City Council - Regular Meeting

I don't know if I can sit down, do I? We'll be here a long time.

All right, a lot of sitting time, yes. The Bend City Council will now meet in executive session pursuant to ORS 192.6602 to conduct deliberations. The person is designated to negotiate real property transactions. Representatives of the news media and designated staff shall be allowed to attend the executive session. Representatives of the news media are specifically directed not to report on any of the deliberations during the executive session except to state the general subject of the session as previously announced. No decision may be made. executive session at the end of the executive session we will return to open session okay

This is note-taking.

Okay. All right. Good evening, everyone. We're going to call this city council meeting to order tonight. And we're going to start with our roll call. Um, let's start with your end. Steve Platt.

Megan Perkins. She, her. Melanie Keebler. She, her. Megan Norris. She, her. Gina Franzosa.

She, her.

Mike Riley. He, him.

Great. And Councilor Mendez is excused tonight. So our first item is going to be our proclamation for Welcoming Week. We have a couple of folks at the table right now. Catalina, did you prefer that I read all of it and then you read all of it or do you? Okay, we'll do it that way. Okay, great. Catalina is going to read it for us in Spanish tonight. So this is our Welcoming Week proclamation. In the past year, our communities have endured an increase in hateful rhetoric, discriminatory federal policies, and unlawful immigration enforcement. We've seen ICE use ever more aggressive tactics across the country and here in Central Oregon, detaining people who are just trying to go to work, take their kids to school, and access crucial services. The impacts of this violence on those coming here to build better lives for themselves and their families spiral ever wider, from downtown Bend to Warm Springs and beyond. In March of 2026, the city of Bend passed resolution number 3467 to condemn federal government's approach to immigration enforcement, provide funding directly to families impacted by detentions, and to financially support the re-envisioning of Welcoming Week. Since then, the Latino Community Association has been working closely with the city and community partners to reaffirm the offense focus on local immigrants and refugee communities. This year's Welcoming Week from September 10th to 19th is about celebrating our immigrant and refugee communities. This involves making tangible commitments to protect our people in the face of racism and hate. Bend is stronger when immigrants and refugees are welcomed and honored as part of our community, both new and long-term residents alike. They are part of what makes Bend, Bend. We're excited to announce a series of events planned by and for community members, ranging from screen printing workshops to short film screenings, from night markets to culturally specific games. We invite you to take this week to exchange stories, learn from your neighbors, uplift the artists, entrepreneurs, and activists who shape the city of Bend. Welcoming Week, however, is not a one-time occurrence. It's an ongoing commitment to justice, dignity, and joy authored by and for our immigrant and refugee communities. It's about recognizing and supporting the contributions of our event coordinators, El Dorado, the Asian and Pacific Islanders Collective, Benditas, Embrace Bend, Colo Vida, and the Latino Community Association, and Shahara Films. It's about honoring the people who came before us and building a better world for those who come after. We, the City Council and Mayor of City of Bend, therefore proclaim September 10th through 19th to be Welcoming Week 2026. We call on business owners, civic groups, government agencies, and most importantly, all community members to join us in reaffirming our commitment to building thriving, equitable, and healthy communities. Take a motion.

I vote to approve the proclamation.

I'll second that. All right. All those in favor of approving the proclamation? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Unanimous. All right. So we're going to have a couple of words from our folks at the table. If you want to introduce yourselves again for the group. Oh, I'm sorry. You want to read in Spanish first.

I'm reading Spanish first. Yeah. Okay. Welcome. During the last year, our communities have suffered an increase in hate speech, discriminatory policies and illegal operations for immigration control. We have seen that the ICE Immigration and Customs Service uses aggressive tactics throughout the country and also here in Central Oregon, detaining people who are simply going to work, taking their children to school or seeking access to vital services. Para las personas que llegan aquí en búsqueda de mejorar sus condiciones de vida, los impactos de esta violencia continúan en aumento, de Bend hasta Warm Springs y más. In March 2026, the city of Bend approved Resolution 3467, which condemns the Federal Migration Control Strategy, giving funds directly to families impacted by detentions and financially supporting a new format of the Welcome Week. Since then, the Association of the Latino Community has collaborated closely with the city of Bend and other community partners to focus the event on immigrant and refugee communities. During this welcome week, from September 10 to 19, we will celebrate our immigrant and refugee communities. This implies a tangible commitment to protect our people from racism and hatred. BEND becomes stronger when we welcome and honor our immigrant and refugee neighbors, both those who have just arrived and those who have lived here for many years. Todos somos parte integral de esta ciudad. Nos complace mostrar una serie de eventos planificados por y para todos los miembros de nuestra comunidad, que incluyen talleres de serigrafía, proyecciones de cortometrajes, mercados globales y juegos culturales. Les invitamos a tomar esta semana como una oportunidad para intercambiar historias, aprender de sus vecinos y apoyar a los artistas, empresarios y activistas que conforman la ciudad de Ben. However, La Semana Bienvenida is not an isolated event. It is a continuous commitment designed with justice, dignity, and joy for and by our immigrant and refugee communities. It is also about recognizing and supporting the contributions of those who have coordinated our events, Alma Dorada, the Asiatic People's Collective, and the Pacific Islands, Benditas, Embrace Band, Colobita, the Association of the Latino Community, and Sharada Films. Se trata de rendir homenaje a quienes llegaron antes y de construir un mundo mejor para quienes vendrán después. Por tal motivo, nosotros, el Ayuntamiento y la Alcaldesa de la Ciudad de Bend, proclamamos el 10 al 19 de septiembre como la Semana de Bienvenida de 2026. Invitamos a los empresarios, grupos cívicos, agencias gubernamentales y en especial a todos nuestros miembros comunitarios a que se unan para reafirmar nuestro compromiso de seguir construyendo comunidades emergentes, equitativas y saludables.

Thank you so much.

do you all want to add a few words please go ahead i'm carolina sanchez frank i'm the executive director of the latino community association thank you for having us a big group here representing what welcoming week is all about and this work started here uh with the mayor and with the city council approving this new format of welcoming week and so we're very very proud that community came together and we are able to enjoy and celebrate next week thank you so much thank you thank you

Good evening. My name is Anna Artemenko. I'm Ukrainian actress and producer. On behalf of the Ukrainian community, I want to thank the city of Band, the mayor and the city council for this meaningful recognition. I've been learning about this place and thinking about how my children and I can become part of this community and contribute to it. At the same time, I carry with me the language, culture and artistic traditions that shaped me in Ukraine, especially now when Ukraine has defended not only its land, but also its identity It means a great deal to know that our culture and our stories have a place here. As a mother of two boys, I hope my children will grow up knowing their roots while also feeling connected to the community they're growing up in. And as Ukrainian actress and filmmaker, I hope to contribute through what I know best, art and storytelling, and to create connection between Ukrainian and American culture. This proclamation honors our heritage, but it also recognize the families and individuals who have made this community their home and who continue to contribute to its cultural life. We accept it with gratitude for those who came before us and with hope for the generations who will carry these traditions forward. Thank you for recognizing our community and for creating a place where culture, heritage and belonging are valued. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We would love to take a picture with everyone who's here. Do we have one more speaker? Yes, please go ahead. I knew there was a chair empty. So go ahead. Yeah.

I'm just gonna bring up my notes here, I guess. So first and foremost, thank you for the proclamation that was made by the city. It allowed us to make Welcome Week happen, obviously.

Would you introduce yourself really quick too?

Yes, my name is Melo and I also go by Vim. So depending on if I'm performing or not in terms of our audiences. So yes, starting with the gratitude, and I'm representing Shirara Films as one of the co-founders. And while we're totally grateful for the budget, something that I would like to say is that the actual cost of bringing Welcoming Week was significantly higher than what was the funding that was provided. I don't know if that's probably not a surprise to anybody. And And to get it to the finish line, yeah, took a lot of effort from a lot of different organizations to make that happen. And this is not meant to be or interpreted as a complaint or criticism toward the city's funding. That's not how I'm trying to communicate this. What I'm looking to do is share the information to you all that that discrepancy exists and whether or not the city is interested in understanding that discrepancy a little bit more. Is there curiosity around what that discrepancy looks like? And would it be something that the city would be interested in terms of like, what did it actually cost? What did it actually cost for the organizations and the amount of free labor that was placed into the event? And what would it cost to pay people a livable wage to be able to work? welcoming week on in the future. Is that a point of curiosity for the city? I would invite that question of curiosity to the city, to founder, because we probably will do this again next year. Hope it will, yes. So of course we want to know those things. Yeah, of course. I hope we will want to lead with curiosity and know that we could iterate on everything that we do here in the city and that we can take data and learn and improve and that would be my uh kind of closing comment and again want to again mention the gratitude and thank you for the funding and i hope we can learn from this pivotal moment, because right now it's very fresh in everyone's mind what effort went in and what kind of budget it really took to make it happen. And if there was curiosity, we may be able to improve next year. Thank you very much.

Yeah. And do you want to say anything about the film or the event that you're hoping to put on?

Yeah, we're going to be putting on an event on September 11th. We're going to have a movie called American Jedi, which is centering a NYPD officer that was his experience in Ground Zero at that time. And then we're also having a local firefighter here who also was part of that experience to be talking a little bit about their experience. And from there, we're going to have a panel of immigrants that will share their experiences of what it's like to be an immigrant in Bend and throughout the country. We will also have a guest speaker that will talk generally about immigration as well, who's coming in. from uh from la i believe and we will then have food also uh multicultural food from syria syria and morocco there as well so it's meant to be a joyous occasion to learn a little bit about these cultures and i hope everyone will attend thank you so much thank you for being here and welcome pick up picture here

All right, anyone who is here for Wealthy Weekend is welcome to be in this photo. We've got so many issues.

We're going to take a photo. From here. Oh, we have one. Thank you. Don't miss it. I've got one more. If you have something for us, can you hand it to us for both please? Thank you. We'll make sure that we all get them. Yeah. Okay. All right.

So, um, we would normally move into council action reports. We're going to go ahead and move that to the end of the meeting tonight without objection, just to clear up some space at the front of the meeting. There was one item that I wanted to make sure to highlight before we move into our business. Um, as you may have seen, we now have the Confederate tribes of warm spring flag that we received from them displayed in the council. This was given to us during one of our joint meetings with the Tribal Council earlier this year. And I don't know if you have the photo we could show. We never got the photo. There's a great photo of it that was on our social media that I was hoping we could show. But it was a great meeting to continue our relationship with this sovereign nation. We are on the ceded lands of the tribes of Warm Springs. And we have a memorandum of understanding with them. And we've met with them several times. And we'll continue to work with them on issues of shared interest. So we're very grateful to them for providing us this flag to display in our chambers. I did also want to take this moment to offer our condolences to the tribes. The Chief Moses, the Paiute chief, recently passed. He had been chief since 2001. So there was a little bit I wanted to read about Chief Moses, just so we can remember him. He was, his career in tribal leadership began in 1992 when he was elected to the Confederated Tribes and served three terms before he became the chief. Moses was community-oriented and spoke about the challenges posed by drug and alcohol use among youth and community members. His work reflected a commitment to supporting young people, education, leadership, and the Warm Springs community. As Paiute Chief, Moses represented and served the Paiute community for more than 25 years. His death marks the loss of a longtime tribal leader who dedicated decades to public service and community leadership. So we wanted to offer our condolences, which I will formalize in a message to the tribal council, as well as send them a photo that we have now displayed their flag in our council chambers. So thanks for allowing that. So that will move us into the consent agenda.

Second.

All right. All those in favor of approving the consent agenda? Aye. I realized I skipped the representative section. But don't worry, we're going to do that. Oh, no, the TMAC. We'll do that at the end. OK. Yeah, we'll do that. OK, great. OK, so visitor section. We have a lot of folks signed up, and most people are signed up for our public hearings tonight. So I have just a couple who appear to be on topics that are not public hearings. And so those folks are the folks I'm going to call up right now. I'm gonna let folks know for the Caldera Ranch, we have a lot of people signed up and I would like folks to prepare to speak for a minute and 30 seconds. It's a little less than we usually do, but in order to get through everybody and hear everyone get a chance to speak tonight, we're gonna have to shorten that time a little bit because we do have also a lot of other business on our meeting tonight. So I'm giving everyone a heads up on that on the Caldera Ranch. For folks who are here on other items, is Brandon Matthews here? Brandon Matthews. I just wanted to clarify which item he was beginning. Are you here around the sign code issue?

Reasons, I guess, a general comment and then, okay, you can do your general comment.

Now, any side phone comment we want to have that during the here. Yeah. Okay. So, why don't you come on up to the table while I'm explaining how this is going to work. So, for this, and all the other comments, the same rules apply. You need to address the council as a body, not as individuals. We want you here to, if you're for a general comment, that's fine. If you're on a public hearing, you're going to need to stay on the topic of that public hearing. You'll have a time limit displayed to you here right in front of me. It should show a yellow light when you have about 30 seconds left and then a red light when you need to stop. I'm going to be a little stricter than usual just tonight because we have a lot of folks here. I want to make sure we can get through everyone. Please know language that's disruptive to the meeting or behavior that's disruptive to the meeting. If you are doing that, I'll ask you to stop. And if you don't, I might have to take your time.

or ask you to leave so i hope we won't have any of those problems tonight um so brandon why don't you start us off just introduce yourself whether you live in the city of ben and then give us your comment uh my name is brandon matthews i'm a trained astrophysicist and i represent the midnight sky alliance i do reside in bend the midnight sky alliance is working to reduce light pollution here in town and we are an affiliate of dark sky oregon the statewide group Over the past year, our volunteers have inventoried the failing purple and blue streetlights across Bend and provided locations to city staff and Pacific Power for replacement. We are doing this work because those lights are both a safety and light pollution issue. Our phase one area is complete and phase two is underway as we continue to catalog and report problematic lights. But identifying defective lights is only part of our work. Using sky quality meters, we also track how bright our night sky actually is at the same sites year over year. The trend is unambiguous. Every site we monitor in Bend and across central Oregon is getting brighter. We are losing our night sky in real time at about 5% year over year. That's exactly why the city's own lighting standards matter right now. The current ordinance is out of date. It predates the inventions of LEDs. I'll reiterate that. The current ordinance predates the invention of LEDs, which is what most lights use nowadays, and predates scientific knowledge about the negative impacts of lights on people and the environment. The tools to change this trend are modernized outdoor lighting ordinance, shielded and downward facing fixtures, amber tone lighting, and reasonable curfews on non-essential lighting. These standards are in place right down the road in both Sisters and Sun River, alongside many other cities in the United States. We are not asking Ben to choose between growth and dark skies. We're asking the city to grow with intention, with standards that keep our night sky within reach of every resident as a community. Thank you.

Thank you. Lovely comment. We are not going to be doing applause, boos, hissing, no reactions to folks' comments tonight. One, for the pure purpose of time, but also because we want everyone here to feel that they have the ability to speak to us and not feel intimidated and feel like they can say what they want to say, even if there are different opinions in the room. So I appreciate the support for the comment, but we're going to refrain from doing that going forward. Okay. Natalie Peterson is next. And then after that, John Lennon Corbella. Is Natalie here? Hi.

hello come on up okay you guys ready yes go ahead all right um my name is natalie peterson and i'm an upcoming junior at ben senior high school i know the council is working hard for environmental protection hence our community climate action plan and i propose that we add support for local organic farms like other cities nearby have. I think this will help get our goals of more efficient energy and transportation because we will not be having to ship in as much food from other parts of the state or the country. I mean, our farmers market is a widely loved part of Bend, and I think this will help provide a greater sense of community and support the farmers who make the food.

Thank you. Thank you for your comment. All right, John Lending Corbella, if John is here. Yes.

Well, I just want to say thank you for welcoming me to this meeting. Kind of had a rough time integrating this community, but I'm trying to jump in with both feet and I wanted to say thank you. And I don't know how, this is my first, but I don't know how to go about arranging meetings. There's some things I'd like to discuss that are maybe not, you know, proper for this venue. But so that's what we just wanted to introduce myself and say thank you.

Our email is on the city website. You can send us an email to talk about that. Yeah. Great. Okay. That was it for the general comments. Everything else is on a public meeting for tonight. I mean, a public hearing. Sorry. So that will take us right into item number five. Do you want to read that one, Ashley? And then we'll get into it.

This is a clause judicial public hearing and first reading of the ordinance amending the comprehensive plan text and Amy Nunez, The dot policies and new certifications to implement a binding conceptual plan the caldera branch development site pursuant to set bill 1537 expanding the urban growth boundary.

Amy Nunez, All right, i'm gonna go ahead and open the public hearing just to give folks a brief overview of how this is going to work, the city attorney is going to sort of set the stage and then ask some questions of counselors. where they're going to have a staff presentation and then we're going to have the public testimony after the staff presentation. So just so folks know the order things again to reiterate, expect a minute 30 for your comments on this topic tonight.

Thanks, Mayor. I'm going to provide some context and some procedural notes because what council is considering tonight is a it's a unique process that in some ways looks a lot like a quasi judicial process, but in other ways isn't. What council is considering tonight are potential changes to the city's comprehensive plan that would apply certain residential and commercial designations to property, would add the property to the city's UGB, and adopt policies that will govern in the future how the property can develop. These actions that council is considering tonight, they don't authorize any development on their own, but they do establish some of the higher order rules and requirements by adopting new policies. The more granular requirements and details of development will be determined later during a separate master plan and annexation process. Those have their own notice provisions and opportunities for public input and eventual council deliberation. One example of that is that one of the comprehensive plan policies the council will be considering tonight requires that the eventual master plan that comes later must show how urban wildfire risk will be mitigated. This sets a condition that must be accomplished in more detail through a future process before any development of the property can proceed. So in that respect, tonight's proceeding is conventional. It considers, council will be considering amending the comprehensive plan with new policies that will set and guide requirements for future development applications. In other respects, the proceeding tonight is unique because as was mentioned when the city recorder read the title of the item, this is a process that's unique because it's set by state law and that was 2024 Senate Bill 1537. That legislation created the opportunity for a one-time addition to a city's urban growth boundary if certain conditions were met uh including but not limited to a guarantee that at least 30 percent of the housing units would meet affordability requirements for at least 60 years so in accordance with that process council adopted a resolution in 2024 that's resolution 3411 and that's attached to the agenda That was the result of a process that through that resolution, the city selected a site for potential addition to the city's urban growth boundary based on the applicant's concept plan for that site. That resolution that council adopted in 2024 had additional requirements as determined by the council at that time, including that wildfire mitigation requirement that led to one of the proposed policies that council is considering tonight. That resolution also committed the city to adopting the binding conceptual plan as an amendment to the city's comprehensive plan, if that plan that's being considered tonight is substantially consistent to the concept plan that led to the resolution in December of 2024, and that resolution also established the additional requirements and pointed towards tonight's proceeding. So we've been in this process for almost two years, actually a little over two years at this point. Um, so that's a little bit of the background context for what this is and how we got here. I'm going to speak briefly to the procedure. Um, when the legislature adopted, uh, SB 1537, uh, it determined that all the cities, a city's decisions as part of that process are not land use decisions. So it looks a lot like a land use decision, but technically speaking under Oregon law decision council's making tonight is not a land use decision. Despite that, the city chose in processing this application or these applications, the city chose to do it in a way that closely follows the quasi-judicial processes for land use decisions because that ensures adequate notice and opportunities to provide input, which I think is demonstrated in part by how many people are here tonight. So in that spirit, in a quasi-judicial land use proceeding, one thing I usually do up here is read what we call the raise it or waive it statement. That's a procedural requirement that state law imposes on cities when councils are making quasi-judicial land use decisions. This isn't that, so it's not required, but it's still important to have transparent, unbiased decision-making based on the applicable criteria, which I'll get to in a moment. So in light of that, now's the time for any council members to declare any ex parte contacts, site visits, actual or potential conflicts of interest, or any bias or personal interests that would interfere with your ability to make impartial decisions. Does anybody have anything they wish to declare in those categories tonight?

Just a site visit and go all around. Same, site visit.

Yep.

So a few site visits declared, and just for the audience, it's customary. It's not prohibited to visit a site on which you'll be making a decision in a quasi-judicial process. It's required that they be disclosed, but it's a natural part of gathering information. So that is not an issue, but it's important to provide people an opportunity to declare them. So that's all we've heard from council tonight. Does anybody here have any basis to challenge any of these declarations? I'm seeing a new head shaking now. Yes.

Well, more question. If the City Council met with the developers and yet didn't invite the public, is there any I mean, I have a concern.

Sure. I'll speak to that briefly. Staff meet with developers, and that's normal. That's not an ex parte contact. Right. If decision makers on council have met with an applicant, it's typical that they would disclose those meetings at this point in a public hearing. So, counselors have had an opportunity to do that. Does anyone have anything to declare? Seeing none.

Okay.

over here yeah I I'll take one more question but then I want to try to get through that um the there's a requirement that everybody within 500 feet of the site be notified and there's maybe a hundred homes maximum within that and I just think that a very small portion of the population okay and if you have comments um there will be in the public hearing there will be an opportunity for public comments so if you have thoughts on that you're welcome to enter them into the record

Okay.

I guess, David, I challenge. We got to be careful.

Hey, hey, hey, hold on, folks. Hold on, folks. We got to be careful that we're not doing interrupting and we're not getting into a shouting match. So if you have something, you can raise your hand and you can speak if you've been recognized. But this is not really question and answer time. The only question is, do you have a challenge to the fact that all of us have said we don't have ex parte contacts and a few of us have visited the site? So if anyone has a challenge to that, that you have information otherwise or you want to challenge that, now is the time to do that. If you have comments, that's going to come during public testimony.

And if you have, if you have comments on any aspect of the process, you can enter them into the record when we get to the public testimony portion. So on that note, if you're planning to offer comments tonight, your input should be directed to the applicable criteria. Those are outlined in exhibit C on the agenda. That's the staff report and the draft findings, the most primary and important criteria. are sections 48 to 60 of SB 1537, that's from 2024, sections four through eight of SB 48 from 2025, which provides certain aspects of SB 1537, And also that city event resolution from December 2024. Hold on a second. That was resolution 3411. Those are the primary criteria that have to be met tonight. Lastly, there have been some requests. The council either delay their decision or leave the record open. Council is not required to do that. The council has discretion to consider that issue at any time prior to the close of the public hearing if they wish. And they have discretion whether or not to leave the record open or to vote tonight.

Brian G McAdoo, that's it for me all right great Thank you, so we will turn now to our staff presentation, so if you want to introduce yourself and go ahead.

Michelle Patrick, Thank you counselors my name is Michelle Patrick i'm associate planner in the Community development department, and my name is Brian gail i'm a senior laundry I know it's even. And the item before you tonight is the one-time Urban Grove Foundry expansion for the Caldera Ranch development pursuant to Senate Bill 1537.

Pause one second. For folks who are in the doorway, we can't block the doorway. I know we have another TV outside you can listen to, so just be careful about blocking the doorway. Thank you.

I also just want to remind staff and council, speak up as loud as you can, too.

We'll do. Thank you. So specifically, there are three applications for tonight's public hearing. That includes a comprehensive plan map amendment, a comprehensive plan text amendment, and an urban road boundary expansion. The first two applications are intended to implement the binding conceptual plan as required by Senate Bill 1537. And we're going to go into these in a little more detail momentarily. um but ultimately um as detailed in the staff report we found the request to satisfy the approval criteria and recommend approval of the applications in two motions first to extend the deadline for the application submittal and second to adopt the binding conceptual plan and uh add the caldera ranch site to the urban growth boundary uh and brianna is going to give us a little bit of background on the process okay

Thank you. So just a little bit of history on Senate Bill 1537 and the process to date. As Ian mentioned, this was legislation that was passed in 2024 that was part of a major housing package, and it was really aimed at accelerating housing production and specifically affordable housing. Again, this bill allowed for a one-time single site UGB or urban growth boundary expansion of up to 100 net residential acres. and created an expedited urban growth boundary expansion process. This bill laid out specific criteria for a conceptual plan, which Michelle is going to walk through in detail, which one of the main requirements was a minimum of 30% of the units would need to be deed restricted affordable housing for a minimum of 60 years. In June 2024, Council directed staff to solicit site applications for this one-time urban growth boundary expansion. and we were the first in the state to pursue this. So for the site selection, we established a two-step process. The first was to select, to narrow it down to one site, and the site application included a proposed conceptual plan. This was adopted by resolution. The second step was if the concept plan was substantially consistent with the proposed concept plan that was presented at site selection then that would be to adopt the concept plan through a comprehensive plan text and map amendment and an urban growth boundary amendment so that we are in that second step tonight in the fall of 2024 we did receive two applications for consideration and held an online open house for the public to review the proposals and provide input In December 2024 the City Council held a public hearing and selected the caldera ranch site based on the proposed conceptual plans and elements that you'll be reviewing tonight, this was formalized under city resolution 3411 and that really set that that review criteria. So what you're seeing here, this is the steps that we've taken to date that I just described. Over the last year, we've coordinated closely with applicant on the review and refinements and the comprehensive plan policies before you tonight. While this isn't a land use decision, the city has generally followed our adopted land use procedures just to ensure transparency. In July, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the application as well. Tonight, council is really tasked with reviewing the proposed comprehensive plan amendments for conformance with what was required by the bill and further solidified by council's resolution, site selection resolution. Really, the primary objective of tonight's hearing is to review this proposed concept plan and the policies to determine, one, is what being proposed tonight consistent with Senate Bill 1537? And to is it substantially consistent with what was proposed at the site selection and outline and council's resolution. If the urban growth boundary and comprehensive plan amendments are approved the next steps are the bill will require or the bill does require that the county approved the urban growth boundary expansion. which we anticipate to take place later this year or early next year if it's approved tonight, after which staff will be required to submit. the approval to dlcd for final review and approval so that is a little bit atypical for a for a urban growth boundary process so i think again it's important to understand that no specific development is actually being proposed as part of this or approved with tonight's application this really is just one step in this larger process then any future subsequent land use and development applications so master plan annexation site plans subdivisions those will all be required for development to actually occur on this site and those will be subject to the city's adopted processes and procedures and there will be future opportunities for public input at that time thanks Brian

um so with that we're going to dive into the substance of tonight's hearing i'm showing this slide again just to provide a little more detail so the comprehensive plan map amendment will designate 93 acres of the caldera ranch site um for urban designations including standard density residential medium density residential high density residential and commercial convenience The comprehensive plan text amendment will establish comprehensive plan policies for the development of the Caldera Ranch conceptual plan, which includes amendments to our transportation system plan. And then the 93 acre UGB expansion will essentially bring in the Caldera Ranch application to the UGB. So again, the first two applications are really what we're considering the binding conceptual plan here. So the site, just to orient everyone, is located on the south side of Knott Road in the southeast quadrant of Bend. In this image, you can see the southeast expansion area in the northeast. You can see Alpenglow Park and the new high school to the north. The subject property itself abuts the urban growth boundary, both south of Knott Road and to the west. Also to the west is Brighton-Wood Estates subdivisions. And in this area of the site, Woodside Road is an existing right-of-way and that bisects the site. And to the south and the east is existing county land. So you've been hearing us say a lot about the review procedures and approval criteria by Ian and Brianne. I just want to reiterate that there are very unique approval criteria for these applications and largely established through Senate Bill 1537. And the bill clearly states this does not constitute a land use application, but if you were able to look through the staff report, you'll see that we did run it through our applicable criteria in the Bend Development Code and the Bend Comprehensive Plan, just to make sure that we were closely following our type three process as closely as possible. And So I'm highlighting the bold language here because, again, the primary reason we're here tonight is to review the binding conceptual plan for substantial consistency with the plan that was submitted in 2004 with the site selection process. So the first motion we saw on one of the slides references an extension to the application and wanted to bring this up to eliminate any confusion. So per resolution 3411, a complete application was required to be submitted by December 18th, 2025, unless extended by council at a public meeting. so the three applications that i reviewed were submitted in june 2025 but they weren't accepted as complete until june 2026 a year later um so at that time we were meeting with the applicant pretty much bi-weekly and they have been making forward progress on these applications and this is a nuance that we only recently identified in the resolution so want to be clear if extended based on the language in senate bill 1537 council must approve the conceptual plan if it is found to be in conformance with the resolution if this is not extended the conceptual plan is void and it cannot be approved or adopted so um kind of diving back into the substance of these applications um this is the existing comprehensive plan designations for the site so the subject area is outlined in red and this light yellow color represents a rural residential expansion area which is a deschutes county code designation The with the comp plan map amendment the applicant is proposing new urban land use designations for the site, including approximately 68 acres of residential standard density 11 and a half acres of residential medium density. about 10 and a half acres of residential high density and about 2.6 acres of commercial convenience. So just as a awareness for this graphic, this includes area to be dedicated as future streets, includes future open space and parkland that they're required to include. So this is the proposed graphic that will accompany the comprehensive plan text amendments and implement the binding conceptual plan. So I want to highlight here the only change to the graphic between the site selection process and today is the addition of these pink lines, which represent 10-foot wide multi-use paths. So this was added at the request of staff because the applicant identified this when they proposed the concept plan at site selection. And this will extend the city's low stress network. So we have worked with the applicant to ensure this graphic illustrates the fundamental components of the bill and resolution while being general enough to provide some flexibility at the time of master plan. But to be clear, the proposed comprehensive plan policies as in the text is truly the conceptual plan. So where there is a conflict between the text and this graphic, the text will prevail. And the graphic and the proposed policies are fairly detailed because of the requirements of the bill and the resolution. And typically we would not see this level of detail at this point. It would only be at a master plan, which this is not. So it's important to keep in mind that we're not approving a specific development, even though this looks like it. What we're approving or what you are being asked to consider is establishing comp plan policies that would dictate how this site develops in the future. And so that said, I'm going to go through the requirements of the resolution and how it's reflected in certain policies, kind of grouping them in certain categories. So we'll start with housing. And I will emphasize the tweaks that were made between site selection and these proposed policies. So the housing requirements of the resolution include 55.9 net residential acres, 716 housing units, and we've identified the types they also need to provide numerically. So they need 230 multi-unit attached, 120 single unit attached, and 366 single unit detached. And this was outlined in the resolution. So with the comp plan policies, we did not specify as a change. The acreages and the unit totals have stayed the same. but we did not identify a minimum of single unit detached leaving it up to the applicant if they want to provide more middle housing types they're welcome to do that with the comprehensive plan policies we also identified a minimum floor for the residential acreages in here you'll see those don't match exactly what was proposed with the comp plan designations and ultimately the applicant will only be allowed to change these within one percent with their master plan unless they come in to modify this So a slight deviation from the resolutions for density, so it was approved with 12.8 units per acre. In the comp plan policies we've set this at a minimum of 10 units an acre. Staff felt comfortable with this because the residential acres and the total number of housing units is ultimately staying the same, so it really does calculate out to be the same. Moving on to commercial lands. So the resolution requires one and a half acres of commercial limited land adjacent to open space and a low stress network and be equally available to all residents. The bill specifically requires the land needs to be designated for small scale commercial uses that primarily serve the immediate surrounding housing and are provided at the minimum amount necessary to support and integrate viable commercial and residential uses. So as we refine the proposed comprehensive plan policies, staff recommended the proposed designation change to commercial convenience as that designation more closely represented the intention of the bill. And you can see here in the graphic that location of commercial lands has stayed the same. It's at the corner of Knott Road and Broster House adjacent to those multi-use pathways and open space as was presented during the resolution, their site selection process. And briefly, just to illustrate the differences in those zones, CL is more associated with strip development. It can provide for tourist uses, where the commercial convenience zone is really to serve the needs of nearby residents and host small and medium-sized businesses, which that bill specifically referenced. And so moving on to transportation, the resolution acquired a diverse transportation network, including biking, walking, and transit options if transit is available in the area. The applicant at the time of site selection proposed these 10 foot wide multi-use pathways. They showed frontage improvements on Knott Road and a new local street network. So our proposed comprehensive plan policy to implement this really captures all those requirements. And we found that those components were substantially consistent with what was proposed during the site selection process. Again, showing the graphic here. Found to be consistent, we have a roundabout that was identified at Knott Road and Brosser House, multi-use pathways, and this new local street network. Again, requirements like the pathways are far more detailed than we would normally see at this stage. It's only included because they said they were going to do those at site selection. This graphic here, we wanted to include because there was a significant number of public comments about access. So you can see my legend here is a little off. But the dark gray illustrates existing streets, the red arrows show proposed access connections to existing roadways, and the blue shows potential future access points. So the proposed street network will connect the existing abutting roadways in several places. So we have two new connections on Knott two new connections to Brighton Wood and then several connections off Woodside. So this will increase the overall connectivity and options for users navigating the area. The extensions in blue we wanted to highlight because this is, if there is future development to the east or to the south, this will require those developments also connect these streets for further aiding connectivity in the area. Those are not, we're not proposing these streets go through right now. So just to elaborate a little bit more due to the number of comments on transportation, we wanted to clarify the city has a standard review procedure for reviewing transportation reports. So a full transportation analysis was submitted by the applicant and reviewed by city engineering department. And the city engineers found the transportation system has capacity to operate with the development, provided certain mitigations are met and improvements are completed. So I want to just highlight that further analysis of these identified mitigations, timing of the improvements and compliance with the transportation planning rule is required, but not right now. This will occur later at master plan and annexation review. And the annexation agreement process would include mandating these applicant provide these improvements throughout the development. So again, to kind of emphasize the fact that there was a lot of public comment here, we heard a lot of folks talking about improvements that have or have not been done in the area. You can see this exhibit that was actually developed during Southeast Area Bend Roundtable. um with counselors in the public so these are the current development projects happening in the southeast there's quite a bit going on and this uh the red lines and roundabouts indicate where recent infrastructure improvements have taken place so we do there is quite a bit going on as far as infrastructure improvements down here and there's been significant investment in the southeast due to anticipated housing growth And then to further that, we do have additional plans to complete more improvements in this area. There are certain improvements identified for private development projects that are going on in this area. And then there are some projects that are identified that don't yet have funding, but are still in the works. So, relative to this application, you can see that there's a roundabout at China Hat and Knott Road, as well as a roundabout at Country Club Knott and New Castle that are planned for the future in this area on the corridor of Knott. So, to move on to affordable housing, this was really the key component of the resolution and the bill. overall intent to get more affordable housing on the ground. So 30% of the total housing units or 254 units must be deed restricted for 60 years and include minimums that we have established in the resolution. These numbers have stayed exactly the same moving into the comprehensive plan. There was no change at all, but I think it's important to note that the what the applicant proposed went above and beyond the minimum requirements of the bill, especially when it comes to our deeply affordable affordable housing as far as am I.

And so i'm going to ask a question right now sorry.

yeah if you have a question on this slide yeah questions are okay right now i do go ahead and say so and the affordable housing units that are all in multi-family correct they're not no no so um most of them will be yeah so um the proposal includes uh i believe 200 and 230 230 will be in multi-unit and the remainder will be in town homes and single unit detached and we'll have the applicant present and you can also maybe have a question about that So there was also timing provisions as far as the delivery of affordable housing that was included with the bill, and then we added some on as far in the resolution as well. So the two comprehensive plan policies that are reflecting the requirements of the resolution shown here, no change, except we did add a numerical figure. to this policy. So to give the applicant a little bit of flexibility, if they did more units, then they could go with the numerical figure versus 15%. The other components of the affordable housing timing provisions are, we'll go into a little more detail. So at the time of site selection, the applicant proposed that affordable housing for households making 80% AMI or less would be built in the first phases of development. And so we worked with the applicant to propose a policy that leans more on unit count than phasing since unit count would be established in the policies. while phasing can be subject to a little bit more changes and so the 243rd law in this proposed comprehensive plan policy um reflects half of the single unit detached and attached market rate housing so basically the applicant cannot go build more than half of their market rate units um until all of the 80 percent ami affordable housing is under construction And that essentially matched half of the proposed phasing schedule halfway through. So we found that to be substantially consistent with the intent of building the affordable housing within the first half of the majority, sorry, majority of affordable housing in the first half of the development. And with that, of the front loading of the affordable housing, the next provision ensures the remainder of affordable housing is dispersed throughout the development until they've completed it and not just slated for the last phase. So given the original development timing, you can see here they originally proposed vertical construction date would be mid-2027. It's taken us quite a bit longer to get to this point, and so they have changed this to mid-2028. Given that we've been working with them regularly on trying to refine these policies and get them to a place where we can bring this to council, staff found that this was substantially consistent with the intent of the resolution. Would also note that they have already submitted their master plan and annexation applications as a show of good face, so they're not just trying to draw the process out. So the wildfire mitigation component of this project also do quite a bit of public comment at the 2024 site selection hearings Ian mentioned. There was significant public testimony regarding the concern of wildfire risk in this area and we've continued to hear those concerns throughout the public comments we've been getting and so in 2024. Council required the resolution contain enhanced wildfire measures that would include an urban wildfire mitigation plan that included one of these elements, either creation of defensible space, landscaping and hardscaping, arrangement of land uses, construction, building materials, or changes in a development pattern. And so Based on the continuance of public comments we've been getting here, we've been working with the fire department to strengthen this policy. So ultimately the fire department recommended that the intent of resolution 3411 could be better achieved through provisions that go above and beyond the minimum required. So it's essentially since the passing of the R-327 home hardening building code, we wanted to make sure the applicant just didn't lean on that as a mitigation when every new home in the city is going to have to do those. So this direction has resulted in the policy that you see here on the right. So we're recommending that the policy show that they have to do the creation of the defensible space and include one or more of the following methods, which we're still including building materials, but it would have to be above and beyond the minimum required. So not just meeting the R327 home pardoning code. Um, so on that note, um, we have received numerous comments. I think our total comment number is probably close to a hundred now, not 80. Um, again, the primary concerns involves wildfire mitigation, evacuation, and impacts of transportation in this area. So just wanted to note that this was recommended for approval by Planning Commission. They did have some concerns regarding transportation mitigations and the assumptions of the transportation analysis. And we have a representative of PC here tonight to tell us a little bit about their decision on that part. So at this time, just want to reiterate, again, this is the timeline we saw before, but This process can only be approved if it is the county approves it, which the bill states they shall if the city does. And then DLCD ultimately has the final say to make sure that we have followed this process in line with the bill requirements. And if all of that does get approved, then this applicant is subject to the standards of the Bend Development Code standards and specs like any other applicant would be at the time of master plan and annexation. So I'm going to throw up the motions again, just so that you have them, but we're happy to answer any questions this time.

Erin, was there anything you wanted to add? If there is, we will have you come sit up here.

Let me put the mic over by her. There you go.

Hi, I'm Erin Levin with the Planning Commission. We did review this. There were also a lot of public comments at that meeting as well. Wildfire mitigation is not something that we're really supposed to include in our deliberations in Planning Commission. It was outside of the criteria for us. Although the transportation was definitely a hot topic. And there were a lot of questions about the the some of them include the cumulative impacts of the different developments that are in place. And the cumulative developments, the accumulation of traffic as it's moving through the entire network, because it does not stop at one mile. Transportation analysis goes up to one mile, I believe, which doesn't get you to the parkway. And there were some intersections that did not look like they would meet the city standards in that traffic analysis. We ultimately voted to approve that project based on the criteria because the traffic analyses for the specific developments would later be analyzed. So based on the criteria we were given, it met that criteria for this preliminary stage.

Got it. OK. Thank you.

yeah all right any other questions for staff and then we have an applicant presentation yeah um Michelle the the single family housing flexibility the detached housing flexibility that the staff allowed in there is that potentially allowing for like a duplex triplex kind of quadplex kind of thing is that kind of what you're going for there maybe

it can i i mean there's some provisions in uh land use right now that is simply allow for you know where a single family or a single unit detached building is allowed you can build duplex triplex quadplex all right and second question just just clarifying here um you know r327 is is done and dusted so they'll have to build that standard um we have a we have a um defensible space code going to be on something we'll discuss

John Pimentel, Presumably, if we adopt that that'll be well before the the master plan comes before any kind of city right, so that would also be something that would have to comply.

John Pimentel, By the time that the master plan hit us right if approved, yes, they would need to meet the standards in place at the time that goalpost is established if the dispensable space code is something that ends up being codified.

That was in the reworking of that comprehensive plan policy. That was why staff said it must be for current creation of principal space and one or more of the following to meet the original intent was to go above and beyond just the traditional city standards. Thank you.

All right. We have an applicant up too. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Ashley. I can't see that. Mike, did you have a question?

Yeah, I actually have a couple of questions. Well, we can maybe we get to this extension thing a little bit later. But Michelle, if you go back to the present, sorry, I'm bouncing between a couple of different parts of my screen here. If you go back to the presentation slide labeled housing, it's approximately slide 16 that shows the The 230 units, the less than or equal to, I guess, and you may have said this, and I may have been bouncing between a couple of different documents here. I'm not really sure how I understand how. Less than or equal to is consistent with the resolution. Resolution 3144 and the same thing on 120. Can you explain that to me, please? It seemed that if we had less than 230 units, we would not be in compliance. So how did we get less than or equal to instead of just equal to?

These are intended to be minimums. That might be it. That's a typo. Right.

But it implies they could do less. And my understanding is 230 is a minimum. So how can less than 230 be compliant?

I'm going to pull up the actual, I think it's a typo with the not the policy. The policy itself is establishing a floor and it says a minimum. I can pull up the actual, I think the carrots put in the wrong way.

I think it is for the slide. I am sorry. It's all right. It's a lot of details in these presentations.

We just want to make sure for the record, then the staff is telling us that actually what it says in the document we're asked to approve tonight is different than what's on the screen here. And that those are minimums. That's what we're passing tonight.

That's a minimum, yeah.

Including a minimum of 192.

So that's greater than or equal to. Yeah.

I mean, I understand why the 366 is not in there because that's the balance, but...

And policy 11-177. So it's in policy, it's correctly listed on the slide.

Thank you for mentioning that. Yeah, sorry.

Okay. All right. So my other couple questions here. I think you've answered, I guess if you go back to the the defensible space language on that wildfire mitigation slide that Councilor Platt was just asking about. So creation of defensible space, I mean, I think to Councilor Platt's point, if we're not, I'm not sure when we're expecting submission of the master plan, but if that does come after the council has acted on the likelihood of the defensible space coming forward, and I know the staff is working on that now, If that has been adopted prior to submission of their master plan application, I think you already confirmed that that master plan would be subject to those defensible space requirements. But if for some reason the timing of those things are off and the goalpost rule applies and they're not subject to those new defensible space requirements, then what does creation of defensible space even mean? And I mean, I just don't understand how those words would be used practically in evaluating whether they were in compliance or not. Can someone help me understand that?

We would have expertise to kind of help us with creation of defensible space, but the applicant ultimately needs to provide an urban wildfire mitigation plan prepared by a professional. And we would likely pull in the fire department to help us review that to make sure it was adequate at the time of master plan. As far as the goal.

They're not required to do that. They could do that if they choose to. That's the way this is written.

No, they have to do an urban wildfire mitigation plan. It just needs to include one of the creation of defensible space in one of these methods.

So they'd have to do two. They'd have to do creation of defensible space regardless of whether or not the city adopts defensible space rules.

If this policy is adopted as drafted.

Okay, so my question is, what is creation of defensible space mean? Do we have a way we can interpret that in the absence of an adopted defensible space code that actually applies to this specific development, depending on how the timeframes of all those things work out?

And that's a great question. I think we would probably be looking to the experts in the room. Our fire department has a wildfire preparedness program that they use extensively. And so, Melissa Steele is here tonight can likely help answer that question. Without a definition in our code right now, it's hard to point to exactly what that would look like, but their urban wildfire mitigation plan would need to be prepared by a professional. So, again, we would accept what they have submitted and review it. based on the expertise that we have available at the city and if we do not have an adopted uh definition of create a defensible space um but it sounds like there are a lot of um there's a lot of information out there for to help us get it to the right place and i would just follow this this requirement is not unique to this expansion site we've required wildfire mitigation plans in other expansion areas as well and gone through that process and seen them actually

kind of reviewed and built out.

So maybe I'm being really dense here, but the way I read what is on the screen, it says that a wildfire mitigation plan prepared by Professional Forester is one of the options that they could choose to do, that they could choose landscaping and hardscaping and avoid the wildfire plan. So is this another thing where what's on the screen is not actually what's in the other documents? I guess you're confusing me. I'm sorry about that. That's the way this is written.

So the master plan must show that urban wildfire risk will be mitigated through creation of defensible space and one or more of the following methods. One, landscaping or hardscaping. Two, arranging of land uses. Three, construction and building materials beyond the minimum required. And or development patterns, which is four. Based on wildfire mitigation plan. So it's not just the development patterns that is based on urban wildfire mitigation plan. Any of those options need to be based on an urban wildfire mitigation plan. We can potentially tweak some of this wording if it's not reading clearly.

I don't read it as a requirement. I guess I don't know what other counselors think, but it seems a little confusing to me and a little like, if we don't have create defensible space stuff developed and have real criteria that, and then we're going to have arguments from between experts of what qualifies for it and just create problems for ourselves. So we haven't figured that out. It seems like maybe we should.

I would like to emphasize the applicant has submitted a master plan. They are proposing a major master plan, meaning it will come before council again. You'll have an opportunity to review the wildfire mitigation plan that they are proposing and you as a review authority will be able to take a look at this and make sure it meets the minimum requirements of this policy and also to make sure that you vet it just for clarity and depth as well. So you will have an opportunity to look at this again.

No, we're not taking questions right now, and we're not mumbling and interrupting our presenters either. We need to let people get the information out as part of this hearing, and then you'll have a chance to give us your comments in public testimony. There's no longer. Well, we're not taking it. If you keep interrupting, I'm going to have to ask you to leave. I don't want to do that. So let's not interrupt, please. Okay. All right. We now can turn to the applicant.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Michelle. Thank you for your time.

Hey, good evening, Mayor and Council. Appreciate the time this evening. My name is Joey Shearer. I'm a planner with AKS Engineering and Forestry. We are consultant for the owners and based on the nearly 400 pages of application materials, the planning commission recommendation for approval, the relatively narrow decision criteria that Michelle went over and her otherwise very comprehensive presentation. We're going to keep our presentation short. I think I've got about eight slides, but recognizing that there will probably be plenty of questions and our team is here to try and answer those. the application that is or the three applications that are before you this evening are the product of this this team effort caldera holdings and woodside ventures are the owners and the applicants uh i'm joined tonight by my colleague brian wilkinson a civil engineer Joe Bestman is our transportation engineer. And while he is not here this evening, we have been working with Craig Letts with Tamarack Wildfire Consulting. He's a known and reputable wildfire consultant who has worked on many of these master plans and helped advise the city when the city was adopting similar mitigation, wildfire mitigation policies as part of the 2016 UGB expansion. Then over the past year and a half, our team has been coordinating closely with city staff, as Michelle mentioned, with almost biweekly meetings. Obviously, a lot of coordination with Deschutes County staff, AV on Water, Ben Parks and Rec, the school district, CET, CEC, and ODOT, among others. And so while the decision criteria is relatively narrow, it has taken a lot of work to get from the site selection in December 2024 to where we are here this evening before you. And I do also want to acknowledge that it has taken us a bit longer to get to this point than we expected during site selection. And I would say that that is primarily because this is not a typical comprehensive plan amendment. And I don't know that we realize the full extent of that in December 2024. Effectively, and Michelle referenced this, we've had to pull forward a significant amount of planning and design work to vet out that preliminary concept plan that we shared with the city and make sure that a future master plan can satisfy all the comprehensive plan policies, again, which have been developed over time in coordination with city staff. We did not anticipate that we were going to have to basically create a 90% master plan in order to get to this point, but we have. And as Michelle mentioned, we have submitted that master plan annexation applications, paid the fees at risk, hoping to get an approval here this evening, and we're committing to you to work as quickly as we can if we can get that approval to move into the next phase of this project. I also want to zoom out for just a minute again to address this kind of regulatory context that underpins all the city's many efforts to address kind of what the resolution identified as an acute housing crisis. And again, to be very clear, the requirements in Senate Bill 1537 set very specific thresholds that only cities that have a defined need for residential land and a defined cost burden for housing can even qualify for this process. And then above all that, you know, to meet the state's production allocation, which I've snipped here on this slide, what this actually means, these numbers mean is that the city in order to meet these targets, these requirements, the city needs to produce housing at a rate that's much higher than the historical average, including affordable housing AMI levels that Caldera Ranch is committing to. And so just reminding that Senate Bill 1537 is a very important tool that allows certain cities that have a demonstrated need for land and affordability crisis to provide more housing faster. And we think that the bill is going to allow Caldera Ranch to get to master planning and deliver housing probably four to five years faster than what would be expected under the standard UGB process. So again, and I have these slides mostly for reference if there are questions. But again, this is the conceptual plan. Again, the lot lines, I don't want to confuse people. These lot lines are conceptual. It's the work we had to do to make sure that we could hit with confidence the number of units and the mix of housing that we are being required to hit with the comp plan policies. And again, this is effectively the exact same exhibit that we showed you during site selection. So again, showing that the applications here before you are meeting that substantially consistent test from the resolution. and again this is you know caldera ranch by the numbers it's the same breakdown of housing mix and affordability presented to city council uh during site selection again meeting this substantially consistent test firm resolution three four one one So the key takeaways are that the three applications before you this evening, including the conceptual plan, comply with Senate Bill 1537 and the following legislation that made some minor tweaks to it complies with resolution number 3411. The project is providing infrastructure capacity and urban services for at least 716 homes. We're meeting the minimum required density of at least 10 units per acre. In fact, we're exceeding that. Again, we're exceeding the minimum 30% affordability of homes and in fact, emphasizing 30 percent ami which is not which is not even a requirement uh of the bill itself it's going beyond that we're meeting city council goals we're providing a diversity of housing type we've got neighborhood scale commercial but not in broster house We're providing open space, including a 4 and a half acre neighborhood park that has been coordinating with and in fact, we have a development agreement now with and. As of a week or 2 ago, this property has been annexed now into district. um and then the multi-use paths uh kind of providing multimodal connection north south and east west through caldera ranch and that leads to diverse transportation options and we're committing to a new policy for wildfire mitigation which again i think is going to be um it's the strictest policy at least the language that we're looking at there it's the strictest policy language around wildfire mitigation that the city has adopted with any of these expansion areas including the lands along the west that came in in 2016 which there's a lot more evidence in the in that record that those lands are much more sensitive to wildfire or more at risk to wildfire than the site um that we're we're looking at here uh but we're Happy to do this, we recognize that wildfire is kind of a growing concern across the Community, and so we we have a very good consultant that we will be working with to deliver on that that compound policy. So that's my very short presentation and our team is here to try and answer questions right questions for the applicant from counselors.

You might have a question. Mike has a question online Mike.

Yeah, I have two questions. The first one is, can you just talk a little bit about the phasing? I mean, it sounds like you're close on the master plan, so maybe you have a little bit more of a sense of that than what's described here in the photos and sort of, you know, roughly when we're going to start to see the production of the affordable units. You know, in that first half and just and I think I'm trying to get it like the timing when when are we likely to see some of this stuff to start to happen at least once the master plans approved.

So great question, Councilor Riley. So. We don't have a phasing plan that's part of our formal materials here, but we did show a phasing plan at site selection, which was conceptual. And effectively, what it follows is the way that infrastructure can be provided to the site. And so existing sewer and water will have to come from that road. There's actually avion water lines along the frontage and down through north-south through the site. So infrastructure will pave the way for housing. And as we discussed during site selection, we very intentionally located the bulk of the deed restricted affordable housing kind of at the Northeast corner of the site, because that is the portion of the site that will have infrastructure sooner than any other location across the site. And so our intent is to get that affordable housing going as quickly as we can get that land separated and give an affordable partner kind of control over that land. That's a necessary requirement for much of the funding that's required. And so to that end, We also have a partition application that we are planning to submit probably within the next week or two pending the outcome of the hearing this evening to the county to get a jump on actually getting that land ready to be acquired by an affordable housing developer.

And timeframe wise, I mean, do you imagine it's going to take a year roughly after approval of the master plan or shorter than that for some of the first construction to start?

I don't have a schedule written down here in front of me, but just kind of off the top of my head, if we can, if we actually have a, um, an approval here through the city and the county that's been, you know, acknowledged or ratified by DLCD by, say, the end of the year, say, January 1, just for sake of this discussion. We have 90% of a master plan submitted. I think we would work in that intervening time to make sure that that's complete. So that the minute that becomes. The concept plan and compliment and become effective. Um, city staff would have a complete application to be reviewing that would get us. through hearings for the master plan, say spring Q2, Q3 of next year. after that it's tentative subdivision right there are several steps that have to play out here before we even have any individual lots that can be developed the tentative subdivision process is roughly a 90-day review from the city at that point we'd be able to submit um more detailed construction drawings and that's a four to six month review from the city in construction so you know probably in 2028 middle of 2028 or uh construction on the site.

Okay. And so I think you answered that might be my second question. And that is about the master plan schedule. So you have to wait until the DLC D process has completed right in there. They've approved it. And we've gotten the county also their approval on the UGB extent expansion correct before you can submit that app master plan application.

Yeah, before that master plan can be deemed complete because that it is once it's been kind of approved by DLCD, then that's what formally moves the UGB, applies the comp plan designations, applies the comp plan policies that a master plan would be reviewed against. All right. Thank you.

All right. Any other questions for the applicants right now?

okay okay thank you thank you so much any other follow-up questions for staff before we get to public testimony okay all right and i think we have mayor keidler i do have one question for staff okay go ahead sorry um so the improvements on knot road um can you all kind of outline show us um can staff show us Joe DiNetto, M.D. : That kind of geographic scope of where those improvements are going to occur that are going to be triggered by this development as it moves forward.

Jamie Mueller, M.D. : Yeah, just one second. Staff are coming back in the room. Joe DiNetto, M.D.

: Well, Joe DiNetto in private development engineering. I reviewed Joe Vestman's report and the staff-provided mitigations and recommendations. So your questions were the improvements along Knott Road. They will be improving all their frontage along Knott Road as part of the development. We're including a sidewalk connection to 15th, their roundabout for the school. East and westbound turn lanes coming into Woodside and Woodside Court are going to be required, and they're also doing the roundabout. at roster house as Michelle said a lot of this will be further determined at time of master plan so some of these conditions are conceptual at this time and we'll do a further analysis when the land use or subsequent applications come in and there's nothing at this point based on the I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt no go ahead just asking if I answered your question so if you have a follow-up go ahead

So there's nothing as far as we know from the information that we have to date and based on that transportation analysis memo, which I know is preliminary that triggers any improvements that are required at the China hat, not road intersection. Is that correct?

Correct. The China Hat and Knott Road intersection will not have any improvements triggered. This project is sending a total entering vehicles of 56 to the intersection, so it's relatively minor compared to how many cars are going through there, although it does not feel that way compared to the overall picture it is. I know that Deschutes County and the City of Bend, they've worked together. They have done flashing beacons, medians, and some candlesticks out there in the interim. And then, yeah, to provide clarification, it is on our 2025, 2030, or 2029 CIP project list to begin investigating putting a roundabout there. When that's going to be built, I'm not sure, but it is on our radar that that intersection does need improvements in the future.

yeah i mean i know it's showing up in the transportation safety action plan but not in the top five percent it's kind of one tier below that as well so okay thank you just uh can you clarify for the the cip what that means if it's on our cip yeah so the cip is the capital improvement plan those are uh projects throughout the city that we are funding and developing not private development but the city great thank you all right any other questions for staff at this point okay thank you for those answers appreciate it HAB-Masyn Moyer- The right Council, we have probably an hour of public comment to go through here, even with the one minute 30 limit does anyone need a break. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Before we start that just so that we can be sure that we're listening I kind of need a little break very short five minute break. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Okay, so that we can be all prepared and ready to listen so we'll take a five minute break folks and then we're going to start public comment on this item.

Okay, folks, we're going to settle down so we can get back into our hearing and start hearing our public testimony. So thank you for a little stretch break.

All right, so the way this is going to work is I'm going to be calling up three people at a time to fill up the three seats so that you can kind of go one, two, three with your comments. As I said before, a minute and 30 seconds for everybody to try to make sure we can get through everybody. And again, there are going to be people in here with the same opinions, people in here with different opinions. We're not going to be reacting, clapping, muttering, anything when other people are talking. Let's let everyone have their say, please. Also, I'm just telling you, if you get into the clapping, it's going to really extend the time we're here. And we want to be able to hear your words and not spend too much time waiting to hear from everybody. So we have a few folks that are going to go first. We just have a couple of people online and we'll get to them in a little bit. We're going to start with our in-person folks. If you can say your name and whether you live in the city of Bend to start, that's always great. And then just launch into your comment and you'll see the minute 30 up here. And I'm going to be a little strict on it tonight so we can make sure everyone gets the same amount of time. So first we're going to have Ellie Jo come up with Jennifer Jones and Damon Jones, all of you together, please.

Hi, my name is Ellie and I do live in the city of San Diego.

I'm 11 years old and I live in Woodside Ranch. I'm here tonight because of my home and my future. I helped turn up flyers around the neighborhood to encourage people to come to this meeting tonight because I want everyone to know what is happening. I'm just a kid who likes climbing trees, playing outside, and learning new things at school. But living here, I really worry about mega fires burning down our home, school, and my friends' houses. The maps show our area is a high megafire risk zone, and having only one way through a crowded roundabout makes me feel unsafe. The closest fire station on Country Club Drive was built back in the year of 2000. In 2000, the population of the city of Bend was... Only about 52,000 people, but today we have over 107,000 people living here. Our population has doubled, but we are still relying on the same station, and I worry that firefighters won't be able to reach our place in time to save it. In a few years, I'm supposed to go to Caldera High School across the street. I want to know that my friends and I can get to school and back safely. Please don't approve for more houses here until we're absolutely sure there's a safe way out for families and firefighters and that firefighters can always reach us in time. Thank you.

Great job. Good job, Ellie. Thank you. Whoever wants to go next.

Place here at Damon Jones. Then what's that branch? We bought our home over a decade ago. Basically. And we purchased the home in County was because we sacrificing all the communities of living in town, but they don't know a natural rural life where it's nice and quiet. They're away from us and possibly rate all the development. You're still able to get there. Take some time to get there. Long story short, if this happens, that is going to go away. Construction might start at seven in the morning. Instead of hearing, you know, roosters and birds, we'll hear rock hammers. We'll hear, you know, beeping of heavy equipment, backing up, all that stuff every day. And it's going to last for what, 11 years? I'm 55. That's more than half of my natural life. to reconsider this. It seems so pushed through so fast. Please pump the brakes. And just there's got to be other options out there. You guys were the first in the state. You rushed. Think this over more. Think it's a bit corporate. It's a plan. Think of the people that the whole community, the neighborhood, all the people. In fact, these are forever at home. We are going to live there till we die. It's a single story. We chose where to live.

Go ahead.

My name is Jennifer Jones. I live in Woodside Ranch. I'm here tonight to request that the Caldera Ranch development be stopped. When the fire threat and the inability to evacuate was tearfully pointed out by my neighbor who lost her neighborhood and many neighbors in the Paradise Fire, our mayor cheerfully pointed out that it was a good point and these new homes needed to be made fireproof. What about the existing homes? the ones belonging to the people who live behind the bottleneck of traffic being created by the hundreds of new residences. The bottleneck of evacuees will also make it very difficult for firefighters to access the area. I'll get to that if I can. In addition to the obvious threat to the lives of my neighbors and my own family, The projections of how necessary this is has been greatly overestimated. Ben Lapine schools are saying that they may have to let teachers go because they do not have enough students to justify them. Affordable housing for teachers was a big reason this project was being pushed. There are currently thousands of high density residents being put in all over Bend. Many functioning apartments have large amounts of vacancies. The market is already oversaturated. We do not need more than 700 new residences in the neighborhood that has already been identified as being very high risk to fires. There are not enough exits in and out of Woodside Ranch to accommodate such an influx of new homes. This project has been fast-tracked despite two council members asking to slow it down and other council members being absent the night it was voted on, pushing it so fast cuts corners and is further threatening the lives of hundreds of people.

Thank you, Senator. All right, next. Matthew Eshelbach, I'm sorry about that. Todd Hornag, sorry, again, the writing is a little hard to read. Please correct me when you come on up. And then Pam Tourne as well. We've got a chance to go on in. Okay, Matthew, why don't you start us off?

All right. Yeah, we should go like this. Three ER physicians at the table. My name is Dr. Matt Flaubach. I am the physician advisor medical director for Lapine. I have also been a former medical director of every EMS agency south of Bend. And one of the maps that went up as I looked at it, I counted five roundabouts in that plan. Right now, only one plant at Broster House, but in the future, I counted a total of five. My biggest concern is 716 new units is going to increase the traffic, and I know the traffic was amongst one of your number one complaints when you looked at this. For my paramedics transporting a patient from La Pine to Bend, their only choice is Baker Road, not Road 27. And the way that it goes, fastest way to get from one place to another is a straight line. And all I do is see more and more slowdown, increasing just the normal traffic, but adding roundabouts to this is going to make things worse. So I just think that you need to think about this, and I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Thank you.

My name is Todd Tornay. I'll read so I can go quickly and make all the points I wanted. I was an ER doctor at St. Charles and Bend for 18 years, and I'm also medical director for the EMS agencies in Northlake County and Silver Lake. In emergency medicine, a little background, we have certain mantras to remind us of the need for speed. In heart attacks, it's time is muscle, meaning the longer it takes to treat, the more damage there is to the heart. For trauma, we say there's the golden hour. That's the time when treatment for traumatic injuries must be started to be lifesaving. In stroke, people are taught to, as a public service, there's a campaign to be fast, which is a mnemonic for the warning signs of stroke. There's a three-hour time limit. window for clot testing medicine to be most effective. Beforehand, there's a lot of tests that need to be done so that prompt arrival at the hospital is even more critical. Knott Road is the pathway for ambulance runs from the south, including Lapine, which is growing quickly. It's a uniquely critical transportation route for southern Deschutes, Lake and Klamath counties and for Bend. Any increased traffic or congestion will cause a delay that could take a patient out of these precious time windows, a lamentable cause of harm. Presently, there's no feasible alternatives to not road. Development has already caused problems for ambulances trying to reach the hospital as quickly as possible. Helicopter transport isn't a viable alternative most of the time. Caldera Ranch development would exacerbate this quagmire significantly. Ambulances can't simply blow through an area with two roundabouts bookending a school zone and a street serving as a major roadway for 700 new families. Thank you. All right.

Pamela Tournay, Okay, I would like to express my thanks to the city council members for your consideration of our concerns, my name is Pamela tournay and I too am an emergency physician, having worked for nearly 20 years at St Charles bend. Pamela Tournay, emergency department, alongside my husband Todd and also in Redmond with Dr eschelbach. and I concur with their concerns in regard to the dire effects that a traffic gridlock would have on Code 3 ambulance transport on Knott Road and 27th Street. Having resided in Woodside Ranch for nearly 30 years and having experienced Level 1 and Level 2 evacuation alerts from my neighborhood in the past, I understand that wildfires have always been a uniquely dangerous threat to our neighborhood. We are surrounded by open forest, overburdened with highly flammable vegetation. Our individual properties are also heavily forested, so every year our neighborhood invests many hours of manual labor to maintain a defensible space around our homes to lessen the fire risk. Our homeowners board is very active in promoting defensible space protocols through education, modalities and on-site property assessments for all residents the national forest corridor along china has always been a foreboding danger i am here to voice my deep concerns regarding the inevitable unsafe traffic congestion that will undoubtedly occur at knot road this will be a direct result of the decision to proceed with the caldera ranch plan which is a densely populated development thank you good job

All right, next up, Dr. Allison Dubrow, Greg Holcomb, and Carl Natalizia.

Yeah, I'm Greg Holcomb. I live at 60500 Woodside Road, so just down the road from the proposed development, and I've been there for 10 years, driving right down to Knott Road, commute back and forth. It is already busy, and it's very challenging getting safely on and off of Knott Road there. Adding in the additional 700-some homes adds in way more traffic. Don't think it's been properly planned out. should have a roundabout at Knott Road if this thing's going to be built. Thank you. That's my concern.

Okay, got it.

Can I have this minute?

No, you can't. Sorry. Okay.

My name is Carl Natalizia, and I'm on the board of directors of the Woodside Ranch Homeowners Association. We submitted a formal letter today detailing our request, and I just would like to summarize those right now. So number one, is with respect to wildfire and evacuation. The community wildfire protection plan and the wildland urban interface should be updated prior to the comprehensive or master plan finalization. And then number two, fire service capacity. We are recommending that you wait until the Bend Fire Department's commissioned standards of cover study is completed. The traffic study, we're recommending the Commission have a new transportation impact analysis which takes into account all the developments in the area, locking the housing mix. The initial presentation has high density floors and no single family floors. Define the mix and do not allow changes. Commercial acreage, 1.5 acres is insufficient to serve the community. And number six, this car-dependent fire vulnerable reality contradicts the complete community's pillar of Ben's 20-year comprehensive plan.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Dr. Allie Boudreaux, and I reside in Woodside Ranch next to the proposed Heldera development. I'm here about the mega fire safety. I'm also a wife of a retired firefighter, so I'm very well aware about the risks. The recent hidden forest fire, August 7th, 8.54 a.m., started 12 miles away. If the wind had shifted, all of Bend would have been in danger. That fire exposed how unprepared we are to evacuate. Three reasons that this site is in particularly risky. One, narrow exit, a single lane roundabout at Knott Road. Two, a train crossing that can block evacuation routes. Three, no traffic study counting for the Stevens Ranch new apartments. Over 700 homes and one way out. I'm not against growth.

in southeast spend i'm asking that the council please require a re a real evacuation modeling before this might move forward thank you thank you all right mike stambler susan reichert and ray mao and then after them to be ready susan skakel michael san and peter christoph Mike, why don't you get us started?

Okay. Been here all night. I'm uncomfortable with a number of things I've heard and that I understand picked up on the way here. 716 homes here. I don't know how many hundred across on Country Club Road, across from the Country Club. They've already started scraping the ground there. How many more beyond Elan? All the way out to the dump. It's going to be all the way out to the dump. There's going to be thousands of homes, thousands of cars, uncountable number of car trips every day on Knott Road, which is unable to handle that. It just can't be done. And you can't wait until we're done with all of these homes. houses, all the new units. You can't wait till there are 7,000 more cars on that road. Especially when a fire comes, all of them will be out at the same time. Roundabouts don't eliminate, they don't make it any faster getting out. They make it easier for the people on the side streets to join the traffic flow. But this two lane country road that is not road will not be able to handle anything like that. And we're just shrugging it off. Somebody has to come up with a definition for the wildlife interface and the fire mitigation, but nobody's come up with anything for Knott Road. It's just the impossible element for all of these developments and everybody's shrugging.

Thank you, Mike. Thank you. Susan.

My name is Susan Reichert. I live in Woodside Ranch. I've been a physician practicing in Bend for 30 years. I've submitted a letter, and you can read more of my concerns there, but I'll use this time to give an example. I want to really address the health and safety issues in the Caldera Ranch proposal, in particular the wildfire mitigation. It does not address evacuation. Those other measures do not touch on that. let's say as others have said there's only a few ways out of not only caldera ranch which will be embedded in woodside ranch and will use the same roads that the rest of us do the number 716 homes triples the number actually quadruples the number of the people that live in woodside ranch we all need to use the same roads to get out this room has a capacity of about 75 people i see two exits What if there was a one time exception that allowed us to stack the room with quadruple that number? Now we've got 300 people in here. Some spark happens and we get a fire. We still only have two exits. That's the only ways out. It's not an exact example of comparison, but that's the situation that could happen with Woodside Ranch, Caldera Ranch and all the other developments trying to get out on Knott Road. That's our way out. It's not safe. This isn't a math problem. It's a death trap. It's a disaster. It's a matter of life and death. I ask you to consider further studies and actual action to remedy that situation before you go forward with this project. Thank you for your service. Thanks.

The only thing I forgot to say was I live in the city. No, that's okay. I was supposed to have said that. Okay, you live in Bend? Yeah.

Okay, great. All right, great. Be a great. Thank you, Mayor and City Councilors for this hearing. My name is Ray Miao. I'm president of the Woodside Ranch Association. The primary duty of the City Council is to ensure public safety and save lives. You know that because 80% of your budget goes to public safety. Building new housing in a high risk, wildfire prone area demands commitment on your part to safety. New housing should never come at the expense of human life. Senate Bill 1537 and House Bill 4037 streamline development, but they do not relieve you of your core responsibility to ensure that families can evacuate safely and first responders can access a fire. Adding hundreds of homes to Caldera Ranch will exacerbate the situation on Knott Road. A critical evacuation point without upgraded infrastructure gridlock will trap everyone. We urge the council to adopt two clear and objective conditions tonight. First, require the developer to submit a wildfire evacuation clearance study before or with the master plan conducted in direct consultation with Bend Fire and Rescue, Rural Fire District Number 2, and the sheriff's office.

Thank you, Ray. That's the end of your time.

I will hand these to you guys and you can read it.

Yeah, hand it up to Ashley. That'd be great. Thank you. All right. Michael, I'm sorry. Sainan? Sabine. Sabine, thank you. Susan Skakel and Peter Kristoff are up. And then Paolo. I'm here. Paolo. Sorry, Paolo. Say your last name. You're up next with Garrett Mosher and Lana Bedrath.

My name is Michael Seneen. I live in Woodside Ranch Estates and I'm reading from this so I keep it nice and collected and so forth. tia reports i'm definitely opposed to the development the tia report was intentionally taken in august of 2024 when the caldera high school was on session then it was rushed over to you guys and i feel bad for you in the seats that you're in given this information and in december 2024 it was the first approval that's where it all began and once they get the foot in the door an inch take a mile it continued the amount of development for southeast bend that's endured versus a high school and then the home we have that used to have a nice canal a natural water defense and barrier fire protectant gone let's pipe it and save water when the allocated water and the percentage and body of water didn't even meet the requirement to be piped it was a grant there was money received and so forth for the saving of water Now this at that location at high risk, high risk fire hazard area is simply negligent. And it's actually putting somewhat of being from California. I know a lot about legal liabilities to where you're threatening not just our environment, our habitat, wildlife, our homes. Our livelihood and when it comes down to it, our lives. This is a very negligent thing to consider. Oh, we did 90% of the information we're giving you guys. You should be doing 100% and you shouldn't be questioning. Oh, it's a typo. These are important things. This would not fly in other places. This is something that is rushing, putting the cart before the horse. Build it first and think about how to make it work later. Thank you. Susan, you're up.

OK, my name is Susan Skakel. I'm a retired professional forester with over 50 years of experience. I'm the retired planner for the Deschutes National Forest. I'm a retired tree nursery manager, both private, corporate and federal tree nurseries, retired reforestation forester for the Pacific Northwest region of the U.S. Forest Service. Before I go into my comments, I'd like to challenge the Ex parte site visit meeting of the City Council with the developers. It should have been made public And I think you all know that.

Ashley, can you pause the time? So we asked for challenges earlier and I got cut off. Well, I asked again, if there were challenges, I didn't hear anything further. Y'all stop, please. I, I, it doesn't matter. We're gonna address it now. So what is your challenge? We've declared our site visits and that said, all of us said we did not meet X party with the developers. The last time this has been discussed for me, for example, was in 2024 when they were before us for that. So what is your challenge to the declarations of ex-party? And we'll put that in the record.

My challenge is that there was no notice and comment to the public regarding your meeting, the city council meeting with the developers at the site.

Okay. I visited the site. It wasn't with developers. I just went by myself. Is that the same for you all? I was on a tour.

Yeah. I go around by myself with my dog.

There was no... Yeah. There was no tour with the developers, no meeting with the developers.

So we've got that on the record now. We've got that on the record now. Okay. Let's continue with your comment.

Okay. So your decision tonight is whether or not to reauthorize zoning at the Caldera Ranch parcels. Respectfully, I'd like to ask that you not authorize this zoning change. Well, you say it's not a zoning decision. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. The city and county have been on a rampage converting farm and forest lands into developments. On May 29th, 1973, our state had the vision and foresight to protect farm and forest land from continued urban sprawl. And while the recent SB 1537 puts no limitations, the fact is the city has numerous or has options to choose from that would not continue the bleed of urban sprawl creep into farm and forest lands. Um, can we have both housing and protect farm and forest? Yes. And you had those choices before you and you have those choices tonight. Thank you, Susan.

All right, Peter. Good evening. Thank you for your time, uh, for this time and for the extensive efforts related to this matter, uh, by the city staff, the planning commission and the council. My name is Pete Kristoff and my family and I live in the Woodside ranch subdivision. Uh, these comments are intended to supplement my written comments submitted on August 31st and focused on wildfire mitigation. Senate bill 1537 requires the comprehensive plan to demonstrate that protective measures will be applied to the Caldera ranch site consistent with statewide, um, land use planning goals, including goal seven for areas such as this site that are subject to natural hazards. Despite this, the proposed plan appears appears to defer all substantive protective measures to a future master plan, uh, and gives the city discretion as to whether a wildfire mitigation plan would be required. Resolution number 34. 11 requires that the comprehensive plan policies and future master plan include enhanced wildfire mitigation measures. However, the proposed plan does not appear to require any specific enhanced wildfire mitigation measures, but again, postpones the analysis to the future master plan. In light of the foregoing, I request that the council continue this hearing, hold the evidentiary record open, and direct city staff to facilitate a stakeholder work session. This would be the perfect opportunity, for example, to develop objective criteria for the meaning of the phrase, creation of defensible space, and to clarify that the comprehensive plan require the applicant to prepare and include a wildfire mitigation plan.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next three, Paola. Garrett Mosher and Lana Benrath. And then after that, Andrew Lewis, Becky Pearl, sorry, and Bob Boyce.

All right, Lana.

Hi, I'm Lana Benrath. I live in Woodside Ranch. Thank you for your time. A comprehensive wildfire evacuation model has not been conducted or factored into the density approvals for this 91 acre subdivision. Because this project bypassed standard local infrastructure reviews under Senate Bill 1537, a dangerous gap exists between rapid housing growth in the southeast area of Bend and safe evacuation plan. The developer's traffic analysis only evaluated standard daily commutes. It completely ignored an emergency an emergency scenario where all 716 proposed units attempt to flee at once. Adding 1,500 plus resident vehicles onto Knott Road places them and all of us squarely in the path of fire zones moving north from China Hat. Yet the city has zero active funding to modernize these constrained roads for another 10 to 15 years. Please mandate an independent wildfire specific evacuation route simulation model for the knot road corridor and i beg you to think about what just happened in spokane over 900 homes and 10 000 acres were up in smoke 65 000 residents had to evacuate thank you and they had even prepared but we need to too thank you paula

My name is Paola and I live in Westside Ranch next to the proposed Caldera Run. I propose a moratorium in all construction. This map shows all the ongoing projects in the city of Bend. And when the fire happened, even NASA doesn't even know what's going on. And they admitted to saying, not well understood and not well predicted. We don't have wildfires, people. We have mega fires, okay? Meanwhile, Oregon just broke its wildfire record, nearly 2.5 million acres burning in 2026, surpassing the previous record of 2 million in 2024. Other states have actually implemented moratoriums to be able to look at what's going on in today's society. You're building based on all models. No wildfires. Mega fires, people. If NASA can admit what it doesn't know, I would like the council to also be humble enough and post all this over development in Bend, Oregon. You're putting our lives in danger and not even taking into account the surplus mine And you taking out that surface mine creates more fires in the area. And seeing their minds have been proven to create sinkholes and even more dangers and the contamination on the air and all the other problems that you're creating for the children and all the air quality that has actually been standing every single time we have mega fires. You need to put out lights first before money.

Thank you, Paula.

Good evening, Mayor Keebler, members of Council. My name is Garrett Mosher here today on behalf of the Central Oregon Builders Association. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here tonight in favor of the Caldera Ranch development. First, I just want to recognize all of the work that has gone into this from Council, city staff, state partners, and the applicant. Years of effort, partnerships, and community of engagement have culminated here in truly a one-of-a-kind project. Caldera Ranch will provide much-needed housing supply, ranging from deeply affordable through market rate. Additionally, this project will include over nine acres of open space, a low-stress trail network, and walkable commercial space. This is a win for the residents of Bend, Oregon struggling to secure an affordable place to live. It's a win for the 53% of our workforce who commute into Bend because there aren't enough affordable options available. It's a win for the businesses and public agencies who can't recruit or retain employees to serve the city. The affordability levels and diverse housing types in this project will result in a community where Bendites of all ages, income levels, and walks of life can call home. A common theme in conversations we have about housing in Bend is how we have to be creative. The old ways aren't working. We're going to have to utilize new tools, programs, partner with public and private entities in order to meet our community's needs. This project is a prime example of what can be achieved through that approach. Thank you to all who have been part of getting it to this point. COVA is proud to be here to encourage you to support it.

All right, next 3, Andrew Lewis. Becky. Sorry and Bob Boyd. Then, after that, Tim Watson, Denise, Warren and Ed. Becky, you start, so you can say your last thing. I beg to tell. Sorry.

Okay. My husband and I lived in Woodside Ranch for 50 years, actually. And in the 90s, I worked downtown. He worked at the hospital. And my children and the animals were home in the summertime. And we had a lot of fires out in Southeast Bend in the 90s. So when I hear the sirens downtown, I'd go out and look and there'd be a bloom of smoke. And I'd leave my job, which I was a single owner. I mean, I owned my own business, so it wasn't a problem. drive home took eight eight minutes get home load everybody up and be ready to evacuate with Steven now it takes me 15 minutes to get from downtown to my home and it takes as much time to get to the hospital and we have better communication we have a nice local fire department it's not going to be up to the snuff and not road it's going to be a huge it's it's an essential connector for people getting trashed to the landfill to get to Prineville. Big trucks come through there trying to get to Prineville for ambulances and for people coming out of town to get their children and then trying to get out again. It's going to be just unbelievable. Excuse me if it's nice. Thank you. And thanks for this opportunity to comment. Sure. Yes. Andrew.

Good evening, Council. Andy Lewis. I live in Woodside Ranch. 3411 requires this project's future master plan to include a wildfire mitigation plan. A wildfire mitigation plan is only as good as the road capacity data that it is built on. The applicant's study is based on the Regional Bend Redmond Macro Travel Demand Model, ODOT's model, last updated in 2017. The traffic counts data date to January 2025 and were skewed by a detour as described in the applicant's analysis. At the July 13th hearing, Commissioner Ludden noted that page 10 of the analysis states that not all of Stevens Ranch or Easton had been accounted for. The analysis says the impact of these two projects was conservatively added to the post-processed traffic volumes. Nowhere in the report's 98 pages is the conservative adjustment ever quantified. Copperwood Crossing, Wildflower Hills don't appear in the study at all, 750 housing units completely unaccounted for. Knott Road and 15th Street are the evacuation route for this quarter. If the traffic study is stale, skewed, and missing entire developments, nobody, can verify that these roads can handle a real evacuation. And the city can't check a box that says wildfire risk is mitigated if the numbers underneath don't hold. I'm asking you to require a genuinely current quantified cumulative traffic and evacuation capacity analysis before acting on this VGB expansion. Thank you.

Bob. My name is Bob Boyd. I live at Ridge Heights, just about 100 feet north into the city of Bend from Knott Road. Originally, I was going to speak to my misunderstanding, and I think some other folks thought, too, there was just one access in and out of this development here. And I think back to 1990 when there was just one road out of Deschutes River Woods and the Aubrey Hall in there, and you could look back into the woods and see headlights all the way lined up trying to get out on a 97. Apparently there are two exits on to not road and I guess several into Brighton with some improvement. So I guess I'll just shift at a hot, my comments to the, the situation with not road that everybody else has. Um, I can remember some of them were here 40 years ago at a meeting when I think the county said when they first extended not road, that it would not become a bypass. Well, I mean, that's a bypass today and for those of us that live in the little cul-de-sacs left and right as you go down. We often spend most of our time trying to figure out where to turn and hope they don't get run down. Now, in terms of fire evacuation, I'm not a traffic engineer, but it seems that perhaps there's enough room for a center lane that could both double those turn lanes but also as an additional lane for fire evacuation. And it's a growing problem.

Thank you, Bob. All right, thank you. Tim Watson, Denise Warren, and Ed Arnold. After that, James Dorothe, Terry Nolene, and oh, sorry, Walleen and Adam Walleen.

go ahead my name is ed arnold and i live in woodside ranch well i don't expect that the caldaria ranch development will be denied is my strong hope of design will be modified to focus on more traffic and fire risk i had the misfortune to have a large fire last summer when a power power tool battery exploded while it was being charged and our 3 000 square foot shop under construction was destroyed the only things that kept the fire from being much more destructive were we'd had Heavy rain that day for about an hour, several hours before the fire. There was no wind and Seven Peaks paving was a few homes down and had a 2000 gallon water tender that came down the neighbor's driveway and kept the fire from spreading to our existing shop and home. The actual fire department took 25 minutes before their fire trucks arrived because they were on another call. What I would like to see change is the access of new homes on Woodside Road. This is a primary access for our neighborhood and having numerous driveways backing onto the two-lane road, having parking on this road, and having vehicles exiting onto Woodside will severely impact our ability to exit the neighborhood on a normal basis, much less it could freeze up the process in a fire event. Woodside Road should be widened and a roundabout should be required at Knott and Woodside. The development should be required to get connected to Kempe. insurance is becoming much more difficult as we lost ours when our carrier pulled out of the county uh last year and we were only able to find one additional parent at much higher cost thank you that i'm going to stop you there thank you tim my name is tim watson i'm a retired career firefighter from the state of california i'm living in bend for the last year in woodside ranch there is responsible

growth and there's irresponsible growth. This caldera ranch project is irresponsible growth. And the reason is for fire evacuation. The fire is going to do what it's going to do. There's going to be a perfect storm where a fire is going to start, maybe at a homeless camp off of China Hat, because you know the homeless are going to move right back in. It's going to jump the road. It's going to be a hot, dry, windy day. It's going to be in the Woodside Ranch neighborhood in minutes. And then everybody's going to be trying to get out through the three arteries. Tall Pine, Pine Vista, and Woodside Road. And then now with this new development, people are going to be pouring out of that development in the Woodside Road. That now leaves us Tall Pine and Pine Vista for families and kids and animals to get out. And they're all going to be going out the Knott Road, that transportation bullshit that they were talking about. There's no plan to widen Knott Road. There's no plan for any of that. Sidewalks aren't going to do anything. People are going to be trapped in their vehicles. They're going to get burned alive. And if you approve this project, you're going to have deaths on your hands. Guaranteed. It's not going to maybe happen tomorrow. It's maybe not going to happen five years from now. But guaranteed, there's going to be a perfect storm proven by all the big wildfires in California and Oregon. It's going to happen. And you're going to kill people by authorizing this project.

Thank you, Tim. Just going to discourage profanity and raising our voice. I know folks are passionate, but let's try to keep it respectful. Denise Bourne.

My name is Denise and I have lived in Bend for 20 years. I live in the Blue Ridge subdivision across from Mountain High. I'm a retired nurse and had to commute on not early mornings to do my day shift. And the one thing that scared me to death. I actually would have to drive through Woodside to safely go down Wood Knot Road because there were times going down Knot that it was icy. Cars in front of me were out of control. I thus went out of control. And it was scary. And I think Knot Road needs to be approved. The other thing that I want to say is I moved here for a certain quality of life. I love my house. I love my yard. If you take and offer newbies to come to Bend and move to Caldera Ranch, they're just going to have a box. They're going to have no yard, no trees. And I just can't imagine that neighborhood growing and improving and

having their equity and principle improved so i i'm sad to think that that's what we've come to is too small of lots thank you barb all right thank you all james dorope terry waleen and adams after that judy rukundi camilla lyle and dennis

James DeRofi, Ben resident. Um, I stand here and ask that you, uh, do not approve the UGB expansion and pause the comprehensive plan. Uh, I applaud the mayor of the city council, the city manager and staff, and that you have not only acknowledged the needs for housing, and development, but have begun the implementation of the proper long-term planning tools to work towards a solution. The direction of the Council staff is already working on updates to multiple master plan code changes, including standards and specifications, transportation safety action plan, transportation system plan, and other necessary bed development code changes that will allow for a wise and efficient Ben made growth plan moving forward. This one time expansion seems reasonable at first glance, but if you step back and honestly look at the concept integrated into the greater Bend area, becomes apparent why proper long-term urban planning takes years. With input from all stakeholders, not just legislators, but also neighbors on the other side of the street outside city limits. Council, you've done your job. You've created the tools for the next step in Bend's urban growth. Now it's time to let the work play out. Let's not govern by the pen of executive authority. Please don't lock in a new comprehensive plan with so many changes in the works. Let's not forget current city goals, the city of Bend. means more than housing, we need complete communities.

Thank you.

My name is Terry Walling. I'm a resident in Southwest Bend and River Canyon Estates. I'm a former bank regulator. I would challenge you to council members like Mr. Murphy did to question some of the documentation that you've heard this evening from those presenters that support this initiative. Four inch binders don't prove anything unless it's certified and valid and accurate. There are discrepancies that were called out about fire mitigation, defensible space. I think I saw a slide that said there is seven homes per acre Think about it. I have a third of an acre. That would be two and a half homes where my house is. That's ridiculous. Think of Palisades fire in LA that destroyed homes and thousands of lives. That could happen and then seven homes next to each other. One goes, the other one goes as well. Think about that. I want to put this in context. There are multiple other developments in Bend. I'm going to bring this back to this issue, but on 15th and not, 15th and Wilson, Country Club and Murphy, Murphy at 97th, and 80 acres that are being purchased by Polish Homes over on Brookswood that are going to contribute to congestion and traffic issues and fire risks throughout Bend. It's ridiculous. This is the worst example of uncontrolled growth in Bend, and I ask you not to support it.

Thank you, Terry.

Adam Walling, Ben Rose.

Great and continual proposals for 1 time expansions are never just 1 time expansions. The Bend AMI, they kept mentioning, and 80% of the AMI. Well, Bend AMI, I looked it up, is $123,000, and the vast majority of people that I know don't make anywhere near that. Most of them can't afford to pay 80% of AMI for supposedly low-income housing. And only 30% of this development is even deemed affordable. So the other 70% is just going to be overpriced and overpacked. Sidewalk and two roundabouts and tapping into our current water supply is not going to help anything. The claim is that 93 acres will be stocked with 716 homes. That area is going to be zoned for standard, medium, high density, and commercial land use. But the 55.9 acres of residential means you're going to have .078 acres per home, and that is all high density housing. The continued removal of natural spaces is destroying the appeal of Bend, and this beautiful town is becoming an overdeveloped eye for it. Thank you.

All right, Judy Rotondi, Pamela Lyle, and Dennis Abrefo. It looks like we had a zoom blip there, but I see council rallies back online.

Correct.

All right, go ahead. Okay.

Um, Judy wrote on the, I live in Woodside ranch Calderas traffic plan has omitted many development acres along, not in 27. It's an unfair representation of present and future traffic load. Road failure is a realistic worry. In an emergency, Nod is our only escape from our home of 48 years. In a fast moving fire, three of our exits onto this road will be overwhelmed by caldera residents, as will the Broster House extension. You're creating a very dangerous situation. Please reduce caldera's density numbers. They are too high for defensible space. It's unsafe for everyone. I'm not saying we matter more than others in our community, yet we do matter. Slow down, get to know us, meet us, and plan more carefully. Thanks a lot. Thank you.

Dennis. Good job on my name. I'm Dennis Krakow. I live also at Woodside Ranch outside of the city. I wasn't gonna talk about fire, I was just gonna talk about one issue, but I'll ask you as a council, direct staff to find out about the fire insurance availability in the subdivision, is it Polish or wherever, that's just east of Caldera High School. And I know people there who've had trouble getting insurance, that's there. So the insurance companies are speaking about the fire danger. I'm specifically talking about The intersection of Woodside Road and Knott Road, there's no plan for a circle there. But when you add that extra traffic, it's just going to get tougher and tougher. Since the county paved Rickard Road, the big trucks are now going east, and they go very fast down there. And to have more cars coming out there, I think, is not going to work. I'd ask you, it looks like possibly four roads coming out into Woodside Road. I know it's just a tentative thing. I had to consider not somehow blocking those off except for emergencies. Perhaps turning left at commute times in the morning, turning south onto Knot Road from Woodside is virtually impossible and dangerous. The circle will help.

Thank you. Thank you, Dennis. Pamela?

Pamela Lyle. Good evening. would like to express my gratitude for you letting us give us our input. Thank you. I strongly oppose the Caldera Ranch in our area, the development. We need you to acknowledge and address our concerns. And the two concerns I wanted to address were traffic and safety, and I think both have been covered really well. So I just have to say amen on all the traffic comments. As for safety, I'd like just to read something that I got a kick out of. We live in the wildlife urban interface, commonly known as Woo-Woo, Woo-Wee. And look it up, we're Woo-Wee. And the space where, it's called the space where human development meets or intermingles with wild lands, vegetation, and natural fuels. Now our objective, our job is to take action in our Woodside Ranch to suppress wildfires. And we're charged with protecting the city of Bend. against wildfires. We take that really seriously for 32 years. Thank you Pamela. We've done that.

Thank you Pamela. All right, next is Emily Boyd, Deborah Flegan, and David Welton, please. And then last in person will be Mike Coddington and Debbie Coddington. And then I believe we may have a couple on.

Go ahead, Emily. Good evening, Mayor and Council. For the record, I'm Emily Floyd with the Bend Chamber of Commerce and I am a resident of Bend. I'm here tonight to express the Chamber's support for the Caldera Ranch development and the proposed UGB expansion. Housing continues to be one of the most significant challenges we hear about from Bend employers. Businesses across industry struggle to recruit and retain employees when the people who work here increasingly cannot afford to live here. There isn't one project or one policy that will solve that problem when increasing our overall housing supply, providing different types of homes at different price points, and making sure Bend has enough buildable land all have to be a part of the solution. Caldera Ranch would add more than 700 homes to our community, including more than 250 deed-restricted affordable housing units for at least 60 years. That is a meaningful addition to Bend's housing supply. We recognize that growth comes with real impacts, particularly for the people who already live in a proposed development. Concerns about traffic, wildfire risk, infrastructure and neighborhood connectivity are important and deserve to be taken seriously. We believe the path forward is to plan for and mitigate those impacts, while continuing to make room for the housing our community needs. This proposal includes requirements addressing those issues as this project moves forward. Bend will continue to grow. The question before us is how we accommodate that growth in a way that keeps this community a place where people can both work and live. We believe Caldera Ranch is an important step in that direction, and we encourage you to support it tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Kuebler and members of the council. My name is Deborah Flagen and I'm a 25 year resident here of Bend. I'm here in support of Caldera Ranch application. For just over two years ago, SB 1537 was passed at the legislation. The city of Bend was the first city in the state to utilize this unique legislation. And today cities across the state are utilizing newer application process and procedure as a way to figure out how to bring 30% affordable housing to their cities for 60 years with complete communities, trails and parks. Tonight, the applicant has delivered what the city asked for and the criteria that is consistent with SB 1537. In addition, you have a local builder and developer that is working in good faith to wade through the legislation and provide the 30 percent affordable units that to deliver this to a much seated much needed housing to the city of bent Just as the city initiated a quick application process initially, I'm asking the council tonight to support the approval of this application, allowing the developer the opportunity to continue to bring a full plan back to the city for further review, which is allowed as the next step of this legislation. Thank you. Thank you.

David. Mayor Keebler, councillors, my name is Dave Welton. I'm a resident of Bend. I'm here to speak in favor of the Caldera Ranch plan. Our housing shortage continues to be central to so many problems. The environment, the economy, the well-being of our friends, colleagues, and family members struggling to make a stable life for themselves here. I was looking at some old maps today of the part of town I live in. It was built out in the early 90s from some formerly semi-rural land. Many of us in Benin live in homes in similar areas. Unlike that kind of cul-de-sac oriented development from the 90s, This proposal has a nice street grid, it's got below market housing, and furthermore, it's right across the street from a school and park. It would be absurd to not build homes for families right next to a school. In Oregon, we do not just hand out UGB land on a whim. This is one step in an extensive process lasting years. This isn't like the areas south and west of the site where development started prior to Oregon's landmark land use rules. We need to think about trade-offs. If we do not build these homes, where do these people go? Redmond, Pineville? What's that do for our climate goals when they're all driving in to work here? I like where I live, even if it's not perfect. And I hope that 30 years from now, someone in Caldera Ranch will be happy in their own neighborhood. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you. All right. Mike Coddington and Debbie Coddington. And then we have one online commenter.

Right.

Debbie Coddington So I'm Debbie Coddington and I live in Bend, Oregon. I've been living here for 10 years. We used to live in Southeast Bend. If you are familiar with the Sundance community, you remember what happened to that community years ago when we had the skeleton fire, okay? So this Development is right by the forest, right by BLM land. It is so dry, it is ready to go up. We moved from the Sundance community the past year. Why? Because we watched how we were able to get out of our community. Number one, Polish Homes built all those homes. right across from the high school, OK? I don't know how, but about 700 homes went there. Then the library, that got built. And there's thousands of homes being built there. They're not even halfway through. So all of those people are living there. And we found trying to get onto Knott Road, or to get onto 27 to get to wherever we wanted to go, it was impossible. Traffic, you'd sit there, and you'd sit there, and you'd sit there. If you go ahead and approve this, just remember what happened in Seattle area or Spokane and what happened in Maui with those people stuck in their cars, stuck in their homes, and no way to get out. That's what you're doing with this new community. We already have 700 homes of Polish and all the ones by the library. You don't need any more. Mike, go ahead.

I'm Mike Coddington. Thank you all for inviting us. And I don't live in Woodside Ranch. I actually live up by Riley Ranch in Bend. This and all developments that are going in across Bend must include sufficient infrastructure. They will impact infrastructure all over the city, parking in downtown Bend. I won't talk about roads and emergency exits, but we also need water, sewage, electricity, natural gas, schools, fire departments, police to staff all this stuff. It's growing a lot and we need to grow all of our infrastructure as we're growing And I feel like we're behind. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right. We had one online commenter, Jim Powell. So we'll get set up for Jim to comment here.

giving the timer up here for Jim.

Is someone ready to do the time?

I hope. That's okay.

There we go. It was there for a second. So, you know, our recorder is keeping notes, helping run the meeting, now getting a timer up, just doing a lot all at once. So thank you, Ashley. All right.

Okay, Jim, you can unmute.

Jim, if you're there, we're ready for your comment and you can unmute. OK. Jim may have walked away from his computer. We wouldn't blame him. OK. All right. We gave Jim a shot, and we will move forward. OK. So that will be the end of the public testimony. We do give an opportunity for the applicant if there's any responses that the applicant wants to make. So I'll invite you back up to the table for that.

Okay, so I appreciate I don't take lightly our team does not take lightly the comments that we have heard, and a lot of these comments we heard during the site selection process in the public comments that were. provided there we've had multiple neighborhood meetings on this project as well. HAB-Jacques Juilland, And the challenge is trying to separate I think people's legitimate concerns about their community with the decision criteria that that our task is to meet us before the City Council this evening, and so. HAB-Jacques Juilland, A lot of what we heard, I think, is important information it's obviously a heart heartfelt. input from neighbors, but I think there's maybe just a couple of pieces that I can say how they address decision criteria and can try to respond to those. So first of all, a couple of folks raised goal seven, which is one of the small handful of goals that does apply to this site, and it's the goal related to natural hazards. And at least as of, I think about four o'clock this afternoon, I did read all of the public comments that had been submitted and there were a lot of assertions and we heard them here today. Folks concerned about wildfire in this area, folks asserting that this particular site has some sort of disproportionate risk of fire. In all of the research that we were able to do, we did not find any maps. The maps adopted by the city, there was for a moment, the state adopted map that kind of tried to, on a macro level, identify wildfire risk. It was rescinded, but that map showed this site as a moderate risk, like almost all of the rest of Bend, except for some sites on the far west side, which was identified as a high risk. So to respond to a goal seven claim, there is no inventory, there is no formal map that designates this area as a higher risk than other kind of comparative areas. Biggest problem is shit.

I'll excuse myself.

You're disrupting the conversation. Leave the room now, please. It's not okay. I'm not telling people what they just want here to get there. Or you're going to be asked to leave the room. Thank you. Not okay.

And to that end. Also in the original site selection presentation, I made the point that at least part of this site was reviewed by the city during the 2016 UGB expansion. So I kind of, again, looking for more information about kind of risk assessment, wildfire assessment for this site, I went back into the urbanization report from 2016. You can see here the SAM2 in the middle of the lower boxes. Uh, is one of the alternatives that included the Woodside property. And so again, through the very detailed analysis that the city did at that time, including a comparative EC and factor three, which was part of that looked one of the categories that, that, that they evaluate these properties with was wildfire. And they had a number of different categories that they evaluated and they assigned, like, do we care a lot about this issue or do we care not so much about issue wildfire? at a high relative importance. So it was one of the kind of most impactful kind of criteria that the city looked at. And again, this site or this alternative performed fair to well under that analysis and likely would have been included in the UGB at that time if the city had just needed, had demonstrated more of a need than they did. So we have detailed goal seven analysis in the application materials. City staff, I think, concurred with our analysis. And again, beyond all of the other UGV expansion areas, the city has approved. I think the current language in this plan for comprehensive plan policies requiring wildfire mitigation Those are going to be among the kind of the strictest requirements for any of these UGB expansion areas. In addition to the building code that the city has recently adopted, when you put these things together, again, this is going to be a UGB expansion area that will be the most designed and built to mitigate fire relative to any others across the city. There were several comments and questions about traffic and not road, and so Joe Bestman is here to address those.

Yeah, so for the record, Joe Bestman, TransTag Consulting, traffic engineer, Southeast Bend resident, very familiar with these streets and really appreciate the comments. A lot of good insights in there, a lot of very correct and appropriate statements, so I don't disagree with many of the things that were said. What's challenging for a traffic engineer is at this point in the process, we're looking at this comparative. It's called the Transportation Planning Rule Analysis. How do the city's adopted transportation system plans have to change to support this development? And frankly, they don't have to change a whole lot. There's already a plan to improve Knott Road. There's already a plan for a roundabout at Broster House. there's a plan for around about a country club at china hat the the challenge is as we get further into the master plan it's okay now what's the timing of these things what are the details what are the crossings to caldera high school look like all those all those additional details that we we don't have and they're not appropriate for this analysis yet. With that said, we've gone well farther than the transportation planning rule, this hypothetical type of analysis, and we know what a lot of those answers are going to be. So I think what's challenging is we don't have the 100% detail in front of you today, but but we kind of know where things are going and for for transportation i don't mean to belabor these points but our infrastructure is going to lead in this project with the roundabout at broster house coming in first filling in the missing sidewalk gaps that take the entire sidewalk down the rest of broster house road not only connects it to this site but up even to the elementary school up to jewel elementary school and silver rail as well so There's been a lot of work. There's comments about traffic counts, about construction detours. There's been a lot of work going on in Southeast Bend. And we've done a really thorough job working with staff to try and work around all the different detours and still provide a good data set. What I can assure you is the traffic does account for Caldera High School. was conducted when Caldera High School was in session. It wasn't conducted on a Wednesday to sneak around early dismissal. We looked at all these factors and then we combine school dismissal conditions with commute conditions, which don't happen together. We've looked at this very conservative analysis. If you look at any high school in Penn, take Summit High School and Crossing Drive and the roundabout on Mount Washington, of course it's backed up when the school gets out. You have a surge of people that are leaving the school.

So we're going to have those... Tim! Tim! Tim! What about that? When a fire hits, you idiot.

Tim!

That's what we're talking about. Tim, you're going to need to leave. You're a fucking bum.

You're going to need to leave. When a fire hits, that's what's going to be. Tim, you're going to need to leave. You're a fucking idiot. And folks, if we have another one of those, I might need to clear the room, folks, okay? So let's police ourselves, please. If you're feeling upset, it's okay to take a step outside into the hallway and come back. I know this is really emotional for folks and really passionate about it, but we cannot have these interruptions, okay? Really sorry about that, Joe. No problem.

So I think, I forgot, I lost my train of thought. Yeah, so summit dismissal, Northwest Crossing Drive, you're going to have these periods of congestion. What we're trying to balance in the traffic study is how do we make it safe for the everyday traffic that's going to use these roads? We heard from the EMS that it's a route from Lapine to St. Charles Hospital. We know that. It's also a school zone. It's also where kids are going to be crossing the street to get to the high school. So how do we balance all these things? And the plan that we've developed i think is is working to balance that with the roundabout going in first the pedestrian crossings completing the sidewalks having these options so people have the ability to ride their bike to walk to take the city transit so so that's that's really where we're at in this in this stage of the process and i don't need to go through all the different comments that are in here but i i think we've done a good job of looking at these issues and there's there's more to come

And there was a gentleman here kind of late in the public testimony that did reference infrastructure, and there are some criteria on infrastructure. And so I can address that. So we do. We have been coordinating with all the urban service providers, which is a requirement of the bill. We have will serve letters some some approaching a binding agreement. I mentioned to another gentleman here that the property, for example, just within the last two weeks was formally annexed into Ben Parks and Rec Taxing District. It was not previously. We have a development agreement in place with Ben Parks and Rec. We have a letter in the record from Avion Water that was submitted a day or two ago. Again, making sure that this project is providing infrastructure commensurate with its impacts. And one point that I would make here, because I'm sure it's something that folks are concerned about, the question, I think the city posed the question, if Avion provides water to the proposed development, will the surrounding area see an impact on their water supply and water pressure? And Avion's response was, Avion anticipates that the onsite and offsite improvements that Caldera Ranch is going to be responsible for will mitigate any impact to existing Avion customers the development might otherwise have had. Consequently, existing customers can expect to see no negative impact to their water service. Most customers should see slight improvement to their service during peak flow periods. so that's just one example we've obviously coordinated very closely with city staff who who would be providing all the the transportation um and and sewer impacts and i i totally understand that a new project like this is going to have an impact on the surrounding community and that is very difficult And that is the reality of any city that has to grow. And this is a mandate from the state that the city of Bend has to provide a 20 year supply of land. And I would reiterate that those 716 units are not gonna show up on day one. they are going to be built based on the size of this project, probably over a decade. And as that happens, we heard earlier today that there's additional infrastructure on the city's CIP list specifically around Knott Road that will bring those improvements on as they are needed. So I think that's all I have to say here. I anticipate there will be questions and please give us a chance to answer any and all questions that you have before we close the record.

Yeah. Thanks. I think I heard you say that turn lanes were proposed for Knott and Woodside. Is that right? And not a roundabout?

that's correct so the whole the whole knot road corridor is going to be widened to three lanes just like what you see on the polish eastern piece so it's going to be a continuous three lane road with 10 foot actually a 12 foot path on the north and a 10 foot path on the south side along with buffered bicycle lanes so that's the plan for the entire section and that's been adopted through sea app and it's being extended to this property So Woodside will have left turn lanes, but there's also an internal road connection that allows Woodside residents on the daily commute basis to go in, use our Broster House Road roundabout, and access the corridor. Because as everyone knows, it's getting very difficult to make left turns during those peak hours.

When would a roundabout be justified there, though, at that intersection, I guess is my question.

As a local intersection, it's not typically justified ever. Unless it's a collector or arterial, the city typically looks at how do you connect this to the higher street, higher order street system. And it's the same thing you're seeing on the rest of the 27th Street corridor. You have a lot of these neighborhoods that are very difficult to get in and out of. A lot of them are being connected on 27th over to Petty Grew, for example, to try and have that alternative connection. And that's the same thing we're doing here.

Any other questions for the applicant? Councilor Riley has his hand up. Okay, Councilor Riley.

I mean, my question may be more for staff, but you guys can start with an answer. And that is when I look at the map here, it looks to me like Woodside Road is a pretty obvious way to connect to Knott Road and that I would expect a fair number of people when the development's built. to use woodside to connect to not road so i'm just i'm wondering why it was left out of the transportation improvement requirements um so yeah so woodside road will be improved to a local city street throughout our development i'm asking about a roundabout

Yeah, and we're going to build the left turn lanes, even though that's not part of our frontage. We're still going to extend those improvements outside of our project to that point. What we found in the traffic study, though, is with the roundabout at Broster House, we don't need the second roundabout at Woodside to support those demands. And so it wouldn't be a bad thing to have a second roundabout there. It's just not part of the city's plan and it's not part of our proposal.

Okay, and so I mean realistically folks using woodside would be maybe looking maybe that's a quicker right turn if they're on that part of the project, but turning left.

I would expect folks to use the roundabout for easier access yeah if I was leaving woodside road during the peak time I might take a right turn use the roundabout for you turn and head back West if that's where you were destined, but most people are going to be destined towards the north.

Nobody actions, please around about. Okay, um any other questions for the applicant. this point okay all right thank you very much um we're going to take another quick really quick break here and then we'll get into our deliberations so quick five minute break for stretch stand up Okay, so we are back on with our public hearing. Number 5 tonight, and we are going to go ahead. So we've completed public testimony. We have the applicant. Responds, I'm going to close. the public hearing at this point for us to deliberate, and we may need some help from our staff on that as well. So, Council, we've been presented with what the decision is before us tonight, a unique situation involving a Senate bill and a resolution that this Council already passed. and providing us with the opportunity to decide if this proposal in front of us is substantially in compliance with that resolution that we passed before that lined out all of the elements that our staff showed us previously. If folks have points that they want to start with as far as I know, Mike, you had some questions about some language. We could maybe start there and see if people have any other proposals or any other points to make about those criteria and whether this application has met the criteria. So Mike, I guess I'll throw it to you first.

Sure. So I sent an email to included Eric and others and so maybe it can be displayed for a possible revision to the wildfire policy. I think it's 187. I guess my concern is that It's 11 dash 182. my concern is that. We could be in a situation where well, what I'd like to see is this development basically be required to. You know, do something if not similar to very close to a combination of our. I'm home hardening code as well as the likely defensible space code that's going to come on and they're not, I think they're not too distant future. That would be my expectation. And I'm a little worried about a loophole that might happen with a timeframe difference between when that's adopted and when this application is submitted and therefore the applicant not having to. address the defensible space code as the minimum kind of directly. So I'd like to see us adopt the policy that's a little bit clearer than that. And I don't think tonight anyway, unless we want to postpone our deliberations, we're going to hash our way through the details of that. So I propose something that still has some of the language from what staff have proposed, but I'm a little clearer, I think on the defensible space side. So that's what I don't know if you all have that in front of you now.

No, is that on the screen here?

Okay, thank you.

So, so, Mike, 1st, the staff had something that they sort of drafted in response to your comments and then let's see if this is close to what you put or if we want to throw yours up on the screen.

Yeah, mine is similar to this, but it goes a little bit farther. So if you put mine up there, I think it reflects the changes that staff made about putting that reference to the wildfire mitigation plan up front that it has to be part of it. I think it makes the language a lot clearer. When I read it, but then I had some additional stuff.

Sage Robinsons, Okay, so the additions here would just what the staff has put here is the additions to clarify the plan be prepared by a professional right you had additional language change from this so if we could put his language up there, I know.

is there if somebody else has a comment that they can make well it'll take or do you have it yeah we have an email yeah Ashley's got it there okay so this is Mike's edit that incorporates what staff already included about a professional consultant and then can you explain what's different here no so then it says that um show um shows how urban wildfire risk will be mitigated through creation of defensible space beyond minimum required use of construction and material and building materials beyond the minimum required and it was that second phrase construction materials that's already in what staff proposed i added the first part about defensible space beyond minimum required and then at least one of the following additional methods um was which is the remaining list from the original staff proposal okay questions from counselors on this okay i guess i'm trying to understand what beyond minimum required adds to defensible space

on that, Mike.

I agree. I mean, I guess that's my my fundamental problem is I don't know what the definition of create defensible spaces. So if we're you know, we want to take some extra time and have our staff work on that and come back to us in a couple of weeks with some better language that gives us something that's a little bit more it's easier to objectively define. I guess my assumption is that there's a good chance that the master plan is not going to be it's going to be submitted before defensible space code is adopted so i'm just trying to get us somewhere where where we get some of the defensible space concepts and a home hardening stuff that we've already adopted to be reflected in this new development

Well, just want to be clear, they're already going to have to build under the.

I understand that. Get that part about defensible space, but I don't even know why we're proposing. I mean, that use of construction and building materials beyond the minimum requires they got to do more than than that code.

Um, that was that was proposed to be 1 of the ways plus defensible space that you could meet this requirement. But maybe let's talk about the definition of the space.

Yeah. When we got together, we talked about a couple of proposals that we could use for different wording. What I brought up to the group was that as it's written right now, it basically states, it has no concept of R327. That wasn't passed yet. Now that we have R327 home hardening code moving forward, My recommendation was that the whole building materials was taken out because that's already a thing that needs to be happening. That was one of the proposals that we had. In addition to that, defensible space needs to be identified. It needs to have a definition of what that means, because I could say defensible space, but California has a different defensible space code. Washington has different rules. We have to understand what that means to us. And our staff is working on that in our defensible space work group. We've met several times and we come before you on October 14th to give you our staff recommendations for what that defensible space code should look like.

So would, including some language that said through creation of defensible space, as defined and adopted by Council, sort of just cover either we've already done it through your process, or we're going to have to make a definition for their plan to comply with it?

Yeah, and I think that two things need to happen. I think that while wildland urban interface needs to be identified because it depends on the definition in the international wildland urban interface code states what they stated earlier any vegetative fuels in a built environment that's the whole city of bend okay um if you look at it that way everybody's in the wui um and so how do we want to use that insurance companies use it for different purposes right for for their agendas so that needs to be determined on what wui means um what the city of bend is using and also for defensible space as well those two definitions need to be

The idea with this defensible space thing that we're looking to adopt is there is going to be no place that is safe in this city if we don't apply it all around. Correct.

So there are multiple avenues we could go with this. My recommendation and what I've seen in my last 25 years is that urban, we added that word urban wildfire mitigation. We're not talking about forest fires. We're talking about structure to structure ignition. And R327 with the new building code is a fabulous way for Ben's future, right? We have that building code. That is wonderful. That next step is defensible space. And I would argue that we have three pillars and home hardening, defensible space, and community education. That's what makes a resilient community.

Right. But I guess my point is, and this is where I was trying to get to with this, is that defensible space in this community doesn't protect any other communities around it. So when we do a defensible space code, it's going to have to be This gets to Mike's point as well. It's not just going to be homes that are built in the future. It's going to be homes that have been built, and those homes are going to have to be treated year in and year out, and it's going to be a sustained build. Mayor, I like your point regarding that. Because we're going to all have to, throughout the city, have to do defensible space as adopted by our council. So it's not just here. And it's not just Woodside Ranch or anybody else that's around there. It's the whole darn city.

Yes, correct. We get questions all the time, to your point, about, well, why are they allowed to add bark mulch? Why are they allowed to do it? Because there's nothing telling them not to.

Right. And only new homes are going to be built to R3.7. Correct. but all the other homes are at least gonna have two of those pillars, education and defensible space when we get done passing the very needed defensible space code in the city. So we'll get two out of three.

Okay, Tina, go ahead. I just want to make sure I understand what is meant by defensible space. So does that mean you came out to my house and looked at it? I have a wood fence that goes up to my house. So does that mean for detached single family residential houses, they will not be allowed to have a wood fence? Are you talking about new or existing? New.

in this development yeah so so for new development the staff recommendation that we're talking about right now is going to include the five uh feet of a metal panel a metal gate for all new construction moving forward okay i just thank you i just wanted to try to wrap my head around because we couldn't add it in 327. We weren't allowed to change that code.

That's building code. Yeah. Okay. So then my next question isn't really a question. It's kind of more of a comment. Like I'm just a little bit concerned. I know this UGB expansion is in an area that has experienced wildfire. However, there are also other parts in the UGB that are being developed that we are not holding to this rigorous of a standard. So I just feel it's really important for us to kind of acknowledge that and I personally, I feel like we should be holding all of the new development to this rigorous of a standard because it is such a threat to our community. I don't know.

I just feel like we've had other master plans recently approved that haven't within the standard. Yeah.

So I think it's a good point. And I think the reason it's in the resolution is for those of us who pass a resolution in 2024, it was in response to the concerns that we heard. And that was the moment to make those concerns heard and incorporate them into this one time UGB expansion process. So I think we committed to having this developer create more of a mitigation plan because of the concerns of uh folks that came to those um came to that meeting so i agree though i think we for me what mike what you've written is a little bit more than what i would do i would i would stick with sort of the original and if we needed to clarify that that creation of defensible space is is defined by council right that we control that definition so it's not the applicant's definition it's whatever definition we either pass in code or if the code isn't passed that we provide that definition and control that sort of

what that means and the applicant has to live with that right so that's so that that that would be fine with me to put that language in here that is my goal is to get it something that is a little bit tighter on this development having to comply with that defensible space code that's likely to be adopted soon but we I don't want to um Brett KenCairn, Set up a situation where they're essentially able to get around that because the policy we're adopting here isn't quite clear about it right, and so I would say I don't think it doesn't need to be defensible space beyond the minimum required.

Brett KenCairn, Whatever we define it as and that covers to make sure that it's it's our control of that what that means.

Brett KenCairn, So can I suggest we if if Councils gravity anyway seems to be moving in that direction, can we flip back to the other. The other alternative, I think, alternative one.

And add that in there.

That might be the better place. Let's try to add and see what that looks like. Brett KenCairn, So this reflects some the the strikeouts and underline some on the fly changes by staff to try to address counselor riley's earlier comment about the. Brett KenCairn, perception of the lack of clarity in this sense it doesn't, and now we have some additional language here, so I think this may be reflects where Council seems to be going.

Caroline Miller, Okay, great so that's, including the professional preparation and then. Defining defensible space. Okay. Sorry last question.

I promise on this. Um, is it necessary to, um, I'm sorry, I'm looking, I'm assuming you really informed us. Um, to go beyond the defensible space and the, um. And the building materials, like, what, what it really valued is the landscaping, the hardscaping arrangement of land uses and, um, development patterns. What does that bring to the.

I guess more options is what it is, is possibility. When it comes down to data, and that's what we base this off of, we've seen fires, we know fires, we know how they happen, right? All that data's there. The first five feet of the home are the most important. It is the most critical. One ember landing in the first five feet in the wrong bush, we we know we only have six fire engines right so defensible space does not include landscaping so it absolutely just it does include landscaping in the different home ignition zones so i think that that has a better way in that first five feet there is no landscaping in the second intermediate zone you can use fire resistant plants you can landscape all you want in different formations and so that needs to be um defined you know i do want to point out that in the resolution some of these bullets were specifically called out in the resolution so if we're trying to

also why they're in there that was part of what council decided but yeah i think the creation of defensible space plus one at least in the following methods is sort of how that plays out okay so council is this edit looking okay as far as yes okay great yes okay um okay so thank you for that discussion yeah no thank you for helping to draft that mike appreciate that so then we um have a couple other issues we have one um the requests that ian told us we we is at our discretion if we wanted to continue this hearing um or make a decision tonight i feel ready to make a decision tonight is there anyone who wants to advocate for any kind of continuance at this point except one other Yeah, no, we're going to move through. So we'll have just on that.

I feel fine continuing to. Okay. Okay.

I mean, I just wanted to make the point that my understanding is that the original resolution resolution 3144, whatever the right number is actually explicitly gave the council. The authority to extend that deadline. Um, and so that that's sort of the basis for how and why we're able to do that tonight.

yeah that's slightly different from what I was saying Mike was continuing the public hearing I didn't hear support for that and that was the next issue I wanted to move into the application was submitted on time took a long time to get to completeness which brought it a little bit past our deadline but we have the ability to say that that is substantially compliant and we accept the application at this time so is there any deliberation on that item on the motion

Okay.

Okay. And then I'll go to you for the next item.

I guess it's more of a comment, but I do feel like a lot of the development and the reason why there's so much stress on the community right now is because a lot of development has sort of preceded the infrastructure improvements, specifically on roads that are needed to really manage the traffic that these developments are bringing. And here we are when we're doing it here again. And so I guess my question is, is like, how can we how can we take a look at the CIP and say, listen, the TSP that that was based on is different now. Like this is a new area coming into the urban growth boundary. So it couldn't have been included in the TSP to my knowledge. And I mean, we've received emails about accidents at Knott and China Hat recently. So it does concern me, not to the point that I think we should hold this up, but I think to the point where, you know, we need to take another look at our CIP and specifically focus on the needs as a result of the development that we are proving.

you know yeah it's a good point and that's i mean that's i'm glad to put this slide back up i mean that's the point of this slide is that there is a lot happening here and there's a lot of infrastructure and part of it is our geo bond infrastructure which i will say is ketchup infrastructure right that is infrastructure that it would have been great if that was built along the years before we got to 2020 but that was when we needed that infection um you know for the voters to approve to say we need to build all these projects that we have lagged behind on so i think it's definitely a fair point and i think um You are right that our CIP and then also the mitigation when the master plan comes in on what they're specifically needing to do, as we've talked about some of that extra roundabout, that is where that conversation is going to happen as well. But anyone else want to comment on that?

I just want to say something with empathy, because I know Woodside Ranch that you have been through it. And I remember many conversations and doing a roundtable about being worried about a massive fire coming that would shine a hat. you know, the city is changing and the city is changing fast, but the city is changing really, really fast where you are. And so I just want to say that I hear what you're saying and it has got to feel strange and it's got to feel scary and it's got to make you angry that all of this change is happening around you and you're not seeing the the actions from the city that you feel are appropriate actions to keep up with that growth. And so I just want to say I did hear that tonight and thank you for all of your words.

Any other comments, Steve?

I guess I heard the insurance. Mike Noce, Mgmt. Point as well and i've heard that before and and I want to tell you that that we hear that as well. Mike Noce, Mgmt. One of the things we're doing in this city is we've adopted that fire hardening code we're going to do this defensible space code. Mike Noce, Mgmt. We are leading the state and, in many cases, nation by trying to control our emissions as it relates. to climate change, which was brought up as well earlier this evening. So we are trying to do what we can locally, only locally, hoping to inspire others to be a part of a larger insurance solution to help with us. It's not a quick fix. And we recognize the risks that you feel there and that you're taking on. And so this is not a small issue. This is a big issue. This is also on our radar and something that we care about and we're trying to minimize and mitigate.

Thanks, Steve. Mike, I see you have your hand up.

Yeah, I just wanted to echo in particular, I think really all the comments, but what Councilor Francosa and Perkins said, and that is, you know, I share a lot of concerns about our ability to keep up with the infrastructure needed, you know, from a day-to-day perspective, and especially when it comes to roads. I think that's the hardest one for us to pay for, and there's a lot of it That's a lot of the challenge is how and when do we pay for this stuff in the sequencing. But we're really going to take a close look at Knot Road and what other kinds of improvements we need to make. And look hard at the schedule and do we need to make some of those improvements sooner rather than later and that's going to be a difficult funding question and how we're going to pay for that if we get ahead of development to some extent. So I just want to make sure people in this part of town know that there are counselors who are paying attention and want to start looking more closely at that. The answers are not necessarily easy, but I think it's something that we have to pay a lot more attention to and that includes the intersection and not and. and china hat you know again day-to-day life but also how do we make that corridor function more effectively um in the in the worst case scenario where we have to do rapid evacuations of a large number of people in the face of a wildfire thanks mike

Yeah, and I just wanted to say, I really appreciate everyone showing up tonight and spending your evening with us and being dedicated to your community and voicing your opinion. I know, you know, I too live in a high buyer-prone area, dealing with lots of growth. I feel like we had said, you know, earlier, it's all a cross bend. And I just look forward to, you know, there's going to be further analysis as we get further down the road. We'll look at, you know, the fire mitigation. We'll look at, we'll have more of an opportunity to look at the traffic. And so, you know, we are growing, but we as a council have really dedicated, you know, ourselves to creating more housing so that people can afford to live here. And so this is what growth looks like. And, but we want to be responsible about it. And I know that I intend to do my part.

Thank you. Yeah, I'm going to be supportive of moving forward tonight. I think this complies with the resolution that we set out in 2024. And I will say, I appreciate it. I know there was a lot of folks here tonight, but I appreciate everyone who put input into that resolution that got us to where we are today, or else we wouldn't be talking about a wildfire mitigation plan. So I appreciate that very much. I want to emphasize some of the points around the need for affordable housing in Bend. And the fact that we have a single family home price median of over $750,000, that is not affordable for most people in Bend. This is going to bring not only deed restricted homes, but those types of homes that can be sold below that price point. And I took note of folks, you know, a lot of you folks live in a more rural setting. You're on bigger property. That is absolutely your choice. And I'm glad that you enjoy it. But we have lots of people in Bend, including myself, that live in attached housing. It's a great option if you can't afford a bigger piece of property or a bigger house. It puts you in community with your neighbors in some way. That's really nice. And these neighborhoods can be great even if they're not exactly the type of neighborhood that you all would choose to live in. And I hope, I know it will be, you know, construction will happen, there'll be noise, but I hope that you can envision the end of this construction is the noise of children playing, the noise of concerts in the park, the noise of neighbors laughing and talking. This is new people. These are not just homes or units. This is people they're going to be living in our city and part of our community and i hope that you can see that that can be a benefit to us as well even as we work to mitigate all of the risks that you have talked about today we're taking that seriously on how to mitigate those but i don't believe that it's a reason to stop this development and stop the opportunity for people who are like my daughter who want to live here who are workers who want to live here and can't because they cannot afford it that's what this neighborhood is going to provide And that's what I wanted to say. And I do also appreciate everyone. I grew up in Southeast Bend. I remember some of these fires you're talking about. I live in Southeast Bend now. This is my neighborhood too. And so I am happy to walk along with you as we navigate all of this very big growth in that corridor and try to keep our eye on the ball to the vision of what it will look like when it's done and how much benefit we'll have from some of the commercial hubs and the neighbors that are going to be moving in as we continue to work as a whole city, as Steve has pointed out, on wildfire mitigation and how to reduce those risks for all of us. So, okay. I think we've got two motions here.

I move to extend the deadline for the submission of a UGB amendment and comprehensive plan text and map amendment for the Caldera Ranch site and accept the applications as submitted.

Second.

All right. Moved by Council Perkins, second by Council Platt. All those in favor?

hi hi unanimous on that one um ian for this second one do we need to just acknowledge that amendment that we made i mean i think staff are sort of it was unanimous there was agreement among council staff had the amendment uh admitted language to that policy up on the screen i think we can consider it amended okay great and we'll go ahead with the second motion

move for the first reading of an ordinance adopting a binding conceptual plan for the caldera ranch site by amending the ben comprehensive plan text and map to adopt policies and use designations and expanding the urban growth boundary to add the caldera ranch site pursuant to senate bill 1537 as amended by senate bill 48. all right moved by council north second by councillor platt all those in favor all right

Thank you very much, everyone. That will end this item for us tonight. Thank you to the applicant for being here. Thanks, Melissa. Thanks to all the staff for giving us your input. We will move on to our next public hearing.

All right. Stand up.

We're gonna keep rolling. All right.

Our size of yourself.

Eric, what's the legislative public hearing and first reading them an ordinance to amend the municipal code chapter nine point five zero science.

All right. Open the public hearing. So legislative public hearing.

And we will get our presentation going.

Yeah.

Okay, ready whenever you are.

Amy Berry, Principal Planner for Plane Division. Amy Berry, Principal Planner for Plane Division. Amy Berry, Principal Planner for Plane Division. Amy Berry, Principal Planner for Plane Division. Amy Berry, Principal Planner for Plane Division. Amy Berry, Principal Planner for Plane Division. It incorporates some input and requests that we've received over the past year from the business community. It has a few items that will streamline some processes and reduce the need for adjustments and permits for certain types of signs and then reorganizing other sections just for better simplicity and flow. I'm going to go through pretty quickly because we're late in the evening. The things that we're moving to not require a permit are window signs, freestanding director signs, and suspended signs, mostly because those don't really require any sort of structural permit or electrical permits typically. So it just made sense to, for the most part, the standards are fairly similar to what we have, but just as long as it meets the requirements, they don't need to come in and get a permit for those. Allowance for light pole banners for residential larger. Residential developments and multi family that was at the request specifically as some of our developers have their multi family projects. The portable signs that we approved last year city wide. We realized when we were starting to get the downtown permits in, the one-time permits, that those businesses along the alleys that only have entrances off alleys weren't able to have those the way the code is written. So this has an allowance for businesses that have entrances off of alleys or the alleys at least 20 feet wide to have those portable signs up within three feet of the building. One other one that was requested from some of our churches in the residential zones was to increase the sign area allowance for sign district five. It has been limited to 12 square feet, which is a pretty small sign to put up on a school or church. And so we propose to increase that to 30 square feet. We did get a few, a couple of comments from the dark sky. Ben Knight Sky Alliance and Dark Sky Oregon related to a couple of the illumination changes that we were proposing. One of those had to do with window signs allowing up to 15% of what would be allowed for a window sign to be illuminated, small illuminated signs. And then the other one was for HAB-Masyn Moyer- freestanding signs inside districts, four and five currently freestanding signs and four and five aren't allowed any sort of internal elimination, which means that the allowance we added last year for reader boards on those signs. HAB-Masyn Moyer- could not be used by schools and churches in scientists, four and five, so we had proposed, allowing. HAB-Masyn Moyer- That for those sign districts only for. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Public and institutional uses and those those zones. And that there was some objection objections to that as well, those would be limited to 25% of those monument signs and so we're talking about maybe a 10 square foot maximum. eliminated board message board. We did get some. letters and support as well, mostly from those businesses and and organizations that had requested these amendments. I think that pretty much covers it. The one other change was to projecting signs to allow those at the same height that we allow wall signs. We had changed that last year to allow a higher wall sign height. This would be only for buildings within 10 feet of a public right of way. So ones that are against the street and don't have the ability to use a freestanding sign. And then our criteria are in the staff report and up on the screen right now. If we have any questions, we can answer those.

Okay. Any questions? We're signed District 45.

um sign district five is primarily residential and sign district four is um commercial commercial zones adjacent to residential for now an example of sub district four would be galveston newport um where the new library is on the east side so it's primarily um commercial or industrial uses surrounded by residential properties okay

How hard, one of the things I talked about was the illumination levels, measuring the illumination levels. If somebody comes in and they go, hey, I got a sign for you, how hard is it for you to go, this is the illumination level of that sign based on the lighting that they would use?

We don't have anything in our code yet. We are looking at that today. Um, you know, Council has talked about looking at our overall lighting ordinances in upcoming Council goals, and that'd probably be a time to address signage lighting as well with that overall.

So our overall lighting code could address that.

I think if we come in with, um, some studies and amendments to our overall lighting code, that would be the best time to do a parallel amendment to the sign code along with the development code amendments to make sure that they're in line with each other.

And my last very brief question is how hard would it be to put in, as suggested by the Dark Skies folks, a turn it off when your business is closed type thing in our code?

I think we could certainly do that. Right now, for assigned districts 1, 2, and 3, we already allow these. So if we were to add something like that at this point in time, we haven't really given the community any notice that we would be doing that. But since we are adding to this the ability to have these assigned districts 4 and 5, I think it'd be easier to maybe put that type of limitation on these public and institutional signs and signage six, four, and five that would be allowed these type of.

And enforcement would probably be client, primarily complaint, complaint-driven. Yes. Right. Okay. Thanks. That's it.

Go ahead. Did you, I mean, are you aware that council had considered a goal around the dark skies? Yes. Yes.

Okay.

So I'm a little like kind of curious, like why we're talking about expanding illuminated signs when, you know, you would have been on a very different path with this code amendment had we had we adopted that goal potentially yes um mostly this is again at the request of community members to consider it yeah so I guess I guess like part part of me kind of just wants to like not expand any illumination at this point because I mean, I really think that, I mean, I'm going to propose it, you know, I'll probably kind of get behind it. I think it's kind of, but anyway. So you didn't really, so you received the letter from the Dark Skies folks. Sorry, I didn't say your association name correctly, probably. And did you look at what that language would look like for the code or did you say thank you for your input? We're going to kind of keep going.

We did provide a response that was also in the record. But we were already on this track and this was what planning commission recommended. This was where we were at. So we don't have anything at this time. It would be fairly easy if you decided to just take out any pieces that we had added that had to do with elimination. So that would be potentially the window signs. There was an addition for subordinate facades in sign district six to be able to have They already allowed to have 10% of their sign area on those subordinate facades. It would allow that signage to be eliminated. So we take that out and then we could take out the allowance for the electronic reader boards and sign districts four and five. That would be mostly schools and churches that would be utilizing those in those sign districts.

Okay.

Any other questions? Okay. Okay. So this is a public hearing. So we do allow public comment on this. So we'll have our public testimony come next. So if you all could, sorry, it's just a table and we'll have our next folks come on up. So I've got, I've got Brandon Matthews and then also Emily Boyd. So Brandon, why don't you go first?

Hello again, Brandon Matthews, Stale Event Resident. The last Council meeting I attended was in April of this year. It was to accept a proclamation to support International Dark Sky Week. That was a commitment by the City for protecting the night sky as a natural resource, and I will also note that dark sky initiatives remain a stated Council goal for this cycle. Today I'm here about the proposed sign code update. It allows for larger illuminated signs, brighter illuminated signs, and removes restrictions on where signs can be placed, which altogether simply means more light. This move is in opposite direction from a dark sky commitment, and that is why we are asking you to either deny or alter these amendments. On the fairness concern that building faces are treated differently and inhibit adequate advertising, we're not opposed to business advertising. However, the proposed change will add more lighted signs within view of the Bend Parkway, and like other lighted signs in the city, do not have any sort of time restriction. It seems reasonable, as the City of Sisters has done, to require illuminated signs to be turned off by one hour after close of business or something similar. And to address the safety argument, just because I saw that a little bit in the proposed support, We have many peer-reviewed studies, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, various departments of transportation, research teams across the U.S. There was a study in Sweden showing that illuminated signage specifically measurably increases driver distraction and crash rates. And so we would just like to state that there's no scientific support for the claim that this update would improve safety, and we'd ask that it not be treated as though there is.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. And then Emily Boyd.

Hello again. My name is Emily Boyd. I'm here on behalf of the Bend Chamber, and I am a resident of Bend. We appreciate the City's work on the proposed sign code amendments, particularly the effort to incorporate feedback from the business community, simplify requirements, and create a more predictable process. We especially support the proposed change that gives businesses along Parkway more flexibility to use illuminated signage. Highway 97 is a major corridor for residents and visitors alike. Reasonable signage helps people identify businesses and destinations, particularly after dark, and gives businesses along the corridor appropriate visibility. More broadly, we also want to make sure that our sign code supports businesses throughout Bend, including in our core area, where visibility and wayfinding are especially important as we work to support a vibrant central district. Through our conversations with city staff and local businesses, we know that signage is already significant to significant subject to a significant number of roles about size placement, location, illumination and permitting the proposal before you maintains meaningful guard the rails, including limits on Parkway facing signage and requirements intended to prevent lighting from negatively affecting surrounding properties and rights of way. We believe the right approach is thoughtful, intentional standards rather than a blanket restriction. We want residents and visitors to be able to easily find local businesses while also maintaining the character that makes them special. We encourage Council to support the proposed amendments and continue working with the business community as these regulations evolve. Thanks.

All right, we do not have any online commenters sign up for this item and we don't have anybody else in person. So I will go ahead and close the public hearing and we can move to deliberation. Who would like to start?

I'd like to just sort of jump off of what Emily just said. I mean, I have heard from many people in the business community that this is, our sign code is very prescriptive, very complicated. I think this does add a little bit more flexibility. It does make it a little bit easier to follow. And I think we said we wanted to look into the dark skies, but we also said that we also have an economic development goal. And I don't believe that this Economy and Sisters is in any way or shape or form similar to the economy in Bend. And that those signs on the parkway are very important, particularly to businesses in the Bend Central District.

um and so I um it will be supporting this um as as written and um will not be supporting any changes to this okay other thoughts Steve uh so I think where I would the amendment that I would offer uh is that that business traffic is not going to be driven to those folks or wouldn't reliably be driven to those businesses after they're closed for the year. Yes. And so for me, turning the light off an hour after they're closed, Greg Rutledge, they're not going to get any more business that night, so I think I think that's a reasonable compromise and then i'm going to come back around for dark skies for elimination levels and those kinds of things, but. Greg Rutledge, I think what i'm asking for support on the Council is let's talk about closing them down an hour after the businesses are both assessment, of course.

Okay, anyone else want to speak to us to use proposal?

Yeah, I mean, I I agree with that, but I think if I understood correctly, that would be different than the language that was noticed to the community. Was this noticed?

So then that yeah, as a legislative hearing is a little different than what was that wasn't a component of what's in the statute. So it's something a little new.

So, like, could we adopt this tonight with that? Or

Brett KenCairn, hey that's a good question I don't want to speak for Kim and amy, but I think I think staffs recommendation is if Council wants to do something like. Brett KenCairn, reject the allowance for eliminated signs inside district six secondary facades and say no to that that's simple enough. Brett KenCairn, say no to the expansion of the allowance for other eliminated signs simple enough. this is new enough that it probably deserves some outreach and some additional, maybe even independent process. I guess that's what I'm asking for.

Yeah. And I guess I would say, so my feeling about it is I wish we had been asked for just a little bit of input on this before y'all had gone down this path, because what Councilor Perkins said is 100% right, like the sign code is very onerous, it's very, and it is, it's not fair to, especially the small businesses. So I wonder if there's a way if we could just adopt the part of this amendment that does not expand illuminated signs, like I see banner signs, I see A-frame signs in alleys, I see things like that, and then we work on a little bit more comprehensive code that is more in line with the dark sky principles that we had expressed interest in, we had expressed keen interest, we almost passed a goal. So I'm not gonna say that wasn't on the table, it was on the table. That's my proposal.

Okay, thoughts about that? Megan or Mike, I'm seeing no, Mike online.

I would support that. I guess my concern is just that we're going to be repeating a bunch of work and then changing some rules again in the not too distant future, assuming a council in sometime next quarter one or late early quarter two of next year adopts dark skies as an actual goal and gets onto the work plan. So it just concerns me a little bit that we're doing some things that are at cross purposes here. And we didn't have an opportunity to provide a little bit more direction on this. As a council, I support, I guess what council or Francis is proposing.

OK, thanks, Mike. Yeah, and thanks for making that point, Mike. Or were you saying basically, because that's also kind of my fear is that if we adopt this and then we go back and retract it, you know.

Right, it's just more of a mess. Trying to fix a mess by creating some mess.

That too, for everybody.

It's late.

Brett KenCairn, If accounts proposed that the amendments that the elements of the amendments that expand allowances for eliminated science for struck without being.

Brett KenCairn, tractable yes it's very, very simple to do there's basically three that I can think there's just three the window signs the parkway and the additional. electronic signs in four and five. So those are very easy to just pull out what we added and just keep everything else.

All right. Would you make a motion and we'll see if there's a second and kind of get a formal.

So I move to adopt the proposed amendments with all of the language that would expand illumination be stricken.

I second. Okay. So the motion is second. So further discussion on this. I don't know that I can support it at this time, because I do want to actually support the businesses that ask for those changes and also including churches and schools. I do take the point around illumination, and I would like to do a comprehensive look at that. And I also would be interested in having bdab help us with the sign code generally just like general look at the sign code from business perspective so that's what i would support i don't think i can support this motion um megan and mike online how are you landing here i would support the motion okay um

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Oh yeah I mean I would, I guess, and it doesn't matter, but I mean it doesn't matter.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- So you. HAB-Masyn Moyer- If you support the motion that will pass if not we we could we could go back to the other motion see that has support so it's up to you.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- I guess I would like yeah I mean it feels kind of sudden I would like to handle the whole dark sky like we were saying and a more comprehensive level and look at it um. So I guess I would not support it at this time. I would like to look at it possibly later.

Okay.

All right. So the motion had three in support. So that motion does not pass. So we do have a motion on the agenda that we can see if we can and we have enough votes to pass that. If you want to make that motion, Council Perkins.

Sure. I move for the first reading of an ordinance to amend Bend Municipal Code Chapter 9.50 signs. All right.

Is there a second for that motion? second okay so that's moved by council perkins second by councilor norris um all those in favor of that motion aye and mike what's your vote on that motion sorry no okay so we don't have anything that we've passed here so nothing's going to move forward unless we can find a motion that four of us can agree on anyone want to make a proposal change your mind i mean because we don't get anything we don't I do want to say, I think that It's my motivation behind this is we just had a meeting with our developer community talking about regulations, complications in our code. I want to make sure we're fixing that. I also want to hear and listen to them when they say, I know that you say, oh, they won't go in the business. But when they're saying that is an important part of my business to help people know where my business is, to come to my business, they need the illumination. right i want to i just that's just part of my motivation just a point of order we've had two motions and two votes maybe it's it's late let's just move on to the next item i would like to resolve this if we can and that's why i'm just trying to explain my motivation to see if that makes a difference for anybody is trying to be responsive to our business community here is what i'm trying to do not that i'm opposed to looking at the illumination in the dark skies so i think the proposal from councillor francis seems like it is

still responsive to all the process and complexity stuff what the part that's not responsive to is because it's trying to balance another goal which is um concerns about the dark sky right and so and and as i said not By fixing something now, then create this other thing that we're going to then fix. Somebody's going to fix again in 9 to 12 months from now, and then we're going backwards on something. It just seems like that the order here is we're a little out of order. So if we can fix the process issues and some of the complexity issues, and we're going to retain that part. but we're saying there's a couple pieces we're not gonna move forward so that's where i land on i don't need to be dismissing the concerns of the businesses in any way but um that that's my sense of what we're doing here that other proposal

The thing that just came to mind, since we are missing Councilor Mendez tonight, is that we could set this over to Councilor Mendez will be here, and then we will, no matter what, have a four versus three vote. You can help us break the tie. And in the meantime, if some of us change our mind or get some more information, we can also consider that. How do we feel about that? Sounds good. OK.

HAB-Juliette Boone, We need a motion for that we have everyone again hearing unanimity and just to clarify this would be continued deliberations, yes, that presentation.

HAB-Juliette Boone, Yes, and just technically I think we would. HAB-Juliette Boone, We need Council minutes to watch this hearing. HAB-Juliette Boone, Listen to the recording and before that before that meeting will get that to happen yeah okay. HAB-Juliette Boone, All right, thank you very much appreciate your work on this, thank you for Emily and dark skies for hanging in here to comment, we appreciate you too okay on it, I never said.

This is a public hearing to adopt a resolution declaring surplus real property for affordable housing in June for rich.

all right um so this is also a public hearing so i'm going to open this public hearing and that you can get going good evening mary council matt stewart with real estate facilities housing tonight we are considering the adoption of a resolution to declare certain real property in juniper ridge as surplus to our affordable housing needs I will summarize a lot of what we talked about in our work session back in July 22nd. But in 2021, the Oregon legislator passed Senate Bill 8 that enabled affordable housing to be developed on industrial and commercially zoned land. There are certain restrictions to that in the case of industrial zoned land. that property must be adjacent to residential zone land property. So we are looking at a what is eligible here in the screen is the about 33 acres along the west side of Juniper Ridge on both the north and south side of North Point Park. Few things to note as part of that legislation. One, they have to be owned or rent at 80% of the median average median income or less. But they're also stipulation that the entire development that is done has to average about 60% AMI. So that is a consideration as well. They required a 30-year covenant for deed restriction to that, and it also must be owned by a public body. So different than what we've seen in the past when we discussed Senate Bill 8 for commercial affordable housing, in industrial, it has to be owned by a public body. I do want to clarify that a housing authority, such as Housing Works in here at Bend, does qualify as a public body. The portion that we're looking at tonight to declare surplus is lot one, so south of North Point Park. It's about 24 acres and we plotted this in 2024 as part of our large tract subdivision that we did in order to create the lots that we previously sold to Taylor Brooks and that we continue to look and evaluate for future industrial development in the area. There are a few things I want to highlight that are tied to this property that are governed by the CCNR, so Covenants Conditions and Restrictions. One is that we had to, as Council's direction, we approached the Owners Association to request that we revise the CCNRs to allow affordable housing as an actual use. We obtained 93% of the business owners who were part of that association approved that, understanding that this was a reflection of the requirements of Senate Bill 8. There's a few other stipulations. One, Les Schwab, they're one of the original developers of Juniper Ridge. They have design authority rights in the area. So any development that comes into this area will have to meet with Les Schwab and get their approval for any design authority. There's also height limitations that were established. So what we see in this area is the height of buildings will be limited to about 32 to 36 feet. So really nothing more than three stories, but majority will be around two stories. There's also a 30-foot national landscape buffer along the entire west side running from North Point Park all the way down to Coulee Road. And what we're looking at is about 15 acres that are located in that CC&Rs. We did attach a draft of the request for proposal as tonight as part of the agenda item. What we're proposing is that while we're declaring 24 acre surplus, we're gonna do that in phases. The first phase, and that's really because of infrastructure development as well as market conditions. So we're looking at a first phase of approximately six acres. That is because the Andesite Road up to Triton, there on Winoco has been developed and that should save costs for any developer coming in. Again, a few stipulations, because it has to be owned by a public body, they'll either do a land lease with us, or if they are a public body, they could purchase the property. In either case, they could either just do a land lease with a legal description, or they could go through the partition process and create an actual legal lot. That'll be up to the applicant. Process we're recommending is using municipal code 1.50.040.k. That states that we were going to sell the property for the purpose of affordable rental and owner-occupied housing for low to moderate income households. The process that is outlined in that code says we'll be here tonight as we are, have a public hearing, declare it surplus. We'll then put out a request for proposal to qualify developers. Those proposals will be reviewed by the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. They will then make a recommendation on who they would like to see proceed to council, make that recommendation to council. Council will then make the final award and they'll have final decision on any applications and then authorize staff to go ahead and enter any agreements to move forward the process. As we discussed during the work session, kind of the minimum terms, the Senate bill kind of lays out what we really have to do. But we will require that the lease agreement has to be for at least 30 years, again, tying it to that affordability requirement. We would probably only charge about a dollar a year for the rate. Again, keep it as affordable as possible. We'd also stipulate they have three years from the time they secure funding to begin construction, and that includes working through the partition plan should they choose to do so. The sale for these affordable housing developments, we sell them at cost, so really staff's time putting together the documents, going through the sale, going through title. As we've seen with previous ones that we've done on Franklin and Bear Creek, that was about $20,000. This one will be a little bit more, about $30,000. They will be required to then partition plat and, again, also begin construction within three years. And they'll have at least that 30-year affordability requirement placed on their property. We also are out of the stipulation that we want them to do extra coordination with residential and business neighbors as well as conduct a phase one environmental assessment, just because we are in an industrial area, and we want that addressed, and we can review that for the small comments. This is what we've outlined in the Rp. I won't go through all of it, but this is what will be considered that we asked them to submit as part of their review for the affordable housing, advisor, committee, and then Council. This is also the evaluation criteria that will be asked to review for AHAC. The one stipulation that we discussed at our work session was adding a bonus element. So if the application provides a lower than 60% AMI priority, then that allows them extra points in that evaluation. If they provide a component of permanent supportive housing, that will also be a bonus in addition to providing more than the code required accessible units. We've had some comments from neighbors addressing the PSH. We talked about this at our work session, but I want to emphasize it here. And the RFP will require that anyone that proposes a PSH component provide a public outreach plan or how they communicate with both the neighbors and businesses, an operation and management plan, so outlining how they will operate, who will be on site. And then we're suggesting they do a good neighbor agreement. That is really established. So if there is an incident, if there is an issue, there is a communication established between the two and a procedure for them to follow. Schedule-wise, if you give us the okay tonight, we'll probably put the RFP out in the next week or so. Applications will come due within the next 60 days, so sometime around November. And then the Affordable Advisor Committee will review this in December, bringing their recommendation to Council sometime in February. There's any discussion. I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right. Any questions? Yes, go ahead. Can we do a 60-year deed restriction instead of 30-year?

Yeah, the 30-year is just the requirement of the statute. You could request something longer. What we have, we've written the RFP is they can propose something longer, and that will be considered as part of the review. Okay. But yeah, as long as it's a minimum of 30, you can require more.

I mean, just because it is going to be a really great you know, deal for whoever's getting it. I mean, mostly if it's a nonprofit developer, they would probably do a 60-year anyway, but that just might be a nice thing.

Can we add a 60-year or longer affordability period as an additional bonus point thing? I'm sorry, Mike.

You're kind of far away from the microphone. Maybe could you say that again?

Sure. Can we add as an additional bonus point or whatever you call the three things at the end there, permanent supportive housing, the AMI priority and accessibility, can we add a lengthened term greater than 30 years?

Yeah, I think I would ask what would, is it just if they do 31, does that count? Or is it we want more than 40? How do you say a 60-year? So if they agree to a 60-year?

Sure, let's do that.

Okay, and then the ESA, I'm thinking I only ever had to do ESA if there was federal funding associated. So why do we want them to do ESA? Correct.

Their proximity to Sutera could impact their ability to get federal funding. So as part of the phase one, we do want to address that and acknowledge that. So we're asking them to do that so that as we as a city, we can acknowledge that. I don't anticipate because it's not that there has been any previous contamination that we're aware of or any sort of leaking of underground water that we're aware of. but because it's within that half mile radius it's just suggested we move forward that so we know when we look at their funding stack and they're putting a lot of some federal funding we know that that could be an impact and that phase one will have to address that as they apply can we agree but if they're not using federal funding yeah good that makes sense it's a cost you know we can you can list it as option i think almost just almost all psh is probably gonna

have federal funding in some form, but I think that makes sense. If they're not, if they don't need it, then let's wait.

We can stipulate that if part of their funding stack that they list, if they're suggesting they will use federal funding, that part of that includes if it pays one for the city staff to review.

Yeah, I get it.

And we don't have to adjust any motions. That's just in the RFP.

Yeah, no, that's just me. The motion is good how it is. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. So we've had our public hearing. We've had our presentation. We do have a couple of people signed up. Pauline Ward had to go home. She sent us an email. Yes. So she had some concerns around how much this will cost the city, the notices that went out and concerns about PSH being near her home and homelessness. So that was a comment we received. And then I have Allison Dean. may or may not still be here i'm thinking not who also was in opposition of this item but i don't know exactly why because she's not here to tell us so i think she did write an email sorry okay so she already wrote an email we do have that in the record okay so with that being our public comment there was no online public commenters i will close the public hearing and we can have a deliberation and a motion i move to adopt the resolution adopting a procedure for the sale of city property for developing affordable rent

affordable rental or owner-occupied housing and declaring certain real property surplus to the city's need.

Okay. Moved by Council Frenzosa, second by Council Platt. All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay, unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you, Matt. Oh, my God. It's another public hearing. Okay. Eight and nine.

Record?

I don't know.

There's a lot of public hearings. Okay. If you could read eight, Ashley. This is a public hearing and motion to authorize use of and adopt findings supporting the construction manager general contractor alternative delivery method for the North Pier Mirror Pond Parking and Event Space Project.

All right, so I'm going to open the public hearing on this 1 and Joe's going to present on both 8 and 9 at the same time, just for efficiency sake. But this is the public hearing on item 8.

And due to the lateness of the night, I'm going to go through pretty quickly, but feel free to slow me down. I've been going too fast. Or if you have any questions as I go. So we are here to first request an exemption to the competitive bidding process and do a CMGC procurement. And secondly, to extend the Walker Macy contract to do an amendment for full design services. The project that is before you, it started out with funds that we received in 2017. from transit room tax funds that have been set aside and waiting to be used by the city. Over the last two years, there's been a public outreach process to determine how best to use those funds and what project should move forward. Working with DBBA, the Downtown Bend Business Association, as well as meeting with the Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association, ORLA. Both provided support for this back in October of last year when the concept for this project came forward to Council. Since October of 25, when this project was presented to Council, we have conducted a pre-application meeting to kind of cross the T's, dot the I's, and make sure that we are considering all the code requirements. Um, there were, uh, the main thing that came up was a fire code requirement. We've worked through that with fire. Um, and we have an approach and the approval of the design amendment will allow us to be able to move that into design as well. The other things we've been doing is getting in alignment with the available funds and bringing the project, uh, in a scope that will meet the that we have available. Um, and, uh, We did meet with the Downtown Bend Business Association on August 19th and presented to them basically a summary of what I'm doing here today. So they are aware of the process moving forward. And if we move forward today, I will be kicking off some roundtables with them very soon. When we came before you, or not me, but Other staff members came before you in October of 25. The construction estimate was at $4.25 million, and that was based on a 2024 estimate. We have since scaled back some of the project, mainly simplifying materiality, doing prefabricated restrooms in order to meet the budget, which is a total budget of $5 million, with about 3.4 of that being the construction costs. So it actually lowered the construction costs between then and now. In terms of funding sources, the 2.187 is that transient room tax that is a restricted fund. We have 1.27 million in parking and move reserve funds that have also been sitting in a fund waiting to be used that we plan to use on this project. And the other 1.6 will be a combination of existing contingency fund and debt financing through our parking services. Amy Nunez, In terms of scope of the project, the majority of the project is taking place in the north parking lot the north marathon parking lot, which is between the commons and the coffee shop on the north. Amy Nunez, We. Art will also be doing some work along Brooks Alley in order to solve the fire needs and trying to work with the businesses and making sure that we can both fight fires if there were a fire in the adjacent properties, as well as meeting the delivery needs of those businesses. Just a couple of photos of existing conditions. The primary scope is to make the parking lot into a multi-use space. And so when we have events downtown where they work, locating those events here instead of closing down streets or reducing the number of streets that are closed down. Specifically interested in moving the farmer's market off of Brooks Alley and into this lot. That is that fire flip that will occur. um and then uh smaller events can can actually avoid shutting down downtown streets a couple of other elements is just cleaning up and resolving some of the existing trash issues garbage and recycling issues in the area and then providing to public restrooms that would be available to help with the the needs downtown This is the concept plan that was presented in October of 25. The only thing really that has changed is the commentary on the sides and mostly around that materiality and those pretty bad bathrooms, as I mentioned before. The only other additional scope since then is that working in Brooks Alley. Coming up, we will be continuing to engage the public, primarily the businesses and Downtown Business Association, around the garbage and recycling collection, the modifications in Brooks Alley, and making sure that we have the bike and pedestrian routes worked out well. We're still working through the operational aspects of this and we'll continue to do so as we move forward in design. In terms of project timeline, the light blue is what has been completed to date. And the dark is kind of what is to come. So, assuming we get approval for both of these requests tonight, we will be moving forward simultaneously with the design and going out for the RFP for the CMTC contract with the goal of coming back to Council in early 2027. with a proposed CMGC contractor and getting them under contract for pre-construction services. We then would come back to Council again in the summer of 27 to get the approval for the guaranteed maximum price so that we can start construction in the fall of 27. For the construction manager, general contractor, alternative project delivery, uh we are here to ask for the exemption traditionally uh projects in the state of oregon are delivered in what we call a design bid build um which is considered the competitive bidding process uh where any contractor that qualified can bid uh on the project and we accept the lowest bid uh alternative delivery involves bringing contractors on earlier on uh they're not hard bidding the project but they're being hired on a combination of cost and and qualifications and for this project we are suggesting the CMGC which keeps the ability to keep Walker Macy who's already on for design and we'll have a separate contract with the construction manager general contractor we're asking for this main reasoning for this is around both the scheduling of the project it's pretty tight schedule a very tight schedule actually um and really wanting to avoid any construction during the summer months so bring on a contractor that we can work through the complexities of construction in the early procurement that might be needed so that we can hit the ground running once they We get the okay for the permit so that we can really meet that construction timeline. The other main reason is the complexity of the funding. We are on a very tight budget, so we can work together with the contractor and the designer to really design to that budget and make sure that we're tracking the funding for the different sources accordingly. For Design Services Amendment 2, we are asking to be able to extend Walker Macy's contract The RFP that originally brought them on board did contemplate the ability to extend from concept design to be able to do the full design after the fact, as well as their contract contemplated that. And so we are asking for councils that approve to keep the same consultant team on board or primary consultant on board and extend their contract with Walker Macy.

Okay. So we're still in the public hearing on the alternate delivery method. So there are any questions specifically on alternative delivery method.

Yeah, I mean, can you just go back to the site plan? So, so we discussed this in the, um. what our committee is called. Thank you, our contracts committee. And I was concerned, and I did not approve going forward with this, even to council, because the design isn't, and I understand, I mean, you're asking for money to finish the design. But there's some aspects of this that are just not, like the trash compactor does not work as it's shown there. And actually, now that I think about it, and having walked that parking lot today with John Halen, of all people, I i'm really concerned about putting a trash compactor in that location like right by the rod of micro house right on brooks alley. i'm just concerned that there are a lot of features about this design that are not really vetted with the public and with Council and so i'm a little bit nervous about going forward with us at this time. i'd like it to kind of be a little bit further fleshed out.

And so you have a question about the alternative delivery we got to take care of that first.

Well, I mean, I wouldn't move forward with the alternative delivery because the design is not flushed out. Any other questions for Jo on alternative delivery?

Okay, so no more questions on that. There was nobody who signed up for public comment on that particular public hearing online or in person. So I'm going to close the public hearing on the alternate delivery method. And then we can have both motions in a row. We've got the presentation done on both of them. So folks are ready for that.

Well, I actually also thought about the funding too, because just so everyone's aware of this, right? Like, the parking in lieu of funding is. It was money that developers paid because they couldn't build parking spaces when they built their buildings. And so the idea is that would go towards parking. But this project is actually taking away parking spaces from this area. And I mean, I'm one of the bigger advocates to make our streets more bike friendly and reduce parking and things like this but i'm just like i'm not liking that that the money is being spent and the same is true for the parking contingency and the other maybe could you go to the slide that has the budget on it the the what what caught my eye on the budget is that i'm debt financing so that was not presented to us previously so i just think it's really important that council understands that you know kind of moving forward with this project that's going to be debt financed in part So I just, yeah, wish that we had kind of had the financial picture for this, you know, earlier when we were kind of making, when we told staff to move forward with it.

Okay. Any other comments?

I will say as we're going to do like in my day, but like we've been talking about this, some iteration of this since, I don't know, like stewardship subcommittee 2020. 21 to early 22, you know, and so but like I get that it may it may seem like this is this is new, but we've been trying to figure out a way to make this work for many, many years now. So I am I'm happy to see this and how it's developed. And I think it's going to be a real benefit for our community. And gosh darn it, we can get a couple bathrooms out of it, too, which is that was like the main thing that was this how this all started was like, we need we need bathrooms. But it's also going to be a new space for people to to gather, which I think is a great thing and provides awesome connectivity to to Drake Park. So I'm in support of it. I totally understand what you're saying, Gina. But I think it's yeah, I'm I'm happy to move forward with this.

HAB-Juliette Boone, And it's any other comments yeah no, I just think it's I mean I agree, and I just would echo that, like we have these trt funds that you know that are at our disposal, we need to use them. My only comment kind of in the committee hearing was just to be cognizant as we talk through like downtown parking and some of these, like, you know, the broader discussion that's happening there is that we are losing like 19 spots. So that's not totally lost on me. And just like, we just need to look at that holistically as we look at the outcome parking. That was my only comment that I am in support. Okay.

I think the way I looked at that though is that during surge events, we were actually creating more parking, you know, in Brooks and Wall, Bond and Wall.

it is late but because we because we're moving events to this space so I understood there was also more parking in those cases so I'm in support yeah I mean I'm generally I'm generally supportive of it as well I mean it looks like maybe about a million dollars of this is actually bond financed am I right about that because the rest is coming out of reserve funds is that something Eric you can speak to

Yeah, so, um, yeah, there's the, it's complicated because they're the, and we have checked legally to make sure the parking little fund and the way that that was set up was, yes. Yeah, not bathrooms on the.

Uh, parking the rebuild aspect of it. Yeah, we did. We did look into this and there's. There's enough of a nexus that we were comfortable with this and this fund, which I think the fee hasn't been collected in 15 years ish. But the we did some research. The purpose was not limited to what I would call expansion or development of additional parking. It wasn't that specific or prescriptive, so we were comfortable. There was enough of a nexus with that aspect of this project, and the fact that this is being that I think was last active in I think it was adopted in. Oh, six hasn't been collected since two thousand and eleven. The money's been sitting there since then.

And so the debt financing just gets paid by parking fees.

Yeah, exactly. And it's eighty thousand, I think, is what was modeled for a year for debt service based on this funding this gap. um we will reconcile so these parking funds um the what's in reserve and contingency gets evaluated because that's fluid right that pay that's the permit fees that folks pay the fines that people that that that are paid uh we'll see what's available um so this is just our kind of estimate at this moment in time but that will be trued up as we do our budget any other comments before we have the motion I move to exempt the North near pond parking

and events-based project from competitive video. Adopt the findings submitted to council and authorize the use of the construction manager, general contractor, alternative delivery method.

All right. Moved by Councillor Platt, seconded by Councillor Perkins. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. No. We have one opposed. And then the next question. I'm going to try this one. Yeah, you do.

Mayor Mrakas, You know okay you guys I moved to authorize the city manager to sign amendment number two to personal services agreement with Walker may see llc. Mayor Mrakas, and substantially the form presented to counsel for final design and construction contract administration services for the North mirror pond parking and events based project. Joe Mahon, Increase in the contract price by 666,943 dollars for revised not to exceed contract amount of 902,586 dollars. Cllr Rachel Gilliland, Second.

Cllr Rachel Gilliland, All right, we become the plan and second by Council Norris all those in favor. Cllr Rachel Gilliland, I. Cllr Rachel Gilliland, Know, and one of us okay. Cllr Rachel Gilliland, Thank you, Joe.

Cllr Rachel Gilliland, Number 10. This is the first reading of an ordinance repealing ordinance number NS2554 regarding an economic improvement district in the then central district.

No staff presentation. This is just really implementing the decision from council to and really in response to the remonstrance hearing where there was more than 33% in opposition to the creation of the EID. So this just takes it off the books. Where was it from the code?

Okay, do it. I move for the 1st reading of an ordinance repealing ordinance number and s dash 2554.

2nd, all right move by council plat second by council Perkins. All those in favor. Hi. Any of us? No. Okay. Unanimous. All right. Thank you. We're now going to move on to items 11 and 12.

We're almost there. A resolution amending the transportation system development charge project list and council is asked to authorize an agreement with HBR professional design services for the Fond Street and Reed market roundabout widening project.

We need about a half hour. Two items. First one is an amendment to the SDC project list and I will need a motion on that first so that funding can be do so the design contract with HDR. So background, we're entering into the design portion of this project. So we did some high level planning over the years, including testing metering this back in 2020. So we're moving forward at council's direction. Nice little another location project map here. I think we all know where this is. Why are we here? So the first thing is for the amendment to the SDC transportation project list. I won't go into the too many of the details on the left, but I think we all understand the importance of this intersection here within the city. $150,000 because that's what we thought would cost to meter the roundabout. After going through the trial period and the study of whether or not that would work, we shifted plans and we put this new project on year five of what was then our five-year CIP and here we are. And so total estimated cost for this project is $7.25 million. That is broken down from a growth and reimbursement allocation standpoint. Growth meaning we think there's going to be 54% more demand put on this how we broke it down and that's in alignment with how we've broken down other projects not that exact same percentage but same methodology we've used so to find that that 3.915 million we don't need all seven and a quarter on the list we do need the 3.915 we're going to modify two existing projects on the list the first one is what is currently on the list as a full single lane roundabout at the intersection of division audience scale house loop right near timber yards in this instance working with the timber yards development we agree that a mini roundabout would work so we no longer need the four and a quarter million they're going to only be asking for credits for 1.5 million which is a much cheaper cost so that frees up 2.75 million towards the we can apply to the bond and read market project the second one we're also modifying again neither of these are disappearing off the list we're just is a project on 4th Street which is kind of a multimodal Greenway project from Alden to Greenwood current budget for that is over seven million dollars and I don't think we need it that we don't need that that much money anymore so we're reducing that by 1.165 still leaving almost $6 million in that project for the future. What that does overall is just kind of all in one slide here. We need 3.915. We're getting two and three quarter from project number 12, 1.1 for project 32, and that gets us what we need. And the other 3.3 million is coming from the reimbursement allocation, which we don't need to modify any list to get that money. So, with that being the case, the motion is a pretty simple one in order to free up the money for buying and remarketing here. Do you have any questions? Happy to answer that.

Any questions about this motion?

I move to adopt a resolution amending the transportation system development charge project list.

All right. Moved by Councillor Burke and seconded by Councillor Platt. All those in favor? Aye. All right, great. There you go. Thank you.

So that right into the design contract. So we have done some high level analysis on this. The fundamental question, as you all know, is this going to be a hybrid or a full double A roundabout? And so we and we also did move this up a couple of years at Council's direction and the CIP. are is develop a much more in-depth analysis of which of these two concepts refined. And we're going to bring both of those to council. So you ultimately get to decide what intersection form you want to see here. So if we get that design approval contract tonight, we're going to be doing some open house events in October, at least two, as well as a virtual open house event just to get some feedback from the community. And then coming back to you with which is basically going to be a 30% design for two concepts. work session is in november and then once the intersection form is chosen we'll let hdr do the rest of the design work and have bid docs ready in may of next year and then put it out to bid and the idea is we want to get to construction in the fall because the goal would be to build this and have it wrapped up by spring of 2020 um 2028 before the reed market bridge really starts having an impact with construction here yes

Okay. Yes.

So list of outreach and open house events. I already spoke to some of that.

Can I just ask a question about the scope, kind of the scope or the, like, that you'll be working with the design team on? My concern is that, you know, the Butler Market and 27th roundabout is the highest crash intersection in the city by far. This feels like it's a little bit more constrained. So I don't know. Anyway, is there a way to ensure that the design process Jamie Heron ? focuses on safety and reducing crashes and like probably that means lowering speeds, because they would get kind of counterproductive. The whole point of this project is to improve traffic flow, and if we've got crashes happening all the time. Jamie Heron ?

Right, so I don't know yeah no there's definitely lessons learned from from past projects, and it is in their scope of work. It's one of the higher priorities is to in the safety aspect of this.

Jamie Heron ? Yeah, one of the reasons why I think this budget is a little higher than others is to make sure that it has enhanced safety features.

yeah so those will be in the decision Matrix and the evaluations that we bring back in November that's going to be one of the main you know there's going to be pros and cons to a hybrid and pros and cons to a full done so that'll be one of the factors you can deliberate and will there be like when you look at like different like design speeds or like how do you how do you deal with safety in reducing crashes I guess yeah lots of different ways there yeah I mean our RFBs the east leg on this. So if we have to move the whole center island, we're building taller retaining walls. But if by doing that, it allows us to change the entry angles, thus it may be a safer intersection. Those are all part of our evaluation criteria.

Okay. Any other questions? Any other slides, Ryan?

Just, yeah, just the budget. So there it is. $1.6 million HDR design contract. That'll leave us about five and a half for construction.

Okay, great. I'm moved to authorize an agreement with and substantially the form presented to counsel for professional design services with bond street and read market roundabout whitening project and amount not to exceed 1,599,831 dollars and 3 cents.

All right. All those in favor. All right. We got to vote. Anyone opposed? No. Okay. Okay. Stapp, Thank you. Stapp, A little too late. All right, we have a couple more items. I'm just telling you, Council. I think we're going to skip Council reports. Stapp, So, Stapp, Council in order to are off item number 13 that will let you just step out the door real quick and then we'll do a separate actual conflict.

Stapp, This is the second meeting of an ordinance amending the fence development code to amend article 24 Stephen strange master plan development.

I move for the second reading and adoption by roll call vote of the ordinance amending the Bend Development Code to amend Article XXIV Stevens Ranch Master Plan Development.

Second.

All right. Moved by Councillor Finzel, seconded by Councillor Platt. Roll call vote. Councillor Francesa. Yes. Councillor Riley.

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Perkins. Yes. Councillor Platt. Yes. Mayor Kuebler. Yes.

Okay, so I'm back to Norris and on 214.

This is the 2nd reading of an ordinance amending the bend municipal code and development code and present house bills. 2, 1, 3, 8. and 4037 and update various standards and procedures.

I move for the second reading adoption by roll call vote. The ordinance amending Bend Municipal Code Chapter 10.20 Historic Preservation Code and Bend Development Code Title I, Introduction Title II, Land Use Districts Title III, design standards title four applications and issue summary review procedures and title five exceptions to code standards to implement hb 2138 and hb 4037 and to update various standards and procedures with amendments to the bdc as recommended by staff and to set the effective date of january 1st 2027 for hb 2138 provisions in the bdc relating to middle housing bonus units and existing dwellings on middle housing development site including but not limited to bdc 3.6.200 a1 retention of existing dwelling units with middle housing and bdc 3.6.200 a2 bonus units for accessible or affordable middle housing dwelling units second nice job all right councillor perkins motion councillors apply with a second roll call vote councillor francesa yes councillor reilly yes

Cllr Rachel Gilliland, Counselor Norris. Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Perkins. Yes.

Cllr Rachel Gilliland, Counselor Platt. Yes. Cllr Rachel Gilliland, Mayor Kuehl. Yes. Cllr Rachel Gilliland, All right. Cllr Rachel Gilliland, All right. Mayor Kuehl. Mayor Kuehl. Mayor Kuehl. Mayor Kuehl. Mayor Kuehl. Mayor Kuehl. Mayor Kuehl. Mayor Kuehl. Mayor Kuehl. Mayor Kuehl. Mayor Kuehl. traffic, right? So we can avoid congestion. But I want to just put a message out there with school starting. Please bike and walk to school to help with all this great new infrastructure, not just with these projects, but other projects to do your part to reduce some of that spiking and congestion in the morning time.

Yes.

Can we do the TMAC appointment?

Oh, yes. We do have a TMAC appointment. It was just a couple of alternates for some folks that stepped off. So as long as you're with us, we'll do alternates in motion.

Move to approve those appointments. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Aye. Aye. All right. Thanks, Mike. See you later. Good night.