---
title: "Portland City Council PM Session 10/15/26"
date: 2026-10-15T19:00:00-07:00
durationMinutes: 190
videoUrl: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmudIS0u2Xk"
---

# Portland City Council PM Session 10/15/26

**The City Council voted with 12 ayes to tentatively deny the Hillsdale Neighborhood Association's appeal of the Ida B. Wells High School rebuild, upholding the hearings officer's approval and adding a condition, offered by Portland Public Schools (PPS) during the hearing, that sets guaranteed public hours at the campus track, tennis courts and fields ([03:08:27](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=11307)).**

The decision is not final. Staff will draft revised findings for a final vote **November 5 at 2:30 p.m.** ([03:08:31](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=11311)). Council President Jamie Dunphy (District 1) presided. The roll call is garbled in the transcript after Councilor Loretta Smith's vote, but the clerk announced 12 ayes, and the official agenda lists all 12 members voting yes.

## District offers set hours for neighbors

Christy White, a land use lawyer representing PPS, read a new condition giving the public access to the Wells track and tennis courts and the Rieke Elementary softball and multi-use fields **"from 6:00 AM to 8:00 AM and from 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM on weekdays and from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM on weekends and other days when school is not in session"** ([01:25:54](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=5154)). School events and reservations under the Civic Use of Buildings program take priority. PPS also kept the right to close the campus for vandalism, emergencies or safety incidents. White argued that no code section allowed the association to demand more. She said the condition would be recorded against the land and enforceable by the city: "It will not matter what administration is in place."

Appellant Valerie Friedman said the group welcomed the condition but "this is the first time we've seen it" ([02:30:46](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=9046)). She asked for a 5 a.m. start, an afternoon opening closer to the end of the school day, summer hours until 10 p.m. or sunset, and the addition of the courtyard and practice field. The council adopted the condition as PPS proposed it.

Councilor Eric Zimmerman (District 4) moved it, saying "those are the bare minimum" ([02:42:25](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=9745)), and suggested sundown hours if summers go well. Smith (District 1), who seconded, said neighbors who pay the school bond "got blindsided with a concession that they didn't have a chance to review" ([02:40:04](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=9604)).

## Bike route and Burlingame walkway requests not adopted

The association also wanted the Rieke driveway designated for bikes and an off-street walkway kept on Southwest Burlingame Avenue. Keith Lydon said the remaining shared path has "a clear space of probably about 6 feet," against a standard of about 12 ([01:05:13](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=3913)). White said the path "ranges in width from 7 feet to 12 feet," with most of it over 8. In rebuttal, Lydon said it is "not really an 8-foot path, it's really 6-foot clear" ([02:33:46](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=9226)). Don Bach proposed moving a curb 6 feet at "no cost to the city" and asked, "Where's the common sense in the PPS proposal?" ([00:50:37](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=3037)).

Staff said the rebuilt school keeps the same student capacity and so adds no trips. Tammy Bourne King, the city's transportation reviewer, said "since the impact is zero, he has no authority to require widening of the path" ([03:04:40](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=11080)). She also said the transportation system plan "does not apply outside of the public right-of-way" ([03:01:04](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=10864)). Council Vice President Olivia Clark (District 4), who lived nearby for 20 years, said she was open to granting both requests. She later conceded, "I have a feeling I'm not going to win here on upholding the appeal" ([03:02:16](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=10936)). Dunphy said those conditions are not in the zoning code and could be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals ([02:55:49](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=10549)).

## Staff described the access request as unprecedented

Andy Galizia, a planner with the city's Permitting & Development bureau, said that since 2015 the city has approved rebuilds of 8 other public high schools, none of which required public recreational access. He said Wells is the last such rebuild, so upholding the appeal would make its neighbors the only ones with that right ([00:14:53](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=893)). Councilor Elana Pirtle-Guiney (District 2) asked whether the council could grant the access request. Galizia said it could, but called that reading "somewhat aggressive or creative interpretation of the zoning code" ([00:42:14](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=2534)). Councilor Dan Ryan (District 2) asked how much of the PPS bond nearby residents pay. Galizia replied, "I don't think it's relevant to the legal question you have to answer" ([00:40:19](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=2419)).

## Neighbors and students split in testimony

Four people testified for the appeal and eight against it. Richard Stein, calling from Amsterdam, said he gathered over 250 signatures and that 81% of Hillsdale streets lack sidewalks ([01:19:16](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=4756)). Tuyen Nguyen estimated up to 3,900 linear feet of fencing and 8 to 26 tons of steel ([01:16:00](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=4560)). Linda Venti said notice signs showed no fence: "Community members feel deceived." ([01:12:20](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=4340))

Athletic director Mike Nolan said the school spent more than $10,000 removing graffiti last year ([02:12:56](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=7976)). Counselor Malcolm Simonoff said an intruder entered the campus the day before and that "8 Of the 9 PPS high schools are no longer going to allow unrestricted public access to their facilities." ([02:09:50](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=7790)) Four students, including student body president Mia Durham Labus, described damage and crowded practices. Councilor Candace Avalos (District 1) said she was persuaded by the students: "it is their school at the end of the day" ([02:36:28](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=9388)).

This session had no open public-comment period. All public testimony came within the appeal hearing.

## Exchanges on the dais

Clark raised a point of order as the motion took shape: "I don't want to deny the entire appeal yet." ([02:47:44](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=10064)) Senior Deputy City Attorney Lauren King advised holding the motion until all conditions could go into one vote. Clark had earlier told the appellants, "I think the fence is offensive, but that's my opinion." ([00:56:46](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=3406)) White told the council, "We are not messing around with our fences." Ryan countered, "I actually do believe fences make good neighbors." ([02:49:42](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=10182)) Pressing White on closing a worn corner path on Burlingame, Zimmerman said, "It kind of seems like a strange hill to die on" ([01:50:08](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=6608)).

## What's next

- **November 5, 2:30 p.m.:** revised findings and a final vote on the Wells appeal. Clark asked PPS to define what level of vandalism would close the gates. Staff said that information is already in the record and can be used in the findings.
- **October 29, 2:30 p.m.:** the Central City zoning amendments return ([03:08:31](https://portland.windowbox.app/meetings/2026-10-15-1?t=11311)).
- **No date set:** the ordinance removing the concealed-handgun-license defense in city buildings was postponed to a future meeting.

---

## Time certain

### 15. Consider an appeal by the Hillsdale Neighborhood Association requesting to add conditions of approval to the Hearings Officer's decision to approve the rebuilding of Ida B Wells High School (LU 26-026160 CU AD)

**Jamie Dunphy** [5:34]

Good afternoon. I'm calling back to order this recessed meeting of the Portland City Council. It is 2:01 on Thursday, October 15th. Welcome back, friends. Can we please call the roll?

**Keelan McClymont** [5:45]

Good afternoon. Clark?

**Olivia Clark** [5:50]

Absent.

**Keelan McClymont** [5:50]

Green?

**Mitch Green** [5:53]

Me? Here.

**Keelan McClymont** [5:55]

Sorry. Uh, Zimmerman? Absent. Avalos?

**Candace Avalos** [6:03]

Present.

**Keelan McClymont** [6:05]

Smith?

**Loretta Smith** [6:06]

Here.

**Keelan McClymont** [6:07]

Kanal?

**Sameer Kanal** [6:09]

Here.

**Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [6:10]

Here.

**Tiffany Koyama Lane** [6:11]

Here.

**Keelan McClymont** [6:14]

Absent.

**Dan Ryan** [6:16]

Here.

**Keelan McClymont** [6:17]

Murillo.

**Angelita Morillo** [6:18]

Here.

**Keelan McClymont** [6:19]

Novick.

**Steve Novick** [6:20]

Here.

**Keelan McClymont** [6:21]

Dunphy.

**Jamie Dunphy** [6:22]

Here. And can we please have the attorney read the rules of decorum for the chamber?

**Keelan McClymont** [6:28]

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 webpage. Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise. Your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The presiding officer preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony will— 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.

**Lauren King** [7:19]

Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls their name.

**Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [7:23]

Thank you.

**Jamie Dunphy** [7:24]

Thank you very much. Colleagues, as 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, uh, that being said, my top goal for today is for us to do our absolute best to get through the 2 first readings on both land use items. With that said, can we please call our first time-certain item?

**Keelan McClymont** [7:46]

Document 2026-347, consider an appeal by the Hillsdale Neighborhood Association requesting to add conditions of approval to the hearings officer's decision to approve the rebuilding of Ida B. Wells High School, LU 2672. Thank you.

**Jamie Dunphy** [8:07]

First things first, I'm going to turn to our City Attorney Lauren King to make a few announcements about today's hearing.

**Lauren King** [8:12]

Thank you. This is an evidentiary hearing. This means you may submit new evidence to council 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 10 minutes. Following the staff report, council will hear from interested persons in the following order. The appellant will go first and will have 10 minutes to present their case. Following the appellant, Persons who support the appeal will go next. Each person will have 3 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's— after the principal opponent, council will hear from persons who oppose the appeal. Again, each person will have 3 minutes. Finally, the appellant will have 5 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 council 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 PP&D 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'll 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, Councilor Herbold. If the applicant does not respond, the applicant will be precluded from bringing an action for damages in circuit court.

**Jamie Dunphy** [10:32]

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.

**Mitch Green** [11:00]

Yeah, I have not had direct engagement with these emails, but 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 sites, and then on my campaign side, some of my canvassers have knocked doors in Hillsdale and, and people have said, hey, I— we've got this thing coming up, Councilor Green should be aware of it. So that's what I would disclose.

**Jamie Dunphy** [11:36]

Thank you, Councilor. Uh, is there anyone present in the council chambers who wishes to ask Councilor Green about his ex parte contacts or information he has disclosed?

**Richard Stein** [11:44]

No.

**Dan Ryan** [11:45]

Thank you.

**Jamie Dunphy** [11:46]

Vice President Clark.

**Olivia Clark** [11:47]

Thank you, Council President. I've also received emails, but, uh, I also wanted out of abundance of caution, I want to disclose that I was in communication with PPS leadership prior to their application submittal to help find a solution for the siting of the Hillsdale Farmers Market during school construction.

**Jamie Dunphy** [12:06]

Thank you. Same question for anyone have any questions for Vice President Clark? Okay, Councilor Murillo.

**Angelita Morillo** [12:16]

Um, similar to Councilor Green, my office has received a number of emails, uh, on this, but I have not seen any of them or talked with anyone.

**Jamie Dunphy** [12:22]

Thank you very much. Again, anybody need to ask about that? Nope. Okay, thank you. Councilor Ryan.

**Dan Ryan** [12:28]

Thank you, Council President. Um, out of abundance of caution, the area that we're talking about I know really well, and so I just wanted to say that, um, count me as guilty as I'm going from the Burlingame neighborhood through the I.W. Wells property over to the Hillsdale area. So I I just had to own that. So, uh, I— my brain is, um, 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.

**Jamie Dunphy** [13:02]

Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Again, anyone present in the chambers wish to ask Councilor Ryan? Again, no one excited to jump up and ask. Uh, Councilor Zimmerman.

**Eric Zimmerman** [13:11]

Thank you. Uh, similar to Councilor Green 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.

**Jamie Dunphy** [13:31]

Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. Similar question again. 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?

**Eric Zimmerman** [13:52]

If it wasn't clear that I've visited the site, yes. Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.

**Eileen Lorber** [13:58]

Okay.

**Jamie Dunphy** [14:00]

Yes, Councilor Ryan.

**Dan Ryan** [14:01]

Does this go beyond the Ida Wells but into the elementary school area?

**Jamie Dunphy** [14:11]

Sure.

**Dan Ryan** [14:11]

Okay. I just wanted to add that I know that area intimately as well 'cause we saved that school way back when. So thanks.

**Jamie Dunphy** [14:18]

Okay, excellent. So that is all of my initial preliminary questions for staff and/or for councilors. 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 10 minutes. Then the presentation of the appellant, 10 minutes. Then supporters of the appellant, 3 minutes each, then the presentation of the applicant, 15 minutes, then supporters of the applicant, 3 minutes each, and finally rebuttal by the appellant, 5 minutes. With that, I believe we're ready for our staff report. Welcome up.

**Andy Galizia** [14:53]

Just going to share my screen. I have a PowerPoint. Okay, good afternoon. I am Andy Galizia. I am the PP&D planner for this conditional use review to rebuild Ida B. Wells High School. I'm here with Tammy Bourne King, who is the transportation reviewer for this project, and I'm going to briefly summarize the project, the hearings officer's 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 2 different schools, the Ida B. Wells High School on the east side and the Rieke Elementary School on the west side. And the site also contains an outdoor swimming pool and several athletic fields. The site is within 3 different zoning districts: the IR zone, the R-7 zone, and the OS zone. And schools are classified as conditional uses in all 3 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 officer's decision included 3 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 4 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 PM. Condition C requires the athletic field lights to be turned off by 10 PM. And Condition D requires 4 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 alongside 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 3 conditions of approval. And in a land use review, a condition of approval is allowed when the condition is found to be necessary for 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. Thank you. And in this photo, the Rieke Elementary School building is on the right, and the pathway next to the driveway is on the left. Again, the hearings officer's 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. Thank you. 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. An 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. Thank you. 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 for context, since 2015, the city has approved land use reviews for major remodels or rebuilds of 8 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. Councilmember Herbold. Even though the Humboldt Neighborhood Plan and the Albina Community Plan that applied to that conditional use review include 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 PPS 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.

**Jamie Dunphy** [25:46]

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

**Eric Zimmerman** [26:02]

Thank you. With respect to the easement, I want to make sure I'm understanding the, the words and everything and the lines and 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, I want to make sure I'm getting it correct, and because 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.

**Andy Galizia** [26:53]

Yeah, would you like me to scroll back to that slide?

**Eric Zimmerman** [26:54]

That would be great.

**Dan Ryan** [26:55]

Yeah.

**Candace Avalos** [26:55]

Okay.

**Andy Galizia** [26:56]

Do you want to address that? 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, uh, 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?

**Eric Zimmerman** [27:41]

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

**Andy Galizia** [27:47]

Correct. Okay. Yes, this part. This is what I'm referring to as the driveway.

**Eric Zimmerman** [27:51]

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 by the grace of the property owner currently?

**Andy Galizia** [28:09]

That's correct.

**Eric Zimmerman** [28:09]

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—.

**Andy Galizia** [28:20]

Well, 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.

**Eric Zimmerman** [28:34]

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—. 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.

**Eileen Lorber** [29:01]

Sorry, one more back.

**Andy Galizia** [29:02]

Yeah, um, 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. Okay. That make sense? Did that answer your question?

**Eric Zimmerman** [29:31]

Yeah, as much sense as going from what is currently already happening to putting it in law. That's where I'm struggling with is like everyday practice to now it'll be part of a land use plan. And that's what 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 enable later on? So that's where 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?

**Andy Galizia** [30:14]

There's nothing proposed that would do that. And it would be— there'd be bollards that would stop cars from going through. There's 2 bollards. It'd be easy for a bike to go around it.

**Eric Zimmerman** [30:25]

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

**Andy Galizia** [30:27]

There would still be parking.

**Eric Zimmerman** [30:30]

And where would they enter in from?

**Andy Galizia** [30:33]

From Vermont, from the south, for the elementary school.

**Eric Zimmerman** [30:36]

But that's where the bollards are at?

**Andy Galizia** [30:38]

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

**Eric Zimmerman** [30:43]

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

**Andy Galizia** [30:47]

And sorry, Tammy, did you want to say something? You wanted me to go to this slide?

**Tammy Bourne King** [30:50]

Sure, yeah, I wanted to put— I asked Andy to put this slide up because I think it shows the reconfiguration of the driveway. So it'll 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 pedestrian access available on the pathway on either side of the school or of this driveway. I just wanted to make sure everybody knows you can still physically walk on both sides. Thank you. You could still physically ride a bicycle down 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.

**Eric Zimmerman** [31:31]

So currently, right, if I— when I come to events as a district councilor 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 throughway? What it— 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?

**Tammy Bourne King** [32:01]

My understanding of the change is twofold. One, to sort of bring more organization to the pickup and drop-off activities for the elementary school. Okay. And 2, to provide more of a protected crossing for pedestrians who are crossing that drive aisle. Okay. 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 drive aisle in a way where they don't have to conflict with a vehicle. Okay. And that is aligned roughly, you know, closer to the doors of the elementary school.

**Candace Avalos** [32:39]

Okay.

**Eric Zimmerman** [32:41]

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 the— and that's appeal number 1, is that correct? That's appeal number 1. Appeal number 2 is the sidewalk corner?

**Andy Galizia** [33:01]

Right. Okay. This is appeal number 1 for the—.

**Eric Zimmerman** [33:05]

Okay, that's all my questions for now, Council President. Thanks, guys.

**Jamie Dunphy** [33:08]

Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Koyama Lane.

**Tiffany Koyama Lane** [33:10]

Thank you, Council President. I have a question about how there, I believe, are quite a few longstanding intergovernmental agreements, IGAs, around Portland Public Schools parks, them maintaining ownership, but the City of Portland operating and maintaining, like Sunnyside Environmental School is an example. That's likely what happens with the Ida B. Wells Pool. We run the programming, Parks and Rec, there. Is some of that park area also maintained by the city?

**Andy Galizia** [33:44]

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 an agreement for the city to operate the swimming pool in the summer.

**Tiffany Koyama Lane** [34:01]

Okay, thank you.

**Jamie Dunphy** [34:03]

Thank you, Councilor Koyama Lane. Vice President Clark.

**Olivia Clark** [34:05]

Thank you, um, Council President. Um, so I'm just going to continue to probe about the, the driveway. Glad you still have it up. I— 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 going— they can come down, they're removable, right?

**Tammy Bourne King** [34:25]

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

**Olivia Clark** [34:29]

So what, what happens to the farmers market? We, you know, we know that in the interim while construction is going on, the farmers 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?

**Andy Galizia** [34:50]

I asked the applicant that question, and the, you know, the farmers 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 the and the farmers market would be entirely to the north side of the bollards, so they wouldn't interrupt the farmers market.

**Olivia Clark** [35:06]

Oh, okay. All right. Um, and what you're saying about the— 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?

**Andy Galizia** [35:25]

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

**Olivia Clark** [35:42]

Well, you know, I, I lived 2 blocks from there for almost 20 years. I didn't ride my bike on that sidewalk. That's ridiculous. It's, uh, not well maintained. It's very narrow. And if there's pedestrians, you don't want interact with them, you definitely need to be on the driveway. So I'm— I understand the appeal here. Um, I guess I'll leave it at that, that, um, for now. Thanks.

**Jamie Dunphy** [36:10]

Thank you, Vice President Clark.

**Dan Ryan** [36:12]

Thank you, Council President. If these are already in the exhibits, um, 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.

**Andy Galizia** [36:35]

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 PPS 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, you know, 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. Okay. 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, you know, 4 different easements through the site, and then there's— people can move through the site at all times, even when school is in session. That's different from all the other schools that have gone through review.

**Dan Ryan** [37:30]

Where it is today?

**Andy Galizia** [37:32]

Well, with the hearings officer's decision that's under appeal, yeah. Not today. There's no public access right now.

**Dan Ryan** [37:36]

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 PPS isn't providing that type of standard, if you will. And if we could at least see some examples of schools, and the school that closest to I.W. Wells is Lincoln. So I still think I'd like to get some more information in regards to that. Fair.

**Andy Galizia** [38:14]

And when, when the applicant speaks, maybe they can— maybe they'll have information for you about what their policy is. Okay. I think an 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—.

**Dan Ryan** [38:33]

And I'm trying to translate it to your average human being. So, okay. Um, in terms of public access to our public school properties, this topic has a lot of tension. You know that. Um, 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 receive a tax bill that says they're paying the PPS bond tax. And it's been passed heavily in big margins. And I think that I'd like to know what the tax responsibility is of the neighborhood to the PPS bond. Councilor Smith. Is that a fair question?

**Andy Galizia** [39:27]

It's a fair question. I think—.

**Dan Ryan** [39:30]

I think it's a great question. I bet the lawyer— some lawyers don't like that question, but we'll see.

**Andy Galizia** [39:35]

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 a certain— Is that what's in the zoning code? Criteria give us the power to regulate that?

**Dan Ryan** [39:53]

I understand. There's, you know, call me nuanced, but there's moments where sometimes the 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 right now.

**Andy Galizia** [40:05]

Sure.

**Dan Ryan** [40:07]

So I'm hearing that getting information about the tax responsibility to the PPS bond of the good— of the neighbors near that high school isn't relevant to this topic.

**Andy Galizia** [40:19]

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

**Dan Ryan** [40:28]

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

**Andy Galizia** [40:37]

Sure.

**Jamie Dunphy** [40:37]

Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.

**Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [40:40]

Thank you, Council President. Um, 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 3, that none of the other high schools in their projects guaranteed access to facilities. I think there's 2 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 So I don't know, honestly, if it's ever been asked before in any of the other reviews.

**Andy Galizia** [41:42]

I know that none of the other reviews were appealed.

**Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [41:45]

But 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, I think the question of equity between communities while an important, um, 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?

**Andy Galizia** [42:14]

Right. Okay. 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.

**Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [43:16]

So specifically on appeal request 3, what I think I'm hearing is we could interpret our current, um, 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.

**Andy Galizia** [43:38]

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.

**Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [43:53]

Okay, thank you.

**Jamie Dunphy** [43:54]

Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Councilor Novick.

**Christy White** [43:57]

Thank you, Mr. President.

**Eric Zimmerman** [43:58]

Um, forgive me for not having this at my fingertips, but what is the language that you think could be interpreted to support this? Can you like quote the language that the appellants are quoting?

**Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [44:08]

Sure.

**Andy Galizia** [44:08]

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, uh, 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. This is 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— I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. To my knowledge, ever for any kind of land use review interpreted those to require 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 they're— 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.

**Jamie Dunphy** [45:04]

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

**Andy Galizia** [45:07]

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

**Jamie Dunphy** [45:17]

So it doesn't say what they—.

**Eric Zimmerman** [45:18]

The language doesn't say what that implies, just talks about those being valuable, right?

**Andy Galizia** [45:22]

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

**Steve Novick** [45:34]

Thank you.

**Jamie Dunphy** [45:36]

Thank you, Councilor Novick. That has exhausted the queue of technical and clarifying questions. We are now going to move— thank you, staff. Thank you. We're now going to move to the presentation from the appellant, who will have 10 minutes. Welcome, folks.

**Valerie Friedman** [45:54]

Thank you. Hello, councilors. I'm Valerie Friedman, and this is Don Bach and Keith Lydon, 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 officer's 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. Thank you. 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 our slide. In order to comply with the conditional use approval criteria, the decision must preserve 3 important elements that the school campus provides today. The first one is safety of bicycles and pedestrians on the Ricci 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 officer's 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. Thank you, Deputy City Administrator Nancy Thorington.

**Keith Lydon** [48:15]

Good afternoon, I'm Keith Lydon. To clarify, references in the record to Ricci Road refer to the driveway that we've been talking about, plus the 2 walkways on either side. It provides a connection between Vermont Street and Capitol Highway. For context regarding Ricci Road and Burlingame Avenue issues, the recent Metro Safe Routes to Schools report gave the Wells-Ricci campus the worst walkability score possible because over 70% of the streets within the 1-mile walk shed do not have sidewalks. The PPS Safe Routes to School webpage 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 6 E's of Safe Routes to School. What are the 6 E's? 2 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 Rickey 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 2,000 feet 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 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. Um, we're asking for the same treatment on Ricci Road as what is proposed for the driveways on the east and north sides. Uh, 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.

**Valerie Friedman** [50:36]

We need a new slide.

**Don Bach** [50:37]

Another slide. Thank you. 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. Rieke 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 when we look at the Burlingame connection. What we have now is a walkable street that is not safe for pedestrians. Councilmember Herbold. This area, you'll notice on the right on the slide. Right now it's a narrow, roughly 3 feet. We're proposing to just move the curb 6 feet, no cost to the city. They don't even have to take out the asphalt and re-landscape it. That's where our existing is now. What they're proposing is just 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. Yes. 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, 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 PPS to maintain the Southwest community's access and safe passage routes that we have enjoyed, supported, and helped maintain for the past 65 years. Forcing children to walk on the 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's the common sense in the PPS proposal?

**Valerie Friedman** [52:31]

Can we have the, uh, slide 4, 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. PPS'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. Thank you. Including 2 student courtyards. The 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. Thank you. 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 PPS change and suddenly we find the gates locked. And, and as an aside, I want to mention that we, the neighborhood association, has proposed a Good Neighborhood Agreement to Portland PPS that would at least start to address these issues or open communication on these issues, but we haven't had any response on that. Thank you. 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. It's a 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 lock gates. Thank you. 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 investment should strengthen civic life, not reduce it. We have one more slide if there's just another minute left, 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 PPS proposes for the east and north driveways. Second. 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 PPS 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.

**Jamie Dunphy** [55:53]

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— or Vice President Clark, followed by Councilor Green.

**Olivia Clark** [56:09]

Thank you, Council President. Uh, welcome, good to see you. Um, on your number 3 on public access, you're not— you're not asking that they remove the fence, are you?

**Valerie Friedman** [56:20]

No, we're not.

**Olivia Clark** [56:20]

Okay with the fence.

**Valerie Friedman** [56:22]

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 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.

**Loretta Smith** [56:45]

Okay.

**Olivia Clark** [56:46]

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— does the school district just open those gates at a certain hour?

**Valerie Friedman** [57:04]

Yes, there is. And, um, I don't think I included that in our, in our presentation right here, but there is, uh, a rendering in the 1,000-plus pages of the application submitted to the city that shows where the gates will be and a schedule for the gates, a legend, offenses and gates legend. Um, 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. Um, 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— which is great, but our issue there is what happens yes. 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 So you can see the building and the track, and then in between there's a series of pathways, 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. Thank you. That will either not be unlocked or in some cases unlocked for school events, because I think there's an events entrance 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 to that except one from the courtyard.

**Olivia Clark** [59:24]

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

**Valerie Friedman** [59:27]

We are.

**Don Bach** [59:28]

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 act— 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. Thank you. And, you know, it's called Hillsdale because there's a lot of hills.

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:00:03]

And just a reminder to the public that the timer is still running because any additional moments above the 10-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.

**Olivia Clark** [1:00:17]

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.

**Loretta Smith** [1:00:26]

Okay.

**Valerie Friedman** [1:00:27]

I mean, after school, outside of school hours, um, what— and it's, uh, interesting to talk about, you know, access at other campuses. I was at Grant High School recently, and, um, it looked to me to be fairly open. There are courtyards that are not gated and not fenced, and there's a sign, uh, on one end of the campus that says these are PPS properties. They're open from dawn to dusk to the public when not in use. Thank you. When not outside of school hours, I think is what it says.

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:00:58]

Thank you. Thank you, Vice President Clark. Councilor Green.

**Mitch Green** [1:01:02]

Yeah, just briefly, thank you. I want to clarify 2 things. So for the first piece in the application, there's a citation, I think it begins on page 3, 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?

**Keith Lydon** [1:01:33]

Correct. So the conditional use criteria steer you to the transportation system plan and talks about applicable policies and so forth. So if you go to Chapter 2, there are some policies that are and then in Chapter 3, 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 Reekie Road is shown on the map as being designated as a City bikeway and a neighborhood walkway. The staff in 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 stems from the Hillsdale Town Center Plan, which identified that route also as an important pedestrian corridor. Thank you. 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 public property. I disagree with the idea that it's private property. I think all of us in this room are stockholders in PPS. But it's pretty clear in there that it's designated as such. And the staff and the applicants so far have just dismissed that as, oh, well, We don't have to even worry about that stuff.

**Mitch Green** [1:03:13]

Thank you. I appreciate that. 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 6-foot-wide improved access lane? It doesn't have to be high-tech or costly. Is, is that what I'm hearing from you, Mr. Bach?

**Don Bach** [1:03:44]

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 170 feet so we don't have to walk in the street. And this would be walking uphill. The crest of the hill is where they're crossing into okay, I just also want to make sure—.

**Keith Lydon** [1:04:09]

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 16 feet wide, by the way.

**Don Bach** [1:04:20]

And we're sensitive to the cost of their investment. If it—. 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 do open your eyes.

**Mitch Green** [1:04:32]

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

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:04:37]

Thank you, Councilor Green. Councilor Avalos.

**Candace Avalos** [1:04:41]

Thank you. I think I'm not understanding the dilemma in Appeal 1. Is it that— it sounds like that's a space, a corridor pathway that you all have used, the 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?

**Keith Lydon** [1:05:13]

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 a slightly different description again. 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 2 driveways that ironically are not designated in the TSP. And the staff and PPS 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 6 feet, when you have cars parked there, it's only about 6 feet wide. Yes. Any kind of normal standard you're supposed to use for a multi-use path is at least twice that amount for about 12 feet 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—. So we're not looking for any physical improvement of any kind. We're just looking for As far as this group is concerned, the access for cars not being able to go out all the way through, that's fine.

**Don Bach** [1:06:56]

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.

**Keith Lydon** [1:07:08]

I'd also like to add that there is something in the record, the 1,000-plus page record, where the district was contemplating putting gates across the Reedy driveway in 2 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.

**Candace Avalos** [1:07:28]

Okay, um, and then as it relates to the fence To the space so that they'll keep the doors open. Is that— can you just re-summarize what your ask is?

**Valerie Friedman** [1:07:49]

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

**Candace Avalos** [1:08:01]

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?

**Valerie Friedman** [1:08:12]

Well, we have traditionally had access to the track, and the gates and the fencing and gates legend says the access to the track— well, 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 okay, thank you.

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:08:48]

Thank you, Councilor Avalos. And colleagues, we do need to move forward, so Councilor Zimmerman will be the last technical clarifying question.

**Eric Zimmerman** [1:08:57]

Thanks. The last response, Valerie, is that the city has been working with the Port Authority to make sure that we have the I think probably where 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 brought up so that we can protect this access in the future. Over the decades, I can imagine that the the problems that face the campus will change, right? Sometimes I think just— I've been a coach at a high school. I actually— it 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 not even kids who went to that school, but others would smoke, right? Then it was that people would cut cookies in the parking lots. And right now what I'm hearing a lot is the, whatever the hyped-up version of the e-bikes, the e-motos is a thing. So the reason I bring that up is that there's a changing of concerns that come with the decades. And— What you're asking would prevent 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, um, be it from a safety or a maintenance issue, um, 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?

**Valerie Friedman** [1:10:44]

Well, I think 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. Thank you. And, you know, maybe, maybe one— 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 and 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.

**Don Bach** [1:11:35]

Okay.

**Eric Zimmerman** [1:11:42]

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

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:11:45]

Thank you very much. I'll note that we have, uh, 14 minutes and 51 seconds for, uh, in addition to the offering to the, uh, the applicant for their presentation. Uh, we're now going to move towards, uh, for testimony from the supporters of the appellant, who will receive 3 minutes each. I will be unfortunately enforcing the ding of the bell, so we will get 3 minutes apiece.

**Keelan McClymont** [1:12:09]

First up, we have Linda Venti.

**Linda Venti** [1:12:16]

Thank you.

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:12:16]

Welcome. Make sure to introduce yourself for the record. You're welcome to share your pronouns, and you got 3 minutes.

**Linda Venti** [1:12:20]

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 PPS loyalist, Wilson High School alum, and mother of 2 Ida B. Wells graduates. I've spent countless hours volunteering in and out of classrooms across the district and weekends cleaning campuses. I chaired the foundation for many years at Rickey Gray and Wells. I was the Southwest coordinator for the Stop the Repeal campaign. I'm vested in Portland and its public schools. The PPS bond website states that modernizing aging public— sorry, 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 aesthetic 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 a fence 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 PPS's previously undisclosed and all but unknown plan to fence the entire Wells campus, especially without allowing after-school access. Thank you. Public notice was not adequately given. In fact, community members, voters, feel misled and even deceived by the misrepresentative signs displayed for months, installed 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. Thank you. After decades of participation in schools and pro-PPS activism, this voter is disappointed in the lack of transparency and dismayed by the outright misrepresentation. I ask that council consider PPS's lack of adequate public notice and its disregard for voters and residents.

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:15:36]

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks a lot for being here today.

**Linda Venti** [1:15:39]

Thank you.

**Keelan McClymont** [1:15:40]

Next up, we have Thuy Nguyen.

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:15:50]

Welcome.

**Tuyen Nguyen** [1:15:50]

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—.

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:15:57]

Introduce yourself for the record. Say your name on the record.

**Tuyen Nguyen** [1:16:00]

Oh, my name is Tuyen Nguyen. Yeah, sorry about that. Bad habit. I just— first of all, I want to answer Ryan's question about the tax dollar burden on the neighborhood, and I would like to ask you a counter-question. What is the tax dollar burden on American, non-American on this country? What is the dollar burden of Portlanders on its city? What is the tax dollar burden of Hillsdale residents to the institution that represented? So I'm an immigrant mother of 2 young children, and I— our family moved to Portland 2 and a half years ago. And the one thing that made Hillsdale feel like home was the E.W. Wells campus. Thank you. Outdoors, outside school hours, the tracks, the field, and the courts are places where our children can run and play without every activity becoming a paid class or registration or car trip. We see older adults walking, teenagers exercising, family meeting, and people from other neighborhoods using the same grounds. To me, that is what a healthy civic culture looks like— shared resources, freedom of use, and mutual responsibility. Thank you. That's why the proposed fencing concerned me. In the place where I grew up, institutional fences often signal that access depends on authority rather than ordinary public use. The urban space communicates value, and this image changes the relationship between the school and the community. If we look closely at the, at the plan, we can see layers and We can see at least 3 layers of fencing. And depending on the final fencing system, that can represent as much as 3,900 linear feet, roughly 0.74 miles, and around 3 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. Yes. 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 5.17 acres and has no equivalent tracks, tennis courts, or athletic fields. And it, it really— 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 assumed. Oregon law, as well as Portland policy, support public use while meeting student safety needs. And Jane Jacobs called 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-hours access when these outdoor facilities are not needed for the school activity. This is not a neighborhood privilege. Thank you.

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:19:06]

Thank you very much.

**Keelan McClymont** [1:19:08]

Next up, we have Richard Stein online.

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:19:15]

Welcome, Richard.

**Richard Stein** [1:19:16]

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 safe pedestrian route along Burlingame Avenue, to allow bicycles to pass easily through Rickey Road and to continue to allow public access to the school grounds during non-school use hours. Our requests to date have been largely ignored by PPS. 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 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 Clark. 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's 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 2 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.

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:22:16]

Thank you very much.

**Keelan McClymont** [1:22:18]

Next up, we have Eileen Lorber online.

**Eileen Lorber** [1:22:23]

Hi, my name is Eileen Lorber. I live about 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 Reiki or at Gray. Um, 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, um, 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. Thank you. And we chose not to. 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 what our neighborhood is their neighborhood too. So I'm also disabled and the flatness of the track, I use that often and it's really important. To me, that's important. I do also want to mention that leaving— having 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. Thank you. 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 gonna— 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 access to that road, Burlingame Avenue, is unsafe even for cars. You can barely fit 2 cars going opposite directions on that street. And to have, to have more students there is problematic. And also the Ricci Road situation in terms of bikes, that little space for pedestrians is very small. Councilor Smith, This 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 it 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 right and left. And so I feel strongly that we should have designated access for the 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.

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:25:25]

Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

**Keelan McClymont** [1:25:29]

And that completes testimony.

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:25:31]

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 almost 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.

**Christy White** [1:25:54]

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Christy White. I'm a land use lawyer with Radler White Parks in Alexander, and I am representing the applicant, Portland Public Public Schools. And with me is Hannah Bleem from our office who's going to help us run the PowerPoint presentation. This appeal requests more public access, as you've heard, to Reiki 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. Thank you. 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 PPS. We have to balance these 2 things, and I think we're going to strike a balance here today. There will be 4 new public access easements through the campus that provide either bicycle, pedestrian, or vehicle, or both yes. Access points. 3 of the access easements shown here in orange wrapping the eastern and northern side of the campus and the Reiki 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 4th 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 onsite 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 schooled hours through a reservation system. Thank you. 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 PPS 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 PPS property for public use. I know that's not a popular statement, but it's the truth. Thank you. And it is a— 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 under 700-070A, literal readings of the code language will be used, and regulations cannot be interpreted more strict than they're 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 700-070A.

**Tuyen Nguyen** [1:29:41]

Thank you.

**Eileen Lorber** [1:29:42]

Aye.

**Christy White** [1:29:42]

Importantly here, this is a school district, and under Oregon's General Condemnation Procedure Act, the city and PPS have co-equal 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 PPS 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. PPS acknowledges the appeal. They acknowledge the concerns of the neighborhood. Yes. And we're 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 the 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. Thank you. 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. PPS shall allow public access to the track facility and the tennis courts on the I.W. Wells campus and the softball field and multi-use field on the Reekie campus outside of school hours from 6:00 AM to 8:00 AM and from 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM on weekdays and from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM 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 Aye. Conflicting school uses, of course, and uses that have been scheduled for these facilities under the PPS Civic Use of Buildings program. The rest of this condition talks about PPS 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, uh, 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 gonna retain the right to exclude a member of the public who isn't behaving according to PPS rules and policies. With this condition, it is a complete response to the appellant's request, and PPS asks 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 5th public easement for bike access in Rickey parking lot and driveway. And I think there's one thing I can agree with Keith Leiden on, which is it has been confusing. It has emerged and evolved. This is not the first application on this— in this process. It went through the Design Commission. Thank you. The Design Commission actually made significant changes to our application with regards to Reekie 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, Reekie 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 2 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 right. Across 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 Ricci 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 nobody's mentioned this rule, but I will here because it's pivotal in how you talk about Reekie 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 Reekie Drive. The trail designation is mapped just there along that east side of the Reekie driveway. Thank you. And that is where we have the Reiki Drive, the path. The school property has 3 zones: IRD, R-7, and OS. The mapped trail covers all 3 of those zones. The major public trail standards are not triggered in the R-7 zone unless we are applying for a planned development or a 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, Right. 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 OS 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 3 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. Thank you. So when you then add that to the percentage of the easement length, and then in Factor 3, divide 1 by 2, you come up with 0. 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 pickup. And lastly, under 815.105, the city has a proportionality rule, and that proportionality rule says— I'm sorry, what is the proportionality rule? Yes. 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 Reekie 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, first and foremost, around the entire perimeter of the campus in a wider swath. They can take that alternative route, and there they don't intersect with elementary students trying to cross Reiki 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 Reiki pathway is too narrow. It is not. It actually ranges in width from 7 feet to 12 feet, and we'll put this measured scaled diagram into the record with most of the path over 8 feet. This slide shows the RECI path is wider than 2 paved bike routes, one in Gabriel Park, one in Sellwood Park, both of which allow bike access. So the RECI— in short, the major public trail rules do not require anything here. We are providing the RECI path. It's wide enough. Thank you. 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 PPS to secure its campus and have the elementary school students operating safely within that driveway. Thank you. 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 too 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—. Pedestrian crossing. With a much better and firmer entrance 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. In 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, 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 impacts. Thank you. 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. Thank you. With sight distance and safety. So the Burlingame improvements may be desirable, the community may want them, but they can't be imposed on PPS as a matter of law. We support and will collaborate with any city effort to improve the pedestrian environment on Burlingame, and PPS 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. PPS is providing the additional open space access that the appellant requests with the new condition of approval. We've offered 4 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. Thank you. 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 real quick like to address a good neighbor agreement and what that means. Thank you. 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 Councilor Smith. 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— 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 PPS. 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.

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:45:12]

Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, 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.

**Eric Zimmerman** [1:45:30]

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

**Christy White** [1:45:33]

Christy Hype.

**Eric Zimmerman** [1:45:34]

Christy Hype. So setting aside on the— I think it's issue number 2, it's the access point on the corner there.

**Christy White** [1:45:40]

Yes, yes.

**Eric Zimmerman** [1:45:41]

Setting aside the sidewalk aspect of that, Yes. There currently is, on your map you showed, 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 now it's just gated off. But it's where clearly there are goat trails where people have walked through.

**Christy White** [1:46:10]

Correct.

**Eric Zimmerman** [1:46:12]

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 PPS not addressing the desire path phenomenon, which is like why college campuses wait to see where everybody walks to.

**Christy White** [1:46:31]

Sure.

**Eric Zimmerman** [1:46:31]

And they put pavement there.

**Christy White** [1:46:32]

Yeah.

**Eric Zimmerman** [1:46:33]

So that clearly is a desire path. It's been run down to the point I don't think anything would grow for 5 years there. So what does that corner look like? Because it's nice that you've said 25 feet down is an access point, but I don't know how valid it is given the desire function there. What is it going to be in the corner?

**Christy White** [1:46:50]

Yeah, 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 6 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 happens is somebody, and it may not, the pedestrian counts are not significant for school kids on that frontage. This might be other members of the public. Okay. But when you come around that corner, the desire path is, I'm gonna take a quick left right here.

**Eric Zimmerman** [1:47:22]

To get onto campus.

**Christy White** [1:47:23]

Right. But it's a blind, 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 2 posts and a chain, right? And so that's being closed off. The pathway is not being—.

**Eric Zimmerman** [1:47:39]

You just help me understand, what does closed off mean?

**Christy White** [1:47:41]

Meaning that there will be 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's like 3 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. You're 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.

**Eric Zimmerman** [1:48:21]

Now you're talking about when you're on campus though?

**Christy White** [1:48:23]

Yes. No, off— right off the right-of-way. So you're, 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 mid-campus connector to the front door of the school.

**Eric Zimmerman** [1:48:46]

Mm-hmm.

**Christy White** [1:48:46]

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, um, traffic calming exercise there. Maybe you could talk about it better than I can. And the average speeds are 17 miles an hour there. Um, and then there's, uh— I just learned this word, um, right before our hearing— there's 2 chicanes that are, um, curb-like diagonal right that force cars to the right so that they're away from the pedestrians coming into 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.

**Eric Zimmerman** [1:49:38]

Okay. Despite how well you put that, something just tells me that people are going to get onto campus as quickly as sure. And that unless you— so to get rid of that desired path, which is the very corner of the lot, seems somewhat fruitless, or that it would actually push people a longer Burlingame. And that's where I am getting some concern there with—.

**Christy White** [1:50:07]

Sure.

**Eric Zimmerman** [1:50:08]

Obviously, we have the chicanes there for a reason. We have a reason to push cars away. So 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 PPS's development in terms of what is changing so significantly that you guys would want to address it? I'm missing that a little bit.

**Christy White** [1:50:32]

Right. And maybe I'm— 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.

**Eric Zimmerman** [1:50:50]

We can admit it's not wide open though. It's a little tight.

**Christy White** [1:50:54]

It's tight. 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 entry is 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.

**Eric Zimmerman** [1:51:20]

Okay. And I'll just signal for colleagues with it, 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.

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:51:39]

Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. Vice President Clark.

**Olivia Clark** [1:51:42]

Thank you, Council President. Hi, Christy.

**Christy White** [1:51:43]

Hi.

**Olivia Clark** [1:51:44]

Um, could you just— you referenced the reservation system. The reservation system, yeah, that's for getting on and off campus. Are you—. Is your compromise doing away with the reservation system?

**Christy White** [1:51:56]

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 multipurpose field at Rickey on Tuesday and Thursday nights from this time to this time, and PPS says, okay, there's no school use, sign up. That will be maintained, and I don't think any neighborhood, um, appellant or anybody else is asking us to remove that because it's another opportunity. I think it's a good idea. All we're saying is if you want to come onto the track, for example, and there's a track meet, the track meet supersedes your ability to use it. So both are maintained.

**Olivia Clark** [1:52:41]

Okay, but you don't have to— if the gates are open, you don't have to ask?

**Christy White** [1:52:45]

No, the neighbors don't have to sign up.

**Olivia Clark** [1:52:46]

I just want to make sure you understood reservation system.

**Christy White** [1:52:48]

Yeah, they do not have to use the Civic Use of Buildings program unless they put a league together. That needs the field reserved.

**Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [1:52:54]

Thank you.

**Olivia Clark** [1:52:55]

That's the only question I have.

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:52:57]

Thank you, Vice President Clark. Councilor Ryan, last, last question.

**Dan Ryan** [1:53:00]

Thank you, Council President. Um, hello, Christine. I'm not used to what I think happened. So, um, let me say this. So the appellant, they want to have access during the school hours— or off-school hours, sorry. Off-school hours. And did the applicant, that'd be you representing the applicant, provide new conditions yes. Okay.

**Christy White** [1:53:20]

Just now.

**Dan Ryan** [1:53:21]

To meet that need? What? To meet that need of their request? Because what I thought I heard from you is that you said access from 6 to 8 AM.

**Christy White** [1:53:31]

Yes.

**Dan Ryan** [1:53:33]

And then it's 5 to 9 on evenings.

**Christy White** [1:53:35]

Yes.

**Dan Ryan** [1:53:36]

And then 6 AM to 9 PM on weekends.

**Christy White** [1:53:38]

Yes. And non-school days, because there'll be summer and, you know, Christmas vacation. All of that. All of that's in the condition.

**Dan Ryan** [1:53:46]

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

**Christy White** [1:53:51]

This is new.

**Dan Ryan** [1:53:51]

—conditions coming from the applicant.

**Christy White** [1:53:54]

Yeah. And I think—.

**Dan Ryan** [1:53:56]

—Much of the need. So wow, bravo to the appellant. Um, so is that what's happening right now?

**Christy White** [1:54:02]

That is what's happening right now.

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:54:03]

Imagine that.

**Christy White** [1:54:05]

Well, and this is— can I explain why this is the appropriate time for this?

**Dan Ryan** [1:54:10]

I always learn a lot from you.

**Christy White** [1:54:11]

I mean, this is actually It actually does happen quite regularly to get to resolution and propose a condition in the past. I know things have changed. Yeah, not the last 6 years. 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 wanna 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.

**Dan Ryan** [1:55:38]

Okay, that was helpful. And word of the day, goat trail. Thank you. Goat trail? Is that what you said?

**Eric Zimmerman** [1:55:45]

Mitch knows what goat trails are.

**Dan Ryan** [1:55:47]

Oh, I know what they are. I just haven't heard it appear at the dais before. Thank you.

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:55:52]

Okay, thank you, Councilor Ryan. There are no— we have exhausted the technical and clarifying questions in the queue, and technically Kristi, you have about 20 seconds if you wanted it.

**Christy White** [1:56:03]

Um, I think I'll just concede my time to the— to you guys.

**Jamie Dunphy** [1:56:07]

Thank you very much. Colleagues, the time is currently 3:51. I—. We're going to use a quick restroom break, and if everybody could please be back as close to 4 o'clock as possible.

**Candace Avalos** [1:56:15]

Thank you.

**Eileen Lorber** [2:02:15]

Hey, Mac, does this time work for you?

**Andy Galizia** [2:06:04]

Thank you all.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:06:06]

Calling us back to order here. We are now moving over to supporters of the applicant, who will each have 3 minutes, minutes apiece. Keelan, can we please call up any supporters of the applicant?

**Keelan McClymont** [2:06:16]

First up, we have Katie Ulrich. Katie Ulrich. Next we have Jeremy Shetler.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:06:36]

Welcome. Please introduce yourself for the record. You're welcome to share your pronouns, and you have 3 minutes.

**Jeremy Shetler** [2:06:52]

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 to 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 personal— 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 PPS 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 PPS 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 PPS 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 into 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.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:09:38]

Thank you very much.

**Keelan McClymont** [2:09:44]

Next up, we have Malcolm Simonoff.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:09:49]

Welcome.

**Malcolm Simonoff** [2:09:50]

Thank you. It's actually one of the few times that, uh, Simonoff was pronounced correctly. Hi, my name is Malcolm Simonoff. I'm a school counselor at I.W. Wells High School, the father of a 6-month-old son, Marley, who will one day be an I.W. Wells Guardian, and I'm here to speak on the ordinance and an 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 1,600 students and we're staffed for far fewer than that. Unrestricted field access creates a staggering amount of additional work for our maintenance staff. This has consequences inside the building. Bathrooms and classrooms are never fully clean, 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 1,600 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 hiding from a parent's ex-partner. We have students who don't have legal status in this country. Councilmember 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 it's 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. 8 Of the 9 PPS 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 I.W. Wells, activities can run from 5:00 a.m. well past 9:00 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.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:12:28]

Thank you very much.

**Keelan McClymont** [2:12:32]

Next up, we have Christy Thorpe-Smith. Christy Thorpe-Smith. Mike Nolan.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:12:51]

Welcome.

**Mike Nolan** [2:12:56]

My name is Mike Nolan. Good afternoon. My name is Mike Nolan. I've been the athletic director at I.W. Wells for 26 years— excuse me, I've served at I.W. Wells for 26 years and have been the athletic director for past 10. 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 facilities should serve students, families, youth organizations, and our broader community. But community access and unrestricted access are not the same thing. After 26 years on this campus, I'm asking you not to require unrestricted, unsupervised public access to the athletic facilities to our new school. I'm not making this request because of what I fear might happen, I'm making it because of what I've 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 a center section of the field. We spent more than $10,000 removing graffiti last year alone. Thank you. 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. Thank you. We are a public school, not a public park. In fact, through Facilitron and the CUB 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 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 2 very different ideas: public access and unrestricted public access. Thank you. I support the first. After 26 years at Idaho 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.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:15:53]

Thank you very much.

**Keelan McClymont** [2:15:55]

Next up we have Jasmine Reese.

**Jasmine Reese** [2:16:03]

Hi, good afternoon. Um, for the record, my name is Jasmine Reese and my pronouns are she/her. Um, I'm a resident of Southwest Portland and I have 2 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, 1st, and 2nd graders. At Wells, we pull a civic use of 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. Um, today I ask the council deny this appeal and adopt the applicant's revised conditional use for this application, um, for the following reasons in addition to the staff report. First, we need to take into consideration student safety. We hear that the voters approved the bond. We hear that people have paid for things. But what we're not hearing is the student voices. Thank you. 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 DAG 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 student 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 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, despite feedback from the community, 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 PPS facilities and planning meeting, we had learned about the $250 million change order that was a result of slowing the Jefferson project down. Thank you. 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 appeal and accept the conditions, the revised conditions from the applicant. I yield my time.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:19:20]

Thank you very much.

**Keelan McClymont** [2:19:22]

Next up, we have Mia Durham Labus.

**Tuyen Nguyen** [2:19:28]

Welcome.

**Christy White** [2:19:29]

Thank you.

**Mia Durham Labus** [2:19:32]

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Mia Duren-Liebes, 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 Idahoe 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 Idahoe Cella, which I believe another student representative will touch upon later. We want to continue, to continue this close relationship we have between our school and community members. However, a lesson I've had to learn over my time at Idahoe 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. Thank you. 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 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 students' way and create a hectic and stressful environment for everybody involved. This issue may seem small, But when you have at least 10 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. Thank you. We even have a designated process for community members to follow when they want to reserve our facilities for events, 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 CUBs to reserve our spaces and must have our facilities gated. Thank you for your time and consideration.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:22:08]

Thank you. Thank you very much for being here.

**Keelan McClymont** [2:22:13]

Next up we have Cannon Walter.

**Cannon Walter** [2:22:20]

Hello, my name is Cannon Walter, K-A-N-N-O-N 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. Chella 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 2 hours to take down, and with the Ida B. Wells Gala lasting usually to about 9:30, this has created an issue for us as a leadership program. Thank you. In my sophomore year, we hosted Ida B. Wells on the turf field. It was an incredibly successful event, and as a student leader, I volunteered to help on cleanup duty. Since Ida B. Wells 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, one of my parents had to stay up My parents had to stay up till around 11:30 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 me sophomore year, along with the freshmen and upperclassmen who worked tirelessly to ensure that this amazing community event, along with cleanup for other activities, happened yes. 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 request 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. Wells 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 CUB request can be problematic— or without a CUB 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.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:25:18]

Thank you very much for being here.

**Keelan McClymont** [2:25:21]

Next up we have Anaya Miranda Blank.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:25:27]

Welcome.

**Anaya Miranda Blank** [2:25:28]

Thank you. Hello everyone, my name is Anaya Miranda Blank and I'm a current senior here at I.W. Wells High School. I also serve as the senior officer of communications. I'm here today to testify the importance of closing the I.W. Wells 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 I.W. 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 race 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. Thank you. 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 cause more of a financial burden 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 multimillion-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 IWS facility. 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.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:27:52]

Thank you very much.

**Keelan McClymont** [2:27:54]

Next we have Isa Lados.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:27:59]

Welcome.

**Isa Lados** [2:28:00]

Thank you. Thank you all for having me today. My name is Isa Lados 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. Thank you. 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. Councilmember Herbold. When they leave, the trash is often scattered everywhere, and our custodial staff, who are already stretched thin, are left to clean it up. Our tennis program, meanwhile, plays off campus at Gayrell 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.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:30:26]

Thank you very much.

**Keelan McClymont** [2:30:28]

That completes testimony.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:30:29]

Great. Thank you very much, everybody. Uh, finally, our— uh, we are going to invite the appellant to provide their rebuttal. They have 5 minutes for that.

**Valerie Friedman** [2:30:46]

Hi again. Valerie Friedman. Um, I have to say, uh, we're— while we are— we welcome the condition, um, proposed by PPS, we're caught a little unprepared, um, because this is the first time we've seen it. Um, and as far as that goes, I just, I just want to say we'd like to, uh, request that the condition that the times be adjusted on the condition, if it were to be approved by City Council, and that the starting time be 5:00 AM, and that the afternoon open time be closer to the end of the school day, and that in summer, the access be granted until 10:00 PM 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 PM, maybe 10 PM. 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 8 out of 9 high schools, this will be the only one if this condition passes that, that allows public access. And, and I just keep coming back to Grant High School. It seems like a very different situation there. Um, I don't know that I want to say anything else about this, but I know Don and Keith have things to say.

**Don Bach** [2:32:55]

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 and 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 the 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 in their proposal against traffic to their entrance. Okay. 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— basically, that's the essence. Go ahead.

**Keith Lydon** [2:33:46]

Regarding Reekie Road, I'd like to just remind everybody that Reekie 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 8-foot path, it's really 6-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— the non-build solution is to just 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 Reekie Road is the one that has the TSP 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 2,000 feet and only 2 entrances. Councilor Dan Ryan. Routes across this campus to get to connect the neighborhoods with Hillsdale.

**Valerie Friedman** [2:34:56]

Can I have another 20 seconds?

**Don Bach** [2:34:58]

One more too.

**Valerie Friedman** [2:34:59]

There are a couple 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 2 spaces.

**Don Bach** [2:35:14]

And the final thing I want to point out is on Reekie Road or the Reekie driveway, a lot of people walk their dogs. Think about 6 feet wide and dogs on a leash with a bicycle at high speed. It's terrible.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:35:33]

Thank you very much. Okay.

**Don Bach** [2:35:35]

Thank you.

**Keith Lydon** [2:35:38]

Thank you.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:35:39]

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 that 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?

**Lauren King** [2:36:02]

Nope.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:36:03]

Cool, thank you. Colleagues, we're now going to begin council deliberations. Feel free to get into the queue. And as we enter, uh, the deliberations, I will just note to my colleagues it is currently 4:30. Uh, we have one other land use item that we are supposed to hopefully begin. Clearly we won't end it, but we'll— 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.

**Candace Avalos** [2:36:28]

Thank you very much. Um, really appreciate all of the work that everybody did, uh, to present their case. Um, 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. Um, I am not, uh, overly compelled by arguments that, um, 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 arguing and also what sounds like is really challenging for students accessing their own campus. That 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 precedents that these kinds of appeals would require. Thank you. Uh, I don't think it's necessary. I think that the school, uh, has made, uh, plenty of an argument for the ways that they continue to allow community to participate in the campus, in the surrounding green spaces, uh, and therefore I don't plan on supporting the appeal.

**Jasmine Reese** [2:38:36]

Thank you.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:38:38]

Thank you, Councilor Avalos. Councilor Smith.

**Loretta Smith** [2:38:40]

Thank you, Council President. I just wanted to get some clarification here. Is there a Do we have any sort of, um, link to say how this, this whole school was paid for, is going to be paid for?

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:39:00]

It's a great question. You mean, uh, through, through the bonds, or what are you—.

**Loretta Smith** [2:39:04]

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?

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:39:12]

Perhaps someone from the applicant is able to answer that.

**Loretta Smith** [2:39:14]

Is that—.

**Olivia Clark** [2:39:15]

Can—.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:39:16]

And I'll look to Lauren to see whether or not that's—.

**Loretta Smith** [2:39:20]

Well, I, 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, um, adults who live in the Portland Public School System, correct?

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:39:32]

Lauren, what do you have?

**Lauren King** [2:39:33]

Councilor Smith, I'm not sure that this is evidence that's in the record, and the record has been closed. Andy, is there any discussion in the record about the financing of the schools and how bonds work.

**Loretta Smith** [2:39:46]

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

**Andy Galizia** [2:39:48]

There's—. There, there was testimony that this is paid for by bond money.

**Loretta Smith** [2:39:53]

Okay, it was paid for by bond money, and the people who pay it are the people who live in the Portland Public School District, the people who own homes?

**Lauren King** [2:40:02]

That's generally how bonds work, yes.

**Loretta Smith** [2:40:04]

Okay, that's what I thought. I just wanted to clarify that. Yeah. Um, because I think that the folks who want to keep it, the neighborhood folks, um, 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, uh, come to the school and use it because they're the ones who are paying for it. Um, 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, um, all of these schools that I, 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, uh, the summertime, uh, having that, um, expanded to 10 o'clock 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, I wish that, uh, 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. Um, so I want to thank everybody who came here to, uh, testify today because I have grandchildren who also practice on, um, Portland Public School tracks, and they're involved and engaged. And there, there, there is some confusion when you have other people on the field. It's, it's really hard to, to, um, practice. But I think we have to be mindful, um, always on how we all have a collective, um, responsibility, and the adults in this room are paying for it. So I think we should understand each other. Thank you. Thank you.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:42:21]

Thank you, Councilor Smith. Councilor Zimmerman.

**Eric Zimmerman** [2:42:25]

Um, thank you. This has been honestly quite challenging, uh, 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 PPS, being an urban school district, is going to approach being a community partner and how to do that while fulfilling their duty and their responsibility, frankly, probably underline bold responsibility of being So challenging. And also, I'm recognizing that my experience as a coach, my experience of some of the stories that have been told here about running into situations on the ground, are maybe a little outdated with what is currently facing the school. So given all of that, on appeal number 3, 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, 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 was— 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, um, as it relates to a good neighbor agreement. I actually think this has more teeth to it. Thank you. 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 PM. That when things go well, we look at, is it really that bad if it starts at 5? 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. Thank you. 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, um, it's also their responsibility to secure their locations or have the ability to. Thank you. 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 3.

**Loretta Smith** [2:45:59]

I second.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:46:00]

So, Councilor Zimmerman, can I just, uh, 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.

**Lauren King** [2:46:22]

Sound 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?

**Andy Galizia** [2:46:32]

If the appeal is denied.

**Olivia Clark** [2:46:34]

Yes.

**Lauren King** [2:46:35]

And then I'm going to look to the applicant's attorney for timing to return to Um, 2 weeks. Okay, so date and time certain, 2 weeks. Do we have that?

**Eric Zimmerman** [2:46:53]

Well, let me continue on a couple other items then.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:46:55]

You keep talking.

**Eric Zimmerman** [2:46:55]

So with respect to item number 2, which is the Burlingame Access Road, colleagues, that's the one I'm most 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'm on issue 1, I have no commentary on that anymore. But on issue 2, that is kind of where I'm— I didn't grasp a good visualization for what will be the impact of that. 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 3.

**Olivia Clark** [2:47:44]

Can I ask a point of order? Uh, 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 1 and 2. Can I, can I do that, attorney?

**Lauren King** [2:48:14]

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

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:48:28]

So we've got outline of the 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 4:45, y'all. Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. Any further? Okay, thank you.

**Candace Avalos** [2:48:41]

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— right, is that what that was about?

**Lauren King** [2:48:54]

Yeah, so council, the options of council are to deny the appeal and revise, deny the appeal and uphold everything the hearings office has 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 I'm going to 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.

**Candace Avalos** [2:49:26]

Thank you. I think the reason I was confused is because it's listed as appeal 1, 2, and 3. So I'm taking that as 3 different actions, but we're saying those are all one action, correct?

**Lauren King** [2:49:35]

Yes, they are all conditions that the appellant is asking for.

**Candace Avalos** [2:49:38]

Thank you.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:49:39]

Thank you, Councilor Avalos. Councilor Ryan.

**Dan Ryan** [2:49:42]

Yes, thank you, Council President. I want to acknowledge the The students and the coaches, the counselors, and also the community, the neighbors. This was a really good session. I've 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. Thank you. I actually do believe fences make good neighbors. And so I wanted to just say that. And I really think PPS 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 PPS 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.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:50:51]

Thank you, Councilor Ryan. Vice President Clark.

**Olivia Clark** [2:50:53]

Uh, thank you, Council President. Um, you know, school district really is a sister government, and I would hope— I think, um, riffing off something Councilor Zimmerman I think said is that I would hope for a strong community partnership with, uh, PPS. Um, I would hope for a stronger partnership right now. We're generating potentially some ill will here. I don't want that. Um, I very much appreciate the testimony from the neighborhood association and all the students, the teachers, coaches, everyone. It's all very compelling. Uh, In the mix, and I will, um, I will change my view on the fence. I realize that I have— I can't change it anyway, but, um, I do want to just talk a little bit about, uh, appeal request 1 and 2. I think, um, 1, um, I'm tempted to, um, uphold that, and I'm open to argument because bicycles are going to use that anyways. Yes. 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, walked through that campus repeatedly. And I can— and I go to the farmer's market. And I can tell you that little path the 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 we 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 appeal 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 Uh, germane to the actual, uh, light rail tracks or, or stations. And in this case, I would hope that the school district would provide this for the neighborhood, provide this 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 2 for that little teeny improvement and would hope that the, um, school district would find it as a partner, uh, willing to make that improvement.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:53:56]

Thank you, Vice President Clark. Councilor Green.

**Mitch Green** [2:54:00]

Uh, thank you, Council President. Thanks for all the testimony today, uh, in particular the young people. Um, 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 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, you know, 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 pickup. 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, uh, here are some, here are some more permissive, um, conditions that we can offer you in good faith so we can get to yes here. Um, that, that that still gives the school the ability to protect these students, especially today. We're, 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.

**Jamie Dunphy** [2:55:49]

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, uh, or to deny the appeal but to add the new conditions as offered by PPS. Um, I will just note that the additional conditions that the, the, uh, appellants are asking for, um, 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's no, no background, uh, no precedent to be able to support those additional 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.

**Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [2:56:32]

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 current laws and codes allow, which is fantastic. Thank you. So I'm very interested in that piece of the motion that was made previously. Councilor Clark, 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 3, 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.

**Lauren King** [2:58:16]

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 oppose 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. Thank you.

**Andy Galizia** [2:58:58]

Well, I, I heard reference to the transportation plan, and so actually 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 but 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?

**Tammy Bourne King** [2:59:37]

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

**Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [2:59:43]

I'm looking specifically at appeal request 3 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, um, 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.

**Andy Galizia** [3:00:32]

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 3 being—.

**Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [3:00:38]

As it relates to, yes, the pathway through the site, appeal request number 3. 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? No. I'm sorry, 1. Okay. Appeal 1. I apologize, I was looking at the wrong map. The green line on appeal— on path on Appeal 1. I apologize for the confusion there.

**Tammy Bourne King** [3:01:04]

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.

**Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [3:01:27]

Okay. So it's not a binding requirement unless this is a residential subdivision, in which 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.

**Tammy Bourne King** [3:01:50]

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 if there is a public right-of-way. Through a plan development, a residential plan development, or a subdivision. Okay. It does not apply in a conditional use review.

**Elana Pirtle-Guiney** [3:02:09]

Okay, thank you.

**Jamie Dunphy** [3:02:11]

Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney. Vice President Clark.

**Olivia Clark** [3:02:16]

Thank you. Just, um, I'm not sure I get to ask questions of, um, of anybody, but, um, on the compromise proposal that Christy put forward on behalf of PPS. It mentions vandalism, and I'm wondering if, if you come back with— in 2 weeks, um, 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. Um, that would be helpful. I don't know what definition of vandalism you're going to use in order to close the gates. Well, Secondly, I'm hoping that 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 upholding the appeal. I'm not looking to Lauren first to answer that.

**Lauren King** [3:03:31]

Um, so regarding the clarification of vandalism, it depends on what council intends to do today. So the record is closed, um, and there is opportunity for conversation with staff. Um, 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, um, today what, what that condition would be and what that motion is, if, if that is the plan. Um, 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—.

**Andy Galizia** [3:04:19]

Can I, before, before Tammy speaks to that, I just Christy White, the attorney for the applicant, was just letting me know that information on vandalism is in the record already. So we can— so this wouldn't be adding to the records to talk about that. We can bring that forward as we discuss that for the findings.

**Lauren King** [3:04:34]

Okay, so information on— I think the question— okay, great.

**Tammy Bourne King** [3:04:40]

So as far as widening the path, as you've heard before, the existing school is the same capacity as the new school. So there's no increase in transportation impact. And so the hearing officer's 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 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.

**Olivia Clark** [3:05:34]

Okay, I appreciate the legal side of this, the land use side of this. I could just guarantee you that bicycles will still people 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, that's the only place people can go. But I guarantee you, people will continue to use the road.

**Jamie Dunphy** [3:05:58]

Okay, thank you, Vice President Clark. Okay, colleagues, we have, uh, exhausted the queue on, uh, colleagues for all right, it's strange language, everybody, to say—.

**Eric Zimmerman** [3:06:19]

I'm going to motion that we deny the appeal with new findings as were described earlier.

**Jamie Dunphy** [3:06:27]

Thank you.

**Loretta Smith** [3:06:28]

Second.

**Jamie Dunphy** [3:06:29]

I'm going to—.

**Olivia Clark** [3:06:31]

I think—.

**Lauren King** [3:06:31]

Can I just clarify? So, um, I think, but correct me if I'm wrong, 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 PPS. Is that—. That's what I heard earlier. Okay. So everything's the same, just adding the condition proposed by PPS and then directing staff to return at a date and time certain with revised findings to reflect today's discussion.

**Malcolm Simonoff** [3:06:59]

Yes.

**Jamie Dunphy** [3:07:00]

Yeah, and the date and time certain that we have next available is our virtual meeting on 11/5 at 2:30 PM time certain.

**Eric Zimmerman** [3:07:11]

And yeah, and I want to just be really clear. I'm saying that because I have not seen from our discussion, or do I think there's a legal path to what I think is a safety concern at that corner on appeal issue number 2. I just, I don't see an upholdable 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.

**Andy Galizia** [3:07:52]

So.

**Loretta Smith** [3:07:52]

Thank you.

**Eric Zimmerman** [3:07:53]

Thank you.

**Jamie Dunphy** [3:07:53]

Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman. Keelan, can we call the roll on Councilor Zimmerman's motion?

**Keelan McClymont** [3:08:00]

May I ask who the second was?

**Dan Ryan** [3:08:02]

I'll give it to Councilor Smith. We said at the same time.

**Keelan McClymont** [3:08:06]

Okay, thank you so much.

**Jamie Dunphy** [3:08:08]

Rock, paper, scissors.

**Keelan McClymont** [3:08:11]

Clark.

**Olivia Clark** [3:08:12]

Aye.

**Keelan McClymont** [3:08:13]

Green.

**Mitch Green** [3:08:13]

Aye.

**Keelan McClymont** [3:08:14]

Zimmerman.

**Eric Zimmerman** [3:08:15]

Aye.

**Keelan McClymont** [3:08:16]

Avalos.

**Candace Avalos** [3:08:16]

Aye.

**Keelan McClymont** [3:08:17]

Smith.

**Loretta Smith** [3:08:18]

Aye.

**Eileen Lorber** [3:08:20]

Aye.

**Keelan McClymont** [3:08:21]

Aye.

**Loretta Smith** [3:08:21]

Aye.

**Eric Zimmerman** [3:08:22]

Aye.

**Eileen Lorber** [3:08:23]

Aye. Aye.

**Tuyen Nguyen** [3:08:26]

Aye.

**Mitch Green** [3:08:26]

Aye.

**Keelan McClymont** [3:08:27]

Uh, the motion carries with 12 ayes.

**Jamie Dunphy** [3:08:31]

Okay, the motion to deny the appeal has passed with 12 ayes. 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 the 11th November 5th. November 5th at 2:30 PM 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 PM for the adoption of findings and a final vote.

## Regular agenda

**Jamie Dunphy** [3:09:13]

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, document 2026-343. 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 two thirty. 30 PM, time certain.

### 17. Amend Code related to prohibitions on possession of firearms within certain City buildings to disallow affirmative defense for persons with concealed handgun licenses

**Jamie Dunphy** [3:09:40]

And item 2026-123 is postponed to a future meeting. With that, we are adjourned. Thank you, everybody.

**Eileen Lorber** [3:09:51]

Thank you.