Springfield City Council — May 16, 2022

0:07 i'm going to call the city council work session to order with roll call mayor van gorden here councillor pitts councillor mo here councillor radley here counselor stare here counselor woodrow here counselor pictionary i'm here thank you we have we heard from uh counselor pitts yet okay while we start the i the the first item i am i will text him we have two items tonight in the work session we have transportation funding prioritization with emma newman so if you are ready to go emma we are ready to go i am good evening can you hear me all right yes we can wonderful thank you mayor and counselors i'm emma newman the senior transportation planner at the city and before you this evening is our

0:53 request to prioritize projects for the city of springfield to apply for regional transportation grant funding so the central lane metropolitan planning organization has a grant funding opportunity every several years the federal funds flow to the mpo and then the cities and other jurisdictions and agencies in our metropolitan area can apply for those funds in this cycle we are looking at the next handful of years it could be out to 2026 it could potentially be as far out as 2027 if we went out to 2026 springfield might anticipate to receive about three to six million dollars in transportation project funds so staff have provided in the packet tonight a list of different options

1:38 attachment 1 is for background information funding timeline information it also includes the principles for the funding approach and the project descriptions for the projects before you this evening attachment 2 provides two lists the first of the list is staff recommending those projects for funding the second list is a list that staff is seeking council prioritization on the remainder of the anticipated funds so the question before you this evening is which projects should the city of springfield submit funding applications for and of those projects what is the sequence of priority i will note that mayor van gorden and councillor mo are the city of springfield representatives on the metropolitan policy committee which is

2:25 the regional decision-making body that will be ultimately allocating these funds to projects across the region and with that i would like to just note one um slight change the recommended action is to recommend funding for laura street franklin boulevard oregon 225 and transportation system plan updates and then provide direction on projects for the options to prioritize list and attachment to and i can share that on the screen if that would be helpful during your discussion one thing that i did want to note since the packet was distributed is that there has been some regional discussion around the expansion of bike share into springfield and this is currently shown on your list for other um in attachment 3

3:12 seeking other funding but given that the stiff the statewide transportation improvement funds grant cycle isn't until later this fall it would probably make sense to consider this mpo funding as well as a plan for bike share if that is something that council would like to provide funding for to fill that funding gap that we discussed earlier this year and so that is the final item on the seeking other funding list that should be considered in the attachment to options to prioritize lists and with that i'll turn it over and happy to answer any questions or provide the lists on the screen and be able to

3:57 move things up and down or change dollar amounts if that is helpful yeah and before i open it up could you make a clarification on franklin it's on there a couple of different times is oh is or225 is that is that the magnetic portion or is that the traditional traditional franklin portion correct it is the southern leg from the intersection with the roundabouts to the south okay great thank you merrily i don't know where this comes in but i'm going to say it now and get it over with i even wrote down what i wanted to say because it's very important um i don't know what mechanics is necessary or even if it's possible but like sometimes i feel like ward 5 is like an island

4:43 um it's not it's neglected it's not thought about with what kind of needs it might have there's so much attention that's paid to mohawk and downtown and glenwood and gateway that does word fighter 5 exist i mean i i kind of sometimes wonder um and i think it needs to be recognized because there are some transportation issues there and some needs um there's two of them in specific that i think about and one is 52nd and g coming off of 126 going into the dog leg that then reaches the leg that then extends on into a commercial area as well as a neighborhood area not only does it need help because it's going to get more congested um inevitably it's going to be more congested and more congested sooner than

5:30 later and the other part of it is that the wayfinding in that area is terrible because if anybody goes off to 120 gets off at the 52nd exit on 126 and doesn't know exactly where they need to go uh thinking if they might get to main street you've got to do a whole bunch of block jumping in order to get there so it's it's definitely an issue that i think has been there for a while and i think it's only going to get worse um with more uh people and more congestion and um and my second my second part is um 54th street itself i know that in the past 54th street has been has not been looked at for improvements because they're

6:15 they expect that the residents on that street need to contribute to the improvements on the street and i'm saying that when we are in a time frame of where we're getting money to help out we have residents in that neighborhood that actually should be given credit because we haven't had any major accidents but if you look at the overview um from from up above and you look at the neighbor the streets in that neighborhood 54th street is the narrowest of the whole group of the whole neighborhood in there with deep ditches on either side and a pothole littered street to boot and i just think that we could step up somehow um we're looking at other areas to where we're helping folks out and i

7:01 just think we could step up somehow and maybe find a way to alleviate the situation that those folks have on 54th street and that's just two things like i said it's not in the list 50 ward 5 seems to get ignored and so i'm just bringing that up all right uh emma i don't know if you have any information about those two potential projects before i call on call on anybody else i will share that in staff discussions we were talking about 48th street north of maine there is some development happening in that area i am not the best person to speak to the specifics but there should be some frontage and street improvements along a portion of the

7:46 corridor that councilor wender was speaking to i mean that's something we can follow up with more information about if you'd like that's that's great except that i'm more concerned about 52nd and g and 54th street um that i those just said they seem they need to be looked at and i'm i'm not going to have many chances left to speak up for them so i take a hold of that like i took a hold of mill street so your comments are valid i hear you and i have comment i have captured that thank you so much for speaking up uh corey thank you um okay so when i looked all over all of these uh i realized that i'm just one voice and so you'll probably hear all of us

8:31 have different opinions about things um but one of the things that i would love if i was in charge of the world if we leaned into really hard is the the pedestrian crossing enhancements and the sidewalk repair and maintenance um especially with this sort of lens on getting the the walking routes ada compliant and i know that that's like a never-ending task because you know regulations change but i just think it would be just a great overall enhancement city-wide and so those were some of the ones for me um also the mohawk boulevard since we've already are working on the upgrades from the last levy which i think are making a huge difference

9:16 um and i i was looking at this around the 28th street um the main street up to olympic and i'm also very supportive of that because that's just an increasingly growing artery and i've mentioned this before and it's not on here and so the the 28th street itself all the way up to the intersection at marcola road because with the the um marcola meadows and all the development that's going on on there i know that it's probably maybe on somebody's list somewhere but just 28th street all the way up and through i think is just an area that needs attention so that's where i'm starting thank you okay leonard um thanks

10:01 so um for entirely selfish reasons i'm glad to see laura street on the top um but um you know i i think anybody who saw laura street in its current state of repair would have a hard time arguing that it needs attention but i am going to side with councillor rodley in favor of some of the more heavily trafficked areas i think mohawk is is immensely important to uh to get some attention right now it's pretty broken down um pioneer um the the pedestrian crossing right now is pretty confusing and i can see how people might get run over i would also like to get some kind of um some kind of attention to this 14th

10:46 street uh bikeway on glenwood to mississippi and i would um let me see there's there was one other thing that i wanted to bring attention to oh uh centennial and gateway both heavily trafficked right now so um safety upgrades on centennial and gateway if not is that um emma is that just a repay for is it uh or is it safety updates um is that just crosswalks or what so the list that you're referring to for the safety upgrades and the bikeway for 14th and glenwood are projects that we're seeking funding through the state's all-road transportation safety project they are not part of what we're asking you to prioritize this evening but we are hopeful that we'll hopefully get

11:32 some money from the state to address those for the safety upgrades um it is installing lead pedestrian intervals so that's making the pedestrians more visible at the intersections that would be doing other intersection changes to improve safety so it does not have any paving that i'm aware of it's more signal intersection safety improvements got it okay um and uh to to drag this back from the other night i'd like to have the uh bike share reconsidered as well um so um that's uh that's pretty much what i got right now so emma when we look at attachment to page two of two right the what you need from us is we have between a million and a half and

12:17 four and a half million of money and there's ten million dollars of options and you need us to tell you what goes on goes on the top of that list correct that is the sheet attachment two page two of two is really where we're seeking your input this evening um okay well in that case uh let me just go back to mohawk and the pedestrian crossing and enhancements along with the you know 32nd and jasper is certainly a problem area as well merely those were my three um the pedestrian crossing enhancement enhancements um the 32nd and jasper the pavement preservation and the and mohawk

13:04 those are the three that i had picked out for i think it comes to four and a half million pedestrian crossing information this is really hard to see and payment preservation project is really important to keep that trying to keep everything up as much as we can so this is two i have right now um actually he mentioned the bike share which isn't on this list but um pretty important considering the future right now yeah so yeah again the the sheet that we're off is that we're working off of is the page two of two right so it's not like we could pull something off and put

13:50 something back on but like the like the bike share we're pursuing other we're pursuing other funding with that is the intent but if you want to see the city seek funds and make that happen it would probably make sense to apply for funds in this grant opportunity as well as the other grant opportunity just to make sure that we have a solid backup plan if the other grant opportunity does not come through so it's that list on page 202 with the addition of bike share being added to that list for consideration so emma when we talk about mohawk from 19th to the expressway does that include the intersection i would i read that as including the intersection based on that price tag no it is doing from the odot jurisdiction down to the north side or

14:36 by the south side of the intersection it does not include the intersection itself [Music] wow like i i i'm i was surprised that that was a million and a half looking at the price tag i thought it was going to go through the intersection okay jill thank you excuse me thanks emma for putting this together i i support the pedestrian crossing enhancements i also support the preservation projects over on 32nd jasper i i would not like to see the bike share compete with this list i think if if we go with a bike share then that should be on its own and we can look at it as a

15:22 separate project i don't see how it mixes with this at all i do though i think though that that and i have to concur with with counselor rodney for sure on the sidewalk repair and maintenance program that that is a that is really important i want to have people to have some safe mobility i want people that want to get out and walk not trip over sidewalks that are ankle busters i want people that are in wheelchairs to be able to negotiate uh sidewalks without getting tipped over or damaged your equipment so i i i'd like to be able to see that that sidewalk repair maintenance program stay in there and also to re you know i looked at the material and that's a program i think we can

16:07 approach i know that the city will require or currently requires property owners to pay wholly for any sidewalk repair that's adjacent or a budding to their property but i think there's a happy medium i don't think the city should should take the entire burden on but i think that they can partner with some of the uh homes i think it would be a right step in that program or in that direction would be you look at the property owners etc and if if it's a a lower income property or or they can show some financial uh where they're at financially and they don't have the funds etc that i would be okay with helping to support those homes or those property owners but i think sidewalks are probably the

16:54 most under underserved portion of our city and i would really like to see that um get going again i think if i recall there's a the city of eugene has a program that they have crews that do that but they also charge for their service i just think that there's many cities out there that have a myriad of different types of sidewalk repair programs and i would like to see some energy put forth and in that area and some options brought before us or back to us and saying this is what we found this is what we can do and this is how many miles of sidewalk we think we could we can handle uh based on each of those options so okay so right now i'm seeing what people are settling around pedestrian south 32nd

17:40 mohawk and and sidewalks and the math that i have it would be that's six million so we've we need to do two things one of them is we can get we can give emma four things we just need to give her give it in an order of priorities so i'm definitely hearing people definitely wanted a lot of interest in the pedestrian is the number uh the pedestrian crossing enhancements is number one i'm looking around that would yeah that'd be mine too sean yeah okay and then i'm hearing south 32nd as number two yes yeah i'd have to agree with that so do we want to put the sidewalks or the mohawk uh 19th to or expressway

18:25 until 126 is three one i think two you get more bang for your buck with the sidewalks i think we got such a short run okay with the street on mohawk that that we should go for the intersection next time yeah i want to agree with counselor prisoner on this because once i also assume that the intersection was in there and um if there's a way for us to add the intersection into that and put that you know a bigger project um so yeah i would my third would be the sidewalk repair okay so i have pedestrian 32nd street sidewalks and then if if we somehow come up with more money than mohawk on top of that and i think there's interest from a transportation perspective at some point we're going to talk about a bond again

19:11 that mohawk you know piece i would expect to come back in in a bond conversation for for a street for street bond round two leonard all i wanted to say about mohawk is that there are a lot of people who drive up and down mohawk every day and they're their cars are sustaining a lot of damage to their suspension systems as a result of the state of that road well it's not the new mohawk because the new mohawk is fantastic but a little bit further north yeah there the the the part that this is talking about is in in disrepair but the the one that the street bond completed is really smooth right yeah again no near uh near 126 is in good shape yeah and i did want to actually i was on mohawk a couple different times today

19:57 and i can tell you that i am super happy with how that project turned out how they went through i also saw some some trees have been planted and they are actually doing a great irrigation system for those trees so they don't die and shrivel up um so i i can't commend staff enough for that project i know it's a little off base on this presentation but it it came up and i wanted to make sure that someone made note of that and i and steve i agree completely with what you're talking about our payment preservation has has got to be a high priority and i think that with the mayor talking about the street bond levy that i think it's it'd be an easier sell to fix mohawk than it would be to convince people for a street bomb measure to fix sidewalks i think while we have the

20:42 money for the sidewalks now let's do that yeah okay uh emma did you need anything else one piece that i'm not clear on was that i heard support from counselor stare and mo for adding bike share and counselor pictionary said to fund it with other funds so i'm not sure at this point if we would submit an application for that or not um i am hearing i think we want to continue to look for other funds for that okay thank you for that clarification i think we have to put bikeshare and not maybe not here but we need to keep it on the on the forefront could hey emma before we let you go could you talk to us a little bit about attachment 3 the already funded 46 million i mean i think that's a good right we talk about infrastructure all the time and there is a lot of stuff

21:28 coming down the queue and there's a lot of good news in that list yes so this shows some of our past successes um projects that are funded but are not yet constructed oh christy's here joining she's your next agenda item but she is the expert in speaking to the capital project funding so this is just an example of what the city currently has kind of in the pipeline for transportation projects that are already funded if you have any specific questions be happy to answer those or anything that you'd like to hear further about this list beyond we've been successful and we have a lot of work to deliver i would just yeah there there is a lot there there's a lot of work going on and i would call out mill street to folks i know that that is something that is all

22:13 a high interest to this council to make sure that it gets done but to have 46 million dollars that we've committed to the the infrastructure system in the city is a pretty amazing feat all right any other questions before we let emma go all right thank you very much emma thank you all right item number two is a mill street update with christy hello mayor council hello um i did hear you discuss um counselor woodrow 52nd and 54th street and i received word from operations that they are um those are behind the scenes they are working on that so um

22:59 i'm sure ben gibson will give the council an update um in the future on that one thank you yes yes um so i'm here tonight to give an update on the mill street reconstruction project on february 1st we finally received the no just for seed to start our design on mill street after quite a long time so we're very excited about it um we received the notice to proceed because it is partially federally funded so project elements that we are planning on including for the project are a full reconstruction from south a street all the way up to centennial

23:44 um a complete reconstruction of the waste water sewer line from main street to just north of g street and then also lining the laterals off of that line pedestrian and ada improvements bicycle facility improvements we don't have a bike facility at all on mill street and so we will need to include that as part of this also storm water treatment and decorative lighting from maine to e street and possibly some traffic calming as well i believe i got all of the elements so far um and then

24:30 uh do you have a question counselor woodrow i was curious if there were any pedestrian crossings uh at all considered from mill street yes so we have been i'll get more to some of the details of what we've looked at but we are we'll we know that there are some speeding and pedestrian crossing issues and so we're definitely looking at that at the park especially where there's the apartments on the west side and then the park on the east side so we're definitely looking at ways to look at traffic calming and pedestrian crossing safety thank you sure no problem so we set up a project webpage which is on our current construction

25:15 project website and that website shows all of our projects that we are working on whether it's in construction design or if we've completed the project so that's something um that i want to keep letting folks know about and we keep it up to date um quite often so we sent out our first mailer and that introduced folks the property owners and residents and tenants about the project the project elements and also let them know that the survey workers were going to be out there so right now we've completed the survey work and we also did some geotech work um we did some quarrying to identify what we have out there so that we can take a look at the soils and

26:02 that'll show us what that'll help us in our design for the pavement structure so due to the limited right-of-way and all of the competing interests out there and we do not have a bike facility we do need to remove parking from one side of the street or the other we touched on that previously when we were talking about westy street and knowing that this would come from mill street so um what i would like to do is send out our second mailer this week to those property owners and residents giving them an update on the project and then communicating that we do need to remove parking from one side or the

26:48 other and offering um myself to meet them one-on-one if they would like or if they'd like to send me questions comments concerns speak with me on the phone uh whatever they would like so then we would take a look at that see if there's anything um you know what concerns there are out there if there's a theme with one side or the other and then take a look at different cross-section ideas and go from there so that's that's the thought right now and so uh if you have any questions or comments christy i have a question about the uh email list so this is a separate specific email list that if people are interested they can

27:33 sign up specifically for mill street right or is it or is it just the generic update list that comes out of public works no so what we've done for mill street specifically is we've sent out our snail mail mailers to a big a big area out there and so not only will we send out that out again but we will also let show the link so that they can sign up for email updates we will also send email updates this particular email update to the 21 folks that have communicated with us with our emails but we want to really duplicate everything so that we get as many people

28:18 as possible okay joe because thank you along those lines christy i was just thinking that you know social media is pretty um pretty heavy in that area of town and i'm thinking i know we have a obviously springfield facebook but there's several different facebook groups that would be directly affected by this or at least be interested in this okay and and i know we don't typically go on to other facebook groups etc but those are open open uh groups and i think that if we can jump on some of those and go ahead and just put it out there on

29:03 those on those type of facebook pages so i just don't want to see again you know my my trepidation regards to parking and i'm going to be quiet about that in that sense um because you got to do what you got to do and that's what and from what i heard from explanation we got to eliminate that but half the parking there just to get the federal funding to do the project so that being said i think that would be an important add-on to that information is that you tell folks this isn't something that the reduction of the parking is not something that blame the city of springfield on it's something that it's it's mandated in order to doubt the funding just to fix the street and it's a federal some federal rule as you explained to me um

29:48 that it's required but it but i think that just just flood it and as long as people get sick of that that's fine but i don't want to i don't want to get people all fired up and saying oh my gosh we never heard a word and then anything you do and everything you do document that and and even if it comes down to door-to-door all the way down that street i've done door-to-door before it and it seems like a lot and it is a lot but it's not not a huge section of the city and it would almost be worth saying door-to-door and document responses but i i'm excited for the project i think it'd be great for the city to do and it'd be a great add-on because it's a great connector from from you know from north to south so um anyway that's that's my two bits

30:33 thank you all right any other questions about mill street i think communication with everybody there as much as we can because when we get to the end of some hearings i really don't like it when somebody comes in here and says i've never heard of this before so let's try and do the best we can so that doesn't happen the the good news is i think the community is very much behind getting mill street fixed um christy could you talk to us a little bit about sort of next steps when are we going to hear about this next um you know what's coming up in the fall so we'll first

31:18 you know send this out of course and give it some time for any feedback that we do receive and in the meantime you know we're still we're doing design work and in terms of you know pavement structure taking a look at the utility facilities that are out there and what constraints do we have what can we work with with a design you know some different design options so there are still preliminary things that we're working on before we come up with a cross-section and or a number of cross-sections so um we'll take a look at those and then develop a section or two and then come back with our

32:05 first round of options great and we do you know in order to um the whole goal is to go out for construction at the beginning of 2024 so i'm really trying to get as much information from the public and design and you know do all of our due diligence um in a timely manner but i also don't we definitely need to listen to the public so um it's you know a balancing act yep perfect all right any other questions all right thank you so much christy for the update um our last item for the work session um

32:51 i'm going to adjourn us until seven o'clock and then we will be back here for the regular session we are adjourned thank you everybody

33:57 all right i think we are ready to go i'm going to uh call the regular session of the springfield city council to order with roll call mayor van gorden here councillor pitts councillor mo here councillor rodley here councillor stare here councillor woodrow here and council missionary i'm here thank you and councillor pitts is excused for the evening please join me for the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty jesus for all [Music]

34:46 as we begin our meeting tonight i would like to ask members of the audience who are joining us by phone or online to please keep yourselves on mute until you are called on to provide public testimony there are two times designated for public testimony this evening under public hearings and business from the audience if you are attending in person please complete the request to speak card located at the entrance of the council chambers and give them to the city recorder if you're joining us online with a tablet smartphone or computer and wish to speak at either of those times please raise your hand using the feature in zoom the order the public testimony is as follows anyone in the council chambers and then anyone who's raised their virtual hand neil can you let us know how many people are joining us tonight mayor we have 30 participants online and

35:32 approximately 15 in the council chambers perfect first item please first item is springfield upbeat you have three items under the upbeat tonight the first item is mayor's recognition building safety month proclamation i have to make sure i get the right proclamation there's so many great things happening at the city right now we've got a lot of stuff to recognize where whereas our city uh our city of springfield oregon is committed and recognized in recognizing that our growth and strength depend on the safety and essential role of our homes buildings infrastructure in everyday life and when dash when disasters strike and whereas our confidence in the resilience of these buildings that make up our community is

36:18 achieved through the devotion of guardians building safety fire prevention officials architects engineers builders tradespeople design professionals laborers plumbers and others in the construction industry who work year-round to ensure the safe construction of buildings and whereas modern building codes include safeguards to protect the public from hazards such as hurricanes snowstorms tornadoes wildland fires floods earthquakes and as whereas the building safety month is sponsored by the international code council to remind the public about the critical role of our communities largely unknown protectors of public safety our local code officials who assure us of safe sustainable and affordable buildings that are essential to

37:04 prosperity whereas the safety for all building codes in action is the theme of the building safety month 2022 encourages us all to raise awareness about the planning for safety and sustainable construction career opportunities and building safety and understanding disaster mitigation energy conservation and creating a safe and abundant water supply to all to the benefit of all and whereas each year an observant of the building safety month people all over the world are asked to consider their commitment to improving building safety resilience economic investment at home and in the community and to acknowledge the essential services provided to us all by state and local building departments fire prevention bureaus and federal agencies

37:49 i sean van gorden mayor of springfield do hereby proclaim the month of may 2022 is building safety month and i encourage our citizens to join as we participate in building safety month activities and do we have somebody to oh come on down tomboy yeah

38:37 the next one's emergency services week proclamation correct okay and um i wanted to know one quick thing all right at least two quick things before this that last week the fire department couldn't make it to the eugene emergency service proclamation but they did choose to come to the springfield one proving ultimately that it really is the springfield eugene fire department whereas emergency medical services are a vital vital public series and whereas the members of the emergency medical services team are ready to provide life-saving care to those in need 24 hours a day seven days a week and whereas access to quality emergency care dramatically improve the survival and recovery rate of those who've

39:23 experienced sudden illness and injury and whereas the emergency medical services system consists of first responders emergency medical technicians paramedics emergency medical dispatchers firefighters police officers educators administrators emergency nurses trained members of the public and other uh out of hospital medical providers and whereas the emergency services medical teams whether career or volunteer engage in thousands of hours in specialized training in continuing education to enhance their life-saving skills whereas it is appropriate to recognize the value and accomplishments of emergency medical services by designating emergency medical service week i sean van gorden the mayor of

40:08 springfield to hereby proclaim may 15th through 21st 2022 emergency medical services week in springfield and encourage the community to observe as observed this week with appropriate programs ceremonies and activities i don't know if anybody's got comments about emergency services the one thing i would all that i always want to point out is especially when we see folks coming out of uh public safety we really do appreciate what you guys do these are really opportunities to recognize all the different commitments from the public safety uh field and we don't get a chance to talk to you guys enough and so thank you very much leonard yeah i wanted to just chime into um we represent police and uh

40:54 it's always brought home to me that um you go out and put yourself into dangerous situations for a two-hour guarantee and we we don't take it lightly and we appreciate it very much thank you uh yes i got quite an education when i did a ride along with the ambulance for uh almost a whole shift and i can't begin to tell you um they're they deserve all the credit that anybody can give them because they are out there on the line helping people and working with people um through their whole shifts and cooperating with each other at the same time so we we couldn't and we couldn't ask for a better emergency service we got then we've got

41:40 i don't know that i can say anything that hasn't already been said except for ditto and i have such deep deep appreciation for our emergency services and first responders thank you all for being here and please just share our appreciation with the team joe thank you no i'm sure i can't add too much except for that i just wanted to say that that the firefighters the paramedics the police officers the safety net that that all of you represent to our citizens the hospital workers that all those the medical medical folks that we have here in springfield um you know without you we would be in a big heap of trouble big time and that you all go along every day all day and

42:25 go about your business and you're not jumping up and down and saying look at me so you all humble me very much and i appreciate every single one of you and um and this well-deserved proclamation thank you all right let's do the photo op come on guys

43:12 we're missing the chief in that picture tom oh he means that [Laughter] you guys get it thank you very much all right national public week proclamation so whereas the development and public works professionals focus on infrastructure facilities emergency management and services that are of vital importance to sustainable and resilient communities into public health high quality life and well-being

43:58 of the people of springfield whereas it is in in the public's interest for citizens civic leaders and children in springfield to gain the knowledge and main and maintain ongoing interest and understanding of the importance of development in public works first responders and public works programs in their respective communities and whereas the year 2022 marks the 62nd annual national public works week sponsored by the american public works association now i mayor sean van gorden do hereby designate the week of may 15 through 2020 uh 21st 2022 is national public week's works week and i urge all community members to join with representatives of the

44:43 american public works association and government agencies to pay tribute to our development in public works professionals engineers managers and employees and to recognize their substantial contributions that they make to protecting our communities health safety and quality of life all right and who's coming up for well corey brought the hat so we got to give her a chance to chime in here and i know that the public works folks know that they are my people um i just and i think i might have said this before but you know so much of what we do as a city is about the facilities and the infrastructure and the services and

45:28 just when we talk about the livability of springfield we are talking about the work of our our folks who work in in public works and development public works for the city of springfield so thank you for your tireless year-round effort doing sometimes hard and icky things and i think that sums it up very well right like public works is a place again that we we oftentimes we don't get in front of you guys enough to just say hey thank you thank you right everything that is in the city that works day to day you guys contribute to and it's appreciated leonard yeah we represent public works employees too and talk about a farmland job oh my goodness i mean just like

46:14 having to um plug a main that's burst in the middle of the night and in freezing temperatures we've uh we've had several people out on the coast almost drowned in mud which uh is you know drowning in water is bad enough but the um the the amount of risk that um public works employees go through in in the normal course of duty isn't really appreciated enough so thanks a lot joe thank you and i just want to relate a a very recent story about a public works employee and i just came across this and it was very recent as a woman had pleaded out in social media that she has lost her her wallet and that um there

47:00 was obviously some financial issues and ids and and rent um very she was very she was devastated and lo and behold that evening a person pulled up in the city of springfield truck from public works walked up to her door knocked on her door and said are you missing this handed it to her she got everything back nothing was missing at all the person had already left before she can even get his name that's that's what you call service and that's what you call doing the right thing that's incredible integrity and that's what the people that's kind of folks we have here and i just wanted to recognize that person if i knew their name i'd be i'd be throwing them under the bus right now but but i don't so

47:45 public works folks if you hear about that would you please extend my personal thanks to that staff member who returned that to that person

48:39 um counselor rodney i was disappointed that you're not going to wear that through uh the entire meeting could i did want to bring up one point before we go to the next item and just to share with the rest of the council i know that um there were two mass shootings in the united states this uh this last weekend and um there i know that there's some interest among the council since we have been through this as a community and it is tragic and our hearts obviously go out to the the victims and the cities that go through this i just wanted to let everybody know that i was going to be working with the staffs to make sure that as a community that we've reached out to those jurisdictions and just give them their given the support in this time of need we have had our mass shooting too

49:28 thank you um next item please here the next item is the consent calendar uh make a motion to approve the consent calendar is it's been moved and seconded to approve the consent calendar um could you call the role neil yes counselor pitts counselor mo yes counselor rodley yes counselor stare here yes cancer woodrow yes twice the visionary yes thank you the motion passes five yeses zero knows and one absent next item please next item you have five public hearings tonight public hearing number one is annexation of territory to the city of springfield annex 1.77 acres of property located near the intersection of south

50:13 66th place and jessica drive in mountain gate map 18-02-03-00 tax lot 302 this is ordinance number two an ordinance annexing certain territory located at the southeast edge of mountain gates second edition near south 66th place and jessica drive to the city of springfield in milan lane park and recreation district adopting a severability clause and providing an effective date this is a second reading and andy limbert is here for the staff report yes thank you good evening mr mayor and counselors this is a continuation of a public hearing that was started on may 2nd the reason for the continuance was to remedy public notification deficiencies

51:01 uh staff placed another public hearing notice in the newspaper uh reposted the site and continued the public hearing to this evening to allow for any further comment the staff did receive just prior to the prior meeting which is included in your packet a letter from the fair housing council of oregon um requesting a deferral of the matter to a future time staff has reviewed and responded to that letter in your in your council report um staff is of the view that there are no merits uh to the request to defer the action

51:47 um for two reasons the first being that the site is not part of the city's original residential lands inventory it was considered a developed site when that initial lands inventory was prepared in 2012 i believe and secondly um the rezoning action does not change the residential use uh zoning and designation of the site in any event so it doesn't have an impact on uh the amount of land zoned or designated for residential use so neither of those factors influence the city's residential housing inventory and

52:32 therefore staff feels it's appropriate to consider the annexation and to dismiss the request by the fair has in council to to delay the matter there were no other comments offered in the um either the initial notification or the continuance um staff is recommending to close the public hearing and to deliberate and consider adopting the ordinance to annex the site um i'd be happy to answer any of their questions that you have but this is the recommendation of staff to proceed with the annexation leonard andy uh typically when residents are resistant to an annexation it has to do

53:18 with their perception that the their tax bill is going to go up and is there anything that we can say to reassure them um in this case uh because it's an agency owned annexation um the there there may be uh a change of taxation although tax sub is tax exempt um tip it's it's interesting it's funny that you raise that issue because people people do um ask about the effects in general in general not this specific site but in general the effects of annexation on property value on taxes it's kind of a double-edged sword on the one hand the property immediately becomes more valuable

54:03 because it is more developable you don't have to set aside area for a septic system as an example which it consumes a significant amount of territory on a property and so with the annexation and with the increased developability of property there is a higher value associated with that which leads to a higher taxable value that this that the county assessor uh would assign to the property so um it's it's it's it does have um in at least anecdotally it does have the result of likely higher taxes but because of the higher value and the way that the county um uh assesses taxes on

54:48 property again the city not being the taxing authority we go by what we see with um information that's passed along to us kind of after the fact that clears it up thanks all right the public hearing is already open so i will take a moment and i don't have any cards for this item if you're wishing to add additional public testimony for this item please raise your hand mayor it appears we have no hands for this item uh i will go ahead and close the public hearing on this item and see if there's any questions or there's a motion to adopt a motion to adopt ordinance number two second it's been moved by councilor mo and

55:34 seconded by counselor pictionary neil could you call the role please yes counselor pitts counselor mo yes counselor rodley yes counselor stare aye councillor woodrow yes you council efficient airing yes thank you motion passes five yeses zero knows in one absent next item please next item is public hearing number two annexation of territory to the city of springfield annex 0.41 acres of property located at 5423 mount vernon road assessors map 18-02-04-42 tax lot 800 and a portion of the mount vernon road public right-of-way abutting the property again this is ordinance number three an ordinance an ordinance annexing certain territory addressed as 5423 mount vernon road assessors map

56:21 18-02-04-42 tax law 800 and a portion of the of mount vernon road public right-of-way butting the subject property to the city of springfield and willamelain park and recreation district withdrawing the same territory from the willa kenzie rural fire protection district adopting a severability clause and providing an effective date this is a second reading and melissa carino is here for the staff report thank you neil good evening mayor and counselors similar to the previous annexation requests this is a continued public hearing from may 2nd due to not meeting all public notice requirements to recap the property owner of this site has requested that council consider an ordinance to annex an approximately 0.4 acre property municipally addressed as

57:06 5423 mount vernon road in springfield along with a portion of the adjacent public right-of-way the full proposed annexation area is highlighted in yellow and since the public hearing on may 2nd city staff have not received any additional public comments about this annexation request and there are no additional changes or updates to the application um just to recap as well here's a diagram of the current zoning and city boundaries the site is zoned community commercial with the urbanizable fringe overlay um also as a reminder the staff report for this annexation request takes into consideration of future commercial development at the site specifically in terms of the capacity and availability of key urban facilities and services

57:52 and this is a diagram of the proposed zoning and city boundaries if annexation is approved no other zoning changes is requested except for the removal of the urbanizable fringe overlay because all applicable annexation criteria have been met and the annexation will help facilitate bringing this property and the budding right of way into city limits city staff recommend that council closes the public hearing hold deliberations and make a dish make a decision on this request thank you are there any questions okay uh the public hearing is already open um i do not have any additional cards for this item if somebody is joining us virtually and wants to speak to this item please raise your hand

58:41 mayor beers we have no hands for this item i will close the public hearing counselor mo make a motion that we adopt ordinance number three second it's been moved by councillor mo and second by counselor pictionary neil could you call the role please yes counselor pitts counselor mo yes counselor rodley yes answer stare aye councer woodrow yes encounter pictionary yes thank you the motion passes five yes zero knows and one uh excused next item please next item is your third public hearing master fees and charges a resolution number two a resolution adopting the master fees and charges schedule for fees charges rates permits and licenses as established by the springfield museum municipal code fire code and building

59:27 code sam kelly quattrocki is here for the staff report good evening mayor and council i'm just here with the uh public hearing request for master fees and charges and then the resolution to adopt or not adopt uh before we open the public hearing you have any questions i just want to point out just a couple of minor changes from my last saw you all this resolution does include all of the storm water and wastewater rates you saw from catherine bishop of matt stouter all of the proposed santa pac changes there is one quick change there are some additional hospital acute care location pricing and non-acute non-hospital location pricing for biomedical waste these are not available at the time of the hearing or last meeting but they're in this packet now and then the sidewalk cafe permit fee has been reduced

1:00:13 it has only seen the typical five percent increase and then the reinspection fee has been removed uh over the next few weeks to hear more about that program at that time there's a chance to change those fees um if you'd like to see fit okay hang on one second um sorry to interrupt sam um the uh the teamsters represent members at santa pack so i'm recusing myself from this vote thanks counselor all right any sam did you have anything else from a staff presentation nope those are the updates i wanted to highlight okay uh any questions from the council oh counselor pictionary hello i'm just i'm trying to orient my brain here so

1:00:58 is any of this package have to do with the fees that we discussed i think just a while back in regards to the sidewalk uh food service thing where we were all freaking out over the cost of it and the increase so does does this one show that that was reduced or it was back correct oh no so if was it reduced per what our conversation was or it was was it was it the original charges on this it's it has been reduced to the typical five percent so it is now uh 72 uh per year and the reinspection fee which was 100 a year that was removed okay and so that's what we did for this one yeah so uh this is what i would like to

1:01:43 discuss before this is adopted is that i have much more information that was provided to me in regards to that permit and and why the jump and why the cost of it and i got to tell you fellow counselors um i am so in support of what the staff recommended the first time the first iteration when it went up to i think 200 or something like that it makes complete sense to me now we i just did not have enough information at the time when when i was supporting reducing that i think it'd be very important that council gets that information before this this is passed um or is this just a reading this is the adoption and i'm happy to

1:02:28 explain that also unless you feel comfortable counselor pictionary please feel free but if not i've also been educated since that may second meeting on that fee if it's okay sean if we can if we can provide that information to council and that um maybe we can make that change that small edit before we pass this resolution yeah that so sam would you provide us uh with kind of the back story and then we'll figure it out from there yes and first well sorry girl thank you i would love to apologize to council on my own lack of education on this fee uh there's quite a few in there and this is the one that i uh missed the opportunity beforehand so this is currently an annual inspection fee so it is 72 dollars proposed every year the 200 would have been every other year so for two years you pay 200 be good for two

1:03:13 years and then after that it's a hundred dollars every two years so it is correct in the first couple years you pay more than you would at this current proposed rate by about year five you start seeing savings for the permit owners and from there on out there are increased savings at 100 every two years as opposed to 72 dollars every year that was the piece that was missing both in the language of the fee itself and then the description of the entire process um you'll see i think immediately after me is the first reading of the cafe sidewalk permits in the outdoor dining and that will explain more of the work involved and why this is a bit more involved processed looking at the seeding the requirements yes counselor okay yeah so if we can if we can christina i don't want to get something passed and

1:03:59 then turn right around and have to undo it and if we can jump in on that and provide some guidance i i understand that perspective completely um if i can just interrupt for a moment mayor and council um the reason part of the reason for the expanded fee as sam mentioned is the change in ordinance requirements that we're proposing and going to a two year instead of one year permit however based on the timing of when that ordinance would become effective it actually would not be effective on july 1 when this master fees and charges takes effect in addition we're also proposing which will be the next agenda item that neil will talk about a new license which will also need a new fee so one of the solutions is to adopt the master fees and charge a schedule with this permit for the

1:04:44 current based on the current code that would be in place for about a week before depending on your adoption timeline a week maybe maybe longer if you don't adopt the changes before your summer recess and then the new fee for the two-year permit could be set at the same time as the new fee for the new license program that goes along with it and so you would have consistency with the fee matching the ordinance when it takes effect so there would be a little gap in time where you would have the old fee and then you would jump to the new fee um but you wouldn't be re having to redo anything or take any extra process because you'll have to adopt a new fee anyway for the second part of that program so so christina your recommendation would be adopt the master fees that we have in front of us

1:05:30 today and then when we get to the next item that that is actually going to correct the issue that counselor pictionary uh brought up correct when you're ready to um you'll do your first reading and public hearing on those code changes tonight and then when you're ready to deliberate and adopt that ordinance you'll have a resolution in front of you at that next meeting on those fees and state law requires a public hearing then as well just specific to those fees and then this all of this discussion will be very relevant at that point so i would recommend you adopt with the current fee in place and then make this decision later although i understand the input about not wanting to adopt one thing and then two weeks later potentially do something different thank you that's that totally clears it up for me sean and i um as usual i maybe

1:06:17 got the cart before the horse but better now than later so yeah thank you all right any other questions before i open the public hearing i'm going to open the public hearing um i have no cards for this item neil do we have anybody on zoom that is raising their hand yes mayor we have one uh hand raised that uh speaker is kelsey moore kelsey you should be able to unmute your microphone great can you all hear me we can great hi um uh counselors um my name is kelsey moore and i just started a position with lane council of governments as a transportation options specialist and i'll be working primarily

1:07:03 in springfield so i just wanted to drop in and introduce myself i'll be working with are you ready to speak on specifically to the fees and charges oh i'm so sorry i thought this was the public um and like this is not the time where folks can jump in uh no we are going to um put you in the queue um we're almost item and then we'll have you back up sounds perfect do we have anybody else neil no other hands mayor i am going to close the public hearing that we adopt resolution number two second neil could you call the vote please yes counselor pitts

1:07:48 councillor moe yes councillor radley yes answer stare abstain counselor woodrow yes and counselor pictionary yes thank you motion passes four yeses zero nose and one absent and one abstained next item please uh mayor the next item is the expand cafe and outdoor seating within downtown and mixed use districts ordinance number four an ordinance amending springfield municipal code 7.900 through 7.908 downtown district sidewalk cafe permit and adding springfield municipal code 7.910 through 7.918 open air dining this is a first reading and this is my item

1:08:37 so good evening mayor and council i'm here tonight to talk about expanding cafe and outdoor seating within downtown and mixed use districts and as i mentioned this is a first reading so as you know during covet 19 dining establishments were required to follow physical distancing and limits on their indoor capacity these were necessary measures to protect public health but the business community began to look for creative ways to comply while continuing to maintain their services that's where the council came in and approved emergency regulations to meet these needs and a number of downtown businesses were able to provide outdoor seating throughout the pandemic so the state of emergency was terminated by the council on april 4th and at that time you expressed interest in adopting some long-term regulations for expanding

1:09:23 cafe seeding so what we're bringing to you tonight is twofold both a request to allow permanent expansion of cafe seating permits which is in the right-of-way and adding an entirely new code for open-air dining licenses and that would be on private property so several several staff members from dpw and cao worked all through these items a couple of them are here if we have some detailed questions but i'll go over some of the changes so starting with cafe seating this ordinance proposes several things one is to rename it downtown district outdoor cafe permit changing that to the downtown district sidewalk cafe permit and this will be to help business owners distinguish between the two types of permits we're

1:10:08 asking you to provide it also adds language to clarify the standards a permit must meet to show safe and responsible use of the right-of-way and it gives the city manager or her designee the authority to authorize cafe areas in downtown that are not sidewalk on a case-by-case basis so this we recognize that generally the sidewalks are the best place and most appropriate use but it does give us some flexibility in case there are some other options that we want to look at additionally it adopts new language requiring permission from the real property owner of the restaurant in addition to the restaurant owner it clarifies that a sketch of the sidewalk cafe has to be included so we can see the obstructions that might be in place and better help us identify any ada accessibility issues or

1:10:54 other safety concerns and includes a requirement to provide engineering stamp drawings if the structure is um hazard or storm or earthquake if there are issues with that because all of these items will be proposed in the right of way uh currently cafe seating permits are valid for one year and this hits on the issue we just talked about and our required business owners are required under the code to reapply annually the changes proposed are to make it a two-year permit subject to separate renewal fee that council may set at a lower rate a two-year permit is recommended by staff one to reduce the cost to business owners reduce the amount of work to reinspect each year but it will still require

1:11:39 renewal often enough that city staff can identify any issues uh so moving to the open air licenses and if you have questions just please let me know um moving to the open air licenses these are entirely new proposed code and these would be for private property so this code is different than downtown seating in two key ways one it allows outdoor dining a parking lot or a building setback area on private property similar to what you see at like public house as opposed to sidewalks and other public right-of-way and it applies to any mixed-use commercial residential area with an existing restaurant so we're expanding it past downtown kind of mohawk area also has some similar areas this section requires the license holder

1:12:24 to maintain their open air dining in the approved configuration and get city approval for any changes so we'll know if there's changes and we've modeled these requirements on open air dining in private parking lots which was recently adopted by the city of beaverton as part of their post-pandemic permanent open air beaverton program the changes have been made to beaverton's standards but of course reflect appropriate circumstances for springfield these operating standards would allow open air dining areas on any parking lot using at least two parking spaces or more if the property has surplus on-site parking that allows air dining next to the restaurant in a side yard or rear yard setbacks um except under certain circumstances uh allows for storm water

1:13:11 treatment or other um i'm sorry it um [Music] the the exceptions include where stormwater treatment would encroach upon adjacent residential uses would be also allowed on property frontage so open air dining licenses may include overhead structures much larger than what's allowed in kind of the smaller sidewalk areas you see now so safety and design standards would be necessary so two separate things we're bringing to you tonight um we did receive one comment from colby phillips and patrick campbell owners of public house regarding some of the stormwater language we'll get that email to you we just received it before the meeting and then we'll respond

1:13:56 before the second reading counselor missionary thank you neil um quick question um and i don't know if this has been addressed but i am curious or wondering about a potential um undue advantage in some circumstances and just keep that back in mind and then as far as seating is concerned if you have an establishment that has very low cost that has 10 seats inside and then they're able to expand their business basically or thereby increasing their their foot square foot to having 30 seats outside and then right next doors you have a

1:14:41 place of an eatery that has got 30 seats inside and it's paying three times more square foot rent lease for their business and only has room for 10 seats outside and so they're side by side and then you we've actually i think we've kind of created a financial advantage over another business inadvertently or am i like i i'm i'm just picturing that and it seems like there and i don't know if we have any limit as to what the indoor seating is compared to a ratio of outdoor seating has that been considered so counselor prisoner i do not know if we've done that specific

1:15:28 uh research but we can do that it just it just seems that if i'm thinking about our downtown people or downtown businesses and planktown's got pretty good uh pretty good seating area et cetera and they can expand up but i don't think they could more than double what they have inside and then next doors are two doors down you have a very small eatery and they're getting um the same advantage or more advantage if you're looking at it by from a business perspective than a larger business that that has that wants to do outdoor seating as well does that make any sense it does and that would be up to the council to decide how they would want to move forward i and i do you have any more information on that

1:16:13 maybe when we bring it back we can answer that question um and joe i i'm hearing you as just sort of asking the broad question about not a deep analysis but simply simply like hey if if we walk down main street how do we how how do we actually manage those interfaces and i see yeah it's not i'm not like saying hey let's look for a ratio here what i'm saying is that we need to consider it so that way if if a business down the road even if it's six months down the road says hey how come they're paying they only have to pay so much for their rent lease because they only have square 70 square feet and yet they have the same amount or more seating than i've got to have available to me and i'm paying three times the rent because my square footage is

1:16:58 greater i just want to be able to see that we looked at it and and it's like okay we can't see that that's necessarily the case or or even query some of the businesses downtown to see if that would be a problem i just would hate to revisit it based on some sort of grievance nancy thank you mayor uh council professional i think that that is an interesting uh question i think it relies on a number of assumptions that staff may not be able to answer right now but just for an example um you know we are in oregon not everybody wants to be outside uh also restaurants uh may have you know it also depends on does the restaurant have a good service

1:17:43 they have good food i mean there's a lot of variability there um as an allergy sufferer i never want to eat outside so side note um but all of those to say is that we do have a downtown uh meet up scheduled uh fairly soon and and we can uh broach this issue with our downtown uh businesses and just get their feedback during that meetup i know i'm planning on attending so i'll just make a note to uh pose your question there yeah and that makes sense i'm not asking for a big deep dive it's just that if if it's predictable is preventable in the sense that that if we got a business that is uh really upset about it and now we find ourselves in a quandary by trying to backpedal or crawfish on it and find

1:18:28 somebody that says hey i'm sorry with grandfather rules you know so i don't know i just just be able to get some opinion off him and and get some by buy in from from all the folks down downtown no problem we get into that okay uh any other questions leonard uh so maybe down the line the correct solution would be just to make some sort of ratio where you would have a certain number of seats for a certain amount of square footage in the in the business um i'm just sort of spitballing here steve uh the uh downtown district sidewalk cafe permit only applies to downtown is there going

1:19:13 to be any opportunities let's say thurston uh mohawk or gateway for somebody to want need something like that so the um the second permit the um the outdoor seating does extend past downtown it does not it does well yeah the second one does but the first one doesn't downtown district cafe permanent does not extend outside downtown is it the second one does it correct here the first one does not right correct what if there's a need out there for somebody for that kind of use like like gaming mohawk or thurston yeah well we could see if we've received that information or any requests

1:20:00 um i think christina might be able to answer this one better than me christina yeah thank you so i asked staff specifically when drafting this ordinance um weather during covid which was really the height of when this was needed because businesses were precluded from having any indoor seating at one point and during covid there were no requests outside of downtown for seating in the right-of-way because outside of downtown most locations have adequate room on their side of the property for outdoor dining um and so then that was determined based on applications that were seen for special coveted permits that cafe seating um could be limited to downtown and there would be no hardship on how people were operating during under covid

1:20:46 situations um but the open-air dining allowing that on private property there were businesses in the mohawk area that took advantage of that during covet and so by extending to mixed-use zoning throughout the city it would allow that to continue where it's been established in the mohawk area and then also would allow some expansion potentially for restaurants and other mixed use districts glenwood if or when restaurants develop there in the mixed use zones gateway um where there's mixed-use zoning and gateway not all of gateway is presently mixed use um and then other along main street there's some scattered mixed use as well although i don't know that it extends all the way out to thurston but council could also look at other zoning districts and including those i think as the my understanding from dpw

1:21:33 staff was that as the areas where these could be established become more spread out and diverse as opposed to concentrated specific areas the enforcement resources become higher to make sure that these are operated in a safe manner and um you know that their sort of eyes on them by city staff to make sure people are being safe and they're not creating fire hazards with heaters or those types of things yeah i was just concerned that everybody's being treated the same and who ever thought zero degrees people being outside very popular i mean all right any other questions corey i don't have a question i just have a comment um i appreciate when i

1:22:18 read through it i really appreciate the attention to um just safety because i know that was something that came up the last time we talked about it about like yes we're very supportive this as long as we're taking into account how people are using the sidewalks and so i appreciated um the detail of y'all going through that and trying to make sure there's room for people to walk and bike and all the things and i'm hoping since this is a first reading and if there are folks out there who have looked at this and have opinions about that in particular of interest to me about how that reason feels to you all in terms of just the shared use of that space i would love to hear that thank you all right then i think we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing i have no cards for this item um neil do we have anybody

1:23:04 in the zoom that wants to speak to this item no it appears we have no hands for this item there and i'm going to close the public hearing this is no action first reading only next item please okay your next item is um public hearing number five liquor license endorsements for the renewal period 2022 through 2023 and tom boyat is here for the staff report good evening mayor and council tom boyat community development director development and public works i'm here for robin holman who manages our business licensing program so that she didn't have to come out this is your annual endorsement of the block of existing licenses that you have

1:23:50 already provided it's a step that we do in the process that just kind of pre-clears these from your level we've checked with the police department they have no concerns as a four o'clock today which was the cutoff uh we didn't have any public comment on this item so there are any questions i'll do my best to answer are there any questions all right then i am going to open the public hearing i have no cards for this item is there anybody online that wants to speak to this item mayor it appears we have no hands for this item i'm going to close the public hearing and i'll make a motion that we approve the liquor license listed on the attachment of the pack of materials which i not on that page so second

1:24:36 neil can you call the vote please yes counselor pitts counselor mo yes counselor rodley yes answer stare aye councillor woodrow yes and counselor patinary yes thank you emotion passes five yeses zero knows one absent next item please mayor the next item is business from the audience i have no cards so you know we can go directly to online testimony yes um our first speaker is kelsey moore followed by emma newman i'm sorry just kelsey moore and kelsey you should be able to unmute your microphone okay hello again um so again i'm kelsey moore working with lane council of governments as a transportation options specialist i just

1:25:21 started there about a month ago and my primary work will be supporting transportation options active transportation walking biking busing rolling in springfield i'll be working closely with emma newman the city of springfield transportation planner and be working on a couple of projects including bike share the potential bike share expansion um bike rack infrastructure um install throughout springfield and fix it stations and some bike um safety education as well are some of the pieces that i'll be looking at and i just wanted to introduce myself and say hello and let you all know that i'm here starting to do this work thank you thank you

1:26:12 here your next speaker is emma newman and emma you should be able to unmute your microphone thank you can you hear me we can wonderful thanks so much neil um so thank you kelsey for being here tonight and introducing yourself this is in response to council's request when i brought forward the bike share item a couple months ago for your discussion one of the follow-up actions was to introduce you to kelsey so we're doing that this evening and i just want to shout out and say really really grateful to have hired her she's a very qualified candidate who i've had the pleasure of working with on transportation in the area for maybe almost a decade at this point she's very enthusiastic about the job and also just jumping right in she's already been partnering with the peddler which is one of the businesses that you wanted us to

1:26:57 reach out to and be building partnerships with more as well as the springfield library for may is bike month activities so happy may happy bike month and there are events happening in our community because of kelsey jumping in and in the first two weeks of the job making partnerships and making things happen so we're really excited to have her on board and look forward to what is yet to come and mayor appears we have no other hands for business from the audience all right any uh council response before we move on to the next item kelsey moore welcome welcome to springfield

1:27:42 please contact me i'd like to know know more about what you're doing and we work together thank you anybody else yeah i'd just like to second that uh kelsey i'm the liaison to elect so uh uh please uh feel free to reach out to me as well thanks okay uh next item please you have one ordinance tonight and that is the development code update project ordinance number five an ordinance amending the springfield development code related to middle housing and other residential uses uses employment land uses an application review and decision making procedures adopting a savings clause and a severability clause and providing an effective date this is the second reading and mark rust is here for the staff report

1:28:33 good evening mayor and council i'm going to get just a second here to get um i'm going to share my screen if that's all right tonight and it's my first time doing this both in person and remotely thanks for your patience i'm going to turn my camera and make sure i'm muted so you'll just hear me through the microphone here tonight [Music] this will be interesting let's see i'll share my screen

1:29:27 get to my powerpoint thanks for your patience i think that should do it so um we're here to talk a little bit more about the development code hopefully it's getting to the point where we'll be moving forward with implementing the new development code and as you'll recall um i was last before you on april 25th for a joint public hearing with the lane county board of commissioners at that public hearing the city council received testimony and closed the city council portion of the public hearing the board of county commissioners did continue their public hearing due to a noticing flaw on their side they continued their public hearing until may 3rd which they held i attended that meeting

1:30:13 no additional public testimony was provided to the board at their continued public hearing and they closed their public hearing as well tonight we're asking for the city council to deliberate and consider a motion to adopt the ordinance to amend the development code however there are a couple of items we're asking for your specific input and direction on that are laid out in the memo packet in front of your site there are two points i do want to touch on that just want to make sure are part of the presentation one is kind of a a minor error in the diagrams that i presented you at the public hearings

1:31:02 oh and i'll just touch on the the planning commission recommendation we just wanted to be clear i think the in the packet that was for the public hearing included the recommendation from the planning commission it did not include the handwritten in number of votes that were forwarded from the planning commission we wanted to be clear it was a five to one vote there was one member of the planning commission that was absent and there was one voting no on that ordinance but it was a majority or yeah a majority uh five to one approving recommendation of the code to you and on the massing diagrams that i shared with you at the public hearing i'm not going to go through all of them but these are a handful this is what represents what could be built under the

1:31:47 existing code and i'll specifically point out towards the rear of this diagram it says building setback that would be the rear building setback shown at 10 feet that is the current 10 foot rear setback today under our existing code these subsequent diagrams that show what could happen under the new code represent a 5 foot rear yard setback these diagrams were prepared prior to the planning commission public hearing where we were recommending a five foot rear setback the planning commission recommended keeping the existing 10 foot rear yard setback so these diagrams weren't changed to reflect that so we just didn't want to misrepresent that these five foot shown in these

1:32:34 diagrams weren't what are being proposed with the codes at the public hearing so just that quick clarification so i'm just going to go through and briefly summarize the public testimony that you heard at that public hearing there were six people that testified we had received two emails prior to the public hearing and both of those are included in your packet for tonight additionally after the public hearing we received two follow-up emails both of those were from people that had verbally testified at the public hearing and those are also included in your packet generally all of the public testimony was supportive there was no opposition

1:33:20 to approving the proposal i i don't necessarily need to read through all these but i can these are all listed in the board memo these are all the topics that relate to the public testimony you heard the majority of these have to do with the middle housing proposal and those pieces that staff is going to respond to are i'm going to touch on in more detail but there are a handful that we did not respond to but as we discussed in the board memo they were discussed at length through the development of the code with the technical advisory committee we took input from the public survey as well as through the planning commission public hearing process so the three areas that i do want to

1:34:06 talk about that we're asking for your specific input on tonight mark can we go back sure could we go back to the simplified redevelopment options for mixed use because because i don't based on how this presentation is going i don't know that you're getting to that it's a it's a topic point i guess one of the things i that i wanted to understand is you the development community was pretty clear that that this that that change was probably critical to what we see as downtown today and that if we essentially adopted as written that we were going to dramatically slow down the development in downtown are they is that accurate so there's definitely i would say it's accurate that there we recognize there

1:34:51 are concerns and issues with the how the mixed use development zone downtown is implemented a lot of that has to resolve around the aesthetics of buildings downtown downtown is very specific because we do have design standards for buildings downtown i would not say it's accurate to say it's going to significantly slow down development downtown really there's not going to be a significant change to the pace of development that we have been experiencing downtown it's just that we're looking for different creative solutions on how that can happen the um specific requests to allow the process of mds minimum development standards

1:35:37 process to be allowed in the downtown mixed use zone doesn't work for a number of reasons that we discuss an outline in the memo it's just functionally it really wouldn't work to use that as a process downtown so how long if we sort of play this out from a timeline perspective how long before we would have an alternative more i guess a more simplified version available for downtown redevelopment so we are including in the proposal tonight a way to have a more simplified version of site plan review that can be used downtown as part of the fee ordinance you just adopted we actually included a brand new fee that we've never had before it's for

1:36:23 a simplified site plan review process that we have built in to the new development code so that one piece in and of itself is a big step towards evaluating the extent to which redevelopment or new development would happen downtown and being able to identify that simplified process to be used that is a way to use the appropriate process but scale it to the level that the proposed development of redevelopment would be occurring and has that been reviewed with the public that that what they had that as a concern like is this problem effectively been solved i would say it's not been completely solved there's still work to do

1:37:09 one of the um struggles or challenges was the scope of the phase one and phase two and phase two is where this work would more appropriately potentially have been contained the mixed-use development zones were not included in phase 2. they were outside the scope of that work they were identified as being included in phase 3 of the code update which still needs to take place and there are still fixes that can take place to even clean it up further i'll just mention too there's it's a couple fine-tuning types of tweaks in the code and it gets down into some minutia but even some of the definitions themselves of words and how we interpret

1:37:54 those definitions for the example the definition of the term development and the definition of the term improvement those are two words that we define in our code and depending on how those are interpreted and applied it it determines what level of change to a structure can take place with or without certain process pieces in place okay so could we reach back out to the to the downtown development community run back through and make sure everybody's good here because if if we still have an issue right i you know i would prefer that we get this fixed right instead of slowing down what the development is christina

1:38:40 mayor one of the concerns that i raised with mark and advising him on this is that early on in the process it was not it was explicitly not part of the scope of this code update to address the downtown or other mixed-use areas that was reserved for phase three and so in meetings with the tac groups the technical advisory teams and the stakeholder advisory teams when comments were raised early on in the process about the mixture the downtown areas and changes made we provided the feedback back to those stakeholders that those were really good comments we want to capture them but it was outside the scope of phase one and phase two um it's a it's a lot of work needed as the council may recall there was extensive work on a downtown design standards project installed um and so we

1:39:26 essentially didn't capture comments in the ra in this stakeholder advisory committee technical advisory committee that are on this topic and so my concern about selectively reaching out for input on how to change like the mds language or making more extensive changes to the mixed use zones at this time would be that we would be engaging on a topic that we much earlier on in the same phase told other interested stakeholders we were not going to engage on at this time and so i'm concerned about our goal one implement the goal one implications of that um and our ability to meet our timeline to get phase one in place by july one if we extend it out to to work on those in in

1:40:12 my sense so i think there's two things one of these is that i'm not saying that we need to sort of delay adoption for this right because i know we're on a state mandated deadline that is sort of sensitive to it my concern isn't the scope the the scoping issue it's sort of it's the reality that the you know one of the architects that is was you know a major player in what we've seen in downtown is saying that currently this code breaks what breaks uh the processes which got us that far and i'm not when i'm listening to the staff report and then listening to the response i am not sure that we fixed and addressed the issue even though it may be sort of tangential to what phase one has been and why i want you guys to go back out and talk to them is you guys

1:40:57 may have fixed it if you fixed it we're all good here if we've broken something that we shouldn't have then my then we need to come back and maybe prioritize trying to address or some sort of temporary fix that would allow you guys to keep working through this as you got into phase two okay what what i can say is that part of what they were the architects comment was perceiving as being broken was simply guidance to follow what is adopted in the code where prior development staff had ignored applications that should have been required and didn't enforce the code as written for some projects but not others and so it was it the part of the architect's perspective i think was a change that that individual personally

1:41:43 experienced in not having the code applied to one project earlier on and then having another project come forward and say well actually you do have to comply with the code when you're doing work downtown um but i would say that that was maybe an i want to say unfair advantage but i do want to say it was maybe a unique circumstance that that individual experienced and we also have another um one thing that mark and i do plan to work on that we'll go to the planning commission and mark and talk more about this is a formal interpretation of some of the terms that have been unclear might have been interpreted differently so that we can be clear about where in the existing code there is flexibility to make the types of improvements to frontages that um there's specific some

1:42:28 specific concern about without rising to the level of requiring site plan review or if it does require site blind review like mark said that that more that streamlined and less expensive site plan option okay counselor pictionary thank you sean hey i was just wondering if um you had received i'm not mark actually if you have received the document from better housing together dated on the 25th was that part of the record so they had a list of one two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven um recommendations or their their input with recommendations and the reasoning behind that did you see that document

1:43:13 so counselor pictionary thank you for the question i i do believe um it's actually in your packet tonight two different times it's in attachments uh three it was an attachment attached to both um dylan lamar's written follow-up testimony as well as karen knudsen's follow-up email testimony so that list of their requests and recommendations were built into our packet for tonight and responses okay yeah so it's it just so i mean i try to read all of it but there's 876 pages in tonight's packet and my links actually on the uh from the website that the hyperlinks to the different parts the documents or attachments are

1:43:58 not functioning so probably page 872. it's very it's it's at the very end of that large packet of course it is if you were right on 872 okay jojo i have i'm looking at 872. yeah that's my that's my the pdf number pdf page 872. so is there and that has to do with deadly force so i'm looking at i'm not looking in the right spot i'm sorry what what was in regard to you that well it's that the pdf document page 8872

1:44:44 is pertaining to deadly force oh i'm sorry so you're looking at the packet for the entire meeting tonight not just this item correct correct because i don't my link isn't working so i apologize for that it's not your fault i could pull up and share on the screen the that attachment from the packet tonight if that's helpful yeah i'm still digging so that would if you have it right 855 855 of the pdf yes there it is you're right on the money and i it's mine's 854 so but 854 and 855 okay that's all i needed to make sure i wanted to make sure that they had an opportunity to be reviewed and vetted and um okay thank you that's all i needed i appreciate it i could just touch on that

1:45:30 comprehensive list of items those i include in this list that are on this powerpoint slide and it's really three of those items that we're asking you to weigh in tonight on in the in the board memo we referenced that a number of those topics were discussed at length like i mentioned through both the technical advisory committee phase the public outreach phase as well as the public hearing phase with the planning commission a lot of the discussion had to do with whether we go with the state minimum standards do really just land on where we have to do things as mandated by the state or do we go above and beyond you're all likely that um the planning commission included a supplemental

1:46:15 recommendation to the city council as well of apache package of additional items they would like for further consideration as we move forward really this is establishing a baseline that then we can build off of for how to encourage and incentivize middle housing in certain areas that we can fine tune at a later time yeah that makes sense tonight and i see that like specifically the adu definition minimum lot sizes setbacks and lot coverage is seems like it's coming right out of that that document yeah so mark you're going to take us through a series of questions the questions you need is to weigh in on that's correct okay and i can do that thank you do you have anything leonard before we get into those questions yeah i just

1:47:01 wanted to know um the planning commissioner who opposed this ordinance did he or she specify what their objections were i don't think they specified in writing they made a number of comments through the public hearing process i think one of the concerns was around removal of the solar setback standards i know was one of their issues they included in the public hearing package were the position papers they were titled i think there were four of them they were from commissioner quavula and and those four position papers laid out his thoughts about what he would have liked to see done different i i guess what i'm getting at here is i'd just like to get some sort of sense of how this ordinance exceeds the state

1:47:46 mandate it doesn't sound like it exceeds it in any really great or significant way is that accurate that is accurate there are a couple of small areas that i could explain that where we do exceed and provide a little more flexibility than is allowed by state law thank you yeah why don't we put a pin in that part and let's get to the the questions that we've got to get addressed so that we can and then we can get into broader discussion we've gotten everybody completely off track already i'm fine and so the first one is it does get kind of nuanced and this is an area that it came up as a conflict we didn't necessarily try and be out of compliance with the state minimum standards but it's really in how we defined what an accessory dwelling unit

1:48:32 is and where they're allowed so really it boils down to the question of should we be allowing accessory dwelling units with all the middle housing types so for instance if you do a four plex and and we allow four plexes to be detached so there could be four detached units on one lot should then each one of those detached units also be allowed to have an accessory dwelling unit effectively making eight units on that one lot it then transfers to town homes which are by definition attached units each one of them on their own lot already and then the cottage cluster type development is another area where you could say do

1:49:17 you have to do at least a minimum of four cottages to be a cottage cluster but then if you could do a an adu with each one of those cottages then you end up with eight units instead of just the four i would say the primary difference is parking so for adus we cannot require additional parking so for instance i'll use the cottage cluster example if you build a four cottage development you have four parking spaces if you now add four adus for a total of eight units you still can only have those four parking spaces we cannot require more they could choose to develop more parking but we could not require it

1:50:03 leonard so um these adus that are proposed here they would still be subject to the setbacks that are mandated they would okay in in that case i'm i'm fine with them corey i'm supportive of including them and in all the ways joe i have a lot of trepidation when it trepidation when it comes to the parking issues when we are basically allowing double the amount of dwellings on a single property and only allowing half or should say only requiring half of the

1:50:49 parking that would normally be associated and there we go again we are pushing parking out onto the street because i know developers are not going to be excited to just put a parking unit or parking spot for each unit if they can get away with with not putting parking on a place then they won't and so here we go we're going to push four vehicles out on the street and this and tonight we just took 50 percent of the parking off of mill street so what where's the happy medium are we we're we are codifying less parking on private property or you know for that matter four plexes and i assume even apartment buildings and then pushing parking out on the street where we're

1:51:35 now limiting parking on a street so what are people supposed to do when they have vehicles and you have a family that has two vehicles because they both work and you see where i'm going it's i'm very concerned about us pushing parking out on the street when street parking is getting more and more uh spare us scarce so i mean i don't i mean i understand it's the support from counselors but i don't know if that's that's being considered or maybe it's just me that's thinking about the parking and the people are going to try to find a place to park so they can live there steve welcome to the future that's the

1:52:20 intent is to discourage use of cars in the future so slowly and gradually that's what that's what's going to be happening as long as we allow it i think we're going to be mandated to do that eventually up cory i just we don't require parking for adus now right that's correct okay so it's it's it's not it's not a change it's just the ideas that if there's i hear what counselor pictionary is saying and also we already have said that we're not going to require additional parking for an adu we're actually prevented from by state law from requiring okay ready so i i think the i think the question is is being driven by the fact

1:53:06 that if you if you do it with a fourplex you can sort of change a fourplex into a new eight plex right effectively with it for adus and then because we don't can't require parking you're essentially doubling the size and then you know and then half half those units you can't have parking for i mean i'm i if it was a the town homes not as concern from my perspective i'm not as concerned about um the duplexes right like not as concerned about i think i think it's that four plex question that i'm having a hard time you know getting my head around okay how does that actually work and so option three is kind of a hybrid where when we specify that it's when the dwelling units are on their own lots

1:53:52 that it would be allowed for the town homes and the cottage cluster types if they did a land division to divide those cottages onto their own lots now the land division process itself is oftentimes cost prohibitive for people to go through to create units on their own lots that then could be sold off so there's some disparity between what might be rental units versus individual units on their unlock that could potentially be sold separately so there's lots of things at play there all right are there any more thoughts are people pretty sort of set that they want to just deal with the adu thing like we've historically dealt with adus okay i'm seeing nods from corey in the

1:54:38 in the big picture i want to encourage separate lots because we're encouraging home ownership so to get a loan on a house you're gonna have to have uh property lines it's got to be separate and i'll just mention that part of the state law is now um the middle housing land division that is included in this code it's an expedited land division process so you could take a fourplex that are four detached units or four even attached units and divide that four plex so each unit is on its own lot and sell them off separately yeah and i think that's what we're talking about is the sort of many different combinations this takes us down and what does it mean um i i guess my ask would be the first time we get a fourplex before adus right

1:55:23 like and obviously process the you know permitting and planning documents like you're supposed to but i would love to get to just see that to try to get my head around well what does that even mean right yeah leonard did you have something else well i'm so i'm just to clear it up in my mind are we talking about option one or talk option three right now well i'm seeing everybody say that they especially want option one which is which is no additional change okay that that that's my that's my preference so we i would envision incorporating these option numbers into the motion in three different places and then um obviously at your discretion you can discuss that or vote it up or down or however you see fit there but yeah okay we can move

1:56:09 forward to the two other questions and then see where we're at at the end so the second question is in regard to setbacks you heard some specific testimony on setbacks both from dylan lamarr and karen knutson in that sheet that counselor pictionary referenced they provided after the hearings in the packet as well as another email that commented on the accessory structure setbacks so there's really kind of two pieces to this question the first is should we stay with a 10 foot rear yard setback and that's what's in the code today it's what's in the proposed code

1:56:54 or should we reduce that to five feet and that would be a change to the proposed code so that's the first piece that's what we originally proposed to the planning commission in the public hearing process and then they recommended it and stay at 10. the second piece the question is specifically to accessory structures today access so accessory structures are typically like a garden shed and um you know detached structures uh those are allowed to be a three foot setback which is the minimum under fire code and so it was a little bit of a oversight but in in cleaning up the code and

1:57:39 simplifying it those three foot setbacks are gone and so there's uh at least some testimony arguing that that three foot step back provision for accessory structures should be put back in merrily thanks um i am in favor of the 10 foot uh setback um and the three feet excess for accessory structures one of the first things i thought of which you just mentioned was uh a concern for fire and emergency response and um i've lived in this i've lived in cities i've lived in philadelphia i lived in i and the closer we get to make it to minimizing this is the closer we get to

1:58:24 looking like looking like a concrete city we've got i just i i'm i'm all for having as much possible as we can make in the design and creativity to make as many affordable structures as we can get but i also want them to be attractive and desirable and i think i don't know too many people who just want to reach their arm out and shake hands with the next door neighbor so i just think that there needs to be some room for people for ownership to attract ownership and to attract a desire uh to want to want to purchase and be part of the home ownership and in affordable housing so i'm i'm in favor of the 10 foot uh

1:59:09 and the three and adding the three feet back in for accessories for safety reasons if if i could just clarify you could choose either option one or two and option three or not three um they're not all mutually exclusive there right and i'm i'm for option one and three okay uh joe um i think it makes sense to to bring back the three foot sec setback for accessory structures um i do think that and to be a little bit normally merrily and i you know align each other pretty quick you know quite often but in this particular case if we we've only got a five foot setback on the sides i don't know the difference between the five foot setback

1:59:55 in the on the side of the structure versus a five foot setback on the back of the structure fact is you got structures on each side that can be you know a minimum of 10 feet apart and in the back it would be the same way minimum of 10 feet apart although i think i would agree with the recommendation from earlier in regards to the uh you know five foot set back in the rear when it comes to with a footprint of a 900 square foot structure or the definition of an adu so it allows for more adus and minimizes the full-on house that far back like merrily is talking about but for an adu i think we should be able to get to a five foot step back in the rear

2:00:42 so it's a modified um two and three leonard uh well i was for option one and three until merrily brought up shaking hands with your neighbor i think we should be encouraging that behavior so um i i i think i'm actually for option two in option three okay so let's take corey um i also i was going back and forth because i think you know there's this idea of staying with the 10. then as i think about it and not to sound like a capitalist but i think also the market is gonna play out a little bit like you said with the the four and four like we'll see if we do that and nobody likes it so i um also definitely think we should bring the three foot back so that we can have some structure around structures um but

2:01:28 i'm open to the the five foot okay so i'm hearing three foot definitely yes and then i'm here in five foot option two joe yeah i just want to clarify that the five foot um if it's not if it's not limited to smaller structures like the small footprint structures like the adus or the 950 square foot structures then i would uh deny if that's not the case then i support option one okay so i think there's two points we then we gotta talk through right so do you want are you for option one option two or sort of the the middle part the hybrid between the two which is ten if it's a normal size house and then

2:02:14 you know if it's an adu having it be five yeah that's what i was saying yep yep so i think we're i think we're still we still haven't settled on the on that on that question i'd go with a one and three but i'm going to tell you i don't know what we're going to do when we make the motions so i want oh let me keep track we'll get it figured out when we get that get that way so we're good on three right but i've got we're still kind of all over the place we got cory and leonard saying hey option two we've got merrily and steve saying option one and then joe's saying 1.5 for me

2:02:59 i like 1.5 okay i'm good with the 10 feet and then the five feet if you have adus this isn't the hill i'm gonna die on that's fine mark does that make sense to you it does all right so then five feet by five feet anybody want to throw on another scenario for us to track all right so i'll move on to the third question and this um ties in a little bit back to the well it is the parking question um ties into some of the conversation you were having a few minutes ago and you heard some of this testimony really not necessarily directly but

2:03:44 dylan lamarr has talked about a number of different development type scenarios to make affordable housing easier to develop staff has looked at a lot of those options and really identified the parking reduction for affordable housing would be a way to facilitate more flexibility for a site to allow affordable housing as you're all um probably aware of his c street co-op type development um you know smaller units hopefully equal more affordability but it is the guaranteed affordable housing type projects that this would be applicable to so really the question is should we put back in so we had proposed a parking reduction at the planning commission public

2:04:29 hearing i think i don't want to speak for them but in their supplemental recommendation they weren't against the parking reduction they just wanted to consider it as part of a larger package of incentives but it is something that could be put back in a stand alone to provide that incentive now while a bigger package of incentives was looked at later but so really that's the question leonard so so i got a question here so when we talk about a parking reduction are we talking about a mandate a mandated parking reduction or a reduction in the required amount reduction in the required amount so they could choose to still develop how much of a parking they would want under the code

2:05:15 um but they would be allowed to go lower down to half the required well that that being the case i'm i'm in favor you're in favor of um the reduction in the mandated amount merrily required amount um i yeah as that as that has been explained as long as they're not required to reduce it by 50 but they can go to 50 by choice in their development i'm okay one of the comments that was made in regards to the regards to lowering uh the requirement allowing the parking

2:06:00 was in regards to being access to transit to all that kind of stuff biking and all that kind of stuff and and and i wanted to remind as i've reminded representative lively so often there aren't always access or people don't always have the ability to even get from where they're living to a transit if they are disabled in any way or restricted in any way so when you're talking about putting somebody who's under who in a position in a housing situation on a fixed income or for whatever other reasons um that's something to consider when you're talking about

2:06:45 creating parking um sometimes that's the only way that somebody has access even to get from their house to taking a chan opportunity to use transit or something like that um and so i think that it's important to to consider that those kind of those kind of needs are out there especially if you're talking creating affordable housing and and creating it exactly for the the people that that need it the most so just just adding those two cents in but as long as they're not required to cut it by 50 and they can make the choice to do that but i like i said i just want them whoever made that comment in there in their packet material want them to think about that and remember that there's people out there that may be a block away from transit but they may not have the quite the capability of even being able to get

2:07:31 from their house to that transit and having a parking space is much more amenable to them joe thank you and and that's true mary lee for sure um coming back to parking now i think nobody would disagree with me when it comes to uh from the eyes of a developer if a developer looks at piece of property they're going to want to maximize development within those boundaries of the property and if they could get away with not having any parking then i would venture to say that many developers would do that and just simply stay parked out on the street so that being said and then we turn around and say well 50 reduce that requirement

2:08:16 by 50 for long-term affordable housing and i'm thinking okay so affordable housing is indicative of a lower income family and so those families need to work and more often than not quite often they are not working in transportation hubs they're out in the industrial community and out in the field where public transportation is not even available so those folks need to have some sort of vehicle to get to where they're working but yet now we're turning around and telling long-term affordable housing you're going to have less parking so here it runs against what we're doing with the state laws

2:09:01 saying okay infill infill fill it up with buildings fill it up with houses i get it but here we are getting i think we got our binders on and not allowing us to look at who's living there and what their actual needs are and these people got to have transportation and i agree you know be great if everybody bicycle off the you know as much as they want but that's not going to be your average worker they're not going to be driving riding their bicycle around and i'm pouring rain just trying to get to work when public transportation doesn't get in there so i'm very perplexed about this mad push to reduce parking and or allow more allow it if they want to do it but we also know in that same breath

2:09:47 we know that developers are not going to want to do more parking so in a way it's kind of a misnomer so i i think that frankly i don't think we should mess with the parking except for do what the state mandates us to do but we got to have parking for for our working class folks cory so yet again um i actually agree with counselor pictionary for lots of reasons and i've been thinking about this um i i'm and you know councilor pitts isn't here to just talk about the the visitability challenges of minimal parking and i think that um councilor woodrow touched on this but one of the things is you know not everyone is

2:10:32 what's considered able-bodied and so reduction in parking means reduction in all parking that means reduction in accessible parking for someone who may have a mobility device and need to get into an affordable housing unit so i think that we've leaned so far over that we we aren't really considering the the the realities and i recently read an article about the the sort of myth of food deserts and the idea is that you know most people do have access to transportation whether that's their own or someone else if they're they're an older person someone is driving them places and to if you were coming to pick up your senior person who lives in an affordable housing union you can't get the house close enough to get them in their mobility device into the car i mean all of these things are

2:11:18 real and i think that the again the idea that affordable would mean less access is problematic for me so i am for option one um and the other piece that i think we've talked about here is i also completely understand that these mandates are coming down from the state and they also are sort of being tested out in much more compact urban areas and so to take these rules and regulations that are meant for a portland or a beaverton or wherever and slap them onto springfield oregon is also i feel resistant to that so i'm not quite ready to go there until they make us so i'm for option one merrily

2:12:06 you're mute merely me too i i had option one written down um before mark explained option two but after listening to both the counselor christian area and counselor bradley i am right back at way back where i was originally with option one what's the next question mark that's all the questions i have i'm happy to um i need to sorry um can we go back to the first option i did some and i apologize for this i did some we did some additional research um on the way that the adu question was framed and i want to make sure it's represented accurately in the code with what the code was so if we can go back to those slides mark it would be

2:12:52 helpful um and which slides here first first question um so the um so i just want to be clear it's whether adu should be allowed as part of cottage cluster development or town homes there was some discussion that adus about adus and fourplexes or triplexes the current code does not propose to allow a to use with four plexes or triplexes um and so i just want to be clear that those are fourplexes and triplexes are different than cottage cluster development or town homes and then also just be clear that with the only place where an adu is currently allowed is with a single unit detached dwelling and so any of these options would be a lot would be adding new adus

2:13:37 so i don't know if that means the council needs to re-discuss the direction you provided or whether that clarification was already what the council understood um but i just want to be really clear on the record about what is in the proposal um in terms of those plexes joe thank you you know thanks for bringing that up christina because i've i i was biting my lip during most of that process when it's asking for a definition well i'm getting confused because this is the definition of a dwelling unit a sex accessory dwelling unit and in my mind or in my head it was a it was a building that was detached or attached that was 850 square feet 800 800 okay so it calls out the square

2:14:23 footage and then this then this edition mark if you're if correct me if i'm wrong is you're saying that we can now throw adus on a lot that's got a four plex and that very same four-plex will have a lot that's down to 7000 square feet and so then we're talking about the maximum amount of overlay on a lot to 7000 square feet what kind of square footage you're talking about the four plex and those adus will count towards that correct counselor pictionary when you mention the overlay are you referencing the amount of lock coverage that structures

2:15:08 yeah yeah i mean because we're adding more buildings so therefore it's got to impact the overlay correct we would not yeah just to be clear christina was pointing out my oversight that the additional adus would not be allowed for fourplexes and triplexes it's just specific to town homes and cottage clusters okay but you're still correct in your if we were talking about four cottage clusters on a site that you could add four adus one for each of those four cottage clusters and that would all count towards the lot coverage so so when we have for example you're talking about the maximum lot coverage right now is recommended to be 45

2:15:55 of the max of the lot is that correct that's correct when in the adus we'll count towards that that's also correct so how i so if you add up i'm gonna play in my head i'm going okay 850 or 800 times four and you're looking at a town home that's a 1 000 square feet yeah and it's a it's a valid point that you're not always going to be able to do the adus and i'll just point out one one potential option for an adu is somebody could convert an interior part of a structure to an adu for instance um a garage could become an adu and that would already be part of the

2:16:41 existing structure there's just it doesn't mean every lot's going to be able to do an edu because you have to meet all these other development standards it's just providing more flexibility right i'm just i can't i can't align myself to to destroy and to absolutely remove open space for where people are living merely hit it on the button earlier so i'm talking about a concrete jungle well here we are we're looking at it codes that theoretically if you add up all those square footages those structures won't even fit some of our most of our lots a lot of our lots and yet it's not going to allow for any open space in our neighborhoods

2:17:27 so i don't have and i don't frankly don't like any of that so leonard is um is there a minimum size for an adu there's no minimum in the development code i think through building code provisions it would mandate about a minimum size of any dwelling is around 200 square feet could be a minimum dwelling size period but not specific data so you could scale your adu to the available space okay yeah thanks okay so it sounds like we're still on option one for folks okay so mark the way sorry real quick i just want to be clear that is option one with the understanding that it is allowed with

2:18:14 attached and detached housing types being cottage townhomes and cottage clusters not the four plex and triplex you could add fourplexes and triplexes if you wish to i'm not hearing that i just want to be really clear that's what that that we're in agreement about that's what option one means and mark the way now we gotta form this into a motion right and the way that i read the packet is we saw on the first question we selected option one which was no change okay and then then option three which was no change so the only change we would have to put in there is option two right and i'll look at christina potentially does that sound correct christina would they need to include those i am just going um and i apologize i'm

2:19:00 trying to find my place for the motion in the pdf and so the scrolling is setting me a little behind because i have to jump around well why don't you joe's got a comment so why don't you take a second and get you know get ready to help us with the motion because it's going to get complicated here and we'll let joe make a comment i think sean i just uh i clearly understand christina that this does not apply to four plexus and i would be opposed to applying it towards four plexes so that's i'm fine with that that makes sense even triplexes don't make any sense to put adus on it

2:19:46 all right so i was just going to say i'd entertain any questions or discussion about any other topics those are the only ones i was going to cover tonight are there any other questions about the about the code right joe all right got a lot of them tonight it's a hot topic so um it's a big one it is i want to make sure we we covered across our t's and mark by the way you're doing an exceptional job so just so you know that i've always supported your work um so i do want to to know if there's been serious consideration when it comes to the percentage of maximum lot coverage so and free space to me is huge

2:20:32 and people need to have kids need to have a place where they can even play between two two buildings and and if we're reducing our maximum lot coverage down to only 45 percent of a lot right so what was it before actually and um maybe christina can fact check me on this i don't have the existing development code in front of me but we're proposing to keep the lot coverage standard the same as it is today okay and um we had proposed a new different scheme for lot coverage and so currently lot coverage counts structures or buildings as defined it does not include impervious surface

2:21:17 areas like pavement and driveways paved patios things like that so it would only count structures on a lot um what we had proposed is going raising the number up to 60 percent but including all impervious surface areas of the property it would be much more difficult to enforce interesting yeah that'd be very interesting people can pave a back patio and not get a building permit and we would never know it's their kind of thing so does your number party enter sorry to interject um does your number also include the quote unquote accessory buildings it would yes any structure but so where this was discussed at length at the planning commission hearing and there was a lot of back and forth really where they landed on is keeping it what it is

2:22:03 today we envision this topic needing to change over time because of the new stormwater permit being implemented over the next year or two right so really it's ultimately going to boil down to how much area of your property is developable is going to depend on how much of the storm water needs to be captured and dealt with on site so really that's going to end up being the driving factor behind law coverage so with the planning commission's recommendation and we agree is leave well enough alone for now and let's see how the new ms4 permit for stormwater plays out that's sort of the new nipas um direction from the eq yeah right so

2:22:49 that's they're also into the future so we don't box ourselves in now so in the future that that is also quantified by impervious a percentage of impervious cir surface and then they calculate or you have to calculate a pervious surface and the difference between the two is where you're going to try to now mandate some catchment on-site catchment facilities on top of all this in-field buildings that were now within five feet of this of our property that's correct well good luck thanks all right christina talk motions yes so am i correct that the only change you're wanting to make

2:23:34 is option one on the topic of accessory dwelling units is that capturing the discussion we want option one on the uh accessory dwelling units and then we want so here's what we want for the conversation about setbacks we want a 10 foot setback for regular buildings five foot step back for adus and three foot setback for sort of those out buildings okay and the way i would why i read the packet for option one is for adus was that was actually no change to the current draft code but i don't know if that makes life easier

2:24:19 do have to change the draft code to a lot to fix the inconsistency so it's no change to part of the draft code it is a change to another section so we'll want to specify that one and then on the topic of setbacks that's none of that's basically none of the options specifically in the packet correct correct i don't know it addresses option three option three and and then option two point five hybrid that's i think that that's correct so we're making we're defining a new setback plus option three

2:25:13 so it might be easier sean or maybe if christina can i'm hoping she's typing in i am typing right now yeah we just have to stall for station identification and i think he's going to put it up there for steve well she puts it on the screen that way steve can read straight off the screen we're going to we're going to leverage technology here so retaining a 10 foot setback for primary dwellings in all in all zones yes correct primary structures um christina or primary structures structures yet and all residential i'm gonna say in an r1 r2 and r3 and condominiums are starting to look pretty good now aren't they

2:26:00 and it is for accessory dwelling units yes yep um 10 foot setback that is the 10 foot rear setback correct correct and a 10 and a 5 foot rear setback forks yeah on 88 correct okay so i think that i have this i'm going to put this in read mode because it'll be easier for you and then i will share my screen and you can review that and and maybe if you're ready for the motion you can do that or if you want to read it through and ask me questions first that might be a better use of time um i think give people a second to read it because we need to we need to add the three foot back in that is option number three so on the topic of setbacks that would be option number three written into the packet

2:26:46 um and then you would be also adding retaining a ten foot rear setback for primary structures and five foot rear setback for accessory dwelling units and you forgot you need to use the three foot for accessory right three buildings yeah that is in option number three listed there so that's already in the packet in option three so i'm calling that out on this fourth line here on the topic of setbacks you're picking option three which is that three foot setback for accessory structures plus what comes after that option number three okay so steve would be good just reading it as is and it'll come out yeah hang on one second we got corey does this include the the parking option one was that a no change

2:27:31 or is that something different that was our third thing we had to talk about i don't think christina i think that number one has no changes to the proposed ordinance under this option so it doesn't need to be captured in your motion but you if you want to be really clear i could add that it's not necessarily i i think we're i think we're good so does anybody have other questions about the motion before i let steve sort of read it um all right steve you're up mr mr rest are you ready for this i'm ready let's do it do it steve okay i moved to adopt the proposed ordinance with the following changes as written in a council breathing memorandum for this item in the text highlighted in blue it's hard for me to read that by the way the

2:28:17 text title in blue with the minor edits noted and on the top of the accessory dwelling unit definition and standards adopting the changes in option number one on the topic of setbacks option number three retaining ten foot rear setback for primary structures in r1 r2 and r3 and 5 foot set five foot rear setback for accessory dwelling units i second that motion all right neil can you call the vote please yes counselor pitts counselor mo yes counselor bradley yes sponsor stare aye councillor woodrow yes and counselor pitionary yes and thank you

2:29:02 motion passes five yeses zero knows in one absent good job christian mark nice job huge milestone i appreciate all the work you have done a wonderful job on this i've seen this this stuff is in constant change right now in future there's a whole lot more change coming and now that we adopted it we'll be back soon to change it thank you mark thanks mark and thank you christina appreciate you yes thank you next item please uh business from the city council any other business

2:29:47 cory i just want to remind everybody to vote you have until 8 pm tomorrow to get your ballots in to and if you live in springfield we've got a couple of boxes there's one right here at city hall and um this year this election it can also be in the hand of a postal service person tomorrow so if you can't get to a box you can still get it and make sure it's in the hand of a postal service person that's it thanks joe thank you corey i appreciate you bringing that up i also want to remind folks that there's a voter box receptacle box at splash wave pool off at thurston road and they have a new one out at rite aid over off of marcola off of that and that's towards the street whereby albertsons and the right

2:30:32 egg so it's out there too all right that's a new one anybody else next item please any business from the city manager just really quickly i wanted to recognize mark rust and also christina kraz for their excellent work on getting to the development code over the finish line and also you counselors for taking the time to review many many pages of code which is very tedious and time-consuming work and reminding our community that you are all volunteer elected officials then you give of your time very generously and i wanted to thank you and our staff and that for that project i truly have reviewed the whole code not

2:31:18 haven't read it but but uh a lot of it overlays on some of the old stuff but it's all missed out yeah all right next item please next item is business from the city attorney uh one item tonight amendment to lane county use of deadly force plan uh this is resolution number three a resolution approving an amendment to the lane county deadly physical force plan as created by the lane county deadly physical force planning authority and lieutenant george crawley is here for the staff report good evening mr mayor ladies and gentlemen of the council uh this plan has been in place since 2008. uh it's countywide plan which to

2:32:05 say it's not specific to the city of springfield the deadly force plan by law enforcement personnel uh obviously is a matter of critical concern both to the public and to the law enforcement community and the purpose of this plan is not to set the standards for the use of force or to substitute for agency policy regarding use of force but rather to provide a framework for a consistent response to an officer's use of deadly physical force that treats law enforcement officers fairly and promotes public confidence in the criminal justice system so what's being submitted is a request for approval of the amended plan the amended plan is required to be submitted to the supervising body of each jurisdiction within the county that employs a law enforcement agency by the terms of senate bill 111

2:32:50 council must approve or disapprove of the plan as submitted and is not allowed to amend the plan the amended plan addresses a change mandated by house bill 4301 and with the passage of that bill the interagency deadly force investigation team as part of its investigation will determine amongst other things whether the deadly force was object objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances known as police officer and whether there was a reasonable opportunity prior to the use of deadly physical force for the officer to consider alternatives or give a verbal warning that deadly force may be used with time for the person to comply other one other than what i just said no other changes were made to the deadly

2:33:35 fiscal force plan leonard um thanks for your report um were there in in what you just outlined were there any amendments that are in excess of the house bill or is this strictly to comply with the house it's strictly to comply with the house bill thank you you're welcome joe thank you uh george was there any part of the um from the 2008 to the 2021 plan i'd love to see documents where it says it shows changes but do you know where was there any any changes i mean i mean i understand that there's

2:34:22 the bill etc but does it show anywhere in this document what changes were made so it's easier to review uh yes it's actually the very last page of the physical force plan it's the heading on the top of the page is entitled 2022 amendment to deadly physical force plan that's the only change okay that's curious if i didn't know if i had to sit there and read it word for word to pick out what was pulled out and what was added in so thank you so much appreciate it you're welcome are there any other questions it's my hope that the city will never ever have to use this but we're being safe so i'm gonna make a motion maybe adopt resolution number one number three second

2:35:07 neil could you call the vote please yes councillor pitts councilor mo yes councillor radley yes councillor stair hi councillor woodrow yes and cancer pationary yes thank you the motion passes five yeses zero knows one absent are there any other items any other business from the city attorney no no other business thank you thank you everybody have a great night we are adjourned good night