Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I will go ahead and call today's meeting. Today is March 9th, 2026. We'll start with roll call. Katie, Katie Smith, Bob Gresens's, Nathan Nelson, Marggo Clinton, Suzanne Johansson, Scott Winters, Darren Luton.

Next, we will move into the visitors section. If you are here to bring up something that is not on today's agenda desk, this would be your opportunity. I don't have any um physical paper copies. You would fill them out right over on that table. Let me check and see if anyone's online. If you're online um and you have something you'd like to discuss that's not on tonight's agenda, please raise your hand. Nor do I. Okay. Next, we will move into the quasi judicial public hearing. This is for PLC 20250679 proposed amendments to the Ben Development Code. Article XXV 1111 timbers master timber yards master plan development. Um, we will start with the explanation of procedural amendments of state law.

Thank you. Okay. And just to make sure I always get this correct, I just read the script to explain the procedures for a quasi judicial matters. The city will rely on the staff report and staff presentation to list the applicable criteria for this proposal. All testimony, argument, and evidence must be directed to these criteria or other comprehensive plan or bend development code criteria that you believe are applicable. The failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity for the planning commission to understand and respond to the issue and its recommendation to council or for other parties to respond may preclude an appeal on that issue to the land use board of appeals. the failure of the applicant to raise a constitutional or other issue regarding a proposed condition of their recommendation to council or as part of their overall recommendation to council that the commission may make with the failure of an applicant to do this with sufficient specificity for the commission to respond to or for other parties to respond may preclude a future civil action for civil civil action for damages in circuit court related to that condition or recommendation to council.

Next. Okay. Thank you. Next, I'll go ahead and officially open the hearing. We will start with statements of prehering contexts, bias, prejudice, or personal interest. Please state if you have any. Katie will start with you.

I work for the company that did the preliminary title report, but I did not work on it. I had uh exparte contact with a resident of uh Bend uh the land use chair for Southern Crossing. Um inadvertently in broader conversation, I asked if um she happened to have the neighborhood meeting materials from August on uh Timberyard's plan that um as I was doing my homework were not in the uh city file. and uh she did not. That was the the gist of it. None to report.

None. Uh I regularly walk through that area. I have none. None. Next is an opportunity to challenge or bias, prejudgment, or personal interest. If you like to challenge that, now is your time. Okay. Next we'll move into the stock report here complex or not expected the raise it away but oh gosh I sorry [laughter]

um the timber yards master plan that we'll be talking tonight about tonight was originally adopted in June 2023 and is part of the Ben development code. Uh subsequently there was a uh a seven lot u phase subdivision that was approved um in about six months later in January 2024 and as well as a site plan review approval for um the northwestern um phase called phase one originally called phase one uh for a mixeduse building [clears throat] that was a six-story mixeduse development with five stories of residential above commercial on ground floor approximately 16,000 square ft um and 246 units. Um that is currently still a um a live application or a live approval has not yet expired. Um and in [clears throat] terms of the timber yards master plan, it's in uh within the overall corpine opportunity zone um that extends a little bit further than this uh subject property. And the only reference um it doesn't have specific policies in the comprehensive plan um as like the expansions areas do but it there is a a description of it um in chapter 11 that calls it an opportunity to transform an industrial area into a vibrant urban mixeduse district. Uh what you see on the left is the existing phasing plan that is in currently in the code and on the right is the proposed phasing plan. Pretty much looks the same. They kept the same uh the applicant kept the same um phasing uh alphabetical order. Um but that is not necessarily the development order. Um which I'll get to in a minute minute. Um then also those other uh changes are where the um open space

tracks are. You may be familiar with um community master plans that require 10% of the master plan area to be platted as open space. And um so that's what these green areas are shown and so they've been slightly changed and I'll get to that on a future slide as well. Uh, one of the biggest difference is, and I'll split back to show you a little bit more, uh, back to back, is removal of the east west street that was originally called Timberyards Drive that connected Seismore Street all the way to Anie. Um, that area did for a portion of it have a multi-use path and an open space tract um, aligning with that. Now the road itself is being removed but that open space kind of linear open space tract will continue and go all the way to to Anie. Um and as well the uh Seismore street will go to the southern boundary of the master plan but there's existing development there. So it would does that street does not extend all the way down to Bond Street. Uh so then the sec and well I touch touch on the first two the east west local street um and then the open space configuration and then um that like I said the alphabetical is still uh A to I um however uh the applicant's intention is to start um near Anie uh A F and G um with the first phase and then or you know along the same timeline followed soon thereafter by C and D Um and as I mentioned, phase A still has a live application. Um and it kind of is dependent on uh how those first uh phases go. Um and then uh what you see in the proposed code as in addition to these uh changed revised figures is some uh revised transportation um mitigation

plan. And it looks like a complete overhaul, but it's not. um the way the original transportation mitigation plan was um tied to those phases, but those phases were very location specific. Um and now um because they're going from east to west instead of west to east, it honestly would have been just complete mess to show everything and track changes. So uh in terms of um the differences that are uh are are within that uh revised transportation mitigation plan either uh um it's directly related to the development direction. Um it does require the completion of the industrial way improvements all the way from Bond Street to the Oni Street roundabout in the first phase rather than being staggered with phases. So that is a benefit of this change. Um it does remove the requirement to construct the south um [clears throat] southbound highway 97 Colorado Avenue curb returns and ramps that were are in the original master plan um transportation mitigation plan. Um it just with the with the um expected um anticipated uh development plan now it does not trigger that. And um then also it changes the industrial way on a street roundabout on the eastern side from a standard single down roundabout to a mini uh roundabout. And all of this is um that those are the actual proposed changes the the the transportation mitigation map plan and these figures. What it is based on is different development assumptions. In um in the original master plan, uh it didn't break it out by phase, but you can see here down in the lower left, it included the assumption for infrastructure planning purposes. you know that what transportation impacts,

water and sewer impacts there would be was based on 1,600 dwelling units and 180 room hotel, 120,000 square ft of office and 70,000 square ft of retail. And then um the in this proposal they broke down that um that development into the phases and what would go where. And um as I mentioned the uh phase A and B on the far west um pretty much remains the same in this middle column and then CD E and F um uh kind of those four five middle blocks um is primarily where the change is that that would be all um residential. It would not be um five1 which was expected before but um fourstory apartment complexes with surface parking. Um and um then in the um Hooker Creek property which would most likely come later um it reduces that office expectation to uh 45,000 ft of office with 5,000 ft of retail. So, um, in that middle column, that reduces, um, the expectation from 1,600 dwelling units down to 1,000 dwelling units and the office from 120,000 ft² down to 45,000 square ft of office and 70,000 ft of retail to 26,000 ft of retail. Then, um, in the transportation analysis or all the infrastructure analysis, they looked at, um, what optional uses there could be. Um as I mentioned in the southwestern um lot um there was a hotel anticipated with some retail and uh looked at if there wasn't demand for the hotel that in place of that an optional

option for that um the lot specifically would be 200 dwelling units. Uh similarly um the very southeasternmost uh lot um would be instead of the 45,000 square feet of office would be 150 dwelling units and uh looked at those impacts comparatively and those optional uses did not create any additional impacts to what was proposed um in the um in that middle column. And so if those optional uses were um were utilized, both of them, uh that would increase the dwelling units, anticipated dwelling units to 1,350 dwelling units, would not include a hotel, would not include office, and would include 26,000 ft of retail. So that's a lot of information, but this is not what we're approving or deciding on. This is what the infrastructure analysis were were um were uh analyzing. And so um again, we're just looking at the transportation mitigation plan and the figures um which are being proposed to be amended because of these assumptions. Um so this kind of shows you where um what the open space plan is intended to look like. It has that kind of linear um uh open space uh between those northern blocks and the southern blocks and then kind of changes into more of a plaza um on the western end near um near uh Bond Street. There is a section um that does not show an open space tract. Um but there would be a public access sement that would be necessary between Seismore and that plaza. So um if you go back to the original um you see a a green open space track missing but there

would be a public accessment required to connect those two and then um everything else remain the same in terms of uh any required bike lanes and multi-use paths and uh the like. And these building footprints are again are conceptual. You're not approving this as a site plan. Um but in terms of what you had seen in the original um uh original plan, the building footprints for the westernmost and the southeastern most uh buildings remain the same. It's really this middle section that is um changing. So this this shows you a little bit more graphically um what is being proposed. As I mentioned this east west connection, there would be a local street connect uh crossing um of this bike ped uh path but these are very local a very low traffic streets just providing access to these buildings um to the south. Um and then as I mentioned the bike lanes and multi-use paths on the budding streets. So, for the text amendment approval criteria, um in the staff report, um you'll see um we go through all the statewide planning goals and um the applicable comprehensive plan policies. As I mentioned, there's none specific to timber yards, but we did look at a few that had to do with um you know, commercial mixeduse type development and where where it should be located, what should be provided. Uh, one thing that I failed to mention, uh, is the mobility hub, um, that, uh, on Bond Street is still a part of that component and as is the, um, roundabout at the at Bond and Industrial. Um, and in terms of the master plan criteria that the sewer and water facilities have capacity to serve the

site, um, as you as I discussed about the assumptions basically is the lower um, impacts. um same as the transportation impacts. Everything is um mitigated through that transportation mitigation plan. No new code deviations are being requested with this proposal and the master plan standards that are on the next slide um have been met. There's no difference in terms of distance commercial goods and services. Either they're on site or they're immediately surrounding um because they have those um existing uses uh around there. Um there's no change to the multimodal connections. Um they're uh still have that east west multimotal connection. They're just removing the street. Um and then in terms of I'm going to skip over one. The open space acreage does not change. It's still 3.4 acres um that will be required to be met. Um and then the um land use uh and densities consistent with the mixed urban comprehensive plan um designation. Again, all of those propo proposed uh um uses or are assumptions at this point, they would be approved at a certain uh uh transportation um how many trips P PM peak hour trips and then flows for for tour, but they're not beholden to those exact um uh uses that you've seen, but that is their intention at this time. So based on those intentions that you saw in that table um the only um requirement for uh the MU zone um in terms of density is a minimum density which is equivalent to the medium density residential zone which is only 7.3 dwelling units per acre which obviously they're way above that. There is no maximum density um in uh the MU zone. So if you look at um the entire property um excluding the open space tracks because that's the way you can

calculate it for master plans, this is the most dense master plan to date. It is um one that is in the heart of the city compared to most of the expansion areas on the edge of the city. Um and uh if you looked at um those two uh options that provided residential instead of a hotel and office um that would um increase the uh dwell the proposed density from 35 dwelling units per acre under that middle column to 47 dwelling units per acre. Um and then if you're curious um the those center um phases that um would be those four-story apartments would be 500 units on 16.6 are series work which works out to about 30.1 dwelling units per acre which is about what we've been seeing on the high end of most of our um high density residential zones. Um and then the other ones are more dense. Um 66 67 units per acre. Um and that is my presentation

question. Sorry questions. Um I was having trouble finding a actual definition for mini roundabout as for like city code. So I'm just curious if that's like Butler and ETH or is it more like six of Norton? That is a very good question and I will let the applicant um Oh, you go ahead Colin. Um I I believe I'm accurate in this. The only mini roundabout that we have is the new one that's on Century Drive. Um innovation. Yeah, it's going to be the entrance to the innovation uh portion of OSU Cascades. Uh that's the only true mini roundabout that we have. And so there is that

definition. there is not a definition and and Russ may want to talk about we um this is one of those areas where we don't have a standard in spec for it and so but we this is something that we want to encourage in certain situations where it's appropriate but so go to the applicant we'll talk about it but a mini roundabout we used in certain areas one it depends on kind of what traffic's going through there but if you have sight constraints it's one of those that you can use and basically it's a drivable medium so the center island is is completely drivable so if you go to the one that's over by OSU. It's actually got a beaver imprint on on it that's actually made to drive over. Um so we've worked with the applicant on trying to figure out what's the appropriate um use in the area looking at truck traffic also looking at constraints with the rail and things like that. That's how we kind of waited on the money.

To be clear, that's for large trucks and emergency vehicles. Not every [laughter] there's snow. Oh, straight. There there are advantages and disadvantages with them, but we feel like it's it's just an appropriate use in this condition and I'm sure the applicant their transportation engineer can give you all the details. So, are there no design standards for that? No, there are design. We do have design standards for it and it's called the mini roundabout. run or compact ride management. Yeah, I think the difference is there's probably nothing in the bin development code that refers to that term, but it's in our standards on the engineering side. We have we have new guidelines around

but we checked just you know in ination of that part of the reasons we looked at it here was just making sure the large trucks can turn through there and we're actually having some issues with the typical roundabout design just with some constraints that we have with the rail and the underpass and things like that. I'm sure Mr. Bestman would love to give you his viewpoint on it. Maybe any more questions? No. Okay. I I have one that's kind of related to that in terms of the um public access easement and what exactly is that entail? Is it literally just a could be a five foot wide sidewalk kind of thing? Yeah.

Yeah. Uh so public access easements have to be ADA accessible. Um in terms of their width, it depends on the width of the path itself, but usually they're 10 feet in width at minimum. I'm assuming there' be Yeah. virating between the buildings or something like that. But like I guess I was kind of seeing the the master plan the adopted and proposed and there's kind there's the green space open space that originally there and it's like well we're going to get rid of the open space but there's still going to be an easement. So maybe it's more of a question for the applicant in terms of like yeah in terms sorry

being the reviewing planner on the northwest uh um site plan review um trying to make that work with the hotel um portico um on the north side trying to fit that in for vehicles to be able to come in and do a turnaround. Um it it essentially it didn't work to be an open space tract that would still provide that pedestrian access. Um but in terms of having its own tracks, its own setbacks, uh utilities crossing property lines, all that, it made much more sense to just make it a public access easement.

And in terms of the traveling public, public access even allows the public to travel over that. A lot of times it either is a constraint or maintenance respon ownership and maintenance responsibility of that facility, but that public access can't be removed without prior approval of the city once it's established. Oh, yes. Um, regarding the uh deletion of the 97 curb and something else, I have no idea what what that's about. Could you explain that a little bit? I will actually let the applicant speak to that as well.

Okay. Um just because this decision is pretty narrow in scope in terms of like what is actually changing and what as since we're doing a quasi judicial hearing here, can you go back to the slide that you had that is going over the the criteria?

That's all I have. Thank you. Sorry pages. I don't have any questions for you at this time. Uh I had a really hard time following what because we have ABCD E F G HI. Yeah, we're not following that. But I couldn't find anything that actually said and what you just said was that A there's a line of application for A. But my understanding in the reading was the roundabout that's adjacent to A was not going to be built until everything else was built. And so if we're building something right there at A, why wouldn't we be building that roundabout? No, both roundabouts and industrial way connecting it would be in the first phase.

Okay. And then so one is A, F, and G. Uh so A is kind of on hold. They're keeping it alive as long as they can um to see how fast development may occur on those middle ones. See through Did I say G? Well, you had you said F and G were next and then C and D and E were later.

So these center um phases um C through G would um the the eastern most three would go first followed soon thereafter by uh C and D. So the this section would go first. And when does the Booker Creek come into that? When they cease operations. Um, so it's completely Can that affect the

It will It will most likely be No, the mini roundabout will be um Okay. The mini roundabout will be uh required with the first phase. Um knowing that Hooker Creek is going to continue operations for a period of time and that could be who knows 10 years, 15, nobody really knows. I I thought it said that there wouldn't be much truck traffic and that was why the mini roundabout was fine. It's not necessarily about the amount of truck traffic. It's about when they do need to access exit their site. How how do they get out?

That's the reason for the mini roundabout so they can drive over. Well, as well as the rail. There's a rail line that goes underneath the overpass. That's a the driving restriction really. I mean, no pun intended, um, the primary restriction. Um, so yeah, it's very constrained in that area. So, the rail line is going to stay under the underpass. It is a um they back trains up to

Exactly. to change directions. And it's the first one from Clamoth Falls, I think. I mean, it's a fair distance, so they really need it. Um, let's see. One of the things I was wondering about is the uh kind of the the dead end of the How do you Everpine Street?

So, uh, Seismore is the one that dead ends because there's existing development to the south. Uh, Everpine will, uh, intersect with Scalehouse Loop. I know they're really tiny birds, but Oh, size more. Sorry, I was looking at Seismore will have a turnaround at the end both for regular vehicles, for emergency vehicles. Okay, so that's that hammerhead. I was wondering I it looked like it was just kind of dumping into the Yeah, it just happened to line up with those property lines, but no. Okay.

So, it won't actually connect to that property or that parking lot or anything. Aaron,

uh, I I I was a little confused reading the through here. I found several several improvements were triggered by development of phase A, but then like wasn't clear what the actual development phases that the the timing of the development phases are. So all those things that were going to be phase A triggered are now going to be phase E, F and G triggered or phase E. Yeah. Before they could have built industrial way in sentiments. This revision um makes phase the first phase, let's not give it a letter, the first phase from Bond Street including its roundabout to Anie Street including the roundabout. that whole connection complete with the first phase.

Okay. [clears throat] Including the roundabout on industrial way and B. Yes. Okay. I'm not sure that the right I would want to take a look and make sure that what we're motion that we approve is actually stating that and not that it's not still referencing phase A. That would be a big difference. Any more questions for staff? Can I just ask one more? They were reference to a private street. I thought we didn't allow private streets anymore. Can you

um I'm I think I thought that was struck that you're correct. We don't allow private streets. We allow them. The only place we allow them is within master plan areas. So we are allowing a private street. They are allowed within master plan areas under the code.

And yeah, we talked about Seismore being public versus private because the difference is last time Seismore was only between industrial and timber yards drive. And now that it's basic extended to the southern boundary, we're like, well, per the new code, you know, you that should be a public street. Let's make this all public street. And so um I believe the way it's written is that will be a public street.

Yeah, that's in the uh scale house court. So prior to occupancy of building in lot I scale house court is be dedicated to the city of Bend and reconstructed to city of Bend local street standards if a private street is retained. Public access easements must be established within the property. Yeah. So that's this little um you can't see it on here, but between H and I there is a deadend uh culde-sac that is ex currently private. Same thing here uh scale it goes into a development that is then next to the Wilson overpass. So there's no way for that to go anywhere.

Correct. Correct. And what I'm saying is it's currently private and so uh there is that um saying we acknowledge it's currently private. We're not approving a private street, a new private street, but it we, you know, if if it's uh dedicated as public rideway, it needs to be brought up to city standards. The the same thing here on industrial way, this section is currently private and that will be dedicated as public rideway and brought up to city standards.

I guess the wording of it is first it starts out with scale house court is to be dedicated to the city of Bend and constructed to Bend standards and it doesn't say However, it just says if a private street is retained. So, it's kind of saying it's going to be dedicated to the city if it's retained. And he's so I guess there there's some language there that I'm reading out.

But that wasn't the only mitigation table itself. Yeah. In the code. Okay. Any more questions? Okay, next we'll move into the applicant testimony. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Okay. So, um, good evening. My name is Joey Shear. I'm a planner with AKS Engineering and Forestry here in Bend. We are a consultant for the applicant, Kennedy Wilson, and I have about 10 slides here uh to run through. Karen did a great job uh with her staff report and presentation and we generally agree with the the findings and conclusions in the in the staff report. So even as Commissioner Nelson was alluding to that this is a relatively narrow application. We did submit uh a package containing more than 200 pages of material uh including a lengthy mitigation table that was kind of redone to address the phasing and we can try to answer some of those phasing questions. Um we would just request that if you do have any any questions please give us a chance to answer them before

you close your record and kind of move forward with your deliberations. So, this is the same team that worked on the original master plan that was approved by the city back in 2023. Uh, in addition to myself, we have several members of the team here this evening to answer questions. Uh, including my colleagues on the engineering side and Joe Bestman with Transite um consulting. Anticip hearing the questions that were directed to staff. We we imagine there will be uh questions about transportation that that Joe and I can try to answer. Um, but before we really get going here, I'm going to turn things over to Dave Edy with Kennedy Wilson to provide some background and kind of address like why the why of why we're here this evening.

Yeah. Hi. Uh, good evening, Chair Clinton and D. Uh, I'm Dave Ed with Kennedy Wilson. I [clears throat] recognize a few few of you from last time and we have some new faces. So uh why we're here basically is uh things have changed over a certain amount of time with the economy and uh as it starts here you know we had a uh project approved last in the summer of 2023 things are going fine uh in 24 we got through a site plan approval and a plat map and uh we went so far as to get going with uh working drawings and permitting and even starting uh plans for construction fencing, construction sighting of construction trailers, uh moving employees out here to uh project manage on the site. So, we went way down the road on this project. Uh pretty sign significant expense when you consider the cost of uh going through the approval process and all of the drawings that takes place and permit fees. So, uh, suffice it to say, we were a little, uh, taken aback when some headwinds were coming along with the economy that we saw that were very concerning. Um, some of those are articulated in my, uh, cover letter to you. And on the board here, some of the construction cost volatility, there was just bids that were coming in that were untenable. Um, we had, um, interest rate volatility. Um some of the indicators for absorption from our market people and the risk of the market were you know getting to be u nervous time for us and uh a lot of that is cyclical and sometimes it's you take that in stride but in the

project of this size and given the fact that we had a lot of repetitive large complicated buildings with uh trades that uh locally are not in abundance and we could have uh we would probably count on having a lot of trades come from Portland and Seattle. Um I I think at a point in time we just decided the risk was starting to be a little bit too much for us to take on. So, we made a big decision to stop the project, put it on pause, but nevertheless keep our eye on the ball and try to um concoct a way in which we can start uh restart the project and go forward because it is a great project. It brings a lot of needed housing to Bend. And um what you see before you tonight is a depiction of our current train of thought, which is to add some uh four-story product in the initial phases and start from east to west where some of the uh the best parcels, I'll call them in terms of views and uh splash right on the corner of uh bond and industrial and u views of the river and so forth and so on. Those potentials still exist. um although we've had a diminished you know confidence that we can do those. So in coming up with the east to west approach we're coming in with um product that can be built faster and uh over the years by the time that product comes along to the west um perhaps there is a market for a reliable market that we can be confident in to do a hotel or to do the parcel a development that presently is already existing in the approvals. So that strategy as well as removing uh [clears throat] Timberyard's Drive

which we thought we think is a good idea because it wasn't that integral to circulation and uh it promote promotes a lot better pedestrian interaction experience on the property versus having a street biseect the property entirely. So we come to you now with a plan we're just as excited about. It's something that's uh a little smaller in scope and impacts, but uh and mitigations are appropriately uh calibrated toward those lesser impacts. But I think we're at a point now we uh feel confident that we we can move forward in earnest and uh bring a good project, great project to the city. Back to you, Joey.

All right. Thanks, Dave. So this slide just kind of shows the comparison and and the idea here is that while timber yards remains this kind of vibrant connected walkable community under either concept uh the code amendment and again I think Karen summarized this but just to be very clear the code amendment reflects these changes. So one, it replaces Timber Yards Drive originally shown there as the the east mouse is visible uh the east west road with this bike and pedestrianoriented more linear open space. Second thing it does is it changes the phasing so that the project can be built east to west starting at the new ani roundabout. And so uh the the mitigation table is intended to allow development kind of in any sort of order as long as the accompanying mitigations are are completed. We think with these changes and the intent is to move from east to west. Um but that there's flexibility within there for for that to kind of change over time. And then the third thing it does is um you know that updated anticipated programming results in in less traffic and requires less mitigation which we've which we've talked about. So that means that again the scope of these amendments is quite narrow. We are not changing allowed uses under kind of either master plan scenario. We are not changing allowed density or any of the development standards, but we are adjusting the plan street network to better accommodate these these intended programming changes and and the related mitigation. So the updated concept for the site is still a very high level concept but you know we we're trying to show what what

the intent is and and the design work that is happening is reflected here and and this is I guess the important thing is we're we're trying to be transparent and and show what the current thinking is but this is far more detail than is required for kind of master plan approval or approval of a master plan type entitlement. This will be refined over time as we head towards a future site plan review and tenative subdivision. I think the idea in making these changes is trying to the intent is to move quickly with master plan approval and move right into site plan review and and go through that process again from from the Anie roundabout east to west. Um that modification area is kind of outlined in in the blue. uh and is is due to a number of factors uh that that Dave described. And these changes are going to provide the flexibility that Kennedy Wilson needs in order to kind of move forward with at least a portion of this project and again bring this under underutilized part of the city to life, provide much neededed housing in this part of the city. So an important part of the design element of any master plan is of course the the open space uh and the city requirement that at least 10% of the site area be provided as open space. The original master plan had a little bit more than 10%. We're staying consistent with that that slightly increased amount. And then this these images are really intended to evoke more of that that linear park that extends um basically from Anie all the way kind of west across and then through an easement would ultimately connect to Bond Street. And just like with the original concept, um we want this to be immersive. uh a

landscape that utilizes kind of uh natural local materials, ample seating, amenities, and really activities um that are appropriate and available for people of all ages and abilities and all of the essential transportation infrastructure remains. Uh we we heard the question about the mini roundabout. I'm sure Joe can can answer. um that question. We still have this very strong east west pedestrian bicycle route connecting again Anie roundabout all the way over to Bond Street at the west end. We have the mobility hub there along Bond. Uh extension of the multi-use paths around the perimeter. And really another significant change with this um with this modification and and the transportation mitigation is it does pull forward both of the roundabouts um to what we anticipate being the the first the first phase um regardless of actually where that first phase occurs.

Go back that slide. Yeah, the the red line is I can't read the I can't read the key. Uh, sorry. So, the the red line it like this red line and the red line around the perimeter of the site is for the multi-use paths. Those are pedestrian and bicycle. Yes. So, those that center area is public access, correct? Yeah. There there would be a a 10- foot um public access ement running through a larger open space tract.

Thank you. And so to summarize with these amendments, Timber Yards continues to provide a number of benefits to the city and the surrounding community. It facilitates the infill of this underutilized property and opportunity area. It provides needed housing consistent with both the the city's comprehensive plan and the site's designation as that opportunity area. It extends and improves both the local street network, but also important collector streets. And so that's the industrial connection uh and why Timber Yards Drive is is frankly less essential. It extends sewer and water infrastructure to and through the site uh extends street and multi-use trail uh improving connectivity and safety for for both pedestrians and bicyclists. And finally, each home and commercial space generates significant amount of SDC's that help fund services, park, sewer, water, and transportation. So, um, we kept it short, anticipating that there would be questions and our our team is here to try and answer those best we can.

Start with you. Um, not entirely relevant, but just kind of curious with the proposed master plan about how wide would that center open space be? Um so again this is a conceptual location and once we actually know what them what the multifamily sites in these kind of central phases would look like that will be refined but what's shown here is I think tracks that are roughly kind of as at the narrowest points like 35 ft wide to more than 75 ft wide. No questions. No questions.

Hundreds of questions. Tons and tons and tons of questions. Okay, so I found the private street thing. It's the Everpine. It says that Everpine will be a private commercial driveway and won't actually be a street at all. So, how many housing units are going to access their only access is going to be Everpine?

So, I think there's optionality in Everpine. And Joe, you might be able to speak to this in more detail, but it it effectively is serving um a a portion of the the multif family here. There's also the other reason why there's kind of that that T at the end is that there is a required sewer lift station that's there. It's it was there as part of the original concept. And so making sure that there is access to that that lift station for for city public works. um for turnarounds.

Yeah. Not my question though that you have this private. So you're saying it's not a street. So it has a name on here. It says uh Everpine, right? But but now it's not. Joey, what's the location of it? Corpine and it's they changed the name. So I think Everpine So it's it's Seismore Seismore. So So all right. So there is no more Everpine and Seismore's public street all the way through to the shovel.

Correct. So Seismore comes through. I think in the original master plan it was called Everpine, but now that we know that Seismore is making that connection up to Arizona, um the couplet up there, the naming is staying consistent as it comes into timber yards. It's replaced southwest everine Everpine Street, which is uh between uh A and C. Yeah. So basically the a private commercial driveway access. So where it would be Seismore.

So it's the it's the western if you can see the blue dashes there. It's the westernmost blue dashes running north south. That's the extension of Seismore as it comes down along Jack Straw uh and then enters the the Timberyard site west side. Yeah. And so is that a private street? Is it a public street? Is it I think that's to be determined. I think there's flexibility in here both. We think it functions well enough as a private street, but because of public utilities, other things like that, I think that the city has some interest in it becoming a public street.

Joe, you want to just talk about kind of the the functionality from a traffic perspective? Yeah, the uh the other consideration we had with that that street was since we have that multi-use pedestrian crossing that goes all the way from the mobility hub over to aie and connects to the city's awning extension project. We also wanted to make sure those pedestrian treatments at that crossing were were really well elevated beyond what's typical for a city of Ben public street. We were talking about speed tables and other treatments and and so that was why that was one of the other reasons we were considering making that a private street to give ourselves more design flexibility in how we treat that crossing the crossing of

of the multi-use path that goes all the way across the center of the site. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Uh okay. So um

and so if let me let me clarify. So, if you look in the mitigation table, we had originally had conversations with the city about that being private. On page 21 um of the mitigation table, it says 60oot rideway dedication of Seismore Street and construction of a utility access road from the south property line of Pimber Yards to Industrial Way. So, the plan is that it would be a public street. All right. Um, it it is identified as a local on the street circulations plan. So,

is it public or is it private? Is it public or for the mitigation table? It's a public local street 65 right away. So, just pay no attention to what's in the written report. I I don't know which part of the report you're you're referring to. I'm happy to look at of the of the acts site consulting with all of the Yeah. So that that's prepared in advance of the application. It was conversations that we had with with the city. We thought it functions well as a private street but due to utility considerations and other public interest um the mitigation table requires that it be a public local street.

So okay. Uh, so you guys will get that cleared up. But my the transportation aspect of that of not having the street that goes through and I appreciate the aesthetics of that. However, all of the properties that are on this whatever this street is called, private or public, Seismore or Everpine, they're all going to have to go back out to industrial way and they're going to get onto the transportation system from there. And the transportation analysis says we have a lot less cars and we don't have any issue in those areas. driving here tonight. The prop the traffic on Arizona was backed up to Bomb Street to get in. I was trying to get into the city and on Colorado, sorry, on Colorado, Arizona. Anyway, adding this much and putting that traffic out there seems like a problem. then there's no way to get across Arizona as a well even a car trying to get across but a bicycle or pedestrian. I didn't see anything about anything mitigating and allowing for people to get across this street that's busy when Jack Straw isn't rented out and none of this has been built and there's no pedestrian crossing. There's a road there which is great. That's fantastic. And the sight distance on Seismore and Arizona, if you are going up Arizona and uh sorry, up uh Seismore and you have to cross Arizona to the new Jack Straw, the city took three parking spaces away, but you still can't see because the road is curving down. So I'm just trying to understand how safety for bicycles and

pedestrians and vehicles trying to get now across that street to get in or out of this development which that's one of the three ways to get in or out. You know talked about the one and I have not seen the city's final plan but there's no way for that to be something that people are going to choose unless everything else is backed up completely because it's going to be okay. And so just to make sure I'm also understanding, we'll let Joe answer this, but this is a concern based on timber yards generally, not something specific to this modification. This modification, you're changing the traffic analysis and the number of That's what I read.

Fewer fewer trips. Fewer trips. So we don't have to do the mitigation we were going to do. So, we don't have to do anything about Highway 97 and Colorado uh and the Parkway, right? Because now we don't have enough trips. But it's a mess now.

And now it feels like Russ used to call it a balloon drop. Like the last property, which is now it had a name, but I don't remember what it is. But the piece of railroad that that was abandoned railroad between Jack Straw and the Parkway is the last piece. And so the balloon drop is going to happen when that property develops if not everybody else is making their contribution towards fixing this problem. And no matter how many people you add in there, it's more than are there now. And if the thing is failing now, whatever you add is going to make it worse. I think that is an issue and what you're saying is well we have less traffic now so we would like to do less.

Yeah. So Suzanne can I just clarify? So by eliminating the east west um timberyard drive instead putting in the multi-use or whatever it's called pedestrian. Um originally on Seismore some of the residents if they wanted to go east could have gone on Timberyard Drive. Now they can't. They've got to go up to industrial. So that is adding traffic which I hadn't thought about. Yeah. Okay. But I and that's why I was asking that same question because I wanted to make sure if this was specifically about Timber Yards Drive or a larger concern about kind of off-site traffic. And I think Joe can

Yeah. take a swing at those multiple questions.

Well, there's and there's multiple layers to your question and they're they're spot on. I mean, you're you're exactly right about what's going on here. I'm going to try and give you enough context but not overwhelm you because I could talk all day about this. But when the city or when when ODOT worked on their Bend Parkway plan, you know, they looked at all these interchanges throughout Bend for this particular interchange at Colorado, they said, you know, it's broken. We're going to accept more congestion here. That's that's going to be our our solution because the physical constraints of the railroad are such that there's not a lot of options. There are some some minor safety things we can do. We can we can make the curbs a little tighter so that people turning the corners off the southbound on-ramp have to go at a slower speed, making it safer for bikes and pedestrians, but but not increasing the throughput, not reducing the cues. Totally separate issue. Now, there is some ongoing talk with the city and the rail about possibly abanding abandoning some of those rail road tracks and and opening up improvements, but those are those are well beyond what the Kennedy Wilson team can do in in terms of what this project's doing. The reason we're trying to get this industrial way connection built with our first phase is the city came and said, "Look, Joe, traffic's an issue here, and we need another east west route that gets people to Third Street, gets people around here." And so, yes, we are going to add more trips to this brand new collector road, this industrial way collector we're building. It'll still operate well below what it can carry, and it still operates well below what Colorado and Arizona are carrying. So, capacity on on on industrial on this new segment isn't isn't the concern. We're worried about we're concerned about, you know, the interchange ramps and the and the bridge across the Dashuites River and Bond Street and and Reed Market Road and those those real constraints also having this type of use, this density next to the region's biggest commercial areas within the old mill, within the downtown with all these walkable systems that the thought is if our population is going to grow, more people can walk, ride their bike and

stuff from from this area than if we put that growth on the periphery and all those people have to drive all through these roads and add to this congestion was this queuing. That's that's kind of the other the other piece to this. So when when we were looking at this this specific Colorado Avenue [clears throat] grant, previously we had this $300,000 contribution where we would just write OD out a check and and that money was going to be going towards these these pedestrian crossings. We are improving the Seismore connection. So right now through Jack Straw and to your point, yeah, there the road does curve. There's a couple spots missing, but it's it's still it's still not great. But those those crosswalks aren't even marked. The sidewalks on the other side of Seismore, the sidewalks are are 5t wide. There's no bike lanes. The roads narrow. And the real safety problem is that Seismore in Colorado where we have this crazy high amount of crashes. So what our project's going to do once we generate the 100th unit, the 100th residential unit within this first 250 units is we're going to come through Seismore, widen that road, add bicycle lanes, take the five or six foot, I think it's a 5ft sidewalk, make it a 10-ft sidewalk, stripe the crosswalks and and look at enhancing those on on Arizona so you can actually make it through this this couplet system. Actually taking this collector all the way all the way across. You think striping sidewalks is going to improve the safety in that intersection?

That's not the only thing that probably needs to happen. I I think we probably need to go back and revisit where the cars are parked. I wasn't part of opening that. That wasn't that wasn't me. Okay. When when we worked on our plan, that that still wasn't open. It was still under construction.

Okay. Uh so I understand about the shovel. I didn't really quite understand that, but I didn't realize because nothing on the map showed any buildings. So, uh, I I get that. Um, I am concerned by some language in the findings uh that talks about um the standards and zoning. So I'm on page 12 of 35 of the findings and it talks about um the applicant has demonstrated that standards and zoning are cap capable of being met during sub plan. And we have learned a lot about the difference between a master plan and a site plan and when we see pretty pictures during the master plan, but what we actually get during the site plan. And so it says except as proposed to be modified by the applicant as part of a major community master plan. So my question is um you say no new deviations are included but aren't these transportation things and aren't the sixstory to fourstory or aren't those deviations?

No, it's not considered a deviation.

Yeah. So that there is no standard relative to transportation. That's basically a a a custom element of these master plans um based on traffic study and consulting with the the city's engineers. So we're trying to rightsize the transportation mitigation based on the impacts of this particular project. As part of the original master plan, we did request a deviation to allow buildings that would ordinary the higher than would ordinarily be uh permitted in in this zone. That doesn't mean that all of the buildings have to be that high. It could turn out that none of the buildings are that high. Um and what this application, this text amendment is doing is it's not it's not requesting any new deviations. it's living with the deviations that was that were previously approved.

So what that means is the previous master plan you get to do whatever was in the previous master plan and the only way that anything is and and so you can do whatever you want as long as it's within the original master plan even though the transportation analysis is done on a smaller scale it doesn't change the scale of what you could do. So you could build the six-story building, but your transportation mitigation is going to be for a four-story building,

except for if we got to a point with the site planer view or tenative subdivision, because each one of those future applications has to also look back at the at the transportation mitigation. And so that could happen. So if if macroeconomic factors change very significantly and we thought all of a sudden we could go back to six and seven story podium buildings that would require another change to the transportation mitigation where we'd have to go back in study the higher trip generation and go back to maybe a more robust mitigation table to to balance out all those increased trips

triggered at the site plan level. So the city looks will have a chance to look at each of those subsequent applications and making sure that what was proposed from an infrastructure impact perspective is in line with what we're looking at here this evening.

And just to make a final point on that in the transportation mitigation table specific to transportation um p the bottom of page 20 of the proposed development code text. It's the very first actual mitigation. It says each phase of development will provide a trip debit letter that will track available trips banked by the transportation review. Trips in excess of the traffic impact analysis will require an additional transportation review in accordance. So what these mitigation table the mitigations within the table were built on the assumptions based on their modified buildout of the master plan. If things change and they do want to propose some more intense development, we would need to analyze it at that point if it exceeds what we've assumed could be built under these standards and these mitigations.

Thank you. I had a question about what the TR what that Yep. And that's a good question. Whatever that whatever you said for that, I was like, what the debit letter? What the heck is the debit letter? And that's not unique to Timber Yards. That's consistent with all of the major community master plans. Uh then a question about the sewer and water. Doesn't the third street underpass use that sewer line there on Second Street? So you're talking about putting everything from this development into that sewer line and you're going to increase it from 8 to 10 or something like that? But but doesn't all the water that get gets pumped out of the Third Street underpass go into that? So you you don't usually get to hear from my colleague Brian Wilkinson.

Thank you. Everybody likes to talk to the civil engineer. Um, what you're talking about is storm water. I believe the storm water there gets pumped out, I believe, to a different pond. This is the sanitary sewer. So, the city's directed all the stuff to go to that Second Street sewer line. There's capacity in that line. The other line that's in there goes down to the old mill pump station, which is already at capacity. So this pump station in addition to um this this pump station will also take flow from what is what is already tributary to the old mill pump station which is already somewhat undersized. There's a force man problem there. So it's going to provide additional capacity for the old mill to continue developing and pump that over to the second street and I know that that's consistent with the with the city's plans. So the storm water is going in a separate pipe.

Totally separate system. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Uh just a couple more. I'm going to stand on my soap box again, but the findings uh when we get to housing is that uh we are doing the housing based on the housing city's housing need analysis. We're talking about the 2016 housing needs analysis. I've been asking my entire eight years on the planning commission for updated numbers from that. We don't have them. We're building development based on things that we know so much has changed since 2016 in Bend in terms of the housing in terms of the housing that's built. We know we have an affordable housing issue. I mean like only thing we should be building is capital A affordable housing until we get that under control. If we don't have it just bothers me so much that we have this 2016 housing needs analysis and all these housing all these developments are basing on that and we know it's woefully outdated and yet we allow development to continue to be using that data to justify their existence and that just a that bothers me so much. That just bothers me so much. Uh so what if the housing needs analysis is completed before the development applications on these properties? Will they be required to follow the new housing needs analysis instead of the 2016? Well, I can answer the second question. [laughter] The and in the findings we you're right, we rely on the data and the need analysis back from 2016. There are in the findings additional updated statistics since the chart was published in the 2016 report. But to answer your second question, so this master plan establishes basically the street layout and and the

infrastructure impacts and mitigations for the infrastructure impacts with very few exceptions. It otherwise relies on the MU zone standards to dictate what gets built in the master plan. So the densities in there, the housing types that are allowed in the MU zone is what we'll look to when we get subsequent site plan review applications and barring any changes to that we housing needs analysis.

I want to be I want to be clear about what a housing needs analysis is for. I mean is residential capacity analysis. are used when you do big projects like UGB expansions to determine whether or not you have enough residential land to meet the needs of a community for the for the planning period which is 20 years. So that was done the UGB was expanded in 2016. That need was demonstrated in 2016 through a combination of infill development within the opportunity areas as well as adding about 200 acres into the UGB. So that demonstrated the need. you don't then have to demonstrate compliance with the um you know your your housing capacity analysis or your residential needs analysis at every land use application that takes place after that larger project is done. I mean it what it does is it sets the stage it sets the densities in the zoning that then can be applied. So if there were minimum densities like in our residential district we have minimum densities that need to be met. our master plan areas that have residential densities, we actually have a higher density that needs to be met in those areas in order to meet the needs that were identified. But you don't on every unless it's specified within the zoning district or in some of the expansion areas where we have to do a master plan where there are specific densities that they need to meet that that's where the residential analysis is implemented. It's not done at every like site plan review or every even master plan for an area like this. I haven't looked at the res at at the study from 2016 for this, but there was a very small amount of residential that was assigned to this area. I think they're they're exceeding what was and anticipated for this area. So,

but there's a chart of overall how many of each different type of housing type we needed in 2016, right, for the next 20 years and and that was that was complied with with the UGB expansion. So, you don't have to look at that at every incremental. All right. And then the state has told us that we add need to add 35,000 more housing units, right? So it seems like our 2016 housing needs analysis is woefully inadequate.

And not that I I just I like the idea of a development of this property. I like the idea of uh uh the multitory housing in this area. I like that it's got maybe maybe some retail, maybe not. It kind of I wish it did, but there's a lot of commercial, walkable, everything within that area. I think it's a great use of the land,

but it just irks me that we keep using this outdated data to justify things when we should have completely different data. we shouldn't be relying on this old data that's doesn't doesn't reflect where we are and so to keep citing it into our findings just seems irresponsible to me. It just it's just this doesn't seem to Could I speak to that a little bit in terms of our project specific? Just

going back in time once again since you were on the commission. Um you know the then current codes and standards in place then as well as now when we filed we comply. Everybody knows that part. However, you might recall me saying uh last time the question was posed, I think by Commissioner Winters, are we going to do any affordable housing as part of this project? And I said that uh it is not uh planned, although it's in our vocabulary if you recall me using that word. And by that I meant to say uh if we can do that over the course of the project with the uh economics being such as they are why not do that if possible. I should have been more expansive at that time. Um, fast forward to now, in the cover letter, we uh said we will actually commit to doing that, but given the fact that the extent of infrastructure improvements that are necessary on the front end of a project and all of those costs and just the overall subsidy of affordable housing by the developer, that doesn't come without trying to get some assistance. And so I mentioned that in the cover letter because we're absolutely willing to go down that path and provide affordable housing, but we just can't do it alone. If we can do it in partnership with the city uh through tax um relief of some type, we're certainly willing to get into that and do that.

So for our part, you know, great. So restoration chief operations offic clarify a couple things around this because it's really important. So we we are bound by that 2016 analysis that is what is approved and adopted in our plans and in our complaint. So that's that's what they have to that's what they have to do that looked at multifamily and single family. That is the rule that is basically the law of the land as it stands right. We are we are now right in the middle of creating and that was to get us to today right into the next couple years. We are now in the process of resetting those rules. Yeah. And we can now apply that to a current application.

Yep. Right. Get that. But what you are asking is exactly what is going to be happening over the next four years as we look forward to the next 20 years. We'll be looking at all those different kind of stratas of housing and we are now required to look at incentives work. That's all future work and you can't take what's going to happen and apply it to what is going on right now. I understand your concern and and the way the state law is written, we are now having to look at that and that's what we'll be doing as we go in the next iteration of our growth plan. But as of today, we are bound by the 2016 comp plan and the rules and the rec and kind of kind of the requirements and what and the resulting comp plan the resulting zoning and requirements for this property

and the update is four to five years away. it is. But at the same time, we are making we we've been making great strides in our housing mix, right? But I understand your concern. I just want to I just want to kind of iterate to to the planning commission is knowing that we're heading that direction in the future. You can't go back in time and now apply it to what is now currently on our books as our existing comprehensive. Right. But that was why I asked where it if if it changes between now and when they actually apply. Do the new standards apply? If if the if there was like a if we were to apply say a minimum density in this zone, they would have to then comply with that. Okay.

But but short of that, we it doesn't like we don't require compliance with comprehensive plan after a master plan has been

approved. Just another way to think about it, at least it's helpful to me, compliance with the housing needs analysis is a way of establishing compliance with the goals. It's not a it's not a performance standard for subsequent development. So that's but the nature of the thing, Commissioner Johansson, and we've talked about this before. I get it. The nature of the thing is to be perspective. So it is, as Russ said, it is a long-term projection of what the city's needs are. So it doesn't it doesn't get stale just because time passes in some circumstances and change. It's still a projection. It's what it's what it's a projection of what is supposed to happen. And if an applicant shows compliance with it, it's because they are contributing a piece of what's supposed to happen, even if some of the priorities may have changed or shifted.

I'd just like to uh commend uh David Edy and Kennedy Wilson uh for stepping up and going and hoping to go above and beyond what's required. um because the you know laws take long time they don't keep up with you know needs of the day and the affordable housing is just so critical here that I would certainly appeal to the city to do anything on the financial as well as the PR front. So um number of developers could use help on the PR front. I think there's an opportunity for those in good standing to even uh elevate their um stature and you know hopefully not necessarily an affordable housing but uh make this a a real desirable highquality uh community. have have that reputation versus well just here's another I'm not saying

sure another developer trying to squeeze out every last nickel presum yeah it's a giant vacant gravel lot right now so no I [laughter] yeah just this it's going to be more desirable no question yeah one last question please just a clarification because I did I swear when I read through this I did not see that the roundabout at Bond and Industrial Way is in the first phase. So you're saying that both roundabouts are in the are going to be triggered right away. Yes.

Even though the development is going to move to the east side. And I didn't understand your comment. There was something about mountain views and river views. Is that the east side or the west side? West side. That's what I thought. Okay. All right. Okay. So, I just want to make sure that those transportation pieces uh get done first rather than waiting until the development on the west side is done before that happens. All right. Thank you. Sorry, that was a lot of questions, but to your point real quick to we we want to make sure that as we have occupants in these buildings that they have a safe way in and out. So, they're going to be in place before we have occupancy of any units and and already now we have to coordinate with the Jack Straw, with Krux, with the other businesses here. So, we we're going to have to try and figure out how to juggle these construction sequences to keep everyone open and operational and we know that.

Yeah. C can I I didn't have a question now. I do I do on transportation on the 97 the curb and whatnot that's being dropped. Um could you expand on that? I didn't understand originally what was intended, why it's being dropped, what are the pros and cons? Yeah, there's so there's there's two reasons it's it's being dropped. One is that what is it? What was it originally?

So it was if you if you look at an aerial map, the the curve radi are really sweeping and when you have that really sweeping radius, it puts the pedestrian farther back. So that crossing is longer. If you look at this project with our Seismore connection to the west and our awning connection to the east, we're not really sending pedestrians to the interchange. That's that's not where where you're walking. So we don't we don't have an impact on that on that crossing and we don't have an impact on ODOT's facility. It's not considered a significant impact because of our reduction in trips. And there aren't really design solutions identified yet to to know what to even do there.

Until they can figure out ways to move those railroad tracks and really try and get that left turn onto the northbound ramp, there's really not much you can do. It's really constrained. Okay. Thank you. As a pedestrian who lives in that area, I'm super excited about that and I will never have to cross that Colorado interchange. That's huge. I remember when that first opened and I was taking my kids on a bike ride and to ride across that is just ridiculous with little kids on bikes. It's a huge crossing with traffic that's trying to get by fast, although

they're faster now than they were back then. Okay, thank you. Yeah, there's a question uh or I had a question about prior to the occupancy of the first building in lot B and they talk about the uh dedication of public access easement um uh Seismore Street west of Bond Street and it says gated Bond Street. I was wondering what that was. So that was originally um recognized that their pedestrian access through there, but it was the the gated access at Bond Street was also serving as a potential emergency fire access so that emergency vehicles would have about that multi-use.

You could you could pull a a ballard, right? Okay. And then the other thought was with kind of a plaza open space there that would also be access if there were concerts, festivals, you know, food cart providers could kind of have a more direct access. So, it's not for not not ever intended for everyday access. Primarily emergency access. Uh but there would with ballards be pedestrian access connection all the way across. Um and then also I was looking through the draft development code. But I didn't see anything about affordability, affordable housing. Um, where would that

it was mentioned in the cover letter um as a a commitment provided we could get some assistance and I I'm not sure we've articulated that in anywhere else in the application or the papers. So when that's part of the application

when the application first when the original timber yards came through uh there was no tiny tiff program uh subsequent to approval of that original master plan the city to Russ's point looking at issues that maybe are not perfectly captured in a 2016 uh housing needs analysis but recognizing needs in the community. the the city has tried to create incentives to address some of these needs, affordable housing being some of them. Um, and so what what's D they've summarized in the cover letter is and we understand that this program may be going through some sort of transition here actually subsequent to us kind of preparing these materials. Um but if if the project can be selected under the the city's tiny tiff pro program um there's a commitment to a certain number of units in these initial phases. Um and the reality is as Dave pointed out these affordable housing projects need help either from the state and or the city in order to come to fruition. And so the the commitment is if the project can be selected under this program that that affordable housing deed restricted capital affordable housing will be provided.

Um also had just um like Karen me I Karen mentioned it about the the public access versus the public easement. Uh you know I was I'm sitting there trying to think about like why that would happen. I mean, if you're going to have a a a path that's dedicated anyways, and I know a lot of times on these projects and you're trying to fit buildings and parking and everything in there, it's like open space starts to get hard to to put in there. And it seems like if you're going to have an area that you're going to leave open anyways, why that doesn't connect. And so I I it just something's I'm not.

So you're you're talking specifically about the pinch point and I I don't know that I have a graphic showing that unfortunately, but I can walk through. You're talking about between size more and industrial. And to be honest, I think some of the maybe the concern and push back of getting is that original proposal was something that everyone was really excited about. And when I especially when I believe we granted a the it doesn't have to be it could be more hardscape plaza for the open space which I was really stoked about because we're not short of parks in Ben but we are short of plazas. Yeah. And so I think I think some of this so then when I see that green line being taken out I'm like oh man that was

so there's a pinch point here.

Yeah. based on this this concept. And again, these concepts can be refined. But why why in the original master plan there was not a green connection here because there wasn't in the original is because it necked neck down to less than 20 ft of width and you don't qualify for open space under the master plan provisions for any sections narrower than than 20 feet. So, we did have a planned um pedestrian connection here. I think it's I think it's conditioned as part of the site plan review for lot one which again is still valid. Um so there was a guarantee for for public access. It just didn't it was narrower than 20 ft. So we couldn't count it as as open space even though there was a public benefit. But then with the new plan and and similar to the old plan, there was kind of an open space corridor here along Emry Arts Drive. And now this is just fully replacing that with a a wider again roughly 35 foot wide to 75 foot wide open space that does that answer the question?

Yeah, I guess. Um, so the so then the is the is the issue that there's got to be fire setback from the public space to the buildings that that's one of the issues that we we had to kind of overcome with some of these these initial designs. I don't know that that's the fire lot line is the edge of the

Yeah. And it's just it's just looking as these things pinch um and having kind of a there's also a need for a vehicle access through there. Uh, and so there just wasn't enough space for a 20 foot wide open space tract. I think there were some setback cons issues because to put it in a tract, you're now creating property lines that theoretically have set setback considerations. Um, so we provided access. It just didn't meet the the standards that allowed us to count it as open space under the master plan. Okay. So is that southern one the one that you're talking about possibly being a hotel that be this side here

and the portico that Karen mentioned would be that little bumpout spot that is pinch point correct

I guess my question's a little vagger well no at what point in traffic analysis to start saying um we need another lane of instead of we need more crosswalk striping.

And that's that's a great question too and that really goes back to the city's planning. So our my work as a a traffic engineer is I have to fall under the city's transportation system plan and make sure that my development my assumptions are consistent. The city's not looking to add lanes to any of these roads. So that's a constraint that I have to work within and say, "Okay, how do I make more efficient use?" Well, if you can't add more lanes, you got to add more roads. And that's why we're looking at this industrial way connections.

I'm all for I'm all for the like the little connections. I just I'm I I I really share Suzanne's concern that this area there's some times a day when it feels it is really congested with the cars parked along the side of the street. It is really dangerous to turn onto the streets. I I've almost been in a few accidents there because there's just no visibility even though cars are moving slow. Um I ride my bike down there a lot. Um, you know, I'm always so additional bike lanes are definitely welcome, but I am really concerned that, you know, we just added Jack Straw and then this is really going to add a lot of congestion, a lot of traffic, a lot of parking crunches to the area. And I I'd really like to hear some suggestions on improving the traffic flow besides crosswalks. So, and I I think that's a good question. I think the thing to also remember is we're talking about less traffic here. And so, we can talk about specific locations where this scheme may be changing mitigation or having those impacts, but kind of just generally speaking about traffic, this is having a less of an impact relative to the the previous master plan and mitigation.

I'm happy about that. Hon honestly, I mean it's a great place for for like a dense development, but I'm I'm really glad to see it's going to be less dense. Um because the denser it gets, the farther we get from this kind of small town community that that we that we have had um but we have to have 35,000 more housing units going to those states. So

it is it is such a dile it is such a dilemma. I mean, just just to let you know, like the number one com public comment I think I see is don't cut down our trees. So, people really love the open space here. Um, and at the same time, they're all complaining that they can't find a place to live. So, I see the trade-off, but um I am I am pretty concerned about the parking and and just this congestion on on the street. Do you have a question? I guess not really. Deliberation is okay. It's not deliberation because this is I am letting them know about my concern. So,

um but you do remind me of one more question and that is about the trees on scale house. So, uh saving the trees when possible. All of them have been planted. They were intended for industrial screening. Yes, exactly. A lot of them are not close together in the greatest health. It looks like maybe lodge pole pine. I don't know. It's a two needle pine of some kind. It's not ponderosa. I don't know what it is. Uh mostly and then some of them in between is like a colar popppler or something. So it's very very dense, but yeah. Um so I did see mention that weren't really sure how many of those trees you were going to be able to

correct. in the original tenative subdivision that does show a lot of those trees coming out because that is in the exact alignment of a utility corridor. In fact, bringing power from the the the Bond Street substation all the way up this this new connection to Timberard. New trees that would be planted after all the rightway and then and there's going to be a ton and then a ton of trees. Yeah. Where this is a gravel. Yeah. And I see lots of trees on the Beautiful drawing. Well, you'll be able to see the trees from inside the project, but not from the outside building. Those are all screened by the trees. They're all screened by the buildings. All right.

Okay. Any more questions before we head into public testimony? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, next we move into public testimony. If you would like to make testimony, please fill out the forms. Have we received any? Okay. If you are online and would like to make testimony, please raise your hand.

Waiting to see. Okay. Um I will go ahead and move on to the next item. Since there's no public testimony, would the applicants like to make rebuttal to the [laughter] public? I don't have any rebuttal, but we do want to make sure that if there are any additional questions that we have a chance to answer those before you close the record. Any more questions? Um, on the affordable housing, the 76 potential uh affordable housing, have you gotten any indication, any sense, any Ouija board? uh indication from the city and or just your gut. I mean wishful thinking,

huh? It would come through us, wouldn't it? He's saying it's dependent on tiff, right? The tiny tiff program. Yes. And so I think I think the city council and maybe staff can speak to this that they're looking at maybe making some changes to this program. Also, we don't know exactly what that's going to look like. Um but as Dave said the in intent is there that if we can qualify under this program um plus whether it's that program or any other you know depending on what it looks like when we go to develop you know that's sometime down the road now. Yeah we got a lot of work to do before we get there. So so

yeah the site specific tip is one particular program that is under the opices vendor and renewal agency. So I think I heard it would come to planning commission. It it wouldn't at least not the not the eligibility component. There are even an array of other options. There's a qualified rental. I mean there there are multiple ways for applicants to seek public support for affordable housing and that the site specific tip is one of the newer programs. So it would

there's an application process. It goes to Bend urban renewal agency Burough which people in Burough look a lot like the people in city council but it's yes there's there's there's its own uh application process and eligibility. Yes. Because I mean this seems like an ideal development for or such. Uh I know the city has subsidized affordable housing and other parts of town that I really scratch my head. Um, so I I hope this progresses and whatever subsidy it might be, it has to work financially. You know, whatever

if it's a tasset little bit, that's not going to work. You know, it has to be something that the numbers can work. 6%. 10%. No, just talking out loud. Yeah. Yeah. One last question about the Oh, I meant in terms of your ROI. Oh, basing the different phases and the timing of the phases. Yeah. Is it irrelevant?

I mean, so we had a certain phasing and now we have a different phasing, but the actual phasing is somewhat irrelevant from you're going to it's whatever you apply is what's going to happen regardless of what we thought. Isn't that am I correct on that? I think that's generally correct. I'd say with the original

transportation mitigation, there were improvements tied to each phase. That didn't necessarily require that in the previous iteration development happened from west to east. It could still happen in another order as long as the required mitigation occurred concurrently with it. What we did here is recognize we're trying to save the entitlement uh and hope that the the projects on the west end, including the one that's already been approved, can go forward at some point in the in the future. So, the lowhanging fruit uh is to start on the other side. And so, that was the nature of the conversation that we've had with city staff and based on Joe's transportation study, we think the logical way now for this to to go is from east to west. Um but you know that that could be like the first two two um kind of phases go uh the reality is the Hooker Creek site they still have an operating battery plant there right and they've got to find a new spot for that to relocate before that is redeveloped that could happen in 5 10 15 years um so we we we've tried to create flexibility for the project in the mitigation but the conversations we've been having with city staff and the way we think it's going to work is from Anie But regardless of what the timing of which phase gets built first,

yeah, Industrial Way is going to be built with a roundabout at each end, it's all going to be open. There's not going to be any gate across it, right? Going to be a public street. It's not going to be a private collector street. A collector.

Ken, thank you for bringing that up. I was going to make that at the end of staff comments. That mitigation is on page 21 of 27 in the draft updated development code in the mitigation table. It it's a long one. So it takes up a big part of the table. But the trigger on the right hand column is prior to occupancy of the first building in any lot. That's when all those improvements are triggered. And it's dedication of rightway and construction of the single lane roundabout at fallen and industrial. It's dedication of rightaway and completion of the industrial way ai street mini roundabout dedication of rightaway and completion of industrial way to collector street standards that whole stretch in between. And so just to add on to what Joey was saying just through experience and to provide flexibility and we can anticipate to the best we might know at this point which direction the master plan might develop. We we analyze these tables over and over again to ensure that it could make sense regardless of how it develops because some of them are triggered to specific impacts created by anticipated development on a lot and some are just improvements that need to be done

out of the gate regardless. We want to make sure they're done and that's one of those that whole transportation connection between bond and only. So my initial question about the phase A B that that addresses it. It should and yeah through the mitigation table it talks about pride occupancy of this phase or this phase or once this public improvement is built then it triggers this other improvement. So there's different triggers that are dependent on each other and none of those are going to change the designation of size more, right? There was some discussion about size more.

It's not a it's a neighborhood street, right? It's not a it's not a collector. Um in the street standard plan, sorry, this is really long. Uh, Seismore is a local street. Thank you. And some say something about Seismore maybe being extended just to the southern property. The shovel. Okay. Um, to follow up on the stop sharing.

Sorry. No worries. Thank you for the eagle eye, Suzanne. Uh, this um this trigger right in here should not say phase one A or B should just say with the first phase. So if if there's a motion, I don't know if it will be just to to clarify where it says phase one A and or B, it just it should say first phase, which would generally be lumped into this whole next section um of triggers anyway, but it's just slightly

how is it construction has to start. So this is even before occupancy that he was talking about of Arizona that will suction between couplets and so it' be the 100th unit where 38 trips on would trigger. So Karen, specifically the language you'd strike is um it would be instead of phase 1 A or B, you would just say within the first phase where the first phases would be different reference to PMP trips. Sorry. Yes. Okay. You would be replacing phase one andor RV with the first phase. The first phase whatever that is ABC H.

Yeah. 38 PM peak guard trips on any office. Okay. Just to say and the applicant agrees. Yes. Yeah. Okay.

Awesome. Are we going into staff comments or I was going to We're applicant rebuttal. [laughter] Do we have any final questions or staff last chance? You guys did a great job. I didn't have to ask many. [laughter] Um, okay. We'll move into staff comment. You have anything? Okay. Um, this one's new questions from or to the chair may be entertaining. What did you have for dinner? [laughter] Pizza. What does that was? One last opportunity before you close the public hearing.

Okay. Uh, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and we can move into deliberation. Katie,

come back to me.

Uh, I'm I'm very supportive. Um, didn't know anything about this two weeks ago. looked at the file, I was like, "Oh my god, there's and um initially in terms of the amendment uh request, uh I was disappointed that it was being scaled back because I know that we're, you know, really trying to encourage density, we need as much housing, etc., etc., etc." Uh but then as I thought about it further and in light of the market conditions, uh etc., Um, yeah, I think it's going to be a huge improvement and a big contribution to the city. I do hope that affordable housing can be part of the mix and that the hotel and as much retail and office space so that it's truly mixed use um can be realized. So, uh yeah, thumbs up.

Awesome. Um well in terms of the quasi judicial aspect of this I think that it's pretty clear that it's compliant. Um it's matches our state planning goals comprehensive plan. It matches the criter criteria approval criteria. So I don't really have anything um from like the official side of things to say anything bad about the project or um reject it on for any reasonable grounds. Um, from a personal level, I do want to mourn [laughter] what was uh one of the most exciting and interesting uh master plans that I have ever seen in my life. Uh that is now it's, you know, we're going to have a very beautiful bike lane that has wonderful views of parking lots. um which is a bit of a disappointment but not something that is related uh to this application. Um so that's all I've got to say on it.

I do not have any comments as it relates to the requirements. I think right now it's an unused gravel lot and I think it's going to provide necessary housing in one of the best areas with access to commercial and walkability. I think it's going to be huge for that. And when you imagine a high density use, this is the type of location you imagine it for. So I'm very excited to see that come to fruition. I I agree with that. I I the housing needs analysis just sticks in my craw. [laughter] Thank you for all the explanation about it, but it still sticks in my craw. Um I am sour on master plans in general because I feel like um we've been getting burned lately. um that we we don't actually get what we think we're getting. Uh and it meets all of the code and everything, but it doesn't really bring beautiful development to our community and that really bothers me. Complete communities, particularly this particular property, um I'm super excited about seeing what gets developed there because I think you're absolutely right. Right in the middle of town, walkable to everything. I was like, what? They're cutting back on the commercial, but then you think of all the commercial that's nearby. It would be great if there was some other stuff, some services. So, I'm positive that that will come as the economic analysis since there's a number of phases. Um, is it possible that we could still have five over one buildings in some of those in between? So, we're going to build up here, we're going to build down here, and everything in

between is going to come later. It's possible we could still have that along there in the middle should the economics dream alive,

right? It's not quite dead. Not [laughter] dead yet. But uh I Yeah. I I I don't like that we get a big pretty picture and then we get something completely different. Yeah, that's how I feel, too. I mean, I when this came through the first time, I was uh super excited about it. And as someone who loves dense urban pockets, not everywhere, but just creating areas, I thought this was uh I thought this was great. And uh the I know there's a lot of commercial there, but there's always, you know, once an area gets uh gets a lot of excitement to it, it can it can handle more. Um so it kind of looks like we're going to end up with some garden style apartments and maybe a a nice west lot area. Um so it's it's a little disappointing. Uh I don't I I'm a shorttime so I can say this. I don't care about traffic. Let it fail. Um, we're not going to get public transportation until it's until it's so bad. So, uh, also even if you have more people there, then there's more like people who live there can walk to places. I work right by here and, uh, when our office moved there in this area, I loved it because it's like I can go to there's so many places to walk for lunch and just and and everything. It's it's really cool. So, I was hoping this would kind of expand upon that even more. And it doesn't look like the expansion is going to be quite what I had hoped for. U but the optimist in me maybe. I don't know.

Well, you don't know because it could be that everything in the middle is more of what we got. And I think this is a good lesson for us on the planning commission. So, when we see master plans come through, you know, we can give height limits. We can, you know, increase height limits. We can do all this stuff. But um you know it's what's outlined in the code is what can be built. So it could be even less than what we're seeing you know on the screen. So I don't know it's it is what it is. All the modifications that we made for the original master plan that we voted on stay in place, right? Because didn't we? Because it was Yeah. So we we did a lot of like you can go up to here can do this. uh

right

there are there are some minimums on the mixed use. So um but once you're doing a lot of this infrastructure and breaking ground there is an economy of scale that helps you out for uh building certain types of development but yeah. All right. Well, I I mean, generally I think this is a nice plan and I think it generally fits pretty well in that part of town. Um, in terms of living there, it's definitely one of the most walkable places in the city. Um, I think it'd be a really nice place to live. I'm personally kind of glad to see it scale back a little bit and not be so dense. Um, and I'll just I want to plug I would love to I would actually really love to see the hotel there. Um, yeah, I mean it's such a great such a great place for a hotel. Um, but yeah, unlike Scott, I I I like I I don't enjoy sitting in traffic. I don't enjoy sucking on car exhaust when I'm trying to walk or ride my bike. Um but uh but yeah, I mean it's it looks compliant and it it does appear to be a thoughtfully designed plan and as long as we're getting those as long as that phasing is correct for the improvements have my vote.

I think it's outlined yeah really well in the proposed mitigation measures. Does anybody have a recommendation? I'll move to recommend the city council adopt an ordinance to amend the Ben development code chapter 2.7 special plan districts refinement plans area plans and master plans to amend the timber yards master plan development as proposed by the applicant as modified by staff uh with the draft findings provided. No, second. That included the little that little bit of the when the phasing of what

Can I restate that just so it's super clear to everybody what we're doing? Okay, thank you. Um, so it's in the mitigation table. The mitigation requirement is widen size more street pavement and as it continues on the rest of that sentence. The trigger would be prior to occupancy of the 100th unit in the first phase or 38 p.m. peak trips on any lot. Correct. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll second the second time. Great. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed? None. Don't move. Good job. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. We'll move on to the next item. Approval of minutes 112 2026. Madam chair. Um, we get a nomination for planning commission to represent this item at council I believe April 15th. Yes. City council April 15th. Is someone already going April 15th? Am I? We also have that evening the um zone changes for the commercial neighborhood zones regarding I think that's mean. Well, Suzanne, you might get a two for one. Cool. [laughter] Great. Can I talk about the housing needs analysis? [laughter]

Might find a way smuzzle or something else and the and the and the tiff. We can put in a plug for the tip. Yeah, I think that's right. Yeah, I think so. I'm just checking. April 15th, city council regarding the CN zone. So, Yep. I might just be there to hang out with you. Fantastic. I would love that. Yep. We just can't have four of us. [laughter] What? We can't go to the council meeting at the city council meeting at the council meeting. I don't know. Would that need another notice if all the planning got near each other and showed up for a quorum of you showing up in the same place at the same time does not a meeting make without

otherwise the advisory body summit would have figured it out that was noticed that was noticed and the council meeting is noticed right so okay so I will edit my can't stop put in a plug for master plan give me a listing email. It's getting too long. Should we just make a list and present that at city council wish list? How long do I have? 3 minutes. All right. Okay, I got it. All right, I'll move back to the approval of minutes from 112 2026 and 29 2026. Does anybody have any issues with those?

Nope. I appreciate the person who summarizes my long- winded diet tribes. Okay. Next, we'll do communications reports from planning commissioners. Maybe we'll start with you. Nothing to report, Bob.

Uh yeah, a couple of things. Uh let's see. I attended uh city council workshop on the wildfire R327. That's the home home hardening. Um, and there was uh I think unanimous uh support for that. It uh I forgot what the timing is, but they're fasttracking adoption because boiler plate from the state. And then also looking into defensible space and there was some good deliberation about how that um could be phased in because that's going to be a heavy lift. The home hardening is just new new build and defensible space applies to potentially uh basically everything. Um

was there any was there any talk about I remember when the guy when they came and showed us that plan and I remember there's something about it would only cost the average house an extra like $2,000 for which for the wildfire mitigation or wildfire hardening or whatever. I think you said 3%. No, it's 3%. 3% of the cost. 3%. And that Yeah. And it's again new build and the hope is, you know, especially large developments, there will be economies of scale, etc. Well, I guess if a house cost $500,000 there's cost, right? So that's recognized 15,000. Right.

Okay. For some reason, I thought I said about 3,000 or something like that, and I was like, I was [laughter] like, that doesn't matter. Does that is that adds to the cost of constructing the home or is that adds to the buyer cost of the home? Construction. Construction. So, it'll be a lot more to the buyer. And then, yeah, could go top either way.

And then, um, several of us attended the city council commission commission summit with growth plan work session. Um I'll defer to others to summarize that but it was very encouraging. Uh the plans are being quite inclusive of the uh various commissions as well as um really stepping out up the outreach to the communities. So that then Russ could probably obviously speak a lot more to that. Um, I attended a uh Summit West neighborhood district just a casual uh meeting that they hold at the Grove where residents can just drop in. Steve Platt was kind enough to attend that and there was discussion of the the various topics uh firewise growth plan uh neighborhood commercial uh nothing earthshattering um then uh oh then I represented us at the uh city council review of uh the true um this was a a work site session and um I think it was a work session. Um Ian and Pauline presented um once again they did a great job get very strong support from uh the city councilors uh they were deferring uh the discussion of Juniper which is actually tomorrow um so I think there's one more meeting for the true act to be adopted or or was it

the focus amendments to the tree code which came to the planning commission so that is the public hearing and first reading of the ordinance. So we'll go through second reading at third. There were no questions of plan commission or myself. So I got a pass. So that was great.

Um yeah, that's it. And then upcoming again I'll zoom in or attend for the Juniper uh discussion tomorrow. And then Thursday, Southeast three neighborhood districts are holding a pow-wow with the city council and staff and I'll attend just to listen and learn from the uh the back of the room. That's it. Awesome. Uh nothing to report. Nothing to report. Nothing to report. Um

Oh, wait. I do have one thing to report. I I read my packet while I was riding an exercise bicycle at Larkur and I rode 12 miles while I was reading this. [laughter] So, thank you for that indication of how long are fantastic. So, I got a workout while I got a mental workout. How did you do that with all the little sticky notes? No, I made notes on my phone and then I had to take them back. And so there's actually an index to the notes. Oh my goodness. I wrote all these on my phone and then I numbered them all and marked them all back into the

you queen. That's amazing. Nobody reviews. I couldn't I'm trying to learn. I couldn't believe I'd gone that far anyway. Okay. Sorry. Uh so yeah, I mean the u what is it the advisory body summit was pretty cool and I like the concept of what's going to happen with the committee of committees and

and just having because so often when we talk about things in here discuss it's like well okay we're starting to get off topic because there's these tendrils of of thought and and things that you know what happens over here affects over here that we're really only this is our part of the store and that's their part of the story. So, I thought it was really good that city's u making this kind of long-term group effort uh which hasn't really been formed yet or that they're still kind of outlining the process. Was disappointed that you got to be on a committee or commission to do it and it's a four-year long process. That's like dang it.

I know. It's like sitting there getting excited thing [laughter] on some other committees. And then I know I know Can I like preemptively volunteer for this? Like I am so excited to like do with do the whole entire growth plan thing. Oh yeah. Committee of committees. I want to be on that committee of committee. I know. I was like large positions at large position. I'm going to be here for four years. It's perfect. Yeah. [laughter] Bragging. That's all I have to say. Oh, I also attended the city council um advisory

summit. Summit, that's what it's called. Yes. Um yeah, I I came out of there. I'm super excited that they're taking such a comprehensive approach and that they're that they're in this committee committees. It's a ridiculous name, but it um but having representatives from all the different, you know, committees around the city being able to put their input and their perspective is going to be huge in order to be able to coordinate traffic with housing needs and affordable housing and economic development. It's fantastic. And yeah, I'm I'm I'm really happy I got three years left on committee. [laughter] Well, here's one thing that was interesting in my table because they tried to split everyone up and uh there was someone from the uh on the uh school board and she was talking about how their projections for uh people moving families moving here

is much lower or sorry the the reality is much lower than projected and one of the things I keep hearing is even though there's units being built they're not familyfriendly units and people can't afford people they're like I want to move here with a family. A one-bedroom or a studio that's expensive and tiny is not does not a community make. So interesting. Uh I and so I talked to her about that a little bit. I was like, "Oh my gosh, that comes up." I was on I was at my table was um two people from economic development

and somebody from affordable housing and some two people from home or housing housing for everybody something like that. Um so yeah that was that was that was kind of fun discussion economic development issues. So what's the home acronym? We got housing options made for everyone. There you go. Yeah. On the wrong table. That's a temporary one though, right? Mhm. Yes. Yeah. Well, maybe you can get them to extend it. Don't push me on a singing life post.

What is with government? Things go on and on. I never said that. [laughter] Once you start a program, you can't stop it. Good night.

Sure. I actually have quite a bit to report. Um so you mentioned a few of them, but just to clarify when things are happening. So city council will hold a work session this Wednesday, March 11th, on um what we've been calling calling the Juniper discussion. It's juniper tree preservation and land development. So that was that work session was scheduled after council held their work session. No, when council gave us direction after our annual update for the tree code last October and concerns were expressed about how junipers should or should not be regulated the same as other trees. Council didn't want to derail the very focused amendments to the tree code that you all saw and that council just um saw last week. Um but they did say staff come back to us in a work session and let's talk more about regulating juniper. So that will be on Wednesday and Ian Gray our urban florister will lead that presentation along with subject matter expert Jenna blanking on the last name. Um so that'll be Wednesday. Then also, as Bob mentioned, Southeast Bend Area Neighborhood District Round Table is Thursday evening at Larksburg Community Center from 5:30 to 8. And that is um focused on the three neighborhood districts in the Southeast Bend area, but it's open to the public. Anybody can come if you want. There'll be um presentation by staff focused mostly on the growth plan, but then Russ will talk a lot about a whole bunch of development activity going on in the area and how it's all coordinated. And then there'll be um kind of like a roundt topic discussion between city council and members of neighborhood district boards. And then there'll be time at the end there'll be different stations based on subject matter with staff at tables just

to answer questions from anybody freely people to mingle around and ask questions of different subjects. So that should be really great. Um your March 23rd meeting will be cancelled since we did not need to continue anything to that meeting. We didn't have anything queuing up um to be scheduled. So, just so you know, March 23rd will be cancelled. I do intend at future meetings when I can to report out on administrative decisions that staff have acted on in the prior months just so you're still kept in the loop on those somewhat larger um projects that we do review and make decisions on. um many of which you see at the master plan stage and then we review the subsequent subdivisions or site plan reviews or just other mixeduse development around town just so you're kept in the loop a little bit more about what else we're reviewing at the staff level. And then the last thing I wanted to give you a report on is some legislation that did make it through and was passed last week. House Bill 4037 has a lot to it, but the one thing that would be of most interest to you is this um somewhat adjustment that um the city of Ben had strongly advocated for um the Senate Bill 8 provisions. So, what we've been loosely referring to as the Senate Bill 8 provisions are is the law that was passed um a couple years ago that requires the city to permit affordable housing projects in certain areas and certain zone designations under different criteria. One of which has had most community discussion is on land zoned for commercial uses. So, um, I can send you a link or you can look up House Bill 4037, but it's this particular fix

or adjustment to that allowance is in section 26 of the bill. and more or less paraphrase it, what it says is that um an applicant who applies to develop that type of income qualified affordable housing project within an area, it says planned mixeduse development, but that for our intents and purposes would be master planned areas. If an applicant proposes affordable housing within a master plan, if the de if that affordable housing development would cause the amount of land available for commercial uses within the master plan to be reduced to less than 80% of the total, so more less. If that affordable housing project takes up more than 20% of the lands zoned for commercial uses in the master plan, then the applicant must um amend the master plan to basically replace that area and find new area to be zoned commercial to offset that area. Um so up to 20% of lands zoned for commercial uses and master plans could be proposed for affordable housing under that per specific um state law.

So per development or it's let me finish one more thing. So the master plan has to be larger than 10 acres and well I guess that's maybe the last qualifier. master plan larger than 10 acres and it's all the land within the master plan that's available for commercial uses. So, it could be a couple couple different zone districts, but if it allows commercial uses, then um these affordable housing projects can't take up more% than 20%. Um how would they find new commercial? Yeah. in an existing move it around but

that that would push them into what's called a post acknowledgement plan. They would need to basically amend the comprehensive plan which is a lot of a lot of background work that's coming to the plan demonstrating that they they can they meet all of the the very hard criteria to meet for that come to the planning commission get a recommendation go to council and get it approved. So probably a big disincentive to be to go beyond that. But even if they were able to achieve that, they've still you've still protected that same 80%. So that that's 20% in total. So you it's it's not like you can't have like one affordable housing 10%, another one 10%, a third one 10%. It's

right. It' be cumulative, right? So right in an incremental scenario, we would need to be tracking how much is remaining if it was more than one. It's almost the entire problem to me. Good thing is it retroactive? Yeah. Are there are there any gotchas? It would be if there's not an application not it's not on the application for a master plan. It's on the actual site plan review application. So it would apply to existing master plans if they've not already gotten an approval for this. So even this is effective I believe June 5th. And so if someone submits an application that qualifies like that Stevens Road prior to that

Stevens Road track master plan that we looked at January that hasn't been approved yet but it would be city site plan it's site plan binding not not master plan binding not the master plan if the site if part of the site plan application if that property was part of a master plan yes that's what it is that's when we do that you want to call polish. So that's my report to you. Feel free, please read it on your own. Fantastic. Let us know individually if you have questions. Kudos. Are there any potential gachas? I'm sure there are. We won't know about them for a little while yet. That's why they call them a gotcha. [laughter] When you least expect it, somebody's out there looking for a right now.

The attorney. [clears throat] Well, yeah, that question about potential gotchas. I mean, from whose perspective are you asking? Well, from our perspective, we've been concerned about protecting commercial. I would say it is a the the operative provision that Renee described is fairly straightforward as those things go. So, it's I can't predict the future or how this is going to get applied, but it's it's a fairly straightforward provision that is intended to do exactly what is described here. And a lot of city staff in this room worked really hard on this.

Council supported it. Um, our state delegation, not limited to, not exclusively, well, not any of them in particular, but that there was a lot of teamwork to get this done because um this was recognized as an issue that was um happening in Bend and needed to be addressed in some way. Well, I really appreciate you guys working on that in the city council work supporting it and so pleased to hear this because I got some color last week by a source who spoke about all the hard work and teamwork

and he said it's not done yet and so I'm looking at when when the session closed and they had it until Sunday but they actually closed it Friday. So then I was scouring as it and I couldn't find anything. I mean I kept looking. So this is a very pleasant surprise though. Kudos it for me. Was an advantage to sitting on this side of Renee?

She doesn't he doesn't say as much. Uh really the only thing I have to say is a follow up on what Bob brought up on the um wildfire resiliency. There was a work session with council on that. They did direct us to move forward with adoption of the R327 the resing. The public hearing for that will be on April the 1st. So we will have a public hearing that

planning commission or is it going to go straight to city council? This is this would be an adoption of of an element of the building code which goes into goes into item nine of the or chapter nine of the of the Ben municipal code. So it's not a land use. It does not go to the planning commission, but it does go to city council for an ordinance. They'll discuss that evening when they want it to be effective. Usually it would go to a second reading, which would be mid April, and then a 30-day effective period, which would put it effective in mid May. that may be a good bet, but they may either choose to an emergency adoption or can make it earlier or they may delay it a little bit to give people more time if they have plans that they're ready to submit so it doesn't upset their proforma for the houses they want to get in. So stay tuned on the effective date, but we will have a public hearing on April 1st.

What uh what building types does that affect? It's just going to be the residential code. So single family, duplex, town homes, ADUs, not multi family, not multifamily, anything under the commercial code, which already has sort of higher standard. Yeah. Anyway, for fire and that that's what both um sisters county has done as well. And so we're we're right in there. Um timing wise about not the same timing, but relatively close. Are buildings, sheds, and stuff regulated into this? Uh I think it's dwellings. Um but I don't know if there is some separation special separations. It's the short when sorry when is that before the council? April 1st.

Thank you. And it would apply to new construction. And uh we also got direction on

um defensible space. So we're going to be putting together at a staff level kind of a work program on that and bringing that forward to council. That's going to be a much longer discussion because we're dealing with fences, vegetation, things that aren't I mean the 327 is nice because it's it's a take it off the shelf. It's already been written and we have to adopt the entire thing in in whole so it's ready to go. This other we need to actually create the rules um that that we would follow for that one. The state is going to be issuing a draft code for defensible space. So we may be able to lift some elements out of that. Uh but but um we we'll have to see what that looks like and compare that to what our objectives are for for achieving that type of regulation.

Uh nothing for me. Right. Meeting adjourned.