is amendment to allow flexibility in the\nlocation of affordable housing.\nThere were several in this\nconcept plan restrictions on adjacency to the park and\ncommercial areas and also needs to be distribution of these\naffordable housing areas.\nIn order to work, allow all of\nthose concepts to work together.\nIt does a comprehensive plan\namendment is proposed to allow\naffordable housing within one half mile than quarter mile.\nAnd multiuse path that connects\nto the community park, that was\nkey in that public engagement\nprocess that affordable housing\nparcels could partake in that enjoyment of that park.\nSo all of those would have a multiuse connection to that\npark.\nThen the more numerical\namendment to one of the policies\nis -- first start with the overall policy.\nThe overall policy as I mentioned required that minimum\nnumber, 2,487 units and then\nbroke it down to how many acres within each residential designation.\nAnd then how many units within each of those zones.\nAnd so all of that will remain the same.\nthe overall number of the units,\nthe overall number of acres.\nWithin each of those zones and minimum acreage for affordable\nhousing and everything remain\nthe same and the part proposed\nto be amended is reducing the market-rate dwelling units from\n480 to 300 in those 12 acres of\nrh designated lands for\nmarket-rate housing.\nAll the amendments in that\npolicy remain the same.\nAnd amendment to policy 158\nrequires housing in rh zone and each six acres.\nAnd this amendment allow\nflexibility still one lot of six\nacres in size and the other to\nallow different layouts and\noverall acreage remain the same.\nThe criteria for those comprehensive plan policy\namendments.\nAnd you will see all of these applications have very\nconsistent or similar criteria\nfirst it's consistent with the\nstate-wide planning goals that\nyou see in the staff report. Consistent with the applicable\ncomp hnsive plan policies and these are amendments but\nconsistent otherwise with all\nthe other policies.\nThere are adequate facilities concurrent with development and\ngoes with the master plan.\nAnd evidence of change in\nneighborhood in comprehensive plan map.\nAnd part of this graphical\nrepresentation in 2022, and it's\nbeen fine tuned over time in the\nutility and availability and topography and everything else.\nAnd there is some moving around of some designations.\nThere was in terms of just\nmapping variability, acreage slightly changed but the\ncomprehensive plan policies are the dictating factor in terms of\nnumber of acres. And consistent with the\ntransportation planning rule and this goes more with the master\nplan and annexation and I will\nget to that in a moment. Master plan is now called legacy\nvillage and include that minimum, 2,487 units.\nAnd recall that 10% of those housing units are townhomes.\nAnd the applicant is proposing 11%.\nThere is a requirement for 35%\nof those overall housing units\nto be plexes or multi-residential units.\nAnd the applicant is proposing 58%. As you remember before there is\n20 acres that are required by house bill 3318.\nThat must be for deed restricted\naffordable housing and the\napplicant is proposing 23.8 acres.\nSo there is 3.8 acres more than required in this proposal.\nThan is required in the house\nbill.\nThere is, the master plan\nincludes tlieb\n39.5 acres of open\nspace with the community park in\ntandem with the bend parks and recreation district.\nAnd includes 10 acres of trail.\nAligned with bprd high desert\ntrail alignment and 6.5\nadditional open space in the community. Resulting in this graphical\nrepresentation and you see on\nthe left boundary with the pink line is that trail system and\nthen there is also trails along\neach of the arterial roadways,\nstevens road and ford road and\nferguson road and the road that\ncuts east-west and a local\nstreet that bisects the property north-south.\nThis middle north-south multiuse\npathway connects all of those\naffordable housing parcels to\nthe central park as well as the central main street area.\nThe areas outlined in dashed\nblue are the 23.8 acres of\naffordable housing conveyed to the city.\nThis also includes -- thank you,\nthis also includes that five\nacres in pink that you see north of wilderness way.\nFor commercial lands.\nAnd then the purple that is in\nthe north wilderness way near afford road and ferguson road\nfor mixed employment, the seven\nacres required by the policies.\nAnd then the lighter green that\nyou see will be platted open\nspace, that will be managed by\nhomeowners association. This is the street circulation\nplan as I mentioned.\nThere are three arterials bounding this property as well\nas essentially a collector street through the middle,\nwilderness way.\nAnd then kind of an enhanced local street on north-south.\nAnd so -- then all the local streets within.\nThere are some off site transportation improvements.\nWorking with odot.\nOff site requirement on highway\n20 and ward road or hamby road\nin terms of adding capacity to that roundabout.\nAnd providing a contribution for intersection improvements to the\ncounty for ward road and bear\ncreek road.\nexpansions of the wilderness way roundabout that was currently constructed.\nAnd also the 27th and ferguson road roundabout that is\ncurrently in design by the developer, stevens ranch.\nAnd also going to be a movement\nrestriction reed market and pettigrew road.\nAnd in terms of immediately\nabutting the site or as part of\nthis development a roundabout at\nthe intersection of stevens road\nand ward road and dedication of\na future roundabout at\nwilderness way and ward road and ferguson and ward road.\nBut the last two are not construction of roundabouts at\nthis time, they are not warranted yet.\nThe master plan approval\ncriteria requires consistency with relevance statewide\nplanning goals addressed in the staff report.\nThat is consistent with the bend\ncomprehensive plan map.\nAgain this rearranged the\ndesignation place holders and consistent with the policies in\nchapter 11, as amended by the previous application.\nThere is adequate sewer and water capacity with development.\nThere was a utility analysis\nmemo or analysis submitted by\nthe applicant with a subsequent\nmemo written to the file by the\ncity in terms of sewer capacity.\nAnd working with avion on water capacity and the applicant speak\nmore to that. And compliance with the\ntransportation analysis\nrequirements in the code, and this results in the\ntransportation mitigation table\nthat is in the legacy village\nmaster plan code that is exhibit \"a\" of that application\nordinance.\nThere are also community master\nplan standards that all\nproperties must have access to commercial goods and services\nwithin 1/2 mile.\nAnd that includes the areas designated general commercial\nand mixed employment.\nAnd all of the properties are\nwithin half mile of that central main street commercial area.\nNot including either of the me\nzones but including those as well. This is definitely met.\nThe standard is definitely met.\nThere is multimodal connections including\nincluding bike lanes and trails\nand pathways and bike lanes on\neach arterial and wilderness way.\nThe off site trail along the western boundary that provides\nthat green loop are required by policies.\nAnd then for the housing density\nmix, this is superseded by the comprehensive plan policies for\nthis property.\nWhich as I mentioned was 10%\ntownhomes and 35% multiunit housing and exceeding both.\nAnd the 20 acres which must be\nprovided to the city for deed restricted affordable units and\nagain they are exceeding that by 3.8 acres.\nIn a community master plan\nanywhere in the city, there is a\nminimum 10% of the gross area that must be public or private\nopen space.\nAnd there is an approximately 15% planned of this property.\nBut that's also to meet those comprehensive policies that i\nmentioned earlier. And that includes the 23 acre\ncommunity park which is larger than neighborhood park,\ndifferent standard for bprd.\nAnd as this is a major community\nmaster plan, the applicant has\nrequested some deviations to the underlying code.\nThere are some proposed\ndeviations to the residential\nlot sizes, setbacks and lot coverages.\nThese are smaller proposed lot\nsizes in rs zone. Caraway adopted master plan 2700\nand the city standard is 4,000\nsquare feet.\nFor the setbacks and what this applicant is proposing is\nsimilar to what is adopted in\npetrosa, and eastern and stevens\nranch and the caraway master\nplans, there is precedent for that.\nAnd back to the residential lot sizes I want to mention those\nlot sizes that the applicant is\nproposing for the rs zone is essentially to match the lot\nsizes and dimensions in the rm zone, median residential.\nAnd so there is different unit types that are in rm zone but\nthis is essentially making those\nlot size and dimensions equal\nbetween those two zones.\nAnd then in terms of block\nlength and block perimeter.\nUnderlying code in chapter 3.1 of the bend development code\nindicates that there is a numerical standard and that if\nyou exceed it you must provide a midblock corridor and doesn't\nhow much you can exceed it or\nwhere you need the midblock corridor.\nAnd this applicant submitted\nclear and objective standards for legacy village.\nAnd I can go into more depth on\nthat if you are curious about that.\nBut there is underlying code,\nthe block perimeter, maximum\nblock perimeter is 2,000 linear\nfeet in the residential zone and 2,640 feet in nonresidential\nzone and making this a 3,000\nlinear feet across the master plan.\nAnd do include specific\nrequirements of when that midblock pathway would need to\nbe provided.\nMoving on to the commercial uses. And the development standards as\nwe mentioned that policy for the\ncommercial area called it a main street area to facilitate that.\nThere is a prohibition on\nauto-oriented and auto-dependent\nuses in that cg zone there on wilderness way.\nAs well as a maximum front setback. The building has to be closer to\nthe street, it wouldn't be like\na strip mall with parking in front.\nTo kind of create that main street feel.\nAnd then finally generally there\nis in the code nonallowance for double frontage lots, streets on\nfront and back, and this would\nallow double frontage lots on ferguson road.\nSo people's front doors don't\nhave to face views of the land.\nSo finally moving on to annexation. All of the criteria pretty much\nwe've talked about to this point.\nIn terms of consistency with policies.\nThe annexation is consistent with the master plan and talked\nabout public facilities.\nI want to mention documentation in the file of correspondence\nwith the school district. The school district does have a\nneed for an elementary school in this area.\nHowever, until there is not a\nparcel for such a school on this\nproperty, because there is one\nalready shown on the stevens ranch property and plus they\nhave access to high desert middle school site too.\nAnd parks as I mentioned work\nclosely with the city and\napplicant and closely with rprd\nwith park needs in the area and trails. No water rights or facilities on\nthis property. And in terms with consistency\nwith the transportation planning\nrule I mentioned that requires impacts on other agency\ninfrastructure. There is in the annexation\nagreement a letter from oregon department of transportation and\ndeschutes county of what those\noff site improvements are needed.\nWhich I mentioned previously and\nall the rights-of-way will be improved to city standards\nrequired within the application.\nAnd all of those transportation\nimprovements are -- will be\ncodified or is part of the\nordinance exhibits at\ntransportation mitigation plan. And application at city\nstandards at the time of development.\nThere is a substantial amount of\npublic participation and held\npublic meeting last fall and\npostings sent to neighborhood districts.\nand noticed to clcd and all\nneighborhood providers and odot\nand county coordination on the analysis.\nAnd in response to all that of,\nwe received a letter from department of state lands in\nsupport and one letter of\nconcern from the neighboring developer.\nThere was a planning commission hearing hold FEBRUARY 9.\nThe planning commission recommended approval and voting\n4 yes and 2 no and we have a planning commissioner tonight\nand I haven't touched base with her yet and can tell you about\nthose deliberations. >> okay, great, who is here from\nthe planning commission?\nYou want to come up and let us -- anything that you want to\nadd to karen's presentation\nabout the deliberation of the planning commission.\nPlease introduce yourself too.\nhello, katie snyder and I\ncurrently serve on the planning commission.\nWith the comprehensive plan\npolicies for stevens road tract, planning commission unanimously\nvoted to recommend that city council adopt the ordinance.\nAs proposed by the applicant with a draft provided by staff.\nAnd we also voted as stated here\n4-2 to recommend to adopt an\nordinance to amend the bend\ndevelopment code to add the\nstevens road tract master plan.\nWe haven't touched base -- >> go ahead.\nwe discussed the requirements, fire safety, the\nlayout of various housing types and how development was phased\nand traffic impacts to the surrounding areas and how\nstreets connect to existing roads.\nAs well as pedestrian and bike\ntrail systems throughout the proposed master plan. >> okay.\ncan I ask a question?\nsure.\nanything from the two that voted against it, anything in\nterms of their reasoning that\nvoted against it grounded in the\ncriteria that we have to use to evaluate this plan.\nSounds like some discussion MAY\nnot have been relevant to all criteria, but was there some\ndirectly relevant to the criteria the dissent?\nI don't recall.\nany staff that can answer\nthat question. >> there was discussion about\nthe commercial area as a concern\nin many community master plans\nwith the adoption of senate bill\n8 that is now adopted into the\ncity code in compliance with\nstate law that allows affordable housing on commercial property.\nThere was concern that this commercial property would remain\nor available for commercial uses.\nAnd so that was part of the discussion.\nAnd in terms of acreage of the commercial property, that was\ndictated by market analysis that led to the concept plan that led\nto this master plan.\nAnd there is not as much of a danger in this becoming\naffordable housing like we have\nin other master plans.\nBecause there is 23.8 acres of affordable housing acreage in\nthis master plan itself. Required by the house bill.\nSo that was a concern.\nbut it's not necessary ly ily one\nthat would be applicable to this master plan. >> because that's not relevant\nto the criteria for our\nevaluation of this application; right.\nI understand the concerns and working hard to address that\nconcern and the bill that passed\nthat doesn't apply here. >> and proposed with the\npolicies and house bill itself.\nkaren, can you say again when the planning commission was?\nFEBRUARY 9.\nbefore the end of the session\nwhen the bill passed to make\nchanges to the sb bill. >> correct.\nany other questions before planning commission steps back?\nit's related, karen can you\nremind me, it's 5 acre for commercial general and other\nparcels that are mixed employment look smaller than\nfive acres?\ntogether they are seven acres.\nand about mike's question regarding -- sorry, councilor\nriley's question regarding the criteria.\nAnd the comprehensive plan and\nthe bend development code and\nthe master plans for this area refer to complete communities\nand those are defined as mixed use.\nSo how -- so would seem that\ncommercial and mixed employment zoned properties or parcels\nwould actually and whether or not those stay consistent with\nthose uses that seems like it\nwould actually be very relevant to those criteria.\nyes, it is compliant with\nthat criteria that it has five acres of commercial land and\nseven acres of mixed employment land.\nthat it has the acres and not\nnecessarily they are actual developed in that way.\nit was like a state ordinance or statute that says that they\ncan do that with the land.\nSo it is still compliant. We urge hayden to work with\ndevelopers if they can to make\nsure that commercial stays commercial. And developed as such.\nThe nearest commercial is a mile away on 27.\nI am trying to understand though, with respect to the\ncriteria what we are supposed,\nwhen we have evidence on the\nground that previous master plans --\ncouncilor is this deliberation or a question,\nsorry trying to keep it tight.\nI guess I am trying to\nformulate a question to get an\nanswer. If they're just showing a square\non the map, all we have to -- >> yes.\nYes, that is available for development. >> okay.\nokay. Any other questions for staff?\nI have a question for staff.\nthank you if you hop back,\nthank you for the insight and for coming. And we have the applicant to\npresent too and we will be able to ask them questions.\nI will try to get in as many\nquestions in four minutes.\nAnd the transportation code has\napplication of cascade transit\nand is developer to build a hub or how met?\nthat is in coordination with\ncta and this master plan doesn't\nrequire that, it MAY be who knows in the future.\nAll about what cte needs.\nthank you, I am trying to be efficient.\nyou have plenty of time.\nI feel the heat.\nno, I want to be sure we are focused for staff.\nhow much discretion do we have in deciding whether to\ngrant the reduction of minimum\nmarket rate dwelling units in high zones?\nNot grounded in code.\ncorrect, that number did not\ncome from house bill but from development of competence\nrehensive\nplan amendments. There are other belts and\nsuspenders to all of this and a minimum number of acres and\ntotal number of units.\nSo there are other boundaries of\nhow much and the applicant. >> thank you and the question probably for the developer, what\nare the consequences of refusing that.\nThat sounds like a developer question.\nIs there anything in our code\nthat regulates owner ship type,\nhomes to rent or own? >> no.\nI didn't think so and thanks for clarifying that.\nWhat is in the code that\nrequires a wider roundabout at 27th and ferguson.\nI didn't catch the first part of the question.\nwhat is in the code that\nrequires a wider roundabout at 27th and ferguson.\nthat came from the transportation analysis.\nokay, can we just ask the\ndeveloper to conform to our\ncurrent multiuse path standard 10 feet wide than eight feet\nwide.\nI know they are only bound by 8\nfeet but ask to do 10 instead?\nwe can ask whatever we want\nand require the standards.\nin the multistreets no multiuse path requirement,\nsix-feet sidewalks on each side. On collector streets and\narterial streets there is that wider path.\nHowever because there is a\nrequirement to connect these affordable housing parcels to\nthe community park.\nThat local street is being expanded.\nThat's why I said enhancement\nand not a formal word but local\nstreet to expand that six-foot sidewalk to eight feet. >> the spine.\nyes, north-south spine.\nany other questions?\nI will have some for staff.\nwe can bring karen back up,\nhave the applicants come up and present.\nGrab yourself an extra chair if\nyou need it. >> plug in to make sure.\nis that going to reach?\nare you expecting a long\nconversation, bill?\nhopefully not.\nokay, mayor, council, thank\nyou for your patience here. Let me get the presentation\nshared. Okay.\nSo thank you for your time and\nattention this evening. I am joey, planner here in bend.\nWe are a consultant for the\napplicant and developer, hayden homes.\nI'm going to try to keep the presentation relatively short,\nkaren did a very good job as\nusual going through in detail.\nAll of the kind of key criteria that these applications are\nrequired to be reviewed against.\nAnd we have 500 pages of\nmaterial that we have in the record.\nAnd a team of folks here to try to answer questions.\nSo I have about a dozen slides. And then I will just request\nthat if there are any questions\nabout this project, and we've\nheard some already, please give\nus a chance to answer those\nbefore the record is closed, so we have a chance to communicate\nour position of how plans are the way they are and answer\nquestions. The application is that is\nbefore you or applications are the product of team effort.\nWe have been working over a year\nwith hayden homes, the other\nconsultants, with the city.\nWith the department of state\nlands, bend parks and rec and\nschool district among others to\nput together what we think is an approval major community master\nplan.\nAnd members of our team are present this evening to try to\nanswer questions. Before we launch into the meat\nof the application, I will turn\nthings over to jen to do intro\nfor hayden homes.\ngood evening, mayor and\ncouncilors, jenn kovitz thank council and staff for the years\nof work to this milestone.\nJoey mentioned working for over\na year and this house bill passed in 2021.\nwe stand on shoulders of a lot\nof work that lead us to today. Thank you.\nHayden homes I will spare a long introduction, we are proud to\nhave built over 2100 homes in\nbend since we began up the road in redmond in 1989.\nAnd next tuesday I think as many\nof you know, we are going to\ncelebrate the ribbon cutting at park side place.\nThe affordable housing ugb\nproject made possible by house\nbill 4079 and as you consider\nthe next milestone for this\nstevens road tract and shoutout\nwhat the city and hayden homes at park side space.\nAnd we are delivering 40% deed\nrestricted affordable units.\nWe are delivering 108 as rental units in the first phase.\nThey are going up right now.\nThe market rate that we achieve\nwithout subsidy begins at homes\npriced 140,000 that is 290,000 below.\nAnd these market rate subsidized members can purchase that\nwithout being cost burdened. We did this thank you and thank you.\nNext slide please.\nHayden homes is honored to be selected for the opportunity to\npurchase the stevens road tract.\nWe proposed the rename of legacy village village.\nAnd when dsl selected hayden\nhomes they cited our nonprofit\nfirst story and our ability to\ndeliver housing that our\nworkforce can afford for the reasons.\nAnd for our nonprofit first\nstory, 15% of those homeowners are educators.\nAnd that really aligns with the\nspirit of this bill dedicating\nor prioritizing, excuse me, a percentage of that affordable\nhousing to educators. There is a natural alignment\nhere for us.\nAnd I want to say that hayden\nhomes we take seriously the house bill stated purpose to\naddress as you see in this\nhighlighted section what they\nstated as acute housing crisis.\nAnd we feel like we are prepared to help bring to life the plan\nthat the city and state worked\nso hard to put together. Back to you joey.\nthank you, as karen mentioned this property is southeastern\nedge of the city, the subject property is here on the slide\noutlined in yellow.\nEast of 27th street and between\nreed market and stevens road to\nthe north and ferguson road to the south.\nAnd 260 acres of stevens ranch master plan annexed in 2021.\nAs we know there is a lot happening in southeast bend and\nthe southeast area plan and\nstevens ranch master plan.\nWhat that means there is a\nnumber of existing and plan\ndesignations for future residents. Commercial.\nRecreation. Schools.\nAll within relatively close\nproximity to legacy village and\nlay the use in this new\ncommunity to supplement what is happening around it.\nQuick couple of slides here,\njust a closer look at 261 acre property.\nYou see how abuts steven ranch and steven road northern\nboundary and ferguson road on\nthe southern boundary. Top topography and vegetation is\nstandard for bend. The layout with stevens ranch\nand extend the streets from\nstevens ranch to the west for\nthis consistent pattern.\nAnd summary of stevens road tract legacy village by the\nnumbers and the comp plans\nadopted by the city require\nminimum of 2,487 homes and the\ncoordination with the city for\nsewer, water, transportation is planned around approximately\n2500 homes, a little above that minimum requirement.\nLess than one-third of homes\nplan to be detached single family, and this is consistent\nwith the bill.\nAnd also the city's housing\nneeds analysis as karen had summarized.\nAnd then we have also been coordinating with bprd on\nlocation and size of the community park.\nThat moved around a little bit\nfrom the concept plan originally adopted by the city.\nAnd moved to south side of\nwilderness way more centrally\nlocated and further away from\nthe planned park believe to be constructed in stevens ranch.\nAnd this location also helps\npreserve largest rock crop and\ngave a map to put on phones to geolocate in real time and we\ngot e-mailed back from their\nplanner that their landscape\narchitects gave our new location\ntwo thumbs up and proud about that one.\nAnd closer look at legacy village village, a complete community\nproviding this range of housing\ntypes for households of\ndifferent sizes. Ages and incomes.\nThe original concept plan had\nmost of the multifamily and affordable housing more\ncentralized around wilderness way. And concentrated in the middle\nand northern parts of the property.\nAnd what we have done with this\nplan tried to disperse the range\nof housing types across the\ncommunity. Tie them together with wider\nnetwork paths to ring around the perimeter.\nAnd also east-west and north-south on the spine that\nwas mentioned earlier. Blue dashed areas is affordable\nhousing and pink line is multiuse paths.\nAnd this approach is really trying to take land and\ntransportation planning to help connect neighbors together and\nconnect homes with these commercial areas.\nThe parks, the recreation areas\nand kind of broader amenities\nthat are beyond this property. Commercial lands are just one\nelement of a complete community.\nBut one that we certainly understand has received a lot of\nattention here recently in bend.\nWhile legacy village is fulfilling its requirements\nunder the comprehensive plan. To provide certain acreages of\ncommercial and mixed employment. This slide also shows that\nstevens ranch is planned to provide more than 43 acres of\ncommercial land.\nWhat this means for future legacy village residents there\nis more than 50 acres of\ncommercial land within a\nrelatively easy walking, biking distance.\nAnd the connections made not\njust on regular city sidewalks\nbut the multiuse paths and part of the city's low stress\nnetwork. Another critical element of a\ncomplete community is housing\nthat is affordable to a wide range of incomes.\nAnd karen mentioned that is\nrequired 20 acres and six acres\nfor households at 80% of ami or less.\nAnd 12 acres of households of\n60% of ami or less.\nAnd two acres of 80% of ami,\nwhile the bill and comp plan\nrequired this 20 net acres as\nmentioned and what hayden is\nproud about and consistent with\nthe work that this plan provides more, four more acres to the\ncity for affordable housing.\nSo the key takeaways.\nHouse bill 3318 intended to address the acute housing\ncrisis. That is the legislation that set\nin motion, all the steps and all the planning work that the city\nhas already done and kind of\nwhere we are here today.\nConsistent with the bill and the\ncomprehensive plan, legacy villages provides this complete\ncommunity with commercial\nopportunities at least that 2487 homes.\nAnd the required amounts of market-rate housing and\naffordable housing and get into the questions about the number\nof units on the rh land.\nRecreational opportunities. Multimodal transportation system\nand regional transportation and other infrastructure\nimprovements. And equally as important making\nsure this project is mitigating impacts on the larger\ninfrastructure systems. That's what is included in the\ntransportation mitigation plan.\nSo that is the end of our formal presentation that we anticipate,\nthere are plenty of questions and welcome that opportunity to\ntry to answer them. >> council, let me know if you\nwant to start with any questions, anyone?\nYou want to go first.\nOkay, so what would the\nconsequence of refusing to grant reduction of minimal market\nrate?\nthe reason for that change is\nthat under the assumed density adopted with the original\nconcept plan that came out to be\nresidential development in the\nrf zone 40 units an acre for market rate housing.\nTo put housing on the ground\ntoday we don't think that is\nviable at the edge of the city. No other examples at the edge of\nthe city with that level of density built.\nAnd what we propose to achieve\nhousing near term is reduce the density to potentially average\nof 25 units per acre for rh zone but make sure that we still\nprovide the same number of units by kind of blending those units\nacross multiple zones. While the density is decreasing\nin the rh zone we are providing the same number of units and\nthink we're doing it in a way\nthat the market can accommodate it and that housing built\nsooner.\ncan I ask, can you describe\n25 acres to 40 units per acre\nand is that condos or 25 is townhomes?\nyeah, at 25 units per acre\nlooking at three or four story\nwalk-up apartments.\nGoing to 40 units per acre,\nlooking at 5-6 story buildings.\njoey, when you say disperse\nand not saying those units in other rh zones.\nHow is hayden accommodating\nunits in other places. That larger plex number?\nyeah, assuming higher than minimum required density for rs\nand rn zones to meet that total unit count.\nAnd also with the multivariable equation trying to meet here, we\nare still providing the mix of housing.\nAnd exceeding by quite a bit\nminimum amount of plexes and multifamily.\nis that what drove the\nreduction in lot sizes also to\nplace the units in the development.\nThese lot sizes are small relative to the community.\nhopefully when we do these\npresentations we make it look easy, I can tell you it is not.\nAnd taking the concept plan reflecting a lot of work that\nthe city had done, we need to\nlook at that and how can this actually be buildable.\nWhat part of that effort was\nkind of looking is there really\na difference for this master plan to have some very clear\ndistinction between the rs and rm zones.\nAnd what we decided for the type\nof communities that hayden homes\nis building is artificial cleavage.\nAnd we are blending the rm and rs together to create gentle\ndensity and we think that will make this project more viable\nand get housing on the ground faster.\nwhat does viable mean, tell\nme what you mean when you use that word?\nproduce a product that is desirable.\nand desirable?\nand financed.\nI don't know without a clear\nproof of concept that financing readily available to build five\nor six stories and multifamily\nat the edge of the city of bend.\nwith recent housing law\nchanges and smaller lots we are selling now and karen listed a\ncouple of communities that\ndropped their minimum lot size approved in master plans.\nThose middle housing laws are\nshowing us what is viable and\nwe're doing that now and this\nhelps align with more middle\nhousing we reality we are in. >> and hearing that they are\nselling and desirable, people want to live in them and concern\nof financing. Up front.\nWhere you get your financing from, that's risky.\nthey are making that financial decision based on\nwhethe or not they think it will sell.\nso the point I would also\nmake reducing the rh count to\n300 in the rh zone, that's a minimum. I think if market conditions\nchange and proof of concept\nhere, this is a huge project,\nbuilt out over 10-15 plus years.\nAnd say in the future 40 units an acre is viable and attractive\nin this area.\nWhat we are proposing doesn't preclude that but does allow us\nto get going today.\nall right, other questions. Steve.\njoey, two questions.\nThe park flipping to the south\nend of wilderness way and drove\nthe half mile waiver and that north unit of housing is greater\nthan quarter mile way?\nfor the proximity?\nflip to the south side?\ncorrect, it's more\ncentralized and like I said,\nbprd, the park that bprd thinks\nis built soonest in stevens\nranch is on the north side and\nmoving that and equally more distribute park lands in the open space.\nthat's the group that is above a quarter mile away;\nright. That rh.\nat the north end, yes.\nand secondly, I don't know if\nit comes up later, can you describe the phasing plan as you\nenvision it?\nthat's a good question, we\nhave a conceptual phasing plan and built south-to-north.\nleft to right on the screen.\nleft to right on the screen and due to the availability of\nthat sewer and water.\nAnd we tried to as part of this multivariable equation in zoning\nand trying to create a good mix of housing along the way.\nAnd help the project to be successful because a more\nvariety of housing with each phase.\nNot huge phases of uniform type but that is feeding into the\nphasing team. When we get to tentative\nsubdivision we will have a more\ndefined phasing plan.\nbut conceptually moving from south-to-north.\nso you envision that mixed employment to be developed at same time?\nthat's the other thing, we\nalso did distribute some of the nonresidential lands and\nmultifamily across the site a little bit more.\nHere we're going to have infrastructure available in the\nearly phases for the me. The challenge really at the end\nof town is like can the market\nkind of absorb that commercial\nland and that demand. We recognize it's amenity for\nthis community, we want it to be successful but ultimately don't\ncontrol the market conditions to make it so. >> thank you.\nthank you.\nI had a question, we received a letter from the department of\nstate lands in favor of\napproving this project and where you are in the scheme of closing\nthe sale on this land.\nAnd the money from the sale into the common school fund that they\nwould like to have and what is\nthe status and based on land approval if you can share.\nwe have not closed and land\nuse approval is an important\ncondition of a sale being finalized.\nWe are well on our way and not closed yet. >> I have a question, if I\nunderstand the math on all of\nthis stuff, 2,487 units are required.\nRight under driven by minimum density of nine units.\nAnd if you subtract out of the\nnumbers, and you put up there,\nthat leaves 716 units that the city has to have built on\naffordable housing, is that\nwithin the ballpark? >> I think it's a little higher\nbut around that number.\ncloser to 800.\nthat 800 is the ballpark.\nand I'm going to ask staff\nthe same question, but my\nunderstanding from the prior\nconcept plan before this amended plan and the number that the\ncity responsible on that acres\nis lower number of units.\nRelative that density on that\ntotal number of acres would be smaller.\nAm I understanding the math correct? Maybe this is a better question\nfor staff. >> I would be happy to have\nstaff answer that.\nWe have not changed any assumptions looking at the\nconcept plan adopted as far as\ndensity across the affordable lands dedicated to the city.\nWe are giving four additional\nacres and increase the number as far as density and assumable\nacre for the affordable lands. Because we are not developing\nthat, it has not change.\nand if closer to 800 and\nhigher and 760 sounds like a\nbigger number on those acres and 32 units per acre doing the math\nand 800 is higher number.\nThat's higher than the 25 you say viable.\nConcerned about --\nkeep it as a question.\nthat's a good question.\nin order to frame the question.\nthat is important distinction\nin the planning process and sauchgdz assumptions that the\ncity thought from this project.\nfrom the market rate challenge we see challenges from that\nhigher density and don't know if\nseeing the same challenge of\nfinancing for subsidity and to\nbridge the gap, looking at projects around town closer to\nthat density for the affordable housing. The number is different.\nAgain we're not proposing to\nchange the city's number for the affordable housing lands they\nare taking. Anecdotally and recent\naffordable housing projects in bend are close to that density.\nBut from the market rate rh\nlands we are trying to achieve what we term is more viable.\nanything else that staff\nwants to add to that?\nMaybe just to help you.\nYeah, I will have staff answer\nand I saw aerial and call on him. >> when proposed and we reached\nout to housing works and asked okay if there is something that\nyou wanted to build, what could\nyou build per acre density wise.\nAnd they said between 33 and 35. So we're in that sweet spot.\nokay, thank you rachel.\nyour question.\nyes, so the city is asking\nyou to contribute to this\nexpanded roundabout on 27th and\nferguson that hasn't been built on. And planned to be single lane\nand closed down and built again. My question is will kids be able\nto get to high desert middle school walking and biking, there\nis currently no facilities there.\nAre you going to be contributing\nto that as off-site improvement?\nlet joe answer the transportation.\nfor the record, traffic\nengineer, there is a number of\ndifferent efforts going on here. If you been out here recently\nand the multiuse sidewalks that stevens ranch is building and\nroundabout designed at 27th and ferguson.\nIt doesn't just provide\nvehicular crossing but\npedestrian crossing to cep and\nto form methodology for pathway\ndown high desert middle school\nand beyond that and to culldron,\nand bottom line we will have a\nwell connected grid of 10-foot\nwide multiuse paths in this area\nbut just not immediately.\nThey will happen in pieces.\nlast two questions, can we\nask you to conform to 10 feet than eight feet?\nI believe you are referring\nto the local north-south street.\nKaren mentioned that is low\nstress route, standard there is six feet.\nAnd for roads that are designated as a low stress\nnetwork the standard is eight feet.\nWhile we are not designated for\na low stress network we are still providing that eight foot.\nAnd I think importantly there is no driveways that directly\naccess to that pathway system.\nOur thought is if you are a\ncyclist and you are not eight years old have other mobility\nissue, that you are going to be on the street.\nAnd the speed of the street is low enough to support that.\nokay, and last one are you\nplanning to build a mobility hub or transit stop?\nwe are well ahead of cte's\nplan and no density out here and\nwhat they want us to be is to be flexible and told them to check\nin and if you need a transit\nstop here and if do, put that in.\nAnd we have excess roadway and\ndedicating and more in certain spaces and definitely space and\ndon't be where to put it.\nand would you build it or\ncascade transit?\nWe made this clear that are able\nto build and as infrastructure\ncosts like cooley road I assume go to them for that.\ncouncilor franzosa.\nthanks for the presentation.\nAnd this looks like a really cool community.\nSo I want to try to get a better\nunderstanding of what hayden\nhomes intends to actually build\nversus what you build with partners. And the commercial is something\nthat hayden homes build or a developer partner build?\nso we are a home builder,\nthat's what we are exert perts and\nnot experts at master planned\ncommunities as brooks resources.\nAs we do in all states we work commercial partners.\nAnd I recognize council there is\na valid community concern about commercial. And I know with the amendment\nthat passed to house bill 4037, that some of the way but still\nconcerns and we totally\nunderstand and you know, I am\nhere, hayden homes is here to\nsay that we have absolutely no\nintention of rezoning the five\ncommercial or the seven mix the employment.\nWe are committed to delivering this.\nAnd a community of this size\nwith this much housing we feel confident that it can support\nthose things.\nAnd I want to verbally reassure that.\nI do too, and I think\nhonestly I think the likelihood\nof that land converted is\nminimal because of the change passed because of the parcels so\nfar.\nIf you take 20% of a five acre parcel you don't have enough to\ndo affordable housing. But my concern more is that we\nput these master plans together.\nWe put bike paths, we put roads,\nwe put locations for different housing and we would never dream\nof not building all of that.\nBut what ever gets on the plan\nand never seems to get built in\nbend is commercial and mixed employment.\nI think there is a real\ndifference there and I don't\nunderstand why, why we're not treating the commercial in the\nsame way.\nSo I guess my question to you\nis, my question to you is, how\nwould you propose the city go\nabout holding a developer\naccountable just like we hold developers accountable to build\nthe bike paths they plan for and sidewalks they plan for and\nhousing they plan for. >> pardon.\nI think that's a good question and it's something\nhaving worked on a number of\nmaster plans and before\ncommission, it's the concern\nthat we hear and more analogous to affordable housing and how\nyou bridge the gap between something that a community\nrecognizes that it needs.\nBut something that can't be\nprovided under normal market conditions; right. So I think every conversation\nthat we had with hayden homes\nthey're already looking for partners to be doing this type\nof work, to do this type of\ndevelopment that they don't necessarily specialize in.\nBut under market conditions\nwe've got to allow for the market to do it.\nAnd the key thing in all of the projects I have been involved in\nis making sure there is enough\nrooftops for those commercial users to be able to justify the\ncost. To be successful.\nthank you.\nthat's a good answer. You have given us a market study\nthat says it can support it. So -- which we don't get from a\nlot of developers. >> the market study was done by\nthe city. >> we did that to decide how\nmuch to make the square.\nand I point out that compass\ncommercial, when you look at\nprecovid, I think when this\nmarket study to day and the\nvacancy of commercial has doubled.\nThere is a change in --\nwant to clarify done post-covid. This study was.\nthank you.\nother questions?\nApplicant, this is your chance, folks.\nAnything you want to add. Karen mentioned light public\ncomment and dsl letter.\nthere is a lot of public involvement around this property\nlast four years. Not entirely surprising.\nokay, great. Thank you very much.\nthank you for your work do help make this deal.\nwe're excited.\nany other questions for staff?\nyeah, I want to follow up on\nwhat in our code requires them\nto build somebody at 27th and\nferguson in terms of a wider roundabout.\nBut sounds like we have less robust requirement for walking\nand biking.\nwhat is your question?\nmy question --\nwhat requires a wider roundabout\nat 27th and ferguson for doesn't\nexist yet and don't have a plan to get without driving.\n27th and ferguson is being designed based on the stevens\nranch master plan that only required a single roundabout for\nthe amount of trips through it.\nThere is second analysis done by\njoe's team looking at the number\nof trips at 27th and ferguson\nand joe determined part way\nthrough the build out of stevens\nranch and legacy village need on\nwilderness way and 27th and ferguson.\nso do we have any discretion,\nI feel that these kids have dealt with no sidewalks and no\nbike path for decades.\nAnd now finally get it maybe in\na long-drawn out phase and to\ncross on lanes of traffic at highest roundabouts at other places.\nTo me there is so much to like about this project and the ugly\nparts that are small, and you hold up a mirror, that is part\nof your code.\nI am trying to get a better\nsense where this comes from and what we need to change it, we\nare falling short here.\nwe are still getting well lit\nconnections across those roundabouts. They will be crosswalks, north,\nsouth, east, west and sidewalks\nin the areas and on-ramps and\noff-ramps for bicycles per the design manual.\nAnd the applicant also because of complications with phasing\nand how things work on the construction of ferguson.\nThey don't know if they will get\nthe north portion of the land dedicated to build the full\nwidth of ferguson and put in a\ntwo-lane road and build a multiuse pathway that they are\nnot required to have that connection. One of the first things\nhappening, it will go in with\nthe roundabout is a large\nmultiuse pathway on the south\nside of ferguson to connect to the phases.\nit's not our code but the transportation impact analysis\nthat says you need a wider roundabout here.\nyes,\nkaren is this part of transportation planning rule.\nno that is with odot.\nto name something these come\nup in these documents and\nprocesses that are almost not related to criteria for\napproval. We all understand that.\nThey are stuff counselors are trying to understand the\ndifferent settings in different\nvenue to address this kind of stuff.\nIt came up recently and will come up.\nIt is a parking lot we will talk about another time.\nThat stuff that is not related\nto approval criteria tonight but\na concern that how do we ensure the kids are walking to middle\nschool. It is going to feel safe to get\nthere.\na portion of our code and\npart of the required transportation analysis, for\nsingle building or something larger, master plan like this.\nWe have requirements they look at key destinations like schools\nin the area to make sure there\nis a continuous connective pathway there.\nthank you.\nfollow-up question of karen and maybe ian.\nwe are drifting into deliberations.\nTry to keep questions as questions.\nI am looking at comp plan,\nkaren, I am trying to apply\ncriteria around complete\ncommunities and comp plane same\nchapter for stevens ranch complete communities with\namenities for daily living,\nparks, shops, services.\nI guess again my question to you\nis why do we have to determine\nthe criteria met based on the\nplan when we are seeing evidence\non the ground isn't actually delivering?\nAll of the other criteria around\nbike paths and walks and roads and water and sewer.\nThat is delivered in every project we approve.\nIt always gets delivered.\nAll of the commercial uses don't\nget delivered.\nI guess I don't feel good about\nsaying yes to the criteria.\nCan you help me understand why you found the finding?\nthe requirement for compliance with the policies\nhave to do with chapter 11 for\nthis property.\nIt has very specific items that must be addressed.\nThe word complete community is flushed out in all of those\nother policies.\nWhich includes all of those minimum acreages.\nYou can set the table but you\ncan't make people eat, in terms\nwhen that commercial development\nwould occur. >> you can tap a lot in terms\nwhen a business owner is interested.\nI would like to keep it to questions.\nI don't agree we have not delivered complete communities\nand commercial and neighborhoods are still developing and ready\nto be developed.\nThe question is good on criteria\nhow does that fit with comprehensive plan.\nThe park you quoted is not from the section.\nIt is from the chapter as a\nwhole? >> chapter 11.\nstarting figure 1 at 11.17 is the comp plan we are talking\nabout today applying to this tract of land is that correct,\nkaren?\nthere is a policy in stephens roads track new complete\ncommunity accommodating dense\ndevelopment focused on providing\naffordable market rate housing\nin mixed use multi-modal community.\nthat is for this area?\ncorrect.\nany other questions for staff?\nI wanted to clarify when asked about compliance\ntransportation planning rule.\nThe transportation mitigation\nplan is complyians with\ntransportation planning rule\nthrough that chapter 4.7 of the bend development code.\none more question.\nIf council wanted to embed in here into the development of\nthis land a criteria to develop\ncommercial in concert with residential, what are the\noptions for us to do that?\nI can at least try to address that.\nKaren was talking about the specific comprehensive plan\npolicies applying to this property.\nFirst one 11.153 says focusing\non master plan consistent with\nthe policies 11.154 through 170 which outline coming from the\nconcept plan what has to have the next.\nThose policies touch on complete communities.\nWhat the policies say overall planning concept.\nComplete community aspect of the\nplanning concept met by establishing zoning designations\non certain property.\nThere has to be five acres\ncommercial, seven acres mixed use industrial.\nThey don't say anything about\nwhat specific uses have to be developed.\nThey don't say about when that has to be developed or who has\nto do it.\nRight now what council is doing\nis considering whether these\napplications are consistent with applicable policies that don't\nsay anything about when something has to be developed.\nthat is kind of what you are looking at.\nThat is obviously product of legislation at the state level\nwhich didn't say anything about commercial development other\nthan in the preamble.\nThat led to concept plan and that led to the comprehensive\nplan policies all approved by the state.\nThose are the rules that council\nhas to apply to these applications.\nThe question seems to be can\ncouncil change the rules? >> that is not the question.\nThe question is when development applications come before counci\nthey include roads and water and sewer and bike lanes and\nlocations for housing.\nThat always gets built.\nAlmost without question we would never dream allowing developer\nto go with housing without bike paths.\nWe let that happen without the complete community goal.\nIt is in the code in master plans. I know it means something.\nI am trying to figure out from\nwords to action on the ground in the city.\none, if you are talking about\na couple fairly recent master plans. Those are still developing.\nWe have an active application for commercial development on\none of them.\nHad they delivered as soon as some might have hoped, maybe not.\nIs it accurate to say they haven't delivered?\nI don't think it is. Time will tell.\ncan you answer my question.\nI didn't hear the question,\ncouncilor.\nMaybe rephrase a little bit.\nWhat are the legal pathways.\none thing you have mentioned\nthat the plans approved haven't\ndelivered on or developers haven't been held to what they\nwere required to do. What they are required to do\nunder the policies at issue is designate certain property for certain uses.\nNot required to build those uses\nor develop those uses on particular timeline designation\nrequired by policies approvals.\nTo say they haven't done it or held accountable.\nI don't know that is accurate.\nTime will tell.\nThe accountability is designating properties for\ncertain uses not build or development on certain timeline\nthe way the policies are written.\nwe are in land use. Did you have another question?\nno.\nany other questions for staff, applicants or anything\nelse to put on the record before we close the public hearing?\nWe are going to close the public hearing unless there is an\nobjection to that.\nFinal chance for questions before public comment.\nWe will close public hearing.\nNo one has signed up.\nI will ask if anyone is here to\ncomment on these items 5, 6, 7,\nlegacy village. I see none.\nWe will move to deliberation. >> if there was somebody to\nspeak we would re-open public hearing.\nI knew there wasn't anyone.\nit was a little out of order.\nOn to deliberation. Reminder three motions in front\nof us for these items.\nLand use setting talking whether\nthis application meets criteria\nfor all three motions.\nI will say I don't believe\ncriteria is met because I don't believe the previous standard\nthat under which previous applications have been approved\nbox on paper means we get the plan put forward.\nI do believe developers have\nmaster plan and amendments with intent to build what they are\nshowing on those plans.\nEverything gets built except for\ncommercial.\nThere is something wrong.\nWe are not achieving complete communities.\nI love the way this plan looks. This is what our community\nneeds.\nWe have seen many of needs that\nalso look great.\nThat is where I stand on this.\ncan I ask you to be specific\nwhich criteria is not met? >> 11.154 is the one I am\nreferring to complete communities.\nI have a question about councilor franzosa.\nI am sympathetic to commercial\namenities sooner than later.\nI don't understand what you are saying isn't happening.\nIf we were to ask or require which I don't think the code\ndoes require the developer not to just build homes but\ncommercial ready buildings or something like that.\nIs that what you are asking for? >> yes.\nWe see other developers in bend\nand cities come forward with\nplans with commercial and residential.\nThey have the plan behind-the-scenes we don't have\nto review.\nThey execute and build commercial with residential and\nbike paths and roads. Some of them come forward and it\nworks.\nOthers come forward and it\ndoesn't work.\nour code can't require them\nto build something in the same\nway we can for transportation facility.\nWe can designate it, but we can't require it.\nI believe we can.\nI think that is what we promised by putting complete community in\nthe code.\nWe put parks in the code that is\nthe promise we as public agency are making to people.\nThat is why I believe we should\nstand behind it.\nMike: mike.\nI think I am sympathetic to\nyour concern.\nThe criteria before us for this development is there a box\ndesignated on the land property.\nThat is what we have to make our decision on.\nI think that the question for the community at-large is how\nquickly we get this delivered. How does it show up?\nMany feel we are not delivering on the complete community\npromise because it doesn't happen fast enough.\nThis discussion emphasizes\nimportance for the council to spend time with staff support\nand engagement from development\ncommunity to look at what is\ndone in other places. Two-parts.\nincentives are important. Other parts of community say\nthere might be policy tools to use.\nSome suggested that are sort of\nperformance standards. Analogous to transportation.\nX number of homes.\nDo y related to commercial not in policies.\nWe don't have ability to hold these folks or others to that.\nWe need to think through implications of it.\nThat is what I am frustrated.\nNot clear what we are doing. Especially policy discussion\nportion.\nThere is some time we are\nspending on incentives.\nMake that is scheduled. >> it is good to know.\nWe need to get to that.\nThat is what is coming up over\nand over again on the dais and in the community.\nI am comfortable with this.\nPleased to hear housing works is\ncomfortable with density\nnumbers.\n800 units, about 33 units per acre they feel they can do that.\nIt is viable.\nIt concerns me that I hear\nprivate sector say not viable\ncombination of people want to\nwilling to finance it virtuous snowball cycle.\nWe are having people live in affordable housing different\nstandard. It worries me.\nI am pleased to hear one of the important tartners in the\ncommunity thinks they can do the\nprojects with that kind of density.\nsteve, anything else?\nI ran for this job because\nteachers and firefighters and\ncops were not able to afford\nbased on their ami levels here. The thing that drives me to yes\non this project right here is\nthat affordable component.\nWhat is set for five-year plan\nhere incentives we are over. We met above 80%.\nThis is going to help.\nThis is what I look for to build\nout over time the 60 and below\nand 80 below ami projects. Yes, councilor franzosa and\nriley I acknowledge concerns.\nMy north star is building out\nthese AMIs that are going to\nreally serve the whole community.\nThat is what is driving me to yes on here along with the fact\nit meets criterias that we can\nvote on tonight.\nI will say as the only person\non the dais on council in 2021\nthis is incredible moment to see\nefforts to accelerate and bring\nhousing to the city and bring affordable housing for educators\nwhich is really cool has reached\nthe point where we start seeing shovels in the ground sooner\nrather than later in a community\nthat a lot of people will want io live in because of the\nconcept plan and work brian's team and community did together\nand efforts to master plan and\nwork put in the bill in the\nfirst place that trickled to this moment.\nThis is what we want and this is what we are getting.\nThat is great.\nMillions of dollars in common school fund feels like bonus.\nThat was a driving factor to get\nstate legislature to approve. Win-win for schools and\ncommunities anded\nanded educators. i support. We are exceeding what we thought\nwe would get more land\naffordable housing, more open space, more middle housing.\nI appreciated discussion of spreading those units around so\nwe can have things to build and are viable to sell on the market\nwhich is important when you are\nbuilding a housing economy like\nwe are trying to do in bend.\nCommercial side I would urge you councilor franzosa to take the\nenergy.\nLand use sets is not place for energy.\nWe are hammering a nail with a hot dog. It is the wrong tool.\nNot that your concerns are not valid.\nThis is not the venue to do the type of work that I think you\nwant to do. That is around what councilor\nriley talked about. Incentives we have more control\nto ask people to develop and when or changing policies we can\nlook at that.\nWhen we talk about land use, it is about what the land use is\ngoing to be designated on.\nNot about I don't think legal to\nrequire people to build spec commercial through land use.\nThere MAY be other ways to sub dies or incentivize or regulate\nto make that happen more often. Not that I don't share concern.\nI don't think that is\nappropriate criteria for tonight\nthis application meets criteria\nand I am happy to vote gentlemen. >> I move for first policy\npertaining to the expansion area. >> second.\nmoved seconded.\nDiscussion: discussion?\nI want to say transportation impact analysis.\nFor approval that is the ugly\npart that I feel we need to work on.\nOtherwise, I agree with what the mayor said.\nThere is a lot to like in the project.\nOn much work for years went into it.\nI appreciate all of your effort. Thank you.\nall in favor of the motion.\naye.\nOpposed: opposed?\nnay.\nnext notion.\nCode 2.7 special planned\ndistricts refinement plans area\nplans and master plans to create legacy village planned\ndevelopment.\nmoved riley. Second plat.\nin favor. Opposed.\nI move 265.7 acres in\nexpansion area assigning sign\ndistricts and requesting jurisdictional trans of the\nabutting rights-of-way riley and platt. >> aye, no.\nwe will\nthat is passed.\nWe will take a five minute stretch break and get back into\nthe agenda.\nwe are going to reconvene.\nWe are on to item 8 now.\nthis is the first reading of\nthe ordinance amending title ix\nbuildings to adopt discretionary\nsection r327 wildfire hazard mitigation residential building\ncode standards.\ngood evening.\nsenior management analyst in\ncity manager office.\nWe talked about this during the\nFEBRUARY 25 work session.\nJust to high level overview this\nis optional section of oregon\nspecialty code that cities can\nchoose to opt into locally to\nestablish standards for new residential development.\nAligned with council goals for\nthe biennium building wildfire\nresilience, updating code to\nreflect best practices.\nAs drafted this would apply city-wide.\nWhen we were drafting code change we identified that\ncouncil declared entire city\nwildfire hazard zone in 2003.\nApplying r327 city-wide is\nconsistent with that previous declaration.\nThis would preserve that. Biggest question before council\nis when this new code should take effect.\nThat was the idea to have some\nmore discussion on that. >> this is coming out of the\nwork session where we agreed to\nmove forward in this manner.\nQuestions or thoughts from council?\nwhy wouldn't we do it as soon as possible?\nI am supportive of that. We had a couple development\ngroups or at least one write in to say they support.\nI don't think we heard concerns\nabout getting this on the books in the normal course.\nOther thoughts?\nI would align it with the new\nbuilding code. For some reason there is a fall\ndate the new building. >> it is OCTOBER.\nnot enforced until JANUARY?\nit will be OCTOBER 1st. Adopted.\ncan you come to the microphone.\nit is adopted in OCTOBER.\nGrace period for it to APRIL 1st.\nnext year?\nyes.\nthat is pretty far.\nI am not excited going through another summer right now\nwhere we are.\nI would like it sooner rather than later.\nI think the motion as written\nwould have it apply in normal\ncourse right now unless there is\nsomething different.\nwhat is the soonest?\nby emergency which means it has to be unanimous first and\nsecond reading.\nIn effect after second reading APRIL.\nif someone wants to propose\nadd by emergency at end of motion.\nwould people support that.\nI don't.\nI MAY have my decision made.\nI am considering voting no, because I don't feel it is\nconsistent. I do understand the council goal\nto look at codes and policies. Legitimately my heart of hearts\nand memories of memories I was hoping and thinking we were\nstarting with new fire\ndepartment role as outreach and\nto work on the neighborhoods and fire certifications and things\nlike that. The building code update is\nprobably something that we\nshould do at some point in time.\n`I feel like there is a higher priority now.\nI feel like a no vote sends\nmessage higher priority to\neducate people what protects\nhousing, removing vegetation, keeping junk out of that five foot area.\nI am conflicted how quickly we\nare moving on this.\nif I MAY. In all fairness, I think we are\ndoing the education front, too.\nWe have melissa going to\nneighborhood district meetings.\nWe talk about it at the town hall.\nI don't feel like it is a choice.\nWe are doing both. Do you feel like this signals\npriority I guess? >> exactly, yes.\nI am not proposing emergency.\nwe can't if she votes no.\nMike: mike.\nmy understanding research\nshows generally combination of\nhome hardening and defensible space. Home hardens is an essential\nfirst step that is what really prevents fire from spreading\nfrom home to home or if fire is\ncoming in prepares home better\nable more likely to withstand ignition into something.\ngood evening. Melissa stehle, deputy fire\nmarshal bend fire. Home hardening goes with\ndefensible space.\nI understand that there is educational component.\nWith research we have been doing\nand lots of different studies shows education does not inspire\naction. When education we can educate\nall we want. People still have barriers to\nperforming some of these\ndefensible space and home hardening techniques.\nWe can't fire coped our way out. We have something in code\nwritten to say something like for our future generations we\nneed to build houses right way\nand need to start as soon as possible.\nThey work hand in hand.\nthat is the key for me.\nThis is new homes.\nWe are at 80%. I quote that over the next 20\nyears these homes are built to\nthat standard for future\ngenerations for defensibility and insurability.\nThat is key for the code.\nThis bolsters the argument for broader insurance providers to\nsay this is something we look to\nhelp us within terms of affordability.\nif we adopt this and sisters\nhas adopted it and deschutes\ncounty it is in effect.\nRedmond is considering it. Farther out.\nOur region builders more than\nbuilding a home here have to\nadopt to these new set of standards.\nready for motion.\nI move for first reading\nordinance amending bend code\ntitle ix buildings. >> second.\nplatt mendez.\nin favor.\nAye. Opposed.\nNo.\nokay.\nCouncilor morris come back out.\nAnd 12 after 9. >> council is asked to authorize\na contract amendment with\ncascadia partners llc for city\nof bend growth plan for phase 1\nservices in the 25-27 biennium.\ngood evening.\nI am brian senior strategist to talk about growth plan contract amendment.\nWith the community development department in the growth management division.\nCouncil, you have been briefed fairly extensively over the past\ntwo months on the growth plan.\nThis is one of the major steps\nyou can take towards advancing that work.\nTonight we are going to focus on contract amendment.\nThis contract amendment and growth plan will advance almost\nevery goal.\nI would say every goal will be\nadvanced. Some clear clearly more than others.\nIn particular housing economic\nprosperity and governance and structure climate resiliency.\nThose are major elements.\nPublic safety will get attention in first phase and more so later.\nThe process of procurement began\nthis summer issuing request for proposals.\nCompetitive open process.\nSelected cascadia partners.\nFirst contract approval from\ncity manager $159,177 to begin set up work.\nA lot of time sensitive tasks.\nWe started that work early.\nNow we are bringing a larger\ncontract amendment to you for\nnot to exceed $2,739,282 for services in this biennium.\nThat and total contract amount\nare both within materials and services contract or materials\nand services line item in growth budget.\nYou budgeted for this work.\nNext two\ntwo bienia this could run to 2030.\nThis would be $7.2 million. With all big pieces coming\ntogether in this contract amendment approval.\nThis is last and most meaningful.\nNew state rules that guide housing and work we are going to\ndo in next couple works\nassociated with the rules. Effective JANUARY 2026.\nDepartment of land conservation\ndevelopment approved climate friendly equitable communities\nmajor report about a week ago.\nThat establishes targets and\nmeasures associated that comes together.\nUltimate dates request was\napproved to align with sequential review approach.\nWe are still awaiting the dlcd approval foresee consequential review.\nCity council approved, county\napproved, now on state desk. I expect in a week.\nCity boards and partner agencies are briefed and supportive.\nThis is a photo salem, oregon\nwhere the rules and laws come\nfrom.\nIt is gorgeous. The team.\nThis is a multi-disciplinary team.\nThrowing the word expert around\nis a little dangerous.\nSets high expectations.\nThey are expert in the field. 200 years of experience on the\nproject team members between all\nof them.\nCascadia partners is prime consultant to provide all facets\nurban planning services across the west.\nNot just oregon. they have a particular specialty\nin making sure the plans they create are grounded in market\nreality.\nThey also have expertise in\nequity focused engagement as\nwell as special analytics. Eco\nnorth won and kittleson and dks and associates.\nThey have expertise across those disciplines.\nThey have a particular strength\nin this contract. Walker MAY see\nanwar al-awlakikermacy relatively small\n.Walker nacs.\nKittle son a full office here.\nNot all of the folks live in bend.\nThey have an office here. They are locals as well.\nFor the folks that don't live here they have been working in\nbend for decades with a good sense of the community.\nThey have been advisors.\nTo the dlcd in housing rule making.\nOn the inside working with\nagency on rules pertaining to\nthe project and advisors to oregon department of\ntransportation on the\ntransportation planning rules. Wide span of clients.\nLarger and smaller than bend\nacross the west to bring that expertise and experience into\nthis project. I think really importantly they\nhave been delivering local successes some or all team\nmembers are developing local\nsuccesses for bend in projects.\nLegacy village involved three or four of those team members in\nthat project.\nEric wanted me to touch on efficiencies recognizing the\nbudget amount. We spent a considerable amount\nof time negotiating the scope of work, working with consultant\nactively over the past month and-a-half.\nFocusing on trying to put\nconsulting team in best place across these different\ndeliverables with different team members.\nRebalancing roles, streamlining\nstaff working on the project. Those are all important.\nCost containment measures. Self-performing deliverables\ngrowth management and communication and office of performance management.\nCity staff taking on more responsibilities and delivering\nrather than consulting firm.\nThe form of engagement is really important.\nThat approach to engagement we\ndiscussed to talk about multiple subjects will deliver\nefficiencies. They are developing the tools.\nWe are expected to deploy them.\nYou will see they are here providing services.\nThey will be with us to train\ntools to show up to different\nevents. Expectation the city\norganization will take it beyond that.\nSome kind of internal stuff that doesn't sound exciting.\nIt is really important in cost\ncontainment and efficiency.\nData portal to share data to\nleverage information and data,\nanalytics for city uses and better internal communication as well.\nAlso, there are elements we are\ninvesting in things now that we will use later.\nI think filling gaps that have\nbeen in the organization no fault of the organization.\nThis is an opportunity to do some things now we will carry\nforward in the coming years to\nmake it much more efficient and effective.\nSome of the transportation and land use modeling tools bringing\nto the project to use in the\nproject and carry through beyond\nthis for use in the monitoring\nof the climate friendly equitable community projects.\nThis is a breakdown of contract amendment by the type of work.\nYou will see transportation stands out.\nHowever when you sum up the\nother bars you will see it is one-third transportation,\ntwo-thirds other planning type activities.\nTransportation receives close to $1 million worth of services.\nMuch of that in transportation\nmodeling for this phase.\nComprehensive plan came up in discussions.\nIt is a small bar.\nThat is because in phase one\ncity staff is going to do a lot of work in house.\nWe have begun that work.\nLand capacity core deliverables,\ngrowth planning urbanization\nsupportive services to contextualize this project and\nmake it meaningful and inform\ncomprehensive plan. Engagement in government without\nthat the project doesn't have\nimpact and connection with\ncommunity we hope for. Of course, project management and\ncontingency services.\nCouncilor riley asked me to add this slide.\nthis contract is for the first\nphase of work. Run through the biennium.\nSome work will be done in this biennium.\nOthers we are starting tasks\nthat will be completed in next\nphases of work. Not clean line.\nWe are starting some work to budget for and contract for in\nfollowing phases. Work in this contract amendment\nis first bullet points\npoints or dots '26-'27 timeframe identifying\nfuture needs.\nMajor policy drivers, determining existing capacities\nin the slide housing need, employment opportunities analysis as\nas well as housing capacity analysis.\nBig question.\nWhat do we need?\nIn terms of the land needs\nemployment and housing is the\nbig question to answer.\nFrom a deliverables standpoint.\nnor detailed than this?\nThis is a lot. I\nI am excited to talk about this.\nI recognize I should reign myself in at this moment.\nThis is designed to help me discuss and answer your questions.\nIf you want me to cover it\nbriefly, I am happy to do that.\nThis is the focus of the project\nin the first in this fiscal biennium.\nWe have mobilized tasks setting\nup project management and\ngovernance, data portal\nunderway, process selecting modeling tool for land use\ntransportation we will use for the project.\nGet staff up and trained to run\nthat with the hope through this project that our staff can take\non stronger role in that. The framing portion of this is\nwork related to scenario planning we will bring to the\ncouncil in an AUGUST workshop which I think is scheduled or\ngetting close.\nI will meet with the mayor to\ntalk for AUGUST workshop city\ncouncil probably off site to\nmake it more enjoyable than -- no offense to the table.\nSomething more comfortable and\nrelaxed for everyone. [Inaudible]\nWe are pointed towards that workshop.\nThat is the kickoff of the project.\nIt is going to be an exciting big learning opportunity and get\nyour input to drive our consideration of these subjects\nas we move forward. From that framing figuring land\nuse.\nContextualized housing to tell\nus how we taylor housing needs\ntype, location, characteristics\nwith particular focus underserved community members.\nNuts and bolts of planning on\nlandings inventory. Housing capacity.\nThat is the framing.\nA little bit of education background city council guidance\nand the core deliverables. >> this\nthis is a stop I am\nstep I -- step\nI am excited about identifying\nthe goals, values, principles to how we are growing.\nWorking with the community to decipher what are those values\nthey have? What is the community thinking\nfor the subjects.\nCity council will adopt that vision.\nThat will be your responsibility in phase 2.\nPhase one we begin that.\nKickoff, workshop, shortly there after we roll into visioning and\nbig public outreach effort.\nThat is detailed in the scope of work.\nThat community visioning also can influence deliverables.\nThe second phase deliverables\nhow to grow up and grow out. Strategize.\nThis is really getting more tactical with the city council\non couple different subjects. One transportation system.\nWe begin the plan update slowly and steadily in phase one of\nthis work.\nTalking about system of goals, objectives, performance\nstandards.\nHow do you want to define\nsuccess how we rank evaluate our\nsystem as we grow? Up establish those.\nInventories of our system and\nexisting conditions. How is the current system operating?\nWe will learn those things and\ntest efficiencies out of community visioning.\nAdopting.\nCity council would adopted draft package one of contextualized\nhousing need as well as\nbuiltable lands inventory and economic analysis.\nThose are two adoption points.\nAnother form of engagement.\nImagine they are connected through this proposal.\nwe have higher level on visioning.\nI would say we have\nhave more tactical engagement.\nA system analysis specially and historically how the community\nhas come to be where it is.\nAnalysis of past patterns\npractices discrimination.\nInvolves special analysis of underserved community members\nand analyzing how to meet the various legal requirements and\nhave a framework for considering\nequity in all of the deliverables.\nNot just what is required but throughout project.\nThat influences communication engagement strategy which we\nwill finalize.\nWe will also be investing in online engagement tool new to\nthe city. We pull those together.\nWe begin focused engagement with stakeholders and different\nmembers of community and smaller environments separate from\ncommunity visioning. We will bring those up.\nAfter the city council workshop\nwe will begin our governance\nstructure which we talked about this is city council as well as\ncalling it the joint committee\nworking group at this point. Not committee of committees.\nWe will find a better name.\nWe had to move away from committee of committees.\nI am happy to answer questions.\nIssue summary has more detail\nand recommended motion.\nbrian, questions?\nBig project. >> motion.\nI move to authorize contract\namendment with cascadia for city\nof bend growth plan for phase 1\nservices in 25-27 biennium not\nto exceed 273-9282 for a total\ncontract amount not to exceed\n$2,898,459.\nsecond.\nsecond by riley.\nFavor. Opposed? Unanimous.\nThank you, brian.\nitem 12 now.\ncouncil is asked to adopt resolution eminent domain for\nproperties along nevroad as part\nof the nevcorridor improvements\nproject.\n-- neff corridor project. >> good evening.\nI am eric. City engineer on the engineering\nside of the house.\nWith me is todd johnson.\nSenior project engineer for this project.\nRevisit of the neff corridor resolution in DECEMBER we did\nnot have the legal descriptions with the project.\nIn addition to that further communication with business\nowners on neff road.\nMaintaining access to businesses\nnecessitated a couple other files just for temporary\nconstruction easements to tie\nthem in and maintaining that\naccess to their properties. I understand council is familiar\nwith there project.\nIt is 10-foot path along neff.\nIt starts on the east side of piloted bay middle school and\nrunning the full length of neff\ndown to eagle road.\nParcel on the screen 15 parcels.\nThe ones in yellow are newer ones.\nCommunication has happened with\nthese property owners.\nalso just identifying this\nmechanism is a way for the city\nto maintain schedule sent,\nappraised values not close to\nwhat property owners believe\ntaking or using property or nonresponsive.\nIt is a tool to maintain the project.\nThat is the resolution we are looking for council to make\ntonight.\nany questions? Multi-use path. All right.\nmove to adopt resolution\nexercising power eminent domain in agreement cannot be reached\nup to 15 parcels to construct the neff corridor and\nauthorizing the city manager to\ntake steps mess to implement res. >> all in favor.\nAye. Unanimous. Thanks, eric.\nWe will hospital back up to item\nnumber 10. Council norris.\nI am recusing these would have a financial impact on my employer.\nI will be leaving.\nare we talking about 10 and\n11 together? Right.\nadopt resolution to authorize\ncity to enter into clean water\nstate revolving fund loan agreement for oregon department\nof environmental quality to finances detailia and windsor\nsewer project not to exceed 290-0000.\nCouncil is asked to authority\nthe contract with c bar l\ndevelopment for construction of\nazalia and windsor sewer project.\nengineering department\npresenting on construction project.\nI am finance director and I\nwill talk about the loan.\nsince jason was here presenting at the last council\nmeeting I will skip history.\nThis is second part of the\nselection that was selected\nOCTOBER 2024.\nTwo projects areas north of reed\nmarket and windsor drive is just\noff north knott road.\nWe will be doing full pavement\nrestoration and traffic closures\nwith local access for both\nareas.\n1675 feet of sewer main.\n21 service latterrals. Dotted properties signed\napplication for program.\nThe nondotted ones did not sign.\nWindsor area 2305 feet.\nWe are looking to close broster house.\nFull closure summer when school is out.\nWe do need to close that for construction of the sewer main\non that short stretch there.\nWe will do some public outreach with broad outreach prior to closure.\na question.\nGood example.\nThe cul-de-sac. Will they will taking to the end\nof that.\nThose people haven't signed? >> no, we will stub north.\nThey will do application in the\nfuture to connect to the manhole in the intersection of broster\nhouse and windsor. >> they MISS Out?\ndo some have second chance?\nthey have opportunity.\nnever designed for cities outreach.\nthat was not requested by neighbors.\nThey wanted to do themselves. They didn't want city to sign up.\nThat is the way it is structured.\nNeighborhoods put together applications that is the way\nthey wanted the program.\nbudgeted with the grant now?\nthis is lower take on this property.\nlower what?\nTake: take\ntake rate. >> cull desack the windsor court?\nno that is receiving.\nwindsor court.\nThis one I don't recall the name. >> windsor court will get the main.\nokay.\nWe will do one down there. >> okay.\nI thought you are talking\nabout the white cul-de-sac.\nno, I was asking about windsor.\neverything in red is served.\nwindsor court with the red\nproperties all get services.\nI sounds like confusion of my\nquestion. Without dots that didn't sign\nwill you go back to give them an opportunity or no?\nall properties in red with\ndots or not get sewer laterals\nto property. Good opportunity to follow up on\nyour question from last time.\nOut of 230 properties connected\nto date. About 90 didn't sign did take\nadvantage of the connection.\nproject timeline. Community selection\noctober 2024.\nSecond part of the selection. Design 2025.\nLooking to start construction mid or late APRIL this year and\nbe done by OCTOBER.\nOn the project budget $1.9 million low bid c bar l.\nTotal estimated project cost\njust over $2 million.\nfunded by revolving fund loan\ncwsrf.\nLoan amount not to exceed $2.9 million.\nWith all other cwsrf loans it\nwill be amount to complete project loaned.\nFinal loan will be adjusted to amount drawn down.\nThis loan is eligible for\nprinciple forgiveness up to 50%.\nWe will pay back 50% that\nremains what we originally drew down. >> questions, council?\nwe have two motions 10 and 11.\nmove to adopt resolution\nauthorizing clean water loan\nfund to finance in total loan\namount not to exceed 290-0000 in\nform presented to council and\napproved by environmental quality. >> all in favor. Aye.\nnext motion.\nMove to authorize contract with\nc before l development llc in\nsubstantially form for azalia\nand windsor sewer project in an\namount not to exceed $1,907,607.60.\nmoved mendez, second platt. In favor. Aye.\nthank you. City manager's report.\nI will be quick.\nI mentioned in the council memo\nabout recycling program.\nFrom the waste haulers looking in the bins.\nI shared that with you.\nPublic service announcement.\nPress releases from haulers.\nI wanted you to know that is taking place.\nWe have hawthorne connection\nfranklin open house next week on\nseventh at newberry hotel\n4:30 P.M. To 6:30 P.M. APRIL 8 round table for\nelectrification at public works\ncampus 4:00 to 6:00 P.M.\nWe have had divertters installed and a lot of information is out\nin the community.\nSome of that is going to go in\nthe council memo. Factual information.\nGiving you heads up to look for it.\nIf you get that in the community it\nit is new for bend.\nThere will be reaction. We want to equip you with good information there.\nI think that is it.\nThat is it. >> great.\nWe are adjourned. Thanks everybody. Live cc by aberdeen captioning.\n1-800-688-6621." }, "summary": { "generatedAt": "2026-04-14T04:28:23.539Z", "model": "sonnet", "source": { "type": "meeting", "videoId": "bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting", "parsedPath": "/Users/thedjpetersen/code/seacc/data/cities/bend/parsed/meetings/bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting.json", "transcriptHash": "75097f2fe049937d095b57b7e6aa92ba455c6d9dd19cad0fe549d3930385b524" }, "result": { "headline": "Bend City Council Approves 260-Acre Legacy Village Master Plan, Wildfire Building Code, and $2.7M Growth Plan Contract", "summary": "The April 1, 2026 Bend City Council business meeting acted on six substantive items. The dominant action was a quasi-judicial hearing and 4-1 first-reading approval of the Legacy Village master plan — a 260-acre development on the Stevens Road Tract east of 27th Street, sold by the Oregon Department of State Lands to Hayden Homes. The plan must include at least 2,487 homes (23.8 acres of deed-restricted affordable housing, exceeding the statutory 20-acre floor), commercial and mixed-employment land, a 23-acre community park, and a multiuse trail network. The council also took a first reading of a citywide wildfire building code standard (R327), unanimously approved a $2.74 million Growth Plan contract amendment with Cascadia Partners, authorized eminent domain for the Neff Corridor multiuse path, and approved a sewer project for the Azalea and Windsor neighborhoods. Public comment focused almost entirely on the upcoming climate impact fee roundtable, with three speakers urging the council to avoid carve-outs for renewable methane gas (RMG) and to implement the fee by April 2027.", "keyPoints": [ "Legacy Village (Stevens Road Tract): Hayden Homes' master plan for ~260 acres in southeast Bend approved on first reading 4-1. Councilor Franzosa dissented, arguing the 'complete community' standard in the comprehensive plan is not meaningfully enforceable because commercial and mixed-employment land designated in prior master plans has consistently not been built. The plan requires a minimum 2,487 homes, with less than one-third as detached single-family; 23.8 acres of deed-restricted affordable housing conveyed to the city (12 acres at 60% AMI, 6 acres at 80% AMI, 2 acres with priority for educators); a 23-acre community park; and 10 acres of trail. Hayden Homes' consultant reduced the planned density in the high-density residential (RH) zone from 40 to ~25 units per acre (3–4 story walk-ups instead of 5–6 story), arguing higher density is not currently financeable at the urban edge. Housing Works confirmed it can achieve roughly 33–35 units per acre on the affordable parcels. Councilor Norris was recused on items 5–8 as an employee of Hayden Homes.", "Wildfire building code (R327): First reading approved with one dissent. Oregon's optional R327 residential wildfire hazard mitigation standards would apply citywide, consistent with the council's 2003 declaration of the entire city as a wildfire hazard zone. Deputy Fire Marshal Melissa Stehle testified that home hardening and defensible space work together and that education alone does not reliably change behavior. The dissenting councilor expressed concern that a building code update was moving ahead of community education and outreach as a priority. A second reading is required before the ordinance takes effect.", "Growth Plan contract with Cascadia Partners: Council unanimously approved a contract amendment not to exceed $2,739,282 (total contract $2,898,459) for Phase 1 services through the 2025–27 biennium. The multi-year effort (potentially running to 2030, estimated at $7.2M total) will produce a housing needs analysis, buildable lands inventory, transportation system update, land use and transportation modeling tools, and a community visioning process. An August 2026 off-site council workshop is planned as the project kickoff. DLCD approval for a sequential review approach is pending.", "Neff Corridor eminent domain: Council unanimously authorized the city manager to pursue eminent domain on up to 15 parcels along Neff Road to construct a 10-foot multiuse path from Pilot Butte Middle School to Eagle Road. This revisits a December resolution that lacked final legal descriptions; two additional temporary construction easements were added to maintain business access.", "Azalea and Windsor sewer project: Council approved (Norris recused) a Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan not to exceed $2.9 million and a construction contract with C Bar L Development LLC not to exceed $1,907,607.60. The project installs roughly 1,675 feet of sewer main in the Azalea area and 2,305 feet in the Windsor area, with construction starting mid-to-late April 2026 and targeted completion by October 2026. A full street closure of Broster House Road is planned for summer when school is out.", "Proclamations: Arbor Day designated April 24, 2026; Save Bend Green Space representative Robby Silverman noted juniper trees — dominant on Bend's east side — may be at risk under the current tree code as development intensifies. International Dark Sky Week proclaimed April 13–20, 2026; a representative noted most people alive have never seen the Milky Way and that artificial lighting disrupts wildlife migration and pollination.", "Climate impact fee public comment: Three speakers (Brandon Reed, Priscilla from the Environmental Center, and Christie Millen) urged the council ahead of the April 8 electrification roundtable not to carve out exceptions for renewable methane gas (RMG) and to implement a climate impact fee starting April 2027 aligned with the building code update cycle. Speakers argued the staff recommendation to delay 20 months based on speculation about future state regulation was not a sound policy basis." ], "decisions": [ "Items 5, 6, 7 — Legacy Village comprehensive plan policy amendment, development code amendment (master plan), and annexation of 265.7 acres: Approved on first reading, 4-1, with Councilor Franzosa voting no on each. Councilor Norris recused.", "Item 8 — First reading of R327 wildfire building code: Approved with one dissenting vote. (Identity of dissenting councilor not unambiguous in transcript; Norris was recused.) Second reading required.", "Item 9 (reordered) — Growth Plan contract amendment with Cascadia Partners, not to exceed $2,739,282 for Phase 1, total contract $2,898,459: Approved unanimously.", "Item 12 (moved up) — Neff Corridor eminent domain resolution for up to 15 parcels: Approved unanimously.", "Item 10 — Clean Water SRF loan for Azalea/Windsor sewer project, not to exceed $2.9 million: Approved unanimously among voting members (Norris recused).", "Item 11 — Construction contract with C Bar L Development LLC for Azalea/Windsor sewer, not to exceed $1,907,607.60: Approved unanimously among voting members (Norris recused).", "Consent agenda: Approved unanimously.", "Arbor Day proclamation (April 24, 2026): Approved unanimously.", "International Dark Sky Week proclamation (April 13–20, 2026): Approved unanimously.", "Council endorsed a letter supporting the Bend-to-Suttle Lake Wildlife Proposal by head nod (no formal vote recorded)." ], "followUps": [ "Second reading of R327 wildfire building code required before it takes effect. One councilor raised the possibility of emergency adoption (two unanimous readings) to avoid another wildfire season without updated standards; that path was not pursued at this meeting.", "Climate impact fee: Electrification roundtable scheduled April 8, 2026 at the Public Works campus (4–6 PM). Council has not yet acted on the fee structure; public speakers urged no RMG carve-outs and April 2027 implementation.", "Commercial development accountability in master plans: Councilors Franzosa and Riley flagged a recurring gap — commercial land is designated in master plans but rarely built on schedule. Staff indicated the appropriate venue is a separate policy discussion on incentives and performance standards, not land-use approval criteria. No timeline set.", "Growth Plan August 2026 workshop: An off-site council workshop is planned as the formal project kickoff for community visioning and scenario planning. Awaiting DLCD approval of sequential review approach.", "Pedestrian/bike access to High Desert Middle School: Councilor Riley raised the absence of safe walking and biking infrastructure to the school from the Legacy Village area. Staff noted improvements are planned but phased and not yet built. No specific commitment made at this meeting.", "Hawthorne/Franklin connection open house: April 7 at the Newberry Hotel, 4:30–6:30 PM.", "Jonathan Westmorland requested staff review of a proposed privacy/data framework for city contracts; he asked the public contracts subcommittee (meeting April 10) to open a discussion.", "Ben Leach (Wall Street business owner) raised a billing inequity from two water meters feeding one building; directed to speak with the Public Works director in the hall.", "Tree code and juniper canopy: Save Bend Green Space asked council to protect juniper trees on Bend's east side as the tree code is reassessed.", "Legacy Village: Hayden Homes has not yet closed on the land purchase from DSL; land-use approval is a condition of sale. Construction is expected to phase south-to-north over 10–15+ years." ], "notablePeople": [ "Mayor Kebler — presided, read statements on Transgender Day of Visibility and the passing of Warm Springs Tribal Chief (died Sunday, age 87), announced committee application openings and Purple Up Day (April 9)", "Councilor Gina Franzosa (she/her) — sole dissenting vote on Legacy Village; raised ongoing concerns about commercial development failing to materialize in master-planned communities", "Councilor Mike Riley (he/him) — questioned transportation standards and pedestrian access to schools; co-moved Legacy Village motions; asked for growth plan deliverables timeline slide", "Councilor Steve Platt (he/him) — attended Affordable Housing Advisory Committee; expressed strong support for Legacy Village's affordable housing component as his primary motivation", "Councilor Mendez (he/him) — read Arbor Day proclamation; reported on city advisory committee and MPO meetings", "Councilor Norris (she/her) — recused from items 5–8 and 10–11 as a Hayden Homes employee; voted no on R327 wildfire code citing priority concerns; attended City Club and League of Cities training", "Karen — city planner, led the detailed Legacy Village staff presentation", "Joey — land-use consultant for Hayden Homes, presented the applicant's case", "Jenn Kovitz — Hayden Homes representative; noted Hayden has built 2,100+ homes in Bend since 1989 and cited its nonprofit First Story affiliate", "Joe — traffic engineer for the applicant", "Brian — city senior growth strategist, presented the Cascadia Partners contract amendment", "Melissa Stehle — deputy fire marshal, testified on home hardening and the limits of education-only approaches to wildfire risk", "Katie Snyder — planning commissioner, reported on the February 9 planning commission hearing (4-2 recommendation for approval); noted commercial land availability was a dissenting concern", "Eric — city engineer; Todd Johnson — senior project engineer; both presented the Neff Corridor eminent domain item", "Robby Silverman — Save Bend Green Space, accepted Arbor Day proclamation and raised juniper canopy concerns", "Ian Gray — city urban forester, accepted Arbor Day proclamation", "Jane Shine — Pacific Crest Middle School teacher and NHS adviser; ~150 NHS students completed 4,000 service hours last year", "Brandon Matthews — Dark Skies Oregon, accepted Dark Sky Week proclamation", "Taylor McCuen — presented before/after aerial imagery of stadium LED lighting conversion showing reduced light spillage into surrounding neighborhood", "Jonathan Westmorland — online public commenter requesting staff review of a city privacy/data framework before the April 10 public contracts subcommittee meeting" ], "uncertainty": "Several passages are ambiguous or garbled in the transcript. (1) The transcript credits only four speakers, but many more individuals speak; attribution of some remarks — particularly during Legacy Village deliberations — is occasionally unclear. (2) The identity of the dissenting vote on item 8 (R327 wildfire code) cannot be confirmed from the transcript text alone; Councilor Norris stated she was recused on items 5–8, yet the deliberation on item 8 includes remarks consistent with her previously expressed views. (3) The Dark Sky Week section contains an abrupt mid-proclamation shift to discussion of stadium LED lighting by someone named Taylor McCuen, with no clear transition; the connection to the proclamation is contextually implied but not stated. (4) Vote tallies on Legacy Village items 6 and 7 are rendered in the transcript as truncated exchanges (\"aye, no\" without explicit counts); the 4-1 split is inferred from context. (5) Some proper names are likely mistranscribed (e.g., \"Westerman\" vs. \"Westmorland,\" garbled consultant names in the Growth Plan section). Readers relying on precise vote counts or full speaker attribution should consult the official meeting minutes or recording." } }, "hindsight": null, "urls": { "meeting": "/bend/meeting/bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting", "raw": "/bend/api/meeting/bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting/raw.json", "sourceMeeting": "/bend/api/source/meeting/bend-2026-04-01-city-council-business-meeting.json" } }