Springfield City Council — June 24, 2024

0:04 I'm going to call the regular the work session of the Springfield City Council to order with roll call. Mayor Van Gordon. Here. Councilor Weber. Here. Councilor Moe. Here. Councilor Rodley. Here. Councilor Blackwell. Here. Councilor Doyle. Here. And Councilor Pishioneri. Here. Thank you. Uh we have two items tonight. The first one's the wastewater master plan with Molly and Jeff. Good evening. I'm Molly Markarian, senior planner and the project manager for the wastewater master plan update project. Um Jeff Pascal um is with me tonight. Jeff was the city engineer when the project kicked off and he has remained the lead

0:50 engineering support for the project. Yeah, sorry. I haven't been in here. Um this evening we will uh share an overview of the wastewater master plan update project, highlight plan content, summarize community outreach efforts and feedback themes, uh review next steps, and be available for questions. The city owns and operates a large and complex wastewater collection system

1:35 including approximately 250 miles of wastewater pipe varying from 6 to 60 in in diameter and 16 pump stations that lift uh the wastewater up and push it down through the next uh series of pipes. The uh city of Springfield has an intergovernmental agreement with the city of Eugene to maintain Springfield's pump stations. This system of pipes and pump stations moves waste water from Springfield homes and businesses to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission's uh regional wastewater treatment plant in North Eugene, where wastewater from the Eugene-Springfield area is cleaned before it is returned to the Willamette

2:21 River. Springfield's wastewater collection system serves an estimated 69,000 people through approximately 27,000 residential, commercial, and industrial connections. The effective uh conveyance and treatment of wastewater is critical to the health and vitality of the Springfield community, surrounding water quality, and the local environment. Guided by the city's capacity management, operations, and maintenance, or CMOM program, the city operates, maintains, inspects, and cleans Springfield's wastewater collection system. The CMOM program helps uh preserve and extend the life of wastewater infrastructure, as well as pre- prevent

3:08 overflows of wastewater into local parks, yards, streets, and waterways, also known as sanitary sewer overflows, or SSOs. The city uses a hydrologic and hydraulic computer model and various inspection techniques to identify locations where maintenance holes and pipes can be repaired to reduce groundwater and stormwater entering the wastewater system that would otherwise increase flow conveyed to the wastewater treatment plant, also known as infiltration and inflow, or I&I. As noted in attachment one of your packet, the briefing memo, a system this extensive takes a lot of

3:54 planning, construction, maintenance, and dollars. Cities plan infrastructure like this by creating long-term master plans that present data collected to assess what we have, present an analysis of what we need, recommend projects to address those needs, and outline how to support such projects, including how to pay for them. Within Springfield's urban growth boundary or UGB, the city is required to manage wastewater and meet water quality standards set by the federal, state, and local laws. Given that the city of Springfield, City of Eugene, and MWMC operate under one national pollutant discharge elimination system or NPDES permit,

4:40 Springfield must manage uh wastewater collection system flows and projected infiltration and inflow so as to not exceed the capacity of the MWMC facilities. Springfield must also uh ensure that pump station overflows or backups only occur in extreme conditions and operate under a CMOM program. The city's wastewater master plan was last updated in 2008 with a planning horizon until 2025. Leading up to this update project's kickoff, the city had constructed all identified rehabilitation and preservation capital improvement projects, and several upgrade and expansion

5:26 projects to support growth. Additionally, the Jasper Trunk Sewer Phase 3, the 70th and 72nd Street Wastewater Basin Rehab projects, and wastewater improvements for Mills the Mill Street uh project are currently in the design phase with anticipated construction uh later this year or next year. Additional drivers motivating this wastewater master plan update include the 2014 uh, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development or DLCD's acknowledgement of the Glenwood uh, refinement plan's redesignation and rezoning of approximately 270 acres of land in uh, Glenwood. Uh, the 2019 DLCD

6:14 acknowledgement of Springfield's urban growth boundary expansion of approximately 780 acres of land and the 2019 Oregon Legislature's um, expansion of the ability for property owners to densify properties in the R1 land use districts. So, the goal of this update was to recommend programmatic and uh, system improvements to meet the city's projected population employment growth through the next 20 year planning horizon and that will bring us to 2045. While this project formally kicked off in early 2022, the city used a

6:59 competitive request for proposals or RFP process in late 2021 to seek professional engineering services to assist the city with this project. The city council awarded uh, the contract to Consor, formerly Murray Smith, in February of 2022. Staff then developed a community engagement plan and sought input from uh, the planning commission serving in their capacity as the committee for citizen involvement on that plan. In the rest of 2022, the project team focused on the technical steps to update the computer model and then building on that, the project team then analyzed uh system capacity to

7:44 identify deficiencies or areas uh where wastewater surcharging potential could occur during what is known as a design storm under existing and future conditions. Then the project team identified capital improvement projects to increase capacity and eliminate the identified deficiencies. Um I'd also like to note that traditionally uh wastewater master planning recommendations would end there, but especially with um the infill and redevelopment drivers for this uh time frame along with the age of Springfield's wastewater collection system, uh we adjusted the approach for this

8:29 update to add a focus on how to most efficiently and in compliance with regulations, we could maintain our existing system. So, uh this update project included an analysis of the city's CMOM program, uh the development of a strategic uh and a development of a strategic financial plan um prior to drafting the wastewater master plan document. Um earlier this year, the project team reviewed and refined the wastewater master plan document and sought community feedback on the draft plan. Uh in anticipation of uh wastewater master plan adoption, some of the

9:14 identified uh rehab needs were considered with the most uh the city's most recent capital improvements programs update. And additionally, consideration of the strategic financial plan chapter went into staff's recommendation to the city council on the local wastewater rates for fiscal year 25 this spring. As outlined in the community engagement plan, the city provided opportunities at key project milestones for Springfield community members and project partners to review draft materials, ask questions, and provide input on the project.

9:59 At project kickoff, the city launched a project webpage uh to provide project uh information in a visual and easy-to-understand manner in one location. Staff maintained and updated the page throughout the project and encouraged community members to visit the webpage to learn about the project, view the draft plan, sign up to receive news by email, and learn about opportunities to ask questions and share feedback on the draft plan. Staff also created and posted um handouts and frequently asked questions to share key messages, uh project information, and answer common community member questions. The initial community outreach in 2022

10:47 focused on general project information to inform the community that the city had embarked on a project to update the wastewater master plan, and through that work, we would identify needed improvements to the local wastewater system. We also shared information about how to learn more about the project and provide project input. We encouraged community members to subscribe to subscribe to In the Field, which is um Development and Public Works quarterly newsletter, and we also shared um contact information so that community members could reach out directly by email, phone, or snail mail. Details about our initial outreach

11:32 distribution is noted on page four of attachment one in your packet and included um information in uh Springfield Utility Boards uh bill insert in July of 2022 as well as MWMC's and DPW's newsletters. Wider consultation with the community and wastewater system users occurred once the plan was drafted to share information about the draft plan and to invite engagement with a 15-minute 10-question online survey intended to collect information about community priorities. The survey was also a way to engage community members in what the city uh is

12:18 doing and how uh valuable our wastewater services are. We made a printable version of the survey available upon request. We also informed uh the public that additional feedback can be formally submitted through the normal public hearing process. The formats we used to inform the community about the survey is also noted on page four of attachment one. I'd like to note that in publicizing the survey we clarified that the city is required to provide effective wastewater treatment, so wastewater services are not optional. As such uh we noted that we were not asking if we should do this work, but

13:05 rather that the community feedback can affect where some development takes place and which funding sources the city council ultimately chooses for wastewater investments. The survey questions were grouped into four sections about you the respondents um your thoughts on wastewater fees, your personal and the future of Springfield's wastewater collection system. For reference, pages 4 to 6 of attachment 1 includes more detailed highlights of survey participation and feedback. In summary, a total of 53 completed surveys were received, and the characteristics of participants

13:51 and their personal priorities, as gleaned from the survey responses, included that a majority of respondents own respondents own property in Springfield. A majority of respondents are committed to living or working in Springfield long-term, self-defined as uh 6 to 20 years. Nearly all respondents uh do not use a septic system in Springfield. However, of those respondents who are on septic in Springfield, an equal number of respondents shared that they might like to are indifferent or don't know if or don't want to connect to the public wastewater collection system. We heard that wastewater services are clearly important to respondents,

14:38 and the key motivating factors for Springfield's wastewater services are outlined from highest to lowest priority on the slides, with the highest being prevent pollution of the Willamette and McKenzie rivers and our drinking water supplies. It's interesting to note that while three people said that interruptions in wastewater service uh for question seven were tolerable, in question eight, responses keeping fees as low as possible, even if it means system failures and sudden fee increases, ranked lowest when respondents considered the most important issues facing Springfield's wastewater collection system.

15:23 Themes of the open-ended questions centered on water conservation, fiscal considerations, and development expectations. The draft wastewater master plan identifies what we must do to keep the wastewater system running today and growing with us over the next 20 years. After outlining the research we did to come to those conclusions, the plan's recommendations for Springfield's wastewater collection system fall into the following six areas of consideration. Near-term, intermediate-term, and long-term capital improvements.

16:08 Also, updates to Springfield's capital improvements program to design and build 20 pump station and system improvements. Like to note that the improvement projects are not necessarily all new facilities. Uh in fact, they're largely upgrades. The plan also has a chapter dedicated to the evaluation of recommended changes to the city's policies, um and procedures to support the effective preservation, replacement, and rehabilitation of Springfield's wastewater collection network. Finally, the plan provides a range of financial financial data so that the city council can decide um how to pay

16:54 for the recommended improvements to Springfield's wastewater collection system. The funding options were developed with consideration to rate impacts on community members and on businesses. And the strategic financial plan elements are intended to serve as a benchmark and reference for the city's budgeting, capital planning, and rate setting decisions. Um a public hearing at the city council meeting next week is scheduled um for the draft wastewater master plan. And following city council adoption of the plan, the city will initiate um an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and

17:41 Services Plan or PFSP to incorporate the applicable plan recommendations. So, that is it for the presentation and we welcome any questions. Corey. Thank you and thank you very much for all of this. One of the questions that I have in thinking about sort of strategically planning planning for the improvements and the things that we need to do. Um I'm curious as to whether or not or how or if we already do, we partner these with other infrastructure projects. So, I'm thinking particularly about the upcoming um road work and things that we're going to do from the the

18:27 the the bond the bond that just passed. Um is there a way to sort of cuz I was looking at the map and see where the little red things were and thinking, oh, some of those look really close. So, is there a way to be efficient and do those at the same time or is it like apples and oranges? Oh, no, it's a great question. Um um we do actually. Mill Street's a great example. So, we're reconstructing that street and part of that is we evaluate the sewer system that's under there age. We look at that and and we have a sewer upgrade for part of that. So, we're upgrading that. We're also upgrading the storm water system. Um we'll do the same thing with the um overlay projects that we chose. You might recall part of that discussion when we were kind of looking through the list is Mohawk Boulevard, there Q Street

19:13 Marcola there were a lot of things going in there that section needs to be um reworked and and uh and and rehabbed and yet we cannot we're not ready to do the sewer work and so that was why the recommendation was to not move that project forward. So, we were careful when we looked at the list of streets that we recommended to to to kind of look at where were we ready to do some of the sewer work as well cuz some of those sewer projects take a little more time than trying to get them out in 5 years and evaluate those. Um same thing when we do a major reconstruction on Mill Street we're trying to make sure that everything under that street is sound. Um same thing we work with all the other utilities to make sure their infrastructure is up uh upgraded or any

19:59 upgrades they need to make or additions they need to make or done at that time as well. Joe. Thank you. So, the this consultant that we paid dollars for I'm really curious. I'm I was looking at this analysis and looking at some of the terminology and what what they were looking at these different pump stations and mostly I center around capacity issues. I'm on the MWMC board so I have some of that background stuff haunting me. So, when he's talking about the Nugget Way and the Glenwood pump station specifically and he's talking about upgrades and capacity issues, did he do a dual analysis for us which seems to be which

20:46 seems to me would be pretty prudent and very important simply because there's a potential for us moving all the Short Mountain leachate through that same even though this even though it's already going to the pump station Glenwood being trucked but there's still some piping issues but also potentially even further south and I think you know what I'm talking about. So, is there is it a dual analysis mean okay, we may potentially have a a lot more coming in and we currently have that capacity, but if we don't have that capacity, how we going to get that capacity and how we going to finance that additional capacity and not on the backs of our local ratepayers. It should be on someone else's back. Is that addressed at all in that analysis?

21:33 Yes, actually when we were developing this, we were working with our MWMC partners to incorporate the best information we had at the time in our hydraulic model. Um and so I can tell you from our our standpoint in in evaluating this, um are there upgrades needed? Yes. How are those evaluated? And that's where that strategic financial plan comes in. So, when those questions come in in from those other entities wanting to connect or whether it's through MWMC, we'll have the best financial information to give to the council to kind of judge how they want to parse out the um finances and who they want to pay for that piece. Um but as far as capacity, I'm confident that we have captured at least like I said, the best information we have to date with what's going on and say even Creswell, Short Mountain, Goshen and

22:20 that sort of thing. We have the best information we have in this moment to evaluate those and and and identify those upgrades needed. Now, when those projects come time to move those forward, we'll obviously have to take and do that evaluation in that moment. So, then we'll have actual flows that we'll be dealing with or actual estimates. And I I appreciate that. That's being thorough and but my part of my other concerns is two is that and I know on the commission it was important topic that we don't spend we as in the whole commission partners etc. spend anything to anal- perform analysis on another person's request when those folks that

23:06 are have that request or potential request should be bearing all costs in regards to any analysis as opposed to Springfield citizens paying for analysis of someone else's request. Does that make a sense to them? I'm a little cheap here. Yeah, but I No, and and I don't think that wasn't our our the basis of our analysis and Molly can correct me cuz she may remember the conversations, but was just basically a simple Do we have capacity? We didn't go into a lot of detail into the analysis outside of our UGB. Um No, but it was basically do we have extra capacity and what's that capacity mean and and I think the the one issue other than identifying do we have capacity is when we start talking about Goshen, Short Mountain, and potentially

23:52 Creswell, which I know MWMC is hearing more about that, is it gets very complex and there's a lot of other negotiations that are going to go on just outside of our master plan. And so I would just leave it as simple as that. That was a question that we answered. Well, and that's great. I just want to to make sure I convey the mood of the commission towards folks that are involved in this very spread out project with a lot of lot of players in it that the the mood is is that and I think probably I can share I'm sure the council probably pretty much agrees that they don't want to see our citizens pay for something that that they're not have a direct result for or direct benefit from. So I just want to make sure that that's out there and and it's in your forefront.

24:37 Yeah, and our master plan really only considers um projects, the need capacity need within our UGB to serve the entire UGB. It was analyzed as if in 20 years the full UGB is built out. That's probably not a realistic assumption, but it's a conservative assumption. And then as far as the strategic financial plan, which the council can review in there and and the public can review, it considers those projects as well as rehab and repair projects that need to be done over that 20-year cycle with the NRUGB. Appreciate it. Thanks. Victoria. First off, I want to say thank you. I don't think I think that the wastewater system is one of the most underappreciated services that the city provides. You know, people just they flush their toilet and as long as that

25:22 happens, they don't really think about those pipes and things that are under the ground and some of those are, you know, can be 40, 50, 60 years old. Um so, I really appreciate the work that you guys do. Um I kind of got sidebarred with what uh counselor Pishonerie was saying because my assumption with SDCs is that as people build and as people come into a system, they're paying their SDCs which is their part of paying for their portion that's creating those capacity issues. And so, it seems it's supposedly, you know, paying that forward for capital projects to help help with that. So, um anyway, that was just a sidebar. On the um the the um

26:09 the um consultant that we hired, um do we hire consultants in things like this because A, we don't have enough staff to do that or B, we don't have the expertise that's needed for that? That's my first question. In this case, it's expertise. I mean, the modeling piece is very complex and the software we use to do that is very complex and just the time frame that we do this, it just doesn't make sense to have somebody on staff to do this as infrequent and keep up with the needs of understanding the software. Okay. I just asked that cuz it seems like we hire a consultant a lot and and then um the input, the public input, is that a requirement? Is that like a city or state requirement to do that or is that

26:54 just something that we did? Cuz I'm trying to understand the need or the Like you had 53 respondents, it sounded like. How many How many actual Um how many were sent out that we got a total of 53 respondents back? Cuz I'm I'm just curious. I mean, it's such a complex area that it seems it seems interesting to just have laypeople um voice you know, their input on something that's so complex and that and that just curious about that. Um so, some of the outreach was um targeted to um engineering firms and design firms in in the in the region and um

27:39 so, I don't know off the top of my head right now what percentage of the respondents um comprised that, but just sending it to regular like homes, homeowners and just being like, "Hey, we're Yeah, okay, okay. It was actually like largely Okay. um the the the firms like that works? She knows the number one answer to questions could the answer's going to come back. We just want our rates lower. We just want to pay fees. And we got some I think some some good feedback on um balancing the the user fees uh as compared to systems development charges. Like what should pay for what? Excellent. Thank you guys so much. Steve. I I have about three or four things here. Uh we've been talking about systems development charges and Jeff

28:25 started using the the term buy into the system, which is much more clear to people. You're buying into the system. So, I like that. Uh number two is I I feel that when we go out for consultants, there are certain ones that have the software that works on this system. And those are the ones that probably respond to us and probably can do the job where others can't. So, uh I wish we could do it, but there are specialists out there that I think will take that job over. Uh, number three, when Thurston was annexing the city, you go out there, there were outhouses. Still had outhouses out there. I remember those guys. Uh, my last thing here is the pipeline across the river in Glenwood.

29:11 And I remember when they put it in, heard a lot of stories, so I don't know which ones are true, but my understanding was it was a it was put in by the city of Eugene to serve the the South Hills at that time. And then Springfield took over Glenwood, so Springfield acquired it. But I believe that the system that pipeline is pretty large for future growth. Pump station has got capacity for future growth. And there was talk at that time of being large enough to serve the LCC basin, which was the thing they talked about then. And which is logical than what is in Short Mountain, which wasn't even thought about then. Uh, so you're looking ahead. We are looking ahead. Yeah, and the pipeline you're referencing is now owned by MWMC. So,

29:57 that's Yeah, so to separate for the most part everything that carries a combined flow of Eugene or Springfield is considered MWMC pipe and same with the the pump stations. And that's why when we talk about the potential in Goshen, Short Mountain, it gets a little complex and tricky because our finances really our SDCs really cover growth within the city of Springfield. And so when we start talking about potential growth in industry and in Goshen, how do we apply SDCs? And those have been part of the conversations with the county and that's just something that I'll come back to the councils and the through and MWMC on how those how we amend the agreements and how those get meted out in in So, that that's why the financing for the

30:42 outside the UGB gets really tricky and was not considered as part of this document. Um the document ton of work. I I thought the conversation the conversation of consultants is always kind of interesting. I know there's a technical part of it, but anytime we talk about a consultant, I always always think back to wanting to see what happens when the Springfield staff gets a look at it, right? Because I value your guys' opinion a lot more when when when you take a look at it because you're already bought into this community. Um the one comment I didn't want to make is on the financial plan. It's projecting 7.9%

31:27 fee increases that are go out to about 10 years. And based on the presentation, it sounds like that is a product of how conservative this plan is assuming the build-out is going to occur. Is that accurate? Yeah, so actually that's one piece and and for those who were around, so we're what 16 years almost to the date when we adopted the 2008 update. If you recall, a lot of our master plans don't have any sort of strategic financial look on okay, we got $60 million worth of projects. How do we pay for those? Great. One thing we did in this master plan, which I think in some ways is it makes it kind of a more complete product is not only did we look at what we need and what upgrades we need for capacity, but we also took some of the C Mon pieces

32:13 and we added that in here as as some policies and things like that, but looking at the fact that we have 130 miles of pipe that's still concrete that's 1985 years 19 put in 1985 or older all the way back to I think where we're we're starting the project 1960 19 might even be some older pipe than that. And so looking at that and how do we start funding and replacing that? So, it takes into that whole picture. And so, yeah, that the 7.9 is really So, what I like to look at that is it's it's giving the information to say if we built all of this in in 20 years, what's the right mix of funds? How do we spend down our reserves? What SDCs do we need? What user fees do we It's it's basically for us as staff to be able to look at that financial plan and when we get direction

32:59 from the council to say we want to go, you know, say we want to expand and put a trunk sewer out farther in Thurston Road. And we can sit here and come back with some in ways to give better information to the council and say here's what it would cost, here's how we could finance that and what it might mean to user rates and that. So, it's it's kind of a way to just give a picture. So, yes, it's it's a conservative view based on build-out, but the way I look at it is it's just a starting point. It just gives us the right information to start having that conversation so that you as the council can have better information to make decisions on future financing for projects. Perfect. Um thank you. Um I don't see any other comments, so I think we're we're good to go for the

33:45 first. All right. Thank you. The next item's climate-friendly areas update with Chelsea Harton. And we'll just Before we let Chelsea go into her presentation, Christina's going to give us a quick update about the litigation so that we can talk about that first before we get into the the the the meat of Chelsea's presentation. Thank you, Mayor. So, as a reminder, Springfield's part of a coalition of

34:30 cities that filed a lawsuit back in November 2022 relating to the climate friendly area climate friendly and equitable communities rules that were adopted by the land conservation and development commission LCDC is the commission DLCD or the staff. It was in response to Governor Brown's executive order 20-04 that directed state agencies to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So Springfield and our coalition partners have been and remain supportive of the goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Oregon's communities and to build more equitable communities that give access to affordable housing and transportation opportunities for all residents. Cities like Springfield and our coalition partners have been leading efforts in these areas for years prior to CFEC rules coming about. Our lawsuit was a last resort after multiple attempts to work with state staff and commissioners to achieve rules

35:15 that recognize that all our cities face unique challenges and one size does not fit all. Recently the Oregon Court of Appeals issued their decision in our lawsuit. Overall the court decided that DLCD and LCDC met state and constitutional requirements for new statewide planning rules when they adopted the CFEC rules. The Court of Appeals decision if it's left to stand is particularly upsetting to the balance of Oregon's statewide planning system. It's intended to be a balance between the state and local governments. Last month our coalition petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court to review the case. We were joined by a bipartisan group of state legislatures, other local governments and the League of Oregon Cities in asking the Supreme Court to take a look at these issues surrounding how state agencies adopt new rules and

36:00 how they implement rule making requirements that have been given to them by the Oregon Legislature. Particularly in the realm of land use planning. While we're hopeful that the Oregon Supreme Court will hear our case and ultimately decide in favor of our coalition on the CFEC rules, a decision from the Supreme Court if they even decide to hear the case could be several years away. The case is very important to the future of Springfield and our coalition of cities, but in the meantime I continue to recommend that we keep working in good faith to implement the rules with as much attention to our community's needs as the C-CEC rules allow. We remain committed to trying to find ways to work with state agencies to find viable workable solutions to advance the goals um the climate and equity goals in Springfield. Council, have any questions about the status

36:45 before Chelsea takes over? All right. No. I Thank you for giving us the update. I knew we were all going to have that question as soon as this was on the agenda. All right, Chelsea. Thank you. So, good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Chelsea Hartman. I'm a senior planner and the project manager on the city side for climate friendly areas. Um also joined virtually tonight by Alex Steinberger and Victor Tran with Cascadia Partners, the consultant team that's the state Department of Land Conservation and Development is funding to help us do this work. Okay. So, I'm going to start with a brief overview of what climate friendly areas are, why we're doing this work, and then give some project updates on

37:30 the community outreach we've done so far, the demographics and potential displacement risk analysis, and then uh hand it over to Cascadia Partners to talk about housing capacity, infrastructure, and some market conditions. Then we'll wrap up by talking about some potential benefits and trade-offs of a few CFA scenarios, and we're seeking your guidance tonight on these different options to inform how we move forward with next steps. So, what is required? Um Oregon's Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities rules were passed in 2022 in response to an executive order from Governor Brown. The rules require some cities, including Springfield, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by adopting one or more climate friendly areas or CFAs, as I'll

38:15 refer to them throughout the presentation. These areas will allow for dense urban mixed-use centers where people have options to meet most of their needs without relying on a car. Some of the requirements include one of the areas must be at least 25 acres in size. The areas collectively must accommodate at least 30% of our 20-year housing need, which is a little less than 10,000 housing units. They must allow for a mix of uses, really similar to our existing mixed-use districts and our nodal development areas. And they must be accessible via existing or planned high-quality bike, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure. And then lastly, these areas must be accompanied by strategies to help people avoid having to move elsewhere due to

39:01 rising redevelopment costs. So, primary or secondary CFAs, um we are required to have at least one primary CFA that's at least 25 acres in size. The regulations for primary CFAs allow for 85-ft tall buildings and require a minimum density of 25 units per acre. This is somewhat similar to our Glenwood mixed-use districts. Um for secondary CFAs, there's not a size requirement and they have lower allowed heights of 60 ft and a lower minimum density of 15 units per acre. Uh we are required to have one primary CFA and then we can choose to have more primary or secondary CFAs in order to meet our

39:46 housing need. So, for the first round of outreach, we um we're sharing what the project is, why we're working on it, and where the community input can inform the potential CFA locations. Early efforts included a community survey to gauge thoughts on CFAs overall and the four potential areas we're looking at of downtown, the Glenwood Riverfront, Mohawk, and Gateway Riverbend. We sent over 3,000 letters to all owners, residents, and businesses within and near these potential areas. And we have a project webpage with a story map and a brief presentation and interactive map so folks can search by address. Uh we also did social media posts, flyers, and held drop-in sessions for

40:32 community members to learn more or ask questions. Of the survey respondents, 38% were generally supportive and liked concepts about convenient neighborhoods with different amenities, better transportation options, and prioritizing investments in high-quality spaces. 40% of respondents were unsure and noted the importance of balancing development with preserving urban spaces and parks. There were concerns about seven-story buildings being allowed and a preference for smaller mixed-use buildings with ample parking and transportation solutions. And lastly, 11% of respondents were not supportive and expressed concerns about potential displacement and housing affordability, increased density and traffic congestion, and the specific

41:18 state rules not allowing enough room for local considerations. So out of Chelsea, can you go back one slide? I had a question about this slide. Um excuse me. Uh when I know this will not be the first conversation we have about CFE rules. When we do this again, could we get more information around what the survey what the actual feedback was including, you know, if we had free form comments or something like that. I think that's a need this community wants to wants to see the elected officials actually see the content that they provided on the survey. Definitely. We can follow up with that of kind of a more in-depth summary of the community input and some of the the raw open-ended comments we've been getting. Go ahead, Jim.

42:04 If it's If it's amicable or if you can do it simply, but the questions asked would be interesting as well. The way it's worded, thank you. So, out of the areas we're looking at, downtown was voted most suitable overall and had the most votes for a primary CFA designation with Glenwood Riverfront coming in second. And there were some votes for Mohawk and Riverbend to be considered for a secondary CFA designation. I'm now going to switch to highlight some of the information based on the analysis that was done in 2023. Potential development or redevelopment in CFAs may increase property values over time, which could result in higher property taxes and housing costs within

42:49 an area. As part of identifying one or more climate-friendly areas, Springfield's required to identify populations that may be more at risk of displacement and identify strategies that help to avoid, lessen, or alleviate this potential risk. We're also required to focus on engagement efforts that strive to include the voices of underserved community members, which we'll be doing more as part of next steps. So, nearly half of Springfield's households are low-income, and as we consider potential CFAs, it's important to understand that some of our current residents may already struggle to keep up with the cost of housing. Based on the analysis, there are some vulnerable and active gentrification areas and a very small area of late late gentrification in the potential downtown

43:35 CFA location. The Mohawk CFA also has some vulnerable areas, and I'll explain more about what that means in a moment. Um Glenwood Riverfront and Gateway Riverbend areas were identified as having no potential displacement risk, but both have demographics that need to be considered when we move forward. The Glenwood Riverfront has a higher share of low-income households, persons 65 years or older, and more affordable rents and home values. And Gateway Riverbend has a higher share of persons with limited English proficiency, persons with disabilities, and has seen increases in rents and home values. These factors will be important to consider when we identify potential displace- displacement mitigation strategies for any of the CFAs.

44:27 So, these area types, um I this table shows some of the types that were present in CFAs, and most of Springfield was identified as having no potential risk for displacement. As noted previously, Mohawk has some vulnerable areas, and downtown includes vulnerable, active gentrification, and a very small area of late gentrification that only overlaps with a portion of Island Park, uh based on how the census uh block groups are drawn. So, the first three area types shown here have more low-income households compared to the city. Vulnerable areas also include more vulnerable people, such as those with disabilities or those who are 65 and older. These areas also have older or multi-unit housing stock, but no signs of displacement risk based on housing market activity or demiga- demographic

45:13 change. Similarly, active gentrification areas are identified as low-income with the high share of vulnerable people and older or multi-unit housing stock, but these areas have active housing markets and do show signs of gentrification as indi- indicated by demographic change, such as increases in median household income. And then finally, late gentrification areas don't have many low-income households or older housing, but they do have housing active housing markets with more significant demographic changes. So, I got Chelsea with a question. I I I don't mean to sound dumb, but can you please define gentrification for me? Yes. So, as the study defines it is as a

45:58 the home values rise and a rent rises in an area, and you start seeing demographic change. Um so some of the vulnerable areas have more lower income folks and you start seeing that shift and increasing household income, sometimes a change in other demographics. I think another one was educational attainment was another indicator that the analysis looked at and this is based on the methodology that the state uh requires us to use. So we definitely raised a lot of concerns with how the analysis was done, especially with knowing it didn't flag Glenwood as having any displacement risk and I think we know that it does um and that's a concern that we have. So you're saying that gentrification is a negative, that taking an an an area that's has blight or is lower income and

46:45 actually making having that growth and it getting whatever you call that, you know, newer homes and what have you, is that considered a negative then? I don't think that's what the rules are trying to say. I think the displacement aspect is what they're more concerned about, knowing that we want to improve an area, we want a thriving community, but we also don't want to displace existing residents and have them not have affordable housing options. you. So they would they would get priced out, basically. Okay, thank you. Joe. So you use the term low income a bunch. Yes. So how is that defined in this? Is it the AMI, at or below AMI? Uh 80% or below area median income. And that's um our designation or our definition of it

47:31 or is that the state mandated that? mandated definition. So lots of requirements all wrapped up in all of this. it. Okay, thanks. Yeah. And sorry, thanks for interrupting. Um So actually I think that is a good turning point for I will turn it over to Alex and Victor and we'll start talking about some of the housing capacity. Thanks, Chelsea and good evening, Mayor Van Gordon and members of the council. Um I I'm not able to turn my video on, so unless that setting can be changed, uh you're going to see a black box here. Um but my name's Alex Steinberger and I am a consultant with Cascadia Partners. Uh we are, as Chelsea said, assisting

48:18 the city with some of this um climate-friendly and equitable communities compliance work. And it looks like the video is on, so hi everyone. Hey, there you are, Alex. Yep, popped up there. Have a face to the name. So, uh what I'm going to be talking about here is some work that we did to uh go a little bit beyond what the state requires and get a better understanding of what the the market would actually produce if climate-friendly areas were designated in any of these four proposed areas. And what we're seeing here on the on this slide is a map of the four proposed CFAs, as Chelsea has shown you previously. And what this table is showing us is the

49:04 um the the capacity for housing, as the state defines it, in their uh mandated methodology. And what the rules say is that you need to be able to fit 30% of your 20-year housing need within one or more primary climate-friendly areas within your your jurisdiction. Um that 20-year housing need for Springfield is 33,076 housing units. And 30% of that would be 9,923. So, that 9,923 number, you're going to hear that come up a few times here because that is the amount of housing that you're required to fit within one or more of these CFAs.

49:50 And so, what you can see from this table is that um if you designated each of these four as primary CFAs based on the state's methodology, you would have far more housing capacity than you need in order to meet the state's requirement. And in fact, um downtown alone would would do it for you at 33% or 10,734 housing units. But you have a choice. Uh you can choose to designate different CFAs as primary. You can have a mix of primary and secondary CFAs. You can choose to exceed the minimum if you so choose. Um but the requirement, the bar that DLCD has set for communities across Oregon is this 30% rule measured in the

50:36 way that the numbers are are showing up here in this table. But uh if you go to the next slide, um if we are uh concerned about the ability for these places to actually produce housing, we want to understand more than just this. Um can we go to the next slide, please? There we go. So, we want to understand more than than just uh what the state methodology would suggest is the capacity. We want to understand what's realistic, right? And so, we looked at three categories of things. We looked at the availability and capacity of infrastructure, which is really relevant based on the uh presentation you all got just a few minutes ago. Um we also wanted to understand

51:21 landowner willingness. Um there are several large landowners in these proposed CFAs, and if they're not interested in developing housing, then uh you know, these these areas aren't likely to produce the amount of housing that the state assumes they will. And finally, market economics. If the available sales prices and rents aren't high enough, and land costs are too high, and construction costs are too high in your market, it's also unlikely that um these areas will produce as much housing as the state thinks they will. So, um I'm going to go through each of these categories and what we found and uh hopefully give you a little bit more of a uh an understanding of of what the what's realistic and give you um more uh more background for making this

52:06 decision. Next slide. So, starting with infrastructure, this is really uh similar to the conversation that you all had about storm about wastewater uh earlier today. Uh but what we did is we got together a group of city staff as well as representatives of local utilities to talk about the availability of infrastructure in these four areas if they were to build out to the numbers that the state uh thinks that they could. And we looked at four different types of infrastructure. We looked at electricity, we looked at water, we looked at wastewater, and we looked at stormwater. And what you see in this uh in this chart here is uh in sort of stoplight colors the um the positioning of the

52:52 infrastructure relative to the that full build-out that's assumed by the state's methodology. Uh with red indicating that there's there's not enough capacity and a lot would have to change to accommodate all that new housing, and green indicating that there's probably decent capacity today and you actually are pretty close to what you would need. And so, what you can see is that across all of the CFAs, there's no slam dunk. There's no area that's ready to take on all of the new housing that um that would that the state would assume could could occur in each of these CFAs. Uh different barriers in each climate-friendly area. Um in downtown, uh there's there's enough there's generally enough electric capacity, but you have issues with um with pumping water above three stories, which adds cost to

53:37 development. There's also likely some issues with wastewater on the east side of downtown. In Glenwood, there are already plans in the works to to construct new electric substations, so that's a positive. Um but there would need to be lots of new water lines served in that area, and there would need to be a a pump station to serve the the McVay area. Um in Mohawk, you're looking pretty good on electric capacity, but there's a need for increasing capacity for wastewater. And in Gateway, there are myriad issues. Um there's not enough electric capacity, you need to expand that. Um water capacity is likely an issue, and there would need to be a a new pump station

54:22 and force main to serve development there. Next slide. Can I Can I ask a clarifying question here? Please. In the In the Glenwood Riverfront um area, right? One of the takeaways refers to a a wastewater issue that's down on McVay. So, is in the diagram we have, it clearly in McVay's not on that on that diagram. So, are we considering or recommending a CFA for the McVay area as well as the North Riverfront area? No. Um is that Go ahead, Justin. Uh no, but I think it is in the McVay area, but it's to serve the Riverfront. I think just the way it's all connected. Okay.

55:12 I'm good. Keep going. All right. So, uh next slide. So, back one. There we go. So, um in addition to looking at infrastructure capacity, we also wanted to understand the plans of large or active development teams or landowners in some of these climate-friendly areas. And so, a big one that I'm sure everyone's very aware of is the Glenwood Master Plan area, which is only a small piece of the proposed CFA boundary in the Glenwood Riverfront. It's about 30 acres of a much larger proposed area. Um, but lots of lots of work being done there. We spoke with them and in general their plans are very much in line with

55:57 CFA requirements. So if this area were that to be designated a CFA with only a couple of small points that they're generally doing what the state would want to see in in this area. Um, which right now looks like four four to five story multi-family buildings, um, park ample parking lots of um, lots of improvements to the public realm to make this an inviting place because right now there's not a lot there. So there there'd be lots of really nice park parkway elements, lots of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. So really consistent with the vision of climate friendly areas, um, at least for this 30 acre chunk.

56:42 With respect to the rest of Glenwood, it's a little bit of a mixed bag. We're not totally sure of some of the larger land owners plans. There's several very healthy operating businesses that are unlikely to go away in the near future, um, as well as several parcels that are are owned by just just residents. Um, so it's a little bit harder to know exactly what what the plans are there, but at least for this one chunk it's very much in line. Next slide. So we also wanted to talk to PeaceHealth because one of the proposed CFAs up in the Gateway Riverbend area is is predominantly occupied by their campus up there. And um, we spoke with their head of real estate and because one of the themes that's

57:29 happening there is because of the closure of the University District campus in Eugene. This is really where they're doubling down their hospital operations for the region. And so that means that land in this area is that they own is really earmarked for medical development, primarily hospital, medical office. They're really reserving that for their long-term operations. Really the only area, the only part of this proposed CFA that's up for grabs for housing potentially, is this area that we have on this map in a little crosshatch boundary. It's about 40 acres at the very northern end. It's right along the McKenzie River. So it could be a really great site for housing if there were some sort of access to the McKenzie River there. There are some floodway impacts there,

58:14 so it's unlikely you'd get the full 40 acres as developable. But in general, um you know, does it meet the minimum size requirements for a CFA if it was just the 40-acre portion? Yes, but it's much smaller and thus would not produce nearly the amount of housing that was originally thought. Um if you assume that only that's available. Next slide. So finally, um we have the market economics piece of this. Um so we wanted to understand um because we heard a lot of concerns about really tall buildings, is uh would would those buildings even be financially feasible right now in Springfield's market? And the answer to that is generally no. Um construction costs are really high right now. Lending costs, interest rates, if

59:00 anyone's tried to buy a house recently, you know, they're very high. And so all of those things, just like they impact individual homeowners, they impact developers of real estate. And what you need to get up to um seven stories is a style of construction that we sometimes call a five over two, which means five stories of wood frame construction over two floors of concrete podium. And that's the third image from the left on this slide. Um and that's a a more expensive form of construction than just building everything out of wood. And your market really isn't at a point right now where that's common. Uh there's too many high costs and not high enough rents or sales prices to justify that. So we think that for the foreseeable future in

59:45 climate-friendly areas, you're unlikely to see buildings over 60 ft um because over 60 ft you need to go to that that more expensive form of construction. Next slide. So uh we wanted to dive a little bit deeper and get a sense for, you know, if the state's methodology is a little bit rosy, a little bit um overestimating the amount of capacity, what's a more reasonable estimate? And so we uh we have a a model that we use um to estimate development capacity that takes into account market forces. And so uh we used that model for Springfield, and we modeled both what would happen under no change, just under existing code, and what we thought would happen if climate-friendly area designations were made. And so to model the existing code,

1:00:31 we created four housing prototypes using what's called a real estate pro forma, which is basically just a calculator spreadsheet for a real estate project. And we those four types are a small lot single-family home, attached housing, garden apartments, which are kind of two to three-story um apartments with with stair external stairs and surface parking, and then a four-story apartment building with an elevator. And we assigned those buildings to all of the zones that exist in the climate-friendly areas today, and then modeled them within each climate-friendly area to see if they would be financially feasible. Next slide. We did the same thing then for the

1:01:16 alternative case where we assumed that climate-friendly area designations would occur. So that means that you can build taller buildings at higher densities in some cases. Uh and then there would also be um a lot of new infrastructure present to support this development. So, we we modeled that alternative case and it includes everything from attached housing uh up to four, five, and seven-story buildings. Seven-story building representing that five-over-two structure type we were just talking about. Next slide. And the the method that we that our model uses to estimate capacity is called residual land value. So, we're getting kind of in the weeds now, but I think this is important. Um what

1:02:02 residual land value does is it assumes that there's a fixed sales price or rent that you can get in any of your climate-friendly areas and there are fixed costs associated with your project. Your your your materials, your labor, uh taxes, fees, SDCs, and then the amount of profit that we assume a developer wants to get. And then the remainder between those fixed costs and the price that they can charge is their land budget, the amount that they can pay for a piece of property. That's the residual land value represented by uh yellow here in this slide. And so, if we know the residual land value, we can find land in the climate-friendly areas that's equal to or less than that price. And if we find

1:02:48 that land, we know these are parcels that can redevelop and we can assume that more housing is added. Next slide. So, it's it's really helpful because it uh it's a more realistic way of estimating development capacity. Uh and it allows us to pinpoint the exact parcels where we think development um is likely to occur. Next slide. So, um I want to also highlight that it's it's very different from the state's methodology in that the state assumes that every single climate-friendly area um develops up to 85 ft, which is highly um unlikely to occur. So, this is is again a much more conservative estimate. So, what we're going to show you next is a series of slides. They're pretty

1:03:33 dense, so I created this explainer slide to help orient you, and the next few slides are going to look very similar. So, what we're going to see is represented by these different colored bars. These are our different building prototypes. Remember our our small lot single-family home, our garden apartment, our four-story building. Those are all here in the colored bars, and we have their residual land value within each climate-friendly area. And so, if you see a bar that is above zero, that means that the rents or sales prices within the climate-friendly area are high enough to make development feasible at that land cost. Um but, if a bar is below zero, it means that even if the land were free, the

1:04:18 project would not be financially feasible. In fact, it would need a subsidy. And then, our dotted line that we see here represents the fifth percentile land value per square foot that exists within each CFA, which is to say, it's a representation of the cheapest some of the cheapest parcels that might exist. And so, if a bar is above that line, it tells us, "Hey, there might be some land in this climate-friendly area that this project can afford to be built on." Next slide. So, starting with our existing zoning example, you can see our four building prototypes, the small lot single-family, the attached housing, the garden apartments, and the four-story single-family, and we can see how they perform in

1:05:04 downtown Glenwood, Mohawk, and Riverbend. Next slide. So, what we see here is that in um that garden apartments are pretty feasible uh downtown, but other types of development really aren't particularly feasible. Downtown's market's not very strong for ownership housing, it's better for rental. Um in Glenwood, we see that um the garden apartment does very well, and the four-story apartment is just right on the margin of being feasible given land costs there, which is pretty consistent with what we heard from the development team there. In Mohawk, while there are some buildings that have positive residual land value, the land is too expensive

1:05:49 to make those buildings financially feasible, which you see by that higher uh dotted line there. And finally, in Riverbend, everything's kind of on the margin, but the ownership product types are the best perform the best. So, the small lot single family and the attached uh housing perform better than the rental housing. Next slide. And then if you look at the alternative case, where we're looking at much larger buildings with much less parking, um we see a very different result. What you see What you should draw your attention first here is that there are some some big negative bars, which tells us that um these buildings are not financially feasible even if land were free. And so, if there were concerns that a

1:06:34 five-story mixed-use building or a seven-story mixed-use building would be built if climate-friendly areas were designated, they're very unlikely to to happen based on our modeling. Next slide. So, there's a few other takeaways. I mentioned uh five and seven seven-story buildings really pretty infeasible in all of these climate-friendly areas, but the three and four-story apartments actually do quite well, as does the compact middle housing type that's in the 30 to 35 units per acre range. Um so, these are all These all do pretty well in every single climate-friendly area. Um but again, um you know, a major difference here in this scenario is that there are also infrastructure investments like bike paths, nice sidewalks, parks and plazas that go

1:07:19 along with these um these buildings that um that help support them as being low-car development, which is a is a benefit to the the developer and the pro forma. Next slide. Uh one more. So, um we did this across all of the climate-friendly areas and we're able to quantify the housing capacity that we think is available um under this this more market-constrained estimate for capacity. And what we find is that under existing code, uh you've got about 3,300 units of capacity, which gets you about a third of the way there to your 9,923 unit goal. If every single one of the four

1:08:05 climate-friendly areas were designated as primary CFAs, you would get pretty close to that 9,923 unit goal. You'd get up to about 9,000 units, we think. So, it's certainly not the 26,000 units that the uh state's methodology anticipates, but it's it's pretty close to the goal, which is encouraging. And then we also modeled uh the outcome if all of these climate-friendly areas were designated as secondary CFAs, which have a lower height limit and a slightly lower minimum density. Um and so your decision today and what Chelsea's going to walk you through is you can mix and match these things in pretty much any way you want. And if you you put them together in different ways, you have different implications for how much infrastructure you need to serve

1:08:51 these things, uh the likelihood that landowners are going to be willing to develop, and whether the market's going to be supportive, um and and actually deliver the housing that the state's methodology thinks is possible. So, with that, I'll hand it back to Chelsea and um happy to take questions at the end. Okay. So, now we're going to go through a few scenarios um just to give a sense of what some potential options might be. This first one focuses only on the Glenwood Master Plan area as a primary CFA with downtown, Mohawk, and Gateway Riverbend being secondary. This option has the second strongest market potential for housing. For infrastructure, the Glenwood Master Plan area would need water and wastewater service expansion.

1:09:36 The wastewater capacity estimates already account for higher density development in Glenwood since that area currently allows for CFA style development, so the wastewater needs won't change if that area were to become a primary CFA. Gateway Riverbend, as you saw on the slide earlier, has the most infrastructure needs out of the potential locations. If the housing units are spread over all four areas as shown here, the existing electric substations have physical space for the additional transformers and feeders to serve the 30% housing need. There's no potential displacement risk in the Glenwood Master Plan area, and this area is currently well aligned with the primary CFA regulations already. Some changes would be needed in the other areas to comply with the secondary CFA regulations, such as establishing

1:10:23 maximum block lengths, and allowing housing in more areas. Scenario B is really similar to scenario A except that it includes the entire Glenwood Riverfront CFA. This results in this option having the strongest market potential for housing. There are similar infrastructure needs as noted in the previous slide, but including the larger Glenwood area increases those needs. No potential displacement risk was identified in the full Glenwood Riverfront CFA. However, we know there are existing manufactured home parks and a concentration of people 65 years and older which should be considered. During outreach, we heard from several residents in Ponderosa Village who have concerns about displacement. The Glenwood Riverfront already mostly

1:11:08 complies with the primary CFA requirements, but some changes would likely be needed to make the office mixed-use area more permissive of housing. As with the previous scenario, changes would be needed in the other areas to comply with the secondary CFA regulations. For both scenario A and B, we could explore the potential for replacing our existing nodal development areas with climate-friendly areas. Alternatively, we could address nodal development areas as part of upcoming work on code amendments for Springfield's mixed-use districts. Scenario C focuses only on downtown as a primary CFA. Downtown ranked highest in most of the CFA study criteria last year and had

1:11:54 the most votes to become a primary CFA based on the community survey. As Alex noted earlier, it's the only area that can meet the housing capacity requirement on its own. For infrastructure needs in downtown, a water pump would be required to serve buildings that are taller than three stories. And there would also be a need for a study of the wastewater basin on the east end. Concentrating all housing capacity in one area would require building an additional electric substation and transmission lines. Downtown has the most potential displacement risk which will need to be considered when identifying mitigation strategies for that area. This is true for all the scenarios we're presenting tonight, but particularly for this one since this allows a higher increase in density which could potentially create more development

1:12:40 pressure. The existing zoning in downtown already mostly complies with primary CFA regulations, but some of the zones such as our R2 and mixed-use residential would require increases to the allowed maximum height and the required minimum density. Other key changes would be to implement maximum block lengths and allow housing in our community commercial areas. There's some concern about a higher minimum density requirement being potentially limiting to new housing development that can't achieve 25 dwelling units per acre. And the last scenario I'll present um is scenario D. Um this focuses on the Glenwood Riverfront again as a primary CFA and a

1:13:25 smaller area of downtown as secondary. These areas have higher existing compliance with CFA regulations and this option would require the fewest changes to our existing plans and code as compared to the other scenarios. If this option is preferred, the project team would need to propose a downtown CFA boundary that meets the state's housing capacity requirement as part of next steps. This area would be larger than the existing downtown nodal nodal area that's shown on the map here as an example, but it could be smaller than the current downtown CFA boundary. The infrastructure needs are similar to the other scenarios with various improvements needed in Glenwood and downtown. And as a reminder, there's no potential displacement risk that was identified in Glenwood. However, we know there's the

1:14:12 existing manufactured home parks and folks who are 65 and older which should be considered. The smaller downtown CFA would still include areas with high potential displacement risk that would need to be addressed with mitigation strategies. So to wrap up um as Alex kind of noted earlier um we're only required to meet the state's definition for the housing capacity. All of the scenarios meet that except for scenario D. So if that option is preferred, we would need to look at determining the exact boundary of the downtown CFA to meet that housing need. Um I won't repeat that again, but some of the scenarios do offer better opportunities for a housing than others. As noted, Glenwood Riverfront has strong

1:14:59 um market potential for more housing. Buildings over four to five stories are unlikely to be financially feasible until market conditions improve. And these are based on the conditions today, and we know things can change over time. So, for next steps, uh based on your guidance tonight, we'll work on next steps for outreach and identifying draft plan and code concepts and displacement mitigation strategies. There will be more opportunities for community input this fall. In early 2025, Council will be asked to select one or more climate-friendly area. Then the project team will identify the specific plan and code amendments for adoption. Ultimately, Council will formally designate one or more area and adopt the related plan and code amendments.

1:15:45 If the area includes any property outside the city limits, such as the Glenwood Riverfront, the Lane County Board of Commissioners will also be part of the adoption process. Uh during the June 18th Planning Commission work session last week, the group discussed whether Springfield should be aspirational or do the minimum to meet the state requirements for this work. Some considerations that were discussed were allowing more housing, the potential community impact with displacement risk, and the scope of changes to our existing plans and code. One commissioner noted that the importance of or noted the importance of providing more housing close to jobs and preferred scenario A and B in order to support that. Another liked scenario D, but was curious about how to determine the

1:16:31 location of the downtown CFA boundary. And we don't have to pick any one of the scenarios. I think we're really just wanting to kind of get some of your initial thoughts and guidance. We do have the option to continue to explore all four of these areas. Um and it will impact our outreach approach, is why which is why we're checking in early to see if you have thoughts on if any makes sense more for primary or secondary. I think any information or thoughts you have will help us as we talk with the community about what changes might occur in these areas. I think so far it's been really hard since it's like it could change a lot or nothing could change at all. So I think any thoughts or direction on any of the areas is helpful and I'll open it up for any questions or discussion. Thank you, Chelsea. Corey.

1:17:16 Thank you. So first of all, I think this was a fantastic presentation and report and I appreciate the consultants. I appreciate um getting into the weeds a little bit cuz I think it it's often we're kind of it's on a a sort of a hope and a prayer and this was so much data that well I read through this twice cuz I was like this is stuff that I've wanted to know and it it changed my perspective about some things. I think for me, what what I want to weigh which doesn't necessarily come out in this is I want to weigh rental housing with the opportunity for home ownership and so that was a lens that was coming as I was looking at the the possibilities and thinking, yes, I mean I think we do have a lot of flexibility in Glenwood cuz

1:18:02 we're already leaning into developing there and thinking about what that looks like and everybody knows that I would love to see condo reform so that we could have home ownership in those four five story buildings. However, um so I think I'm leaning towards B with some exploration because I would like to see it spread it out so that there can be places where people can own houses of varying sizes and we still meet the requirements and have the rental housing in these walkable spaces and and thinking about um you know, what does that look like for some of those folks who are 65 years or older if they're able to live in a like redeveloped Glenwood where they can get to

1:18:47 public spaces and get their needs met and get to transportation and things like that. So, that's where I'm at. It's like I want to I want to kind of lay that in there, too, is to make sure that folks have options and that we're investing in home ownership along with affordable rentals. And I really and I'm still talking about I really appreciate adding in that kind of equity perspective of gentrification and displacement and think that as we move forward, thinking about the kind of housing and the kind of development that we have to keep that in mind. Like so that folks can stay in Springfield and maybe even move into a you know, a a better newer place and stay here and it still is affordable. Thank you. Anybody else? Yep. Uh,

1:19:32 Steve. You are on. I have to see mine. I was I was ready. Um, people use the word gentrification a lot. Like a soft word. It's pushing people out. That's what scares them out. That's what scares them. I don't want to do that. But, um, we need to make take care of them if we do. In Glenwood, you mentioned an area that's not annexed yet. As we speak right now, a large area of it is in the process of being annexed. So, that will help with that. And the other one is north of Franklin Boulevard, there's a little mobile home park. Every description I see is mobile home parks in Glenwood. There's a lot of them. This particular case there's only one. And so, it is mad shape, by the way. Uh, I don't want to do anything to them, but they need to be moved sometime.

1:20:23 Vic- Victoria. I'm just wanting some clarification and I apologize if this is a dumb question, but when you talk about choosing these areas, are you stating that we're going to pick this area and then those um development codes are going to change so that people who develop in that area are going to have to meet those specific criteria for the climate-friendly areas. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. And tonight we you won't be making that formal decision. That'll be early next year, but yes, that will That's what we're doing. Okay, so we are putting all this effort and energy into redeveloping and and making Glenwood and the riverfront this awesome place and then we're talking about and I know it's state mandated, but we're talking about putting requirements on developers that's going to raise their costs and it's not going to it's going to minimize

1:21:08 their profitability and we think that's going to help us how? That's a great question. So that was why we talked with the Glenwood development team. So Glenwood is on the list and ranks pretty high because it already really complies with a lot of the CFA requirements and wouldn't really require much changes to the existing development code. We already allow really high density and taller buildings. We have the maximum block length requirements. So that area would change the least out of all of the CFAs and so hopefully that would be a least lesser development constraint there than some of the other areas. And this is a point that we've expressed to our partners at the state who are writing the rules very many times. I'm just curious. So we're talking about

1:21:53 building 15-minute cities which I don't know about home ownership cuz usually I think the wording they use is that you won't own anything and you'll be happy about it. So anyway, thank you very much. Joe. Oh, we won our case. The these these rules are so onerous and them taking a range of our cities when they don't even know our cities and to see all this work you've put into it which is a huge amount and your and your and Cascadia partners put a ton of work into it and I'm not even sure how you folks were able to keep your sanity in regards to putting this together. I know I've I think I've lost part of mine sitting here listening to this. But um you may not have been there in the first place, but

1:22:39 that being said, I I I think um scenario B is probably the makes the most sense of a nonsensical rule. And that's probably where I would probably go that direction as well. But again, I I have a huge distaste for what's going on from the state. All right. Anybody else? Beth. Clarifying question, I guess. So, one of the um primary CFAs have to be 25 acres, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. One has to be 25 acres, okay. And the the difference between the primary and secondary is mainly density. Density and height. Okay. Okay. And then the Riverbend um area, question on that. Um you talked about

1:23:24 the infrastructure needed and it says also constraints. And I'm just wondering is that because there's some floodway in that one area? What exactly were the constraints? That's just I'm curious about that area since it's close to the hospital. Yeah, that's a good question. I don't know if Alex Yeah, I see you unmuted. Um yeah, so so constraints of of several varieties. One is landowner willingness to develop, right? We talked about that. Uh PCL really um it has has no plans to do anything but hospital development on most of that site. Um the northern portion at 40-acre site that remains, uh a portion of it is in the flood plain. And so um uh there would be some development

1:24:11 restrictions on that, for sure. Uh how much of it would be impacted, we we would need a further study to really know that. Um but that is one constraint. And then infrastructure is the other thing. Um, they it's probably the least um, set up for uh, CFA style development in terms of the infrastructure capacity of any of the CFAs that have been studied. So, the just a lot of uh, of of investment would need to go in there to support higher density development. All right. Um, I think I had scenario B as well. Uh, the two areas that uh, you know, that with more information I could, you know, thin or drop would be Mohawk and um, and

1:24:58 Gateway. Mohawk just based on the the the pricing in the market analysis as this gets refined may not just naturally fall off as not being as effectively feasible. And then Gateway, right? Like if Riverbend doesn't have an interest in developing it, it does not seem like a good idea to uh, to just constrain the continue to constrain the land in a way that's not going to be used long-term. Um, based on the description in the packet, it sounds like they could, um, but they just really haven't gotten that far. Um, the other I guess comment that I wanted to make was really around Glenwood. I really would like to hear, you know, the next time we do this is see a little bit more information back from the develop our development team to understand if the CFA the CFA rules are

1:25:44 in any way impacting what we've envisioned with that development. Um, because it sounds like from the initial cut that they don't, right? But if if they're impacting or slowing down that development in any way, that would be a consideration I think as a body we'd want we'd want to hear. And the other piece about Glenwood that I'm that I'm sort of thinking about is how far west of that boundary is. And just a little bit of understanding about in the its impact to the refinement plan, right? Because if we're going to continue to sort of constrain land in a way that makes it not likely to develop, then that would be one set of choices. Or if it's sort of like the initial first, I guess, blush at this where the the CFA rules may not actually impact the development sort of regiment for

1:26:29 Glenwood, right? Then then it could be fine. But, you know, it's flushing that out a little bit more, which sounds like it's really really the next step. And the And the one comment I really really did have is right like all these areas are really hard, right? Like and I know we've expressed this to the state a couple of times, but there's no such thing as a free lunch, right? And the amount of infrastructure across the board that's this is going to require is is is really significant. The The additional question I really wanted was interested from a downtown perspective. Some has talked about for a long time about that downtown voltage conversion, and I could be remembering that is more of a commercial thing. Um because reading through the packet, it sounds like it sounds like from a power perspective, if we're just looking at

1:27:15 pure housing, then we're saying downtown's good, and that that seems like it might firm up with more discussions. That's something we can definitely take a look at more in next steps. And for the Glenwood info, I think the one sticking point that we did talk about was the block length requirement being concerning. The C effect rules do allow for an exception, so I think there's a work around for that, but that's something we need to explore further like what we're allowed to do there. Yeah, if we get to a point where we need to go up and ask for an exception, I think we'd be supportive of that as long as what we're doing is making sense for sense for this community. I do want to flag that home ownership policy question a lot. Like when I read this, it feels like a rental conversation. And And

1:28:01 really, when I think about the end policies that we're looking for, right? Like home ownership is a critical part to people entering the middle class. And really, what I'm looking for is us to kind of kind of turn that corner and at least drive home ownership into this conversation in any way we can. I know it's still super early. All right. Nancy? Uh thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to thank staff for their work on this project. Um I also wanted to maybe put a a positive angle on what you're going over this evening because although indeed uh we have um some issues with the way the state is um putting these restrictions on individual communities without much

1:28:46 consideration of the uniqueness of the character, I think this study has, at least for me, been very um informative as far as what would be the impact of these rules. What does that actually mean? Because up until now, we've talked a lot about CPAC as more in the abstract. And so I do appreciate this level of data, and I think people that are looking to develop, it's very informative to talk about what are the different types of development, what is the cost of development, what is the community community's appetite for development. I think this is useful information, and perhaps could even help us with um our case as we present it, and hopefully we will prevail in that. So thank you very much. Perfect. Uh do do you have what you need?

1:29:31 Yes, thank you. All right, perfect. Then I think we are done. Thank you so much. Thank you for joining us, Cascadia Partners. Thank you. I'm going to adjourn the work session. We are going to reconvene on the CEDA link. So we'll see you there in a minute.