The record · Transcript

Council Session — 2026-10-15

Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (28,339 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are not yet identified (colors just separate consecutive turns). Auto-captions can contain errors — check the recording for anything that matters.

watch the recording

Thu, Oct 15, 2026 · meeting length 3 hr 4 min · council salary-time ≈ $2,363

Council salary-time = 12 councilors × ($133,207/yr ÷ 2,080 hr) × meeting length. Attendance varies and salaries are fixed regardless of meeting count — this contextualizes the council time a session takes; it is not money the meeting "spent."

Session TL;DRAI draft · not editor-reviewed

Key points

The council held an evidentiary hearing on a neighborhood group's appeal asking for extra conditions on the rebuild of a high school.▶ 7:51 in the recording turn 16 in the transcript ↓
The appeal covered three issues: guaranteed bike access on a campus driveway, a safer walking path on a nearby street, and public access to school recreation areas after hours.▶ 15:01 in the recording turn 37 in the transcript ↓
The school district offered a new condition letting the public use the track, tennis courts and fields during set hours when school is not in session.▶ 1:26:00 in the recording turn 197 in the transcript ↓
Several students and staff testified that open public access to school grounds has caused vandalism, safety problems and heavy cleanup burdens.▶ 2:06:56 in the recording turn 262 in the transcript ↓
The council considered a motion to deny the appeal while adding the school district's new access condition, with final written findings to return later.▶ 3:06:35 in the recording turn 378 in the transcript ↓

Where the council disagreed

Should the council require a legal easement guaranteeing bicycle access on the school's internal driveway, as requested in the first part of the appeal?
- One positionSome members leaned toward keeping a bicycle access requirement, reasoning that cyclists will use the driveway regardless of whether it is formally required.▶ 2:50:58 in the recording turn 344 in the transcript ↓
- Another positionOther members were unsure it was appropriate to impose that bike access condition and leaned toward not applying it.▶ 2:54:04 in the recording turn 346 in the transcript ↓
Should the city require the school district to build a safer pedestrian path along a nearby street, as requested in the second part of the appeal?
- One positionSome members wanted to require the small pedestrian path improvement, hoping the district would make it as a show of partnership.▶ 2:50:58 in the recording turn 344 in the transcript ↓
- Another positionOther members said they saw no legal basis in the land use rules to require that pedestrian improvement for this project.▶ 3:07:15 in the recording turn 380 in the transcript ↓

Roll-call votes from this session date

None published yet. Votes from this session appear in the vote ledger once verified; this summary never states a vote result.

AI-drafted from the session's auto-captions and not yet reviewed by the editor . It describes the discussion only. Each point links to the transcript turn it rests on, and a program checked that the words it relied on are in that turn; the wording of the point is the draft's own. Positions are given without names because captions do not show who is speaking — follow a link to see for yourself. Captions contain errors.

Procedural markers in this session

Literal phrase counts from the official captions — a measurement of procedure, not a judgment of anyone's conduct. Click a marker to highlight its occurrences below. Captions contain errors.

show the full transcript while searching

0 Good afternoon. I'm calling back to order this recessed meeting of the Portland city council. It is 201 on Thursday, October 15th. Welcome back friends. Can we please call the roll?

1 Good afternoon clerk. Absent. Green.

2 Me here.

3 Sorry. Zimmerman. Absent. Avalos.

4 Present.

5 Smith.

6 Here. Kanal here.

7 Pirtle-guiney.

8 Here.

Procedural episode · turns 9–17

Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.

9 Ryan.

10 Absent here. Aye, Morillo here.

11 Novick.

12 Here.

13 Dunphy here. And can we please have the attorney read the rules of decorum for the chamber?

14 Yes. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Portland city council. To testify before council in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.Portland.gov/council/agenda. Information on engaging with the council can be found on the council clerk's web page. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the presiding officer states. Otherwise, your microphone will be muted when your time is over. Presiding officer preserves order disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered when testifying, state your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you are a lobbyist, identify your organization you represent. Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls their name. Thank you.

15 Thank you very much, colleagues, is a quick housekeeping point. We probably will not be getting to the concealed handgun item today, and if we do, we almost certainly will not finish it. So that being said, my top goal for today is for us to do our absolute best to get through the two first readings on both land use items. With that said, can we please call our first time certain item?

16 Document 2026-347. Consider an appeal by the hillsdale neighborhood association requesting to add conditions of approval to the hearings. Officers decision to approve the rebuilding of ida b wells high school. Lou 26-026160cuad.

17 Thank you. First things first, I'm going to turn to our city attorney, lauren king, to make a few announcements about today's hearing.

18 Thank you. This is an evidentiary hearing. This means you may submit new evidence to counsel in support of your arguments for an evidentiary hearing. We will begin with a staff report by the bureau of development, bureau of planning and services. For approximately ten minutes following the staff report, council will hear from interested persons in the following order. The appellant will go first and will have ten minutes to present their case following the appellant. Persons who support the appeal will go next. Each person will have three minutes to speak to the council. The principal opponent. The applicant will have 15 minutes to address city council and rebut the appellant's presentation. If there is after the principal opponent, council will hear from persons who oppose the appeal. Again, each person will have three minutes. Finally, the appellant will have five minutes to rebut the council presentation of the opponent's appeal. The council may then close the hearing, deliberate and take a vote on the appeal. If a vote is tentative, the council may set a future date for adoption of findings and a final vote on the appeal. If council takes a final vote today, that will conclude the matter before the council. For an evidentiary hearing. I'd like to announce some several guidelines for those who will be addressing city council today, submitting evidence in the record any letters or documents you wish to become part of the record should be given to the council clerk after you testify. Similarly, the original or copy of any slides, photographs, drawings, maps, videos or other items you show counsel during your testimony, including powerpoint presentations should be given to the council clerk to make sure they become part of the record. Testimony must be directed to the approval criteria. Any testimony, arguments and evidence you present must be directed toward the applicable approval criteria for this land use review or other criteria in the city's comprehensive plan or zoning code that you believe apply to the decision. The pad staff will identify the applicable approval criteria as a part of their staff report to the council. Issues must be raised with specificity. You must raise an issue clearly enough to give the council and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue. If you do not, you will be precluded from appealing this to the land use board of appeals based on that issue. Finally, the applicant must identify constitutional challenges to conditions of approval. If the applicant fails to raise constitutional or other issues related to the proposed conditions of approval, with enough specificity to allow the council to respond, the applicant will be precluded from bringing an action for damages in circuit court.

19 Thank you lauren. Colleagues, I have a couple of questions. First to each of you. First, do any members of this council wish to declare a conflict of interest? Seeing no one excitedly jumping up to declare no councilors have a conflict of interest, do any members of this council have. Have any members of this council? Had any ex parte contacts to declare or information gathered outside of this hearing to disclose? Councilor Green?

20 Yeah, I have not had direct engagement with these emails, but my. My office has received, I think, a significant number of emails from folks who live near the project and had things to say about it. We've summarized that just through my chief of staff. In March, I attended a site visit where I sort of walked to look at kind of maybe some traffic impacts around the site. And then on my campaign side, some of my canvassers have knocked doors in hillsdale and, and people have said, hey, we've got this thing coming up. Council Green should be aware of it. So that's what I would disclose.

21 Thank you. Councilor, is there anyone present in the council chambers who wishes to ask councilor Green about his ex parte contacts or information? He has disclosed? No, thank you, vice president Clark.

22 Thank you, council president. I've also received emails, but I also wanted, out of an abundance of caution, I wanted to disclose that I was in communication with wps leadership prior to their application submittal. To help find a solution for the siting of the hillsdale farmers market during school construction.

23 Thank you. Same question. For anyone have any questions for vice president Clark? Okay. Councilor Morillo.

24 Similar to councilor Green, my office has received a number of emails on this, but I have not seen any of them or talked with anyone.

25 Thank you very much. Again, anybody need to ask about that? No. Okay. Thank you, councilor Ryan.

26 Thank you. Council president, out of abundance of caution, the area that we're talking about, I know really well. And so I just wanted to say that count me as guilty as going from the burlingame neighborhood through the ida b wells property over to the hillsdale area. So I, I just had to own that. So I, my brain is aware of the area that we're talking about quite intimately since I was on the school board at one time, and I've had many friends in that area. So looking forward to hearing what we all the details today. Thanks.

27 Thank you, councilor Ryan. Again, anyone present in the chambers wish to ask councilor Ryan again? No one excited to jump up and ask councilor Zimmerman.

28 Thank you. Similar to councilor Greene and councilor Clark, since we represent this area, we certainly have many contacts. I echo those same things as well as a conversation with the principal of this school and also an attempt, but it did not occur to work with district leadership and that conversation did not occur. But I did make an attempt.

29 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Similar question again, did anyone present wish to ask councilor Zimmerman about his ex parte contacts? Okay, great. Next question. Has any members of the council made any visits to the site involved in this matter? Councilor Green has already stated that he has. And councilor Ryan has similarly said he has been to the site. Any additional disclosures of visiting.

30 If it wasn't clear that I've visited the site? Yes.

31 Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Okay. Yes.

32 Councilor siscoe beyond the ida wells, but into the elementary school area.

33 Sure.

34 Okay. I just wanted to add that I know that area intimately as well because we saved that school way back when, so thanks.

35 Okay, excellent. So that is all of my initial preliminary questions for staff or for counselors. Thank you all for your patience with that. As our attorney noted, I'll be calling testimony in the following order. First, the staff report about ten minutes, then the presentation of the the appellant ten minutes, then supporters of the appellant three minutes each. Then the presentation of the applicant 15 minutes. Then supporters of the applicant three minutes each. And finally, rebuttal by the appellant. Five minutes. With that I believe

36 We're ready for our staff report. Welcome up.

37 I'm just going to share my screen. I have a powerpoint. Okay. Good afternoon. I am andy galicia. I am the pa planner for this conditional use review to rebuild ida b wells high school. I'm here with tammy king, who is the transportation reviewer for this project. And I'm going to briefly summarize the project, the hearings officers decision and the appeal. This is an aerial photograph of the subject site. The property is between southwest vermont street to the south and the hillsdale town center on southwest capitol highway to the north. This is a Portland public schools campus with two different schools the ida b wells high school on the east side and the elementary school on the west side. And the site also contains an outdoor swimming pool and several athletic fields. The site is within three different zoning districts. The ir zone, the r seven zone, and the o s zone and schools are classified as conditional uses in all three of these zones, and that's what triggers the requirement for conditional use review for this project. This is the existing ida b wells high school building. This opened in the 1950s. Classes would continue in this building during construction, and once the new high school building is occupied, this building would be demolished. And this is the site plan proposed for the campus. The new high school building would be constructed just west of where the existing high school building is a baseball field. Tennis courts and a parking area would be where the current high school building is now. And the elementary school, the swimming pool and the other athletic fields would remain in their current locations. And this is a 3d view of the proposal. The new high school building is the taller building toward the left side of this drawing, and it's fronting on southwest vermont street. So the hearings officers decision included three approvals. First, a conditional use review for the new high school building and campus upgrades, finding that the approval criteria were met for compatibility, livability, character, public services, and neighborhood and community plans. Second, a zoning code adjustment to allow taller athletic field light poles. Finding that approval criteria were met for the purpose of the height limit, livability, appearance and character, and lastly, sign code adjustments for larger athletic field scoreboards. Finding that approval criteria were met for avoiding sign clutter, protecting traffic safety, visual compatibility, and consistency with the development of the site. The hearings officer imposed four conditions of approval. Condition a requires the building permit plans to be consistent with the plans approved in the land use review. Condition b requires the use of outdoor public address systems to end by 9:30 p.m. Condition c requires the athletic field lights to be turned off by 10 p.m. And condition d requires four public access easements, allowing the public to travel through this site and the planned easements are the colored lines on this map. The Green pathway in the center of the site is along an existing driveway that has a pathway on the side of it, and condition d says the easement can designate either the driveway or the pathway along side of it for cyclists, and that wording is part of the subject of this appeal. The hillsdale neighborhood association filed this appeal on the conditional use review decision. They did not object to the adjustments for the field lights and scoreboards, and the appeal is not a request to overturn the conditional use review. It is rather a request for three conditions of approval and in a land use review, a condition of approval is allowed when the condition is found to be necessary for one or more of the approval criteria to be met. First, the appellant is requesting that the public access easement through the center of the site, which is the Green line on this map, designates the existing driveway for cyclists and the existing pathway next to the driveway for pedestrians, and requires shared Lane markings for bikes on the driveway. And the photograph on the right side of this slide is looking south along this existing driveway. And in this photo, the ricky elementary school building is on the right, and the pathway next to the driveway is on the left. Again, the hearings officers condition of approval said the public access easement in this area could designate either the driveway or the pathway next to it for bikes. Currently, this driveway has been used by both cars and bikes as a connection through this property, the school district plans to reconfigure this driveway so that the southern part of the driveway would end in a circle, and there would be new bollards that separate the southern and northern sections of the driveway, so there wouldn't be through access for cars on this driveway anymore, though cars could still move through this site along the blue line on this map, on the north and east sides of the property. And the reason for these changes is because the southern section of the driveway is used for the elementary school pickup and drop off, and they want to make this a safer space. In practice, bikes would still be able to maneuver past the bollards and continue to use this driveway, but the school district wants to preserve the legal right to try to restrict cyclists to the pathway in the future. If there are conflicts between bikes and the pickup and drop off happening on the driveway. However, bikes would always have an alternative route through this site along the driveway designated with the blue line on this map. It's important to note that the existing condition here is actually no public access rights through this property. Currently, the school district could legally block access through their property at any time, just like any other property owner could. This driveway is treated like a street in some planning documents, but it's not a street, and implementation of the hearings. Officer's decision would be the first time that public access through this site is legally guaranteed. The rebuilding project would not increase the number of trips associated with the school, because the new building would have the same student capacity as the building it will replace. And that affected the hearings officer's analysis of what the city could require here. Because transportation requirements have to be related to the impacts of a project. So the hearings officer found in this case that all of the approval criteria were satisfied, even if bikes could be excluded from this driveway and limited to the pathway. The next request by the appellant is for a condition of approval, requiring the school district to construct additional pedestrian improvements on southwest burlingame avenue in the northeast corner of the site, and the appeal statement requests the school district either widens the existing pathway entrance at the northeast corner of the property, which is illustrated on the left side of the slide, or constructs a new public sidewalk along part of the school's frontage on burlingame avenue, and that's illustrated on the right side of this slide. The school district plans to convert an existing driveway entrance on burlingame into a pedestrian entrance that connects to the campus pathway system. The current pathway entrance at the northeast corner of the property that the appellant suggests could be widened, is at a sharp curve in the road, which creates potential safety issues related to sight distance for drivers, and the new pedestrian entrance would be further from that curve. The appeal statement also mentions the importance of pedestrians not having to walk in the street, but I want to note there are no sidewalks on southwest burlingame. So even if the school district provided additional improvements within their frontage on burlingame, pedestrians would still need to walk in the street or on the shoulder to reach those improvements. And the hearings officer did not find that the improvements requested by the appellant here were necessary for the approval criteria to be met. Again, this project does not increase the number of trips associated with this use, which affects the analysis of the transportation improvements the city can require. And the last condition of approval requested by the appellant is to require the school district to allow public access to the open areas and recreational facilities on the campus when those areas are not being used by the school district. And this is requested because the campus is currently unfenced and the school district plans to create a new fenced area on the east side of the campus, and that's represented by the black line around the new high school building and the athletic fields in this site. Plan on this slide. The appeal statement cites the approval criterion about the hillsdale town center plan and the southwest community plan, because these plans have policy statements about the value of community facilities and open spaces. The hearings officer considered that argument, but he found the approval criteria could not require a property owner to open their property to neighbors for recreational use, even when that property owner is a public agency. For context, since 2015, the city has approved land use reviews for major remodels or rebuilds of eight other public high schools, and none of the prior land use decisions included a requirement for public access to recreational facilities. Earlier this year, the city approved the rebuild of jefferson high school in north Portland, for example. And like with all the others, there was no requirement for recreational amenities to be open to neighbors. Even though the humboldt neighborhood plan and the albina community plan that applied to that conditional use review includes similar policies about community facilities and open space. And actually, a much greater percentage of the jefferson campus will be fenced off compared to what's proposed for ida b wells. I want to emphasize that the question before you is not just whether or not neighbors have a reasonable or justifiable claim to a given degree of access to the school campus. A big part of what you're faced with today is the question of whether the scope of approval or the scope of authority, rather, of the zoning code, can require a property owner to grant that kind of access to neighbors, and finding that the zoning code can regulate this type of property management decision would be a significantly more restrictive interpretation than we've made in the past. And I also want to emphasize that although granting this appeal would set a new precedent, there's not any way in this land use decision to make this equitable between neighborhoods. Ida b wells is the last wps high school rebuild to go through land use review, and there's not any way to reopen the previous land use decisions for the other schools. So if the appeal is upheld, ida b wells neighbors would be the only neighbors in the city to have a recreational access right to a school campus that's legally protected in a land use decision. So the options before city council today are to deny the appeal and uphold the hearings. Officer's findings, decision and conditions of approval, or to deny the appeal and uphold the hearings officer's decision and conditions of approval. But revise the hearings officer's findings or to uphold the appeal and modify the hearings officer's findings and conditions of approval and implement one or more of the conditions of approval requested by the appellant. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

38 Thank you very much, colleagues. We will have more opportunity for discussion and deliberation, but if there are any technical or clarifying questions for our staff at this time. Counselor Zimmerman.

39 Thank you. With respect to the easement, I want to make sure I'm understanding the words and everything and the lines, the Green line between the elementary and the high school and what is currently a driveway with parking slots next to it. And I just need some clarification in terms of what it is in the hearings officer's finding and what is being requested specifically. And it's a little bit of where bikes go and whether or not it's an easement, meaning it's permanent and it's by law, or if it's by choice of the property owner. And I want to make sure I'm getting it correct because it, it was hard to read on the map a little bit. If we can just spend another minute on that for clarifying purposes, that would be helpful.

40 Yeah. Would you like me to scroll back to that slide?

41 That would be great. Yeah.

42 Okay. Do you want to address that?

43 You're welcome.

44 So this is the Green line that we're talking about. This is an existing driveway and pathway. And there's nothing there's no legal right to use this. Now. It's just a de facto connection through the property that people have used for a long time. And what is approved by the hearings officer is a new easement that would require the school district to allow pedestrians and bikes to move through this space. The issue in the appeal is the easement requirement by the hearings, officer's decision was they could have the bikes either on the driveway or the pathway, but not necessarily one or the other or both. And the appellants would like to have a right to use the driveway for bikes. Do you have anything to add to that?

45 A right to use the driveway for bikes. So in layman's terms, the part that looks more like a road.

46 Correct.

47 Okay.

48 Yes. This part, this is what I'm referring to is the driveway.

49 Great. Okay. And I want to be clear that currently the Green line on this drawing as an easement does not exist. It's just in practice, many of us go through there correct as walkers or bikers. But that's a by the grace of the property owner currently. That's correct. And this is establishing an easement and the hearing, the appeal is not only to keep that easement, but then to dictate an aspect of it. Is that.

50 More the latter part? I mean, there's no question about the easement being kept. It's I think the appellant is asking for that easement to specifically apply to bikes. Being able to use that driveway, this part, and not just being relegated to the pathway next to it.

51 I guess that's where I'm a little bit hung up in terms of what that means, because I'm not just in terms of general, normal person use a person rides a bike sometimes. If I put it this way, adults seem to ride bikes on streets and kids ride bikes on sidewalks. I'm just trying to understand what it means to put some specific language around that, to say right, a right to ride a bike on what is otherwise used by cars. I'm just trying to understand that a little bit.

52 Sorry. One more time.

53 Yeah, I'm. I think that people I think the school district has acknowledged in the previous hearing for the hearings officer, that people would continue to ride their bikes on the driveway on, you know, with the cars. That's I don't think there's a good practical way to stop them from doing that. But they object to having a legal requirement put on their property that they must allow that.

54 Okay.

55 That makes sense. Does that answer your question?

56 Yeah. As much sense as going from what is currently already happening to putting it in law, that's that's where I'm struggling with is like everyday practice to now it will be part of a land use plan. And that's what I'm, I'm just trying to think through not just the today and tomorrow, but like, what does this look like down the road? What does such a specific requirement in enable later on? So that's where I'm, I'm thinking through it a little bit. Is there any indication that the plans, as they currently are drafted, would have some environmental design that would prevent bicyclists on the path or the driveway?

57 There's nothing proposed that would that would do that. And it would be there'd be bollards that would stop cars from going through. There's two bollards. It'd be easy for a bike to go around it.

58 So will there be no parking in this area in the future?

59 There would still be parking.

60 And where will they enter in from?

61 From vermont, from the south for the elementary school.

62 But that's where the bollards are at.

63 The bollards would be right here. You can see my cursor.

64 Oh, at that halfway point, kind of where we already have that walkway currently.

65 And sorry, tammy, did you want to say something? You wanted me to go to the slide?

66 Sure. Yeah. I wanted to put asked andy to put this slide up because I think it shows the reconfiguration of the driveway. So it will no longer be a through access for vehicles. It will still serve as parking north of the bollards and south of the bollards, but there will be an pedestrian access available on the pathway on either side of the school or of the driveway. I just want to make sure everybody knows you can still physically walk on both sides. You could still physically ride a bicycle down the the center of the driveway. It's just there will only be an easement, right for through access to the for the general public on the high school side of the driveway on the pathway.

67 So so currently, right if I, when I come to events as a district counselor at this school, I generally have a choice of pulling in from vermont or from the food carts area. Right. And I and I can make my way through that area either way. And, you know, I make a judgment. What is motivating the bollards change in this plan to, to actually stop that thruway. What obviously we're doing pedestrian and bike is still access, but there is a car aspect here. What's motivating that change in this plan? Now.

68 My understanding of the change is to is twofold. One, to sort of bring more organization to the up and drop off activities for the elementary school. Okay. And two, to provide more of a protected crossing for pedestrians who are crossing that drive aisle.

69 Okay.

70 So there, there will, there will be a raised crosswalk built that will give a specific location for especially elementary school children who are arriving on foot to cross that driveway in a way where they don't have to conflict with the vehicle.

71 Okay.

72 And that is aligned roughly, you know, closer to the doors of the elementary school.

73 Okay. Anybody who's driven those speed bumps knows that it's damn near the same as going to a chiropractor that's in that area. But I this is clarifying. I think I have an idea now what we're talking about in terms of the question here with. And that's appeal number one, is that correct? That's appeal number one. Appeal number two is the sidewalk corner.

74 Right?

75 Okay.

76 Appeal number one for the. Okay.

77 That's all my questions for now, council president. Thanks, guys.

78 Thank you, counselor Zimmerman. Councilor. Koyama Lane.

79 Thank you, council president I have a question about how there, I believe, are quite a few long standing intergovernmental agreements. Igs around Portland public schools parks them maintaining ownership, but the city of Portland operating and maintaining like sunnyside environmental school is an example I. That's likely what happens with the ida b wells pool. We run the programing parks and rec. There is some of that park area also maintained by the city.

80 No. There's. For example, grant high school is contiguous with grant park and there's a lot of sharing of facilities there. But that's not the case here. None of this property is a park or owned by the parks department of the city. There is a there's an agreement for the city to operate the swimming pool in the summer.

81 Okay.

82 Thank you.

83 Thank you. Councilor Koyama Lane vice president Clark.

84 Thank you, council president. So I'm just going to continue to probe about the the driveway. Glad you still have it up. It's been helpful to hear you. I didn't know exactly where the bollards were being placed and why they were. But they're they can come down. They're removable. Right.

85 I don't know the specific answer to that. I believe they will be removable.

86 So what what what happens to the farmers market? We you know, we know that in the interim, while construction's going on, the farmer's market is moving to the south part of the driveway and we got that deal. But what happens after construction? And then there's these bollards. Are they removed for the farmers market? Does the farmers market go back to the entire driveway?

87 I asked the applicant that question. And the the farmer's market would go to the south side of the driveway during construction. There'd be no bollards at that point. When construction is near complete, they'll put in bollards, and the farmer's market would be entirely on the north side of the bollards, so they wouldn't interrupt the farmer's market.

88 Oh, okay. All right. And what you're saying about it. The school district wants either or. Either you're on the street or you're on the sidewalk for a bike or a pedestrian, or they only want on the sidewalk.

89 The hearings officer's condition of approval gives them the choice to designate bikes to use the driveway or the pathway. And I my understanding is they would prefer to designate the pathway for bicyclists rather than the driveway.

90 Well, you know, I, I lived two blocks from there for almost 20 years. I didn't ride my bike on that sidewalk. That's ridiculous. It's not well maintained. It's very narrow. And if there's pedestrians, you don't want to interact with them, you definitely need to be on the driveway. So I understand the appeal here. I guess I'll leave it at that for now. Thanks.

91 Thank you, vice.

92 President Clark. Councilor Ryan.

93 Thank you, council president, if these are already in the exhibits or appendix I, I don't know and I'm asking for some additional information. I'd like to receive the public access standards for each high school in Portland public schools. So far in listening, I heard different variations. So I would like to know what the standards are.

94 I want to see if you have anything to add to this too, but I don't know that there are standards like that I looked at. This is the last public high school in wps to go through land use review to be expanded or rebuilt, and I looked at all the previous land use decisions. There were a couple that had requirements in them for areas where people could move through the campus at certain times, which when school is not in session, basically including jefferson, that was approved earlier this year, there'd be an area where people can cut through the campus when school is not in session. So there's not a standard that I'm aware of. It's something that is evaluated with a land use review. And this one is actually what we're what the hearings officer required for ida b wells is the most restrictive to the school district. It's allowing for different easements through the site. And there's people can move through all times, even when school is in session. That's different from all the other schools that have.

95 Where it is today.

96 Well, with the hearings officers decision, that's under appeal. Yeah. Not today. There's no public access. Right.

97 I appreciate your your answering this question. I'm a little puzzled that they don't have that. Lincoln high school has decisions made on public access. You're making it clear that jefferson does. I know a little bit of thing about the grant high school access. So I just think that it's interesting to me that wps isn't providing that type of standard, if you will, and if we could at least see some examples of schools in the school that closest to ida b wells is lincoln. So I still think I'd like to get some more information in regards to that fair.

98 And when, when the applicant speaks, maybe they can maybe they'll have information for you about what their policy is. Okay. I think at issue with the zoning code appeal is this isn't something that's regulated in the zoning code, and it's been something that has come up in land use reviews when there's some discretion, but there's not a standard in the zoning code for any kind of property to.

99 And I'm trying to translate it to your average human being. So,

100 Okay.

101 In terms of public access to our public school properties, this topic has a lot of attention. You know, that schools want to maintain the properties. They want to make sure that they're good stewards after the construction and like to keep things neat and tidy. The public has past experiences of maybe accessing it differently prior to that. So this is a real tension everywhere. And I don't know if this is fair, but a lot of portlanders are receive a tax bill that says they're paying the wps bond tax. And and it's it's passed heavily in big margins. And I think that I'd like to know what the tax responsibility is of the neighborhood to the wps bond. Is that a fair question?

102 It's a fair question. I think I think.

103 It's a great question. I bet the lawyer some lawyers don't like that question. But we'll see.

104 Yeah, I don't know the answer. I think I would just emphasize again that the question before you in this appeal is not so much about what's what kind of access is fair or appropriate, even. It's really about do you find that the zoning code, as it's written.

105 Within the.

106 Criteria, give us the power to regulate that?

107 I understand there's, you know, call me nuanced, but there's moments where sometimes zoning code and the reality of the experience don't always line up very well. So I'm trying to noodle with that with you now. So I'm hearing that getting information about the tax responsibility to the wps bond of the good of the neighbors near that high school isn't relevant to this topic.

108 I don't think it's relevant to the legal question you have to answer. If you want that information, we can. I'm sure we could try to get that for you.

109 I think it would be helpful just to my. I think it'd be helpful to me. Okay. And if I'm told that I can't receive it legally, I'll cross that bridge. Thanks.

110 Sure. Thank you. Councilor Ryan councilor Pirtle-guiney.

111 Thank you, council president. Thank you for the presentation. It stood out to me that once or twice you mentioned that none of the other high schools guaranteed access, and I'm looking specifically at appeal request three, that none of the other high schools in their projects guaranteed access to facilities. I think there's two questions for me around that. There is the question of why we didn't and the question of whether we could have. And so on. That first question, why we didn't require that. I'm wondering if there were appeals to request that access with any of the other high schools, or if that question has, in fact, not yet been asked. And on the point of the second question, can we require that this is the first time that we're facing that question?

112 So I don't know, honestly, if it's ever been asked before in any of the other reviews. I know that none of the other reviews were appealed, but.

113 It's not legally relevant as to whether or not we could require that. If it wasn't appealed before. Right? If we haven't been asked the question, then I think the question of equity between communities, while an important philosophical topic, doesn't help us make this decision, the decision before us has to be this was requested. Can we grant it or not?

114 Right.

115 Okay.

116 And I think that you can I think there you could interpret the approval criteria in that way, in the way that the appellant is requesting the fact that it wasn't done before. This would be a new precedent. If this appeal were upheld, it'd be probably a long time before there's another land use review for a major rebuild of a Portland public high school, so we wouldn't have an opportunity to apply that precedent. I think that a finding that we're doing this here is also a finding that we maybe should have done that in other schools. But I think this is a little bit of. It's somewhat aggressive or creative interpretation of the zoning code that to say that it's intended, the language that's there, that's being pointed to is intended to require the school district or any property owner, even a public property owner, to, to allow that kind of access and make that a matter for zoning rather than for, for other, other types of government decisions.

117 So specifically on appeal request three, what I think I'm hearing is we could interpret our current, our current land use code to allow for this appeal to move forward, but we would be expanding that interpretation, and we would want to think about how else that could then be applied in the future. In other cases.

118 I think that's a fair statement. Yeah. I mean, but you certainly you could make the finding that the appellant is asking you to, to find that would be it could be subject to further appeal and then that would be tested at another level. But there's you could certainly look at this differently than it's been looked at before.

119 Okay. Thank you.

120 Thank you, counselor. Pirtle-guiney. Councilor. Novick.

121 Thank you, mr. President. Forgive me for not having this. My fingertips, but what is the language that you think could be interpreted to support this? Can you quote the language that the appellants are quoting?

122 Sure. So there is an approval criterion in the conditional use review that says the project rebuilding the ida b wells high school, resurfacing the field, having new lights and pa systems that it has to be consistent with the neighborhood plan and the community plan that apply to the site, just the hillsdale town center plan and the southwest community plan. There are policies in those plans that talk about the value of public facilities, public facilities serving multiple purposes, the value of open space. So we've not, to my knowledge, ever, for any kind of land use review, interpreted those to acquire any property owner to allow neighbors to enter their property for recreational use as a condition of improving their property, which is what this is how they're asking you to interpret this today. But that's what that's if that answers your question, that's what they're pointing to. And that's what that's how you could interpret this to support this appeal.

123 So the value of what was the phrase you used?

124 Oh, I don't have the language in front of me, but the policies were the values of open space, community facilities, community facilities serving multiple purposes.

125 So it doesn't say what the language doesn't say, what that implies. It just talks about those being valuable, right?

126 There's no policy that says public schools must have open areas for the neighbors at certain times of day. There's nothing there's nothing to point to that says that it would be an interpretation to require that.

127 Thank you.

128 Thank you. Councilor Novick that has exhausted the queue of technical and clarifying questions. We are now going to move. Thank you, thank you. We're now going to move to the presentation from the appellant who will have ten minutes. Welcome, folks.

129 Thank you.

130 Hello, councilors. I'm valerie friedman and this is don bach and keith lyden. And we're here on behalf of the hillsdale neighborhood association. We've all lived in the area for a long time. And don and I have children and grandchildren who graduated from wells or wilson, as it was then. And we're all very invested in the community and in the public schools. But we're here today to ask you to preserve what we already have on the wells campus safe bike and pedestrian routes and public access to school grounds after hours. You can do that by adding conditions to the hearings officers decision. We appreciate the thoughtful work that has gone into the planning of the new high school, and want to emphasize our support for the modernization project, but there are elements that still need to be addressed. This is a once in a generation investment that will shape both the student experience and the surrounding neighborhood for decades. We're here taking our time and taking your time because we want to get it right. We believe that in order to comply with the conditional use approval criteria. I'm sorry, I forgot. Oh yeah. We've got a slide. In order to to comply with the conditional use approval criteria, the decision must preserve three important elements that the school campus provides today. The first one is safety of bicycles and pedestrians on the driveway. The second is a safe pedestrian path for students of all ages and other people as well. On the northeast side of the campus on burlingame avenue. And the third is community access to outdoor school facilities during non-school hours. Our written appeal that we filed addresses these issues and the specific approval criteria in detail. That appeal is more than 20 pages long, but the highlights include plan code and design standards that are ignored, errors and omissions in the staff report and hearings officers decision, including, in some cases, city street classifications and conditional use approval criteria left unaddressed and overlooked. And now, if you want to advance to the next slide, and we'll give a brief overview of each issue. And next up is keith.

131 Good afternoon. I'm keith lydon. To clarify references in the record to ricky road. Refer to the driveway that we've been talking about, plus the two walkways on either side. It provides a connection between vermont street and capitol highway. For context regarding ricky road and burlingame avenue issues, the recent metro safe routes to school report gave the wellesley campus the worst walkability score possible, because over 70% of the streets within the one mile walk shed do not have sidewalks, the safe routes to school web page states. Our mission is to serve a diverse community of parents, students, and organizations through advocating for and promoting the use of active and shared transportation to and from schools throughout the Portland area. To accomplish our mission, we use the six e's of safe routes to school. Two of these e's engagement are to work with students and communities and then collaborate on solutions. And then another one is engineering to create physical improvements to streets and neighborhoods to make walking and rolling safer. The existing ricky driveway and adjacent sidewalks provide a critical connection between vermont capitol highway and hillsdale town center. It's the only north central, north south route between a connection along a property frontage that's over 2000ft in distance, which explains why the city's transportation system plan designates this route as a neighborhood walkway and city bikeway. It's also located within the hillsdale pedestrian district, and as we describe in our written appeal, there are planned policies related to those designations with pedestrian access on the sidewalk and bicycles, e-bikes and e-scooters sharing the driveway. It functions much like a neighborhood greenway that we have throughout the city. The proposal to have the east sidewalk as the only connection for all modes violates the city requirements for multi-use paths and for neighborhood greenways, making the conditions less safe. We're asking for the same treatment on ricky road as what is proposed for the driveways on the east and north sides. We find it kind of peculiar that the school district and the city are fine with that requirement, but somehow dig in their heels and can't require this one. I'll turn it over to don.

132 We need a new slide.

133 Another slide.

134 Thank you.

135 I'm don bach. Basically, I have been involved in hillsdale actively for the last 30 years, and I've done a lot of work and a lot of other other organizations and other individuals in hillsdale have done a lot of work in terms of maintaining these school properties. Ricky wells and also the middle school. I've spent 30 years working with the city and metro to develop plans to provide safer pedestrian facilities. To what end? Safe routes to school, the hillsdale town center plan, the southwest community plan, pedestrian district, urban trail designations all seem to be ignored on. When we look at the burlingame connection, what we have now is a walkable area. You'll notice on the right on the slide. Right now it's a narrow, roughly three feet. We're proposing to just move the curb six feet, no cost to the city. They don't even have to take out the asphalt and relandscape it. We. That's where our existing is. Now. What they're proposing is to put us out on the street and walk where the Green route is on. The Green line is on the sign in the street. You can see this is an uphill grade where this car can't see you until it's basically at the crest of the hill. Safety is not in their mind when they're proposing this. I can't imagine why they're not proposing something here or leaving what we have now. Do not take away what we have. We are asking ps to maintain the southwest community's access and safe passage routes that we have enjoyed, supported and helped maintain for past 65 years, forcing children to walk in a narrow burlingame avenue to the crest of the hill. When an existing safe route or solution is staring everyone in the face. This is ridiculous. Where is the common sense in the proposal?

136 We have the slide four, please. So this is the last issue, which is the public access issue. We're asking city council to add a condition to the decision so it complies with the adopted area plans as required by Portland city code. For the past 70 years, the ida b wells campus has been a critical piece of social infrastructure. In the hillsdale neighborhood. Families play, neighbors gather, and community is built in the outdoor spaces on campus. The track is especially important because people of all ages and abilities rely on it. In our hilly area, where sidewalks are limited, p s gates and fencing plan would be a significant shift. Not only that, but it's a very different treatment from the grant high school campus, which is largely open access and unfenced, including two student courtyards. The well wells campus is one of the largest open spaces in the area, but after the rebuild, public access would be largely limited to the campus perimeter. The plans show that the athletic facilities and this includes the baseball and softball fields, tennis courts, track and practice field will be fenced and gated. The courtyard beside the practice field is also not expected to be open to the public at any time, including during the summer. We've been told the gate to the track will be unlocked after school hours, but we'd like some assurances for the future when school administration changes or policies at p. S change and suddenly we find the gates locked. And as an aside, I want to mention that we, the neighborhood association, has proposed a good neighborhood agreement to Portland wps that would at least start to address these issues or open communication on these issues, but we haven't had any response on that. The planned easements around and through the property are welcome, but they don't give access to the campus's outdoor spaces and recreational facilities. On the left in this slide is a screenshot at the google maps screenshot. So ignore all the google stuff there, but it shows the amount of open space that's now accessible to the community, and most of it is unfenced. The second slide shows that everything inside the black line will be fenced with access controlled by time locked gates. City council has already weighed in by approving the hillsdale town center plan in 1997 and the southwest community plan in 2000. These area plans were developed following extensive public engagement and outreach by grassroots groups of local residents and city staff. The hearings officer's approval sweeps away long term objectives for our community, developed through a legitimate legislative process. Student safety during school hours is essential, but there is room to better balance safety with meaningful shared access outside school hours. Public advance public investment should strengthen civic life, not reduce it. And we have one more slide. If there's just another minute left to just to go over our requested conditions in our written appeal. So the first one is to amend condition d of the hearings officer decision to provide the same bicycle access that ps proposes for the east and north driveways. A new condition of approval to maintain safe off road pedestrian access on burlingame avenue, and another new condition to preserve reasonable community access after school hours while allowing allowing ps to retain control of the campus and to manage school security, maintenance, scheduling and authorized uses. Thank you. Thanks for listening. We're happy to answer any questions.

137 Thank you very much. And with 22 seconds left. Colleagues, if there are any technical or clarifying questions, without getting further into the debate of the merit, let's go ahead and feel free to ask our folks here. Councilor vice president Clark, followed by councilor Green.

138 Thank you, council president, welcome. Good to see you on your number three on public access. You're not you're not asking that they remove the fence, are you?

139 No, we're not.

140 Okay with the fence.

141 I wouldn't say we're okay with it, but we understand that. I mean, our understanding is that that doesn't really fall under the purview of the permitting process. What what a public a private property owner does with fences on their properties. So while they're, while we don't love it, we're not asking for removal of the fence.

142 Okay. I wish you had I think the fence is offensive, but that's my opinion. So in terms of access, could you talk a little bit more about the access? You think there's going to be multiple gates and do people do the school district just open those gates at a certain hour?

143 Yes there is, and I don't think I included that in our in our presentation right here. But there is a rendering in the thousand plus pages of the application submitted to the city that shows where the gates will be and a schedule for the gates alleged offenses and gates legend. And sorry, I'm just racking my brain trying to figure out if I've submitted that in evidence somewhere. If I can point you to it. And going through that list of gates, there's a gate to the track that says it will be unlocked after school hours. And our our, which is great. But our issue there is what happens later when there's a new principal or new policies. There's the gate that controls access to the pathway that goes through campus, and that is scheduled to be unlocked after school hours. And that's about it. There are gates. Blocking access the building. Sorry, I do not have this to show you, but the building and the track. And then in between, there's a series of pathways and and then eventually that kind of goes around the building to lead to a courtyard and the practice field on the west side of the campus. And what that diagram and the fencing and gates legend shows is that those that there are gates controlling access to that section that will not either not be unlocked or in some cases, unlocked for school events, because I think there's a an events entrance on that on that north side of the school building for after hours athletic events and theater performance events. But there are no gates to the fenced practice field area, which is on the west and which fronts vermont street and is roughly kind of equivalent to where well, it's equivalent, I guess, to where the baseball field is now, I think. And it's kind of equivalent to the practice field area that sits to the west of the school building. And there are no gates. So that except except one from the courtyard.

144 Are you asking that the gates be open on the weekend?

145 We are.

146 May I add, we've had an informal agreement with the school over the years. That agreement basically called for the track to be open at pretty much all hours, non-school hours. And basically that is in 90%, 95, maybe more. A percent has been has been followed, but at times they have been locked without any notice to the neighborhood. And that's basically caused a lot of inconvenience. We have a lot of people that are older using that track, because that's one of the few flat places we have in hillsdale. And you know, it's called hillsdale because there's a lot of hills.

147 And just a reminder to the public that the timer is still running because any additional moments above the ten minute mark, including councilor Questions, the applicant will also get to have that additional time. So that is why the timer is still going on there.

148 Okay, I just wanted to clarify that you're asking for the gates to be open after hours and on the weekends, not in the mornings. Okay.

149 I mean, after outside of school hours. What? And it's interesting to talk about access at other campuses. I was at grant high school recently, and it looked to me to fairly open. There are courtyards that are not gated and not fenced, and there's on one end of the campus that says, these are properties. They're open from dawn to dusk to the public when not in use, when not outside of school hours, I think is what it says.

150 Thank you.

151 Thank you. Vice president Clark councilor Green.

152 Yeah, just briefly, thank you. I want to clarify two things. So for the first piece in the application. There's a citation. I think it begins on page three, but it sort of points to the transportation system plan and PBOT design guides. And I want to make sure I understand correctly. The argument here is to say that driveway was actually envisioned to be part of the bicycling network. Is that correct?

153 Correct. So the conditional use criteria steer you to the transportation system plan. And it talks about applicable policies and so forth. So if you go to chapter two, there are some policies that are stated in our written appeal. And then in chapter three we have what are called street classifications. And it's all the different street classifications in the city for arterials, collectors and so forth. But there's also it starts with designations for city walkways of different types, and then also bikeways of different types. So ricky road is shown on the map as being designated as a city bikeway and a neighborhood walkway. The staff and reviewing it kind of dismissed that as well. We usually don't do that. And I would agree that's it's not a public street per se, but it certainly has been recognized as such. And I think that's stems from the hillsdale town center plan, which identified that route also as an important pedestrian corridor. I might also add that the school district was on the technical advisory committee for the hillsdale plan. So this is not a secret to the district that this has been considered as sort of a, you know, almost a public. Well, it is it is public property. I disagree with the idea that it's private property. I think all of us in this room are stockholders in pbs, but it's pretty clear in there that it's designated as such. And the staff and the applicant so far have just dismissed that as well. We don't have to even worry about that stuff.

154 Thank you, I appreciate that. I just wanted to surface that up into the record here. The other piece is for I think it's the second requested amendment here, which speaks to the access to southwest burlingame. I think in the presentation sort of suggests we're asking for a fully built out sidewalk, but I want to make sure I understand correctly is the ask just at least give us a six foot wide improved access Lane. It doesn't have to be high tech or costly. Is that what I'm hearing from you, mr. Bock?

155 Yes, basically, we have access now. Basically, they're proposing to close that access and force us to walk in the street. We're asking for either continue the access on the school property, which would be wise to be dedicated, or build a sidewalk for 170ft so we don't have to walk in the street. And this would be walking uphill. The crest of the hill is where the crossing into the school is.

156 Okay. I just also want.

157 To make sure. I think that's also why our proposed condition is more performance oriented, not it's got to be exactly this way, but just so we have some way to walk that's not in the street, which is 16ft wide, by the way.

158 And we're sensitive to the cost of their investment. If if the sidewalk is expensive and we know it is, use what you've got. Good guy. You know, we don't have to reinvent the wheel here, guys, just to open your eyes.

159 Yeah, we all need to be a little more cost conscious in this context. That's all I have. Council president.

160 Thank you, councilor Green councilor Avalos.

161 Thank you. I think I'm not understanding the dilemma in appeal. One is it that it sounds like that's a space of corridor pathway that you all have used. Community has used. The change is going to mean that what there's going to be more cars on there. And so you're concerned that that's going to limit access to the pedestrians. Maybe just help me understand, because from what I don't get is it seems like everybody can still use the path. So what am I missing?

162 Okay, so one of the things that's been confusing through the whole course of this is that, in my opinion, the, the description of what's going to be allowed on this driveway has sort of changed over time as they've started from design review, submitted an application, submitted a memo after the application was filed, and after the staff report was done. That was sort of the final word on what access is going to be allowed. And now we're getting in a slightly different description. Again, it kind of goes between no being silent on whether bikes can use the driveway at all or saying, well, yeah, we might, but we don't want to dedicate an easement, even though we're willing to dedicate an easement on the other two driveways that, ironically, are not designated in the tsb, and the staff and rps seem to be fine with that. So the issue is this if you have if you require all of the pedestrians and cyclists to use a path that has a clear space of probably about six feet, when you have cars parked there, it's only about six feet wide. Any kind of normal standard you're supposed to use for multi use path is at least twice that amount for about 12ft or so. So it's deficient. So what we're complaining about is we don't have any guarantee that cyclists can continue to use the driveway as they have. And if they are forced to use the path that is a substandard facility. So we're not looking for any physical improvement of any kind. We're just looking for access. The way it has been as far as this group is concerned, the access for cars, not not being able to go out all the way through, that's fine.

163 One other point during the planning process, they basically proposed that we have to dismount and walk our bikes through this area. You know, it's been crazy in terms of the permutations they've gone through.

164 I'd also like to add that there is something in the record, the 1000 plus page record, where the district was contemplating putting gates across the driveway in two places. So our concern is, well, if we don't have an easement, then we don't have any assurance that this is going to be real.

165 Okay. And then as it relates to the fence. As to the space that they'll keep the doors open, is that can you just summarize what you're asking?

166 Yes, we're we're asking for. The gates to be open outside of school hours so that the public can access the grounds of the campus.

167 And what you've heard from you said somebody assured you, who is somebody? Is it the school? Is it the district that you that they that you would have access or that they would leave the gates open?

168 Well, we have traditionally had access to the track and the gates and the fencing and gates. Legend says the access to the track, the gate will be unlocked after school hours. We would like assurance that that will remain and not be subject to change under new school administration or changes in policy, that suddenly we'll find that rps has changed their mind and we can't have access to the track anymore. And the gate is locked.

169 Okay. Thank you.

170 Thank you, councilor Avalos and colleagues, we do need to move forward. So councilor Zimmerman will be the last technical clarifying question.

171 Thanks. The last response, valerie, is, I think, probably where I'm I'm trying to grasp a little bit more. So. The aspect of the school district not being able to change its mind is something you're brought up so that we can protect this access in the future. Over the decades, I can imagine that the problems that face the campus will change, right? Sometimes I think just like I've been a coach at a high school, I actually turns out I went to high school like the rest of us in this room. And like, there were times when vandalism was a problem at a campus I was familiar with. Other times it was that one corner became the place where where not even kids went to that school, but others would smoke. Right then it was that people would cut cookies in the parking lot. And right now, what I'm hearing a lot is the whatever the hyped up version of the e-bikes, the e, the e motos is a thing. So the reason I bring that up is that there's a there's a changing of concerns that come with the decades and. The what you're asking would prove or how would what you're asking enable the school district to still deal with. Maybe a problem that arises for a couple of summers, be it from a safety or a maintenance issue. Without just saying our hands are tied because the city says we have this easement, so we cannot do anything to close this campus to address this problem. How do we square that peg?

172 Well, I think through we have proposed a good neighbor agreement that we would like to be able to discuss with the school district. I mean, what we presented was a draft, and we see that as a working document. And I see that as the the way to work these issues out. And, you know, maybe, maybe when we actually in our draft, we did say that this would be subject to ongoing communication and check ins on each side to address issues that arise in conditions that change. But I, I can only say that we would love the opportunity to talk about that and work it out with the district.

173 Okay. Okay. I think that's it for my question. Thank you. I appreciate the response.

174 Thank you very much. I'll note that we have 14 minutes and 51 seconds for. In addition to be offering to the the applicant for their presentation, we're now going to move towards for testimony from the supporters of the appellant who will receive three minutes each, I will be unfortunately enforcing the ding of the bell. So we will get three minutes apiece. And let's go ahead and invite folks up.

175 First up we have linda venti.

176 Thank you. Welcome. Make sure to introduce yourself for the record. You're welcome to share your pronouns. And you got three minutes.

177 Thank you. I'm linda venti. Thank you all for your hard work. On behalf of Portland. I'm a 25 year hillsdale resident and longtime pbs loyalist, wilson high school alum and mother of two ida b wells graduates. I have spent countless hours volunteering in and out of classrooms across the district and weekends cleaning campuses. I chaired the foundation for many years at gray and wells. I was the southwest coordinator for the stop the repeal campaign. I invested in Portland and its public schools. The p. S bond website states that modernizing aging public sergeant sorry aging school buildings has improved water quality and provided security upgrades, new roofs, asbestos and radon remediation, lead paint stabilization, new fire alarms and sprinklers, more accessibility and seismic retrofits. Wells specific upgrades refer to common space, new turf, athletic fields, tennis courts, and accessible walking paths. These esthetic and safety upgrades sound great, especially since the campus is in the middle of vibrant hillsdale, open for all to use for over 70 years. Adjacent to both the business district and residential areas. But there's one missing word from this description. Fence voters were sold on modernization, upgrades, and transparency. But what we're getting is modernization, exclusion, and anything but transparency. Community members feel deceived. We voted to pay for a safe, modernized school to educate our collective students, not for offense to exclude us from the grounds and buildings we've mowed, planted, weeded, maintained, cleaned and shared for over 70 years. Situated in the heart of our thriving community. Furthering the insult are the misleading signs planted all around the campus, purportedly giving public notice and offering opportunities for input. The signs show a beautiful open campus with nary a fence in sight, or 199-050-0040 notice requirements states that public notice must include the agenda or list of the principal subjects anticipated to be considered at the meeting. These subjects shall be specific enough to permit members of the public to recognize the matters in which they are interested. Believe me when I say that hillsdale and its neighbors are extremely interested in p. S previously undisclosed and all but unknown plan to fence the entire wells campus, especially without allowing after school access. Public notice was not adequately given. In fact, community members voters feel misled and even deceived by the misrepresentative signs displayed for months in stalled after the design team had already decided to fence the campus. The hundreds of signatures, emails, postcards and letters in support of the proposed good neighbor agreement, all since recently learning about the fence, are proof of the importance of access to the public. After decades of participation in schools and pro p. S activism, this voter is disappointed in the lack of transparency and dismayed by the outright misrepresentation. I ask the council consider p. S lack of adequate public notice and its disregard for voters and residents.

178 Thank you very much. Thanks a lot. Be here today.

179 Thank you.

180 Next up, we have nguyen.

181 Welcome.

182 Hi, everyone. Thank you so much for your time, and I appreciate that we can be here and listen to each other. First of all, I just want to answer to Ryan.

183 Introduce yourself for the record. Oh, say say your name on the record.

184 Oh, my name is nguyen. Yeah, sorry about that. But have you. I just want to, first of all, and I want to answer brian's question about the tax burden on the neighborhood. And I would like to ask you a counter question. What is the tax burden on American non American on this country? What is the burden of portlanders on this city? What is the burden of hillsdale resident to. It's the institution that represented. So I'm an immigrant mother of two young children, and I. Our family moved to Portland two and a half years ago. And the one thing that made hillsdale feel like home was the uw wells campus outdoors outside school. Now, the tracks, the field and the course are places where our children can run and play without every activity. Become a paid class or registration or car trip. We see all the adults walking, teenagers exercising, family meeting and people from other neighborhoods using the same grounds. To me, that is what a healthy civic culture look like. Shared resources, freedom of use, and mutual responsibility. That way, the proposed fencing concerned me in the place where I grew up. Institutional fences often signal that access depend on authority rather than ordinary public use. The urban space communicate value, and this image changes the relationship between the school and the community. If we look closely at the as the plan, we can see layers and layers. We can see at least three layers of fencing. And depending on the final fencing system, that can represent as much as 3900 linear feet, roughly 0.74 miles, and about three laps around a standard running track that is roughly 8 to 26 tons of steel, depending on the final fence system. More important than the material itself is what it does. The public may still be able to pass through, but not necessarily stay, play, exercise or gather. And it has a social and economic cost. Hillsdale park is only 5.7 acres and has no equivalent tracks, tennis courts or athletic fields, and it. If we have to replace the recreation, add on only 15 minutes each way twice a week, that becomes about 50 hours of family travel each year. Safety matters, but safety should be demonstrated, not assume Oregon law as what. Portland policy support of public use while meeting student safety need and jane jacobs call ordinary public presence. Eyes on the street. I just want to conclude that I hope that ppc and the city can preserve a durable. No reservation after our access. When these outdoor facilities are not needed for the school activity. This is not a neighborhood privilege. Thank you.

185 Thank you very much.

186 Next up, we have richard stein online.

187 Welcome, richard.

188 Thank you. Good evening. My name is. Good evening. My name is richard stein. I created the hillsdale food park and I'm on the board of the Portland ballet. I helped collect over 250 signatures in support of this appeal. I'm phoning in from amsterdam, where it is after midnight. But this is important. I'm here to ask the council to intervene and require the school to maintain a a safe pedestrian route along burlingame avenue to allow bicycles to pass easily through ricky road and to continue to allow public access to the school grounds during non-school use hours. Our request to date have been largely ignored by p. S. It seems shameful that it has had to get to this point, but it's so important that the hillsdale neighborhood association and the hundreds of people it directly represents, has made the substantial effort of bringing this before you. Today, while current school administrators

189 Understand that the property is a key social and recreational hub for the community. Future administrators may not understand this. This is why we want some assurances. In particular, I want to speak about fencing in the school grounds and the impact of locking these fences during non-school hours. This fence is certainly controversial. I'm with you, councilor Clarke in wide open hillsdale, wrapping a publicly funded property with a tall fence seems weirdly incongruous. And as more than one person told me, it sends a bad message to the students you're not safe in this world unless you're locked in. Portland's population is aging, and hillsdale residents are older than the rest of the city. In very flat netherlands, seniors can walk everywhere. In contrast, 81% of hillsdale streets do not have sidewalks. Most of the streets are very rough and almost none are level. In fact, the school grounds are one of only two flat areas in all of hillsdale. The other is the rooftop parking lot at fred meyer. I want to emphasize that many local seniors exercise on the school grounds. Locking it up would be devastating. The health, safety and happiness of many people depend on what you decide today. It is in your hands now to make the best decision. Thank you.

190 Thank you very much.

191 Next up we have eileen lauber online.

192 Hi, my name is eileen lauber. I live about a half a block from wells on 11th drive, so I'm right by the school. And my daughter graduated from the school. I also was a volunteer there for at least 12 years, either at wells or at ricky or at gray. I feel very strongly that this school should remain open and a part of the community. It is not a separate campus from our community. And, you know, one, one time our our street considered closing off parking to students. We're one of the few streets where you can park during the day. And we chose not to. And I, I rallied to not block it off to students, even though it's even though we're very crowded many days. But I did that because I want students to feel like they have that they have access and that they that our neighborhood is their neighborhood too. So I am also disabled. And the flatness of the track I use that often. And it's really important to me that's important. I do want to also want to mention that leaving, having the the campus open to the public also opens it to students after hours because when you close it, you're going to close it to everybody except for those that rent out space or pay in some way or to students as part of a group. But there are many students that also are there after hours on the track and playing in the field and so on. We're losing a lot to lose the field that we. That seems like a park, and it was one of the reasons that I moved here in the first place, is like the schools were good and the sidewalks are nice. And just this, it's just going to what's proposed is going to change the whole feeling of our neighborhood. I also want to specifically mention the burlingame access. If you close that little, that little access to which is just pedestrian to the school, that road, burlingame avenue, is unsafe even for cars. You can barely fit two cars going opposite directions on that street. And to have to have more students there is problematic. And also the rocky road situation in terms of bikes, that little space for pedestrians is too small for pedestrians and bikes together and I wouldn't feel safe. I'm not that steady on my feet. And I would feel like if that had bikes going back and forth, and it's going to be a lot more crowded with the bollards, forcing cars to make to turn around. And so I feel strongly that we should have a designated access for a separation of the bikes and pedestrians there. So I think I've, I've mentioned everything. I hope that you make the decision to, you know, I was strongly in favor of the bond, strongly in favor of a new school, never expected to be in any opposition, but wow, this is not consistent with our neighborhood. Thank you.

Procedural episode · turns 193–201

Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.

193 Thank you very much.

194 That completes testimony.

195 Okey doke. We are now going to be moving into a presentation from the applicant. As I mentioned before, they are given 15 minutes but they also have an additional 15 minutes. Based on our back and forth. But that will also incorporate our technical and clarifying questions. So welcome. Come on up and take your time I suppose.

196 Thank you.

197 Good afternoon. My name is christy white. I'm a land use lawyer with rather white parks and alexander. And I am representing the applicant, Portland public schools. And with me is hannah bloom from our office. Who's going to help us run the powerpoint presentation. This appeal requests more public access. As you've heard, to ricky elementary school and ida b wells high school. I'm going to address those requests. But before I do that, I want to clearly put on the record and in a clear format what the public access is that is already offered and required under this approval. And as you consider this public access, please also consider that this property also has to be managed as a school property. It's not a parks property and it's owned by wps. We have to balance these two things. And I think we're going to strike a balance here today. There will be four new public access easements through the campus that provide either bicycle, pedestrian or vehicle or both access points. Three of the access easements shown here in orange, wrapping the eastern and northern side of the campus and the ricky path through the middle of the campus are open to the public at all hours, on all days, and are not gated and are not fenced. None of these unrestricted easements will be fenced or gated. The fourth easement that you see there in red is the mid campus connector. It goes through the center of the campus and of course it will be gated during school hours. The public pool building will be remodeled and upgraded at significant cost, and public parking and access to the pool will be improved. And you see that in the blue line around the pool building. The modernization retains, as commissioner Clark mentioned, the on site location for the public hillsdale farmers market, also with enhanced parking. The modernization includes lighted athletic fields that will extend the opportunity for the public use through the civic use of buildings program. All of the facilities across this campus field building allow the public use of the school facilities outside of school hours through a reservation system. Public access to the school must be balanced with the primary purpose of this property, which is an elementary and high school. Now to the request for more public use of wps facilities. I want to just be clear that there is no legal basis or code section that would allow the appellant to demand more dedication of wps property for public use. I know that's not a popular statement, but it's the truth and it is as a matter of law under our code, which applies equally to every school across the district and every property across the district. There's no public open space requirement under the applicable conditional use criteria. The general community plans were turned to. But again, as you heard from staff, none of those plans say it. And none of those plans have ever been interpreted to say that the school district has an obligation to dedicate public open space, or the use of public open space under 700 070 a literal readings of the code language will be used, and regulations cannot be interpreted more strict than their stated, because there's no community plan policy and no code standard that would require additional public open space dedicated to public use. That's non-school use. You can't create that standard through an interpretation without violating 700 070 a. Importantly, here, this is a school district, and under oregon's general condemnation procedure act, the city and wps have coequal authority to acquire and use land for a public purpose under the prior public use doctrine, a property that is already operating as a public use, like a school use, cannot be converted by the city for another public use unless the legislature has explicitly stated so. And here, Oregon state law does not contain any explicit authority granting the city superseding power over wps to open its property for non-school open space use. Here comes the better part. I just wanted to lay down the law because that is the law and it applies equally across the district. Wps acknowledges the appeal. They acknowledge the concerns of the neighborhood and were in this forum. So we can be very clear how we're responding to that acknowledgment and how responding to that acknowledgment through a condition of approval that gets imposed on a land use decision that runs with the land and therefore is in the city's very clear enforcement authority, is the right place to do that, not in a good neighbor agreement that has not this level of clarity, no code basis, and no enforcement authority for for the city. So what I'm going to do here is turn to a condition of approval that we can agree to. That is, I would argue, completely responsive to the request for additional use of open space. This is not a condition that other schools campuses have enjoyed. I'll read it out loud so everyone can hear it. Wps shall allow public access to the track facility and the tennis courts on the ida b wells campus and the softball field and multi-use field on the campus outside of school hours from 6 a.m. To 8 a.m. And from 5 p.m. To 9 p.m. On weekdays and from 6 a.m. To 9 p.m. On weekends and other days when school is not in session. Gates will be unlocked for public entry and exit during these allowed use hours. The neighborhood use under this condition is subject to and superseded by conflicting school uses, of course, and uses that have been scheduled for these facilities under the wps civic use of buildings program. The rest of this condition talks about wps, reserving the right to secure the entire campus and these fields for vandalism. Emergency, a safety incident for the term of that incident. So if we're having repeated vandalism like this campus has suffered with stolen baseball equipment and donuts on the track, we're able to control the campus reboot and see what has been going on and figure out ways to preclude that use. And of course, we're going to retain the right to exclude a member of the public who isn't behaving according to wps rules and policies with this condition. It is a complete response to the appellant's request, and wps asked the council to affirmatively adopt this condition of approval in its decision today as an amendment to the hearings officer's decision. Second, appellant is asking for this fifth public easement for bike access in parking lot and driveway. And I think there's one thing I can agree with keith lydon on, which is it has been confusing. It has emerged and evolved. This is not the first application on this on this in this process, it went through the design commission. The design commission actually made significant changes to our application with regards to driveway, and we responded to those as we filed our conditional use application. So the process actually worked the way it's supposed to iteratively and responsively to feedback that we got from the design commission. First, this driveway which is shown here. Ricky driveway. It is entirely on private property. It is not a public street. It is a parking lot. It is a drive aisle in the school parking lot between two rows of head in parking for visitors and staff. And if you can. Yeah, perfect. This one at its midpoint. As you've heard, the driveway will be terminated with bollards. This was proposed specifically by the design commission after they observed watching their grandkids. I think they said, playing on one of the fields and watching people try to cross this driveway. It was requested by them to protect elementary school students from intersecting with cars or fast bikes. As the elementary students walk across ricky drive to and from school, both city staff. In the next slide and the hearings officer concluded that the alternative bike paths located on the east side of the driveway and along the eastern edge of campus that you see in blue, will provide safer and equivalent bike access through campus. Nobody's mentioned this rule, but I will here because it's pivotal in how you talk about ricky drive. Appellant's request is based on the city's rules governing major public trails. This is actually a trail designation, right where we've put the easement along the sidewalk on the east side of ricky drive. The trail designation is mapped just there along that east side of the driveway, and that is where we have the ricky drive the path. The school property has three zones I r, d, r seven and os. The mapped trail covers all three of those zones. The major public trail standards are not triggered in the r seven zone, unless we are applying for a planned development or subdivision. Neither of those applications are requested here. So these trail rules that are being used as an example of why we need to widen the path or put it in the middle of the parking lot are not triggered because we're not asking for a planned development or a subdivision in the o s and ird zone. The trail also cuts across some of those. Those trail standards are only triggered by your adopted proportionality rule. That proportionality rule, which you see here, is a clear and objective formula that calibrates the trail requirements. In other words, where this trail or easement will go in the drive aisle or a widened trail based on the new impacts created by the proposal, the city applies these factors to determine if an easement can be requested or trail widening can be required. There's three factors. One is percent of impact, and that is objectively defined in your code as the number of additional daily or ped trips. We don't have a single additional daily or ped trip. So when you then add that to the percentage of the easement length, and then in factor three, divide one by two, you come up with zero and anything under 0.33 in your adopted rule says you can't require widening and you can't require a new trail. This means that as a matter of law, where are we? We can't be required to widen it, and we can't be required to put a dedication through the parking lot. We'll get back to how we're dealing with that. In terms of the widening at the end of the legal analysis, the transportation system plan. It leads to the same result. The tsp only applies to public streets. We don't have a public street. We have a parking lot for elementary school drop off and pick up. And lastly, under 815105b2b. The city has a proportionality rule and that proportionality rule says, generally speaking, that you measure the mitigation that you're allowed to legally request based on the magnitude of your impact. City staff and this record demonstrates, with no rebuttal evidence whatsoever, that there is no new impact created. And therefore the proportionality rule doesn't allow widening and it doesn't allow the new easement. This doesn't mean, of course, that we're not providing ample public access. As you can see through the slides we are providing. Next slide. The ample public access. The complaint seems to be that the path on the east side of the parking lot is constrained for bikes. But if that's the complaint, consider the following. Bikes have an alternative route of first and foremost, around the entire perimeter of the campus in a. In a wider swath, they can take that alternative route, and there they don't intersect with elementary students trying to cross the parking lot. And if the argument is that it's too busy, they can take the eastern route or simply just not use this route. During the arrival and departure times of elementary students, which is a very limited portion of the day. This is, after all, a school campus first and foremost. And I heard the argument that the ricky pathway is too narrow. It is not. It actually ranges in width from 7ft to 12ft. And we'll put this measured, scaled diagram into the record with most of the path over eight feet. This slide shows the ricky path is wider than two paved bike routes one in gabriel park, one in south Sellwood park, both of which allow bike access. So the ricky. In short, the major public trail rules do not require anything. Here we are providing the ricky path. It's wide enough and there's an alternative route to the east. If someone feels constrained as a matter of law, we're not required to grant anything more. And as a matter of design, we believe we've provided the kind of bike ped and vehicular access that both allows a permeable campus for the community and allows p. S to secure its campus and have the elementary school students operating safely within that driveway. I'm going to move then to the improvements along burlingame. I think there's been quite a bit of misunderstanding about this. And again, these are line drawings. They're complicated. I have to look at them a long time to and then make a bunch of calls to the architect to try to figure them out. But basically what's happening here is there's a spur. The only thing that's being closed is a spur trail off the existing walking path. So the spur trail is right at the curve in the upper right corner here. That little spur trail is being closed. We are not removing the existing walking path that will go to a new, improved single access point in a much safer location away from the curb. And this will be a raised sidewalk, table, sidewalk they call it, with a much better and firmer entrance in into the campus. So also, what's important to know about this is as part of this whole redevelopment, we're looking at like the existing condition in those photos and the redevelopment. This is being reorganized. So the campus, the building will actually end up fronting vermont, not back towards burlingame where it is now. And there will be a number of improvements, a new crosswalks, ADA access ramps and the like around and along the vermont frontage. Again, I'm sure you're probably tired of hearing the proportionality standard, but this is a required code standard, and the transportation staff evaluated whether or not we have any additional trips or additional impact. We do not. And because we don't have that, there can be no requirement that we improve a new street along the frontage of the campus, because we don't have any impact to that street. Are we maintaining safe passage there and not removing the existing path? We are. We're only removing the little spur trail that is right on the curve and becomes a problem with sight, distance and safety. So the burlingame improvements may be desirable. The community may want them, but they can't be imposed on p s as a matter of law, we support and will collaborate with any city effort to improve the pedestrian environment on burlingame and p. S will make our proposed improvement of the crossing into the school grounds and merge our effort with any city efforts along burlingame. Finally, in this, maybe we can go to the final rendering. P. S is providing the additional open space access that the appellant requests. With the new condition of approval, we've offered for new public easements. As part of the application, we're improving the public pool building with enhanced access. We're preserving and maintaining the location for the farmers market. We're lighting the fields for extended use, including public use. We're going to continue the civic use of buildings program that permits scheduled public use in non-school hours. And as the staff and hearings officer found, this more than satisfies the approval criteria. So we're requesting that the city council deny the appeal and adopt the additional public access condition. Because I have some time, I would like to address a good neighbor agreement and what that means. The adopted code is a good neighbor agreement. It applies equally across the city. It contains impact standards that must be met. We've met those standards, the approval and its condition. I think this is the important thing, this approval and all the conditions of approval they run with the land. They're going to be recorded in the assessor's records. And the city has enforcement authority over those conditions. It will not matter what administration is in place. It will not matter if there's a new staff member who would choose to close the gate. These are enforceable conditions recorded against the land, and that's how the city structures land use enforcement, enforcement through the code and not through good neighbor agreements that are generally unenforceable. I also want to address the fences. Maybe you don't like the fences. Maybe you find fences atrocious. I understand that there's a myriad of opinions. The fences are not a conditional use. The fences are a use permitted outright on this campus, and we could build the fence tomorrow without any objections. These fences are critical. Safety protocol for p s. We cannot build a modernized campus without these fences. Every modernized campus has gotten these fences. Lincoln has them, jefferson has them, cleveland has them. And unfortunately, we have a terrible example today in bend of an active shooter on an elementary school campus with people injured, and they couldn't exclude the person. We are not messing around with our fences. They're permitted outright. We can install them. They have nothing to do with this conditional use. And I might mention to you that if you look at the kind of vision that is up here, and that is a design review rendering from the design review process, you can see these fences don't look like a prison, and the fences actually allow the kids to feel safe. And the fences and the gates will be open to the public in a way that manages the essential needs of the school for school safety, but also allows reasonable public access. Thank you.

198 Thank you very much, colleagues. We have time now for technical or clarifying questions for the applicant. And then after we finish that, we will take a quick recess for a bathroom break. Councilor Zimmerman.

199 Thank you. I missed your name. Can you say that?

200 Christy white christy.

201 Hi. So setting aside on the I think it's issue number two. It's the access point on the corner there.

202 Yes, yes.

203 Setting aside the sidewalk aspect of that.

204 Yes.

205 There currently is on your map, you show there is the more desirable trail access into campus. But then there is what I would say is the less desirable, which is currently what looks like at some point in this history. It was a driveway for cars, but but now it's just gated off. But it's where clearly there are goat trails where people have walked through.

206 Correct.

207 I guess I'm what I cannot tell from any of the renderings that have been presented today is what does the future of that corner look like? And I ask it in the frame of why is rps not addressing the desire path phenomenon, which is like why college campuses wait to see where everybody walks to and then they put pavement there. Yeah. So that clearly is a desire path that's been run down to the point. I don't think anything would grow for five years there. So what is that corner look like? Because it's nice that you've said 25ft down is an access point, but I don't know how valid it is given the desire function there, what it's going to be in the corner.

208 So that corner will still retain the area, the let's call it your goat trail. I think you called it goat trail, like it's about six feet in width. We're not developing in the public right of way. So the landscaping is not going to take over public right of way. So what what happens is somebody and it may not the pedestrian counts are not significant for school kids on on that frontage. This might be other members of the public. But when you come around that corner, the desire path is I'm going to take a quick left.

209 To get onto campus.

210 Right. But it's a it's a curve that is not a safe curve to invite people in and out of the campus on that curve. So and you're right, it's two posts and a chain, right? And so that's being closed off. The pathway is not being.

211 You just help me understand what is closed off mean.

212 Meaning that there will be a landscaping and development on that corner that doesn't allow normal people to take a goat trail. I mean, maybe somebody breaks through the bushes, but it will be landscaped in a way that you don't have that little spur. That little spur is like three feet long or something. That's the piece that's being closed, not inviting people in and out of the campus on that corner. And instead that whole right of way frontage stays as it is, not forcing people to walk into the street, and they will come to a safe raised table sidewalk with a bollard entry. No cars there. Cars can't come in there. You're just walking now.

213 You're talking about when you're on campus, though.

214 No, off right off the right of way. So you're you're taking that left turn. You can't go in this spur. You keep on walking. If this is the way you're walking to school and you will come across a raised crosswalk bollard design, not just poles with a chain on it, and it will funnel you into the campus, connecting with the campus connector to the front door of the school, the pedestrians that are coming from the other way, not around that corner, will have a completely different route in that way. And there is room outside. So this the city of Portland did a traffic calming exercise there. Maybe you could talk about it better than I can. And the average speeds are 17 miles an hour there. And then there's a I just learned this word right before our hearing. There's two chicanes that are curb like diagonal, right, that force cars to the right so that they're away from the pedestrians coming in to the campus. So the reorganization of the campus, the closure of what we think is that dangerous little spur and the improvements at the mid connector, we think are going to at least maintain and increase pedestrian safety.

215 Okay. Despite how well you put that, something just tells me that people are going to get onto campus as quickly as possible. And that unless you. So to get rid of that, that that desired path, which is the very corner of the lot. Yeah. Seems somewhat fruitless or that it would actually push people a longer burlingame. And that's where I am getting some concern there with. Sure. Obviously we have the chicanes there for a reason. We have a reason to push cars away. So by, by not being able to get onto campus, I'll put it this way. It kind of seems like a strange hill to die on in terms of this corner and the goat trail. Like what is the meaning to p. S development in terms of what is changing so significantly that you guys would want to address it? I'm missing that a.

216 Little bit. Right. And maybe I maybe we're both missing it, but I understand the desire path. The problem is that that is a landscaped corner now. And it is, I don't want to call it a blind curve because I'm not sure it is a blind curve as that's defined.

217 But it it's not wide open, though. It's a little tight.

218 It's, it's tight. And, and there may be a goat trail there under the current organization of the school where it's closer to get to the front door if you're coming along. Burlingame. The new main entries on vermont. So this will actually change whether it's a desire path, the desire path is more likely from areas further to the west rather than around that corner on burlingame.

219 Okay. And I'll just signal for colleagues with I, I plan to adopt the proposed conditions that were presented by the applicant. In this case, I found them to be an improvement. Fyi. That's all for my questions.

220 Thank you. Counselor Zimmerman vice president clerk.

221 Thank you, council president. Hi, christie. Hi. Could you just you referenced the reservation system. The reservation system? Yeah, that's for getting on and off campus. Or are you is your compromise doing away with the reservation system?

222 No. It's both. So the civic use of buildings program applies district wide. And it mostly applies to like recreation leagues use it. They want to be sure the field is reserved for them. So they have a calendar posted online. You go on and sign up and say, I want to use the multi-purpose field at rickey on Tuesday and Thursday nights from this time to this time and says, okay, there's no school use sign up that will be maintained. And I don't think any neighborhood appellant or anybody else is asking us to remove that because it's another opportunity. All we're saying is, if you want to come onto the track, for example, and there's a track meet for the track meet supersedes your ability to use it. So both are maintained.

223 Okay, but you don't have to. If the gates are open, you don't have to know.

224 The neighbors don't have to sign up.

225 I just want to make sure you understood.

226 Reservation system. Yeah. They do not have to use the civic use of buildings program unless they put a league together that needs the field reserved.

227 Thank you. That's the only question I had.

228 Thank you, vice president Clark. Councilor Ryan, last last question.

229 Thank you, council president. Hello, christine. I'm not used to what I think happened. So let me say this. So the appellant they want to have access during the school hours or off school hours sorry.

230 Off school hours.

231 And did the applicant that be you representing the applicant provide new conditions.

232 Yes.

233 Okay. Just meet that need. Want to meet that need of their request. Because what I thought I heard from you is that you said access from 6 to 8 a.m.

234 Yes.

235 And then it's 5 to 9 on evenings.

236 Yes.

237 And then 6 a.m. To 9 p.m. On weekends?

238 Yes. And non-school days, because there'll be summer and, you know, christmas vacation.

239 All of.

240 That, all of that's in the condition.

241 And so this is new. I've been to a few of these and I'm not used to.

242 This is.

243 New conditions coming from the applicant.

244 Yeah. And I think.

245 Much of the need. So wow. Bravo to the appellant. So is that what's happening right now.

246 That is what's happening right now. Imagine that. Well and this is can I explain why this is the appropriate time for this?

247 I always learn a lot from you.

248 I mean, this is actually does happen quite regularly to, to get to resolution and propose a condition. In the past I know things have changed. Yeah.

249 Not the last six years.

250 Yeah. Right. Exactly. But the thing that's important here is this took a lot of internal discussion. There are a lot of different opinions about whether this should be allowed at all. There are some that would say this isn't safe, or some that say we can do it under these circumstances, right. So we have taken a very deliberate role in trying to figure out what the right language is while being completely responsive. So that's number one. Number two is this is the forum for that, because we want a condition of approval that gives them certainty and gives us certainty. We know when the gates open, when the gates closed. We know the city has enforcement authority. We know it's going to be in a document that's recorded and runs with the land, and there's no question about it. Right. And this to bring finality to it is to bring it to you and say, if you agree with this condition of approval, please impose it on us. We're fine with that. And then thirdly, I just want to say, which was probably pretty obvious, that it's important to just lay down the law for purposes of precedent and for purposes of how this applies differently to different campuses. It's just important to lay down the law and say, but we're offering a voluntary condition of approval.

251 Okay, that was helpful. And word of the day. Goat trail think.

252 Goat trail.

253 Is that what you said?

254 What goat trail?

255 Oh, I know what they are. I just haven't heard it up here at the dais before. Yeah.

256 Thank you. Okay. Thank you, counselor. Ryan, there are no. We have exhausted the technical and clarifying questions in the. Q and technically, christy, you have about 20s if you wanted it.

257 I think I'll just concede my time to to you guys.

258 Thank you very much, colleagues. The time is currently 351 I we're going to use a quick restroom break. And if everybody could please be back as close to 4:00 as possible. Thank you.

259 Thank you all. Calling us back to order here. We are now moving over to supporters of the applicant, who will each have three minutes minutes apiece. Keelan can we please call up any supporters of the applicants?

260 First up, we have katie ulrich. Katie ulrich. Next we have jeremy shetler.

261 Welcome. Please introduce yourself for the record. You're welcome to share your pronouns. And you have three minutes.

262 My name is jeremy shetler. I'm here today as a teacher, a coach, a parent, a community member, and a proud alumni of the class of 1992. I've spent 35 years calling 1151 southwest vermont street, my home away from home. Over that time, I've been a dedicated student athlete, baseball coach, wrestling coach, football coach, campus monitor, classroom educator, dean of students, and proud parent to a soon to be 2027 graduate. I can say there's not another person that has spent as much time as I have taking care of the school. That care includes every email I've penned, our custodian administration reporting new incidents, every photo that I've taken for evidence, every time I took to speak to someone who didn't know district policies, not to mention the amount of person, the dog feces that I've had to personally pick up off of our grass fields, the new artificial turf fields are a huge investment. They will not be a place for dogs. Honestly, I've wanted to close our campus to public access for a very long time. The amount of vandalism that I've had to deal with is staggering. From the amount of work that I've had to put into repairing restringing, repainting, replanting, resodding, reseeding, all due to the misuse or intentional damage. It's just disheartening for me to see our community is a great community. If it wasn't, I still wouldn't be here. We do have responsible, conscientious and very helpful community members, but we also have entitled neighbors who feel they have the right to our school property without restriction. Every piece of Green grass on our property, including the baseball outfield, has become a pseudo dog park. Even with signage and community agreements, we have people on a daily basis that make the decision to do what they want to do, instead of following rps policies. Repairing vandalism to facilities and athletic equipment, removing graffiti and picking up after a dog should not be the job title of a teacher or coach. Our students should be able to come to school on Monday morning to an amazing campus, not one that was abused over the weekend because of a group of individuals did whatever they wanted on rps property. This is a school first and it must be allowed to operate as a school for its primary educational purpose and for the safety of the students. We cannot put in a situation where we are forced to maintain our campus for general public park use, along with the wear and tear and vandalism that can come with such an open and unmanaged use. Thank you.

263 Thank you very much.

264 Next up, we have malcolm simonoff.

265 Welcome.

266 Thank you. It's actually.

267 One of the few times that simonoff was pronounced correctly. Hi, my name is malcolm simonoff. I'm a school counselor at wells high school, the father of a six month old son, marley, who will one day be nine to be wells guardian and an alumni alumni myself, I completely understand why people want access to the track. I'm a very active person and I've used it for a long time. When I go on vacation, I'll look up the nearest high school to see if there's a track I can use. But more and more, those facilities are being locked up. And now that I'm on the other side of this issue, I do understand why. We're a school of 1600 students and were staffed for far fewer than that. Unrestricted field access creates a staggering amount of additional work for maintenance staff. This has consequences inside the building. Bathrooms and bathrooms and classrooms are never fully cleaned, and our students deserve better. But as a school counselor, I want to focus on what I believe is the biggest issue safety. There's plenty of research showing that students need to feel safe in order to learn. In a school of 1600 students, there are all kinds of life circumstances. I work with students who have restraining orders from a parent or a stepparent. Students who are actively, actively hiding from a parents ex partner. We have students who don't have legal status in this country, and we've seen that schools are not off limits to ice. Just yesterday, we had to secure the perimeter because of a report we received about a person entering our campus. I was in the cafeteria with hundreds of students facing our open courtyard with floor to ceiling windows, every child fully visible, knowing that anyone with anything could walk up to those windows. Luckily, our courageous staff stood by each entrance and police responded quickly and apprehended this person. But as part of a constant reminder about some of the horrific things that happen on our school campuses, we also found out later that this person was actually inside our school building. At one point, eight of the nine high schools are no longer going to allow unrestricted public access to their facilities. Why should we be any different? Our students, some of your children, grandchildren, my son and our staff deserve that same level of safety. Every adult entering our building is supposed to be checked to ensure student safety. Our campus should be no exception. At ida b wells, activities can run from 5 a.m. Well past 9 p.m. At night, and as the day goes on, there are fewer staff members available to supervise the campus safety concerns, and a lack of supervision should not prevent our most vulnerable students from participating in sports clubs and extracurricular activities that make high school such a meaningful experience. It's easy to forget that for some students, school is the only place where they truly feel safe. It's the one place where they have structure, predictability, and consistent adults that they can rely on. They come here to learn, but they also come here to escape the challenges that they may face outside these walls. And those students deserve to know that the safe environment they rely on will be protected. Thank you.

268 Thank you very much.

269 Next up we have christy thorpe Smith. Christy thorpe Smith. Mike nolan.

270 Welcome.

271 My name is mike nolan. Good afternoon. My name is mike nolan. I've been the athletic director at ida b wells for 26 years. Excuse me. I've served at b wells for 26 years and have been the athletic director for the past ten. I want to begin by making something very clear. I deeply believe in community. Athletics is one of the greatest community building tools we have. Our facility should serve students, families, youth organizations, and our broader community. But community access and unrestricted access are not the same thing. After 26 years in this campus, I'm asking you not to require unrestricted, unsupervised public access to athletic facilities to our new school. I'm not making this request because of what I fear might happen. I'm making because of what I have personally watched happen. We've had equipment stolen, our press box broken into. We've spent thousands of dollars replacing soccer goals and nets. We've stopped a varsity girls soccer game because of dog feces on the field. We've had cars driven onto athletic fields and soccer goals dragged across our track. Someone even built a bonfire on our synthetic turf, forcing us to replace the center section of the field. We spent more than $10,000 removing graffiti last year alone, and this past summer, an outside group organized a track meet every Sunday involving more than 150 families without authorization. They held the event. We inherited the cleanup facility impact and responsibility that is not community partnership. Partnership requires shared responsibility. This is not an argument for locking our community out. It is an argument for managed access instead of unmanaged access. We are a public school, not a public park. In fact, through facilitation and the club process, our own students and athletic programs must schedule the use of our own facilities. It is reasonable to expect outside users to follow an established process as well. That process process provides supervision, scheduling, and most importantly, accountability. We are about to make an extraordinary public investment in ida b wells high school. We have an obligation to protect that investment. Every dollar spent removing graffiti, repairing turf, replacing equipment, or cleaning up unauthorized events is a dollar that cannot support students, and taxpayers should not have to pay twice, once to build these incredible facilities and again to repair preventable damage. So I respectfully ask you to continue to distinguish between the two very different ideas public access and unrestricted public access. I support the first. After 26 years at wells, I cannot support the second. Athletics is the front porch of your school. It is often the first thing that people see when they arrive on campus. We should have the ability to maintain an impeccable front porch without constantly worrying about vandalism, theft, damage and overuse. I want our community to use these facilities. I want them to use them responsibly. Thank you.

272 Thank you very much.

273 Next up, we have jasmine reese.

274 Hi.

275 Good afternoon. For the record, my name is jasmine reese and my pronouns are she her. I'm a resident of southwest Portland, and I have two children in the wells feeder elementary schools. I served as a volunteer on the comprehensive planning committee, or cpc for the wells modernization project, and I direct a basketball program for kindergarten, first and second graders. At wells. We pull a civic, use a building permit, and work with the athletic department to get access to the gym on sundays in January and February to give access to our youth in sport. Today, I ask the council deny this appeal and adopt the applicant's revised conditional use for this application for the following reasons. In addition to the staff report, first, we need to take into consideration student safety. We hear that the voters approve the bond. We hear that people have paid for things, but what we're not hearing is the student voices, because the majority of the students who attend and utilize this school facility are not able to register to vote, and we're leaving them behind. High schools are places where young people learn and grow safely before they enter adulthood. The district education specifications that were identified during the cpc. In the process, they call for a secure gated campus, open public access to the grounds, track and athletic fields and facilities conflict with that standard of the education spec, and it puts students safety at risk. And we know that from today's current events that are tragically taking place in in central Oregon. Second, the community's voice through the cpc process, the hillsdale neighborhood association participated vigorously. And that is their right. But the result may have been or it is a multimillion dollar design that designs the school around an aged infrastructure of a pool. Despite feedback from athletics, despite feedback from the architectural staff and the wider wells community, I actually presented a survey that I took as a member of the cpc to have the pool relocated to the southeast border so it would be outside of the secure perimeter of the school, and it could be utilized during the day. And during that presentation at the facilities and planning meeting, we had learned about the $250 million change order that was a result of slowing the jefferson project down. I have concerns about delays to this project because of this appeal and a possible another black eye to the bond modernization project. For all of these reasons, I ask for city council to deny the appeal and accept the conditions, the revised conditions from the applicant. I yield my time.

276 Thank you very much.

277 Next up, we have mia durham.

278 Welcome. Thank you.

279 Good afternoon everyone. My name is mia durham and I serve as the student body president at ida b wells high school. I am also the daughter of a teacher at ida b wells high school. I stand before you today to share my concerns with our new campus. Not being closed to the general public. As a member of the hillsdale community, I understand the concerns coming from our neighborhood. One of ida b wells high school's core values is community, and we try to invite community members to our events as much as possible, such as a music festival called ida b cello, which I believe another student representative will touch upon later. We want to continue to continue this close relationship we have between our school

280 Community members. However, a lesson I've had to learn over my time at ida b wells is that just a few people can ruin things for everyone. Over the course of many years, time after time, strangers have held events on our school grounds without a cub. They have interrupted sports practices, driven onto our practice fields, causing permanent damage to our facilities. I've personally come to our fields to train and have found large scale events of 50 plus people being held, inhibiting me from practicing on the track. I've seen trash all around our stadium and frequently had to avoid dog feces while running on our practice fields. I am a cross country runner and we often hold practice on the track. Almost every time we practice on the track, there are community members running around us in cross country. The saying of the word track while running means please move out of the way. This is an extremely important phrase because it's let. It lets our runners keep their pace going without being stopped by other athletes. Community members who don't understand the meaning of the word track get in his way and create a hectic and stressful environment for everybody involved. This issue may seem small, but when you have at least ten strangers on the track during practice, it becomes a much larger issue. Having a gated track facility would eliminate this problem. I would like to stress this to you all. Ida b wells high school is first and foremost a school, not a public park. Schools all around Oregon have gated facilities and it makes sense. Schools are for students. We love our community and we want them to participate in events that they are invited to. We even have a designated process for community members to follow when they want to reserve our facilities for event, thus eliminating any issues for student athletes and practices, as well as keeping our campus clean. Because this process pays for custodial. So to keep our school facilities focused for the students, we want to work with our community, to use clubs to reserve our spaces and must have our facilities gated. Thank you for your time and consideration.

281 Thank you very much for being here.

282 Next up we have canon walter.

283 Hello, my name is canon walter kannon walter, and I am a current senior at ida b wells high school. I'm here in front of you all today to testify on the importance of enclosing the ida b wells track and field in order to provide safety for both our students and the equipment they use. While enclosing our fields may not feel like the best option, it is a necessary one for our school and its students. At ida b wells I'm a part of our leadership program. Part of our focus as a leadership group is to host community and student events using our campus resources. One example of an event we host is called ida b that takes place in either the courtyard or on our turf field. It is an extremely successful free community event that everyone, including non-students, are invited to attend. One of the main attractions of this event is the live music during sunset. During this period, we have the musicians perform on a large scale stage, graciously loaned to us by our drama department. Unfortunately, this stage can take up to two hours to take down and with the ida b lasting usually to about 930. This has created an issue for us as a leadership program. In my sophomore year we hosted ida b chill on the turf field. It was an incredibly successful event and as a student leader, I volunteered to help on clean up duty. Since I was a new event, we as a leadership program didn't fully know the extent of how hard it would be to clean up the stage. For the next hour and a half, I was at the school, taking down the stage and bringing it back into our school. During this time, I didn't have a driver's license, so instead of going to bed when my parents had to stay up till around 1130 on a work night in order to pick me up, and in the same regard, I didn't get to bed until at least midnight on a school night in which I had classes the next day. While we improved our processes the following year, the stage, along with the other aspects of the event, still remain a large issue in our ability to clean up by a reasonable time. As you decide whether to build a secure fence, I want you to think about my sophomore year, along with the freshmen and upperclassmen who worked tirelessly to ensure that this amazing community event, along with cleanup for other activities, happens every year. With the existence of a secure fence that is locked when students and staff are not using it, and when the civic use of building requests has not rented the school property to another organization, then we could have made sure that the stage would not be damaged overnight. This would allow our leadership program, along with other school based organizations, the ability to hold ida b, along with other amazing events every year, while also giving us the ability to clean up the stage and other large parts of events. The next day during our designated leadership class time. This is one of multiple examples that we, as students on campus, can share as to why having our campus open with a club request can be problematic, or without a club request. Without the proper measures like a secure fence around our school, we are limiting our ability as students to support our community through events like these and continue to risk the safety of our equipment and the student body. Thank you for your time.

284 Thank you very much for being here.

285 Next up we have anaya. Miranda. Blank.

286 Welcome.

287 Thank you.

288 Hello, everyone. My name is anaya miranda blank, and I'm a current senior here at ida b wells high school. I also serve as the senior officer of communications. I'm here today to testify the importance of closing the track and field to the community in order to protect our facilities, reduce limited staff and volunteer efforts, and provide an environment that is conducive to sports practice and play. I have participated in the soccer program here at ida b wells. We regularly had practices on the field over the summer, and sometimes other school sports were also practicing at the same time. One time when soccer was practicing on the field and cheer was using the track. A large group of 60 plus people came over and held their own personal track meet. Their use of the track made it extremely difficult for cheer to practice. The community members. Constant whistle blowing to start and stop a raise also confused students doing drills at soccer practice. This disruption shows that community members need to have clear boundaries when it comes to the use of our school's athletic facilities. Our school, our school's athletic facilities already have limited access for student athletes. The fields have been damaged by constant misuse. The damage to our fields and equipment caused more of a financial burden on on the school district and facilities, constantly having to replace and repair things that have been damaged by the public. Finally, we are building a multi-million dollar facility that is going to be here for future generations to come. In order to protect our facilities, we should limit public access and only approve public usage through the proper channels to maintain an investment for our community for years to come. The public wanting to use our athletic facilities is not a bad thing, and I completely understand where they are coming from in regards to wanting to use the facilities. But there have to be boundaries. I believe that neighborhood organizations should have to use the reservation process to reserve time to safely access the track and field. With the support of the ida b wells custodial staff, this school is our community and it's for our students. This is the center of our community, and I urge the council to protect our school's campus and center students needs first. Thank you.

289 Thank you very much.

290 Next, we have isolados.

291 Welcome.

292 Thank you.

293 Thank you all for having me today. My name is isolados and I'm a senior at ida b wells high school, where I'm involved in student government, soccer, tennis and other extracurricular activities. I'm here to testify and specifically to oppose the proposed condition requiring public access without reservations to our school's open areas and recreational facilities. Unreserved access would put the safety of my peers at risk, increase the cost of replacing sports equipment, and add to the maintenance burden on our staff and volunteers. As a member of student government, I've seen firsthand how much cleanup our leadership program takes on after school events. That can mean hours of work after courtyard events, or staying late after football games alongside parent volunteers to clean our track, field and bleachers. This work is intensive and depends on a large group of committed students and parents. But when unregistered events happen on our facilities without a reservation, there are no volunteers lined up and the burden falls on our school staff. As an athlete in both an on campus sport and an off campus sport, I've also seen how different facilities hold up depending on who can access them. As the captain of the women's varsity soccer team, I'm responsible for making sure our goals are locked up. We use several different locks so our community partners can use the goals while preventing theft. Over the past few weeks during our soccer practices, I've seen people digging through the trash cans looking for cans. When they leave, the trash is often scattered everywhere in. Our custodial staff who are already stretched thin are left to clean it up. Our tennis program, meanwhile, plays off campus at gabriel park, currently, where we frequently deal with people using the courts for non-tennis purposes and damaging the surface. I also understand where the neighborhood is coming from. I live in this community too, and I've used the track to train for a half marathon. I know how valuable these spaces are to the people around them, and I want them to stay that way. But that's exactly why I'm concerned. The facilities are only worth sharing if they're kept safe and in good condition, and that's much harder to do when there's no way of knowing who is using them or when. With new tennis courts being built as part of this project, protecting them from the start is essential. Court surfaces are delicate, and with unrestricted use, they won't last. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the city council not to add the condition requiring public access without reservations and to uphold the hearing officer's decision as approved. Thank you for your time.

294 Thank you very much.

295 That completes testimony.

296 Great. Thank you very much, everybody. Finally, our we are going to invite the appellant to provide their rebuttal. They have five minutes for that.

297 Hi again, valerie friedman. I have to say we're well we are we welcome the condition proposed by ps were caught a little unprepared because this is the first time we've seen it. And as far as that goes, I just I just want to say we'd like to request that the condition that the times be adjusted on the condition if it's if it were to be approved by city council and that the starting time be 5 a.m. And that the afternoon open time, be closer to the end of the school day, and that in summer the access be granted until 10 p.m. Or sunset. But I also want to say thank you to everybody who's testified in opposition to our appeal. All of these issues are extremely important for everyone, for our school staff, students and our community. I think a lot of the issues that we've heard about will be addressed by the time lock gates that are planned as part of this proposal that nobody is proposing be open after 9 p.m. Maybe 10 p.m. So I think a lot of that will be taken care of just by having these new gates that can keep people out overnight. And when there aren't other people around, that's when the people come who do bad things. And I just want to call out. Also, somebody mentioned that out of eight out of nine high schools, this will be the only one. If this condition passes that that allows public access. And I just keep coming back to grant high school. It seems like a very different situation there. I don't know that I want to say anything else about this, but I know donna and keith have things to say.

298 So burlingame avenue, if I understood what was being said, they don't want to use the existing paved route that we currently walk on, but close it off at landscape it. And basically they're basically saying, and people will then have a crosswalk on burlingame avenue. Think about that, okay? When people are coming to school, they're walking against traffic as required by state law. That means you're on the south side of burlingame avenue, and then you have to walk in the street. And their proposal against traffic to their entrance, if they just leave it open like it is, we can walk on that asphalt that exists there and get to where we need to go. I can't understand what's going on in their head to make this so complicated. And that's the that's the basically that's the essence. Go ahead.

299 Regarding ricky road, I'd like to just remind everybody that ricky driveway and walkway is used consistently throughout the day by people in the neighborhood, students and so forth. And the idea of putting bikes and pedestrians on not really an eight foot path, it's really six foot clear is just substandard in every respect. You can just look at the city's pedestrian design guidelines, and I had a snippet in the written testimony. It shows how that width is totally deficient. So the solution is a non build solution is to just have an easement, just like the easement that they're proposing for the east and north driveways. That would be absolutely perfect for here. The irony is, is that ricky road is the one that has the tsb designations, whereas the east and north driveways do not. I would also submit that we really need both accesses. You've got a distance of over 2000ft and only two routes across this. This campus to get to connect the neighborhoods with with hillsdale.

300 Can can I have another 20s? I. There are a couple of things I forgot. And in terms of the condition, the new condition that's proposed, we hope that access to the wells courtyard and practice field can be added as well. I don't think the condition includes those two spaces.

301 And the final thing I want to point out is on ricky road or the ricky driveway. A lot of people walk their dogs think about six feet wide and dogs on a leash with a bicycle at high speed. It's terrible.

302 Thank you very much. Okay.

303 Thank you.

304 Thank you, thank you. Colleagues, we are now entering into council deliberation. I have a little script to read very quickly. The evidentiary record in this hearing is now closed. This means the council will accept no more oral or written testimony on the land use appeal. And this concludes the public participation portion of this evidentiary hearing. City attorney, do we have anything to discuss before we begin deliberations? Nope. Cool. Thank you. Colleagues, we're now going to begin council deliberations. Feel free to get into the queue. And as we enter the deliberations, I will just note to my colleagues it is currently 430. We have one other land use item that we are supposed to hopefully begin. Clearly, we won't end it, but we will. I'm going to try and get us to at least open it and then we will continue that conversation. So councilor Avalos, kick us off.

305 Thank you very much. Really appreciate all of the work that everybody did to present their case. I think that ultimately what I'm feeling is, one, I think that the compromise condition that was presented feels adequate, feels satisfactory to me. I am not overly compelled by arguments that the space should remain as open and as free as it has been. I think the school and the students have made a very defensible case for why they deserve to have some kind of restrictions to access to their fields. And they're right, it is their school. At the end of the day, I can appreciate, especially as an east Portland representative, that public spaces, Green spaces are hard to come by. And I definitely understand the community's desires for having access. And I think we as a city, need to continue ensuring that we're providing that as a public good. But that is not the school's responsibility to provide. And I really do feel persuaded by the students perspective and really respect just what they're what they're arguing. And also what sounds like is really challenging for students accessing their own campus. That, to me, is rising to a level of importance that would lead me to not support the appeal. So at this point, I do not support the appeals. I think the condition that was provided is adequate and thankful to all who came to testify. Obviously understand where everyone's coming from, but I don't believe this is the time to set the kind of precedence that these kinds of appeals would require. I don't think it's necessary. I think that the school has made plenty of an argument for the ways that they continue to allow community to participate in the campus, in the surrounding Green spaces, and therefore, I don't plan on supporting the appeal. Thank you.

306 Thank you. Councilor Avalos councilor Smith.

307 Thank you, council president. I just wanted to get some clarification here. Is there a do we have any sort of. Link to say how this this whole school was paid for is going to be paid for?

308 It's a great question. I mean, through through the bonds or what are you.

309 Yeah, so that's what I. So am I correct in my thoughts that this school, like the other schools, are paid for with the bond money.

310 Perhaps someone from the applicant is.

311 That is that can.

312 I look to lauren to see whether or not that's a.

313 Well, I don't know if she can come up, but that's what I'm trying to figure out. So those bonds get paid back by adults who live in the Portland public school system. Correct.

314 Lauren councilor Smith I'm not sure that this is evidence that's in the record and the record has been closed. And is there any discussion in the record about the financing of the schools and how bonds work?

315 I'm just trying to figure out how it gets paid for.

316 There was testimony that this was paid for by bond money, okay?

317 It was paid for by bond money. And the people who pay it are the people who live in the Portland public school districts, the people who own homes.

318 That's generally how bonds work.

319 Yes.

320 Okay. That's what I thought. I just wanted to clarify that. Yeah. Because I think that the folks who want to keep it, the neighborhood folks. They don't have any kids and they're paying this bond. So I can totally understand why they feel like they should be able to come to the school and use it, because they're the ones who are paying for it. I do agree that I think that the settlement that was proposed is a good one, and it is a good space to be. But I also want folks to understand that all of these schools that I believe because I think I have something on my on my property tax rolls that's for a specific bond. I just can't remember it right now. And we have to be mindful that we're all caretakers of, of our public spaces and that we should try to find resolution where we can. Everybody's not going to get everything that they want. I do understand the summertime having that. Expanded to 10:00 might be better because it's lighter outside during the summertime. And I don't know if there's a way that we can we can amend that. But I like what was put forward. And I wish that the applicant would have shared that with the neighborhood before they got here. They got blindsided with a concession that they didn't have a chance to review. So I want to thank everybody who came here to testify today because I have grandchildren who also practice on Portland public school tracks, and they're involved in and engaged in there. There is some confusion when you have other people on the field. It's really hard to to practice. But I think we have to be mindful always on how we all have a collective responsibility, and the adults in this room are paying for it. So I think we should understand each other's side of this whole issue. Thank you.

321 Thank you, councilor Smith. Councilor Zimmerman.

322 Thank you. This has been honestly quite challenging and reviewing this from a letter of the law and land use versus a public policy perspective is one of those moments for us in terms of quasi judicial and our roles here. So. There's a lot to be desired in terms of how ps being an urban school district is going to approach being a community partner and, and how to. Do that while fulfilling their duty and their responsibility, frankly, probably underline bold responsibility of being, being a school so challenging. And also also I'm recognizing that my experience as a coach, my experience of some of the stories of, of that have been told here about running into situations on the ground or maybe a little outdated with, with what is currently facing the school. So given all of that on, on appeal number three, which is relative to the access, I don't know if the appropriate thing is to properly move, but I would like to properly move the conditions that were proposed by the applicant that we read and heard in the record, because I do think that, and I want to frame this up a little bit. I, I what I look at those as is, those are the bare minimum. Those allow the school, I think, to adhere to their responsibility, take ownership for their land, protect their assets and send a signal of we have to be, we have to have a reason to go more restrictive than these. And it can't just be because it's Tuesday. It has to be. As we noted in there, there are some conditions where the authority still rests with the school district, and I think that that's important. That was to my question earlier. I think being able to adapt to the moment is important. But the point that as somebody who's done a lot of good neighbor agreements, I want to commend the way the applicant showed up on this one. I had not considered it, but the fact that they said this puts it in a way that is actually enforceable is actually, I think, good for both the appellant and the applicant in a way that I have never seen before in as it relates to good neighbor agreement, I actually think this has more teeth to it. But my plea and this is maybe stepping out of the land use, my plea would be is that we hear what the neighborhood said, and if we have a good summer, we say we maybe program it to sundown instead of 9 p.m. That when things go well, we look at is it really that bad if it starts at five? But we're setting as a bare minimum. So that's why I want to move this. I think that that's an important access piece. And I think it's also. An acknowledgment, while I'm uncomfortable with it, an acknowledgment that schools are being built with fencing now in a way that I just think makes many of us uncomfortable, that that's the reality on the ground. I hate that reality. And. It's also their responsibility to secure the locations or have the ability to. And so I look at this as a good compromise, something that will be in the record, something that will be enforceable. And I would encourage all parties to look at this as a win, win, win. On issue number three.

323 I second.

324 So councilor Zimmerman, can I just in the language of land use appeals, can I see that councilor Zimmerman moves to tentatively deny the appeal and uphold the hearings, officer's decision and conditions of approval with the addition of the condition of approval as proposed by the applicant, directing staff to return at a date and time, certain with revised findings. Does that sound correct to you? And that was what lauren just sent me.

325 That's correct. And I'm going to look to staff to confirm that it would just be the additional condition. It's not revising any of the current conditions, adding this new language. Right.

Procedural episode · turns 326–334

Parliamentary activity detected in this stretch (see the markers above). An editor-reviewed analysis has not been published for this episode yet.

326 If the appeal.

327 Is denied.

328 Yes. And then I'm going to look to the applicant's attorney for timing to return to council with revised findings. Two weeks. Okay. So date and time, certain two weeks. Do we have that?

329 Well, let me continue on a couple other items then. So with respect to item number two, which is the burlingame access road colleagues, that's the one I'm most unsure of. And I'm curious if there are strong opinions or if you were able to visualize what was described better than I was, because I'm having a tough time with that. And whether or not that's creating a more or less safe situation. And so I on, on, on issue one, I'm, I have no commentary on that anymore, but on, on issue two, that is kind of where I'm, I didn't grasp a good visualization for what will be just what will be gone. So I just wanted to put that out there. But I'm only suggesting the one change to the findings of number three.

330 Can I ask a point of order? So I don't know if this is like technically a real motion that has a second, but what the motion is, is to deny the appeal, where I would like to go back and talk about those other elements. I don't want to deny the entire appeal yet. I want to somehow approve what the compromise is. But I still want to talk about one and two.

331 Thank you.

332 Can I can I do that? Attorney.

333 Perhaps the best way to do that is to to know that there's sort of interest in adding that condition. But council's not yet ready for a motion, a formal motion, and that we can continue this discussion.

334 Okay.

335 So we've got an outline of a language and councilor Zimmerman, I'll come back to you to reintroduce that and move that, and we'll second that. And we'll continue to the councilors that are in the queue. And it is. 445, y'all. Thank you. Councilmember. Any further? Okay. Thank you.

336 Point of quick information, I guess, in that exchange, are you saying that we can't we're going to have to do the vote as a whole package. We're not going to be able to vote them in individual like if we write. Is that what that was about?

337 Yeah. So council, the options of council are to deny the appeal and revise, deny the appeal and uphold everything. The hearings office as written, uphold the appeal and adopt the conditions that the appellants have proposed, or this middle scenario, which is deny the appeal, but adopt new conditions. And until council has kind of identified what those new conditions are, I would ask council to pause on making a motion so that they can all be done in one motion, because it's responding to the actual appeal.

338 Thank you. I think that reason I was confused is because it's listed as appeal one, two and three. So I'm taking that as three different actions. But we're saying those are all one action, correct?

339 Yes. They are all conditions that the appellant is asking for.

340 Thank you.

341 Thank you. Councilor Avalos. Councilor Ryan.

342 Yes, thank you, council president I want to acknowledge the students and the coaches, the counselors and also the community, the neighbors. This was a really good session. I seldom seen such compromise and civics displayed in one of these hearings. I think that the applicant brought new conditions that met many of the key beefs from the appellant. And so I think we're on the right track here. I actually do believe fences make good neighbors. And so I wanted to just say that, and I really thank p. S is being called to help you all figure out the details of how to manage those off school hour conditions. I think I don't want the city council to get too far into the weeds of some of the issues that really are better spent by the p. S board and the body there. I do think under code, we're on the right track to go ahead and move this along. So anyway, I'll get out of the way. But say that I'm really pleased that we made some progress today. Thanks.

343 Thank you. Councilor Ryan. Vice president clerk.

344 Thank you, council president. You know, the school district really is a sister government. And I would hope, I think, riffing off something councilor Zimmerman, I think, said is that I would hope for a strong community partnership with p. S I would hope for a stronger partnership. Right now, we're generating potentially some ill will here. I don't want that. I very much appreciate the testimony from the neighborhood association and all the students, the teachers, coaches, everyone. It's all very compelling in the mix. And I will I will change my view on the fence. I realize that I can't change it anyway, but I do want to just talk a little bit about appeal request one and two. I think one, I'm tempted to uphold that, and I'm open to argument because bicycles are going to use that anyway, whether it's a, you know, legally a part of the right of way or not. And I do not believe and let me just back up. I've lived in this neighborhood. I did live in this neighborhood 20 years. I spent a lot of time on that campus. I ran around that track an awful lot, practiced for a triathlon on that track, walk through that campus repeatedly. And I and I go to the farmers market, and I can tell you that little path is a little path and it will not accommodate people, dog walkers and bikes all at the same time. So people are going to ride their bike on, on the pathway street, whatever you want to call it, not an official street. So I guess the issue is whether we give the neighborhood the authority to do that in the land use program. So I'm, I'm willing to entertain upholding the peer request, number one. Number two, on the pathway, sidewalk, whatever you want to call it. I just want to reference my experience building big things at TriMet. You know, when TriMet had big multi-billion dollar light rail projects, we often included things like sidewalks and things that weren't necessarily germane to the actual light rail tracks or stations. And in this case, I would hope that the school district would provide this for the neighborhood, provide the small benefit, because there are, as we heard, there are very few sidewalks and safe places to walk in this neighborhood, certainly very few flat ones. And this is one of the only ones. So I would also consider upholding the appeal. Number two for that little teeny improvement, and would hope that the school district would find it as a partner willing to make that improvement.

345 Thank you. Vice president Clark councilor Green.

346 Thank you, council president. Thanks for all the testimony today. In particular, the young people. I don't think I would have ever gone to a land use hearing when I was in high school. So good on you. You should run for city council. I, I think I'm moving in councilor Zimmerman's direction. I think the points that you started with are salient, which is we have to confine ourselves to. The quasi judicial choice before us and the matters under what's legal and what's not. And so I'm not sure it's appropriate to apply the conditions, the first ones, but I'm not I'm, you know, I, I can be open to persuasion there. I get the impulse. I think that if the idea is to have a cycling route where bicycles are moving at a high rate of speed, like I would expect that bicyclists in this town would not do so in the middle of a school drop off and pick up like there's a certain amount of like practical discretion that would happen. And I think what I got from the applicant's case was this understanding that it's going to happen anyway. We just don't want to put it into the deed, more or less, or the sort of zoning decision. So I'm on the fence on that one. But I'm, I'm definitely grateful for the willingness of the applicant to meet the community and say, hey, here are some, here are some more permissive conditions that we can offer you in good faith so we can get to yes, here that that's that still gives the school the ability to protect these students, especially today where, you know, learning that there's yet another atrocity. And so that's particularly compelling to me. So I don't know if there's something being crafted in the ether and when that happens, but that's the direction I'm going. Thanks.

347 Thank you, councilor Green colleagues, I put myself in the queue. I just want to say that I am supportive of the motion that we had discussed to tentatively or to deny the appeal, but to add the new conditions as offered by pbs. I will just note that the additional conditions that the the appellants are asking for are not in our zoning code, and that if we do grant those, they can. They are appealable to the land use board of appeals, and there is no there is no, no background, no precedent to be able to support those additional considerations. So I would be very supportive of the motion to, as councilor Zimmerman had framed it, to deny the appeal, but to add the additional conditions. And that's all I have to say about that. Councilor pirtle-guiney. Take it away.

348 Thank you, council president. You know, unsurprisingly, I'm interested generally in figuring out how we can push the limits on the requirements for public access, public space, public use, and the proposal that was brought forward by the applicants, I think, allows us to capture the need for public access and use here without having to push the limits on what our what our current laws and codes allow, which is fantastic. So I'm very interested in that piece of the motion that was made previously. Councilor clarke, I also heard your appeal to see if there were places where there was a legal argument to move on. Some of the other appeals that were brought forward. And lauren, I'm wondering if you can help me understand something we heard from the appellants as it related to, I believe it's request number three, the the road access that this is in the neighborhood center plans. This is in a variety of other plans. I know that space is also designated on our southwest trails as trail access space. And I'm wondering if you can help me understand how those plans and that designation interact with the legal requirements that we need to hold this appeal to today, or if they don't affect the conditions that we can consider as it relates to appeals on this application.

349 So I'm going to speak generally to how the law. And then I'd actually ask staff to come back up and talk about the specifics of the criteria. Generally, when we have approval criteria, we have to the applicant has the burden to meet the approval criteria. If we feel like the applicant is unable to meet the approval criteria, we can impose a condition of approval, but that condition of approval must be necessary in order to meet the approval criteria, that is. But for this condition, they would not be able to meet meet the relevant criteria. Staff can speak to the actual neighborhood plan and how it relates to the relevant approval criteria.

350 Well, I, I heard reference to the transportation plan. And so I think that, you know, we could uphold the appeal and find that the approval criteria is not met for one of the approval criteria for connectivity or neighborhood plan statements about bicycle and pedestrian access. But I think the question about where these plans come into play is when there's something else proposed on the property, when it's there's a subdivision or there's some some bigger project that gives the city the opportunity to require more things. And tammy, do you want to speak to that?

351 Yes. I think your question was really focused on the access issues.

352 I'm looking specifically at appeal request three and holding the fact that. We do have these approval criteria which are connected to these other plans that were brought up, but I understand that those only come into play at certain points. And given that, you know, we've heard a lot about what people want this to look like, but in this case, we're not a policy board. We're a quasi judicial board. So I'm trying to understand whether there is a. Whether there is a space here for us to make that decision or not based on how the plans relate to the approval criteria in this specific case.

353 Thank you. I apologize, I lost the thread a little bit. I thought we were talking about the the pathway through the site. But number three, being.

354 As it relates to, yes, the pathway through the site appeal request. Number three was specifically the appeal request. That has to do with public access for the bike and pedestrian path, I believe. Am I looking at the wrong one? I'm sorry.

355 One okay.

356 Appeal one I apologize. I was looking at the wrong map. The Green line on appeal on path, on appeal one. I apologize for the confusion there.

357 So the transportation system plan does not apply outside of the public right of way. The transportation system plan designated this as a major public bike route because of the major public trail designation. In case this ever redevelops in a way that allows us to create right of way. So it's not a binding requirement unless this is a residential subdivision, in which case then the zoning code does have approval criteria.

358 Or even beyond a residential subdivision. If schools, for example, sold off one piece of the property, and that became a public right of way again, then there would be this access.

359 The only zoning code requirement, the only code based requirement to designate an easement or to build a public trail through here is only activated in this zone through a planned development, a residential plan development, or a subdivision.

360 Okay.

361 It does not apply in a conditional use review.

362 Okay.

363 Thank you.

364 Thank you, counselor pirtle-guiney vice president Clark.

365 Thank you. Just I'm not sure I get to ask questions of of anybody, but on the compromise proposal that christy put forward on behalf of pse, it mentions vandalism. And I'm wondering if if you come back in two weeks and we are able to dig into this, could you help us better define what level of vandalism it would require before the gates are closed to the public? I mean, just define that a little bit more. That would be helpful. I don't know what definition of vandalism you're going to use in order to close the gates. Secondly, I'm hoping that if we don't if we don't uphold the appeal, number one, that the school district will repair and widen that pathway because it is quite narrow and funky. And I don't know that I can ask for that, but I'm just going to put that out there because I have a feeling I'm not going to win here. On the upholding the appeal. I'm not sure, but I would just put that out there.

366 Looking to lauren first answer that.

367 So regarding the clarification of vandalism, it depends on what council intends to do today. So the record is closed and there is opportunity for conversation with staff. If council plans on making a tentative vote, the next steps are for staff to go back and work with the prevailing party and revise the findings, and then come back for final adoption. So we would want to decide today what what that condition would be and what that motion is. If if that is the plan. I don't know if there's anything more from staff. Yeah. And then as far as widening the path, I'm going to defer to staff on kind of what the approval is and and where that.

368 Can I before before tammy speaks to that. I just kristy white, the attorney for the applicant, was just letting me know that information on vandalism is in the record already. So we can, so it wouldn't be adding to the record to talk about that. We can bring that forward as we discuss that for the findings.

369 Okay. So information on I think the question. Okay, great.

370 So as far as widening the path, as you've heard before, the the existing school is the same capacity as the new school. So there's no increase in transportation impact. And so the hearing officer decision specifically stated that since the impact is zero, he has no authority to require widening of the path. And so the central question in land use findings is not whether or not the improvement is a good idea. The central question is do we have the authority to require it and who has to pay for it? And so in in this analysis, there is no increase in impact. And so requiring it as a condition of approval isn't necessarily supported by evidence in the record.

371 Okay. I appreciate the the legal side of this, the land use side of this. I would just guarantee you that bicycles will still use the street. They're not all going to ride on the path, and maybe the school district will find it in its heart to improve the path if we're required. And that's the only place people can go. But I guarantee you people will continue to use the road.

372 Don't you?

373 Okay. Thank you, vice president Clark. Okay, colleagues, we have exhausted the queue on colleagues for discussion. Counselor Zimmerman, did you want to make that motion?

374 All right.

375 It's strange language, everybody to say I'm going to motion that. We deny the appeal with new findings as were described earlier.

376 Thank you.

377 Second. I think.

378 Can I just clarify? So I think but correct me if I'm wrong, the the motion is to tentatively deny the appeal, uphold the hearings officer's decision and the hearings officer's conditions of approval. But add the condition proposed by pbs. Is that that's what I heard earlier. Okay, so everything's the same. Just adding the condition proposed by pbs. And then directing staff to return at a date and time, certain with revised findings to reflect today's discussion.

379 Yeah. And the date and time certain that we have. Next available is our virtual meeting on 115 at 2:30 p.m. Time, sir.

380 Yeah. And I want to just be really clear. I'm saying that because I have not seen from our from our discussion, or do I think there's a legal path to what I think is a safety concern at that corner on on appeal issue number two, I just I don't see an up holdable one within our purview, which means the look goes to the developer, the PPS, which is I think you have a lot of opportunity to make that corner better, to the point that councilor Clark was making about the path. What we're finding ourselves here is to make it better is different than the letter of the law that this body has authority for. And that's a really tough needle to thread. And I and I recognize that challenge for everybody. So thank you.

381 Thank you.

382 Counselor Zimmerman. Keelan can we call the roll on counselor zimmerman's motion?

383 May I ask who the second was.

384 I okay, yes.

385 Smith. Counselor Smith, we said at the same.

386 Time, okay.

387 Thank you so much.

388 Rock paper, scissors.

389 Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman I Avalos. I Smith.

390 I I. Pirtle-guiney I. Ryan I. Koyama Lane I. Aye, Morillo I.

391 Novick I.

392 Dunphy I.

393 The motion carries with 12 eyes.

394 Okay. The motion to deny the appeal has passed with 12 eyes. The appeal is tentatively denied with additional new conditions added. Council clerk and city attorney. Do we have a date and time certain for this matter, which is. I just said was 115 at 2:30 p.m. For this matter to return to council for a final vote and adoption of findings. Lauren, is there anything else I need to do on this? Okay. This matter will return to council on Wednesday, October Wednesday, November 23rd. I'm sorry jesus, I'm reading the wrong thing. Wednesday, November 5th at 2:30 p.m. For the adoption of findings and a final vote. Colleagues, our next item is going to be hold on, I have I have language on this one. We are going to hold over our next item. I document 2020 634, three. We're going to move this to a time certain on. Sorry I don't have that. Oh there we go. Thursday, October 29th at 2:30 p.m. Time certain. And item 2026-123 is postponed to a future meeting. With that, we are adjourned. Thank you everybody.