Springfield City Council — April 1, 2024

0:05 I know it was already going. I'm going to call the Springfield City Council work session to order with roll call. Mayor Van Gordon. Here. Councilor Weber. Here. Councilor Moe. Here. Councilor Rodley. Here. Councilor Blackwell. Councilor Doyle. Here. And Councilor Fishnary. Here. And Councilor Blackwell's excused for the evening. We have two work session items tonight. The first is the public passenger vehicle code update, which is Paschal. Thank you. Um Jeff Paschal, Community Development Director. See I'm gone for a little while and I already forget what I'm doing. Push the button. Um so here tonight to talk about proposed changes to the to municipal code sections that cover public passenger vehicle services. Um

0:50 so our program is and I got some facts and some details. Oh. This is if this is the right time or not, but I need to disclose that I do have a direct uh conflict of interest on this topic because I am a rideshare driver. I do carry a license for that, so I'm going to just I guess excuse myself from the from the discussion. All right. Thank you. Um so stepping back in in the packet of materials I provided you, I'm trying to be as brief as possible, provided a really brief history. So going back to 2016 when we did the last um code update for the city of Springfield. That was following a Eugene code update. Um then following that in 2018, Eugene did another code update. Now, the reason we

1:36 do a code update when Eugene does is Eugene administers the program for both cities. Um so we don't have a program where we license taxis, Uber, Lyft. We don't do any of that. We don't collect fees. We just have an agreement with Eugene and we adopt language that mirrors their code language and and they operate the program with that. They don't charge us any fees or administrative fees or anything like that to operate the program. They just operate the program. Um so in 2018, again, they updated their their code um for reasons we probably should have been back shortly after their code update to update ours, but you know, pandemic, staffing changes, things like that, it got dropped, but here we are. Um and the

2:21 one of the reasons why it came to light now is in their 2018 code update among the other fee changes and some minor language changes that they had, um they added language to allow the city manager to implement a per trip fee. Um they didn't implement that fee in 2018, but they are now looking at implementing that fee around 50 cents per trip. Um in their code, that fee has restrictions to be used to pay for administrative costs and or promoting accessible cars um or promotion of alternate vehicles. I don't have the exact language right here off the top of my head. Um so it has restrictions on what they can use the funding, very narrow. Um and so

3:07 anyway, so there will be some revenue generated from that. It's anticipated to cover at this point in time cover administrative costs. Um that trip fee will be assessed based on where the trip originates. Um for informational purposes, about 15% of the trips originate in the city of Springfield based on the data Eugene has. So basically one and a half out of every 10 trips originate. So for the most part, I don't anticipate any a lot of revenue being generated for the city of Springfield for this because any fees that they did collect on behalf of for that 50% fee that were over and above the administrative costs to um administer Spring- Springfield program would come to the city of Springfield. Um and that gets to the second point. Among the conversation and discussion

3:53 with the council on the code updates is digging through this, we couldn't find I don't I haven't seen an actual agreement with the how we work with Eugene on what each agency does on how the program we just agree that they and we adopt their language. So, with these potential changes in fees, administrative costs, I think in working with the city attorney, we recommend that we initiate conversation on on memorializing all of this in an intergovernmental agreement. It'll also make it easier for future staff to kind of figure out who's doing what and and how the program operates as these updates come through. And that's that's kind of the direction we're looking for from the city council. Um one other fact that we'll be back later following this conversation with

4:38 the official code language, but it probably won't be until late May, early June because digging information from the city of Eugene that they're looking at um an update to their ordinance to remove those narrow restrictions, to have that conversation with their council. So, basically just collect a fee, then it would be for any excess revenue would be available for whatever they need to use it for, but so to remove those narrow restrictions. Um they anticipate going to their council sometime in May. So, rather than update now and come back if they do update again, we'll wait and see where that conversation goes and bring any final language back um based on the city of Eugene action. Corey.

5:23 Are we Are we obligated to spend the money the same way they do? Today we would if we adopt the code language, if we just mirror today we would. Um again, I would not based on the information one and a half trips out of every 10 would not anticipate a lot of revenue, but I I don't know where the future of the program may go. Joe. So, I'm okay in general with what they're asking except for I have a little bit of Well, I have angst in regards to the blank check of excess fees. It just leaves it so subjective in regards to someone just decides they want to throw up a bike rack or do whatever and spend it the way they wish without any

6:08 oversight, so to speak. At least any input from us. And in regards to collecting money from program or specifically from individuals that are generating that money is I fully believe that if there's money being produced by a program 100% of that money should go directly back to benefit that program as opposed to some other program someone else sees fit where it should go to. Am I making any sense? I think so and I would look to Christine to help me out. She's been helping me out with this. I think on what Eugene wants to do with their revenue, you know, on their fee. I can't that's kind of a Eugene as far as their code. I think any excess revenue, whatever that would

6:54 be that would come to the city of Springfield, I think then would be up to sit our council, you to direct how that money gets spent in our community. Whatever that revenue stream would be from this program to back to the city of Springfield. Um just because even if they remove the restrictions, I think it would still be the city of Springfield city council's direction on how we spent that revenue. So, the the money they collect from Springfield, they're not spending. It's up to us how it's spent. If there's excess revenue and that's part of that negotiation in the IGA. So, however that formula Yeah, however that formula works cuz the other thing is is we haven't been paying administrative fees and so really want to be kind of a little bit guarded there is that suddenly we're not If this doesn't

7:40 generate enough revenue to cover the administrative fees that we're not suddenly seeing another bill for something that we haven't been traditionally paying for in that. So, I think kind of negotiating all of that through an an intergovernmental agreement is very important, but I don't see Eugene a part of that discussion. I don't see the city of Eugene saying, "Well, you've got this excess revenue and here's how you must spend it." Springfield going to go back to how they how they determine what their what their um calculation is to determine what an administration fee should be and how it should be collected. So, it's still going to be subjective in regards to if they can if they can pencil out, "Okay, this is exactly how much it cost us. This is how many employer staff hours we have into this program, so therefore we can justify collecting this as opposed

8:25 to saying, 'Well, let me guess. I think we're going to it's going to cost us this much.'" Some random number and we're at that mercy of that of of them just collecting taxes {slash} fees without any uh without proper payback to the program. Yeah, no, I fully understand that and and I hope and I think again this goes back to us having a clear understanding and an agreement uh you know, that we can bring back to the council for approval of what those what those recitals are in that agreement. But, what is the formula for what the administrative cost share? So, whatever fees are collected on behalf of Springfield to cover administrative costs that those cover, you know, 100% go to cover whatever administrative costs are attributed to any

9:10 Eugene or Springfield costs and then and then whatever revenue then comes back to the city of Springfield, the city of Springfield then can use whatever that number is for, you know, without that. I I hear I think I hear what you're saying. I think that's where there's a lot of details to figure out that we don't know yet because you know, I've I've had brief conversations with the finance person who's kind of looking at this on what the what the formula might look like based on the one and a half, you know, trips out of every 10 and how that gets attributed to Springfield, but a lot of that that's why I think it, you know, when I look at this and I started digging into this, I think that's really important to make sure that we have all of that hammered out and that agreement is a, you know, signed by both cities. It's It's not where it is today where we

9:55 don't we just haven't been paying administrative costs, so it's not like been a big issue. We just adopt the code and they they do what they need to do to administer the program. Yeah, I'm okay as long as there's absolute clarity and it's clear to you and whoever's doing drawing up those IGAs that that we're not missing any parts of those and again, making sure that And we'd bring back any of that language probably another work session or it may potentially or just in regular session of here's the conditions to get feedback from the council before we finalize that and authorize the city manager to sign that. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thank you.

10:51 All right. Second item is street exchange for Woodland Ridge phases 7 and 8 and it is Chairman Stan. It is off. Hello, I'm Jeremy Shearer. I am your city surveyor and this is my first time being up here before you. So, it's an honor and a privilege privilege to be here. So, what you have before you is really an offer from Hayden Homes. They are developing Woodland Ridge and they've developed a Pinehurst, but there's a a section in in that area where um they purchased. It's a panhandle parcel and um you if you want to turn to the exhibit, um you can kind of see a map of

11:37 it um in the offer. You'll you'll see um a shaded area says area to be conveyed by to Hayden Homes. That uh that area uh was deeded um to the city as a street. So, we both own the fee title to it and we also um have a publicly dedicated right-of-way with it. So, uh the deed uh foresaw that there might be an uh a future need to um rearrange that or realign that. So, the deed itself actually says, "If the realignment If a realignment happens, all you have to do is go back to go to the count uh get it vacated and then realign it." And so, basically,

12:23 um in a nutshell, that's really what's happening here. Um but part of the um part part of the um the um agreement here um lays out the conditions. Um so, they're also going to be do uh connecting streets. So, Holly Street is uh uh as as a major uh area that needed to be connected to Woodland Ridge. Um and then there's also um Iron Hurst and then 54th is the north-south street and that one will actually uh continue north and then angle west to connect to Woodland Ridge. And so, it's a better use of of the land, better use of property. Currently, it's it's gated off, it's not being

13:08 used. Um I think um it's supposed to be emergency vehicle turnaround at this point right now. Um I I was not able to confirm that because there it's not in a plat. It's just a piece of 60 60-ft wide street. So, um what it's being used for is is basically just vacant land. So, it's it's not serving a a purpose for street at this point. So, um, the rest of the materials there, um, I'm looking for some direction because I have to go through a vacation process with this. It has to become a surplus land and then, uh, there has to be an exchange. So, all that all those, uh, elements are part of this,

13:54 um, packet here. Um, and that process, I believe, um, can be done and you I think, um, through through ORS gives us, uh, gives the authority to, um, uh, 271, blah, blah, blah, something like that. Um, says the city can initiate, uh, street vacation on its on on its own, but it has some parameters. And so, I'd be following that, sending out notice, letting people know what's going on, and then we'd have to come back and and vacate it and then create a and then call it surplus and then, uh, do the exchange. So, it would require the um, somebody from the council signing it or the city manager or somebody like that, the the deed. So,

14:42 All right. Victoria. And first off, I apologize. I didn't look this up in the code, but, um, and I work with a different municipality and and work on annexations. And so, why wouldn't the applicant apply for a vacation of right-of-way and then use in their explanation of what they're going the reasoning for that is then show the new road and how they don't that is no longer needed because of this other, um, path by which they're going to take it. I don't understand why the city has to do the vacation. could. Uh, the that we could go that route, um, and we can negotiate it that way. Um, I I think, uh, from the staff's position and and our public works director is

15:28 uh our idea this is that we're getting such a it's just an exchange of the benefits. I you know, we give you this, we get that. So, we're actually getting more connectivity and more more out of this deal than anything. So, we we we just part of this negotiation which is not signed. It's they haven't signed it, we haven't signed it. I know I wanted to come here and talk to you guys everybody here first um to to see if this is the path we're going to go. Otherwise, I I'll have to go back and renegotiate, you know, that and say, "Hey, no, you have to apply for it and we'll see what happens then." So, I I'd have to come back to you and and and and give you a whole new set of if you think that that's a better way to go, that's fine. I just wasn't I wasn't really sure I Yeah, we could go either way. Yeah, okay. Absolutely, yep, yep. Absolutely,

16:14 yep. Another question, Joe. Just curious, well, actually just a little housekeeping on the attachment three, page five of six, the exhibit titled should be re-looked at and changed. Oh, I'm sorry. Which which one of the third now? Uh attachment three, page five of six under exhibit A, the title of the exhibit needs to be changed. Um, but also the on attachment three, page six of six, where it indicates that there is a tract to be conveyed to the HOA and it's it looks like a pretty good size tract. Yeah, and we don't own that. Okay. Yeah. So, that is that like a different a different transaction completely? it's part of the negotiation as part of So, one of the issues there was that panhandle portion and we so we we didn't want that to continue to

17:01 be used as well, buffer's not right word a vehicular path. So, what they would like to do is they like to create a buffer and that's that's their open space area that's that they're proposing to say okay we won't have a road here but well I'm not sure if it's going to be a park or what but it'll be open area for for them. So that was that was part of the negotiation going back and forth. And the only reason why I bring that up is because I'm not a real fan of HOA's. But uh but it looks as though it it looks as though it's almost a third party. Meaning you have a Hayden Bridge or Hayden Bridge Hayden Hayden Homes doing a an exchange with the road

17:48 right of way etc. and that which is totally fine with me no problem whatsoever and then I look down here and here's another entity called HOA that looks like there's a big chunk of land there and is that has anything to do with the city handing over assets to an HOA? That's I got a problem. Yeah no you're you're yeah absolutely. Um So they haven't submitted any development plan so it still needs to go through through review. So that that part of it is not even though they show it on on here it's not actually in in the agreement itself. So they're they're proposing that they're saying in their um uh in their um

18:33 uh propo I mean their proposal here that um that that that's what they're planning on doing but I don't I don't know that um that that this contract right here would be able to how how enforceable that would be. So it could be they could make lots out of it. Right. Well I'm looking at this is titled dedications and then it and it does show a conveyance to an HOA and this is part of a an official document on I'm basing a decision on by council to basically authorize what's presented before us. I think right? Yeah Christine, can you help me out here? Help me out.

19:18 Yeah. I'm always down in the weeds, just so you know. Yeah. I I think that um what would come to you for formal approval would be the initiation of the vacation, and that would be a resolution, and that would just be the part that the city owns. Um and then if that if you agree to initiate that in a regular session, then as um Jeremy said that you would would provide public notice, there would be a public hearing, then the council would vacate the right of would vacate the right of way over the property that we own, the city owns, and then there would be the surplus property, and then at that point at the surplus it was declared surplus property, would um exchange that to Hayden Homes as the developer. Concurrently with that process, Hayden Homes is going through their subdivision

20:03 planning. And what information they've provided us is conceptual about how they want to use that um right of way in their proposed subdivision, which also includes areas that they would have be stormwater tracks or other types of common space that they would convey they want to convey to the HOA. But that process is a planning process that goes through the subdivision and plat review. And um I'm not sure like we would want to ensure in the sale, once the right of way was vacated, in the sale of the property to Hayden Homes that we're very specific it's going to be what other property will be dedicated as right of way. And we can be specific about how we want Hayden Homes to use the property that was sold to them, like for housing construction. Um

20:48 but we don't have the authority to to tell them about other tracks that are outside of the area that's going to be right of way. That is just part of the subdivision review process. And there's minimum density they have to meet and and all of those other requirements. I hope that answers the question. Yeah, just the document's confusing to me because it it looks like it's still part and parcel of the exchange and if it is then it's the city turning assets over to its separate entity on the same transaction. But if it's separated, it make would make more sense to me, but maybe it don't need to be, but Our only transaction would be with Hayden Homes and then the requirements that we have for getting right away back out of the, you know, in exchange for that and then what they do through the subdivision review process would be part of the subdivision

21:34 review process. Thank Thank you. Appreciate it. All right, any other questions? I think we're good. All right, well, thank you. All right. That is the last item for the work session, so I will adjourn us until 7:00. I'm going to call the Springfield City Council work session regular session to order with roll call. Mayor Van Gordon? Here. Counselor Weber? Here. Counselor No? Here. Counselor Rodley? Here. Counselor Blackwell? Counselor Doyle? Here. And Counselor Pishioneri? Here. Thank you. Uh Counselor Blackwell is excused for the evening. Please join me for the pledge of allegiance.

22:23 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. for public testimony under public hearings and business from the audience. If you are attending in person, please complete the request to speak card and located at the entrance of the council chambers and give them to the city recorder. If you're joining us online with a tablet, smartphone or computer and wish to speak either those times, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom. The order of public testimonies is as follows. Anyone in the person in the

23:08 council chambers and then anybody who has raised their virtual hand. Mayor, the first item is Springfield upbeat. Um item number one is going to be rescheduled. That person is not in attendance this evening. Item number two is National Library Week and that's your item. Don't mind the case. All right. So, I'm going to read the proclamation and then we're going to have folks um come up and stand up here and we'll take a picture. Whereas libraries provide the opportunity for everyone to pursue their passions and engage in lifelong learning allowing them to their best lives. Whereas libraries have long served as

23:54 trusted institutions for all members of the community regardless of say race, ethnicity, creed, ability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socioeconomic status. Whereas libraries strive to develop and maintain programs and collections that serve all populations and ensure equity of access for all. Whereas libraries adapt to the ever-changing needs of their communities. Whereas libraries play a critical role in the economic vitality of communities by providing the internet, technology access, literacy skills, and support for job seekers, small businesses, and entrepreneurs. Whereas libraries are cornerstones of democracy promoting the free exchange of information and ideas. Whereas libraries, librarians, library

24:41 workers are joining library supporters, which is all of you guys, and advocates across the nation to celebrate National Library Week. I, Sean Van Gordon, Mayor of Springfield, proclaim National Library Week for April 7th through 13th, 2024. During this week, I encourage will encourage all residents to visit the library and explore the wealth of resources. And this is our public meeting, so I'm declaring it 1 week early, but it's effective next week. So, come on up, Emily, if we've got people for pictures.

27:43 It always is fun to have the library folks in here. Next item, please. Next item is the consent calendar. I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent calendar. Second. You know, could you call the vote, please? Yes, counselor Webber. Yes. Counselor Mayo. Yes. Counselor Roddy. Yes. Counselor Blackwell, counselor Doyle. Hi. And counselor Pishioneri. Yes. Motion passes, five yeses, zero no's, one absent. Next item, please. Next item is public hearings. We have one public hearing this evening. Public hearing number one, annexation of territory to the city of Springfield, annex seven acres of vacant residential property located at map 18-02-02-00. Portion of tax lot 00500. This is ordinance number one, an ordinance

28:29 annexing certain territory map 18-02-02-00. Portion of tax lot 00500 to the city of Springfield, withdrawing the same territory from applicable special districts, adopting a severability clause, and providing an effective date. This is a first reading, and Tom Sievers is here for this item. All right, if we are ready, good evening mayor and city councilors. I'm Tom Sievers, senior planner with the current planning section. Tonight the council is requested to consider an ordinance to annex an approximately 7-acre vacant piece of property located on South 71st Street and South Southeastern Springfield.

29:16 The proposed annexation area is outlined in red and comprises only a portion of tax lot 500, which is outlined in yellow. The other portion is already inside the city limits. The applicant is the property owner and had requested annexation to facilitate future development of the overall site, which is outlined in green. The site is zoned R1, low-density residential with the urbanizable fringe uh UF-10 overlay. As you can see, it is contiguous to the city limits as the delineating line runs through the tax lot. No other zoning changes are requested except for the removal of the UF-10 overlay. With annexation, the subject property will be removed from any applicable special districts such as the UF-10

30:02 overlay depicted here. No other changes will occur with this application. There are four approval criteria for annexations in the Springfield Development Code which were addressed in full in the staff report and summarized as follows. Criterion A, within UGB and contiguous to the city limits. As previously stated, the subject property is contiguous to the city limits as the delineating line runs through tax lot 500. The subject territory is within the city's urban growth boundary and is currently covered by the urbanizable fringe overlay. Criterion B, consistent with policies of the Metro Plan, policies 27, 29, 33, 34, and 35 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan's

30:49 Urbanization Element, are met through this application as the annexed land will be fully within the Springfield Urban Service Area. Criterion C, within boundary for minimum level of key urban facilities, policies 29, 31, and 32 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan's Urbanization Element are met through this application as well. Staff finds that the property can obtain key urban facilities and services by extending them from the South 71st Street right-of-way into the site. Again, these facilities and services will include sanitary sewer connection, sub water and electric service, and police services from Springfield police. The site is currently in the service

31:34 areas of the Eugene-Springfield Fire Department and the Willamalane Park and Recreation District. Lastly, criterion D, annexation agreement, an annexation agreement has been prepared by the City Attorney's Office and released for signature to the applicant. Upon signing by the applicant, the city will be ready to execute the agreement. The agreement covers obligations for the applicant and for the city, including any financial responsibilities. The agreement includes details on future connection to key urban facilities and services and withdrawal from any applicable special districts. Because all applicable annexation criteria have been met, city staff recommends that this application be considered for approval by council.

32:20 And lastly, staff has spoken with residents on the phone, in person in City Hall, and in the neighborhood when visiting the site. I also received, uh, over the weekend some comments, um, written and sent to me via email. Those have been distributed to you. They should be in front of you right now. Um there are also residents in attendance tonight who would like to voice their concerns. Thank you, councilors and mayor, and I'm here for any questions you may have. Does anybody have any questions before we open the public hearing? All right, I'm going to go and open the public hearing. I have two car two cards tonight. Uh Cecilia Tomko?

33:05 Come up and state your name and address for the record. Um you are perfectly fine to just simply say that you're a resident out in Thurston. Good evening. I am Cecilia Tomko. I live in the approximate area of South 72nd and Holly Street. Our family property um abuts to this um land that you're discussing. I have three very large concerns and um I'm not going to speak about annexation, but the next step, which is

33:50 you know, they're going to look to develop this area. So, the three things that um I'd like to discuss on the record is that the Tomko family will not provide any access. So, for on the record, Margaret Tomko, Michael Tomko, and myself, Cecilia Tomko, would never provide any right of way or passage through our land. So, that's something I wanted on the record. Um my sister-in-law, Margaret, owns the land that dead ends to South 72nd Street. Um then the next issue is land instability and safety of the local area. There are major instabilities of land from a proprietor owner that built on

34:35 two acre lots in this nearby neighboring land. We went through very careful planning and we had our own geographical survey. We had forestry done. We had a many things. But we had land failure in our on our property itself. Um so we were told that normal soil borings were not sufficient because the slide was over 12 ft deep and probably occurred over 100 years. And as you probably know that you cannot build safely on fill land. I understand from other neighbors off of South 71st that there has also been land failure there. I'm also concerned about um recently we had weather and fire issues

35:22 and there's a lack of access for those of us that are towards the top of the hill to flee safely during an emergency. And then the last topic is ensuring a lack of professional contact conflict of interest from this provincial potential developer. Um Royal Martir should not be allowed to provide his own engineering plans as he himself is an engineer. There should be an independent third party analyzing all aspects, especially geography, of any potential development. The selected engineers must have a no conflict of must have no conflict of interest. Since they are looking for annexation, I know that their next step will be development and I wanted to be on the

36:07 record for these three key problems. Thank you. The next person that I have is Michael. Um I'm Michael Tomko, and I also, uh, with my wife, own our property in this area. I just want to reiterate, uh, what, uh, Cecilia Tomko just, uh, uh, said in terms of concerns. Um, this is a very frightening situation

36:53 for all of us as landowners. Uh, I, uh, can't emphasize enough the, uh, how important it is that you as a council go ahead and make sure that this property is, uh, investigated thoroughly, not just by, uh, our the planning development department, but also that you, uh, go ahead and scrutinize, uh, the this potential development that's going to take place. Uh, this building site, from, uh, I think anybody who's objective with it is is not a good building site. There are plenty of other places to build on,

37:39 uh, but, uh, this developer seems uh, committed to doing, uh, moving forward with this. So, for myself, on the record, I want to make sure that the council continues, uh, to do its due diligence and even go beyond its normal due diligence to to address, uh, our concerns and the, uh, safety uh, for everyone. This is not This affects so many people and so many homes. Uh, please make sure that you take this deeply into consideration. This is coming back to you. So, uh, it's it's it's something that

38:25 again is uh is a deep concern for all of us as residents. Thank you. Thank you. I don't have any additional cards. Neil, do we have anybody raising their hand on Zoom? Looks like we have two hands raised for Zoom. Uh the first speaker is Carlin Keppard. And Carlin, you should be able to unmute your microphone. Here we go. Okay, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Um hi, my name is Carlin Keppard. Um I'm

39:11 in Ward 6 and I live on South 71st Street. I've lived here for almost a decade. The following are my concerns about the annexation of land that is part of the Finley Heights site on 71st. Knowing that this annexation is part of the preparation for development of the property into a subdivision. The landslide hands a landslide hazard story map of Eugene-Springfield by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries shows the landslide inventory of this area, including landslides of past and the potential for them in the future. Here at the top of 71st, landslides are noted on the map as having occurred and our neighbor who lives right there could share his own experiences with landslide material crashing down towards his house. Also on the map, you can see shallow and deep landslide susceptibility, and this is an area with both moderate and high likelihood of landslides, which would be

39:56 compounded by the intense and extreme disruption of soil that a development would require. Just the number of massive trees that tipped over, not broke off, but pulled out of the overly saturated soil on that hillside during the recent ice storm tells us about the lack of stability of this especially steep region on South 71st. And the difficulty of reaching those in need due to the narrow road cannot be overemphasized. I also wanted to speak to the perceived adequacy of storm drainage on the upper part of 71st and say that anyone who's been up here after significant rains, which is pretty frequently during the fall, winter, and spring, would see the streams of water coming down the hillsides and across properties and into the road. And that's without all the excess drainage that would increase exponentially with more paving and other hard surfaces above us. We are on an old, narrow, winding single

40:42 lane street. Council members, I would encourage you to drive through South 71st if you haven't recently. This street is not built from bottom at East Street to the top for the kind of equipment needed to develop a subdivision that a development of a subdivision would require. And it will be impossible to make it so without infringing on others' private property boundaries. That alone should make this proposal an automatic no. It's why it's been a no for the last 20 years, which makes this current attempt especially suspicious. It would be unsafe, impractical, and come at a monumental incon- inconvenience and danger to those of us who live here presently. Please consider those who are actual residents of Springfield, who live on this road, and are part of the community above the financial gains of a developer from out of town. This is Springfield, after all, not Portland.

41:29 Thank you. Our next speaker is Thomas Keppard, and Thomas, you should be able to unmute your microphone. Okay, I'm going to read really fast cuz I got a lot to say. So, hello, uh Mr. Mayor and council members. Hang on a minute, Thomas. We can't hear you. Give us 1 second. We're Can Can you hear me? Yes, we can. And I think we're ready with the timer, so you can go ahead and get started. the timer for just a second. I have a

42:14 lot to say, so I'm going to read really fast. Um but uh so I so I can get everything to you, but I'm also going to go ahead and send Oh, you're starting it already. All right, here we go. Uh my name is Thomas Kepper, and I'm a fourth generation Springfield resident. I spent most of my life in this community. My wife and I own a home below the proposed development area of the vacant lot off South 71st. The owner of this land had initially applied for a dec- declaratory ruling asking for the city to allow the density transfer bonus option, which would have required an average slope determination. I had some serious concerns that an affirmative ruling would allow for development on this land that is not compatible with Springfield's urban development policies and practice. So, as I I was relieved when the city sent me a notification stating the application had been withdrawn. However, just a few days later, a public notice regarding an annexation agreement was posted on the lot. I was confused and angered. In the letter from the city, it did not provide an explanation why the applicant had

42:59 withdrawn, nor did it mention anything about an annexation agreement with the city conditioning a future subdivision on the lot. So, how this appears to me is that the city got a little more land for a park on the condition they will help the owner get their land developed despite it not actually meeting current zoning requirements. It all seems a bit shady, especially because the city made almost no effort to contact surrounding homeowners. I will say that normally I would be all for development and bringing more affordable homes into the community, especially because affordable home inventory is generally low in Lane County. However, the Finley Heights development is not likely to bring about more affordable homes to the community, rather it will provide multi-million dollar homes for people who are probably not even from this community. And most importantly, no home should be built up there. However, my greatest concern is the development of this land, especially the removal of trees and vegetation, will compromise the integrity of the hillside along 71st Street. During the

43:44 winter and spring, there is substantial runoff coming off the hillside and from the ravine which cuts into the back of my property. Over the years, there have been a number of slides occurring in the ravine and along the hillside, and it seems that this would increase with a significant tree and vegetation removal required for development. This proposed development would be on the land that has significant slopes and several rather deep ravines, which would require a great deal of alteration to the landscape in order to accommodate multiple development areas and this will most definitely lead to even more significant runoff affecting homeowners below due to the lack of appropriate water catch infrastructure. Furthermore, 71st Street is very narrow, single lane and does not have sidewalks, lighting or other infrastructure necessary to increase in car and pedestrian traffic resulting from development. Nor is there a possibility to provide the kind of instruction infrastructure without impact on homeowners living along 71st

44:29 Street as well as the taxpayers in the city. As a resident of Springfield, I don't find this annexation to be a fair trade-off a little bit of land for a park so a rich guy from Bend can get richer is not really how I want my tax dollars spent. There have been multiple attempts to change the zoning and develop this property for over 20 years. So, my question to the city council is, what has changed? Did the land suddenly change in topography? Did the zoning codes magically change overnight? Or did the city get a good deal they couldn't refuse? Taxpayers and homeowners be damned. Seems like the latter to me. Or maybe as elected officials, you were all unaware that the city of Springfield's development and public works is pulling a fast one on you all. And I'll make sure to email that all to all of you. All right, thank you, Thomas. Thank you.

45:18 No other hands for this item. All right, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. And does anybody have any questions? There's going to be no action tonight since it's uh first reading, but if you have any clarifying questions, now would be the time to ask them. All right, go ahead. I just like I think folks brought up some very very uh interesting comments in regards to that area and I know that area quite well. And so, I think that they deserve and we are the citizens deserve to have some of those answered. I I've got a lot of questions, too, but I'm holding that back until the next reading. But, still I think there's some some very good questions asked and I and they deserve a um a viable response.

46:08 Uh do you want to respond to him first and then we'll work down the Yeah, I'll do my best. So, as far as the withdrawal of the uh declaratory ruling, that was an application that came in um subsequently along with this the uh applicant had been looking to have some clarification on our definitions and pretty much how uh density transfer bonus part of the code. Um throughout that report, we affirmed the position of the code and the definitions as found in the code. And because of that, the applicant decided to withdraw. Uh it didn't go in a direction that they were looking for that to go. Uh we affirmed the code as found today,

46:55 and they filed for the withdrawal. Um the annexation, I just looked in the file, was submitted on January 4th. So, that has been running um prior to the declaratory ruling coming in, if I recall correctly. So, a bit of consequence, perhaps, uh as far as the withdrawal coming in close to the same time as the annexation coming up before you. I believe that was around a month ago now that that withdrawal took place. Um And it's saying it's Tom, I know there's a couple questions. Um maybe do you want to just respond in writing instead of trying to I'll give you a chance to look at some of those questions. Okay, perfect. Corey.

47:40 Thank you. And this will probably be in writing, too. Um because I think that I agree with Council Krishnan, that I think that there's a lot there's a lot of conversation that still needs to happen to answer some questions. And I think there's an opportunity for us to get really clear about the different processes Uh cuz normally our annexation process is kind of open and shut and where and like you said you went through the thing and we're clicking off all of the things. Um and as y'all know that I often sort of come at this as like from an equity perspective and a process perspective um we still have to follow the same process regardless. So just helping us to get educated and helping everybody to understand what the annexation process is because if it was

48:26 every time you know we we're following a process, right? And we're checking the the boxes and we're making sure that we treat people fairly in that process and development is a whole other thing and the infrastructure is a whole other thing. And so I think it's going to be important for us to take the time to answer the concerns and questions, to have the conversation, to figure out what process we're in and how we manage that. Absolutely. I completely agree. All right. Any other questions? Michelle? While we're kind of coming, you know, doing some research and coming back, I've heard comments about some historical attempts to annex this the same property. It might

49:12 help for me who's kind of new to the council to have some of that history just to understand you know, what were those annexation requests, why were they at that point not approved. You know, just some historical context would be really helpful. Victoria? And for me it's always about the infrastructure and I know that we're not at the stage of development, but I think it would be interesting to know like what would go into that public improvement process to extend that wastewater line on South 71st and how that's going to impact those neighbors especially if that's their one way to get in and out and that street's going to be torn up while they try to do that. I'd like just kind of know what what the distances and what what they're looking

49:57 at to have to do that, cuz I know they have to show that they have to be able to do that. So, that'd be good to know. Absolutely. Joe. And what I didn't hear, I don't I don't think from anybody, was and Mark I said Mark Rust was here, it wasn't too long ago, maybe well, in my book, six or seven years ago, where there was an adjustment into the slope percentages in regards to what's considered a buildable slope, and those were altered to where a uh they weren't it wasn't buildable at a certain degree, and then we changed that to where it was uh that degree was decreased even to be considered buildable. So, I don't know if that overlay has been even looked at in this property, and that may negate some, you

50:42 know, all if not all of it, because it's very steep countryside in there, and I I know that, but I'm interested to hear back on part of that, too, as far as the buildable slopes and the the degree of slope of what's affected. You You don't You remember what I was talking about, right? Yeah. Yeah, and I don't need to address it all tonight, but I'd happy to comment quickly, and that is and and Mark Rust, planning manager for City of Springfield, for the record. Um Part of the declaratory ruling that Tom mentioned that was ultimately withdrawn for this withdrawn for this property was asking questions about how to calculate slope, and they wanted to average the slope over the entire site and things like that, which we said no. Work staying consistent with how the code has been historically and traditionally

51:28 applied. The actual numbers themselves in our hillside development overlay have not changed. We did not update that section of code, but we can address some of that in in the written responses more thoroughly. And Mayor, I thought we I thought we changed some of that, but but that would be great. Good information. Okay, any other questions? All right, this was first reading only. No action tonight and they will bring back additional information. Next item, please. Mayor, the next item is business from the audience. I have two cards for business from the audience, Jennifer Fribly.

52:24 What now? Yes. Okay. It feels really low. Um Hello, thank you for letting me speak. My name's Jenna, I'm your Jennifer Fribly, I'm your friendly downtown architect at 341 Main Street. And I know it's not really a topic for tonight's meeting, but I was only able to make it to the early March meeting about HDTE, the housing density tax exemption. And so I just wanted to It's moving fast and I just wanted to throw in a couple of comments really quick. Um specifically um part of the incentive is um there's a requirement for four stories or more for stacking the

53:09 SDC and the tax exemption and I would just suggest maybe that we consider whether three stories would be a deal breaker for that stacking. Um The the intent of this really is to promote development downtown, promote more density downtown. I understand that. Um but does it make a big difference whether it's a three-story or a four-story um for as the threshold for stacking those um, those benefits. Um, there are plenty of possible situations where three stories would be a more appropriate development

53:54 than a four-story development in downtown. And one of the rationales is that um, you know, a a higher a higher-rise building would be more expensive and therefore would benefit more from those incentives. But in fact, the economy of scale on a three-story building is actually harder to make pencil than a four-story building because you don't have as many units to distribute the expense across. And um, you know, I I know the concern is kind of giving out too many of these benefits, right? But uh, so far the the vertical housing tax exemption has been around for, you know, years and we haven't exactly had a problem with too many developments happening, right? And so do we we should just I don't know.

54:40 It would be great if it was possible to consider whether three stories would really be a deal breaker there. Um, we currently have two projects under construction that are three stories that are in the downtown zone. Um, and you know, one of them is the Rivet building which you actually talk about in here. We are frantically trying to apply for the vertical housing tax exemption right now because it's no longer going to be applicable under this new program. Um, but it would really help a lot because that program or that building is having a hard time penciling with the new cost of money and financing and materials and labor and so um, I would say that it's a worthy project and I would say that other future three-story buildings may be just as worthy. So, thank you. Have a lovely evening. Thank you. Next card I have is Owen Ott.

55:44 Hello. So, an odd war three, uh, mayor, council, and all gathered. I just wanted to speak about the library for a moment. Um, didn't realize I was going to be the only one speaking. It's so, um, basically, I just, uh, I I find the library such an important part of my life. Um, and I I kind of always have since we moved here. Um, uh, my family's from this area, but but ever since we moved here in 2008, we lived in Springfield and have just, you know, we lived there basically. We We always have books checked out and, um, it's I don't know what we would do without it in some ways. Um, there's just something special, you know, that phrase, uh, je ne sais quoi. There's a a reason we have it for things like holding a book. I mean, everyone reads

56:30 so much on screens and everything these days, but there's just something that's sort of indefinable about holding a book. And without libraries, I feel like a lot of a lot of people won't have that at this point because, you know, people don't go to bookstores as much and everything is done online. Um, and that's wonderful, but the thing that I really want to address, uh, is that particularly since I have become disabled, um, it's hard to find community, uh, especially people my own age. And, uh, because they're working, you know, uh, it's it's a different situation for me. And the programs that the library has offered have allowed me to connect with people,

57:15 uh, in a way that, um, otherwise would be really difficult because in part, you know, being disabled, my my income is not what it was. Um, and a lot of ways that people do things these days are pay-to-play. And having those free programs that I can come in to do as it's just been so powerful in my life and I feel I really feel like I needed to share that with you. Um, because that I know I'm not alone, you know, there's other people like me that I've met at these programs and you know, not with my situation, but they are there for similar reasons. They're looking for things to do and and obviously it's not just, you know, disabled people or people that don't have a lot of money to spend that are there, but um, and it also allows for these really

58:02 interesting kinds of programs that, you know, if we were relying on on, you know, someone at a store to put it on, they they just might not do it um, because it it might not bring in the amount of money they need and I don't know. I just think there's so many opportunities for them that otherwise aren't granted that I value so much and so I'm really glad that uh, you're having an opportunity to celebrate the library next week and uh, thank you. Thank you. I have uh, no additional cards for the room. Neil, do we have anybody raising their hand online? No additional hands online. All right. Thank you. Uh, is there any council response? Next item, please. Next item is business from the city council. Any business?

58:48 All right. Next item, please. Uh, the next item is business from the city manager and before we get to item one, I wanted to request from council item number two, the ice storm debris clean up emergency contracts be pulled um, when the council extended the declaration of the state of emergency, it authorized emergency procurement so we could sign these contracts quickly and get folks out there cleaning the debris. So you should get this um, update in a council memo and it's not a motion that you need to approve. Okay. Thank you. Um, the next item is item number one. This is to ratify the bike share proposal and Drew Larson is here for this item.

59:36 Good evening, Council, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for hosting me. My name is Drew Larson, transportation planner for the city of Springfield. Back in February, February 26th 26th to be exact, we discussed a reduced bike share expansion into downtown Springfield, essentially from Island Park to 7th Street and D Street to South A. We reduced number of bicycles to 25. Council did discuss it and asked that staff return with a revised memo with additional information. Um re- including a revised check-in schedule, more frequent check-in schedule, revising the metrics of success, as well as there was a request on demographic information. Um the demographic information Cascadia Mobility does not

1:00:21 actually collect their demographic information, socio-economic or otherwise. However, they do have what's known as an access plan, which is a free monthly membership for those that qualify. Um and with that, they have, let's see here, of the 363 regular monthly subscribers, there are 98 active plus access plan members, which is approximately 27% of their monthly subscribers using this access plan. The rest of the users, 31,000 approximately, are a pay as you ride, where you pay a dollar to check it out and then there's 10 cents per mile. Um The second one was a revised schedule.

1:01:07 I'm definitely willing to return yearly to provide updates where we discuss the metrics of success, which are the number of trips that begin and or end in Springfield, results from downtown business owner and community feedback surveys, And the one that you wanted to add was monitor the operating budget and the ongoing funding gap. So, with that, uh staff asked that council vote to authorize the community development division director to negotiate a contract with Cascadia Mobility to allow PeaceHealth Rides to expand into downtown Springfield for a 3-year pilot program. Thank you much. Are Are there any questions? Sir.

1:01:52 I'd like to make a motion to authorize the community community development division director to negotiate a contract with Cascadia Mobility to allow PeaceHealth Rides to expand into downtown Springfield for a 3-year pilot program. I'm happy to second that. Neil, could you call the vote, please? Yes, Counselor Weber. Yes. Counselor Moe. Yes. Counselor Roddy. Yes. Counselor Blackwell. Counselor Doyle. No. And Counselor Bissionary. Yes. All right. Motion passes, four yeses, one no, and one absent. Next item, please. Any other business from the city manager? Any business from the city attorney? Uh no business, thank you. All right, thank you, everybody. Have a good night. We are adjourned.