City Council - Regular Meeting

Thanks for coming to your city council meeting. We have our Congresswoman uh Dexter on the line. Pretty exciting. Thank you so much uh Congresswoman for taking time out of your busy schedule. We're going to get to you pretty quick, but first we're going to hear from a couple folks, including someone who I believe uh knows your you you were coming and and wishes to speak sort of to the topic. So, uh that's that's how it's going to go. So, first, we're all going to turn off our cell phones. [clears throat] Second, we're going to acknowledge that the land where we do our work has been home to others long before uh my ancestors came. As we gather today, we've respectfully acknowledged that the land on which the city of Hood River sits is the ancestral home of indigenous peoples. This includes the Neespur, Umatillaa, Warm Springs, Yaka, and other tribes who stewarded this generation.

We recognize the lasting impact of colonialism and are committed to working together for a more just and sustainable future. We're also going to remember that we live in Oregon, a sanctuary state, and that our local officers will not assist federal immigration officers who may come to our town. Then we're going to say the pledge of allegiance. Please join me. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [clears throat] Abigail, do we have any agenda additions or corrections?

No, mayor, we do not.

Thank you. Now is the time for the business from the audience. Uh, no person shall be disorderly, abusive, or disruptive of the orderly conduct during this time. There should be no audience demonstrations such as applause, cheering, display, signs, or conduct or conduct disruptive. Such conduct may be the cause for immediate termination of business from the audience by the mayor. No person shall address council without first being recognized by the mayor. Please do state your full name for the record when it is your turn. We're going to start with Mark Xan Miller, followed by Megan Saunders. So nice to see you all. Uh thanks for your service. This is it's it's fun to be back. Um so I am one of the co-chairs of the dark skies gorge. Um and I'm here to encourage and support the inclusion of dark sky protections in the outdoor lighting sections of the new planning code that you'll review tonight. Um it is our understanding that the detailing the content of the section comes for later. The that the decision tonight is really is this an important one or not? And and and we ask you to say yeah this is a pretty easy important one to include. Um dark sky implementations uh improve the environment for both people and nature. And I like it because it's an example of something that really can and should be win-win. I mean no one wants to shine a light up in the sky. They they want to be good neighbors. The ducks like to fly over and back and forth. It's it's just a win-win thing. And I'm confident that strong lighting code can be implemented without negatively uh impacting either safety or affordability. You know, this is something that we should be able to do. Um I would be happy to provide additional dark sky information, resources, links, and uh pointers to adopted models um that that could help with the current planning code process in Hood River. And if you'd like to

continue this discussion or receive our monthly e emails or just get a cup of coffee, just let me know and we can and we can chat about it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mark. Megan, and then Alicia.

Hi, Mayor and counselors. Megan Saunders, nice to see you all. Uh, it is weird to actually be nervous on this side of the project. Um, but I'm here to talk about the development code update and the module 4 you're looking at tonight. Um, I want to thank you all for taking on what is a major undertaking. Um, and I know it's very important obviously to make sure that we're meeting state legal code. Um, and also to have clear and objective standards um, as that makes it easy for anyone who is applying for anything to know what they're getting into. Um, but I also wanted to ask you, um, as you look at it tonight and into the future. I know this is an ongoing project, um, that you please look at it with the eye towards what can be done to reduce barriers and or promote the development of more housing in Hood River and especially more diverse housing types like triplexes, uh, cottages, multif family. Um, these housing types and more housing units in general, as you all are aware, are critical to the health and the future of our community and economy. uh making space for young people and young families, lower and middle inome workers, and the full breadth of our community members um to be able to stay here or move here as needed. Um some specific things for tonight's review. Um I did just want to say I'm very supportive of planning commission's recommendation to reduce parking minimums to one space or less um for all housing unit types. Um parking spaces come with both a really high land cost and a high fiscal cost. um and they continue to emphasize a car- centric development pattern instead of a people centric development pattern. Um I'd also ask you to look at the landscaping standards especially um with regards to middle housing provisions that actually require larger landscaping areas than the base zones that they would be in. Um which creates a disincentive for that type of housing that uh is of course a valuable resource we'd like to see promoted. Um and then overall given Hood River's very limited uh open land supply um it's important to promote uh more productive use of our land overall

especially in our R3 and commercial zones where we can do higher density. Um and so I would suggest u maybe looking at some minimum density standards in those zones um to help foster additional housing units and ensure efficient use of our limited land. Um so thank you for your time tonight. Really great to see you all. Um I'm also happy to talk anytime. Uh, have a good night. I'll be here. Thanks, Megan. Alicia, I see you're here to address a topic that comes later in the meeting. You're welcome to get her done now or you're welcome to speak at that time. Your preference. Great.

Hello, Mayor Blackburn and council members. I think you all know me, but for the record, I am Alicia Sherburn, the executive director of Big River Community Land Trust, which is a local nonprofit working on permanently affordable housing here in the gorge. Um, I really just wanted to kind of extend a thank you. who I know you've been looking at ordinance 2094 which does a few things um that's beneficial to our projects in kind of um creating those SDC exemptions that extend up to housing projects serving households at 120 AMI and below. This is really a huge thing for us as we're trying to serve both low and middle income here in Hood River. And I know we're not the only ones. Um, I see this benefiting a lot of developers and my hope is it'll kind of break down some barriers and open up opportunities for other people to come in and provide a wider range of housing. So, just wanted to extend thanks on that and we really appreciate your partnership and looking forward on housing. On that note, I just wanted to quickly give you an update on Tucker Road since I'm here. Um, I should be doing a final walkthrough in about two weeks which I'm really excited about and we're hoping to get our certificate of occupancy right around that time. I am also working with our first buyer and they're getting financing figured out right now. So, my hope is as we roll into 2026 that we will have our first home sale and I look forward to celebrating that with you as you really made this possible with the gift of that land. So, thank you.

Super. Thanks, Alicia, for your work, Ben. Repres. She's here. Great. Um, Representative Dexter, I'm glad you're here tonight to support Hood River with respect to ICE and to keep our community safe. Additionally, Representative Dexter is sponsoring Bill 876, which accuses Israel of genocide. This creates a permission structure that leads to violence against Jews. We have a little Jewish community here in Hood River with a school, youth group, prayer. Events are not published. We keep it private for security. In Portland, my synagogue has become a fortress. Security trucks block the circular driveway. We have Ballards against ramming attack. The first armed guard is stationed at a lock gate with a fence. Key card permits entry to the courtyard where a second armed guard patrols. Then a key card opens the locked door to the building which is manned by a greeter who's actually a congregant trained in security. Are we overreacting? On Friday, Parky Synagogue in New York was under siege by a mob in kafias and masks shouting death to the IDF. Jews were trapped inside. Eventually, police opened a path. The Eventually, please open a path. The crowd heckled and jeered the Jews as they passed. The mob shouted, "There is only one solution." What solution are we talking about here? They're calling for the final solution in public in New York outside a cinema. In 2024, my wife took our daughter to a reggae concert at the Aladdin Theater in

Portland. The musician was Machi Xiau, a Jew. The theater was vandalized. His name was taken off the marquee for security. To enter, they had to run a gauntlet of people wearing masks and kafias, pressing against a police barricade, chanting, "Free, free Palestine." With Bill 876, Congresswoman Dexter encourages attacks on Jews. If the IDF is genocidal in her morally inverted world, then calling for death is commendable. Representative Dexter is part of the anti-Zionism movement w where in polite society it's okay to attack Jews. Anti-semitism is out. Anti-Zionism is in. This is why the Hood River Jewish community was forced offline. This is why in Portland we meet behind armed guards. When we host a leader who promotes Bill 876 that manifestly creates a permission structure to attack Jews, you need to know. And now you do. Good to see you. I mean, I'm surprised that you were here. I'm surprised that you were here for more than the speaking.

Thank you, Ben. I have 15 seconds. I'm sorry. I thought you were finished. That brings us to uh Congresswoman, thank you so much for taking your valuable time to be with us. It's a pleasure to see you.

Thank you so much. It is really u my pleasure and honor as always and um I I don't think it's appropriate for me to take city council time to address that. I certainly will um have my team follow up with them so we can speak. I just want to say I don't think that was a fair um um articulation of what happened, but I I will take that offline because this I want to be respectful of everyone's time here.

So, good evening, Hood River City Council. I am Congresswoman Maxine Dexter. I very proudly represent Oregon's third district, including your and our incredible community. I'm grateful to join you again, though I wish it were under better circumstances. Over the past several weeks, as you know very deeply and and and I think painfully, um my office has been hearing about concerning increase in ICE enforcement in the district. We've heard it from families directly, loved ones detained, communities like Hood River shaken. And I just want to be really clear like this is not these are not the worst of the worst as our administration claims. These are business owners, parents, children, um citizens, neighbors who contribute to the richness and the um security and stability of our community. Let me just be clear, these policies are not making us safer. Instead, they're tearing families apart, fueling fear, and violating our core values. And I cannot, we cannot build a better community or country through cruelty. These tactics are unjust, ineffective, and immoral. I've been meeting with local nonprofits and leaders in our immigrant community to plan for how we protect our neighbors when they need it most. And together, we are building networks of support to ensure that families know their rights and aren't left to face these challenges challenges alone. And yet, we are not yet meeting this moment. And I think it is by design almost impossible to meet the moment with the certainty of the chaos um that it it is requiring of us. There is so much fear and so much cruelty that I think folks are really struggling with

how to respond. We are not a country of laws right now. We are not following the rule of law. In Oregon's third, my team includes two bilingual case workers who are dedicated to serving our immigrant families. If someone you know has been detained, please contact our office immediately. Um, I would say if you're seeing someone being detained, the perk hotline is the first call without question and we are absolutely there to support. Here's what we've done so far to help. We are securing releases for individuals unlawfully detained. We've tracked down individuals personally in the office, conducted wellness checks to ensure access to medications, sent letters, and made direct interventions, including visits to um the Canadian border, Ferndale CBP facility, um El Salvador and Northwest Ice Processing Center in Tacoma. We're not standing by and I'm committed to showing up. I know it's not enough, but I stand with you in solidarity in this time of extraordinary harm and fear. Every day, we will continue to fight to protect our immigrant neighbors from inhumane enforcement. And this is about who we are in Oregon and who and what we want to believe and how we will lead with compassion, equity, and justice. And I just I I really wanted to come because this is such a painful time for so many. And I want you to know that we are not standing by waiting for others to take action. We want to be taking action with you. So please consider us partners, thought partners, action partners, and let us know how we can stand with you. Thank you.

Thanks so much for being with us. Any comments or questions for our Congresswoman Glattus and then Anna?

Thank you, Congresswoman, for being here today. I appreciate your partnership. I am also hoping that we can have the contact information of the two case workers to ensure that we are giving that information to our community partners as we know that ICE is in our community and has taken so far eight community members that we we we have seen. So, if you can capture or give that contact information to us, that would be great to be able to pass it along. I would also encourage that you all continue at a federal level pressing for uh prohibiting ICE to enter what are known as those sensitive areas such as schools, places of worship, the courts, healthc care entities. As we know, those are now no longer protected zones. And I'm certain you have heard of most recently a 17-year-old high school student in McMinnville that was taken and is a US citizen. Um, in addition to that, we know that there are individuals that are um not necessarily ICE agents and are wearing masks, pretending to be ICE agents. So, more or stronger language and protections around individuals for that. We lastly, we know that the federal government continues to use surveillance systems such as flock cameras. We do not have flock cameras here in the gorge. We do have other um areas close by that may. So ensuring that that information is protected at a state level and cannot cross into other states as we have seen how that only adds or perpetuates to issues and folks continuing to be detained because of it. Thank you.

Thank you. I will um text you the um we have a one-pager two-sided that has at the very top our um case worker who is bilingual in Spanish and our field representative both of whom have been working with my DC office. I'll um make sure that you have our office number as well and that also has a list of the ways that we can be helpful. Please feel free to distribute that um to the community and um Mayor Blackburn has my number. I welcome any of you to have it on council. So, please, Mr. Mayor, feel free to share that number with anyone on the on the council who wishes to have it. Um, I want to be, you know, a a resource and please don't hesitate to reach out.

Thank you, Anna.

Um, I see this actually your your support for local elected leaders was with those case workers names was included in our meeting materials. Thank you very much for that. And as a follow-up to Councilwoman Rivera's comment, I was wondering if if that might be something that um that uh we can use um and maybe link to our website. We have um the community resources or maybe under the current news you belong page and maybe that's something that I can check with staff about. But um if if it's okay with you if we link that that would be I'm I was wondering if that would be okay. And then um I'm wondering if there are additional local resources that we could also maybe link um if that's the Hood River Latino Network or the Next Door Inc. And then my last question for you um is uh your name is on uh HR4456 which was introduced on July 16th that proposed that no federal funds be made available to ICE or made available to ICE be used to carry out civil immigration um enforcement activities or to detain transport US citizens. And I'm just curious um you know what was your intention in supporting this bill? uh what's the status and how does this impact individuals who have started the citizenship process but aren't US citizens yet like um what's going on with that?

Yeah. And so madame counselor I think there are many bills right now that have been filed that I am co-sponsoring. Um the Clear ID Act is another one asking um or requiring that all ICE officers have to expose their face, that they have to have identification display, that their vehicles need to be marked. Um the use of federal resources to detain um citizens should not be ne necessary. I think it's frankly absurd that we are in this place where anyone who is legally within the confines of the United States has first amendment rights, including to due process. And we are clearly seeing that our federal dollars are being used not just to deny due process, but to in fact, as um we've already heard, um to kidnap and um traumatize citizens as well. So, I certainly do not support that, but we are in a time of extraordinary ideological divide and those bills are not being brought to the floor for a vote by our speaker. And so, I would just encourage the community if you have bills that you um support to please write our office and make sure that we know of your support because it does help us um when we get outreach. Certainly, if you agree with our positions, it still helps um to hear from you. That helps us such as when I went to El Salvador, um it was in no small part because our community was demanding that I do something and and to um stand up for due process. So, we do listen and I would just encourage the community to reach out. But as of right now, none of those bills, even though they are necessary and important, are being moved forward.

Thank you. I um I just have one last kind of general comment of um I I know I've heard you say before that uh letters, emails, phone calls to your office are on specific topics. Those are the currency that establish your credibility as our elected representative um when you're speaking to other representatives in DC. And um I just think you know in general and what I want to say to the people that live in our community is that if you hear from a 100,000 of us in your district they say that we want more to be done to prevent ICE from terrorizing our communities that'll reinforce the legislation that you've re you've introduced. So, um I I think it's kind of silly, but I've the idea of like, you know, organizing a good oldfashioned letter fashioned letter writing campaign where, you know, you can go to the floor and dump a bag of letters that says these all are saying that you're we're not okay with what's happening. I I think that that might be something proactive that our city can do is um you know, just tell people re reach out to you. Um and and that's where if we can link this resource with the case worker and the field rep and you know contact information for for you um that would be really great if we can do that. And if I may, I just I can't thank you enough for the partnership and for the advocacy. And I certainly encourage the city council like I have been to all of our cities who are being um impacted right now to to lead with courage and integrity and standing up for our community. It's it's an extraordinarily tough time. I recognize to be in city government. um your resources are always limited and your your time and your efforts are appreciated to standing up for our community members and so we need all levels of government to work together and so if there is a letter campaign I absolutely am committed to taking your voices to the floor

thank you for being here uh Congresswoman Dexter um just building upon everything I've heard so far you know it's great to hear about the hotline you know, the the contact with case workers, etc., etc., are are there other things that you're seeing other cities within your district do from a proactive standpoint um beyond that um that you would you would you would think we could benefit from as we are doing a lot of uh scrambling and due diligence to try to understand what other cities are doing and what we can do at a city level? Yeah, I think, you know, I'm always happy to um engage, you know, in a um more directed way about what other cities are doing in my district, outside of my district. I have been working closely with um the leaders from Chicago. Chicago has been extremely effective in organizing rapid response um networks in their communities. Perk is able to do an extraordinary job um with organizing, but I think we could do with more sort of local hyper local rapid response and and community response. Um improving our willingness of business, the business community to stand with our immigrant neighbors and and not support um ICE agents, frankly, with you know, different whether it's food for lunches or you know, these these folks are following orders. So I I do not in any way wish to demonize the people who are being put in the middle. Um but there are levels of um pressure that can be felt and um you know some folks are joining ICE you know for certain reasons and others have been there a long time and did not join to do this kind of work. So, I want to be I want to honor that there are a spectrum of people who are in caught in tough positions, but making it tougher, I think, is um strategic and it's certainly important in Chicago. I don't know that any of our neighbors have done

that. I know the city of Portland has um taken some action as a council in in um stabilizing or lifting up our sanctuary status and what they are committed to doing in the Portland police and whether they are you know how they're responding. I do think that there are some, you know, even if it doesn't feel legally binding in a way. It I think that statement of solidarity is important. um sensitive areas um are not as protected as the counselor said and and unfortunately I think the city can be helpful in helping make sure that our churches, hospitals, businesses understand that they do not have to let people pass the public for foyer and and entries that there are other ways and so the city can sort of um with chambers of commerce and others I think be helpful in organizing So happy to go through um more but um we can learn a lot from what other cities are doing and in Chicago in particular has been very effective.

That's that's encouraging to hear you say that. In fact, I grew up just outside of Chicago, lived in Chicago for many years. A couple weeks ago when discussing ideas of what we might be able to do here and who we can borrow from, I did bring up the protecting Chicago initiative and executive order there and and whatnot. So um good to know that at least uh on the right track. Appreciate that insight.

Thank you. Grant, [gasps] Representative Dexter, thanks for uh speaking with us, taking the time today, and for your support in our collective action as the city of Hud River. Um we're here to discuss more recently this recent action and events regarding ICE. Uh but there's there there will always be something going on, be it this, be it another issue that comes up. um always and I I see this as a bigger systematic potential problem, but we may want to address that you've brought up earlier with bills not that you've introduced not maybe not being able to move forward in the House of Representatives. uh in my conversations with people and as a city councelor, I've seen that uh the ways that trust in institutions can be eroded uh when ordinary citizens feel that the system is not necessarily systematically working for them or responds to their needs or any of those sorts of um uh uh systematic failings. um in my conversations broadly across the spectrum there are three actions I found uh have broad support uh that would rebuild trust and um uh would be essential to reforming these things. First one would be uh eliminating money in politics. Uh that would place the voters above uh money interests, let's say. Uh second would be eliminating gerrymandering, actually having participative government and the voters be actually being folks that are involved in that thing. And the third being actual tax reform. Um so you would have a restructuring of economic fairness in the tax reform. Everybody's playing by the same set of rules, be them an individual, family, a corporation, etc., etc., etc. Um, with those three things in place, you could actually have I think you could actually have um conversations about the issues we brought up tonight along with the

plethora of other issues that come up regularly in your conversations with your peers. Um would those is there space or do you have any uh inclination on uh whether those three things would be feasible?

Yeah, thank you so much. I I certainly don't know if they're feasible immediately, but I think they're critical. Um the trust in government, the fact that people do not believe that government works or even that it can work, I think is foundational to what's happening right now. um we have gotten into this position as a lack of trust in government has grown um exponentially I think in in the last several years if not decade um we are committed um to advocating for transparency accountability publicly financed campaigns is my number one priority for reestablishing um voters above special interests and you know We we cannot earn the trust of our our people if their voices can be drowned out by those with more power and money. Um and then corruption across government right now is horrific. We are not a country of laws right now. We are not following the laws and the government needs to stand in and stand up for the rule of law. Um so the the three offers that you make I think are certainly very important. Um I think the voters the power of the people is always greater than the people in power. The power of our constituents to demand better from their government is rising and that is again the currency that I am most responsive to is the voices of my constituents. And so if I am hearing that this is a priority, we absolutely will champion it. And it is in line alignment with my personal priorities, which is always a very reaffirming place to be.

Thank you. Thanks again for your hard work and your public service and taking the time to be with us. I appreciate it. Thank you for having me. I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you. Onward. Onward. Exactly. Next, we have our good friends from the Lions Club. Please come on up.

Okay. Well, you know, it's kind of nice to be Oh, we're Mike Shen from the Lions Club, president of the Lions Foundation. With me is Doug Bowen, who's president of our club. So, Doug will be speaking here in a second, but it's nice to be here with a positive topic. you know, not that that was not that bad, but this will be better. So, what we've done is we put together a proposal of of things that we felt as a Lions Club we could do for two parks that we've kind of adopted over the years. And uh I figured it up that we've invested over $400,000 in those two parks in the last four or five years. So, we're still there, still trying to make them better. These are just some in smaller items that we'd like to, you know, fill in the gaps, so to speak. So, if you would mind, let me go through these so you understand what we're proposing because this didn't come from public works. This came from our club off of observations, especially families in the park with nighttime stuff, which becomes a little more difficult for people to maneuver in the dark, and we've had accidents there. And I know it's a liability issue for the city, but it's also an issue for us is putting that event on. We don't want people getting hurt. Okay. So, let me talk about what we're proposing here. First of all, Jackson Park, we would like to install 106 ft of handrail made out of metal. Uh that would go around there's a the side if you're I know you're familiar with it. There's a sidewalk that goes up to the restrooms. Okay. Okay. And but it's steep. Okay. And then it loops around in front of the restrooms. And uh we've had people struggle with trying to get up that especially elderly people or anybody with a disability can't do it without help. And with a handrail, I think it

would be a big advantage for people to maneuver that incline, but also not fall over the edge, which we've had people fall over the edge and and go down the hillside, which you don't really want that happening, I'm sure. So, it also includes a concrete border uh for the handrail supports that'll be mounted into this 6in concrete rail that'll that'll go all the way around that corner. And you'll see it when Doug talks about the uh the design here. You'll you get a better idea. We also are wanting to put a uh 12- foot extension on that sidewalk I was talking about because at the bottom of it, it's a tripping hazard. There's about a 3-in lip there and people walk up in the dark and they they fall over. We've had people fall down, hurt their knees because it they hit that edge and they fall over. And so we're talking about putting a concrete feathering it all the way down so it's it's ground level and there's no lip there to catch people's feet. Okay. So that's what that is. We're also there's no bike rack. Uh if you've ever been the families in the park, there's bikes everywhere but there's no place to put them. So, we're proposing to put a 20 bike 20 station bike rack up there with a and then put a concrete mo strip that it sits on. So, it' be 3 by 12 ft mo strip. And the bike rack is a double bike rack. So, it it takes 10 on each side. And um and then the mo strip obviously will make it a lot easier for maintenance to don't have to move it. We can actually drill into the concrete and mount it permanently into the concrete, but I don't think anybody's going to steal this thing because it probably weighs about 400 pounds. Uh, but we can we can anchor it if you prefer that and that's not a

problem. Uh, we also would like to put in a a motion sensor light and at the restrooms there's actually it's dark up there and grad you can you understand that you saw it up there many times. you can't see anything up there. And they we had somebody fall over the edge because they they missed the sidewalk. They couldn't see it. So, if it's a motion sensor, um it should be really easy, you know, to um not to be on all the time, but I we would install that, have an electrician put it on. There's an easy spot for it there. The electricity is already there at the restrooms, so it shouldn't be that expensive to do. And then I talked about the uh 20 station double-sided bike rack. So that's what we're proposing to do. The the cost estimates, we got cost estimates from Shoubach Concrete and from Vinnie Slasher at Slashers for the for the rail. It comes up to about $15,250 to buy the equipment, those pieces. I'm talking about the rail, the concrete, and the labor. Okay? Now, these are estimates. There's going to be more detail if you approve this that'll that'll kind of fine-tune it a little bit. So, man park, which we just did with all the playground this last spring, as you know. Uh, we thought we'd there's no bike racks there either. Uh, so we're going to put in uh first of all, another picnic table is in order. So, we're going to pour a 12x6 ft concrete pad and then buy the commercial grade table to put on it. And since there's no shade basically in that park, we're proposing to put the concrete pad over by the evergreens in the shade, so there's at least one table for families to be, you know, a little more comfortable in the heat of the summer. And then uh two six station bike racks that would be separated by a few feet. Um and then we would actually put mo strips on those for your maintenance

people. And and they're the the loops. You've seen the the looper ones. You understand what I'm talking about? They would be the two anchors would be in foundation concrete foundations into the ground. So, they're not going to go anywhere, but they're also going to be placed on a mo strip so it's easier for the maintenance and that comes to a total of 10,240. So, we're looking at almost $26,000. minor stuff compared to what we've done in the past, but these we feel are very important things to for safety for people and convenience for people and good for the community, good for the city, good for the Lions, and we're happy to do it. So, with that in mind, before you throw a questions at us, Doug's the architect of that drawing, so I'm going to let him talk about that a little bit. Uh quite simply, it's just a ruminary drawing of the uh grounds there, the existing bathroom. Uh we're looking at coming off about 25 ft to the east side and about 10 ft off the sidewalk there, which is about the only really flat surface. It's far enough from the play equipment and also far enough from the sidewalk that doesn't block any traffic or any restrictions for that. The darker line below the bottom side is the sidewalk area. And if you've obviously been at Jackson Park there, you'll notice that that sidewalk jets in and out in areas when you come out to the west side of that, it actually steps in about 18 to 24 inches, which if you're in the dark, which it does get dark up there at times, you can walk right off that edge and fall over the side. So, that would be uh important for that area. At Man Park, uh the two bicycle racks would be on the uh the southeast corner of the of the playground equipment. It's kind of a barrier, too, because if you look at that area, somebody who's crazy enough to drive in there if you don't know what they're going to do. That gives a barrier to that playground area. So, they wouldn't drive through that area. So, pretty simple.

Thanks so much for your generous donation, you guys. I've talked to staff about this. I understand it's very uh in in rhythm with what we're up to and this [clears throat] is a welcome donation. You guys have been there for decades and are still here. Thank you. Yeah, there's a motion in the packet. Great questions. Anybody from the [clears throat] Go ahead. Great. Um, not a problem to bolt or anchor down the bike racks. You mentioned that to do what? Bolt down the bike racks. Too bad. It's not a problem. They're made for that. So, you just bolt it right into the concrete. Yeah. Just want to make sure that that is cool because we might want to do that because having stuff around occasionally stuff moves about.

Yeah. And that way, you know, if you want to move it, it's just not doing the bolt. I mean, for whatever reason, you could do it. I don't imagine we want it to move. Probably not. That's the That's the reason why I'm asking. Yeah. Yeah. We can bolt it down and that's not a problem at all. Yeah. And then just one other quick one. Uh based on your schematic, um the corner uh between the existing sidewalk and the playground, I believe um the main way that people walk uh would go right through this proposed bike rack. Is that if I'm reading this correctly? Is that right?

Uh the bike rack is actually 10 feet off of the sidewalk to the south and it's 25 feet off of the building to the east. Yeah. In between. Yeah. You have the flat area. You have the uh playground up here comes down. You have the uh flat area over here. The side. Sure. Come down both sides of that if they wish to. If you'd rather have it at a different location, that's not a problem. This is just what we're proposing. But if you'd like it maybe to go further to the restroom over to the to the west that's fine too. Yeah. Leave that detail detail if we agree to that could be worked out. But yeah I understand what you're saying right. Yeah. I know that that area is highly trafficked as well. Exactly. Yeah. We understand. Yeah. Thanks. Yeah. Okay.

Mr. Shen, Mr. Bond, thank you for being here. We appreciate your partnership. It sounds like you have been in conversations with staff. What I'd like to better understand is what sort of ongoing maintenance costs would this potentially add when you uh the organization previously donated the play equipment at Man Park. I know that in our budget and our capital improvement projects, we prioritize this project over others to move and reallocate some of those dollars. So, I'm curious, what sort of uh maintenance would this potentially have? what sort of costs would the city have to uh think about in our next budget session and then open to uh continuing these conversations and some of these additional details that have been brought up around what does it look like and having staff involvement in that.

Mayor, if I may address that, I think uh first of all um the Lions are generously uh offering to do the installation as well as the um the purchase of the equipment. And so I think the upfront costs for the city are zero or minimal. Um which I appreciate that is uh you're right in the last piece we had for the man park. We had man park further down on the list and therefore we moved things around to make that opportunity when the lions came to us. Um I have not had a chance to look at this and see what maintenance would be. I can see probably a motion sensor light probably needs to be maintained or bulbs need to be done. I don't see anything here that looks like major installation or major um operation that we wouldn't be able to um incorporate into our daily work already, but I will definitely check with um our public works director on that. He's I know he and I just been communicating about this. I sent him a picture of this, so he had that as well tonight. So,

such a nice drawing. Yeah. So, but I appreciate that question. always there is always a long-term cost, but I think in this particular um situation, these are really durable goods that probably will not need a lot of um long-term maintenance by the city.

That's a good point, Phil. And that brings me to one other thing that I forgot, a very important thing. The stage, we're going to hire a professional uh person to stain it. It needs to be stained every so often. So, we're going to have the whole thing stained. So, we tried to do some of it ourselves, but it's so high. Um, it's it's not something I want to do anymore. Um, but um, so that's going to be that'll probably be $50,000 when we do that, just so you know.

Thank you so much for this. And I know that our community appreciates those events that take place. I know that I truly enjoy families in the park. Um, I live close to Man Park and so it is nice to go out there and and check out the new updates that have taken place and this does make these parks more livable, you know, a sense of place and community. So, I do appreciate your partnership continue to keep our staff involved in and all that you do and we appreciate your partnership. Speaking of partnerships, can I add one thing, Abigail? I did not put that in the agenda, but Okay, you certainly bring it up and they might choose to make a decision later.

Yeah. Friday you hit two birds with one stone. Families in the park sponsorships. You guys have always been a sponsor of that event. Um and what that entails is in kind. You just wave the fees for the park. Um and u you become a a full-fledged partner for the series. We've already hired the bands already. So I'm out seeking sponsorship. So I thought, okay, I'm here. Um might as I ask you about that as well. So again, it's it's an inkind donation of waving the fees to use the park, but you become a full-fledged partner anyway. I think it's good for you guys to be out there. Grant did a great job out there last year. He was out there smooing around and

we'll have we'll have it all the discussion. Thanks, Mike. Okay, thank you. Uh there is a motion.

So I I'm completely open to adding that to this uh motion if others are are okay with that so that we can just get it done now or is that something that we would have to come back at another meeting to discuss? You mean the sponsorship? The sponsorship. Yeah. There's no reason we would have to. Right. I think that you are fine doing it tonight. Uh if you want to amend them, you know, there's a motion here or do it in two separate motions. Um if you would like to like publicly notice that, you could just ask me to put it on a future agenda and I could add it to consent to the next meeting. I think you're you're fine.

Well, I think Grant was about to make a motion, so I just wanted to interject and add that little piece and hear any sort of thoughts that folks had prior to doing so. I'll do the first part that doesn't already in our packet. Um I'll move to we accept the donation of equipment from the Lions for Jackson Park and Man Park. Move by Pulson. I'll second. Second by Rivera. Discussion. All in favor?

I opposed. Thank you. Lions chair votes eye. Motion passes. Uh we could do the ordinarily we wouldn't do that in the full council. I would just put it on consent for the future, but you know, it's your you may make motion that we um we go ahead and approve um or add to the consent agenda the sponsorship of families of the park for the 2026 season. Moved by Cavaleri. I'll second. Second by Rivera. Discussion. All in favor? I opposed. Chair votes I. You're welcome, Lions.

That takes us to the urban renewal agenda. Chair Stina. Now call to order the urban renewal agency board. Uh any additions or corrections? Will who will's on mine? Just be no agenda additions or corrections. Uh, is anybody signed up? Uh, Abigail or Jen online? Okay. So, no business from the audience. Uh, the first uh thing we have on here is the consent agenda and which we would uh I would entertain a motion if anybody wants to make that for the consent agenda unless there's no corrections to be made.

I'll move we approve the consent agenda. First by Amanda. Second. Second by Ben. Okay. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. Chair votes eye. Consent agenda passes. Regular business items. The contract award for the Heights Streetscape plan owner is representative. Uh Will, please.

Yeah. Thank you. Chair Stina, members of the agency board have a contract for your review and approval uh authorizing a three-year contract not to exceed $350,000 for an owner's representative for the Heights Streetscape uh plan implementation. Um so an owner's representative is a common type of uh construction service. This individual has construction expertise um as well as um bidding and solicitation and engineering. And so they are really um the nexus that draws all the pieces together um and gets projects um done and out the door. It's similar to uh Randy and our public works department um or also um community uh development uh partners building Mariposa village. They also have a contracted owners representative um managing that managing Walsh in that project. Um so it's a very uh common and needed um position uh to pull all the pieces together. Um so we are uh working towards getting the heights uh uh uh heights plan implemented as quickly as we could. Um we are in the middle of 30% designs for um Taylor Avenue and for enhanced crosswalks um with MIG. Um but that was done through our qual direct award through our qualified pool list and um and that was limited to a $100,000 contract. And so a simultaneous effort has been to um solicit for an owner's representative to really take the baton and u move that project forward to full construction documents and bidding as well as integrating the undergrounding of overhead utilities uh the underground um portions of connecting uh to our CIP projects um and really just um putting it all together into an overall strategy. And that's uh what this owner's representative is going to do. [clears throat]

Um so we um issued for um an owner's representative uh back in the summer had um several firms uh express interest and attend a pre proposal um bidding meeting. Uh ultimately only two firms um proposed. Part [clears throat] of that is uh any firm that acts as our owner's representative cannot also bid on projects. So this owner's representative has a fiduciary responsibility to be essentially um an extension uh of our staff and to um operate uh solely in our best interest. So they can't have any conflict of interest and so um only two proper uh project management firms responded. Um both were uh highly qualified and had excellent proposals. I reviewed with our city engineer uh interviewed them and I'd say uh both would have been very good options where uh SOJ the who we're recommending approval to I think really um crossed the finish line was just the exceptional references that we received from their prior um clients. So, um, the owner's representative from SOJ who's going to be assigned to us, Dan Notton, worked for TRAT, uh, and also for Prosper Portland, which is the city of Portland's, uh, uh, urban renewal agency. So did a um revitalization of a parking garage and retail space for Prosper Portland and then also did an extension of the uh red line uh I believe believe out to Hillsboro as well as an additional line on the west side of the line. Um and so that was um I believe over a $200 million project required um uh coordination with not only ODOT but also Union P uh Union

Pacific and you can imagine how complex of a project that was and um the references from both uh TRAT and all and Pros Portland were um really shining uh shining references. So, we're excited to bring um them on and recommend Dan Notton and SOJ as an owner's representative for the Heights. Um supported, I'll note also by Alice Cannon um who has uh um experience uh supporting the city in consulting roles, but also as uh as community in community development um for the DAS and several um cities in the um Portland area. she's on there um for as needed support for uh grant writing uh strategic communications um and just as needed services and um I should note that uh this entire contract while it has a not to exceed of 350,000 will be on a time and materials basis um so we will only incur billings as projects are getting done and we expect um a typical range for an owner's repres owner's representative work is about 1 to 3% of a project budget for reference. Um, so with that, I'll answer any questions and there's also a suggested motion in your packet.

Okay, Glattus.

Thank you, Will. Uh, I was going to ask about the budget questions. So, you've already addressed that in page 37 of our packet. There's the method of approach. I was curious to better understand uh how SOJ demonstrated the community voice perspective or how they're going to be engaged. Um that is number or G in the score criteria would also like to better understand some of the riskmanage practices and how they did this in other areas and how they um how they would handle that those kinds of strategies. also the reporting cadence uh should we all decide that this is the organization that we should continue specifically the conversations around how are the metrics being decided and how they're going to be tracked and what is a reporting cadence look like what is that dashboard look like that I'm assuming you would help coordinate and give updates uh to this governing body

yeah u thank you councel rivera um so much of that is uh to be worked out um as we get going uh with them. You know, this is this project's going to be uh very much start and stop based on funding um availability. So, we have um about $6.5 million left in urban renewal funding, and that's going to get us through the uh Taylor Avenue, um the enhanced crosswalks, potentially some improvements along 13th. Um but then we really just come up to the roundabout and we need to find a way uh to um get $15 million um basically to continue on with the height streetscape implementation. So um all that's to say that uh this isn't a uh I'd say traditional project where you are just from start to finish from uh you know award to close out and you're done. Um, this will be a very dynamic um, kind of living breathing um, process where we're going to be in partnership with with Dan supporting me uh, and working with city staff too to kind of uh, design the plane as we're flying it in order to um, get the funding we need and um, find those those points for public outreach and participation. Um, so I sorry I don't have a fully fleshed out answer um because it is just so in the air how we're going to get um through the high streetscape plan.

Thank you. I can understand how you know the performance metrics and the reporting are stuff that we that you all figure out as you go. What I'm curious to know is um you're making a recommendation for us to go with SOJ and I'm trying to understand how have they demonstrated the capability in delivering equity centered benchmarks. How have they been approaching community engagement that you all felt that they would do a great job, you know, given our goals and everything that we've done with the height street uh skate plan in the in the in the past.

Yeah. And um to be candid, I I think staff is going to like um uh take on me and Jackie are going to continue to carry the lion share of the public engagement and um uh kind of public facing and um public communication aspects of this. Um we really where SOJ uh we're going to lean on is that construction expertise um public contracting u managing uh engineers u bringing in those really technical aspects of how do you get um you know Pacific Power to um underground their utilities at the time that we need it so that it corresponds with when we're doing our sidewalk work. That really fine grain stuff. That's uh truly where SOJ is going to um bring the most value and I expect that the um public engagement communication um uh activities will remain mostly with me and Jackie.

Thank you for clarifying. Uh I wholeheartedly trust that you all understand some of the expectations that we've set and that you will continue to work with them um as you all think about engaging our community members. Thank you. Any other questions for Will? Okay, with that, we do have a suggested motion in the packet. I'll make that motion. It's uh I move the Urban Renewal Agency board authorize the agency administrator to sign a contract not to exceed $350,000 for Heights Streetscape owners representative services with Shields Obitz and Johnson.

Motion by Cavaleri. Second. Second by Rivera. Any discussion? All those in favor? Those opposed votes I. Uh, and contract award passes. Thank you, Will. Anything further from as far as administrator updates from you today? No administrator update. I know you have a lot else on your agenda tonight. I appreciate that. Uh, also any items from agency members regarding urban renewal? There usually are not. Okay. Okay. With that, I will adjourn the urban renewal advisory uh or agency board meeting and pass the gel back to Mayor Blackburn for city council.

Thank you, councelor. We take us that takes us to a public hearing for ordinance 2094. I have a script. This is the time scheduled for a public hearing regarding an ordinance amending Hood River Municipal Code Title 12 public utilities chapter 7 system development charges section 12.07.090 to clarify that affordable housing projects with state or private funding are eligible for system development charge exemptions. We will now take public testimony. Jen, has anyone registered to speak or provided written testimony? Hearing none, I will skip to the public hearing for ordinance 2094 system development charge exemptions is now closed.

Abigail, great. I was you need a staff report. I think you all discussed this two weeks ago. So, I hope that what you have seen in uh the draft ordinance that was posted um that it reflects the direction that you gave city staff last week or two weeks ago at your last meeting. And I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you, Abigail. Questions for our staff? I would entertain a motion. I motion to adopt ordinance 2094 amending the Huda Municipal Code section 12.07.090 090 and to have its first reading by title own only under city recorder. Moved by Rivera second.

Second by Mitchell. Uh further discussion. All in favor? I opposed. Chair votes eye. Motion passes. Thank you. Next we have the consent agenda. I would entertain a motion. And there's just one correction, Mr. Mayor. I think it says October at the top, but it should say November, right, Ben? Didn't notice that one. [laughter] Thank Thank you, Anna, for that. Uh, wrong. Yeah, that's right. Pointing that out. Good. U with that correction, I would entertain a motion to approve. Move to approve the corrected minutes. Moved by Pollson.

Second. Second by Gakei. Discussion. All in favor? I I opposed time. The November minutes passed. Uh discussion items go bond planning polling will.

Thank you. Uh yes, I'm back. Um Mayor Blackburn, members of the um council, we have the next step in our geo bond planning process. So the council's heard uh a primer on geo bonds generally. We had um a discussion about prior engagement that um informed our current capital plans that could be um create project to bond for. We did um a work session um on uh prioritizing potential projects. And then our last touch point was then um taking those highly ranked projects and putting together into um project packages or combinations of projects um that we could um put forward to voters with the different price points uh and and tax rates. So, the next step is to get some initial polling to inform uh as we continue to refine and focus uh what our uh potential ask is for uh on a potential November 2026 ballot. Um so, staff um reached out to multiple um public um uh public information public uh um polling firms. two responded and uh met with me to better understand our needs and what we'd be looking for. And then those two responded with full proposals. Um both were suggesting a 400 person uh response um uh responses in order to get statistically valid um uh um conclusions. And um uh so that was reviewed with uh their proposals were reviewed by uh Jackie uh and uh with city manager um Abigail and we um are recommending uh practice uh to do some of that preliminary initial polling. The uh three I think large objectives with the polling is one uh get feedback on

those projects and project combinations that we discussed with council um previously to see which one of those gets traction and resonates with with the voting public. also get the public's general um appetite or what they think is at least feasible or manageable from a um far as the size of the ask of a tax rate or the size of a bond uh to get the bounds of what may be reasonable and uh and particularly in the context of asks what may be asks from the parks district and the school district that we expect um coming either in May or in the November ballots. So that will be part of the process as well. And then third, get also a sense of what the voters's expectations are as far as um due diligence as we uh continue to uh flesh out these options. You know, we the uh police station numbers are really backed by uh you know, professional architects who have spent a lot of time, but a lot of the other ones are very much more um in a preliminary stage. And um uh I think better understanding what voters expect as far as development will help us as well. Um that was one place where the parks department felt like they got tripped up um last go around with their with their bond. Um but also we don't want to spend um a ton of uh money uh on design engineering for projects that may not go anywhere. Um so it's a real balance and this uh polling will help uh inform that decision as well. Um, so we have a suggested motion in your packet uh to um choose uh practis and then also for a 10% uh on top of the contract price uh for the urban renewal agency um to administer this contract. So essentially me administer this contract on behalf of the city. And so with that I'll um answer any questions.

Thank you. Will go ahead Ben and then Glattus. I'm sorry Anna. It was hidden behind Ben. Were you okay? Ben Glattus. Anna. Yep.

All right. Thank you. Um yeah, I mentioned uh in the packet here that there's a um that practice had worked in uh uh with a couple other uh local districts, Columbia Gorge Community College, River Parks and Recreation District, North Glass County Parks and Recreation District. Uh, and I was curious, um, you know, for those surveys that they conducted, um, did they feel or were the survey results generally reflective of the election outcomes? I'm trying to gather how how good, um, I don't know if this was something that was covered uh, in your research, but, you know, how good was the data that came out of those uh, surveys uh, compared to how the elections actually turned out? Yeah, thanks. No, I didn't do that. I didn't ask that specific question. Uh I do know that, you know, that's where they come up with the 400 person um response rate is to get a statistically valid response. Um and I do know that they have um techniques that have been developed in recent years to get around the fact that most people don't have landlines anymore. So, they're going to do cell phones, uh, postcards, also, um, advice for the ways that we can help assist them, too. You know, if we get the word out that, um, someone's going to be, um, you know, someone may be contacting you and letting them know it's legitimate, that helps as well. So, there's going to be a bit of a partnership there. Um, but all those things help support accuracy. Um I'll say uh you know not the one that's re recommended today but um uh another firm that parks and wreck used um uh in their last um bond and geo or um and uh operating levy. Uh they um the executive director noted to me that he felt like the that process and this amount of responses uh did uh provide a

very accurate um look and that uh after they had done that polling then the parks district decided to increase uh what they were asking for. So they ended up changing their ask was not what what they pulled. Um and so he wanted to make sure that that wasn't sort of cast their um not passing a bond last time doesn't uh shouldn't cast dispersions upon the validity of polling generally. Got it. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh I have a couple of questions. The first one is around public engagement of those 400 individuals. just making sure that we do have materials that are available in English and in Spanish and recognizing that we are in a time where um many of us have received those, you know, spam text messages. Um how are we ensuring that we're letting our community members know that you are receiving a legitimate link and this information is something that is, you know, being shared uh back to council for these bonds. And then lastly, my third question is around timeline. How soon do we expect this to happen? for example, if if we as counselors need to make an update, whomever's um doing the next update that they can include this in that so that th that can be assur shared with appropriate channels um to be able to understand like what are some of the questions that folks have given that at some point we will have to have some um education both in English and in Spanish about the bond. So that helps us understand the overall timeline timeline.

Yeah, wonderful. Thank you so much for that. And yeah, I think there will be touch points um where if the city gets involved or if counselors get involved um that will help response rates, help us get um the best answers um and uh and improve the whole process. Um so, uh yeah, after I meet with practice and we get started, I'll have um better direction to give as far as how we can um link in and and support their efforts. Um, I will say that this is meant to be uh very preliminary. We may even do additional bonding after we um refine our final ask or or we feel like we're getting close to what is our final ask. Um there may be another round of this. Um this is going to be just super uh preliminary. You know, right now we have what was presented to council I think was as low as a a 50 cent per thousand ask all the way up to I think a$150 per per thousand ask. And we had um dollar ranges I think from 8 million up to like 40 million. Um don't quote me on that. I'd have to look back again. But all to say is a wide range of dollar amounts and wide range of topics. And so we um this isn't meant to basically be a um end all beall of polling. This is uh helping the council get to just uh where they feel comfortable taking that next step and refining. Um and there will be uh once the campaign gets started, there will be I'd say 5x 10x uh more uh types of engagement and um ways of engagement and just volume of engagement in public communication.

Thank you. I hear that. And I still just want to stress the importance of plain language information so that folks understand what we're asking and that we do have property owners that are Spanish speaking where this information would be really valuable to them. So just continue to keep that in mind. Thanks Anna.

So I think Councilwoman River and I have the sim similar thoughts about things um because I was also curious about timing and as I was reading this I was also really curious about the 400 number. Um, so our city population is about 8,500. There's I looked today because I was curious about this. In our entire county, we have 16,677 registered voters as of January of this year, according to the Oregon Secretary of State's Elections Division. Why 400? And then the second question is, um, this is based on PRAIS's, uh, proposal for an 18minute survey. What can we learn in 18 minutes that we can't learn in 12 minutes? And 18 minutes to me is a third of a billable hour. I I don't have time to talk to somebody on the phone about this for 18 minutes. So, I would think that um back to the plain language, like I would think um you know, why why I'm just curious why are we leaning that way?

Yeah, thanks. Um, so as far as 400, that's what um both um firms proposed, and I believe that's because that's the amount necessary to get a statistically valid sample. Um, and this is reaching back to to my college stats, but it it doesn't matter if we're pulling in Chicago um or in Hood River, as long as it's a random sample. Um 400 is I think basically what you need in order to get a good um uh uh pull a high confidence interval in the results. Well, that that doesn't mean that we only pull 400 people, right? It means that you're you're getting 400 responses.

Responses. Okay. Oh, and I wanted to correct my math. It's not a third of a billable hour. It's 3/10en of a billable [laughter] hour. Just in case people are curious about how I do my billing.

Yep. Yep. Um, correct. And that's where the expertise of a firm that specializes in polling will help us get make sure it's random uh and get make it be as high quality as possible to support a good confidence interval um in the responses. And as far as uh the length, you know, we do have the quotes for shorter if we want to go that way as we work this out um uh with the with the team. I think 18 minutes was about where the parks and wreck um survey was at. And it really gets into um survey construction where they try to um I believe ask questions basically ask the qu same question multiple different ways and to ensure that people are giving a consistent answer and that gets to um kind of uh you know um how strongly held or maybe how durable their opinion is. Doug and then Glenn. I'm sorry.

Just want to say thank you.

Thanks, Will. Um, uh, don't want to get too ahead of ourselves here, but just wondering in terms of designing the poll, um, you know, one thing that I like about, you know, it's as it says here, distilling the four bond packages, uh, that we didn't go too narrow focused to begin with and be able to whittle it down so on and so forth, right? Um but uh as you mentioned earlier uh in your report you know um there's some really hard data behind say the police station but you know what might be done for affordable housing or you know uh um you know options for public works and whatnot. Um will will we have an opportunity to see the materials so that we can understand what these questions are going to be? I mean, I'm sure staff will work towards getting that done, but you know, do we get a chance to kind of weigh in on what this looks like before it goes out?

Um, I will try to I don't think there would be any harm in that. We are trying to hit the window and I'm sorry, um, previous counselors asked about timing and I didn't answer that directly. Um, we are trying to hit the window between Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. Um but uh uh even if there's not time for maybe another meeting about this or um I I'll try to get um the questions out uh to the council just as an FYI and then certainly get feedback um back.

Yeah. and and certainly don't want to architect it and you know um we're not professionals in terms of how surveys go but want to make sure that at least we can understand that there's nothing glaring or uh could could leave a lot of room for interpretation being that you know some of the asks will be developed as we understand what the appetite is.

Yeah. Yeah. And to that point that's that's where really that number three objective comes into play. Um, I think affordable housing is is the prime example of, you know, we could due diligence this out to the point where it is another, you know, we have a purchase option agreement on a piece of property and, you know, a developer on the line, you know, uh, or we could just say, and this is how Portland and Metro did it, is just we want authorized money for affordable housing to be to be determined. And that actually um that that second route provides you, you know, the very most flexibility to act on opportunities, to get good prices on land, to um be um you know, responsive to to, you know, as you know, uh to not have to project out two years from now exactly what we want to build, but go through more public process um in order to get more feedback and refine what we want to do rather than having to set it out. And then once it's in, you know, uh, black and white and you've added that description to your ballot and that's what people voted on, you're really prescribed within those four walls and you're stuck there. So, um, that's where we don't want to be we we need to gauge through this initial polling what the expectations are for how um, fleshed out this is going to be because it's there's some real um, pros and cons to having to develop it too much ahead of the ballot.

Right. And and I and just to close this out, I you know, and and I agree with you. Um I just get worried that, you know, with affordable housing, for example, it's, you know, catch all for affordable housing. Um if you ask 10 people on the street what they think affordable housing is, they might have 10 different answers, right? So I just want to make sure things are primed for, you know, maybe not what this will be used for this development, but you know, what affordable housing is, for example, or what some of these other things are. Um, so that that's the kind of stuff that I'd be looking for versus like, you know, reading it, weighing in on every question. [laughter] Yeah. Something. Yeah, for sure. Yeah.

Thank you. Uh, Councelor Cavaleri's comment reminded me that I had another area or that I wanted to echo the highlight of concern around an 18-minute survey. Um, I know that we don't have the funds to allocate for this time around, but incentivizing people for their time is really valuable. So, if we can keep things plain language, short and sweet, that can reduce the amount of time that folks are spending on this survey. 18 minutes is a significant amount of time. Um, and and just something for us to think about in the future is how are we incentivizing our constituents should there be a time threshold that that we know it may take for them to complete this and that we truly do value their time and their input. Thanks,

Amanda. Um yeah, I initially was just curious about the how it ended up at the 18 minute thing too, especially if there's other options. Um just want to mention that. And then is like a is the only way the polling is done over the phone in conversation with people or is there like an online poll or how how is it done exactly?

Yeah, thank you. Um and uh there are options for shorter survey. So it would be less money if we do shorter. So the this is authorizing a not to exceed amount and if the survey can be done with fewer questions, that's certainly the way we're going to do it. But um to councelor um Stpina's you know question about you know um fleshing out what people think affordable housing is and uh you know we're looking at transportation projects and to police station to public works to um safe routes to school. there's um we're uh trying to get a lot of out of this preliminary polling and so that's where I do we may need to lean more towards the longer survey because um yeah we're trying to get a lot of mileage out of uh these responses and we have a long ways to go. Um but as far as a format, yes, it'll be multiple formats. I believe uh landlines uh are not very few people have landlines and um so I believe there will also be um be through cell phones and then they also have options if needed of doing postcard or online. They have multiple formats and um uh I'd have to leave it to the experts to know uh when and how to use those multiple methods and ensure that we're getting a representative sample and statistically valid responses.

Keep going. Amanda, um what does a postcard method look like? And and is this something like even if they, you know, have or making the calls and doing these other things like can we just put up something that anybody can go to to fill it out like beyond the 400 or is this just really specific to like the 400?

Yeah, my understanding is no, this cannot just be open. Uh this really needs to be in invite. Uh, but I'm getting a little bit out of my depth there and that's where we have to rely on these firms that, you know, have been doing this for decades is, um, we need to make sure it's a representative sample of who's going to show up. And if you have something that's just open invite, there's a large self- selection bias, um, that can creep in um, and could lead us to erroneous conclusions.

Method methodology question for you. In order to achieve a statistically significant sample, I understand why we have the number of 400. Uh we we made in order to make sure that statistical significant sample is relevant, why it's capped at 400 as well. Correct. Yeah, I think that's where we kind of hit a a a potential sweet spot as far as cost uh and and product of the of the work where we get a good confidence interval. We could always do more, but you get diminishing returns. And um each uh each, you know, the 401st respondent costs just as much as the first respondent.

Yeah. Yeah. And statistically, once you start to get beyond a certain number of respondents, statistically, the the stats don't matter statistically, not as individuals, but statistically. It's just a math thing. Um the question regarding the the length of the survey in terms of time. Uh based on our questions that we asked you for answers to, which survey length would best answer the questions that we asked you to get answers to?

Yeah, I think we're like uh like I was saying before, I think we're leaning the longer um but we haven't constructed it yet. We'll try to save money um for sure. But um like I said, we've um we've got a a wide range uh of both in dollar amount and in potential um types of projects. So I would suspect um that we're going to be on the longer end rather than the shorter. Okay. All right. Thanks. Other questions for Will Lis?

I It's not a question more of like a comment. I understand that the threshold is up to 18 minutes, but if we really look in plain language the questions, like there's an opportunity where we can minimize the amount of time, which, you know, we want to keep their attention to finish the survey. And I think that's what I was trying to get at is I know that we have up to $32,000. Um, and that's fine, but if we can keep the questions short and sweet and understandable where folks can comprehend so that we don't have to keep them for 18 minutes in order to be able to address these questions. Mayor, if I may add a comment. Um, and I am definitely not a statistician nor a professional survey taker, but um, what I have seen um, in doing a little bit of this work as a librarian long ago, um, would be that 18 would be the max amount of time somebody would be on. So, there's a lot of if then things like if the person says yes, then we follow the script. If they say no, we follow a different script. And so, uh, depending on how people answer, it could be a 5-minute conversation or it could be 18 minutes. So, I want to be clear that I don't think the every single person will be on the phone for exactly 18 minutes. I think the survey folks are trying to give us a range of like this is what we anticipate depending on the depth. Um, but it's a it's a range, not a specific piece. And Will might be able to speak more to that, but just there is a real science behind this. I want to remind that we're looking for um at this moment, this is not education or communitywide. This is about how do we um what's the temperature of our voting pool? So the folks that they would contact would be people who have voted in uh last certain number of elections, likely voters. Um, so some of the concerns, uh, I want to like differentiate the survey and the polling piece from a general education piece that will absolutely be need to be need

to be done, but this is like kind of this moment in time. It's a really select small group of people for a reason. Thank you, Abio. Yeah, exactly right. Nothing to add. Done. Can I make a motion, please? I move to authorize an amount not to exceed $32,700 for bond polling services with Proxis and Patinken Research Strategies and $3,270 for the urban renewal agency to administer the contract. Moved by Stpina. Second.

Second by Pollson. Further discussion. We talk about this for 18 minutes. No discussion. I'm all in favor. I opposed. Chair votes eye. Motion passes. Thanks, Will. I'm so eager to see the results. We're going to do the development code update, but first we're going to take a fivem minute break. Sorry, Kevin. Thank you.

feel free. Thank you. It's a relief to not be the only one watching it. All right. Brings us to Dustin and Kevin.

Thank you, Mayor Blackburn and counselors. for tonight. For tonight's work session, we're joined by Matt Hasty and Carrie Breni of the consulting firm MIG, who've been leading the development load audit and update project. Um, last week we distributed materials for what we're referring to as module four of the project. These are focusing or the code focusing on building and site design standards. Um, this material is in tonight's packet labeled meeting packet part two, beginning with a memo dated November 25th that highlights 10 issues for discussion. Those 10 items are found on pages two through five of that memo and you'll see some blue text and that's actually those are links to the associated code down deeper in the document. Um that uh memo also includes a summary of feedback from this planning commission from our work session a week ago as well as a few comments we received from the audience that night. Uh Matt and Carrie have a presentation for you tonight. They're going to run through we'll go through those 10 questions. Um they're going to start with a quick recap on how we got to where we are right now. And unless there are any questions, I'm going to just turn it right over to Matt and Carrie.

Looks good. Thank you. All right. Thanks for having me here. Good to be here in the in the 3D. I was gonna say the third dimension of weird, right? So, I'm gonna pull up a presentation and I don't I usually have like another um you know something else, another screen to share. So, I think low tech out here.

Hopefully, I'll get it right. We'll see. Give it a try. Let's see. Perfect. There we go. Excellent. Okay. Um, so as Kevin said, quick status report. Um, a little bit of a recap on kind of what we talked about last time when Carrie did most of the talking or almost all the talking for the two of us. And then you get to hear me do the talking tonight. and then we'll walk through the that list of 10 items that Kevin mentioned. We'll do I'll do kind of a quick paraphrase of the sort of the background um let you know what we heard from the planning commission and then we have questions for you. In many cases the question is what do you think do you support this approach we're recommending? In other cases we've got other questions but we'll kind of walk through those. Um so I have some notes so I'll try to manage my notes and my presentation. All right. So, uh just in terms of kind of a recap of um kind of where we are, I won't you've seen this uh slide that's about to come up. Um before I won't spend a lot of time on this, just note that we have been walking through and reviewing each of these sort of buckets or modules of code amendments. So, we're on number four out of four. Um and we've been talking to the planning commission as well. We have a couple of next steps. One, a couple of them are community engagement steps. So, one, we've got the first of several kind of mini questionnaires up on your website. Your staff's been working to spread the word about that and get people to weigh in on that. There will be um four of those approximately and each one is meant to be pretty short. You know, just two or three questions at the most. Try to get

some quick feedback from folks. We'll have all four sort of available for the whole time that we're running those, but every couple weeks we'll put a new one up. So that set of mini surveys will run through um till about mid well the end of January and then that'll give us then time along the way and at the end to summarize what we've heard and we will then use that information as we work on sort of the next piece which is the consolidated set of draft code amendments. So, we'll be using what we hear from that set of questionnaires, what we've heard from you all, from the planning commission, from staff, and then we're also getting ready to conduct a series of kind of small group uh meetings with interested parties. I think you've all had a chance to see the list of folks we're going to try to talk to. Um so, the first set of those meetings will be happening in the next several weeks, um kind of the first half of of uh December. We're also working with the Next Door, Inc. to put together and facilitate a meeting with Spanish speaking residents. That will happen in January because we just need more time to kind of organize and pull that meeting together. So, we're working with them right now to get that meeting together. So those what we hear from those meetings will also feed into what we're doing in terms of that next step of consolidating um combining consolidating and further updating um the four sets of code amendments. So that's kind of what's coming up next. There will then be further refinement of those before we go into an adoption process. So after we've kind of got those consolidated um amendments, we'll talk to the planning commission about them, talk to you about them. There may be some specific things we check in with you on again, but hopefully not the volume of things we've asked you about up to this point, but there might be a few things to ask you about specifically. Um, and then from there,

we head into the adoption process. So, that's what's remaining in the project. So, we've done a lot of work. Um, but we've still got some work to do. So, um, very quick reminder of sort of what these four uh, modules um, have been. The first one was general provisions and introduction to the code. Um second had to do with procedures, application procedures, review procedures, land division procedures. We've consolidated the um two main titles of your code into or are consolidating them into one um section. So we had to pull in all the land division and subdivision procedures. The last one we talked to you all about was the regulations that apply to specific zones, both base zones as well as overlay zones and special use standards. Um, and those are oriented mostly towards sort of site development standards. So things like lot size, um, and building coverage and things of that nature. And then tonight we're talking about community design and land division standards. So that's what those 10 items are going to sort of focus in on. And this was, as you probably saw, like the longest yet of the really long documents we've been sending you. So, um, apologies, but it's a lot of stuff. And hopefully, um, you were able to give it a give it a skim. Um, so again, just kind of a Oops, there we go. Um, reminder of what some of the specific sections are that we're talking about tonight. So um administration of design standards, orientation and design of of individual buildings um and sites to some degree um standards related to transportation, access and circulation as well as landscaping, street trees, fences and walls, outdoor lighting. We'll talk about all those things in a little more detail. Um vehicle and bicycle parking for different types of uses as well as public facilities. So that's kind of the breadth of stuff that's in this fourth

code module that we're talking about tonight. Um I like a little animation here. Um so as you saw in what we sent you, you saw in some cases sources um example standards from different sources and these are kind of all the sources we use. So the state has prepared a model code for small cities that's actually in the process of being updated right now. Um, our firm is updating that, so that's nice. It's not all the way updated. That's not as nice, but at least we have the people working on it close by and we can ask them questions and review the stuff that they've reviewed already or prepared. The other piece is the Oregon Housing Needs analysis model code. Um, that's some fairly specific standards that are coming out of that larger um state rule making process. Our firm is also working on that. That is done. So we have been able to sort of borrow some standards from that document as well. So that's been really nice. Of course, your existing code. There's a lot of provisions that will likely be pulled from and used, you know, from your existing code with some modifications by us. Um, and then there are some other code updates or recently um updated codes or just kind of best practice codes from around the state that we're looking at. So you'll see some provisions from some of those communities codes in here as well. Ben, Sandy's sisters, Sandy in particular was done to address the requirement for clear and objective standards. So that one's been vetted as you know meeting that requirement. So that's why in part we have used that one. And then of course we're doing our we're addressing state legislative requirements. That's a sort of a a pretty important um goal for the state for this project and they're funding part of this project. So, we're making sure that we're reviewing um those requirements and for the ones that

apply to Had River, pulling them into your code as well. And then, of course, lots of discussion um by the project team. Um so, we met actually this afternoon for several hours with Dustin and Kevin and talked through module three. So, that was great. Um, so with that, maybe I'll take a quick pause and then I'll jump into the the individual 10 questions, but just see if you have any questions about process up to this point. Nope.

Okay. Excellent. So, we'll take these kind of one at a time. Again, I'll do a quick intro and then see what you think. So, this first one, residential design standards. Your code has kind of a limited number of design standards for residential uses. in a number of cases they're they don't meet that clearing objective requirement. Um and so our recommendation is that you replace and supplement those standards with additional standards either from the model code for small cities or that ONA Oregon housing needs assessment model code. Those have been developed to be clear and objective um and to be just kind of a starting point for cities around the state to incorporate those types of standards. So, that's kind of the general recommendation from the team and from staff on that one. Uh, planning commission, I think a majority of folks on the planning commission said, "Yes, that makes sense. We do want to make sure there's some flexibility built in where we can provide that and where that's consistent with state standards." We had one member of the planning commission who kind of questioned the need for some of these standards. Do we really need to require buildings be designed in this way or to this level? I think a majority of folks said yes, it's important to maintain a certain um aesthetic or visual quality of new uh new buildings and new development and recognize that there is some trade-off between that and what it costs to build a building and we need to kind of seek that balance but I think majority of people said the balance is important. So that's and so I think the question for you is do you support our recommendation around this one? And I guess should I just check with you if you have anything to add on any of these or do you want you'll just chime in?

I'll chime in as you need me. Any any comments on this number one item? Y'all Gladness. Thank you. I think I would uh I appreciate the planning commission um direction on here. I just want to highlight the importance of pre-application meetings where the city is meeting with those developers and any other folks like fire for example that need to be there that we want to have some standards or restrictions but that we don't want to create any unnecessary barriers. Doug.

Yeah, I'll I'll echo what what uh councelor Olivera just said and it kind of speaks to all of these when we are speaking about middle housing, any any types of housing that is that would be desirable um you know uh given the the the low amount that we've had in the last 25 years um being constructed. I just wouldn't would hope that everyone's looking at removing any impediments to uh housing code that would be affecting cottage clusters or middle housing or apartment buildings um and weigh that against uh the standards of of you know the housing types that we have quite a few of you know single family homes and whatnot. So that's it's a general comment but um would be looking for that.

Great. Just clarification from the planning commission. These they they were balancing what is required for health and safety and aesthetics um subjective aesthetics with um not having necessarily those standards as well. Correct. So those those two types of standards. Yeah. Or are they just talking about health and safety requirements which everybody should meet and separating aesthetics out? So maybe I'll take a shot of that and see if you want to take a shot.

Yeah, I this is not these standards residential design standards in this project have no way, shape or form are eliminating the building code or the technical aspects of the fire code. There is no there's no compromise there. So these aesthetics were more related to the zoning code. So whether uh they they are not the life safety standards, if you will. And I think I I did sort of simplify it a little bit by focusing on aesthetics or kind of visual or material quality. Um but there's other standards that relate to just giving people a fairly easy pedestrian access into their homes, you know, so making sure that you can get in to your front door and then you can actually maybe see people who are out in front of your house, you know, from your front door, from the front of your house. So there are some standards around that um around just how you orient entryways into buildings and there are some standards around in other parts of the code of course landscaping um and things of that nature. So, it's kind of does go a little beyond aesthetics. It just I'll call them kind of best practices for urban design, but not like if we were to take all the things in the model code for small cities, there would be a lot more standards in there. So, we're we are trying to kind of balance um things in that way. Thanks.

Great. Thanks for clarifying. Is that Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. We don't want to be too um rigid. But in all of this work, I think something I'm really looking for is that where can we reduce those hard costs? And even with the design, we know that landscaping could be a hard cost, right? We know that parking could be a hard cost. So in all of this work, that's something to just keep in mind is where is there flexibility for us to reduce that so that that helps incentivize folks to want to build the type of housing that we need. Yes, some of those I'll talk about as we go forward, but

um I I listened into the planning commission meeting and I I kind of remember this portion of their discussion where they were talking about like orientation of the front door, orientation of the garage doors and those kinds of things. And one council member was saying, you know, if we regulate this too much, it it does impact um PE, you know, developers ability or builders ability to design their homes. And then I thought it was really interesting that one of the commissioners that has a lot of experience in building said it was actually it would be helpful to have some of this um like you know, guide guidance. Um I was surprised and and impressed to hear that. Um and I thought that was valuable input. Um, but I think that that's I I think I I wanted to watch the planning commission because I wanted to see what kind of um what kind of direction you were going to get, what we would be what we would be hearing from them and um I think that this is reflection of what they exactly what they said. I think it's um generally they did support having some kind of guidelines. What I wasn't sure about and what I didn't hear in the discussion was whether or not there would be an opportunity um you know the point of this um and it kind of bugs me that it says we're not addressing policy issues like that's our job we do policy. So the fact that it says right in the beginning of this like we're not here to discuss policy then I'm like why are we here? But um the the purpose of this whole exercise is to create clear and objective standards and um I think that that this helps with that um without being like it's going to be an interesting balance of without being overbearing in in what the requirements are.

Yeah. I echo my uh fellow counselors in terms of talking about uh making sure we're not doing things that are going to really unnecessarily uh burden the creation of uh housing particularly more dense housing. I appreciate your phrasing of it as best practices. That's something I kind of struggled with this part because I kind of, you know, didn't felt like, you know, sometimes when we get into conversation about aesthetics, I'm just like, well, I don't really, you know, uh, that's not like crazy important to me in terms of depending on what we're talking about like house color. Like I'm a little bit of the mindset that to some degree people should, you know, kind of be able to do what they want to some level with their houses. and I don't want to be in a position where we feel like we've got turned Hood River into like a, you know, an HOA kind of situation. But, um, having it framed as best practices, I I I like that in terms of like orientation of driveways and and stuff that's that's, uh, helpful for framing this, I think, pardon the pun.

Thank you. Anything else on number one yet? Carry on.

Awesome. Thank you. So number two is sort of a little bit the flip side. So it's looking at um non-residentidential building design standards. So standards for primarily commercial development um and to some degree, you know, light industrial, institutional, those kind of um other forms of development. So somewhat similar to residential design standards. Um well, I'll actually start out saying you have a couple of areas of the city where you actually do have, you know, some pretty solid and thoroughly detailed design standards. So in the um downtown area and in the waterfront overlay district, you have adopted, you know, a fairly robust set of design standards um but not so much in other um zones within the city. And so we uh staff is recommending that you do update the design standard for those types of buildings as well or those types of uses as well. Again, not to go too crazy, but to incorporate some fairly basic design standards um to maintain again kind of the quality of construction and access and things of that nature for those forms of development as well. So, kind of the same general approach. Um and so what we heard from the planning commission, yes, they were generally supportive um of adopting design standards and looking at best industry practices. In this case, um I will say again that that model code for small cities has a really extensive set of standards. It felt like kind of too much um in this case. Um we looked at a couple other communities including Ben. Bend has a sort of a more I'll call it condensed set of standards, but still um if you've been to Ben recently, I feel like, you know, they're really getting some quality commercial development over there. So, they seem like a good sort of pure community for y'all. Larger, but

you know, in other ways somewhat similar to Hood River. So, we are recommending um that and um and the planning commission was generally supportive of that. They again want to make sure there's a certain amount of flexibility within those standards and they you know noted the need to think think um thought be thoughtful about how we apply those types of standards to mixeduse developments. So you need to apply clear and objective standards to residential development or housing. You have more flexibility in what you apply to non-residential but if you've got a mix of development you have to apply clear and objective standards to the to the to the project. So, um, so that's important for us to kind of work through and just a little more detail about how does it work when you've got, um, a non-residential element within a mixeduse development. So, that's what we heard from those folks.

Doug, yeah. Um the the the applied to mixeduse development um piques my interest as well because I think you know uh the state of Oregon regarding zoning and everything if we work all the way down to R1 there are ways to increase density by state law in those areas. I I would like to make sure that we're you know incentivizing again the sort of development that happens uh in the C2 zone where we're getting a lot of units um for mixeduse development. So, I just would like it for for it, you know, for it to be thought of um uh in in its own category almost. You know what I'm saying? Because like that's uh So, yeah, you're pointing Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. [laughter] Yeah. So, um Yeah. So, how does that happen? Because Yeah. I mean, anytime we've ever had at least interest in, you know, some sort of large amount of units, it's been in a C2 zone, right? So how do we aim to how do we not disincentivize that type of development for be to be standards for commercial?

Yeah. Well, I think for one, if somebody comes in with a development in that zone and it's a mixeduse development, then they will need to adhere to again some clear and objective standards that apply to residential development. Um and then for let's say there's ground for a commercial or a commercial use that's sort of a standalone commercial use on part of the site. Those can be um uh particularly the standalone use can go through the commercial design standards for the building. So I I think it's really about kind of how do we apply those standards to those two different types of uses within a single development. And again, sometimes they're going to be standalone, then sometimes there's going to be a mix of them above one as opposed to the next two. So, I don't know if that's a really good answer.

I got and uh in the previous module when we all talked to you, there was some sentiment not just about how these things looked, which is really more the focus here. It was the idea of incentivizing mixed use in areas that traditionally you hadn't seen them before um kind of in nodes for transportation corridors and other areas that they might be suited where that might not have been something that we contemplated before and I brought up the uh you know the mixeduse coffee shop the corner store that market and so taking that away from you all and so that's what I gathered from you we will need to in this part craft something that to some extent rep we're going to try to channel what you thought and what we thought of what that building design looks like. It's a you know the corner store that small format market that small small format mixed use manage that with clear and objective standards that have to be applied to that in a site that will not have customized design review because it cannot have customized design review and and really try to build something that uh that we think fitting to you all the time, place and manner options and that location as well as um I think we had the R3 sentiment there that everyone continues to shift to this commercial zone. They they keep pushing that way away from this the high density your high density residential. Why is that? So we are trying to also manage some of those design standards and some of those time place and manner locations that you all had talked about before and that are in module three that we talked about today. So we're working on those refinements of location. They need to be paired with refinements in design and layout. So yeah, so your your your lens for looking at module four is through what was decided in module three. So that's

right. That's time, place, and manner. This is more the form the form based aspect of it. Thank you.

Thank you all. I agree with everything that's been said and I think that Westside could be a a great baseline for what this looks like given that you know it's a little bit of a blank canvas out there and again how do we balance some of these restrictions and and costs um and that we continue to be flexible. I know that in our last meeting we talked a lot about case by case scenarios. So something to continue to reiterate specifically here understanding that there may be some projects might have more access to corporate funding than others and so being aware of that and again how do we reduce those hard costs for folks when when possible. Amanda,

um I was just curious if you could explain more about like the flexibility being built in or allowing flexibility. Like what does that mean exactly? Is it on a case by case like you have to plead your case to get the flexible decisions or

So I think it could be built in in a couple different ways. I'll I'll try to answer and then I'll see if these folks have other things to add. Um so one I think for um residential standards one way you can build that in is through providing some kind of menu based approach or certain design standards for certain types of development. So you need to do some of these things but not all of these things. That's one way to build in flexibility. Two, you can give people the option to pursue an alternative more discretionary path if that's what they choose to do. there has to be this clear and objective pathway and set a standard for residential development, but you can provide um uh an alternative discretionary path if somebody chooses to go down that road. So, that's a second. And then for commercial design standards in particular or non-residential design standards um you just have more flexibility to give people choices um or to um apply standards that allow for a little more creativity which also then requires a little more review on the city's part. But for those types of development, you've just got that ability kind of built into what the state allows you to do, frankly. Um, and what you choose to do in that regard. So, anything else can you add?

Yeah, I think in the design flexibility, it's it's not someone coming and pleading their case for design flexibility. I think there's a path if you wanted to like have that. Uh I think the the standards themselves are supposed to move us towards a general outcome, not necessarily the one outcome. And so having some flexibility that you know this is not a the only destination that to success is an alpine ski resort motif. You know, we we're we are not looking to have this thing fit into one way. It's some generalized best practices when it comes to building layout. And however you choose to fit those into your design, I think that's the flexibility we're looking for. That they're not the standards would not be tailored so tight that they that they don't provide some localized creativity for sites that are sloped that are you know it it is Hood River. We are infilling. It is challenging. We we understand we cannot tailor this thing so tight to not give people opportunities to express their creativity and build around difficult sites that are imperfect. Next.

All right. Okay. Um, next one is drive-thrus and drive up uses. So, these are kind of their own special animal to away. Drive up and drive-through uses. You know, they have um potential impacts in terms of um people driving more cars sort of driving onto and through the site. So they can impact um pedestrian safety, uh things of that nature, traffic safety, um lighting, etc. So they do tend to potentially have greater impacts on all those things than some other types of development. They tend to be located often in kind of higher profile areas or on higher profile busier streets. Um you don't have standards specific to these types of uses now in your code. So staff recommends that we incorporate standards and we again use best practices from some other communities um around the state. Um so we've been looking at um some of those standards that are applied. I think Sandy is one of the ones we looked at and a couple others to come up with at least sort of a baseline um for Hood River. It can be tailored or tweaked, but that's our general recommendation. This one was a pretty quick um yes, we agree from planning commission. They didn't have a lot of other specific comments on this one. There was one specific comment where within the kind of model or template standards we had there was a um a threshold for slope of a a queueing area um within the drive-thru or drive up location of like 12% and one of the planning commissioners says, "Wow, that seems really steep to me. Maybe you actually want that threshold to be a little lower." So that was I think kind of the only specific um comment we had on those other than yes good approach. So just yeah,

thank you. I appreciate this one. And and the example that um Abigail and I had talked about is Dutch Brothers, for example, like there's an area where they're um there could have we could have maybe been a little bit more strict, especially that the sidewalk, right? when folks are waiting in that long line, you have cars that are over the sidewalk and then kiddos can't utilize that to get to school, you know, and it causes some safety concerns. So, yes, some le level of standardization, but where should we be more restrictive given that we know it's high pedestrian or biking and how that may factor into the the overall driveway?

Perfect. I appreciate the example of of Dutch Brothers because I you make a good point about that congestion right there and the impact it has on pedestrians, but my question kind of was um like how how many in the period that you've been here, Dustin, like how how many permits do we get and requests do we get for these kinds of businesses? And the reason why I mean I'm not saying that we shouldn't include it in a code update. It's better to be proactive and have it available, but how often does this come up? I think for drivethrus, there's one that has been threatened in the last year, which I think uh might have been a discovered drive-thru that no one wanted to admit was a drive-thru. Um there was another redevelopment, actually two um two that I can think of in the last permit cycle um that we've had. I think gas stations is another one that I fit within this. Um, and as Matt mentioned, these are uses that are high traffic, high profile in your community, uh, have interesting relationships in terms of lighting, usually high light. Um, often menu boards, which if you're next to a residential area, if you hear with a special band all through the night, people will, you know, there's some real impacts that are generated that are unique from these, but they actually appear more often than not. Um, gas station, we haven't had any. Um, but the drive-thru does make an appearance. And also, I think if you're starting to look at investment in Cascade Avenue, a high traffic, the only east to west arterial corridor within your city and the investment within the heights, the only north to south arterial corridor in the city, you may see the catalyst for redevelopment of those uses.

And I can see it as west side like that blank canvas that we have is coming. um that it'll be it'll be nice to have these, but I just was thinking like re part of the reason why we probably never really had it before was it probably doesn't come up that often, but if we had had it, then maybe Dutch Brothers wouldn't be as crazy. Okay, thanks. I just wanted to add that that was the the piece that I forgot to add and that hat's fuel station I think is another great example where we see long lines backing up and that that creates again a safety concern for folks. So thanks.

Yeah. And sort of making sure there's enough of that queuing space on site so that you don't have as much traffic backing up onto the street. sort of one of the things to look at with these I guess in that that area like that at certain times of the day and week US bank would be like queued up on to 12th like a weird one but a drive-through bank in that case was an impact seems like grant

yeah just just for clarification purpose this is not restricted just to drive through food establishments gas stations and banks necessarily could be potentially any commercial business that has high throughput um high demand sort of short stay sort of visitation vehicular focused sort of stuff. Correct.

Um it is usually going to be an area where you are visiting the place and you're kind of staying in your car and you're using your car to acquire the service or the goods that you're getting from that place. So we kind of that's why we refer to them as drive-thru or drive up. I think gas stations is one where again, you know, you're you're getting products for your car. So, mostly it's focused on that. I'm gonna look over to Carrie and Kevin and just see if there anything else to say. I don't have any other examples. Is there an example you're thinking

that that's one avatar trying to think about if we're going to do this thing trying to think about future proofing it because I can imagine there will be other products services or delivery models in the future that might um use a similar sort of thing where people just cruise through with a vehicle get what they need and head off. For example, uh we now have carside delivery at grocery stores, right? So, we may in the future have a warehouse grocery store where people pull through a drive-thru, for example, um say that they're there and somebody comes out with their stuff in a bag, loads it up, and they take off. Hypothetically, for example, those things may occur in the future.

Yeah, I I don't think that's a remote future. Um especially in the grocery world. Um, but that's something that actually has presented a problem today uh with the grocery world of trying to fit a new queued up kind of transportation impact ad in a retrofit situation. Um, you know, we've had problems with fire department um because they want to queue in the fire lane. I mean, this is a this is a real time response to these issues as well. So,

that would be a drive that would be a drive-through use. I think what you described, yeah, would qualify. I think it's that's just a good question in terms of thinking closely about how we define these uses and are thinking ahead to stuff like that. And maybe again, as Dustin said, not too far ahead. I mean, I will say that um currently the provisions we've identified, if if you drive into a grocery store parking lot and they have three or four spaces where you pull in, you park in that space, somebody comes out and brings you your groceries, you're not really queuing, you're not really driving the whole time. Those wouldn't necessarily be subject to requirements. But imagine if they don't necessarily devote as much parking just to parking spaces and just have a drive-thru.

Yes. Then I think they would and the entirety of for example Safeway um is just a drive-thru in the future. Yeah. Um and so all of the people that go to Safeway for example, not Safeway, but for example, Safeway now, everybody that goes there instead just creates a queue. Yeah. What would the impact be on the local roads should that happen in the future? Yeah, totally worth that that I believe should be a consideration if we're going to go down this road. Pun not intended. Good. Anything else on this? Thank you.

All right, we'll go to the next one. Um so somewhat similar lines. Um we've got um a a item related to more generally transportation access and circulation standards. So this has to do with access spacing and location standards for you know getting in onto a site with your car similar to some degree to um drive-thru uses. you know this the number of access points, the spacing of those access points also has potential impacts on pedestrian and bicycle safety, vehicle safety too for that matter. Um, as well as impacts on on street the supply of on street parking, the amount of land that's devoted to your landscaping strip and therefore the amount of land devoted to street trees or landscaping. So um so this has impacts um on these things as well. um you have um a I will say fairly you know robust set of standards related to this. We do recommend um some updates to those standards to pull in some of the standards for instance from that model code for small cities just to kind of beef up your standards a little bit and address those types of impacts. So I think this is one where we're we're proposing using really a lot of what you have but supplementing and then with some other standards. So that's the the goal here and um I think um planning commission generally said yes that makes sense. They they did say hey let's make sure that as we're doing this we're consistent with engineering standards and other municipal code standards so we don't create any inconsistencies between what's in the development code and what your public works or city engineers requiring around these issues as well. anybody.

Uh thank you. Uh yes to all of that and that we want to pay special attention to where we know that there will be high pedestrian use. So having standards, but where can we potentially have some flexibility as well? Yeah. Right. A lot of these is complicated to look at for me in isolation because there are a number of standards that we have in a number of different places that affect this directly. For example, we're going to be talking about parking standards in units

um that would impact this directly for example. Uh and so we would talking about this as one bullet on its own without talking about the other is difficult from my perspective. So without having input about the other one, it's difficult to give you a recommendation on this one. Yeah. Yeah. Understood. That's a challenge. And I I will refer to some of those things in the remaining kind of bullets or points, right? Yeah. Five.

All right. Number five. Um so this is landscaping standards. Um, I will note that the existing landscape standards, this was something we flagged in particular in the code audit and had been flagged in some previous reviews of your code. Um, there are a number of those landscaping standards that really are not clear and objective. Um, they're quite discretionary or somewhat vague and so they really do need to be updated and right now um, let's see. Yeah, they they just need to be updated to to move into that realm. And also, you know, there's a general goal to make sure that your landscaping standards are supporting climate resilience um and um sustainable development practices. So, in this case, we're recommending um incorporating some additional standards. I mean, they're going to to some degree regulate the same types of things your code does now, just in frankly a more clear and objective manner and something that's more implementable both for developers, but also for your staff to review and determine that yes, these are consistent with the standards. Um, so that's sort of the general recommendation here. Um, and we're looking at some of those model code standards as well as some standards from other communities. Again, making sure that they're they're clear and objective. Um and so what we heard from the planning commission was yes, they generally agree with this approach. They did say, hey, let's make sure that again we're being consistent in terms of these general landscaping standards and any specific landscaping standards we might apply in particular zones or to particular types of development. So to the extent we have kind of any additional standards um uh beyond these general standards just let's not create any conflicts there. So that was the general feedback from them. But

this is an area where we can reduce hard costs. And you know, I want to also bring in a comment that I completely align with that we heard from public testimony that we want to make sure that we are reducing some of the requirements for middle maybe even lowincome housing and that um understanding that non-commercial folks who again have more funding or more corporate funding that it is pretty strict of what the landscaping standards are there. but more flexibility for some of the other projects that we know and need in within the city.

I I had the same point, but just to build upon that, um I know the landscaping, you know, uh standards maybe what we're proposing isn't a ton of money um by doing something that's, you know, model code and whatnot, but like every dollar matters when we're trying to incentivize somebody to build something that's higher density, etc., etc., right? So, um, you know, uh, bleeding out by a thousand cuts sort of thing, right? Um, it's really attractive to build a single family home. It's not attractive to build other things. We're addressing that in other ways, but just to council's point, want to make sure that we're not saying that, um, middle housing or some of those other areas that we that we want to have more development within um, are getting are getting kind of just, you know, checkbox by checkbox. Little little money here, a little money there. Just want to be careful with that kind of stuff with those types of developments.

I also wanted to add multifamily housing to that as well too, please. Yes. Yeah. And I think that was partly where the planning commission was coming from about just being consistent. Not that you have to apply the same standard to everything, but more if we are looking at ways to apply some to differentially apply some of these standards to those types of housing. We just make sure it's real clear like what applies where. So, yeah.

Dustin, did you want to add? Yeah. Um, in the balance of that, certainly your councils need to be sensitive to this issue, but this is, you know, this is also not just a vanity project. This is also about amenities. Um, you know, when you have single dwellings, they often have a backyard, a set aside open space directed for those people. Some of these standards are also amenities for the people that live there. So thinking about the future of those people that live there, you know, for me, I'm not thinking about just the only people that have access to a shade underneath a tree are the people that live in a single family dwelling. Making sure that our developments also provide those open space amenities for the people that live there on their own behalf. So it it's that striking that balance of like just because you live in affordable housing doesn't mean you're entitled to landscaping. That is like I will hard stop that until you tell me not to. And I don't I think you want to be sensitive to this burden, but also making sure we're not shorting people of lesser means.

One of the frustrations I've had over the time watching developments is you check the box because you have to put in the tree because we say you have to put in the tree and it needs to be whatever two and a half. So it's 1 and 3/4 and then it gets bent over by the snow plow and they never irrigate it anyway and so it dies. Like I've seen that. That stinks. So I don't want to backtrack all the way to lose the meaningful incredible you know mature landscaping that eventually comes. Yes, Dustin, I agree with what you said and same to you, mayor. And we're going to get to this one in the next one, but trees was a specific example that how do we ensure that the area is livable, looks beautiful aesthetically, right? But that maybe instead of trees, like what is the alternative that could be used for some of these landscaping um to again reduce hard costs? Doug.

Yeah. And I think that was a great point, Dustin. Um I I I just want to make sure again that it's not somehow more restrictive. Um is the thing. You know, I think we heard in public testimony earlier, you know, it's it's it's looks like that it could be possible for middle middle housing to require more landscaping and that sort of thing. So, it's just that kind of stuff that I I would hope that we would look out for. and and certainly in terms of maintenance, responsibility, ongoing commitments, that's as much of that can be worked into the standards as well. So it's not just the plant and allow die, check the box. There is real regulatory law to require people to say if you get a landscape plan approved, it is your obligation to commit to make this thing live. that is well within the rights and I think I hear a certain level of commitment to make sure that this isn't just checking the box and allowing the stuff to die. That's a wasted effort and waste of time and money.

Great.

I don't think you're going to find anybody here that hates trees. um the [sighs] argument that we need to require um people to plant trees in their backyard, for example. Um I I don't know that people are going to necessarily not do that anyway if they want a tree in their yard. Um the what what that does in effect uh potentially is takes the choice out of the homeowner's hand to build an ADU or um something like that potentially uh if they are required to have that tree maintain that tree operate that tree uh indefinitely forever. Um so I don't if if we are going to seriously commit to ongoing uh tree infrastructure uh I would be more interested in committing to tree infrastructure in our public rightway. uh something that we as a city can actively invest in, maintain, uh work on, um ensure that there is a biodiversity of uh of of flora to make sure there's it's not just a monoculture. Um instead of hoping hoping and praying that somebody makes sure that that tree is alive in their backyard and robbing them of the opportunity to potentially provide, for example, an ADU in the future. I agree with Grant. Okay. All right. The next one is sort of go to the next slide. Sorry. Um a little bit the flip side and but also related to things I think you've been talking about. Um so this is tree preservation

um and planning standards. Um so couple things. One, you do currently have provisions in your code related to this. they are um within or part of the land division process or subdivision requirements. So we do need to at a minimum update them so that they apply to residential development or other forms of development that are outside of the process of creating subdivisions. So one from just kind of covering development within the city, there's a need to update this part of your code. Um and so we want to make sure also that they are again clear and objective. Um so recommendation that we do update these standards that the focus be um in large part on preserving significant trees um you know trees that are mature have um are providing more sort of value in terms of shade and um carbon sequestration and things like that but that there also be some flexibility just as I think you've been talking about to mitigate so you it's not that you can't ever remove a tree if it really is not feasible or you can't do the you know do the type of development you're allowed to do without removing it that there be some provisions to mitigate the removal so that there you you focus on preserving significant trees you provide some opportunity to mitigate impacts when there are going to be impacts and so I think that'll help a little bit with at least some of the things that Grant talked about so I'll uh and then you know in terms of um the planning commission direct um direction they said yes this makes sense to They also sort of pointed to examples where somebody prior to the development application and development process cuts down all their trees

and then they come in with the development application and well they've already cut down the trees so there's no trees to preserve so they don't have to. So trying to put some things into your code that prevent that from happening as well. um or sort of say, "Hey, if you just did this over a certain, you know, a certain number of months or years ago, you're going to need to replant some trees or whatever it might be." So, um they get there, right? Yeah.

Um I'd like to make sure too that there's some language within this section that um allows people to maintain and um the the existing landscaping that they have, but like or manage it. Um, we we have a bunch of big old trees in our yard and some of them are diseased and need to come down before they fall onto our neighbors homes and I don't want people to feel like they're, you know, land owners to feel like they're they're going to be um

out of compliance with our code because they've they've managed the things or I mean, we also have to be concerned about fire stuff, too. So, um I I'm I see that there's a balance of like we don't want people clear cutting their um their their yards, but we don't and we want people to have the flexibility to be able to build an ADU if they want to, but if they have mature trees on their property and those trees are, you know, causing a a a risk of either damage or um fire, like people should be able to be able to deal with that as they need to, right? Like that's not this isn't Does this impact that at all?

I I think, you know, most cities that have some kind of tree um preservation code allow for that kind of thing. You know, to take down a disease tree or a hazard tree. Um there may still be some requirements of replanting, but you wouldn't want to prevent somebody from taking down a tree that's, you know, risk at risk of falling on the neighbor's house or whatever it might be. Yeah. So I I don't think this would preclude that kind of thing. Not if we do a decent job of writing it or pulling it in.

Yeah. And I I had a similar sort of line of questioning on that too or question that line of questioning. But um yeah, I've been hearing from homeowners around here that you know I mean obviously like the the standards have changed maybe or we we should be in line with the standards of what you know insurance companies are going to people's houses now and it's easy for them to bring drones out and say hey that tree is pretty close to your house. uh where they didn't have that technology before. It flew under the radar. Like not to make another pun, we're doing great at that tonight. Um but yeah, there there there's definitely, you know, people I've talked to where it's, you know, that that tree was is is a mature tree. It's very close to their house. Could be fire, could be, you know, um you know, damage of falling on a neighbor's house, that kind of stuff. And I'm just wondering like how does that how does that play into our planning standards? Like it needs to be 10 feet from the house or, you know, like you know, did we not have that standard before or is have the standards changed? How much do the insurance companies get to tell us what to do to remove that kind of stuff?

So, uh, currently in your your ordinance, you have exceptions for disease, distressed entries that present a hazard. I couldn't can't see us writing a code that doesn't have some exception for those circumstances. So, that's how it how it's written up. Uh, I haven't drafted it yet, but it it we have to have some out for something like that. So, All right, cool. Okay, so next one. Fences and walls. People always have opinions on fences and walls, right? Um, so you do have standards in your code related to fences and walls. Um, and I think we're not recommending sort of wholesale, you know, changing out or replacing those standards. there are some standards related to fences and walls in that model code for small cities that we think are worth potentially pulling into your code. So that is sort of our general recommendation. Um we had um for example a specific recommendation of for fences along streets um uh that you reduce the maximum height from six to four feet. So they're just not such a visual barrier as you're walking down the street. Um, and that's a fairly typical standard I would say in most communities codes that I see. Um, and so planning commission had a number of um, comments. They're generally supportive of of the approach that staff recommends. Um, but they did have some um, fairly specific comments. One, they said, you know, look, building a fence is not something that should require some involve the land use process. So, make it pretty simple. You know, it could be as simple as you come in and you say, "Yes, I have seen the city's standards for fences, and I acknowledge that and that's how I'm going to do it, but you don't go much beyond that in terms of the process or procedure they

have to go through." Um, they also said rather do something that doesn't require somebody to get a survey if they just want to build a fence. I mean, they may get into it with their neighbors on that, but you wouldn't necessarily need to require that. Um and then um there was a there is a provision in some of those model requirements that says um you could have a taller fence. It's if it's a chain link fence. The idea is that you can kind of see through the part that's between four and six feet, but some of the planning commissioners said we don't really like that option of a six foot tall chain link fence along the um along the street there. Um, and also there's a standard in the provisions we looked at that had to do with the height of the fence in relation to the neighbor's um, dwelling and they said it's not you shouldn't let the neighbor dictate how tall your fence gets to be. So, take another look at that provision. And then the last thing um was some comments about retaining walls and potentially applying the same standards to retaining walls in the public rightway that's applied to retaining walls on um on private property. So those were the some of the specific comments we got from planning commission on fences and walls.

This is another area where we know that the prices of lumber have increased, right? So how do we reduce those hard costs? I would like to better understand the chain link fences. So if I'm understanding that correctly, not allowing six foot chain link fences at all or like I want to better understand that one.

Well, yeah. So in the provisions that we um provided and reviewed um with planning commission, I think you've got the same ones in your packet. One of the provisions says for fences along streets and make sure you correct me if I get this wrong. um that the height's limited to four feet unless it's a chain link fence and then it can be six feet tall with the idea being well you can see through that portion that's between the four and the six feet yeah or it could be yeah a transparent fence but they like one of the options

I hear that but I think if it goes back to reducing a hard cost that that's where we should have flexibility because we know that the prices of concrete for even a retaining wall or the prices of lumber have risen and will continue to do so. So I agree with a majority of this but where can we potentially be flexible and think about more coste effective fences. So some level of standardization but again not too restrictive because we know that this is a piece where a cost comes in and it could add more cost to the developer in the end. Isn't it this is discretionary? Like a homeowner can decide to do this. It's not something we're requiring. So a developer wouldn't have to install this. But I appreciate that you're forward thinking about like for homeowners, how much is this going to cost? But um

I think the point that planning commission is making, maybe I'm wrong, is they do not want to allow people to put up six foot channeling fences because they don't like the way they look. Yeah, that that was the comment. and particularly not so much even between yards as along the street sort of in your front or side yard that's adjacent to a sidewalk. Um, and yes, I think that was where the comment was coming from. Glenn,

I hear that, but I also don't like that they don't like it, so therefore we shouldn't have it. I think that if a property owner says, "Hey, I can only afford a chaining fence." that we have to be flexible about that or a developer for example. I just this is an area where it can reduce a hard cost and I think that we should be open to other options given that we are in a time where things continue to rise in pricing. I agree with councelor Rivera. Does that mean you can have a sixoot wood fence in your front yard? No. No. Everything's got to be. Yeah. So, so we're just talking about

So, I guess I guess like So, so I guess knowing that, right? It's, you know, um are we are we talking about like the look of something that's tall in the front yard, you know, because we can't allow wood. So, is it like you So, I'm just trying to understand like, you know, I understand

they like the look of chain link fences, but are they okay with a 4 foot chain link fence in? I I think the point is having a six- foot tall obstruction in your front yard next to your house without a permit along the street line is the issue. Not that it's not that it's a board on board or whether that it's vinyl or that it's it's chain link. It's a s out to the front yard next to the sidewalk which you walk. Having a six foot tall fence presents an issue

presents a bit it's it's not the not so much the material type. So in those circumstance, I think we are looking at the recommendation of reducing whatever it is to 4 feet so that you don't have a visual a six-foot visual obstruction in your in your front yard or along the sidewalk to where which you walk next to and you walk next to a a chainlink fence or a board-on board fence that's six feet tall. It gives a certain feel. So, and that could be the way to address this comment is is not prohibiting a certain type of fence, just the height and not having an exception allowed for that height. Right now, that draft provision provided an exception to the four feet. If the fence was chain link or some other kind of transparent or mainly transparent fence, if you just keep it to 4 feet and say you can make it out of all these materials, then you've got rid of that. I think also the issue that mentioned the fence would be a requirement regardless of who installs it. So it's fences for homeowners, fences for developers. It would it would all be the same. We cannot we cannot change it based on we cannot bias it based upon if you're a developer it's one standard. If you're a homeowner it's a different standard. It's just the fence regard regardless.

No. No. Is this the right of way? Like in the public rightway like I wanted to put a six foot fence to you from your house. You could do that, right? It's just not because it's not obstructing the view from the street like still. You were primarily talking about fences allowing the setback areas. So within a certain distance from the sidewalk, too. So if you wanted to do a sixoot fence, we would likely recommend it stays within the setback, not within not adjacent to the street, just like if you wanted to expand your house. So, by way of sensitivity, it promotes a smaller fence area hopefully than which would be a lesser expensive fence.

I'm sorry. I want to make sure that I'm clearly understanding this. There's this house on Main Street that I can think of right now that has a big wooden fence right in front of their house. It's on the corner. Yep. And I'm trying to understand I don't know how tall or what the height is for that. that property owner had to submit a permit to build his fence. No, there's no permits now. There's no permits for fencing at all now unless if it's under 6 ft. So, let's say that I wanted to build I I live in the house on the corner and I want to build a 10-ft fence. Like, what's the process for that? You would need a building permit for

I would need a building permit for anything over 6 ft. Right. Okay. Thank you. I understand. Okay. Hence the six foot like why we focus on the six foot requirement once it becomes seven feet and up um you get in the building permit it has wind load we have a whole new we have a whole new standard so and there's including a set

right all right uh next one uh is outdoor lighting um so in terms of outdoor lighting um the current zoning code um does include some regulations that are intended to reduce the impacts of outdoor lighting um in commercial and industrial zones. However, they're not particularly detailed and in kind of staff and the team's estimation not particularly effective given the way they're written. Um we do recommend updating those re regulations to include standards that make sure you're shielding light downward and minimizing light trespass um onto other properties. Um, we're recommending including some dark skies preser um dark skies provisions, but recognizing you're this is a city and some of the dark skies um regulations if they're sort of intended to be applied out in a rural area, they may or may not make sense for this community. But we did hear public comment that of people saying, "Hey, we really want to see you implement as much of that um as you can." So, that's kind of where we're coming from. and that we apply the new lighting standards to the kind of full range of zones and uses, not just to commercial and industrial uses. We had a decent amount of conversation with planning commission around this one. Um, generally supportive of doing the things I just talked about in terms of shielding light downward downward um limiting light spill over. We did hear some folks say, "Look, we are in a city and it might it's probably hard to fully implement a dark sky." um model ordinance. Um and also we heard from folks saying um really also important to kind of reduce impacts of street lighting onto

neighboring properties and at the same time recognizing you know that's partly being done um from a public health and safety standpoint. So but make sure we're balancing those things to the extent we can. So those were some of the comments that we heard um from planning commission on that one. Great. Can you be explicit about which elements of the dark skies initiative don't necessarily fit in a city as you mentioned?

Well, a couple things maybe. So I guess one would be um where you apply them. We're recommending applying these standards to commercial, industrial, mixed use, and multif family development, not necessarily to individual single homes. So, that would be one place that um if you're applying and really limiting the number of outdoor lights you have at a on a at a single family home, that might be a tough one. It's a tough one to enforce, too. Um you can still say, look, if you have lights out there, they need to go downwards. you're not supposed to go like pointing straight to your neighbor's window. Um, so that's one. And then just some of the some of the regulations again on the amount of light generated by lighting on a given property or within a given area. Those might be challenging to um apply in an urban area to some degree.

Yeah. And some some of that may uh make more sense to go through and provide a little bit more detail later. Sure. Um because this that list may be extensive to write right now on the spot. Um regarding the types of yeah regarding the the type of light for example I imagine that the wavelength of light travels differently travels differently given the warmth of the light because that's what light does. uh is there any consideration um regarding the temperature of said light as well since we're talking about light and blue is not expert on

I think we we have uh this is actually part of the dark sky um approach that I think is pretty easily and actually clear and objective when it comes to uh the the temperature being between 3,000 and less it's more of the amber colors um less the hot blue, you know, high high intensity, high visibility laboratory style lighting. Um, so I think, you know, that's one that's usually easy to pick the color. Um, it's also easier to kind of measure and and communicate uh without having a subject matter expert on.

Thank you, Dustin. I do recall and I can't remember all the key points, but that Mr. Hris, right? The gentleman who was chairing the dark skies gave us clear examples of like here's what Sisters is doing. Here's what Ben has been adopting. So agree with with councelor Pollson as well. This is another area where we could reduce hard cost and if we are meeting our energy efficient goals that it could also open somebody up to grant funding from like Energy Trust of Oregon, for example, that can help with some of these costs for specific lighting. I will never forget driving through Mexico and arriving in Cetro in that first Coca-Cola machine like it was black dark and then all of a sudden like oh civilization like it is different in the city and the county and I think the dark skies advocacy has been very effective but it's important to realize the difference in what we're really shooting for and imagining and it's black dark out on Methodist road but you know not so much on cascade and what's the right balance is not it's not a slam dunk in my view.

Eight, nine. No, sorry. Go ahead. Nine and 10.

Um, so we get to finish up. Well, there will be like a few other comments, but the last two items are related to parking. Always fun to talk about parking. Um, so we'll talk first about residential parking standards and then we'll talk about non-residential parking standards. So in terms of residential parking standards just kind of a quick overview of what you require now you currently require and this is off streetet the number them and it's minimum right it's the minimum number of off- streetet parking spaces you require for different types of residential uses. So currently it's two spaces each per unit for single family dwellings duplexes and town houses and one and a half spaces for each u multif family unit. And I think if you want to talk about a place where you can reduce hard costs, the amount of parking requirement is kind of right up there with I don't know most things in terms of where you can reduce cost because it requires land um andor structures to put in the parking lots. So, and I will say that this has been, you know, an issue that's gotten a lot of attention at the state in terms of for larger cities mandates to reduce um minimum parking requirements in different areas and for different types of uses. So, we um are recommending well, we didn't come in with a recommendation on this one. We wanted to sort of set the table and ask for um suggestions on this one. So when we talked to the planning commission about this, they were um they did recommend reducing the minimum number of spaces or certain types of residential uses pretty much for um all the things that are often referred to as um uh middle housing. Solexes, town houses, and single family or single unit dwellings. They recommended reducing those to one space per unit. and they recommended going to one space or possibly fewer um for multif family

units um or multi-unit dwellings, apartments essentially. And to think about um tying the number of spaces for those types of developments to the size of the units would be to the average size of the units within a development. Um and we also just want to acknowledge that um you one can't require extra spaces for ADUs and two um there's a state requirement that's applied to Hood River to reduce the number of those spaces for one per unit um in that case. So that's my overview. Lettuce and then

and all that. This is one where you'll hear me say with the exception of multifamily housing like apartments where I think the requirement should be zero. Um we know and we've heard from plenty of of of builders, developers that the concrete that only adds to more complexity. This back and forth between staff and and my recommendation for all of these with the exception of those apartments is that it should be zero. that we should continue promoting uh multimodal mo mobility here, walkability and whatnot. So I will I think we should reduce this to zero. Anna,

um I I can appreciate that the purpose of reducing to one or to zero is to help reduce those costs, but I think that it would an unintended consequence of of that policy will be a lot of congestion on the streets because we have households now that have multiple vehicles that don't fit within their already required parking spaces. And unless we are doing something else in tangent with this where we aren't requiring um parking where we're providing public transportation and the multimodal like like you're saying um you know increasing pedestrian safety and bike safety uh I think that that might be irresponsible. I think we have to think about that because we're I I live on a street where there are a lot of parking all the time and there's not um there's patchwork sidewalks to nowhere and everybody walks in the middle of our street and when people whip around that street because it's wide um and there's kids walking there riding their bikes it is super dangerous that there's cars parked there all the time like I think we have to be cautious about that. I I do appreciate that we need to reduce the costs and this is an opportunity to do that, but an unintended consequence is going to be a ton more cars parked on our streets.

I agree with Anna. Zero is a bridge too far for me. Grant, I agree with both council and councelor Cavaleri at the same time and think we can do both um over time. It's going to take a big lift, but I would uh be supportive of us doing both. I should have been more clear of like yes, zero should be definitely something to be considered, but if for whatever reason they want to create more spaces, then they absolutely have the autonomy to be able to do that.

Well, that that was never the question, right? Like we're never going to tell, you know, you made four. That's you're not allowed. Like this is the minimum, not less than, right? Yeah, and we are talking about the minimum as developers go through and build units. I would expect a number of them to still include parking of some form or fashion naturally anyway. There would be a natural expectation among buyers to park their vehicles somewhere. And if I ideally the the the market wants to park their vehicle in a garage as opposed to store their gear. Um the building community I imagine would include a lot of that in their designs and incorporate that into their their build process. However, I agree with councelor Rivera that we necessarily should not make that a hard requirement uh because um I agree with her on the aspirations that we should be uh going towards.

And I kind of feel like the multiple cars spillover kind of thing. Um there are other ways for us to deal with that. I mean, um, kind of feel like people have had their cake and ate it too regarding, you know, I've have I feel like having five cars, but also living in the Heights, you know, um, move to the the the county if you want to have 50 vehicles or whatever. You know, we have a ton of space. So, I feel like at some point, you know, the the rightway and and parking, I think we should, you know, look for ways to reduce it. You know, I don't know if zero is the right answer or if it's 0.5 or whatever. I I think it should not be an impediment to, you know, that type of usage, but I don't want it to be conflated with like people parking on the street all the time, you know, whether that's having parking permits or or something like that to to decrease that kind of stuff. Um, it it's it's I think it's complex, but um it it does get in my crawl a little bit. the uh I have I have uh you know gear storage here and since we started allowing you know cars parked uh you know one one used to be that we I think we required cars be parked next to each other now like you know they can be parked sort of one space to one space in the back and that you know um you will see you know something nothing in the garage one one parked on uh in the driveway and one on the street right so they're not using both parking spaces that we required anyway um because they can just easily park on the street and that's problematic in a way. You know, I don't have an answer. I'm just saying.

Um I just want to say I definitely support reducing the requirements. Um I don't know if zero is a good idea, but I'm definitely good with one. Um, and maybe even less for the the apartments, multi-unit things. Um, but I'm hoping to zero, but I definitely think less is I think that we're all pretty much on Well, I'm actually fine. It seems like everybody else is doing that. Okay.

All right. Now, we'll talk about uh parking requirements for non-residential uses. So, commercial parking standards in particular. Um, so outside of the waterfront district and the downtown, um, you allow applicants to basically tell you how much, uh, parking they want to provide for their businesses for commercial developments. Um, and so you don't have kind of numeral standards in those cases for how many parking spaces need to be provided for a business. you say y'all can tell us um how much you want to provide and that's what you get to provide. So that's kind of maximum flexibility, right, for businesses. Um it's ends up being um a lot of work for staff in terms of figuring out does that seem like the right amount of parking to provide? Um, so the question here is, do you want to do what I will say most communities around the state do and have some numerical standards um, for commercial businesses and and that could apply to industrial businesses as well. And they tend to be written as x number of spaces or um, a space per x,000 square feet of of building space. So that's how most communities do this and and so the standards vary depending on the use. You know, it's a different number of spaces you got to provide for a restaurant versus a um let's say a shoe store or something like that. So um so that's a question and in terms of just what we heard from the um planning commission I think there was sort of general support for adopting some numerical standards but still giving people the option to come in and make the case for you know what we don't actually need all those spaces that you're requiring with that numerical

standard and here's why. Um and so that you retain that flexibility in that way. You give people the ability to do that. There also kind of a question about um revisiting or there were some comments about revisiting the the inloo parking fee um for different districts or thinking about how the fee is set. Um so there was some conversation about that. Anything you have to add on that last bit? No. All right. So yeah. And can you just clarify? Did you say this is specific to commercial development outside of downtown and the waterfront because there's already requirements for those two zones? Correct.

Okay.

I think that commercial parking is something that a business should be thinking about what is sufficient for what they have. We have all heard public the public talking about a certain development that's taking place downtown and that there isn't going to be enough parking. So I think being really clear for a business like that that they need to provide enough parking for whatever number of occupants that they believe will be on site. I think the inloo parking is good for a smaller business, right? That we don't want to prevent a thriving economy and that we do want to have people shopping at these local areas. So, I appreciate that you're all talking about some flexibility, but I think we do need to have more specific language for larger commercial buildings, parking, commercial parking.

Yeah. And you know thinking about you know some past proposals for mixeduse downtown um I would hate to see you know inloo be too restrictive or requirements be too restrictive to build something like a mixeduse large um you know be nice to have something like this but we don't but you know it's um again don't want to make an impediment for if someone wants to put up an apartment building um and whatnot Um, yeah. Ben,

yeah, I like the flexibility of this because the other like unintended consequence I wouldn't want to have is like we, you know, had a minimum standard that was so high that were causing businesses to just build big parking lots they don't need and take up land that could be utilized more efficiently and for something else. So, there's a lot of a lot of things that we need to balance here on this to make sure we get what we want. I helped build a medical building in the Heights and was amazed by the amount of parking that the partner said we needed and he was right. Like that parking lot is full. So it's not like these people are just crazy when they have like industry standards for how many spaces you need. grant. Um, I would suggest we make sure the the the standards that we set for commercial parking I believe should be more stringent than residential because generally the demands on commercial are more intense as we discussed earlier with conceptually drive through or drive-in sort of services. that may change and the the demands of those uh vehicular needs on a particular pile of land may be different based on each individual industry or business in that particular location. Um so regarding methodology or a particular business in a particular space um I cannot remember the is it the it the particular book that has all the traffic calculations um that's the gold standard industry they they generation how many trips generated by different types of businesses and right

um or different types of land uses and then there are within the model code I keep referring to standard for the number of parking spaces required for different types of businesses and I think they generally have relied at least in part on that kind of information to generate those standards.

Yeah. So in instead of necessarily using a a more arbitrary x number of spaces per thousand square feet because there are so many wide variety of commercial and industrial uses. Uh, I would be more keen to use a tool more along those lines that's more customized to intensity of use uh to determine parking needs as opposed to um just a spatial calculation.

Yeah. And and I will say that that's where those things come from. So that's why for a restaurant typically there's more spaces required per 1,000 square feet than for other types of businesses that don't have as much or as frequent a turnover in the parking spaces or where people aren't there as long. So that's kind of where some of that comes from. But I get the hey I understand the point. So you know we we've talked about taking up a thousand square feet and then multiplying it by whatever that multiple is for example. Yeah. So x is your square footage multiplied by y and then coming up with that right

a multivariable equation instead of just one square footage equation variable.

Well you get those square footage but there that square footage changes by the intensity. So there there is there is a demand influence that makes the division. Now your downtown is different because there was a choice there to take downtown as as a mall like a mall mentality. downtown all its components high and low equals the amount. So a higher intensity user downtown doesn't really change from a low intensity because downtown parking demand is considered as a unit and that's that was that was a special choice based on a district approach which is a little different. You could do that for the heights, you could do that for or whatever district that you define or you you know or you could just do per per user too. So PGM is the parking generation manual through it.

Just said, yeah, a concept like that where we perhaps look at it as granular as we wish citywide or districtwide in that example um and us and future city councils evaluate uh parking demands or need in that context I think makes more makes makes sense in this case. Is there a risk there that somebody builds it for a medium demand business and then that tenant leaves and the new tenant is a high demand business and we're underbuilt?

I I I imagine that that would be a risk and we would ask staff [snorts] to uh to figure out a way to alleviate that risk. Well, certainly your parking consultants would say you should continuously monitor parking and do demand analysis regularly to understand how the world was changing. So, you know, that's they they always want you to do parking studies and continue to do this. That's actually one of the recommendations is don't expect to let this type of analysis sit on the shelf for a decade and have it remain relevant. You should be should be monitoring it. Well, you're talking about the world changing. I'm just talking about when I I build for a sub shop and it turns into a eye clinic or whatever and the demand is like totally different for that new tenant.

I think it's more of enough sub shops and eye shops chain change over the next couple years or ways vehicles or Whimo drives around. You know that it doesn't have to be a generational thing. It could just be the trend in your downtown. Thanks for bringing up the the parking analysis because I can't recall the last time that we did one. Um I don't remember. It's been some time.

Uh 20209 and 2020 was was the was the last major one for downtown. But I think that when we are having a a business that is going to um potentially grow that maybe that's an area where there is some language around should your commercial business rise right previously that it was before you should be conducting some sort of parking study to ensure that if you need to build more parking that you're doing so Kevin Will you come up please? Thank you.

To those points, we we normally will um talk to the director and if he sees a challenge uh with a new use, go through a change of use review and take a look at whether or not the proposed use is is going to work with the parking that's available on site and maybe uh with the adoption of a parking demand analysis that you know the new tenant can demonstrate why they think that amount of parking is going to be sufficient. Thank you. Mandith um Anna asked earlier about like the downtown and the waterfront have different parking regulations but the Heights does not. Is that correct? That's correct.

Okay. So, is there like for me it would make sense to maybe visit that too because and especially because we're doing the whole uh street skate thing up there too, but it's kind of a similar business district than downtown. is a lot smaller, but it was kind of I was saying

maybe on a a work plan for parking management in that district. I mean, that's what we did downtown. We hired on a consultant. We did a comprehensive analysis of the square footage, the demand, the parking rates, and came out of that was a the fee and loop program. revisited the amount and believe it was 45 strategies to manage downtown uh parking include. So it it was analysis done in context of a of a bigger study. Next,

right? Um so made it through the 10. Nice work. Um there were just a couple other comments and I've actually mentioned two out of three of these already, I think. So, these were just additional comments that we heard from the planning commission. There was one question about your existing middle housing standards and um how we're incorporating that into this updated code. There was a question of do we need to retain that? Are we just kind of taking those standards and moving them into other sections of the code? Um, so that was a comment and kind of a question for us and it's definitely something that we are we're I think the response was we're not going to lose those standards. Those standards that you adopted related to middle housing are going to be essentially retained. Maybe there's some tweaks to them. Um, but we're not going to lose them. And we are thinking we actually talked earlier this afternoon in our staff kind of teamwork session different strategies around this comment just you know how do we structurally or from an organizational perspective incorporate those standards in the updated code and that's part of like that next step of producing a consolidated code. So there was that and then these other two things I think I've already talked about just again making sure um that we are addressing standards for commercial projects that include residential uses. So those mixed use standards and then I already talked about the kind of press pass of light from um public street lights onto private property. So talked about those. So those were the other things that kind of came up in those conversations.

Thank you. So, I think some of what we have chatted about today will only help strengthen some of the middle housing standards. Um, specifically, if there are those pre-approval appointments where all of this information is looked at, that can speed up the process. That's something that has been brought up in the past. In addition to that, I really appreciate this effort. I know that we're not done with all of this work, but as we have been discussing, how are we evaluating the effectiveness of this moving forward? Where can we identify those bottlenecks and then how are we discussing around where do we change when we see that this has created an unintended consequence and unintended barrier and then at the same time we are looking at parking we are looking at the TSP to ensure that it all aligns and that we don't have um things that are contradicting each other that make it challenging or add another barrier to more diversified housing. So, I think I I appreciate this process, but that we should be really intentional about what does that what does that look like? How does that fit into our work plan? We don't necessarily need to review everything, but where are those trends that we we know continue to cause barriers? Um I had just a thought and I appreciate that I am new to how this all works and what the process is and stuff but um as I was reviewing this and I've reviewed other modules I'm kind of curious as to you know why we haven't gone this approach of like what do we picture our community looking like in five years or 10 years or 20 years and then thinking about like looking at these suggested revisions through that lens. And this second bullet and you kind of like you mentioned mixed use like if if we are putting the energy into this and I appreciate like again it says that this isn't supposed to be a policy discussion but what I want to talk to my c my my fellow counselors about is um the way

mixed use works today is we have a C2 zone and you get a conditional use to have uh like residential and um and and a retail or whatever. business together in C2, which is also where hotels fit and everything else. I I looked this up and like in other cities in Oregon and other places around the country, there are actual mixeduse zones. And while we're doing this, I don't know why we're not looking at like looking at this map of what we envision our community to look like and saying, you know what, in this like module or this node of transportation, we want to have apartment buildings with a little corner store where people can walk to the store and they don't need to have 50 million parking spots because people walk there. It's a neighborhood bodega type of a thing. Like I I just it seems to me like this should be a little bit more comprehensive and we can be talking about like and I appreciate that this is a much bigger lift to say we're going to change the zone of we're going to have commercial zoning here or what you know councelor Diy just said about in the heights you know if future businesses want to come there are they going to have to justify the amount of parking spots there are or can we create an overlay there that says this is the parking that's there but we want to have walkable businesses is this is the place that we want people to walk and ride their bikes to and come and hang out and have a beer or do whatever. Like like that's the kind of community that we're trying to build. Um that's the biggest thing I I think I just said, you know, why are we not incorporating mixed use into this code revision? And um I like I I know that that's a lot more work for you guys to be like, okay, I just feel like we're taking this square peg and hammering it into a rabbit hole. what you want our our community to look like and this is missed opportunity.

Of course.

Yeah, I would agree with that. And as I look at the next steps, you know, we're going to have another conversation in January and February and then we're going to have public hearings in May and July. And I think that's a key piece that's missing is, you know, when we all close our eyes, like what do we envision? And then again, how does that tie into the TSP and the parking and all the other pieces that we need to get aligned to do that? You know, in in certain cities across the the US there, they don't have single family homes in a specific area, right? And so, how do we leverage what we see working in other cities that are very similar to Hood River, for example, and how do we talk about mixed juice and when are we going to talk about that? I think that's the you know big juicy part of the discussion that that I agree is missing and that we need to be really clear about giving that direction to staff so that they can incorporate that you know use your expertise and leverage that but we be really intentional that we are looking at having a more innovative lens than what has been done because we see that we are not getting housing. We are not getting the housing that we want. It is displacing families. we have individuals or young families that aren't able to to live here. So, I think we have a lot of current data that we could pick from that helps us understand what are our current barriers and that talking specifically more about the zoning and what zoning is allowed where especially in the west side where it is we have a an incredible opportunity to do unlock more housing there. this all helps that, but I think we need to specifically talk about zoning.

Yeah, I mean, since we're having this discussion, um uh yeah, I mean, you know, the uh [sighs] this I mean, I've lived in a lot of different places that that are larger than than Hood River that that everybody has the same sort of needs if you want to have a thriving community, right? And it's um if you think about the kids that that are growing up here now, where would they go to next, right? Where's the transitional housing? And it used to be that there was enough single family homes around here that you know whether you were getting your first home or splitting a place like everybody I know that worked in the service industry used to like you know everybody had a bedroom and that's how they made things happen without apartments or condos or town homes or mixed uh use or cottage clusters or anything. And you know we can see demonstrabably that you know the population of Hood River under the age of 19 is going down and and all that. So yeah, I mean I think um you know, correct me if I'm wrong. this there's we have a lot of things that we're we're doing to to address that. But yeah, I mean I'd like to hear from staff at some point about you know what could we do to ensure um if there is an impediment like not having a mixeduse zone like that was just brought up or something like that. You know we definitely want to know that because I think we're all on the same page about uh increasing the the the diversity of the types of housing that we have um available. All told,

Dustin, did we do it? We got what we needed from this one. Thanks, John. Good job. Thank you. Go ahead. But wait, I feel like I still want to understand like when are we going to talk about zoning? We all brought it up. I think, you know, you got a thumbs up from me, from Amanda, from Grant, from you know, from all of us like So, help us understand. for this for the you you did direct us to do mixed use in that. So

I wouldn't be concerned that that's not going to show up. That was in a module you discussed and you directed that and I think I mentioned that earlier but by way of do revisiting the entire map and the future vision of the city that's a comp plan you know that's a comp planning exercise that's not a that's not a fix your operational code exercise. So we would want to scope that that's not within this this aspect. So you will have a use table and you'll get to pick you know to some extent some refinements within your zones of you know do we want to move this to permitted use do we want to make these subject to standards there's going to be some movement there but in terms of the grand vision you know we have a comp plan vision that is adopted that I can give to you that provides some guidance but if you want to revision the image of the city and its future cast in the biggest way that that's a comp plan exercise and a public outreach exercise that is a little different.

So I got Glattus and then I got Grant and then I got Anna. I want to revisit revision what that looks like and that we're engaging community. Great. Agreed. Agreed. I just I guess I want to understand whether um I have this discussion with my husband when I'm revvisioning our home and like remodeling our house of like is this zone code update like um remodeling the bathroom that we're going to end up tearing out is you know how much like and it's not that I'm saying hey we have to stop everything. It's just like the what is the logical order of things like how much are we investing in into this progress when it might just get completely redone if we're going like or does it overlap like

there will be there will be an overlap from the t the long I would call it if you're looking at a comprehensive planning effort that is that's a long longreaching effort we still need to operate this this business and operation dayto day and we've identified a broken code that makes every day well while you're reimagining in the communities having a really wide reaching investment of what are we going to be when we grow up still got to manage the permits that come in here otherwise those real time developers are going and homeowners are going to have real time issues so well but I guess I'm saying it was the code that we're fixing right now based on the comprehensive plan that was done when was that done

I mean it was it's been updated up and through 2021 so the comp plan has been updated over time is is it lagging behind? Yeah, but we took enough time to update this that we had some real unlawful we have real things that I cannot enforce. And and so it's deferred maintenance to the point where it just needs to be done. And if you end up tearing out parts of this bathroom in the future, then I think that I think that's what we have to do. You just can't operate dysfunctionally. It's also important to note that Hold on. We're on red. Hold on. not say again state law.

Uh it's important to note that some aspects of our code are not in compliance with state law and so those we definitely need to address now and that's a big part of of the motivation to do this work. Doug and then I

I know that when we we had we sort of had this discussion [snorts] when we were talking about setting work goals, you know, over the the course of the tenure that I've been involved with the city council here. Um, I I know I know it can feel like it's out of order, but it like to to their point, um, there are things that we have to do in this code that have to be updated. Um, I think there's cool stuff that's happening in module 3 that's addressing what we're all talking about. But yeah, like a a comprehensive plan overhaul is is a huge undertaking. I think maybe we should all talk about going there at some point, but like I wouldn't want to shove something like this that that's sorely needed to to the sequence of events might be a little haphazard, but it's not like we have to tear this all down after we do that. There's a lot of stuff that has to be corrected in this.

Um Dustin, I I hear everything that you're saying. We need to update what we have so that you can be able to functionally operationalize on a day-to-day basis. The last time that we did update this plan was in 2021 and I believe I was the only one that was on council at that time. So I think part of what I discussed earlier is like how often are we revisiting this? Maybe having a brand new council is enough to warrant what what do you we all revisit that was done prior because we all think different than the previous council that was available. do I understand it's a significant amount of work and it's something that we'll need to continue weaving into the conversations of when we should discuss this but I think you're hearing from all of us that we want to get into the specifics and that you know we we look to you on how do we build that simultaneously so that we're not contradicting what we're doing now to the larger picture I appreciate all your time and effort and yours Um, specifically related to this, yeah, I'm not this this work needs to get done as planned, as scoped, as scheduled. Um, need wrap this up, get this done. The the the overarching comp plan discussion I see as the next step or progression from this perhaps. Um, so I definitely am in agreement that we should still pursue it. Um the and then tangent just briefly uh did you receive uh yeah the necessary instruction from us that you needed regarding the fence thing regarding fences?

I think so. I think we talked about it but I can't remember if we provided you adequate instruction. Sorry to go on a tangent by the way. I I think we did. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. On the fence. [laughter] Oh yeah. I think we we got we got what was necessary to move this to more refined code language.

Thanks. Um yeah, getting back to the uh bigger picture stuff um this work uh and the under underpinnings beneath it um that relies on the comp plan that relies on all the other foundational documents that we have um and all the underlying assumptions that go along with it. I believe that we are all generally in agreement that there are underlying assumptions that we want to address next. So um I I believe that's that's what we should be doing. I don't want to argue, but in the interest of the dialectic on the pin board in Abigail's office are the like goals and the projects and the I don't feel like any of them says comp plan and are we going to instead of those like start doing the like I just want to yeah

well there's the sorry Grant then Glennice and this is certainly something we can bring up when we have our strategic check-in in a month. Um, and we can debate at that time because that's not that far from now. Does every Did we talk about the January 10th possibility? Is that No, I haven't shared that. You and I just talked about that last week and today my first day back in the office, but uh I didn't mean I just Sorry, that was just a question. No, I've not even shared that with staff. Okay. Uh Glattus.

Yeah, I would uh councelor Bolson and I are on the same page and I'm looking at our current work plan right now and the second bullet point is like the work continues. So I would assume that this that we're discussing right now comp planan would follow within the work that continues but absolutely should be really clear about what have we completed on our current work plan so that we understand what is coming off what are we putting on

all told. Yeah. Next steps I already talked about them so great. We're good. Great. Good job everybody. Thank you, Dustin. Yeah. All right. That takes us to ordinance 2093 and 2094. Jen, your honor, I'd like to entertain a motion for the second and final reading of ordinance 2093 by title only. So move moved by Stina. Second. Second by Pollson. Councelor Spina. Yes. Councelor Cal Cavaleri. Yes. Councelor Mitchell. Hi.

Councelor Pollson. Hi. Councelor Rivera. Hi. Councelor Gakei. Hi. Your honor. Hi. Ordinance 2093. Um, an ordinance amending title 2 administration personnel chapter 2.36 city uh planning commission of the Hood River Municipal Code by updating membership qualifications to comply with OS 227.030. Ordinance 2093 has passed its second and final reading and will become law in 30 days. Your honor, I'd like to entertain a motion for the first and possible second reading of ordinance 2094 by title only.

Because we are seven, we can do first and second, right? Moved for first and second. Moved by Stina. Second. Second by Rivera. Councelor Gakei. Hi. Councelor Rivera. Hi. Councelor Stina. Hi. Councelor Cal Cavaleri. Councelor Mitchell. Hi. Councelor Pollson. Hi. Uh, your honor. Hi.

Ordinance 2094, an ordinance amending Hood River Municipal Code, Title 12, Public Utilities, Chapter 7, System Development Charges, Section 12.07.090. to comply with that affordable housing projects with state or private funding are eligible for system development charges exemptions. Ordinance 2094 has passed its first and second time reading uh will become law in 30 days. Thank you, Jen. Abigail. Thank you, Mayor. I think city manager comments. Is that right? Yes. Sorry. City manager comments.

Excellent. He's losing track. Um, just a couple quick things. I think um, you heard um, our folks say today that development code kind of question of the week or question of every other week is coming out. So, I will send you all a link to that. I think it's on the development website right now, but I think starting shortly soon will be coming out on our social media and other pieces. And then when all the questions are out there all at once, then I think we'll send something out to all the email to our email list to just say, you know, please um, give comments on these. this is the start of our community engagement part of this and I really would appreciate all of your help to amplify that message when um that starts coming out. Um and then of course we'll have a focus group and interviews but this is kind of the general um the best opportunity for the general public to give us feedback on the code. So watch for that. Um planning commission is meeting on December 1st. That will be the Marriott project. We anticipate lots of um interest and attention on that. So be aware. I think we um we sent out to anyone who had given comment uh back in August when it was first going to be. So I think we have about 130 people received direct mailings plus of course um media. I think there's been a little bit of energy and intention. I'm very anxious about where I might put a lot of people. We're definitely talking about what the technology and the seating might look like. Um but just know that that is next Monday, December 1st.

Hello. I want to make sure that I um at our last meeting where this was discussed we were advised not to attend right so is that still the case not to attend but we can watch the recording I think I mean it's public meeting I think uh the concern for all of you is if something were to be appealed and it would come to you um you know do you have exparte contact did you get information or knowledge that you like that could influence your decision that you did not you know not receive through official means so Dan isn't here, but I can ask him to also give you a little bit of clarity on that.

Uh, and then um for events, and I'm guessing it's the first Friday, but I was just trying to verify the uh date, but I think the tree lighting is traditionally the first Friday. Um, so I hope that you all be here and keep your fingers crossed for good weather. So,

Jackie Jackie sent something out about staffing the table and stuff. So, I I've gotten a city thing that said it was Friday. Great. Um, and I don't know if folks have responded to her, but we the city has traditionally had a um, a table at the event. So, you all are if any or all of you are available to at least take a small shift on that, that would be great. Um, and then at our last meeting, um, we had talked about ICE and I think, um, I've shared a little bit with you. You heard from Representative Dexter today, but just I thought I would grant me just a couple minutes to just kind of go through some, uh, quick talking points. Um I know you all know this but always helpful to share publicly. Um first just to acknowledge you know there has been harm and and fear in our community and um you know we I think you have all talked about the limits that we can do as city government but it's important just to even acknowledge that that's there and we're all in this together. Um the city is an inclusive uh place that strives to be safe and welcoming to everyone regardless of immigration status. you council have taken a number of actions and made statements um really trying to remind people of that and you also know that the city in every way fully complies with Oregon sanctuary promise laws and we always talk about that in general with law enforcement but it also goes to any other city um resources though like we could not you know close off a parking lot and let ICE use it for immigration activities or uh you know let them use this space for registration or something like that it is really any kind of city resource staff um equipment um our property uh for for um immigration activities. Now that doesn't mean I can't you know that ICE is not ICE agents are not allowed to come to a space like this is our courtroom uh it is a public space anyone can come to it I cannot deny an ICE agent access to our public spaces but city resources um

personnel staffing um cannot be used for um engagement with uh sorry uh enforcement of im federal immigration laws. So that's an important part of the sanctuary promise law that we don't often talk about because we often are very very focused on the law enforcement. Um other things just thinking about um enforcement um you know city police nor other staff. We don't ask about immigration status. Um we don't uh cooperate or work with ICE unless we have a judicial warrant. Um and then of course the flip side of that is ICE doesn't let us know when they're in town. We we find out when the public does and we often find out from the same social media sources that other people do. Um other small things are um Hood River Police Department members. Our officers will always identify themselves. You know they are wearing uniforms. They are driving marked cars for the most part. You will know it is a police officer. They have their names and actually their blood types on their vest. Um if you know they have cards to hand you. So you know if anyone ever has any question um they are very clearly police officers. Um, another thing that has uh that the city doesn't have, but I think it's worth articulating is that we don't have traffic cameras. You know, sometimes people see, you know, like on Second and Oak, they think that's a traffic camera or a plate recorder. We don't have any of those in the city. Those are usually sensors for the lights. Um, but I know some cities in Oregon and Washington do have like flock cameras and a number of them have turned those off. I think Woodburn and Eugene, Springfield, and then Schemania County. I shared some flop camera information with you several months ago and how they were protecting their information. They have now made the decision to turn off their flop camera equipment. Um so because of uh I think a Washington ruling that those could be considered public records and available for request. So those are um some of the things are kind of happening not specific to the city but are around um Chief Holy, Lieutenant Shaylee and I

have attended meetings with that have been convened by the next door um with there's been about 50 people at those meetings. So um from you know um all over the region just uh trying to coordinate and work together um about ICE and and do some training for each other and some staff. Visit Hood River has been reaching out to local businesses to explain what their rights are um as private businesses with private property. They're they're they have more rights um and more ability to limit who can enter their uh places of business. So Hood River has been working on that. They're also working on a video. I think I shared that with you. Um and then uh you received in your packet Representative Dexter's one pager um and um I shared that out with the Next Doors group that has been convened. So that was shared with most of the agencies in our area. Um and we will look for other ways to um put that on um including on our website because you say that counselor and I was looking at our website and it needs a little bit of updating. So thank you for letting me just give you a quick bit of update. I think the one other piece I think I said it before was um that I can't think of any city activity you need to do except maybe like pick up some signs or something um that require you to come into the city. So, if you get a ticket, you want to participate in a meeting, you need to pay your bill, all of those things can be done remotely. And we've been trying to advertise that out to people um with a video by our um our court clerk uh in English and Spanish um just explaining like talk to us and we will find other ways to accommodate you if you um are not comfortable coming into a city business.

Thank you. Thank you, Abigail. Anything else under your under your remarks today? Uh not for today. Thank you. committee reports.

Uh region one acme meeting is December 1st. Don't have the agenda yet. They usually don't put out the last minute. So, uh should be out shortly after Thanksgiving, I think. Um, Park Hood River Parks and Wreck has an open house on December 10th at 6:00 pm at the Hood River Middle School cafeteria regarding the new pool concept bonding and all the other stuff that the Hood River Parks and Recre is up to. So, family would like to go December 10th at 6 p.m. at the middle school. Thanks, Doug.

Yeah. uh mess met with the uh the sister city uh Seruda um board the other day and um yeah, I mean it seems like there shouldn't be a lot going on, but there is. You know, just kind of getting ahead of a lot of a lot of things. Uh you know, really looking for the adult visit for the 50th anniversary on July 5th, 2027. Not specifically that day, but that like you know um to they're here for a day. able to be here longer than that obviously, but that looking for that day to, you know, be more or less the the celebration. Um, also talking about, you know, summer 2026 and looking to, you know, uh, for a visit, um, uh, here as well or um, and or sorry, there as well. Um, trying to figure out if it can be coordinated with the summer festival that's there. um looking towards January 14th of 2026 for like a parent info night for host families. Um and uh yeah, there's there's a sense of place being planned for 2027 on the sister city as well. Um and then in terms of coming here, it'll be March 13th to 19th. I think 20 students are coming here in 2026. So planning for like a taste of Cerudo week before or or during that. Um we did do that in tandem last year. It was kind of a lot for them to do. So we kind of talking about what that might be. But um a lot of activity there and there won't be a meeting in December but uh next meeting is in January.

Did you say the next visit we will go summer 26? Yeah. August. Thank you. And then they're coming here in March. Thank Yeah. Uh let us committee.

Uh thank you. I had an opportunity to uh attend the National League of Cities. I am a member of the Hispanic elected officials where um some of the policies that I discussed earlier with Congresswoman Dexter is something that um that committee is is continuing to advocate for stronger language for certain protections specifically around ICE in our communities that we are seeing nationwide. Um, MacA will meet, MCAC will meet this next coming month. So, I will follow up and give you all an update. Then, what I did have an opportunity to chat with Lesie is she tuned into our last meeting and heard that we have 110 individuals that are utilizing our utility assistance. Um, she believes that those numbers are low. So, I am going to meet with her to validate and verify that information is correct and that um that those resources are being addressed with individuals so that they know we have that resource and how folks can follow up with that process. Um that's it for committee reports for me. Thank you.

I I truly don't want to put you on the spot, but didn't did our warming shelter open in the last like little bit? Yes, it did. It opened on the 19th, I believe. Yes. Thank you for reminding. I I just was like, wait, I heard about that. But oh, it's the 24th. Okay, great. Uh Ben, nothing for me. And nothing from me. Council comments. Anna,

I have some of those. Um first I wanted to say um I'll make it quick though. Um I'm I'm sorry I missed our our last meeting on November 10th. I watched the video of it and I really appreciate the discussion that was had. Um I think I it got me thinking of what can we do? Like you know a lot of times um we talk about what the issues are but let's talk some solutions. And I have some ideas and maybe they're silly but I'm just going to talk to you guys about that. Um one uh I think we should encourage and facilitate communications with our federal representatives. Maxine Dexter is our US House of Representatives um representative. Uh Ron Weiden and Jeff Mkeley are our US senators and we all know who our president is. I feel like if there's an opportunity to provide some links on our website to say here's how you contact these people and then just inundate their offices with calls, letters, and emails on how their actions or inaction is impacting us. let's tell them what they will lo that that they will lose their jobs if they aren't accountable to us. And um you know I I I wonder if there's a way that we can provide links to their websites or to their contact information to say um you know this is how you contact them. Um the other idea I had was yeah can the city link to their websites and then um the other idea was like just encourage every individual to take the action in whatever meaningful way they can like if it's um with the the SNAP benefits discussion that you all had like you know fill out a form and be a volunteer at FISH like you know do something yourself as an individual um and that's one of the opportunities we have as council members is to lead by example of like show up and do stuff. Um and then the other idea I had uh was

create council office hours or town halls. Um maybe here at city hall like we just you know this is a silly idea I had of like we open this room from 10 to 2 on a Saturday once a month and say come talk to us and right now we're going to be writing letters and you can drop things off but besides asking people to come to us let's go to them. So can we have town halls at next door's office or you know a restaurant or wherever that we know people feel comfortable coming um so that they can talk to us about the topics that are important to them. So those are the things that I I had. Uh the other thing was um oh what what Grant already uh touched on with parks and wreck. I'm hearing that parks and wreck have made significant progress in defining their bond and levy ask and I would expect that we're going to hear more details on that soon as a council. Um they are having that third and final community openhouse as part of its 2025 pool option study on Wednesday, December 10th from 6:00 to 7:30 at the middle school in the cafeteria. So I I wanted to highlight that too. Um and then the last thing, let me just see. Oh yeah. Was in the spirit of of the development code update and our commitment to um big A and little A affordable housing. I would suggest that we invite a local developer to come talk to us at a city council meeting about the challenges of a building in the city. And I don't feel like that a three minute comment during the public comment portion of the meeting is adequate to have dialogue um about like what their challenges are and why they're not building. And um I think we could learn something from someone who is trying to build housing in our town and do I have three friends? Yes, I know somebody we can invite and I would like to ask them if it's something that they would be willing to do. Don't we have outreach happening in after this module though like where we're like talking to a bunch of developers and

what

you know I don't I don't know if it's separate than outreach. I just think it's um like this is it's in my mind this is maybe it is the same thing but um it's just inviting somebody to come on top of us and say here's what I what is a challenge in my business and um you know this is why building hasn't happened because one of the things I think I've asked for maybe I didn't ask for I thought of asking for was what are the number of permits that we've seen for housing in the last five years and h how are we watching those numbers go down and not just like permits, but let's see what certificates of occupancy are too. Like what has been the trend of building because um in a kind of preliminary conversation about this idea of of having a builder come and talk to us about this um one of the things I've I've heard here is cost of money is one of the things that's prohibiting development. And when I asked a developer about that, he was like, "No, like money we can get. It's the amount of time it takes to get a project through. And guess what? We can help with that. Like that's something and that's why this is in the spirit of the code development. So like I want all of us to benefit from that insight and and listen to it with a critical ear and then have a conversation about that and see if that might shape um what we're working on.

I don't really want to talk about that now. Anna brought it up. I'll follow up with that Glattus. Well, then I guess let's just let

um yeah, I mean I've I've mean Yeah, we don't we don't have to talk about this now. Um, you know, it's funny. I was thinking about like the parking uh thing earlier in terms of silly ideas, but one of the things that's always kind of irked me about uh like the parking situation in this town is that like at least as soon as you get out of out of the you know kind of downtown core uh there's no lined parking and people park you know all over the place and not in an efficient manner and I don't think we'd ever go in line, you know, residential, you know, streets that are that far out. But I don't know, that's something that kind of popped in my head as like, man, you know, we could be a little bit more efficient with the way that we park on the streets cuz I, you know, parking is getting to be more and more of a premium. And that's something that just always has kind of uh kind of irritated me. But um I have no idea what's uh involved with all that or cost or why some areas are lying

aren't. But um I don't know. That's kind of something that was just popped in my head. That's it. Go ahead.

Thank you. I want to respond to councelor Cavaleri's comment just so that I I don't forget. Um a while back I did write an email to Dustin specifically asking for a lot of these data points that we've discussed. So, Abigail, maybe you can share that email with everybody. Um, I'm still waiting for some of that information, but that is something that that I specifically asked for and can help a conversation for um when we talk about this next. And I I think I remember that we'll we'll bring this back up in January. So, that could give enough time for a developer friend to come and give us their perspective of what they find challenging um in our current code and, you know, our current process. Um, so I wanted to speak to that. Um, mayor and I had an opportunity to join the Veterans Day uh, event that took place on the 11th and this is specifically to um, commemorate the Nissi and Nay communities here in the gorge. It was a beautiful event. I really appreciate all those that put the time and effort into it. There was a quote by Manor Manuro Yasui and there was a card that I that I snagged and I forgot to bring it, but um it was a student part of the student contest that I'll talk about next, but it said, you know, if it can happen to one of us, it can happen to all of us. and it was just a great reminder how you know we still haven't learned our lessons and that we have had different diverse communities here suffer immensely um due to federal policy that that it takes place. So I appreciate everyone that took place in in creating that. It was a beautiful event. I do want to talk about the student contest uh and I have a little flyer here and can pass this information along. There is a deadline of February 22nd of this next coming year. Um you can visit the

website at in um manuroyuilleacy.org/ student cont uh student contest. There is a $500 educator engagement award. Um if you are between 9th and 12th grade first place you get $1,000, second place is $500. any fifth to eighth grader. Uh first place is $500, second place is $250. And essentially you create a card. Um and if they like it, that's that's what's being used. So the comment around the card that I saw earlier was from a student. So it was beautiful to see how our youth is being involved in these conversations and what they're doing. In addition to our youth, I wanted to bring up an item that we have been discussing that is on our work plan around youth outreach and uh continuing to work with Abigail and staff around how do we engage the high school students. there is a very specific government group that takes place there so that we can have another perspective that is given to us um from the youth in addition to how can they potentially support you know some of these intern opportunities such as social media and whatnot. I want to give a very special thanks to all of those individuals that have been a part of the rapid response. Um, it has been an incredible honor to stand in solidarity with you and counselor Cavalier, as you were talking about leading by example, I've had the opportunity to join this group and and we have been actively patrolling our community to identify ICE agents and I want to talk a little bit about what I've been seeing firsthand um because I do want to ask for three friends to help support this next item

that I will discuss. There are ICE agents in our community who do not have front and back license plates and that makes it really hard for us to be able to identify them to a perk line to let them know. So, there are pictures that are being taken. And you know, there's an entire process and really grateful for those individuals, but also just really scary how [sighs and gasps] there is a process that is not being followed. And right now there's like a free-for-all at a federal level to if you're in this position, there's there's a lot that you that you can do and that folks are not necessarily being held accountable. But what I will say is that out of this um individuals have been really intentional about taking video when they notice that something illegal has taken place and and there have been many incidences like the license plate example that I brought up where we we know that that it's illegal to do what they're doing. Um so I just want to thank everyone for for taking the trainings to be able to identify and to be able to follow current processes. Um, thanks to Visit Hood River and the Latino network for getting those signs out to businesses and community members uh to ensure that folks know if ICE shows up there that they're not welcomed. It is private property. I would really like for us to talk about emergency declarations because something that we have seen is some of this illegal activity without having police present to then create a police report. so that our DA could prosecute these individuals and then subpoena that video evidence. We need to have very clear guidance around that. We're not the only state within this or sorry, we're not the only city in the state that is having the these conversations around

what emergency declarations could look like. Um, councelor Sepina and I will join a meeting tomorrow afternoon where we are talking to other elected officials in these cities that have been uh hit heavy by ICE being in in their communities and taking, you know, 40 plus individuals. We do know that in McMinnville, as I mentioned earlier, there was a 17-year-old child that was taken from the high school, racially profiled, and is a US citizen. So, I would like for us to have discussions around what can we do, what can't we do, and how do we involve our district attorney. I have had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Ellis. Um, and he is in full support of being able to prosecute that, but I think we we I would love to have you all ask any questions that you may have of him around what are the current what is the current process now? what is the current challenge now that you know district attorneys across the US are facing just because again the federal protections are they can they can create barriers. Um so would love to have three friends support this item so that we can continue having a discussion around what is an emergency declaration and in addition something that you brought up councelor Cavaleri is is a town hall. You know, we we have stated in previous meetings that we want to hear directly from community having a meeting at a 6:00. We see that not very many individuals do join. So where can we be flexible and go to the next store or to the food bank on a Saturday for example, continue to coordinate with our community partners. Folks are scared. So can we create a hybrid option where individuals have the ability to give statements online? Um, so I would looking for three friends to give me a thumbs up so that we can have this as an agenda item and have a really intentional discussion and continue to

give feedback to staff. Can I can I give a a caveat thumbs up? Um, I'm for that, but I'd like us as a city governing body to have our legal council give us guidance as to what it is we as a city can be doing and as a body can be doing because I think what we do as an action as an entity is different than what we decide to partake in as individuals. So, um, I think I think we need to have some guidance on that as city council. You want the DA at the

Yes, I would like to have our district attorney at our next meeting. I would also uh Dan isn't here today, so he is definitely a key individual that we need to have. Like I mentioned, we're not the only city that's having these conversations. Do we update our ordinances or our sorry, our current resolutions? You know, do we have an emergency declaration? What would that entail that's different than what what we're not doing now? Uh specifically, an emergency declaration would allow for uh the Hood River Police to potentially work overtime if we know that an illegal activity is taking place outside of somebody's 40, you know, work hour shift. And I believe in there we would need one. So, yes, I'm not saying we need to have an emergency declaration, but I would like for this to be an intentional conversation on our next agenda where we can talk about options and then decide as a collaborative what we can and can't do.

You got those thumbs? Yeah. Okay. Well, Abigail and I will talk about it. Um, that's everything for me. Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah, I just want to thank Councelor Rivera for all the work that she's doing on this issue. It's one in four members in our community. Um that's a crisis, that's a emergency and it should be treated as such. And yeah, we don't have a gallery full of people here that are telling us that they're afraid to go out of their homes, right? Um so I I think there there's a very very real real, you know, palpable fear that that I can feel just walking around on the street right now. Um and it needs to be addressed. Um I don't have a whole lot to add. Um, looking forward to continuing to work towards this. I'm looking forward to attending that meeting with council river tomorrow to find out what other cities are doing. Um, I appreciate all the insight from uh, Representative Dexter that we got earlier. It would be like she offered her phone number earlier. I'd like to get that and keep keep in touch with her with what we're learning. U, as she mentioned earlier, you know, this is really an all hands-on deck every form of government sort of thing, right? Um, I feel really supported all the way up to our representatives in Washington, throughout the state of Oregon. Uh, uh, a lot of what we're going to be saying is based on politics, going to be falling on deaf ears, so we really have to take care of it ourselves. Um, and you know, also like to hear from, um, Representative Dexter that she was looking at the Chicago model. Um, I I've been doing a lot of reading about what cities can do. Um, one of those things that the protecting Chicago does do and Abigail, you mentioned it earlier, that list of everything you you were reading, I want to see it pasted everywhere, right? I want to I want to see it posted on social media. I want to repost it on social media, you know, a web page for us to refer to, that sort of thing. Uh, where people can, you know, trust that they're getting good information about what they can do in these situations. And um I I want I want the city of Hood River to be a good source for people that are looking for, you know, concrete information about what they can do. You know, I know the city can't stop ICE, but we can inform people. We can stand

in solidarity and a lot of things. Um and happy that we're having this dialogue and happy that we're, you know, getting getting people like Maxine Dexter involved um in this discussion and looking forward to learning more about what other cities are doing. slight change of pace. Um, from the bridge side of things, give you guys a little update on that. Uh, there's the bridges awarded a raise grant a while ago. It's a grant that's focused on bike road pedestrian infrastructure. Um, and that has to do with transportation, transportation networks, multimodal transportation. There's going to be an open house at the Hampton on December 4th at 5:00 p.m. So, if you are interested in pedestrian focused infrastructure, um, how people get across a river without necessarily driving, that's a good event to go to. Um, there will be a number of commissioners like myself there to listen to folks along with staff. Um bigger news on the bridge side of things is that the record of decision went through when it was finalized and approved. Yay. Uh for it's a big deal uh a very massive deal. All the environmental stuff uh NEPA documents. It's a very long thousands of hours of work. Um and so massive kudos to staff and the people that worked on that to get that done and signed off on. So, what that means is that uh put a lot of major hurdles to get that done. We just really uh there's a few little permit things to get done in between now and starting construction, but the last big

hurdle is securing the rest of funding to go to construction. Uh we can't go to construction unless we have the funding. So, that's the last biggest thing. Uh we're working on um right now um yeah look forward to having our town halls and be more involved in um outreach to the community and preventing illegal things from happening. Thanks.

I just want to thank councelor Cavaleri and River for all the stuff that you brought tonight during counselor comments. I really appreciate all the thought and effort and time that you're putting into this and um I'm supportive. So um and other than that I really don't have any. Anything else for the good of the order? Key holder Saunders made it all the way to the end of those. Don't you miss it sometimes? Thank you.