Springfield City Council — November 28, 2022

0:06 Council work session to order with roll call Mayor Van Gordon here counselor Pitts mayor councilor Moon here councilor Bradley here councilor stair here councilor Woodrow and cancer Pictionary it looks like missionaries yes okay you gotta wait until we actually call otherwise it's not officially part of the record all right uh and uh Council origin's excuse for the evening we have three items tonight first items camping ordinance update with Mary Bridget Smith uh good evening mayor and Council I'm Mary Bridget Smith the City attorney and

0:51 I'll be presenting this item tonight on revising the city's camping ordinance and I'm mindful that you have lots of topics tonight so I'm going to try and stay um within the time frame today some put my timer on thank you and before I get going I just want to frame up the discussion a little bit this is an initial conversation about amending the city's camping ordinance because of a new state law which I'll refer to as HB 3115 um as I said it's an initial conversation what I'd like to do is present some of the legal considerations about changing the camping ordinance some information about the ordinance itself and then ask at the end the kind

1:37 of information that would be helpful for the council to have when they're making a decision about changing the camping ordinance real quick um the attachments in the packet one of them is excuse me it's a guide from the league of Oregon cities about regulating um homelessness in public places typically I would draft a council briefing memo about this kind of thing but it's really um what's written in that information I think is really helpful the League's really engaged on this and it would be consistent information that you'd be receiving so I decided to include that instead of a separate memo one thing to note on that the case at a Grants Pass uh decision came down from the ninth circuit shortly after that

2:22 guide was finished so there is a it's not quite completely up to date but most of it is um the other items are this PowerPoint and then the last one's just text of HB 3115 which is the um mandate from the state to change the camping ordinance so looking at the context for this discussion the purpose of this work session is to introduce this topic provide information about the legal issues involved with camping on public property um I recognize that this deals with homelessness and Sheltering and housing which are really critical issues in our community and can be quite charged we're trying to have a narrow discussion tonight just about the camping ordinance so we're not um this doesn't cover

3:07 information about housing homeless Camp cleanup and camping on private property those would be separate issues thank you so looking first at our current camping ordinance I would say we have a what would be a typical um before uh this before Martin the Boise case and camping ordinance it's a violation which means it's a fine only but it prohibits camping on all public property and public property is defined in our ordinance as sidewalk Street alley right-of-way public Park Road and parking lot and camping can runs the gamut from a sleeping bag to a lean to Shack or structure also includes a stove

3:52 or fire which can be an issue in um camping on public property foreign 2019 a case came down um called Martin V Boise which had to do with a Prohibition of camping on public property and then shortly after that there was a case from the city of Grants Pass here in Oregon called Blake V Grants Pass I put times two there because we had a district court decision and then that case went up to the ninth circuit the decision came down my understanding is is that the defendants are going to ask the ninth circuit to have the whole panel look at it instead of just the three on bug judges and potentially even are thinking about depending on that decision and

4:37 appeal to the U.S Supreme Court so I would say Blake which you'll see is also called Johnston Johnson because one of the plaintiffs Miss Blake has passed away in a time that this case has been pending um I would say it's still alive Martin V Boise is a ninth circuit case that is controlling here in our circuit and we need to follow the rules in that case and then the first bullet talks about the Eighth Amendment and I wanted to spend a little time talking about that because that's where these cases are really grounded in so the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution talks about prohibiting excessive punishment bail and fines but there's also a line of cases and as it was um maybe 40 years ago that also

5:22 prohibits under the Eighth Amendment I'm going to read it so I get it correctly not punishing someone for an involuntary act or condition if it is the unavoidable consequence of one's status these cases initially came about with public drunkenness and alcoholism but they have been applied to homelessness and sleeping and sitting and lying and the Court's rationale is these are things that are everybody has to do and if you're homeless you have no other place to do them but out in the public so be thinking about that as we kind of work through some of the more specific parts of these cases the takeaways from these cases I just want to run over these a little bit so you can think about

6:08 um some of the things that we'll need to be keeping in mind the first one is no criminal or civil punishment so there was some discussion initially with Boise because it talked about that you could not criminalize if you're homeless having to sleep out in the public and uh some people thought well okay that means you could still have a civil fine but since that time the Blake case has decided that any kind of punishment for this is prohibited you can regulate local governments and cities can regulate time place and manner restrictions so you'll hear that often with free speech in First Amendment if you hear those terms that means you can regulate when and where people do sleep on public property um unfortunately there's not a lot of

6:53 guidance about what kinds of regulations you can do from time place and manner um as is often the case with these big cases they'll say what it is but they won't always give you examples there is no requirement though to build shelters you know so it's not like they're saying hey now you have to provide shelters and build shelters in your community for people necessarily you know it's something to think about particularly for smaller communities but under Blake they did talk about you know what is real access to a shelter and that was one of the issues that also came up in Martin so true and actual access to a shelter means you know that there aren't for example religious restrictions um restrictions against drug and alcohol

7:38 use or maybe your familial status let's say you heard children with you and the shelter doesn't take children well then truly that's not true access to a shelter so that's something to think about um and then the ability to stay warm and dry this concept was introduced in the Grants Pass case and that's the idea that it doesn't make sense if you're going to say hey someone can sleep outside but we're not going to allow them to have a sleeping bag or other things that would allow them to stay warm and dry while they're out in the elements so those are the main takeaways from the federal case you can still regulate um people or prohibit sleeping outside if you truly have a place for people to go but if you don't have a place to for

8:24 people to go then you're not prohibiting it you can prohibit time place and manner but those restrictions must be reasonable so um after Martin and Grants Pass in the 2021 session the legislature went ahead and took those Holdings and they restated what Martin and Blake so you'll see on the slide here they talk about any city or county law that regulates the act of sitting lying or sleeping so that gets back to those involuntary actions or keeping warm and dry outside on public property must be objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances and this is the really important part that it needs to be

9:09 applied to all stakeholders the reasonableness does including persons experiencing homelessness often in the law you'll hear about sort of this mythical reasonable person standard you know what's reasonable to somebody what's objectively reasonable but in this case particularly the state legislature is telling cities you also have to look at what's reasonable for stakeholders including persons who are experiencing homelessness which could be a different perspective obviously than um people who aren't homeless a person experiencing homelessness can challenge the reasonableness of um the restrictions that the city has in circuit court with the declaratory action so that would be saying you know

9:55 what these restrictions are not reasonable for these certain reasons and a court then would declare or rule that they were or weren't that would mean we would need to change our ordinance to be in compliance with the Court's order and most likely pay attorney fees there's another way that if someone is cited for the new illegal camping ordinance and can prove that it was not those restrictions were not reasonable that can also be an affirmative defense to that matter as well um the new camping ordinance also must be implemented by July 1st 2023. so we have two Federal cases one that's still in process a state law new state

10:42 law and really what this means is we have a lot of undecided legal considerations that the cities are going to have to kind of piece their way through to figure out what works and what these undecided questions are so one of them is you know what are other involuntary acts of The Human Condition could be included in this this is where you could get to um you know where do homeless people go to the bathroom public property would be one issue um and one that I think particular to a community like Springfield which is close to other jurisdictions there are situations and we're certainly not alone in this where you know a couple cities May collaborate together to provide shelter for the homeless people in their Community well does that count as true

11:27 in actual access to a shelter if it happens to be in another city and not your city that's one unanswered question what are the specific time place and manner restrictions that would be deemed reasonable the court didn't give a lot of feedback about that so and I think the when I'm learning from like the league and other lawyers who are talking about this is what's reasonable for time place and manner in one community may not make sense for another so you're not going to see like from the league a model ordinance come down that's like hey this is how we deal with HB 3115 instead it needs to be something that works for your particular community um what specific prohibitions can cities impose

12:13 um for a person experiencing homelessness and not obstructing the right-of-way this is one that is um tricky on a couple levels um people camping in the right-of-way or on sidewalks can be quite unsafe uh Salem had an issue where there was someone who drove through an area where people were camping and then Portland you know is experiencing a lawsuit that's sort of the other side of that which is the idea if you're allowing people to camp in the right-of-way does that impede someone's Ada access so lots of issues with um with the right-of-way and then what specific prohibitions can cities um impose that will prevent a person from erecting the structure on public property the tricky thing about erecting

12:58 structures and then that gets to established homeless camps and there are requirements for cleanups for those and then also can be really detrimental to the environment create a lot of trash and livability issues depending on where they are another issue that's not on here that's undecided is Vehicles you know some of these issues occur in Parks people will live in their car or their RV but you know your vehicle has a different legal status than just being in a tent for example on public property and so still undecided or unknown whether those cases this kind of law will be extended to that if the government were to um take someone's car that could be

13:43 considered a taking under the law and have damages and be a problem so that also is an issue and there's also cleanup issues with vehicles that have either been abandoned or seemed like they've been abandoned um on public property so that's another issue as well and then um another legal concept that's related to this is called State created Danger so there's some cases coming out of California that talk about this issue it's undecided here but it's something that we need to consider and it's this idea that the city has a duty to act if it affirmatively places a person in danger by acting with and then acts and deliberate indifference to a known or obvious danger so this is the concept

14:30 where let's say a city decides okay well we'll create an area where people can shelter but that area maybe has um is unsafe for a number of reasons and all of a sudden now you have you know maybe a homeless family in a situation where there's a lot of unsafe people that they're around and we've sort of created this situation by putting them in an unsafe situation and done nothing about it right-of-way is another area where this can be tricky um because if you're placing someone in a dangerous area and saying no you can be here and then it turns out that that's dangerous and then we ignore that that's dangerous that could also create liability foreign think about State created danger if there's a move or a interest in creating

15:19 a managed camp in the city or that the city is managing or the enforcement of reasonable time place and manner restrictions I think that's another key area to think about here is the enforcement you know the actual once we change the ordinance and give the direction about how regulating camping is going to change in this community how realistic is it for the police department to enforce how can they really reinforce what are the restrictions there how do these restrictions really play out on the ground and what are they doing now foreign things to consider with changing the local camping ordinance as our ordinances is now it will not be compliant with this law so it will need

16:04 to be changed we must restrictions time place and Mana restrictions are okay but they must be objectively reasonable also think about persons experiencing homelessness with that reasonableness standard comply with federal and state law and then be in place by July 1st 2023 and then the last slide is really just a um summary and I think this goes without saying that this area of the law is still developing so as we move forward with trying to change this ordinance um there may be changes that the city will have to make depending on how these cases shake out the um advice that I have seen from the league of Oregon cities and other attorneys is to have a jurisdiction specific solution and sort of I put on

16:50 here show your work I think when we get around to changing this ordinance depending on the council's direction it's going to be a lot of Excellence it needs to be a lot of explanation to how we got there and that will help us if we're challenged on the reasonableness later we can show oh look no we did think about this and here's why we think it's reasonable to be here and not here or here's why it's unreasonable to be in this place and that those are reasons that we can point to to try and fend off a challenge later so I know that is a lot of information but um I'm happy to take any questions that you may have or if you have ideas about the kind of information that you're looking for to help you make this decision more than happy to um start pulling that together Corey

17:36 thank you I didn't even have to do that um thank you and I'm looking forward to having this conversation um I also as you know went to one of the the one down in Cottage Grove and got to sit at a table with the um city manager and one of the counselors from Klamath Falls or Grants Pass so that was really helpful to sort of be chatting about that so there were a couple things that you didn't mention um that I've been thinking about I just wanted some just know if I'm remembering it correctly so with the state created danger inaction is also part of that if I'm understanding correctly so for example if somebody we did nothing we're like we're going to ignore this and then something happened you know people are like okay we just we don't have the

18:21 capacity or whatever to enforce um and then say somebody something happened then we could be held responsible for that too right I believe that's correct okay and then the other piece which and I'm only remember because we spent a fair amount of time talking about that there's some piece in there about storage of people's stuff that there is also now with this HP 3115 that if you if you intercept or whatever um then the city is also responsible and has to have the capacity to store people's stuff for a certain amount of time right yeah that's correct so that has to do with um homeless Camp cleanup of an established Camp unfortunately established Camp is not defined so that

19:06 would be hard to see what that is but we already the city has experience with doing homeless Camp Cleanup in addition to these property storage requirements um there's also a notification requirement of 72 hours and specific information that needs to be on the notice and then that is correct once you do um do the cleanup then you have to take those materials store them in the jurisdiction where the camp was that's the latest change to that for a certain amount of time and then allow people to come get their stuff and there's the extra added complication of it's it's really a really difficult tuition for staff to do homeless Camp cleanups because they're quite dirty and it's hard to determine what in fact is

19:52 someone's belongings and maybe what is trash and making that call and then storing it but that's something that the city is already doing and has a process in place for great and one last piece and then I'll just take it I'll take a turn um uh and now I forgot what it was so let somebody else go and I'll come back to it Leonard um thanks mayor um and thanks for the report Mary B it's very very informative so um I I'm gonna have a hard time giving a hard recommendation because there's a lot of gray area here right now I mean it just seems as though we uh for instance uh I'm glad that you had the slide about the shared jurisdiction

20:37 of the shelters like um would the shelter in Eugene potentially satisfy that requirement I mean I think that's a good point I think the information that I have and I'm sorry I cut you off did you want to oh okay the information that I've gone from I've talked about this with other attorneys because we're certainly not the only Community right in this situation where you may collaborate especially smaller communities do this all the time but I think if you can show that someone in your community truly does have access to that shelter and can get there and that they they can really go there even though it's in another town I think you could make the argument that that is true in actual access to that shelter I um the the other question would be um about the size of the shelter relative to the homeless population I

21:22 mean if there is if there's a shelter that's got 10 beds in it I think there's one of those in Eugene and there's a thousand homeless people then I don't think you can really point to that shelter as relieving your obligation so I I guess my my tentative my tentative recommendation would be to repeal but um I am I'm certainly open to other people's uh okay and and I think Steve are I think uh Leonard it's important that we have an actual full-on work session to talk about more details of this in late January okay okay so there's a lot of like we don't have to give a lot of Direction This is the primer to the second part of the conversation all right Steve

22:08 Council Radley mentioned property the most important property to those homeless people is their dog it's emotional it's protection and if something they become under jurisdiction they will do anything get that dog back I don't know what happens to but that's a pretty traumatic thing for this that's a good point okay I don't know what the answer is but but it's it's pretty important and then I uh uh are warming fires permitted in other words we give them the right for warmth and comfort you know and a small warming fire is probably just sort of like a dog it's probably one of the most important I'm not done yet I know probably one of the most important

22:53 things I'm really really cold environments you know yeah and then the other one you talked about uh camping right away a structure like a tent and that we're talking about persons person one he sort of went into if there's something like that you'll make a could it turn into a camp and that can but for definitions we're just talking about one person in this situation so can one person do that I don't think it's a good idea but uh I uh so oh and then my last one's here I brought them up brought up William Elaine's uh the other night and that is in the Parks the bathrooms are parked but in this case they have to navigate urinate and

23:39 it's the public doesn't like that but you gotta you gotta do it so how is that handled or how can that be handled uh I don't I don't know it's a problem okay all right that's good thanks that's helpful thank you so before I call on Joe I I think I think it's sort of valuable to point out this question about what I am Elaine um the broader question you know that I'm interested in is understanding the position of where willamalane is on this on this issue right because since they run the parks if they really should be guiding us on the question about whether or not we would we would continue to ban camping in the Parks um I think they're going to tell us please you know like we don't want to have camping in the park it's not something we're interested in but you

24:24 know I I think hearing their input would become would become really important right because that's a policy decision that they need to make and we need to support it Okay so thank you Sean um so to ask to actually I have a quick answer for that last comment you made Sean is that I've been in touch with limeliner vice versa and they have attorneys that are working this are very aware of this and that they have uh communicated with our city council our city our city staff and in our specifically with Mary B's office so I think that's all being coordinated so we can rest uh easy there uh secondly in regards to the number of spaces available that Leonard brought up in regards to there's a thousand here and let's say we have 10 here unless

25:10 obviously not going to uh satisfy that need but one has to look at these or these uh this law is applicable to a small population of the homeless folks it's not all of them so it's not really going to be us having to deal with a thousand of them it could be dealing with a quarter of that they're the ones that may be on public lands thirdly in regards to what Rory sorry Corey uh Corey said in regards to the property I think and correct me if I'm wrong Mary Bridget they the state legislature is following very closely the landlord tenant laws in regards to how that property is handled and how it's stored and the notifications you're

25:56 mentioning to send me to our notification Etc and that's very similar to landlord tenant laws but I was wondering too you know just like landlord tenant laws when a landlord evicts a person they are required to store property that's left there for a period of 30 days after it's been vacated but they are also allowed to charge a Reit quote unquote a reasonable storage fee and so I would like to look into that in regards to uh properties that are being stored it may be something where it's if it has to be stored in a second person who's been second time it's been stored for that same person or whatever but I think that uh for the city to be responsible for storing properties personal property of other folks that the cost of that storage

26:42 should be borne by the people that own that property okay we'll look into that uh Damien and then we'll go to Corey hi um this might be a little far-fetched or too big of a pitcher but you know I mean probably spending various meetings either with Mormon centers or Workforce partnership or even drug court and things like this that would potentially mitigate home assist in some way houses this whatever you want to call it and so I'm just curious you know outside of a Lemon Lane like who else can be brought to the table to look at you know the unhealth as a a a big thing and figure out ways to even avoid having this conversation

27:28 because we have so less people uh fighting for beds at warming centers or at shelters and stuff like this like yeah so I guess my question is uh what what what I guess the what else like what other conversations are being had that will potentially sooner later make us not even need to have this conversation because there are other parts that are doing their things to make homelessness less of an issue yeah I think that's a good point I mean this trying to have a narrow conversation today about particularly about a camping ordinance but when you're speaking about um people are experiencing homelessness that brings into a larger conversation about having homeless people in your community so that would include things like service providers um people who actually are experiencing

28:14 homelessness in their experience uh law enforcement things like drug court and other things and I think that's a good point did you have anything else Damien Corey I wanted to say to councilor Mo that I did ask the question about the pets at the one that I went to and was told like many things exactly like Mary Bridges said it's kind of inconclusive because it's going to depend if it's a service animal or you know in terms of um as she put it on her thing an available bed doesn't mean just a number bed but it means can you um do you have to be sober and you are not a sober person do you you know the

28:59 mission doesn't require religious things so it's like if you needed to keep your pet with you and there wasn't available bed so in that way it's like they were like it's inconclusive in terms of what we need to think about in terms of pets and also when I asked the follow-up question about the store the the piece of like if we if someone has to go in and we have to we ever take their pets or things like that so it was part of the conversation um and I think we also did to also talk about fire in terms of what does it mean if someone can keep warm and so just as we have the bigger conversation later a lot of it was around how do you how do you allow for that and it comes down to like Mary Bridges said these sort of time constraints like is it between the hours of this and this and are those

29:44 reasonable hours because if it's you know if you say we're you have to be out of here by 5 a.m but the buses don't start running until 8 A.M so it's like all these little pieces to think about if we start when we start talking about what the next steps are but we we're talking about pets because you're right all right Joe thank you and I'm I'm glad you reminded me about the fire thing too is that I understand what Steve is saying and warming fires are important I mean I'm a Hunter so I know all about warming fires the problem I can see that we need to probably um if it's predictable preventable is that there are times in which an actually significant amount of time in which outdoor burning is not lawful

30:29 period anywhere within the city uh actually anywhere within the county at times and so we need to make sure that we have a mechanism that sure if a person wants to have an outdoor burn which is actually quite generous in Springfield because in Eugene it is not allowed period but uh if it's an outdoor burned under certain parameters in which it's allowed in certain guidelines otherwise it's something that the person can be cited for um but we can't we can't how do you put that Mary B where you uh we can't uh shoot it's where you go to try to legalize something that's already illegal and that the the oh we're like we're preempted by other regulations you

31:14 mean yes there's a preemption in regards to a higher authority meaning like a City of Springfield um allows activity that's illegal in in the state statutes but we're trying to make it legal and you can't do that right so that's a a bridge will need to be crossed in regards to specifically any outdoor burning thank you okay thanks Joe uh and I I had the fire flagged as an issue too right we had two folks that passed away as part of a as part of a warming fire they got out of control I believe a year ago um right the risks right like the risk to the community from having to open fires out there is not insignificant and

32:00 I think we have to have a clear direction as far as what's allowed what's not when are you supposed to use the warrant when are you supposed to use the warming Center to make sure that we're sort of keeping people's lives property keep in line with you know whatever the local fire fire ordinances are so like just a blanket open you can you know have a have a fire whenever you want isn't accurate um the one thing I would I think that's valuable to point out is there's going to be a lot of action on the from a legislative perspective coming into into the next session I know it seems like the new governor is going to issue an emergency order right so hopefully we will know more information about what changes about what we have to do by January but I want to acknowledge that I I would guess that this is

32:45 probably one of the two issues that that may uh uh that may play a prominent role Nancy you have anything I do mayor thank you um I wanted to comment on councilor Pitts um question about you know what are some other things that we can do and I think as I understand your comments counselor Pitts you're really getting to the issue of prevention you know how do we keep people from becoming unhoused in the first place which you know to me would also uh Prevail us as a city to have a broader discussion with our state and federal Partners about funding for drug and alcohol programs um mental health programs some of those things that would you know be a safety

33:30 net that isn't in place currently Corey and we'd want to know I think I really appreciate that part of the conversation because we want to know where the county is on that because you know my understanding is that's a big piece of what the counties are supposed to be working on um yeah yeah and I think that's a really good call out right because Human Services is a core deliverable from the county um so we really want to support Advocate whatever term you want to use to make sure that the county you're right like we don't as a city have to stand up something that the county is responsible for delivering from a from a Services perspective uh the other things I just had noted down that I would be interested I would love to know more about what other jurisdictions you know

34:15 have done because we are probably in the back half right so there were people who had passed ordinances from Medford all the way to to bend that kind of are getting at some of these issues um the right-of-way issue is a real big concern of mine right like we should not have people camping in the right way it is not safe right the the news has been full of people that have passed away through accidents in the right of way um and then I think lastly um well I guess two more things and then I I guess I would be open to more to more just general Partnerships right because if a lot of the service centers do sit in Eugene it's not you know us like you know so looking to either rent beds or get folks closer to the where they're actually going to receive Services could make a lot of sense for

35:01 us um yeah I'm this there's a lot of information here and I know we're going to get into a you know a pretty big conversation um what's the public Outreach plan I know that right we're going to start talking about what's in the ordinance in January and then you know I think we've got to have it in public hearing by June um do do you need feedback about who you who we should go talk to now or do you guys have a sense of who in the community you're going to solicit some feedback from um I'd be happy to take any feedback that you would have about what you're looking for in the communication plan because this is a change in ordinance you're going to have at least two Council meetings where there'd be opportunity for business from the audience to discuss you'd have a public hearing to pass this ordinance is what we would recommend

35:47 um because this is a type of ordinance where you'd want to hear from the public and then there may be opportunities for other kind of targeted Outreach to either super service providers or other people who are knowledgeable about this topic um that that also might help inform your decision as well I have thoughts okay thoughts we might have some of the same thoughts I'll go ahead um I think I really appreciate you bringing up the public Outreach because I think um for us to make a sound decision we're going to really need to know all of the sort of moving pieces and perspective so you know I would definitely want to know I want to hear from um Public Safety I would want to hear from um sort of deep within the benches of Human Services so there are folks who do you know Street Outreach which is

36:33 important and are going to have a perspective but also people like you know Catholic community services like sponsors um you know the sort of Behavioral Health folks because I would like this is an opportunity for us to not only do we have to like to respond to the law but we don't want to make things worse right so it's like we don't want to make some decision that with our partners and folks who have to who are who are helping us to face this is going to make things much worse so I would want to know um from some of those folks like what are they thinking about um definitely from our partners the school district and well I'm Elaine and those folks and go ahead so I don't want to take all the juicy ones um I think it's easy to cast The Net really wide here um I guess my sense is like maybe we

37:19 have the conversation in January we kind of see where we shape up as far as what we're interested in pursuing and let us sort of jump off into who to who necessarily to chat with and now that will give the you guys a chance to sort of talk to the county you know research this question about you know what Partnerships might be available and kind of for like we need to get this thing on a little bit firmer around before we actually talk into it and and solicit folks but I think the question about public state but uh the police are is a really important one fires are really important one too right because whatever happens we want to make sure that people are safe people can access their property right we don't have structures that are out there in the right of way like you know that there's just a broad swath of issues that you know all touch

38:04 this okay well maybe what we can do just kind of in closing then is work for towards January with information about what other jurisdictions are doing what facts look like on the ground here what Public Safety is encountering um with these situations um and then um sensitive areas in terms of environmental or safety issues to be thinking about with the city and then you can provide us some direction further about communication Outreach and um the questions you'll have from that because I think it'll generate some questions I I think that'd be a good idea Nancy um I would be happy to work with our City attorney on an Outreach plan one of the things that I did in Sacramento was uh did the 2020 census Outreach and so

38:49 it kind of built a network from there and it was a pretty good model oh that I think that would be helpful and I think that the key here is to not make this bigger than it's got to be right like is like you know there's a community we need to talk to folks we need to sort of care you know care about but we don't really want to stand up a bunch of things that you know another agency provides thank you all right okay let's see you were only way over sorry all right all right thank you thank you all right next item comprehensive plan map clarification project hopefully there's a cool acronym that goes along with that that we've come up with the evening Hartman I'm senior planner I've just

39:36 been here a month and I wanted to give kudos to Monica sather who was the project manager for this item before me she's on leave and I asked her if it was okay to share this she just had a baby so I'm now filling in as project manager and just really grateful for all the work she did tonight to set me up to present to you all so tonight we're this is a critical step towards informing the development of the parcel-specific comprehensive plan map for Springfield the project team has identified key policy related topics to consider for creating the map along with questions and options to address each of the topics we'll discuss tonight we're seeking your guidance on whether the staff recommendations for how to approach creating the draft map align with your preferences or if the council

40:22 prefers any alternative approaches I'll first recap why we are working on this project and share some updates so a key step in continuing to develop this parcel specific map that interprets and clarifies the metro plan diagram includes showing specific plan designations for each property within Springfield this is a resource that we don't have at the moment right now we refer to the metro plan diagram which was adopted by uh as a 11 by 17 inch paper map which is attachment to a in your packet the diagram is complemented by the metro plan text which provides clear guidelines for how to coordinate planning decisions alongside this diagram and it serves as a guide for

41:09 change by outlining the goals and policies for topics like parks and open space residential land and more however this diagram is a schematic level map that was intended for general areas for the most part the diagram does not show the size and shape of individual properties the text of the metro plan aligns with this project because it speaks to the need to evolve to a property specific map for both Springfield and Eugene as we continue to create our city-specific comprehensive plans here's the latest uh although unofficially adopted version of the diagram from 2010 if I could zoom in you would see the broad brushstroke graphic theme this is also referred to as the blob map

41:55 so here's a zoom and example of what the map could look like if we were creating the property specific map on the right this will be done by interpreting the metro plan diagram you can see more detail about streets and property lines as compared to the current metro plan diagram on the left however there's not much difference in the colors as shown by the plan designations by doing this work people will have a way to see how individual properties are planned in Springfield with better confidence one reason why answers about a property specific plan designation are not always easy and quick to provide is that we found that the line or border between each of the colors on the map is about 300 feet wide on the metroplan diagram

42:40 this can cover a lot of small properties in an urban context so there are cases where we're having to interpret the diagram to look into whether it makes sense to assign one color or another for a property in the case where a property has more than one color appear we're using the term split designation so to reinforce the key aspects of what this project does and doesn't do this is a fact binding project interpret existing information we'll bring forward what has been in place for years to make the information clear but this is not a visioning project or major overhaul to reimagine what the community wants Springfield to be right now it is an opportunity to resolve as many things as possible that are unclear and to solidify what's there and what's

43:25 adopted as far as we can tell staff are currently working on property research focusing on areas that are near the border between designations to see if any previous land use decisions document the plan designation where the answer is still unclear we will also contact Property Owners to share what we found in our research and give them an opportunity to let us know what they think the correct designation is the goal with this direct Outreach is to start early communication before we share a draft map with the broader Community early next year though this project is not exploring major change it still has many meaningful results adopting a property specific map will bring us one step closer to creating the

44:11 land use element of this Springfield's Conference of plan comprehensive plans are sometimes one of the most one of the first resources people use when trying to understand if realizing their visions and goals for a property are possible currently it's difficult for many Property Owners to find out their plan designation and sometimes extensive staff research may be required to provide this answer creating the property specific map will ultimately resolve these situations save time and provide confidence in future decisions because people will be able to use property research tools that are accurate quick to access and easy to use the map will also serve as the beginning step towards determining how much of Springfield's residential land Supply exists and is buildable which will feed

44:57 into a foundation foundational piece of Springfield's housing Capacity Analysis that must be adopted by December 2025. and lastly This research will identify potential development barriers where property zoning and the plan designation are inconsistent so through the discussion alongside the Project's technical Resource Group the project advisory committee Springfield Planning Commission and information learned from other jurisdictions staff identified recommended options for map display and Associated policy the Springfield committee for citizen involvement appointed the Project's advisory committee which consists of people who live or work in Springfield as well as several private sector Landis

45:43 planners the project team also solidified a separate technical Resource Group made up of staff from Lane Council of governments Lane County City of Eugene Springfield schools Springfield Utility Board willama Lane Park and Recreation district and the Oregon Department of land conservation and development these two groups who have provided helpful insight and suggestions to staff on desired outcomes for the map on November 1st Springfield Planning Commission discussed the trade-offs of mapping options which are an attachment for of your packet and provided feedback and support of staff's recommendations for the key policy related topics we'll discuss tonight for the following questions we are

46:29 interested to know if Council would like staff to proceed according to the recommendations or if Council prefers we take another approach our first question is about whether to designate public rights of way some major streets are shown on the metroplan diagram and public rights of way appear to be given a designation but the metro plan tax does not speak to this topic the bottom image shows what the map would look like if we do not designate right away staff is recommending to not designate this allows for the greatest opportunity for Planned designations and Zoning in the rights of way to be consistent and to streamline the development review process with this approach we would no

47:15 longer Zone public rights of play both would be determined if and when a budding property process to vacate the right-of-way without having to also approve an amendment to the conference plan map or the zoning map which is much more expensive to do not designating may also help users of the map better Orient to finding their way around Springfield on the map all right are you ready for some questions sure if you want to stop at each one all right Joe well I have more not so much questions but mostly comments so if we wanted to bust through this on the commentary and her presentation I can wait to the end do you have a question okay just a clarifying question

48:00 um that will help me in the decision making because I think I'm fine with whatever staff recommends I just want to know how this is used is it is it ever or what the percentage of of like public people that would just look at this and try to figure stuff out on their own or are they is it most often used internally and people come and say I want to put a whatever a barn on my property and staff sort of helps them through it I think it's probably a mix of both some folks know that this resource exists um and often it's really not easy to find the answer so they do have to come to staff because it's really hard to find it figure it out on your own like right now I'm helping someone with an annexation annexation application they're trying to figure out what their

48:45 plan designation is for a few properties and they can't figure it out by looking at the 11 by 17 inch map okay thank you that was my question Leonard I just wanted to speak up on behalf of designating the public rights of way I think it's just uh it avoids a lot of confusion later um the the Lots if they don't include the roads that are separating them they they can start to sort of jumble and start to uh start to accumulate fast all right let's let's go through the questions and then we'll open this that's right you were asking for questions sorry no that's okay we'll we'll get it sorted out just got a couple more slides all right

49:31 okay so the next question is um should the map show our adopted neighborhood refinement plans um the metro plan specifically recommends that people refer to refinement plans where they exist to find information about individual properties since the refinement plans take precedence over the metro plan map users who have properties within refinement plan areas currently have two places to remember to look and find the applicable designation of their property identifying the refinement plan designation can help people scope out whether what they want to do on their property is a straightforward process or whether they might need to propose a zone change or plan amendment to make something happen we heard strong support from our

50:17 technical Resource Group and our project advisory committee members that we should bring forward the refinement plan designations onto the map so that finding information is faster and potentially not forgotten attachment 5 of your packet visually shows how we could approach the different refinement display options the benefits and trade-offs that were considered led us to come up with combining the best parts of two options to form a recommendation for the interactive map we recommend showing all of their climate plan designations in detail since it's much easier to toggle on and off information but for the PDF map we recommend showing refinement plans but simplifying the designation name so that those with similar intent but multiple different terms are combined to create a

51:03 simplified map and Legend while not amending refinement plan text and I can pause again for questions if you want with this one or I can just no I think you can keep going and we'll come back to it okay another question is about whether and how to show nodal development areas nodal development our areas are sometimes just overlays which is an additional designation that applies over the top of the base plan designation and that's shown by the bright red outline in the top right corner other times they act as the base designation as shown by the bright purple area with the red outline on the lower left designation of nodal development areas throughout Springfield came from a requirement of the state's

51:48 Transportation rule that is no longer however these areas still serve a purpose locally by promoting a mix of uses served by multimodal Transportation infrastructure that helps support walking biking and Transit options this is why we would like to continue considering this aspect of what the map could show so moving forward with nodal development staff recommend treating all of that those areas as overlays we heard from the map users perspective that consistency across Springfield is desired because it makes requirements more predictable and easier to navigate this approach aligns with our development code which treats nodal development areas as overlays doing it this way would also be much easier for map readability and maintenance and we

52:35 could also respond more nimply and quickly to any reasons but we might want to call these areas something different in the future or reasons we might want to use these areas to inform other planning efforts such as the state's climate-friendly and Equitable communities rules and then lastly the last question while the focus of the project is to provide more specifics on the comp plan map there are reasons we may want to consider providing some flexibility in certain instances the situations we considered are when a property is identified as having a split designation uh which could be the current situation or could be caused due to a proposed reconfiguration of a property such as through a property line adjustment this could also help projects with large

53:20 development areas with many properties that have potential for master planning for this one staff recommend allowing for some flexibility with clear parameters for which situations would qualify staff had property line adjustments land divisions and large development areas as well as lines between properties designated public land government and education and parks and open space in mind to avoid uncertainty we would approach this so flexibility can be possible in a clear and predictable way reasons for providing some level of flexibility could help Property Owners create plans for their properties that more accurately accurately reflect on the ground conditions at the time they develop

54:05 for example say we adopt the map now but someone 20 years from now wants to do something with their land that has changed enough and that time frame that the plan designations no longer make sense perhaps topography or water water drainage issues emerge having some flexibility also helps resolve the issue of not creating more split designations when property lines move and eliminate eliminates the need for the property owner to front the cost and go through the process of a comprehensive plan map Amendment and last slide um next steps include finishing the property of research and creating the draft map based on Council input sharing the draft map with our advisory bodies and the entire community and working on text amendments to existing

54:51 plans and writing new policy to a company that map to prepare for the adoption process next year at this point staff are interested in whether there's a particular topic Council would like to discuss or has questions about or if Council has any alternatives staff should consider thank you I out of all the staff recommendations I actually support most all of them that I can see that makes sense it seems like they're trying the staff is trying to build in some flexibility for developers and Property Owners I'm all for that the only question I have is in regards to overlays and the nodal development areas designations and if I may have heard you

55:36 wrong but is it my understanding that it's no longer a requirement to have those type of overlays is that correct not based on the state's Transportation Planning rule which has changed with climate-friendly Incredible communities but the nodal development overlays are still a part of our adopted metro plan diagram and could be considered for the climate-friendly areas they'll talk a little bit about that in the next work session item so what I'm getting at is that those designations that overlay currently is not required is that correct so I agree with all all the recommendations with staff except for maintaining those nodal development overlays and if we don't have to have them then I don't see the need for

56:22 regulation in regards to that but everything else I think the staff recommendations and the committee recommendations make a lot of sense yeah Hey Joe those nodal overlays may become climate friendly areas and they are completely different than nodal overlays right now it's right I don't like you thanks Sean um so yeah I'm I'm pretty much in support of all the uh recommendations I I would counsel against um a detailed descriptions um just on the grounds that they would clutter the map somewhat and um I think

57:07 to the to the extent that we can simple is better okay I have a comment later but just a story about the map all right we'll hold the the uh that tail of the blob map and how this is all Steve Mo his fault it is I I am not wrong uh Damien hi uh how much is this gonna cost and then what will be the long-term cost to keep this continually upgraded if that's even a thing uh to uh will this be well this might be divided

57:52 into Wards because I know uh the current map it's really hard to tell what word you're in and I think that the citizens want to know especially if they're planning on run for office or applying for a border commission uh that will be something good to kind of narrow it down by if it was divided by War sometimes sometimes it's really hard to tell for the cost piece so the Oregon Department of land conservation and development awarded the city a grant to do this project and we are dedicating staff time to finish it um we're targeted to have the map adopted next year and then ongoing map maintenance we're still figuring out what that will look like and how heavy of a lift it should be

58:37 um but I do think that there will be a huge Time Savings in creating this map and maintaining it rather than the staff time that it takes to research um everyone's plan designation for their property when a question pops up which is quite time consuming currently and then for the awards the interactive map online can have multiple layers of information that can be turned on and off so folks can see how the plan designations interact with other layers such as Ward boundaries so that's something that's possible with that map yeah so um I agree with the staff recommendations here I think they're straightforward I think they make sense and I think this goes on this is a project goes a long way to what we want to do to make development easier because

59:22 you can actually look up and see what you can actually do with the piece of property you own I had a couple of clarifying questions when we adopt the map how do we there's some resolution that it sounds like that is going to happen around what property zoning is are we expected that that's going to change what our buildable land inventory is or is that is it going to just sort of come out in the wash or could we see a big impact or what are your thoughts on that regard the hope is that this map will be that basis for when we're updating our buildable lands inventory which we'll be starting to work on very soon so it won't change what's currently adopted but it will inform the updated buildable lands inventory that's coming

1:00:10 um excuse me the the um other comment that I thought was really kind of critical is importance of the customer here right because when you describe it from a planning perspective you know there's a lot of work that goes into research and what we do and how we do it um right really what I think we're looking for to sort of gather up that that efficiency right is that that the actual somebody can actually use it without having to interact with staff and when I think about the end product and I think about the technology that we're using um I think we just got to keep the customer experience in mind right because the the power to this isn't is a staff tool but the power is also you know to just deal with all those other questions that you know get people broken away from their day or spend a lot of time researching it doesn't ever

1:00:56 become and turn into anything and then I think the I guess the third comment I would make is from a product perspective right like this is probably more more broad than simply um keeping the map up to date when it's done but instead of like envisioning it as a customer tool and a customer product right so when you think about the different layers when they go out two or three years um understanding okay how we keep it functioning and the lights on is really important but also well what else can we put and leverage this uh leverage out of this software that is going to improve what are the ease that people have in doing business with the city right because that's going to create a couple of different versions that we probably

1:01:41 need to sort of Chase and I know that there's technology money that's available to do that but ultimately where we want to get to is we want to make it as easy as possible for people to understand how to develop in the City without having to interact with the planner until it gets really complicated yep they're perfectly um and then I will put a a kind of a last I guess flag into this right because we talk about this every year at budget committee when you guys figure out how much it's going to sort of save us in cost avoidance that would be a good number to know right because we have we've done a lot of Investments across the city and how do we manage issues and you know how do we actually sort of take cost out of our structure and make it easier to you know just

1:02:26 sharing that piece of information with the public more often would be helpful especially out of this project this is a good project that's technical but it will be it's a good and interesting project all right anybody else say something oh sorry um entertain us with your stories of yours man okay um Senate Bill 100 I believe Sandy isn't that one started this yep uh back in the 60s in in the middle 70s I could call you want to be a part of this Planning Group for the metro metro planning advisory committee Lane County in Eugene Springfield I got on that we spent eight years putting this thing together

1:03:11 and being released Cindy Pappas and we didn't know what we're doing Portland was the only area that had been doing that before we did the best we could and uh a lot of work we uh and at the end we had a big map on the wall and myself and and uh Lee buyer and uh Sandra Bishop from Eugene we drill those lines okay and we followed property lines so when you say the 300 feet wide the property liner but we used as a basis so I'm not sure exactly why you don't know that or understand that there's a couple places

1:03:56 we did and that was floodplained Ridge lines we've got the Red Bridge lines make sure everything's flowed inside and we didn't we didn't put a boundary out near the river and and that probably bisects the property lines in both of those but uh that confuses me when you jump by these lines make 300 people wide and uh that isn't that isn't what we did it's it's uh so to me it should be simpler it isn't uh as Government goes along we've become more complex and uh so anyway we got through with that 83-84 and then uh it was a metro plan and that went on through his process naturally then and then eventually we went into uh

1:04:42 where we divided into two Springfield and Eugene Metro plan and Brad Springfield's got its own we have our problems but I don't want their problems either well Steve did you guys officially name it the blob map is the well no we didn't think it was a blob damn it was it was a big one on the wall like I said the property lines were all all established in those days even and then there was existing zoning Maps then too and and that was also influenced but we do those lines but so now that's a great that's always a great story either every time that you see Senator buyer or councilor Mo right and it comes to this map you get a hit like get to hear the stories from the moments all right does anybody have

1:05:27 anything else dad all right thank you so much all right the last one we're gonna end with a bang here uh climate friendly and Equitable communities rule making parking requirements and Mary Bridget do you want to talk to us a little bit because I know that there's a lawsuit out here and we're going to talk about parking requirements and you know if you don't give us some guidelines here we may just get completely sideways um just uh remind the council there is a lawsuit involving these rules but the purpose tonight is to evaluate the parking requirements um as the rules as they are currently stated and the staff's presentation is to guide you through the different options and then make a recommendation so just work through this like you would

1:06:13 any other um uh processor project and then if there are separate questions about the litigation you can contact the city attorney's office offline all right thank you Sandy good evening mayor and Council my name is I'm the comprehensive planning manager and thank you to AJ for sharing her screen so we can look at these slides I think this we can move through this fairly quickly um this is my second time to bring to forward to you the rulemaking that applies to parking and you can go ahead to the next slide there this is a quick review of the timeline so there are two main phases for implementing the parking requirements that come out of the climate-friendly Equitable

1:06:58 communities rules the first one will take effect December 31st in March there will be the electrical vehicle conduit additional requirement that we are not discussing tonight and then what we're really focused on tonight is what happens in phase two which needs to go into place by June 30th of 2023. foreign so just as a review for phase one which goes into effect at the end of this month the city will not be able to require any on-site parking for new development within a half a mile of frequent Transit corridors which for us is the MX and Route 11 and then there's

1:07:44 a list of different uses residential and child care uses for which we would not be able to require any on-site parking for new development so these are those types summary of the types of uses for which we could not require on-site parking uh so for the next phase phase two um we need to choose option one or option two so option one is to eliminate any type of on-site parking any kind of minimum on-site parking requirements Citywide so that's fairly simple

1:08:29 the second option is much more complex and that would limit parking as well as ADD policies around managing parking if we choose option two we need to start doing the work for that immediately because we would need to have the adopting ordinances in place and effective by the end of June so option two to go into that a little bit more detail as I was said it's got various components to it it would reduce parking minimums based on shared parking solar panels wind power EV charging car sharing parking space accessibility so these various

1:09:14 situations would reduce the amount of parking that we could require for development it would require us to allow off-site parking in other words parking on someone else's property to meet the parking minimum that is in our code um and it would require us to unbundle parking for multi-family units near frequent Transit so this unbundling of parking is going to be a theme for tonight and that is in which you um the in this case the landlord would re be required to charge separately rent for the unit and for the parking space and so someone would need to choose to rent a parking space in

1:10:01 addition to the unit if they wanted to be able to park their car or vehicle on site uh next also um within option two we'd have to apply certain requirements to climate-friendly areas so you heard those mentioned earlier these would be Akin somewhat to our current nodal development areas so climate friendly areas as you may recall from when we talked about this previously are areas that are sufficient to accommodate at least 30 percent of the housing needs housing units necessary to meet all current and future housing needs and they would be multimodal in that

1:10:47 they would be supportive of bicycle pedestrian and Transit infrastructure So within these areas that we would designate to be climate-friendly areas we would have to either remove all required on-site parking or adopt parking management policies for that climate-friendly area and unbundle the parking for the multi-family units also for option two so there's kind of three main parts to this you would have to enact three out of five policies so when you talked about this previously you determined you did not want to look at tax on parking lot Revenue but the other four are still under your

1:11:32 consideration and so that's unbundling parking for all Resident all multi-family residential units for at least commercial parking that uh there would be a flexible commute benefit for businesses that have more than 50 employees in which they would offer um for those employees that choose not to use free parking that's provided by the employer they would be able to get a cash benefit or some other kind of compensation because they choose to get to work without using a parking space when they get there and then the other the last option would be to require no more than half a parking space per unit in

1:12:17 multi-family development so in your packet there was a full version of this flowchart It could only fit on two different slides um but it tends to show the two different options um and again this is for what goes into effect next June so this is a full version as it was in your pocket but basically option one just to reiterate is to eliminate the parking um requirements on site minimum wide people developers can still provide parking if they choose to it's just that we wouldn't require them to provide it on site and then option two

1:13:03 um you'd have to make several choices so for climate friendly areas there's a choice um and then you'd have to choose three out of those five policy choices so as I said earlier unbundling will be a theme for tonight I think this is where it starts to affect more than just City stuff and residents and bundling starts to require that landlord's participate in this and that they're going to be the ones responsible for actually determining if there's a change in the rent because they're no longer accounting for the cost of the parking

1:13:49 what the appropriate charge for those parking spaces would be um it would affect tenants in terms of how they're choosing to look for their homes and if they need parking or not and is that going to affect their housing Choice um the same with commercial if you went with the policy to look at least commercial and then that becomes the enforcement aspect yes mayor there's no requirement that people change their rent right if we chose unbundling correct no okay but they would have to charge separately if there was parking provided in other words you could not change I don't think you could charge the same rent with or without parking

1:14:34 correct but you could charge the same rent for your apartment and then now now charge you an extra an extra rent for a parking space that was previously included correct right so the state effectively has made a rule here that could cause rents to rents to increase if we chose this option across the city correct okay I just want to make sure my head's wrapped around that correctly because I don't like I don't I don't know that it's when I saw the slide when it was like opt out I'm like I think that's probably a little a little more complicated than you know just that people can opt out from paying for a parking space because in reality we may see rents go up if we chose this all right thank you hi Steve I read something those documents I picked up a

1:15:21 few things and I understood that the state has the option under that to take a tax at parking Revenue is that correct eventually that the state could tax the parking Revenue I don't know Leonard that's why they're starting at setting aside I sort of suspect that sorry so and am I right that the unbundling aspect would be more or less moot under option one correct okay and we have found Christina Christina I'm sorry I am um not feeling super well today but I'm gonna just keep my camera off so you don't perfectly understand me sick

1:16:06 um the um taxation on the parking Revenue would be one of the options under the Fair parking policy approach um so the city would actually if that one was pursued the city would be taxing parking Revenue but it would not apply to unbeld parking that would be for you know like Republic parking has downtown Lots in Springfield and that option didn't get into more detail in the packet because of the last work session the council expressed they were not you were interested in in reviewing that as one of the Fair parking policy approaches there's no plan or authority that I'm aware of that would allow the state to impose a sales tax on unbundled parking Revenue Joe

1:16:51 so instead of we instead of jumping down that rabbit hole a landlord can then charge one dollar per month extra for parking and that would fit the law correct somebody there I will look I will check the rules that but I there may be requirements to charge to determine a market rate and charge that there are explicit requirements throughout the rules on what level has to be charged for various types of parking places I just don't know off the top of my head what the parameters are and how you price that but I can review how to get back to you on that yeah I looked at

1:17:36 that too Christina it's written so this whole thing is written so poorly that it is peppered with problems and this being one of them so as far as who's taxing can it be taxed how much what kind of structures there's covered uncovered all that stuff and again it's such a poorly written uh rule that uh I don't know how the the cities can be expected to be able to forward any type of consistency across the state so anyway I don't like any part of this so whatever yeah so we're gonna go ahead Corey yeah I'm I'm everybody now I'm equal to

1:18:23 so option I guess my only question would be if we were to go with option two because you said staff would need to start working immediately my first question is do we even have the capacity internally to do that you know or would we need to hire 17 people to do it um that's my question around that um it would be challenging um and I mean I think I don't know of any other city that has decided to go through option two um not all cities have made decisions yet on this that I know of um it's likely that we would need a consultant to help us through um some of these intricacies around

1:19:10 unbundling and how do we enforce it and it's all new territory so I think we would need to hire some additional Helper and win so I'm option one okay before we get too sidetracked because I think it's really easy to kind of dunk on the uh you know the quality of work that has been done in the cfec rules um all right Christina you can answer counselor pictionary's question about how much to charge the rule requires the parking spaces must be rented leased or sold at Market rates for comparable local off-street parking I don't know how we established those who challenges those but I'm guessing that if we if we put in our code that it could be a dollar we may get a challenge

1:19:56 from uh interested party who would say that it's not you know comparable um a you know 15 a month maybe um more something that would be low but but maybe could be supported by other parking permits in Springfield so could we go maybe to the Ada question and then we can kind of back up to to the and choose a choose a path because I know the Ada question was still out there for for folks sure so um it's the I think it's the next yeah you found it um so we've been trying to get clarity on this um there have been several meetings at

1:20:42 the state level to discuss what would be um allowed under these rules I'm still not certain that that's been answered my understanding is that the attorneys are continuing to look at it it's earnings meaning at the state level between the building codes Division and the department of land conservation and development so um at most and again I don't think this question is settled but at most we would be able to require one Ada parking space per development site and I'm not even sure we could require

1:21:27 that if if the developer was choosing to not provide any on-site parking um so what would happen is if there were if there is a demand for Ada parking and if there is on-street parking available the city could designate the on-street parking as Ada assuming there's adequate ramp to be able to get onto the sidewalk and have a Ada path to the business or residence or whatever it is at that point um Christina do you have anything else to add yeah um the only thing to add is that those attorney conversations like Sandy said

1:22:13 are at the state level so I also don't have any other guidance um dlcd staff had an interesting interpretation that we could maybe require one parking space as Sandy mentioned my understanding is that the building code division doj Council said well actually maybe not but we had initiated trying to get that conversation because there could be flexibility in the state law to allow building codes to Vision themselves to issue an exception to allow us to require Ada parking on its own and when we asked that question for more flexibility it went into the Cog of State process and so I wouldn't count on getting any I I'm not optimistic that they state will give us any flexibility there

1:23:01 okay um I know we're gonna dive into the discussion here does anybody have questions specific to the Ada piece Corey so when you said that there would be a possibility of having um providing on-street Ada parking um at whose expense would that be if he is requiring it would we then be the ones who are making sure that it's ramp accessible and having to make any adjustments or whatever it is it would not be it okay thank you Leonard so um the Ada spaces that I see have offsets on either side of the vehicle um so you would be able to um but the sidewalk on one side but the other side would have to be widened

1:23:46 right I mean wouldn't it cut into the right of way somewhere if you um were getting out on the vehicle roadway side then you hope the car is going to stop and let you get out yeah okay the point of ADA is that we don't have hope I mean there's other I mean there are other configure you know you're thinking mostly parallel parking which is mostly the on-street parking we have in our community there are other options where you could um not be parallel but angle in and then you would have more flexibility to provide space on both sides but I think the I I think the purpose of an ADA space is to eliminate some of that guesswork right I mean so that you don't

1:24:33 have to like be looking on a you know to to your side to see whether there's a car that's going to run you down right I mean I I don't have a great answer for you because this is not a great situation but it's the way it's what the city would have the ability to do is we we CA we control our right of way so we can control the parking that we put in the right-of-way um if you're trying to make even more space so that there's a buffer on both sides then you're starting to affect curbs and rights away and that gets a lot more complicated yeah hey okay okay Joe do you have something about specific to Ada and then we're going to go back to the choose our favorite adventure here I absolutely do okay good so riddle

1:25:19 me this you got two two duplexes side by side sharing the same street so when you have two duplexes side by side you basically have four families between two duplex driveways which would not probably be eliminated now you have maybe a maximum of 60 feet 70 feet and so with ADA requirements are you saying that you know I personally believe that there's there's state law that says You must provide 88 parking for one space for every 25 spaces parking spaces at any parking lot that being said you got four residences in two duplexes side by side so are you saying that that the city could put four Ada parking

1:26:07 spaces in front of those two duplexes or are you saying that the city would only put one and and how are you going to start differentiating between the configurational companies I think that this is a this is a huge tank of armor in regards to this type of rule and it's ripe for lawsuit especially if I was a landlord that is now faced with okay this is developed it doesn't have any parking spaces but I have a person that is a under the American Disabilities Act is considered disabled and they say hey landlord build me a space and landlord says well I can't it doesn't you know the city doesn't allow that so who gets sued the landlord or the city or both I can almost guarantee

1:26:53 that both will get named in that lawsuit so how is the city going to defend itself and how's the city going to defend itself from a landlord is going to sue the city because of our codes it's it's a mess so that would be a question for Christine is a suit can you see that the city is going to be absolutely uh safe from any lawsuit from any landlord that may be sued in turn because of somebody that is designated disabled I think in this case our code wouldn't prevent the landlord from going back and play putting on a parking space in if they had the room to do it the issue would be if the prior property owner had developed in such a way that there were not adequate areas on the property or could not improve a surface I don't

1:27:39 think the city would be liable um in that case but I do agree that it is messy and it creates a lot of Confusion And there's definitely going to be confusion for tenants landlords Property Owners property buyers um in terms of how the city can designate on Street Ada parking they see Jeff Haskell's available to talk through that process but the city of legal authority to designate as many Ada spaces and we could say the entire block is only for Ada parking if we to do that and there wouldn't be liability around that but again there's a lot of complex factors they're not necessarily legal liability as much as the type of liability you incur When

1:28:25 government processes are confusing and people don't really know it's sort of uncertainty creates problems for the community even if we don't have a lawsuit risk um and again we were handed these rules we didn't ask for that more so that you know that sort of thing aside um there will definitely be some confusion I would say the one point that I'm trying to make is that you're you're going jumping off the assumption that the landlord wants to put Ada parking in I'm saying that the landlord doesn't want to that would be that would be a civil matter between the tenant and the landlord and I'm not sure whether the landlord might be liable or not but the city would not be liable in that case all right all right Jeff you can't put anything to add here I think for an

1:29:11 example and Christina can correct me because we both have talked through this the city's really only obligated to provide Ada parking if we have a managed parking program so as an example in the downtown area we have a managed parking program where we limit parking on a Time basis so we're obligated on those blocks to have so many Ada parking spaces if we were in another neighborhood where the parking's not really managed it's just on-street parking it would be at the city's discretion if we want wanted to designate Ada spots in that at that point in time but we wouldn't be obligated and that's at least that's my interpretation and I think when Christina I've worked through of the ADA rules okay we may be obligated if we had specific requests but those would be limited to one per block

1:29:57 um one space per block would be the maximum under the standards the city uses it doesn't have to be necessarily in front of a specific spot it would be at the best location of State rules say at least at least within 2 000 feet of the property is that correct well that's um when you're talking about providing parking for one use on the private property of another use that we're not talking about right of way there okay so let's let's just get to the broad question do we have I don't know that we have to answer the Ada question tonight right so what I'm hearing you guys say is there's still a lot of discussion that the state doesn't even know which way is up as far as the as far as ADA compliance with uh with

1:30:45 the new parking rules is that accurate yeah I in terms of what we could require of private properties to in terms of building Ada parking but getting to the point you know we just need to decide option one option two tonight well I yeah I think we're about 30 seconds from getting to that that piece what I'm looking to look at you know and see if the council is it sounds like very interested in this Ada topic and what its actual impact would be so if it's good with everybody else um I think our right answer here would be just to Simply direct the staff to bring more information back as soon as they've got some sort of clarity that about what we need to do with Ada

1:31:30 parking because this is silly we can do that okay are we it looks like we're good with Ada parking can you guys come back up to the slide that's the option one option two and just the rules are silly not the conversation just to be 100 clear um so really what you need us to choose from tonight is we either need you to pursue this question here right like it's option one eliminate parking everywhere or option to choose the policy options okay Leonard so um if I'm remembering last time we were talking about this you said that there wasn't any kind of cost breakdown available on option two is that right we did some broad brush cost estimates

1:32:19 um it's going to cost probably 15 times more to do option two as option one would be my but I was going to say I think the cost of option one is basically zero right I mean they're yeah what you're doing is you're eliminating an ordinance okay there I mean I think that's one way to look at it we are eliminating that requirement um there will be some cost involved in that we would need to inform people including staff okay um I think there could be potential for more enforcement issues over time as potentially there's less parking provided on site which increases competition for what parking there is

1:33:06 um so I won't say that there's a no cost impact there but it's a lot lower um then option two okay well I'm uh Team option one Corey I just wanted to take a quick moment to say that I appreciate very much all the work that staff has done on this and our crappiness is not at you I mean I'm not speaking for everybody else my crabbiness is not at you and I know it feels terrible to have us be saying well what about this and what about this when you're just doing all the things that you possibly can and so I hope that you hear that I sincerely appreciate it and do not think that it is in any way your Falls and option one

1:33:55 um I think I'm option one two right like I think like I think that's the only one that makes any sort of sense here I know that it's gonna have a ton of issues that come out of it but we won't know we won't have to sort those tonight okay anybody else want to have any questions about parking everybody's new favorite topic or questions about the cfec rules because we could still spend another 10 or 15 minutes just poking fun at it all right I just have one question so with option one with it being no minimum so pretty much that can mean that they don't have to have parking period is that correct correct correct so both of these options are trash okay thank you

1:34:45 yes that is an accurate representation Damon all right um thank you for your guidance it's helpful to have that resolved and we will come back when we have more information on Ada all right thank you so much this is the last item that I have for for the evening we're going to adjourn this and then we'll reconvene uh uh AJ separate link for Ceta separate link for Sita so we're adjourned we will see you in the aceta meeting room