Springfield City Council — September 26, 2022

0:04 I'm going to call the city council work session to order with roll call. Mayor Van Gordon. Here. Councilor Pitts. Here. Councilor Moe. Councilor Rodley. Here. Councilor Stehr. Here. Councilor Woodrow. And Councilor Pishue Nery. I'm here. Thank you. All right. Uh and Councilor Woodrow is excused for the evening. We are expecting Councilor Moe any minute now. We have two items tonight. The first item is the planning commission interviews. And I believe Sandy, you're here to do the staff work. Good evening, Mayor and councilors. My name is Sandy Belson. I'm the comprehensive planning manager. So, tonight we have five people who have applied to be on the planning commission to fill two

0:50 vacancies. We also have two members of the commission whose terms will expire in February. So, you could, if you wanted, decide to appoint those positions out of these this applicant pool or you could direct staff to um recruit again this fall for additional applicants to fill those um two positions that would be available in February. There are no um applicants who are outside of the city city limits or who are involved in the real estate profession, so there is no restriction on who you need to appoint or who who you could appoint. Okay, great. I have a question. Go ahead.

1:35 Um I have a question, Sandy. I think it said in the packet that one of those folks who's up in 2023 is not planning to reapply, but one of them it didn't say that they were not planning to reapply. So, what did we do about that? Commissioner Quevedo is um finishing his second term, so he is not eligible to reapply. Thank you. Okay, perfect. Um I think we're ready unless there's more questions to uh do the interviews.

2:29 Hello, Ruth. Hello. Thanks for joining us. Um I would go around and do introductions, but it's going to be a little bit hard with everybody in the room. So, we're we're all here. Okay. If you I'm going to ask the questions, and then everybody's going to take notes, and if you're ready to go, I'll start firing them away. Okay. Why are you interested in serving on the Planning Commission? For my years of experience as a transit planner and community advocate, I just love working with groups that are trying to accomplish big big things that have great impact, and this Planning Commission is such a great

3:15 tie between what the state is wanting to see down at the local level, and as a citizen advisory committee, I would love to be participating in understanding what changes are coming down, and how to best support the City Council in understanding those impacts on citizens as well as how to um maybe make some recommendations for some best um approaches, and learn along the way. All right, great. Could you describe your understanding of the role you will have serving on Planning Commission and how it relates to the work of Council? I basically will be a citizen that is

4:03 going to learn what the legislative um rules and regulations are and how that's going to impact land use and some regulations. And as citizens bring their projects or um industries to the City Council, I'm going to be a layer of of advisory, learning what their project is, asking questions, and also um giving some feedback on how that might have some um negative or positive impacts on the community as I'm understanding the regional plan is set up and what the

4:49 codes and uh land use guidelines are and make sure we're all lining up and and implementing them as appropriately as possible. What you see as current issues and challenges for the City of Springfield? Well, we've got some growth issues and uh along the way there's um requirements for how buildings have to be made uh built and also uh transportation modes are having more of an impact on our community's ability to grow, for transit, and for uh business development. I'm really concerned that we have a as much of a livable community

5:35 that has all the components of of industry as well as neighborhoods that have uh viability and an infrastructure that's in place that can support us into the future. And I live in I've lived in this town for 25 years and it's grown and I think there's been some great approaches in the past to grow and some smart moves that have made us, um, very different from Eugene and I want as much as possible to, um, support that and help us meet as many goals as possible.

6:21 All right. Um, before we let you go, do you have any questions for me or the rest of us? I basically want to know if we're, um, it how much we're going to challenge what was asked of our community to implement the legislative, uh, environmental restrictions, especially around buildings. Oh, that that that's going to be a longer conversation. That is in litigation right now, so you'll have to hear a little bit more about it later. Um, but if you stick around for the, uh, the, uh, update, they're going to talk about what is actually in the rules. Oh, great. Great. Well, I look forward to working with all of you if you choose

7:06 me. All right. Thank you so much, Ruth. Um, we're if somebody from the staff's going to get back to you with what our decision is. Okay. Thank you. I'm on side. Huh? I'm on this side. Oh, well, then why don't you come over here?

7:54 This is our staff assistant. Okay. She is in the city hall. Why can't Cynthia Is Cynthia good to come down? She is. Cynthia, can you hear us, okay? Yes, I can. Well, welcome. Um so, I'm the mayor and um I I realize how hard it was going to do be to do introductions while we're in here. So, it's nice on behalf of the council, it's really nice to meet you. I will ask the questions for everybody and then we'll um then we'll discuss from there. Why are you interested in serving on the planning commission? Well, I've done a lot of uh uh student work and district work and planning Cynthia, could you

8:40 Hang on 1 second. Can you hear me now? Is there Is there a mic that's still It's a little bit uh Uh then actually, if you, you know, come a little closer to here, so what do you call it, in here? Cynthia, are you talking? Yeah, we may have to have you That's my voice. Okay, I've done a lot of sort of planning work and assessment work and evaluation Yeah, I think so. Okay. Cynthia, could we're going to actually have you come come down to the chambers and use the microphone in here. Okay. Um We're having trouble hearing you. Okay. I'll bring her down. Maybe you can start the next interview and by that time we'll be down there, okay? Perfect. Thank you so much.

9:25 Bye. Okay, can you hear me okay? Yes, we can. Great. Um we have counselor Pishioneri in the room, so you know, he he's being pretty feisty. Um so Welcome, Steven. Uh if you're ready, I'm going to go go

10:10 ahead and start uh asking the questions. I'm going to ask all the questions tonight just to make it a little bit easier uh in the remote setting. Okay, yeah, go ahead. Um can you hear me okay? Yep. Why are you interested in serving on the Planning Commission? Uh it was a way for me to uh to help out um and then inform myself of what you know, what's going on in the city and what challenges there are and how they're being addressed. And uh I know you guys asked for a lot of outreach or do a lot of outreach, ask for a lot of input, and I know folks don't um So, it's just an opportunity for me to try to help out and try to let you know what I'm thinking and hearing, so.

10:56 Could you describe your understanding of the role that you will have serving on the Planning Commission and how it relates to the work uh of the council? Well, I I don't I don't know much about planning, only what I've read, of course. Uh I've started reading the Metro Plan, interesting. Um I hope I can help the council understand what citizens want and and help the citizens, you know, understand the path that the council took, why it did it, uh what the, you know, issues were. Uh you know, misinformation's the problem, of course, in trying to um drive the city, I assume, so. What do you see as the current issues and challenges for the city of Springfield? Um public health and safety,

11:41 um um housing stability, uh I think it's a big one. Obviously, Main Street's been out there recently. Um I I think future budgets are going to be an issue. You I'm probably not telling anyone on the council that so anything else with that, so. All right. Do you have any questions for any of us before we let you go? Um No, I don't think so. I um I I will comment that I, you know, I voted for land use planning what was it 50 years ago, 40 some years ago. Um my idea was is that things would be orderly. Um I think I think that's important. I think it has gotten a little out of hand and I know

12:26 um you folks deal with that all the time and I'm just hoping to be able to understand that and help out. Uh I don't think it has to be a cookie cutter for every community, so. Um appreciate your opportunity to uh for my opportunity to apply and your for your all your service. I know you folks put in a lot of time. Thank you. All right, thank you so much. Uh we've got a couple more interviews tonight. Um so once we deliberate and decide, uh somebody from the staff will reach out. So thank you. All right. Uh nurse Come on up, Cynthia. Thank you for being flexible. Technology sometimes isn't as uh Yeah, can you hear me? Yes. Okay.

13:12 Why are you interested in serving on Planning Commission? Uh well, to have a greater a greater impact and effect on the community. I've been working some with the homeless for for quite a few years and have been helping with with developed programs and developed distribution and the big issue right now is shelter. Of course, everyone's working on shelter. But but the the idea of the planning commission itself is something besides the police and besides the the the church fathers, you know, it's just another governing body that has has impact and influence. Okay. Uh could you describe your

13:58 understanding of the role that you will serve on the planning commission and how it relates to the work of council? Uh community liaison. You know, interviews, visits. I don't I have never used a computer much because I lived in a really remote fashion with wood stoves and and hand making and home babies and all of that. So so I'm my emphasis, of course, is on reaching more people that don't have any access. You know. And with council council, there's just nothing nothing presented. That we try to get to a meeting and they say it's over here and it's at this time. And

14:43 instead it's over here and it's at this time. You know, without having email and computerization and and iPhones, it's just a world apart from what it's always been. I've lived here for nearly 40 years. What do you see as your current issues and challenges for the city of Springfield? The city of Springfield being between McKenzie and Eugene is the most challenging challenging position probably in the county, maybe in the state because it's worlds apart, you know, not just McKenzie but Marcola and Crow and and Fall Creek where people

15:30 still live, you know, exactly the same way they always did but now have no access, you know, are just blocked off. Great. Do you have any questions for us before we let you go? Well, if you have any planning for the shelter shelter systems this winter, if you've considered it. Yeah, there there's annual work going on a shelter called Egan, which is the shelter in the the build the emergency shelter in Springfield that would activate with the if the freezing weather. 15 or 20 nights a year on this. That That's what's being worked on right now. It was when when they started the urban renewal programs, you know, they said every time

16:15 a a house or unit was torn down, uh two or three more would have to be built up. Um I don't know that I remember that conversation but if you want to hang out until, you know, after the meeting, I'm sure we can find somebody to to talk with you. that to things like the Salvation Army and the mission and just replace the facilities. We we've got a couple more interviews tonight but like if you're more than welcome to hang out and we can chat with you later. Thank you.

17:06 Hello, Seth. Hello. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Can you hear us okay? Absolutely. Thank you. All right. Um so, I'm going to ask the questions tonight. Normally, we would go around with a round of introductions but we rely I realized that that's going to be challenging with us all sitting in the same room. You won't even know who's talking to you. So, I'm going to welcome you on behalf of everybody. Thank you. Why are you interested in serving on the planning commission? Yeah, so I'm interested in serving on the planning commission because I frankly feel that I could have a positive impact given my professional background. I have served as a land use planner for Marion County and Lane County where I administered land use decisions that promoted business development, economic growth, agricultural operations, and increased housing opportunities. I've been honored to serve four Oregon

17:51 cities, two counties, and two state agencies in both professional and volunteer roles in land use planning and economic development. I currently serve on the community development advisory committee for the city of Springfield. And so, I'm an avid civic volunteer. I see serving on the Springfield Planning Commission as another opportunity to be more involved I was born and raised in Springfield and wanted to give back to the city. So, that's why I'm here. Thank you. Could you describe your understanding of the role you will have serving on the planning commission and how it relates to the work on council? Sure. So, based on my review, I would assist with making recommendations to the city council concerning legislative adoption or amendments of land use plans and land use regulations in accordance with state law, obviously.

18:37 Assist in making land use decisions on quasi-judicial development proposals and serve as a city's committee for citizen involvement. What do you see as current issues and challenges for the city of Springfield? Sure. I would say number one, city level and state level housing affordability. Um My wife and I recently purchased a home in Springfield, though I was born and raised here in Thurston. We moved around the state quite a bit and ended up coming back to Springfield to speak as we love the environment here and the livability of the city. So, um understand the plight of uh prospective homeowners, and also uh renters. We rented for quite a long time. Um houses populations, so providing services for those currently without shelter. Um land use is a big big topic,

19:23 obviously it's all interconnected, especially with housing affordability, so the impacts of state legislation on land use in Springfield, meaning you know, this speaks to the challenging challenges facing Springfield in regards to how we How do you build responsibly and in compliance with Oregon's statewide planning goals while recognizing the limited space we have uh to work with, so the city's urban growth boundary. Uh transportation has been spoken to uh tonight already. So, how do we address upcoming challenges posed by growth within Springfield to accommodate transportation uh and its needs for citizens? So, for example, public transportation, cars, pedestrian, and even bike infrastructure. Those are all big considerations. So, basically, how do we deal and how do we deal intelligent intelligently with growth while also accommodating the needs of uh people who

20:08 need our help. And they'll do it for me. Thank you. All right, great. Um do you have any questions for us before we we let you go? Not at this time. It's been great. Uh just again, I want to end with I'm very eager for this opportunity, and I think I'd do a great job, and um I think I have the academic and work background that could be of use to you, so thank you. Perfect. Thank you so much. Um somebody from the staff will let you know uh cuz we still have a couple more interviews tonight. Thanks, Seth. Have a good night.

20:53 Uh what time did we start? Did we give him a specific time to show? Yeah, I want to We can start deliberations, and then if we see Devon, we'll we'll go from there. Okay. So, let's open deliberations and see what what people are thinking. Also, there's always a possibility, you know, that Devon's going to knock our socks off right now. Um Steven and Seth seem Steven and Seth seem very capable and very qualified.

21:41 Yeah, I think I agree with Leonard also like Ruth. Um I think she's got shown the ability to look at things holistically as well. So, I think we've got those three strong candidates. I wouldn't I wouldn't oppose Seth. By any by any means. But, Steve's a great candidate. I think he's shown that before. So, I like Ruth, Steve, and Seth. All right. Lori. Um so, it's I'm just going to say it out loud. It sounds like we're um we're leaning towards just seating two folks and then waiting to see um in the future, which is where I'm at as well. Um Uh my two candidates are Seth and Ruth, actually.

22:28 Okay. Uh Steve. Steven and Seth my pick. All right. Damian. Uh so, question is the last person they said they were on CEDAC. And so, are we allowing people to be on more than one board or commission? And if so, why? Uh we're I'm going to tag in Mary Bridget here. Sure. Counselor Pitts, generally uh the council and its operating policies recommends that people are only serve on one committee. Um but it's not an absolute requirement. So in this particular case, he's already on the CEDAC. If you decided to appoint him,

23:13 you know, you could ask him about stepping down from CEDAC and then reappoint someone there once you open that back up. Hm. Did that answer your question? Yeah, it did. Um All right. So I'll say that the the first person and last person. Okay. Ruth Ruth and Seth. Is Yes. Okay. Joe. All right. Actually, Damian, I'm I'm very happy you brought that up because that has been a point of contention over the years and has caused some issues. So based on that, um I think I would like to see Ruth and Steve on the planning commission and then we

24:01 have plenty of time to figure out Seth. Um we don't have to appoint him tonight. So I think if we appointed Ruth and Steve tonight and then um have time to figure out what we're going to do with Seth and what he wants to do cuz he may he may very well want to stay on CEDAC as opposed to the planning commission. So there's no point in moving forward with that appointment if he does he would rather not decide between the two. But I agree Damian, I I it's important to me. I I don't think it's appropriate for people to serve on multiple committees. So Let's tally right there. Uh so we have Steve's got 1 2 3 and without Merilee here, it's going to take

24:46 three to move move people forward. Seth has 1 2 3 probably depending on what Joe does, three or four. And then And has got three. Wow. So, like So, Um and I and I could be fine with all three of them, honestly. Like if we if we're if we're collectively looking, you know, looking at it and saying as a body we want we want to appoint all three, that could that would be fine. But I would think but if we do that, we need to make it sort of contingent on Seth stepping off of CDAC. Um in which which we can do. We we can put that we we we can make that part of the deal. We can go back and ask him what his preferences.

25:32 So, all three then? But if Provided provided to you. Oh, Damien. So, I guess my first question is just based on feedback I've gotten from different board and commission members. I wonder one did did he even know that? Because there's a good chance that he might think okay, well, I'll be on both. Uh which I mean of course you can definitely see some overlap. And there's a benefit to them talking, but he might not know that he that you know, and so that might be something that that we'll we'll need to figure out. Uh two, I you know, I know that we talked about having you know, selecting people for the people who are off in February, but as we look to make some small changes, I personally think we should only choose

26:17 two tonight and then wait until February. Because I mean there will be some proposed changes and there's some things we need to iron out first. Uh so, yeah, that's just what I think. So, and to and I'm looking at the chat. Did I read that chat correctly? Do we have Okay. Uh do we see Devin in Okay. So, um CDAC also has uh I believe a planning commission liaison on it from from from that committee. So, again, if I you know, my my if I had to go down to two, right, then I would say Ruth and Steve.

27:04 So, I I think if we're if we're expecting Devon any minute, I think we give her about another 2 minutes and then see if we see if they show and then we can then we can finalize it. We don't we don't know yet if Steve's going to step down. Seth. Seth's on C hat. Correct. I Okay. Basically, we liked all three of them. All right, so let's pause for station identification here and see if

27:54 I would ask for something lively at this time of the night. Yeah, so maybe the first question that we've got to answer are people set on two or three folks. I see a couple twos. Need two now. We definitely need two now. I have the third one as an option when it comes. Okay. So,

28:39 All right, we may have to invite this Do you see anybody? All right, so let's do this. AJ, um if we're going to go back out in February, let's contact her and invite her to reapply. Um since we've given her a little bit of time and there's more opportunities in I believe February. And I would be when I would be even comfortable if we just if she wanted to and just resign the current application and just roll it over. Like have her put a new signature and date on it so that she affirms that like she still wants to do this. All right. So, let's Let's count. So, I've got for Seth is 1 2 3. I'm not for Joe. I have four for Seth. So, I have Leonard, Corey, not Joe,

29:27 Steve, and Damian. And for Steve I have 1 I have three for Steve. And three for Ruth cuz I'm Yep. All right. So, without Merilee here we got to be at three to to to keep anything. So, if we're going with two folks, if you wanted or we have two options here, right? We can there's more people that are in favor of Seth, but I think we have to make that contingent on him stepping down at a CEDAC. Fair enough. Is everybody comfortable with that? Yep. And then Steve's a yes.

30:12 And then I'm assuming staff can have that conversation with Seth. Well, how is Steve more of a yes than Ruth? Oh, well, that's a good point. I just happened to write them in You would have to tiebreaker or we'd have to battle it out. Okay, does anybody All right, nobody's changing my my mind. So, I I had Steve over over Ruth. So, move forward Seth and Steve, please. What's going to happen if you don't want to step down from C-DAC? Is Ruth automatically going to be in that position?

30:58 I well, we would settle it probably would happen instead of a regular session that we would try we would settle it, you know, settle it there and given if nobody supports changes it would be Ruth cuz we could have we could have just appoint Ruth to do it. Now, let's let's sort it out after the fact. Like if if we figure out we can sort it out after the fact. All right. Perfect. And then Yep, that looks like it for planning commission. Second thing, we have Sandy back for overview on C-FEC.

31:51 Good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh again, my name is Sandy Belson. Now I'm actually in front of you instead of on the screen. I'm your comprehensive planning manager. Uh So, the objective for tonight's work session is to provide a broad overview of administrative rules, which we call C-FEC rules. Um climate-friendly and equitable communities. These were adopted in July and then just published this month. Um so, in this presentation I'm going to provide some background on the situation that led to the rule-making process, the legislatively adopted greenhouse gas targets, the general requirements of the rules, um various components of the rules, and then an overall timeline.

32:36 So, hang on 1 second, Sandy. We're going to um switch over to the city attorney's office to give a little bit more background about setting this up. Um thank you. This is Christina Crows, assistant city attorney. Um I provided a privileged memo to the council um at the same time as your packet. Um I think as it's known, Springfield is looking at challenging the climate friendly and equitable communities rules. Um and the um validity of the specific rules requirements rather than the goals or objectives of the rule making. And so, the um advice of city attorney's office because of timing around lawsuits um and how long that process can take and the very very tight deadlines um that these rules provide, we essentially need to move forward with implementation while we're waiting for the rest of the process to work itself out. Um if the

33:22 council has any questions about the um litigation effort or any of the content of the memo, um I'm happy to connect with you one-on-one outside of a council meeting um since that's a topic of attorney-client privilege. Um but otherwise, um the information in this presentation tonight has been vetted through our office, so this is consistent with the city attorney's office's recommendation for um starting to move forward on implementation while we're waiting for um uh you know, maybe other results to come out of our efforts to try to get more flexibility in the legal process. Leonard. Um did any of the other cities that were considering participating in this lawsuit move forward? Yes, we have eight cities um who have joined us and um potentially also a

34:08 county um and other cities that have expressed um support um but may have not have yet made a formal decision um in terms of a public decision to join the litigation. But there are uh half dozen more cities that have I apologize. Is that in the packet? No. It was in the privileged memo that I provided to the council on Thursday. Yeah, so So, the way I would think about this is since these are still rules that are in place today outside of our litigation that we that we we need to discuss this and talk about how we would implement them since they're still effectively administrative rules. Correct. The rules are in place and effective and there are deadlines that are rapidly approaching. All right, thank you. Does anybody else have questions about that?

34:55 Go ahead. Just a quick comment. Thank you that packet you sent out. I guess yeah. Can't comment too much on some of it. But I just want to tell you I appreciate the work that you put together on that and I appreciate how you laid that out in very good chronologically and and made complete sense to me and that fully supportive of the job you're doing. And I think we're in in good hands. Thanks. Thank you, counselor. Okay, and then Sandy, do you want us to ask questions as we go or do you want to save the discussion until we get through the slides? I'd like you to be patient and wait till we get to the end because there's a lot that will stimulate questions as we go through these slides and we don't have a lot of time tonight.

35:41 Um and furthermore, I may not even know the answers to your questions because we're still learning what all these rules mean. So um I'm going to use It's going to be hard for us to be patient, but we'll do our best. Um I will of course honor your your direction, Mayor. As we go through. So these slides I adopted from a version provided by the Department of Land Conservation and Development. So um in the interest of expediency, there are no Springfield photos. So um uh Department of Land Conservation and Development undertook a rulemaking process in response to Governor Brown's Executive Order 2004. That Executive Order directed state agencies to take actions to reduce and

36:28 regulate greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change while also centering the needs of Oregon's most vulnerable communities. The Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted permanent rules in July that are very broad and complex. They cover a range of land use and transportation planning topics. There are multiple cross-references within the rules and many of the rules are prescriptive in nature. Kristina Craas is our local expert. So, I have a broad understanding of the rules, but I'm far from having a complete understanding of them or their applicability in Springfield. So, Kristina may be able to I've given her permission to jump in

37:15 as we go through this presentation to correct or expand on anything that I say. Next slide. So, the legislature passed targets in 2007 and 2010 based on a baseline of 1990 greenhouse gas emissions. So, the state's adopted goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from light-duty vehicles is to reduce that by 75% from the 1990 levels by 2020 by 2050. So, as you can see from this graph, we are still exceeding those 1990 levels. So, that's why Governor Brown executive order to

38:00 help meet these targets. So, the Department of Land Conservation and Development's rulemaking efforts are focused on reducing greenhouse gas in the transportation arena. So, a desired outcome of the rulemaking effort is to dramatically reduce the vehicle miles traveled, particularly those by single-occupant vehicles. Next. So, the state developed a transportation strategy in 2018 in which um at that point, 38% of the greenhouse gases from transportation um came from trans- Sorry. 38% of greenhouse gas emissions

38:46 came from the transportation sector, and that's again based on that 1990 um assessment. So, in order to reduce greenhouse gas in the transportation sector, there need to be changes to pricing, fuel and vehicle technology, transportation options, and then the system and operations. So, currently, we're on track to only reduce by 20% um by 2050. So, in order to uh increase, based on the scenario plan type of approach, we need to look at improving transportation options and affect our system and operations. And the legislature has established a target for Eugene-Springfield of a 30%

39:33 reduction by 2050. Next. That's actually DLCD that established that 30% as a result of the state legislature's direction to figure out a number. Thank you. They did that back in 2015. That's why she's here. All right. So, in order to affect these um the transportation system, we need to look at um increasing density, uh bringing land uses close together, improving transit, and making it easier to bicycle and walk. And so, that helps to reduce the use of single-occupant vehicles and reduces the vehicle miles traveled. Next.

40:18 So, now I'm going to go through various aspects of the rules and I'm going to do them in a general order of which ones affect us first. So the first area is parking management. So the first two bullets on this slide go into effect on December 31st of this year. Meaning that Springfield will no longer be able to require on-site parking for new development within half of mile of a frequent transit line. So in our case frequent transit includes MX and route 11 down Main Street. Also in that second bullet, you can see the types of uses even outside of that area for which we will not be able to require on-site parking.

41:05 So then the next level um is to go to that third bullet. Then we will have a choice um how to proceed after December. And that is option one where we repeal all parking mandates meaning that the city will not require any on-site parking for new development. Or we can take option two there which is a multifaceted approach to parking management. Um and that would apply to limited areas and limited uses for which we could still potentially require on-site parking. So council is scheduled for a work session on parking on October 10th. And we have hired a part-time

41:50 um support of Sophie McKinley who is um helping us um prepare for that work session. Next. Second aspect um of the rules is to address electric vehicle charging. As of July 1st, 2022, the state building code um which is not shown up here, but according to the state building code 20% of parking spaces for commercial buildings and buildings with five or more units must be ready for electrical vehicle charging, meaning that the conduit is in place. So now with these rules

42:36 we have to increase beyond 20%. We have to go up to 40% of the parking spaces for buildings with five or more dwelling units. Establishing climate-friendly areas. So Springfield must identify and adopt one or more climate-friendly areas that would allow high levels of housing and jobs. These climate-friendly areas would be incorporated as plan designations in Springfield's comprehensive plan map. They would also require corresponding changes to the zoning maps and land use regulations to implement the requirements. These climate-friendly areas must be high density, allowing residential units

43:21 of 25 units per net acre. They would allow a mix of land uses housing, commercial, and employment. They would limit auto-centric uses. And then they would require investments in multimodal infrastructure to support walking, biking, and transit. The size of these climate-friendly areas is based on what is needed to accommodate 30% of future housing needs. And those future housing needs are based on our adopted housing needs analysis, which projects a population within Springfield's urban growth boundary of 81,600 or so by 2030. So the climate-friendly area needs to be

44:06 sized to accommodate 24,500 of our residents. So, once we've identified potential areas for these climate-friendly areas, we must analyze the potential for displacement of members of state and federally protected classes. Scenario planning. A scenario plan looks at land use and transportation inputs and runs a model to see how they affect greenhouse gases from light vehicles. So, some of these inputs are transportation facilities, alternative future land use patterns, and policies. So, the scenario plan must show that

44:52 we'll reach the state's greenhouse gas reduction target and address historical inequities. In 2015, the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization under- took a scenario under- took scenario planning on a voluntary basis to meet the 30% target for reduction of greenhouse gas. And that scenario plan focused on the transportation system. We must adopt the scenario plan and then also adopt amendments that would be consistent with that scenario plan in our comprehensive plan, transportation plan, land use regulations. Next. So, transportation planning.

45:41 There are multiple aspects to the rules that affect transportation planning. So, first of all, modeling. So, currently, when we run a transportation model, we look at how many trips are generated by the land use type, and we use the ITE manual, Institute of Transportation Engineers manual to tell us what those trips are by each land use. But instead of using that as the basis for the model, we will instead need to look at vehicle miles traveled per capita on a per person basis and model that. And we don't really know how we would do that. Um we will need to

46:27 even though we have recently made amendments to our development code to implement Springfield's transportation system plan. So, we did a lot of work in terms of on-site parking requirements, looking at multimodal aspects, bicycle parking and such. Um we'll need to re-look at those to see what changes will be required um to see what we need to do to fully comply with the standards for compact, pedestrian-friendly, and mixed-use development. Um we will need to plan for connected network for greenways and protected bike ways on major transportation corridors. And there will will be required to focus on priority transit corridors with investments to improve travel time,

47:13 improve access to bus stops, and promote compact mixed-use development patterns near the bus stops and bus stations. The rules require that we prioritize projects that reduce greenhouse gas. Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit projects will be given a relatively high level of priority. We will be required to have a financially constrained list of planned projects. So, Springfield will be prevented from constructing projects that are not on the financially constrained list with very few exceptions. And that financially constrained list is based on what we anticipate to be the revenues over the planning period on which we can base those projects.

48:02 So, instead of using our current motor vehicle congestion performance standard, we will be required to develop new performance standards that we will use when planning for or reviewing the impact of development on transportation facilities. And as I alluded to earlier, we will need to re-look at bicycle parking to ensure we are meeting state requirements for covered parking, shared bicycles, large bicycles, and other small-scale mobility devices. Finally, the big-ticket item is enhanced review of already adopted projects. So, any projects that are already in our transportation system plan that increase capacity will need that enhanced review

48:48 to remain in our transportation system plan. Next. So, finally, um the last aspect is to engage underserved communities and look at equity analyses. So, the rules direct how the city will engage the public and specifically these underserved communities. There will be an equity analysis for different components of the rules, and that equity equity analysis will identify potentially um inequitable impacts or burdens of various actions taken and demonstrate improved outcomes for the underserved. So, finally, the timeline. So, implementation of these rules

49:34 necessitates additional staffing and will require near exclusive dedication of comprehensive planning resources with major support from the City Attorney's Office. This work is in addition to the housing capacity analysis that the state requires Springfield to adopt by by end of 2025 and the housing production strategy that must be adopted by the end of 2026. So, this presentation is intended to expose council to a broad overview of the rules with many more work sessions and public hearings to come over the next 5 years. Addressing climate change and promoting equity is important work. Staff supports the goals of creating more climate-friendly and equitable communities, but there are issues with the rules themselves, the costs

50:20 involved, and the aggressive, unrealistic timelines. In the time left um this evening, Christina and I can take questions, and we will be back with opportunities for more discussion as we get into this work and better understand what is required by these rules. All right, thank you for that, and I'm sure this will be therapeutic for everybody up here. Joe. So, could you provide a list of the all these items that the state is going to pay for? I've got a cheat sheet. or is it easier to provide a list of what they're not paying for? So, I can start.

51:05 Um I mean, all these things you're talking about cost every single one of them cost money. That's right. And so, is this basically completely an unfunded mandate? There is some funding. About what percent? Certainly nothing compared to what we actually need. 10% funding, 5% It's less than five, I would say. It These rules are so incredibly detailed, and it's not clear what a lot of the parts of the rules mean, that it's unclear, I think, how much it's actually going to cost. And so, the funding that's been allocated is a very small amount um um terms of all of the transportation planning from ODOT that will be limited to paying for

51:50 consultants um to kind of likely to develop the vehicle miles traveled per capita modeling that we'll need to use, but that doesn't currently exist as a engineering um analysis or concept. Like there's no mechanism um to do that analysis right now, so we'll have to create new engineering techniques to model that um on a local basis as opposed to regional basis, which is currently what the models do. And then also um the LCD has allocated some funding to do the initial outreach and equity um very initial parts of the climate friendly area study um for certain jurisdictions. And I think that is what exists as of today. Um they did not um put enough in their request, the LCD's request to the governor for the budget, they did

52:36 not um increase that request to capture what the city is forecasted it might cost over the next biennium. And this will be out for multiple biennium. I see two big things as LCDC is operating way out of their wheelhouse. And secondly, who's paying for the part-time employee and where's that money coming from? So because we um have staff vacancies, um we're paying for her with the vacancy that we have. Um the additional staffing that we're looking to add is with the ARPA funding. So the American Right. Yeah. the the coronavirus um funds have are paying for two additional staff. Which is

53:22 finite funds. And that's going to end and this is supposed to go for how many years? Well, the timeline that you saw had about five years. Um the coronavirus money ends before that. It's to me it's such a total waste of money. It's I I just I can't even put my arms around it. It's just ridiculous. Not you, but I mean just coming the city here we are trying to figure this out. It's going to cost us a ton of money. We're already hiring people to figure out how to respond to this when I don't believe we should have to respond to this because we shouldn't be forced to put be put in this position. So, I've got two quick comments um and then we'll go we'll go on to other

54:07 folks. My read of the State Department is that they don't believe that the the uh numbers of the state that the cities are putting forward to do this work and that's the that that's a substantial disconnect, right? Because there's not even a drop in the uh a drop in the bucket, if you will. And the other question I wanted to ask while we were still on financing is do we have any like it's not in the packet. Do we have any idea what the run rate cost of this is? What the what kind The the run rate, the you know, the annual maintenance cost. It looked like the staff was settling around in the half a million dollar range is what we would expect after the first, you know, 10 million dollars of it. That's correct. Okay. Those costs are hard to estimate because we don't, you know, there's going to be

54:53 increased whichever parking route, for example, you take there's increased cost depending on the path that's chosen and it's hard to estimate those because it's hard to estimate how much of the public will respond to lack of parking by taking more transit versus parking and blocking fire accesses. So, some of that is dependent on behavior that we just don't know how to model and then there's also going to be a lot more complexity in planning and we're unsure, you know, without a precedent it's hard to forecast. So, those are estimates, but we tried to be basing those on similar projects the city's undertaken in the past and the cost of those projects. Perfect. Corey. Thank you. You're Now it's time for your 17 questions. I really just have one clarifying question and then some opinions.

55:38 Um some things to say out loud. So, um on your like attachment three, where it says that the to establish the climate-friendly areas that accommodating 30% of housing needs, is that overall so we could have like three different climate-friendly areas as long as we get to that 30%. It's not just like 30% for each one. Okay. Thank you. Um okay. So, um a couple of things. One, like all of us, like yes, like yes, we need to reduce greenhouse gases. Yes, we also need livable communities. Also, some of and I yes for electric vehicles and also, um you know, this this um

56:24 intense sort of rev up, no pun intended or maybe pun intended, to electric vehicles is going to leave a lot of people out. So, that's not necessarily an equitable approach at all. It's kind of like we're we're widening the the divide of like who's going to use public transportation, how long is it going to take to get the infrastructure for that public transportation, um who's going to be able to buy electric vehicles and plug in and their lives are going to be minimally impacted. So, I just want to call that out and I would love somebody from this that did this work to come and explain that to me, how that's an equitable thing. The other thing that's not in here at all that I've been thinking about a lot is that when when and I am all for improving, um increasing density and livable

57:10 communities, and what we also have to realize is that we have built a service delivery in terms of um our fire and life safety, in terms of our um our first responders, in terms of our police department for the city that we have. So, as we increase the density, that's going to mean that that service delivery is going to look very different. And so that could mean, you know, where are our fire departments? How do we dispatch? How do we respond? And so I think that we just all need to be really aware of that. So that's not even in this in terms of like how are how are we going to do the things that we do as a municipality and how are we going to need to adjust to that in order to make it work in this

57:56 environment? And I'm also thinking about our school districts and just the the the shift the very quick shift that we would need to make in terms of um how how we're getting kids to school, how we're getting people to places. And I like I said, like I think we we all have said, yes, we want to do better and we need to do better in a way that works for Springfield and we need to keep in mind all of these things that are not even in here that are also going to mean a major shift in how we do the work. So I said, I mostly just add opinions. Thank you. Leonard, and then we'll get to Damian. Um so in in addition to the parking mandates, um I'm uh I'm counting land use enforcement and the EV charging

58:43 stations. Are those the costs there sort of involved in those? I mean, as well as the transportation. I mean, the big ticket item as I said before was doing enhanced review for already adopted projects in our transportation system plan. I I get what I'm leading up to is are there projections about the cost versus the revenue that's going to be generated over the next 7 years? We have not attempted to look at revenue generation. Okay, but but you did mention it during your presentation. Re- revenue being created as a result of this program. I don't remember mentioning that, but maybe I did. I don't think there's any revenue that would be generated except potentially if the city opted into enhanced parking enforcement, there may be parking

59:28 permits, but so far our one experience with a program, it does not pay for itself. So, the costs exceed any revenue, and that was factored into the budget estimates around parking. Well, depending on how we modify our land use, it could potentially generate more more property tax, correct? Correct. Okay. All right. So, my my my question is, I mean, actually, I I I guess I'm going to move into opinions like Counselor Rodley. Um So, I think the average resident of Springfield would agree that we need to reduce greenhouse gases at least in principle. And my question is, if we are not going

1:00:13 to adopt this program, tick tock. I mean, what is the program going to be? I mean, is there something that we're going to be able to implement between now and 2029 that's going to be productive? Good, Christina. And that's a great comment, and that's really the that is the intent of the you know, unfortunately, we've gotten to litigation, but that was the reason that Springfield staff were so engaged in the climate friendly and equitable rule making process on the rule making advisory committee was to try to make sure that before the rules got adopted, they would include provisions that would allow us to implement the rules and include requirements or means and flexibility so that what Springfield ended up doing would result in climate friendly

1:00:59 benefits. And the concern that you know, we have and many other cities in Oregon and metropolitan areas have is that the rules rigidity means we will be forced to put in place solutions that don't solve the climate problems in Springfield or don't solve the equity problems in Springfield. So, we'll be required to undergo planning in some cases to re-plan um, we've already undertaken and use staff time to do that as opposed to the types of projects that actually would move the needle for Springfield. So, the real goal in in, you know, sort of following up in litigation is not to not do anything to address climate. It's to get the department back to the table to help work in as partners with with cities like Springfield, um, to figure out the pieces of these rules that would work

1:01:45 for cities and then provide more flexibility, um, with a metric-based sort of outcomes approach rather than dictating the very, very detailed requirements of what has to be in codes, um, you know, and that level of detail that's in there. So, is one of our goals to make the greenhouse guidelines more binding as opposed to the methodology? The, um, greenhouse gas emissions targets in these rules are binding, so I don't know that there's anything more binding that could be added to them. I I heard targets. The, right, the targets are binding targets as proposed in these rules. So, there's not, I'm not sure that there's a way for these rules to become more binding. What happens? Do we face fines? Um, for the current rules, if the, um, greenhouse gas targets aren't met

1:02:30 satisfactorily to the determination of the agency, the agency could undertake an enforcement action, which would be a compliance order. Um, they could unacknowledge our transportation system plan according to their rules, which would have, um, huge, um, resound, you know, sort of spillover effects, um, and ultimately non-compliance with these rules could risk loss of a lot of state and federal funding, um, that we currently get for safety improvements, for all kinds of of work in the community. So, thank you. So, Leonard, I in and I think two ways to sort of think about it, right? Like, my view on this is really what we want to do is get to the We for 20 years we made We worked with the community to identify projects and policies that would get us towards a greenhouse gas, uh, reduction.

1:03:15 And in a lot of places what we're looking for is support to be able to do that without the state sort of making making it so that we have to redo all of that work. And I'll give you everybody's favorite example, the 42nd Street levy, right? That, you know, arguably that's a climate mitigation project. And that, you know, if we work on this work plan, then we're taking away from the time and energy that it would take to protect, you know, Hall of North Springfield, you know, in Ward 4 from, you know, from climate mitigate uh you know, from potential floods, right? Yeah, it's mostly a disaster management program, right? Yes. Okay. Right. But like, the the way I I guess I think about it is in our case, right? I would ultimately want us to have the ability to say what we want to do

1:04:00 and then and get support to do that and then acknowledge that, you know, other cities may want to do other things and they should be able to put forward their priorities. So, Damian. Uh yeah, I mean, this is kind of a question not necessarily I mean, I I I think in a lot of presentations we've seen a lot of national stats are used and why this has been somewhat glocalised is Springfield, you know, we hear, you know, underserved communities and we hear equity and so over time I'm just curious like, what does that mean because that's going to look different in certain parts of Springfield versus others as well as throughout the state. And so I asked that we find a definition that fits

1:04:47 the city of Springfield specifically versus using some national level data, which I'm not saying that that's been done, but I've just seen it done way too much where we focus on, you know, big words and we talk, you know, underserved and and equity, but like that definition going to look completely different based on the city. Uh and so I just asked that we keep that in mind as we whether we do this or not. Yeah. All right. Steve. I I became aware of this over a year ago some memo from came out of the governor's office. I thought wow, where is this coming and what's this about? And it caught on fire and went through uh

1:05:33 the LCD mandated all these rules and I'm I'm I'm in favor of the goal by the way. But they're they're using a hammer to make us uh do the job. And we don't have the money. There's no there's no funding for it whatsoever. And what I've been telling people uh as they talk to me as a counselor is is we're not going to be expanding the urban growth boundary, period. I know we're that's never going to happen. We're going to have to infill, we're going to have to build up, we're going to have to improve our infrastructure to to support those people. And then of course our transportation to cut down on the greenhouse effect from that as well as as our building structures, you know,

1:06:21 there's just a lot of things we have to do and this mandates it it's not all at once, but I think it's over a period of time. We're going to have to do all of those. And it's going to be it's going to be painful. And again, we don't have the money. Where how how how does how are we going to do that? All right. Well, I I I think I noted that this was going to be a little bit therapeutic when when we started going through. Um and this is our first opportunity to really say how like what a big impact from a financial perspective this is, right? So, there's two things that really jump out to me. One of them is the just sheer amount of cost associated that for dollars that we don't have, you know, across you know, to come up with $10 million dollars we have 45 maybe 47 million dollars in our

1:07:08 in our general fund budget is ridiculous. The other piece is an acknowledgement of kind of the complexity that we all face around transportation projects, right? The public right now is asking that we listen to them and respond to them a little bit more. And what we've done as a state is really created a system where where we're basically having to go out there and ignore what the public's actually telling us. And I think it's worth noting that, you know, that we need to be responding and to what our community needs are. And like I I think climate change is real. And and I think we have policies and we've done work and this community has a a view on how it wants to attract uh deal with it. But it really needs to be around this community's needs, not a one-size-fits-all program across the

1:07:53 entire state. So, I'm hoping in in these in all these discussions, what we can end up with is just everybody kind of taking a deep breath and getting back to the table and going, "Okay, what would work?" Instead of creating something that's just going to burn money and be a boon for consultants. No offense to any consultants out there. All right. Any other questions before before we let you go. Thank you for the I don't have a question, but I have a comment. Um and I appreciate uh everyone sort of airing their opinions and talking about how how do we How do we create some space, which is of course the purpose of litigation. How do we create some space to figure out what's going to be the best solution here? Um and I think one of the things that we've already leaned into is thinking about um you know, sort of livable

1:08:39 communities and what does that look like? And you know, to be able to do that um and when I think about it, when I look at the slide, I'm like, I can see different pockets of Springfield that would be great for that. And we've been talking about that for a few years. Like, how do we How do we build out in Mohawk? How do we build out here? How do we do that? But it's going to take more than 3 years to get there. And it's going to take some partnerships and it's going to just it's just going to take some time. So, I appreciate this like, okay, how do we get back to the table and how do we create some space to do that to get there? All right, great. Thank you, everybody. Um I know we're going to get a ton more um information about this and we'll have to keep the conversation going. Um we have CEDA at 7:00. Um I believe

1:09:24 are we on a different chan- we are on a different meeting link. So, we're going to adjourn in City Hall and then we will reconvene on the new meeting link as as CEDA. Thank you, everybody. We're adjourned.