Springfield City Council — February 17, 2026

0:07 I'm going to call the Springfield City Council uh work session to order with roll call. >> Mayor Van Gordon >> here. >> Councelor Weber >> here. >> Councelor Moon >> here. >> Councelor Rodley >> here. >> Councelor Buck >> present. >> And councelor Stout >> here. Thank you. >> All right. We have one more session item this evening. It is the housing and design initiative code and plan update with Haley Campbell. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, can we start the presentation? Excellent. Thank you. Um, so good evening, mayor, city council. Um, tonight we're seeking guidance on uh the

0:53 policy questions that we did not get to at the December and February work sessions. Um, there's one item that in particular that we need some direction on and the others are just kind of if we have time, hopefully we'll get to it. I'm going to knock on wood real quick just as the mayor did at the first February work session. Um, so I'm confident we will get through it tonight. Um, but before we get into let's see, turn it off and turn it back on.

1:46 sorry. Technical difficulties. Bear with me. We got this. Yeah. Okay. Excellent. We're working. Um, so before we get into the policy question that we need direction on, I want to kind of go over where we're at in the project for the housing and design initiative and some more background on the climate friendly areas project. Um, what we have to do, what we don't have to do, what we have discretion over. um and the and the timeline for basically when we need to have these things adopted by. Um so again, if you've been following the project, the focus is um mostly on how

2:34 we can facilitate housing production, affordability, and choice. That's a grant that we applied through from DLCD and we were granted that grant um to look at those issues in our code and in our refinement plans. particular attention is focused on our mixeduse districts in particular for clear and objective standards. Um that section um we knew was out of compliance and so we focused a lot of those uh amendments on that section in particular. You may recall that last year we went through a whole series of review of our code and refinement plan. The first phase was the audit, then we did code concepts and now we're actually in the adoption phase of the project. Now, we're working on how can we actually amend our code and refinement plans. Um,

3:19 so we came to you with the audit. That was when we were looking at those barriers to housing production, affordability, and choice. That happened on May 27th of last year. Um, then on September 16th and October 6th, we actually reviewed the concepts. Those are uh proposals for how we could actually amend our code and refinement plan to comply with that audit. anything that we were out of compliance um with the state and then areas where we had discretion to increase housing production, affordability and choice. Um how many times can I say that? Uh and then on December 1st uh and 8th and February 2nd, we came to you to discuss some policy questions that we had. All of this um culminated in the summary of

4:05 amendments that you can see on the screen. There were four primary objectives. Um the first was provi to provide more opportunities for housing by allowing housing um in mixeduse development in more locations. In particular, we were looking at sites less than one anchor less than one anchor on Main Street and the South A Street corridor, all CFA sites, which I'll go into in the next slide. Um and all of our neighborhood commercial districts. Those are the areas where we're increasing mixeduse development. The next was to lessen our economic barriers to mixeduse development. Again, sometimes you could hear a developer say, "It's just not penciling. I can't get financing for ground flooror, commercial, and residential above." So, that's something that we wanted and needed to address with these code

4:50 amendments. Um, in particular, we looked at reducing the total amount of commercial space required in a mixeduse development and allowing separate buildings. So we could have a horizontal mixed use, aka you could have commercial in the front, residential behind. It didn't necessarily have to be ground floor commercial um on the ground floor of one single building and residential above, which is primarily what we look at when we consider a mixeduse development. Um then we'll provide more opportunities for multi-unit housing, standalone, doesn't have to be mixeduse development. Again, these are on sites less than an acre on Main Street um and the South A Street corridors in the CFA overlay um for mixeduse commercial lots that are not fronting on arterial. So

5:36 again, not on Main Street, not on South A Street, off the main strip corridor. Um then we will also look at um mixed use employment and mixeduse residential lots. Again, in the CFA overlay, we'll allow town houses in our mixed use employment district where we currently do not. Finally, to ensure an efficient use of land and encourage highdensity housing, we were looking at again those barriers that we're seeing to encouraging development. There were four in particular. Um, we wanted to apply minimum density standards to all districts. Right now, it's not very clear, even if we allow housing, what the minimum density is in areas where we allow housing that are not residential districts. We wanted to modify the height step down standard in all

6:22 districts. Um, again, we have a we have in our current code setback standards. If you're within that 50 ft of a lowdensity residential district, you have to match the height of the lowdensity residential district within that 50oot setback. We determined that that was a significant barrier to housing, especially multif family housing or mixeduse development. Uh then we're encouraging greater lot coverage in our neighborhood commercial and our mixeduse residential district. Again, most of the time our lot coverage could be as low as 45% of the lot in particular. And if the lot is very small, that limits the amount of development you can have, especially if it's mixeduse development. Uh and then we want to encourage higher buildings in our neighborhood commercial district if we are allowing mixeduse development.

7:07 Right? So if you have ground flooror commercial and residential above, we have to allow taller buildings to basically incentivize that mixed use development. So all this to say we have some flexibility for the standards that we adopt for the housing and design initiative um and the CFAs, but there are certain standards that we have to comply with per state law. and I'll go into that on the next slide. So for the climate fair friendly areas project, I just wanted to give a a brief rundown of basically what we have to do to comply with state law. Um so again the the land conservation and development commission LCDC initiated rulemaking for for their climate friendly and equitable communities program in response to an executive order. The rules require cities to

7:53 update their land use regulations to allow dense mixeduse development with access to walking, biking, and transit options in select locations. Again, this is called your climate friendly areas. Um, which we have to comply with state law and adopt into our code by December 31st of this year. So, we've got a little less than a year to adopt these amendments to comply with the climate friendly areas work. Um, on February 10th of last year, council directed staff to designate three areas, Glenwood as your primary and downtown and Mohawk as your secondary areas. In downtown in particular, council directed a portion of the Booth Kelly mixeduse district to be within the

8:38 climate friendly areas overlay. So because of that we recognized that we needed to look at our existing um district and the mixeduse employment district in our development code. Currently there are no properties mapped to the mixeduse employment district but the Booth Kelly area and the light medium industrial community commercial district in gateway closely align with the intent of the district right to reduce the total number of land use districts. So, we have three. We're going down to one. Um, we would and to comply with the CFA regulations, right, we need to encourage more housing in in the overlay area, which is a portion of it, is Booth Kelly. Um, we're proposing to reszone Booth Kelly um and the Light

9:23 Me Industrial Community Commercial District to mixeduse employment. So, where are we at in the timeline? Um, we must adopt again the climate friendly areas by December of this year. And we hope to have two separate but but simultaneous adoption package for the CFA and housing and design projects. So there'll be two different ordinances but we hope to have them follow the same adoption process. Um so I might come to you back to back right. Uh CFAs or housing and design would be first um on one night when I come to you or closely following. Uh note that the Glenwood CFA amendments must be co-adopted by Lane County. So again, we have to go to the Lane County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners on the screen.

10:09 Those are tentative dates we potentially have scheduled. So either May or June for the Lane County um planning commission. Um and then sometime this fall, likely around September, October, we would have that board of county commissioners first meeting, first um first and second reading. Overall, we want to make sure that the policy direction we received tonight is in line with council's vision. Right? We we don't want to adopt any amendments that um you don't envision, especially for Booth Kelly. Um that's a portion of the of the city that we're really passionate about and we care about. Um and it's our last chance to check in about these policy discussion before I come to you with an adoption package this fall. But that doesn't mean that we couldn't reconvene the governance committee. Again, that's two planning commissioners, two city councilors.

10:55 We've asked previously for policy direction. that could happen um any time between when we go to the planning commission and when we prepare that adoption ready package in the event that council had something they were really passionate about and they really wanted to make sure that that vision um we're hearing it and we're implementing those recommendations. Um we'd like to thank you for your input so far on this work. It's complicated. Um it's it's more complex than previous projects and um so we appreciate your patience as we work out the kinks. So, do you have any questions before I move on to the policy discussion? >> Uh, just one which is the the I'm I'm really curious if you can tease out like what the climate friendly areas on top of the I we were talking about the Booth

11:41 Kelly uh area and the zoning changes there and I think you've been doing a really good job defending that. Thank you for bringing that up. But I think I'm curious like hey what we weren't really talking about the climate friendly areas last work session. Can you just tease out a little bit more in this discussion? How does the climate friendly areas modify anything we may have talked about in the last discussion on top of just specifically with that zone? That's where my my curiosity goes. That's all. >> Yeah, there are certain uses that we would allow in that area that we wouldn't allow in the base mixeduse employment district. So, I mentioned town homes is a great example. We don't allow town homes in the mixeduse employment district. They would only be allowed in the CFA overlay and only within like that Booth Kelly um area. >> So just to clarify, it would just be an

12:27 additional allowance as opposed to a restriction. >> Exactly. >> Councelor Buck, um just a quick ask, I know that the planning commission has has um worked on this with you uh extensively and they've done some great work. Um, I would love to see, you know, some of their comments and their feedback, uh, in included. Um, just it's that's a that's an important piece to me to make sure that we're hearing what they say because they put a lot of time and effort into it. >> Absolutely. I do go to them tomorrow night. So, um, once I get some feedback on the first draft, >> ask them for feedback. >> Absolutely. >> Anybody else? All right. I think we're ready. >> Awesome.

13:16 Okay. So, tonight this is the one question that I need direction on. Um, this is about the Booth Kelly and the mixed use light media industrial community commercial districts and in particular livability for residential in proximity primarily to industrial. So, um I just want to give a again a breakdown on the areas in particular that we're looking at. um downtown Gateway, Mid Springfield, and East Maine all had some language in their refinement plans about compatibility, right? Residential and proximity to um industrial and and how they planned or the intent behind some measures, some compatibility measures. I came to you on February 2nd at a work session to discuss some of these things, but was asked to follow up with some more examples, right? some examples in our

14:02 existing code or refinement plan policies that address compatibility or operational performance standards and then how that might change in the proposed code. Um so hopefully you've had a chance to look through the packet. I know it's complicated but I'll try to um summarize and go through it tonight. So to start with for the mixeduse districts, there's two standards which are relevant to compatibility in the existing code that trash receptacles are not allowed within the front yard setback area abuing residential districts and that mechanical equipment must be screened so that noise does not exceed 50 dB um as measured from any low density residential um property line. That that's existing code language. Now

14:49 um then the existing code also points to our landscaping and screening provide requirements which provide some semblance of compatibility standards by requiring setback areas, parking lot planting areas and storm water facilities to be landscaped and where commercial and industrial uses but residential districts, outdoor mechanical equipment, outdoor storage areas, garbage and recycling areas, automobile wrecking and multi-unit housing must be screened. Okay. So, screening landscaping, um, fences, things like that. In particular, when there are certain uses of budding a lowdensity residential district, that's what we consider to be those compatibility measures and they already exist in our code. So, what will the proposed code do? We're intent is to keep these standards,

15:36 right? We're not creating new standards, but we need to make them clear and objective because we're allowing housing now. um or just getting clear how we comply with those clear and objective standards per state law. Um the new clear and objective language can be found in your packet. So again on page three going to page four um we will also move any existing or relevant code standards from the Booth Kelly District to the mixeduse district when we reszone that area to the mixeduse employment and I will get into that um in the next couple slides. So, as you've looked through this, hopefully read the council briefing memo. Does council find that the existing code standards are sufficient for visual and noise compatibility? And

16:22 if not, what other standards could be applied? I just want to point out that the existing standards for landscaping and screening, again, they prohibit garbage and recycling in front yard setbacks, abing residential districts, and then we have that noise standard um not to exceed 50 dB for mechanical equipment. >> So, so we have heard a little bit from the community on on some of their their thoughts and and some of the things that I've taken away are um maybe maybe different standards at different times of day. So, like your typical, you know, daytime hours versus nighttime hours kind of thing. Um, and then also we've

17:09 heard from the community that uh maybe looking at the decibel level from the source versus versus the property line is something that people are interested in. I just wanted to bring those to the council for you know just put those out there so you know we we've got that feedback so you know we could consider that not necessarily pushing it per say but I just wanted to put that out there that those considerations. Council Mo, >> I think an example already is construction. You can't do construction in the evenings. >> That's an council. >> Thank you. I appreciate that, um, councelor Buck, because I will say that the feedback that I've had from community has also been really around the noise. And so, um, and I I

17:56 appreciate the specific things like what if we did this and what if we did that because I really that's where I'm just like honing in on and trying to be like, are we doing enough particularly in that area where it could potentially, you know, that that would impact the quality of life for folks really is going to be the noise. Um, and I mean maybe we're doing enough, but I'm also open to talking about do we add some a few more things in there to try to control it so that it really makes it a vibrant neighborhood. >> Council Stump. Um, I I I'm comfortable just with the existing standards, but I I actually a bit of a curveball. Sometimes there's an issue, at least I know within Eugene, like there's an issue um when you have a residential area next to an industrial

18:43 area and it comes up when you have things like fence height. For example, you have an i3 right next to an R3, you have a maximum fence height of 6 feet, but that doesn't actually promote livability. An 8ft fence, even though you're like, oh, it's an 8ft fence next to a residential area, would actually be better for the residential area. It would actually support both parties better by having a little stronger fence. And so I I think this is this is where I'm like, well, why would there why would there be a complaint because from the residential area against the industrial area when the industrial area just just wants to be able to operate and be a good neighbor hopefully, but you know, you never never know for sure. Um, so I think my my feedback is I'm comfortable with the existing standards, but I also want to make sure as we're doing that, we're also looking at making

19:29 sure like things like fence heights are sufficient to allow the flexibility between like when we have those two different kind of zones intersecting. Um, but yeah, that's all >> and we actually do have that in our code that when um commercial industrial residential, they require taller fences. >> Okay. uh the the the question that I have is really around if in the case where we have an industrial user and then the resident comes second right and and there's a noise complaint the way this the current code exists is the industrial user would be sort of um required to abate the the the noise

20:14 complaint. It's going to depend on um so it wouldn't it wouldn't be the industrial district. The this is not impacting industrial district properties. Only if you're the mixeduse district. So if you had um ground floor industrial residential above or industrial in front residential behind only in that instance would it applied. Does that make sense? >> Yeah. Yeah. But I I guess I'm I'm trying to think through this place where we've got a lot of you like you know a lot of businesses that have been you know in business for a long time right and then they have another piece of property that comes in somebody decides to develop a house right or take advantage of the residential zoning right like we could create a situation where then suddenly

21:00 we're asking a business you business business user to come out and invest substantially in their in their property to address an issue on somebody else's property that is brand new >> will not have any impacts on industrial districts. >> Choose a commercial choose a commercial link. If if I go out on if I go out on Q Street in Laura Yeah. >> which is where I live, right? >> So if you've got several, you know, construction firms that exist out there today that have their shops out there today. So I'll try to phrase it in a or ODOT's got a facility out there today. if we bring housing in into that proximity, right? Like what I'm trying to really understand in those situations is those those businesses are going to

21:48 be required to comply with the noise after the fact. Does that make sense? >> Only if they were proposing like new development. So it's not going to impact existing development. The these standards apply like if you are proposing new development, not existing development. So, so then could we have created a livability issue? I'm thinking about this from both ways, right? Like what is fair from the business side, but also what is fair from the residential side? So, residence comes into the area, we could create situations where we're asking residents to live above the noise standard, right? Yeah. >> Like, okay. So, I mean, this is this is the whole challenge with these with these interface zones. >> Absolutely. So I guess my other question

22:36 you know about the existing code and I know that there's no easy way to get around this is is there an easier reporting mechanism besides a noise study because when we've used those in the past those have been challenging to really execute in a in a way that everybody really understands. >> Yeah, I think that's a a great question and a great example. I really appreciated um councelor Buck's recommendation about the hours of operation because I think that could cut down on some of those noise complaints. Um but again that would be like if an a new business came in to that uh existing facility that didn't exist there currently. Um so it it it's really nuanced I guess you could say and it's something again we can look into if there are certain standards in place um

23:23 that are again I'm hearing those noise issues. So we can look at what are some examples beyond just you know separation of noise from a residential district. >> I don't know that we're going to fix you know fix this problem today. There is no easy fix to this but I but the the way that people experience these kind of interface zones is very challenging. >> So go ahead council order. >> Just a comment on the hours. I think we have to consider that even if we went in just within certain hours that like during the day, it could be a family that has, you know, young children at home that need naps and all kinds of things that could be disruptive to to, you know, to that family life situation.

24:12 So, I just want to make sure we're thinking not just about hours, but like all hours, you know, there's potential impact there. Okay. So, I don't know that we've gotten to the answer of the Go ahead. >> Ju just one other thing. Um I know you've said it would apply to new development, but what about new uses within current development? That's where I get a little bit scared. >> I would say it's going to depend on if they're triggering something. And so again, like if they're installing parking or landscaping, usually there's some sort of trigger to say when we can regulate it, right? We can't go in and say, "Oh, right now there's some sort of violation unless it was a code enforcement violation, something like that, which um councelor mode did did

24:57 say like we do have code enforcement violations for noise. But again, it's going to depend on some existing use or proposed use asks for some sort of application to trigger us looking at those standards. >> And I think my concern that I'm raising is that um sometimes those those things can be they just get a little bit squishy and they get a little bit um they get a little bit feeling like an overreach. And an example would be let's say you have a parking lot that's been used as a parking lot for 60 years and then all of a sudden you want to pave that parking lot. Well, that doesn't that might trigger the the city to now have jurisdiction there, but it might

25:42 not actually be an increase in the use. It might look like that on a development level, but you're still just parking stuff. And that's I think my concern is that as if I have a business there, I don't want to in spend any money on infrastructure because oh no, now the city is breathing down my neck for this that and the other thing. And I think that's a real concern that I do have um with going there. So I I do agree with the mayor that um I don't know if we're going to solve it like this just yet. >> So I think we're back to this this question, right? So you're asking fundamentally two two questions, right? One of them is that whether or not we think the existing standards help, right? >> Yes. >> So, I I don't know that

26:28 I'm going to try to summarize where I think everybody is. I don't think we feel like we have we're really comfortable with what the existing standards are, but we don't know that we have we may have the best option of all of all potential bad options. So, like I don't know that I'm hearing a lot of comfort level that hey, we're if we apply these standards wholesale that this problem's going to go away. Go ahead. >> Yes, I think um I'm going to I think yes, it feels like we're not quite comfortable with it and a couple of things are happening. I'm also hearing that we don't want to make it harder, right? So, it's like we want to make it better for people without making it harder. And I think that's where it feels a little bit sticky, right? Is

27:14 like part of me is like, well, the standards we have are not more. Whereas if we start to try to address all these problems, I'm concerned that we would like overregulate it, right? We'd add extra stuff in there that we didn't need. So that to me feels like where I'm feeling stuck. It's like I do want to make sure that we are paying attention to what the tensions are going to be in these these sort of new combined areas and um I don't know if I don't know if this the ones are sufficient now and I don't want to make it harder. So maybe we can break these questions up into two two um I don't hear people

27:59 wanting to add more more standards but I also think there's this question around what do we what do we want to do with these two areas which are the Booth Kelly area right like could you help us understand really what the you know the uh the underlying question is which is do we want to allow residential essentially up around Q Street Laura Scotts Glenn and do we want to had, you know, allow residential in the Booth Kelly area. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I I actually don't think like I think Booth Kelly, the more I've heard this, the more I think that Booth Kelly may be a different conversation than what the what the Q street area is. When I just look at the map, you're not talking roughly about that many that much in the

28:45 way of acreage. >> I would agree with that. >> Yeah. So if we and when I think about the areas that are on the map, I'm really thinking about those two little areas that are between the freeway and and essentially Q Street, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So to me, I don't know that there's any any way that residential is going to be successful in those in those areas specifically around because they're never going to be like we're going to run into this noise problem the whole time either driven off the freeway or driven off Q Street. >> So could could we exclude, you know, and I'm looking at you folks, could we exclude and say we don't want to allow, you know, houses in that little triangle that that is roughly on the map. Go

29:31 ahead. Just just one clarification. There's Booth Kelly is not one I I mean I like where you're going with that, but it's not just like a univical thing. There's all these areas kind of on these back walking paths that are would be beautiful once once the um some of those quarry action has subsided a little bit, but could potentially be very beautiful development in the future. I'm just want to make sure that we're really careful about what we're carving out. Exactly. Well, and and that's where I where in my head I think we're going, which is like let's start carving out the areas and try to get to some clear direction, which is we're not super thrilled with the standards, but these are probably the best standards we're going to have. you know, can we carve out some areas that we're we're saying don't work, you know, from a residential area and have

30:17 us like I would agree with you, councelor Stout, that the back end of Booth Kelly's got a lot more space for this question and maybe we can just kind of narrow narrow the narrow the question. So, I think in my mind that carving out the Q street and say we're just like that shouldn't that's too much, right? like we're not going to solve the noise problem there. And then then we can come back to this to the Booth Kelly conversation about okay, is this going to work in work in Booth Kelly? Because I think like I think these standards could work on the back side of Booth Kelly. >> Would that Okay, >> can I keep going to the next questions because I think that will help with Booth Kelly. >> Okay, >> good. Get us back on track before we wrap ourselves in the actual

31:03 >> we go off on a tangent. Okay. So, I do want to talk about Booth Kelly. So, what it looks like in Booth Kelly in particular. So, right now in the existing code, um we require that residential is limited to the seconds story use above commercial and industrial. So, again, it's intended to be that mixeduse ground floor, commercial, industrial, residential above. And we specifically say less than 35% of the district of the overall Booth Kelly district can be residential in the current code. Um then for commercial uses, there are a couple uses where they require those compatibility standards in particular. Um one is for outdoor storage areas. They're limited to secondary uses. They have to be screened by a fence. Um and then for light meme, industrial and warehousing, um we kind

31:50 of split the uh ground floor requirements. So we say 50% um is limited to storage and then 50% is retail or office space. So the proposal for Booth Kelly in particular um in the proposed code would be that we would have mixeduse development with residential uses anywhere in the district. We would no longer limit it to 35% of the district. Um we would allow residential to occupy at at least 40% of the ground floor if you wanted to. So that's 60% could be commercial and industrial. 40% could be residential ground floor. Um, and then above and then we would also allow, again, I mentioned those town houses and multi-unit housing in the CFA areas in particular. Um, and then again, if we reszone to mixeduse employment, we'd

32:36 move the existing Booth Kelly district standards to the mixeduse employment district. So those standards um, in particular on the screen about uh, the commercial uses, warehousing, and light me industrial and warehousing uses. So that first question which the mayor kind of talked about is council supportive of expanding the extent of residential uses allowed in Booth Kelly in particular and then are you supportive of applying the buffer mechanical equipment um to limit noise impact to the R1 district to the south and west of Booth Kelly. So the only areas where we really abut um the low low dens oh I'm sorry the low density residential district in Booth Kelly is to the south and west. Okay. Does anybody have comments with

33:24 I think we kind of rattled around to a to a to a yes in the previous conversation. >> Okay. So, I'm going to I'm going to move ahead then to the next one which is Q Laura Street which again this is what the mayor was talking about earlier. Um there are a couple things that I want to point out in this area in particular. So, um it's only included in the gateway refinement plan per industrial policy 5 um to allow for a mix of commercial and industrial uses and then zoned that same area mixeduse LMIC. Um implementation action 5.2 for that policy stated that the city should amend the development code to include this district. Um but it never happened. We never adopted the mixed use light meme industrial

34:09 community commercial land use district into the code. So we continue to abide by the implementation actions of 5.5 and 5.6 which essentially allow allowed uses in the light meme industrial district um and all the allowed uses in the community commercial district. So we essentially just say all all light meme industrial all community commercial uses all of those are permitted in this one area. So you have a lot of uses kind of going on all at once. Um, but we do limit commercial uses in this district to 40% of uh the area. So again, you have more industrial than you would have commercial. So the proposal in in particular was to reszone to mixeduse employment. We would no longer limit commercial uses to 40%

34:56 of the area. That again would go away. It'd be 60% of the ground floor, commercial or industrial. 40% could be residential and then residential above. if we still want to move forward with that. Um and then again on the screen you're seeing some uses um that would be permitted or not permitted or vice versa. For instance, mixeduse development with residential uses and heavy manufacturing and production would be permitted in the mixeduse employment district where right now they're currently discretionary or not permitted. So then there are some uses which are technically allowed which would no longer be permitted again because if we're applying those community commercial or um light meme industrial districts we're making it mixeduse employment. So some of those uses that would be allowed in that district no longer apply. That includes RV parks. So

35:42 that kind of be a residential use. Places of worship or marijuana businesses would um would no longer be allowed in that district. So on the screen again, those three questions. Is council supportive of allowing residential uses in this area? Similar to Booth Kelly, mayor just talked about that. Um, is council supportive of allowing heavy manufacturing and production as a permitted use rather than a discretionary use and removing the limitation on the number of acres where commercial uses are allowed. So again, 40% of the district can be commercial uses right now. Um, and then are there any requirements of the mixeduse district? Are the requirements of the mixed use district sufficient to address those compatibility issues? Again, the noise for the decibb um and no trash in front setbacks low density

36:29 residential. >> Council Robert, >> thank you. Um, I think that, um, this just doesn't seem like a place for housing, especially like I mean, I could see like when I was looking at it before, uh, you know, if you've got RV parks, I could see maybe that in there, but if we're going to re lean in really hard to the, um, the heavy manufacturing and production, and then it looks like the only really two things are the heavy manufacturing and production, and then the mixeduse development with residential uses. I mean, I could see maybe living upstairs over something. Um, but that's about it really. I mean,

37:16 that's about what I could see like in that area with those things. And maybe we get to that with this. Um, yeah, that was my messy answer. >> Go ahead, Councelor Stout. Actually like that messy answer. um becau because I can definitely see that especially as more and more folks are living on site of heavy industrial uh uses often as night watch persons or um otherwise when if the heavy manufacturing is happening during the day then they have the additional security and it's an additional place for somebody to live. So I'm I'm in favor of that in generally >> councelor Buckham. Yeah, I I definitely appreciate those those thoughts from my fellow counselors. I u I guess where I just um

38:04 fall on this is I think that if we're trying to fit housing in places where we we kind of know objectively that we're we're trying to like fit it in but it doesn't naturally go there. I I just don't know that that makes sense. But at the same token, I'm very well aware that we have some um mandates by the state that we have to comply with. So if not there, then where kind of thing. So I'm not, you know, I'm kind of in that spot where I'm not super comfortable with it, but I'm also aware that, you know, we might have limited cards to play here, so to speak.

38:55 Is this one that we have to solve today or we've made so many different changes? Like is this a place where we could say >> let's look at this later down the road when we know what all of these other changes that we've agreed to look like? >> Unfortunately, this is one area where we do >> we have to make >> um because we do have to address like basically what we're doing with this. This impacts Booth Kelly. Um it also impacts this area as well. So, if they're both going to be reszoned to mixeduse employment, then we need to decide, you know, h are you comfortable with the changes? Number one, are there any things that you don't agree with? Why not? What would we propose as the change? Um this area in particular, again, I I just mentioned it doesn't exist in our code. So, that's kind of a legal concern in itself. Um is how do you regulate this area in particular? Um

39:41 regulating based on the refinement plan is is kind of a legal concern. Um but then Booth Kelly, we don't necessarily have to make any of those changes to Booth Kelly. Right now it already complies with the climate friendly areas. We could just address this issue separately. Um but we do need to decide basically how we treat it. >> Could you bring the map back up? Excuse me. Could you bring the map back up? Because is this the whole Q Street? Laura area or is this just like that one little >> It is the whole Q Street. Okay. Yeah. >> Cook, >> can I just clarify? So Booth Kelly currently meets the standard for CFAs, but the Laurel Laura Street Q Street does not >> and it is not a CFA area. >> And it's not a CFA area. >> Yes. >> So we don't actually have to meet the

40:27 CFA burden. It's just do we want to go that direction in this area? Okay. >> Exactly. Of allowing housing where we currently do not. And then what do we do with the district if it doesn't exist in our code? So I I think you the way I'm hearing you describe it is that if if we treat it like Booth Kelly, it solves the the district problem because you're going to essentially you know do the resoning and then we will be in a we will be in a you know a stronger legal framework. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. >> And what's option two is that you have to split it and zone it into something else. >> Yes. I' I'd more than likely treat it like the mixed use employment, but we just make sure that the mixed use

41:12 employment doesn't allow any housing. >> I don't know the I think I don't think any housing is going to ever get built there. And I don't know that I've ever been on a piece of uh a piece of that property where I'm looking at a building going that this thing's going to work for like physically work for housing at all based on just the amount of semi-traffic that go that that goes through that area. Um, but I yeah, I I don't I think the Night Watchman thing's interesting. Um, but my instinct here is to just split it and not and not let any housing on there. Um, but I but I think that's kind of up to everybody here because there like that that area is not going to generate

41:59 housing or generate housing that is going to be um very uh very friendly to anybody. Go ahead. >> Well, I've been sitting here trying to think of other places, right? So, I'm thinking of um you know, like the Santa Clara area and you've got the freeway that runs right along there and you've got housing right up there. I'm thinking of places like um Junction City where Highway 99 goes right through it and you've got me. So, I'm I'm trying to be creative in my thinking so that I could see beyond what it has always been. um and thinking, okay, I could see maybe something there. I mean, I could see I mean, I don't think it's going to be like, you know, a lot of housing, but I

42:45 could see there being some mixed use in there. So, I think I think I'm okay with these two uses in there. Um, I think Yeah, I think I mean because I think saying no to it doesn't necessarily I mean I don't know if if we don't think that housing is ever going to be built there. I don't know that if we change the code and say it's we could do it if somebody wants to is going to hurt. But I do think that it does open up the uses for the land if it is like to counselor Stout's point if it's somebody that's got like an owner operator thing or something like that. So I'm I'm kind of open to trying it.

43:36 So in that line of thinking, do we have options with what type of residential we I mean like we could shrink it down from the fourstory >> absolutely >> apartment buildings to like we could say you can have a residence above commercial. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Like just one or >> absolutely we can say a night watchman live work type unit. >> I would be okay with that. Something like that. >> Anybody else? I think I think I'd be okay with that. Like we got to get to an like we got to get to an answer here, right? Like if the the night watchman live work place I'm I'm fine with. >> Okay. Excellent. And that sort of helps us too with the climate friendly areas which has different standards. >> There was the day when downtown was commercial and you could not live down there anywhere. And a lot of businesses

44:22 thrive because the owners like to live upstairs and they run the business from that. And now we're into that and that's what we need to encourage. Okay. Is that enough? >> That is enough. >> Okay. >> I have direction. >> Fantastic. >> Excellent. >> Because you if you leave it open to us one more time, we could wander around and then >> decision made. Okay. I do want to talk um real quick about the commercial districts and this is kind of the last thing that I really need direction on tonight. Um and then you know we can convene early or right on time. Um so the community commercial districts um there are limited existing code standards for compatibility. The only thing that we have for landscaping and screening says shall be established by standards and other sections of code.

45:08 But we do not list what the other sections of code are unless you know what the landscaping screening and fencing standards are which you guys know because it's in your packet. Um then uh because then there are some uses that must be screened or buffered. um in particular uh noise or odors from industrial manufacturing or assembly of goods and or products and for animal hospitals, clinics or kennels. Those are the only uses that we regulate some sort of compatibility measures for in our existing code. So what is the proposal? The proposal is to create new design and development standards similar to our mixed use districts because we are allowing mixed use development and multi-unit housing um along Main Street South A South A Street corridor. Um so

45:55 those standards that are similar to the mixed use district would apply in the commercial district with a couple of caveats. Um that all parking and vehicular circulation areas, garbage and recycling areas and ground mounted equipment must be screened. Again, those no no garbage and recycling and front yard setbacks and again the mechanical equipment 50 dB um when you're budding lowdensity residential districts and to comply with our East M refinement plan there is an additional buffer and screen requirement um in particular for industrial setbacks we would request a 20ft setback when you are abuing an industrial district. That setback can be reduced to 10 feet when an 8ft tall fence is installed. Similar to councelor Stout's recommendation again in our existing code in our existing

46:40 landscaping screening and fencing requirements in SDC 4.4105 to 115. So on to the questions. Is council satisfied with applying the same landscaping and screening standards that are in the mixeduse district to the community commercial district? And I can go into them again if we need to. Um, does council find that the proposed step back for residential uses built adjacent to industrial zones are sufficient for compatibility? If not, what other standards could be applied? Or does council prefer to not start allowing residential uses adjacent to industrial zones? And hopefully in your packet, you guys had a handy dandy little map of the areas in particular where residential would be close to industrial in certain areas.

47:25 I know I went through that fast, so feel free to ask questions. I just want to compliment councelor Stout for getting his idea into the code ahead of time. All right, anybody want to jump in with the two questions? >> Go back to the previous slide. >> What? Absolutely. >> Thank you. I don't I don't know if I'm like I'm okay with it or I'm just beaten down by the process. Just like I don't know because I I was about to say I remember we were talking about like vegetation and then I'm like

48:10 do I want to bring that back up? I don't know. Um I think I'm okay with this. I especially like the exclamation point after no garbage or recycling in the front yard setbacks. The only exclamation point in the whole report. I I think I'm okay with this. um without making it too cumbersome. >> Go ahead, Council Book. >> So, um not looking right now at the commercial district um uh definitions, but I want to say it it includes like areas like restaurants and things like that that could potentially have music. And we've heard recently from the community that, you know, kind of managing that kind of noise um is is is definitely a value to some in

48:55 certain areas. And so I just I when I look at this and I'm and I'm I'm okay with it, I'm I'm also at the same token thinking, okay, how can we put in some guard rails so that um we we don't create the same problems we've had in other areas in in new areas. And I'm, you know, a lot of a lot of commercial doesn't create the um the problems that would impact housing, but again, you know, restaurants that have live music and those kind of things uh could potentially um encroach on that. So, I'm not sure how we would solve that in the code, but those are some of the things that cross my mind as I'm thinking about this. I

49:41 don't have major concerns. I mean, it's we're still talking about the 50 dB and so it kind of seems like maybe that solves the issue. Um, but that's what comes to my mind. >> Council Rubber, >> not a hill for me to die on, but if this last question is an opportunity for me to say, can we just see what everything else looks like for a little bit and then come back to this one later? >> Yes, then that would be my per. We've made a lot of changes over the course of time with these conversations and I just I mean I don't know that that's the first place that somebody's going to want to build if they're looking I mean I think we've given a lot of other areas

50:26 flexibility. So maybe see if those attract before we make another change. >> I think I'm going to caveat that that that question. I think having consistent standards is going to be helpful. Right? So if we've agreed to standards in other places and they're similar similar standards, us pulling them forward so that when you are interfacing with the code, when we run into these sort of noise setback issues that we're just using the same kind of consistent language, that's a value to me right now. Um because that's going to make it easier to bridge the the code. >> Yes. And um an example that we could do that I didn't put in your packet because

51:11 it's in the proposed amend amendments is multiple ways to maybe meet the standard. So um I talked about how we're allowing mixed use development down Main Street. Um and sometimes developers can be concerned about meeting that ground flooror commercial requirement. So the proposed code actually allows three different ways for you to potentially meet that ground flooror commercial requirement. So if it's a question about noise, I keep hearing that, you know, concern about noise. We could in insert a couple of options for how we could regulate noise. We already have those landscaping and screening standards, but potentially we could add something about business hours into the code for noise. If you if there's an issue beyond that, then you have to do the screening of mechanical equipment, um, abudding a low density residential district that goes

51:57 beyond the basic standard. >> Yeah. I think more options to meet people are gonna are going to help. And I think if we zoomed back for a minute, you can hear us working our way through the like the fundamental question in all of this, right? Which is, you know, we are a city that is a very working, you know, city. We've got our residential and our, you know, commercial and our industrial all kind of put together in in places. And we're trying to talk our way through the abrasion points. we deal with our constituents every single every single day knowing that we cannot make rules enough to make sure all the abrasion points that go go around the city um simply go away. So, I guess the broad feedback I would give is even

52:44 though you're hearing us talk about the concerns we've all solved with constituents for so many years that that really trying to keep this as simple and flexible as possible and under and then I think we have to understand or be clear in our heads that we're still going to run into what what those abrasion points are is different people have different ideas in town and we just have to figure out a way to work our way through that. And I think that's been the fundamental like that's been the fundamental uh conversation that has been underlying all of this is us just trying to think through how do we get more people and more housing in the city and navigate those places that create livability issues and I don't know that we have great answers and thank you for you know being patient as we joke around and work our way through this.

53:30 >> Absolutely. >> All right. Any other comments? Do you have other direction that you need? There are a couple other items in here. Um, there was potentially one question that would be helpful for me. Um, if council has time, >> you booked us for six more minutes, so you might as well use everything you're budgeted for. >> Excellent. Um, so the other question that would be helpful to get through is about the Mid Springfield refinement plan. Um, this one is unique because uh, as you can see here on the map, we designated a portion of that area to be a nodal development area, specifically in the text, not in the diagrams. Um, only the Goodwill property on 30th and

54:18 Maine is actually designated with the nodal development overlay, but the text of the refinement plan says that this could be a nodal development overlay. So, why is that significant? Um in the text it is it says that um for example for industrial properties light mean industrial special heavy industrial heavy industrial it could also be mixeduse employment. Same thing with the commercial districts same thing with the residential districts. It could be commercial or you could have mixeduse commercial. It could be residential or it could be mixeduse residential. Um and then this gets back to the CFA. So, uh, for the CFA areas, um, we have to comply with this executive order. Council directed us to again designate those

55:04 areas that are climate friendly, particularly Glenwood, downtown, and Mohawk. Um, and the intent is to address the land use requirements that will replace the existing nodal development overlay in downtown and Mohawk since these areas share a similar intent to support mixed use again with that walking, biking, um, and transit options. But this leaves two areas that are designated nodal development um in particular gateway and this 30th street area. So the question is is what do we do in particular with this midspringfield area that is designated nodal development and there are a couple of options bear with me. Um so the options in particular are to remove the references to the

55:50 nodal area in the refinement plan but keep the existing zoning. And so if it's zoned commercial, it'll stay commercial. Option B would would be again to remove the reference to nodal development area, but we would reszone those properties to be mixed use. So if it's community commercial, it could become mixeduse commercial. If it's R2, it could become MUR and so on. Um, and then option C, again, we're going to do nothing. We're going to keep the overlay. We're going to keep the existing refinement plan policies and we'll resolve this when we get to the other remaining nodal development overlay area in particular the gateway refinement plan. So if you guys have decision fatigue, we do not have to make any decision. We could do option C and address it at another time. But if you want to address it um option A or option B

56:36 uh want to dive into this one, Council Rodley, it is close to your ward. So >> yeah, and I have >> you can look across the street. >> I have a question that goes beyond my ward. If we were to adopt a change tonight, and I'm kind of looking at since we're since we're putting housing everywhere, I'm like, option B, let's do that. But if we were to do that, when we get to that future work, is it going to be influenced by this? Um, so then we would end up saying, oh, does this fit everywhere or does this not fit everywhere? Um, okay, that was my question, which is like then maybe we wait and look at all of them together. Council Book, >> I uh I'm I'm kind of in in I want to use the Michelle option here. Option C. Let's uh let's wait and see what happens because I think that the more pieces we

57:22 put in here, the I don't want to complicate our work down the road. I don't want to box this in. Like I'm okay with option B, but my my concern is just what Councelor Rodley just mentioned. Is that going to are we going to regret that decision? is going to take away flexibility. So, um I I'm I'm thinking option C is is great here. >> Councelor Weber, >> I like option C. >> Okay. >> I was going to say she said option B. >> I I I was I was hoping to that you would come in with option B. Okay. So, I think we're going to choose the punt option. >> Okay. That sounds great. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. We are journed and we will reconvene in a couple minutes for regular session.

58:17 the uh it was because I was being funny. I'm going to call the regular session to order with roll call. Mayor Van Gordon >> here, >> councelor Weber >> here, >> councelor Mo >> here, >> councelor Rodley >> here, >> councelor Buck >> present, >> and councelor Ste >> here. Thank you. >> Please join me for the pledge of allegiance. to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> There are two designated times for public testimony this evening under public hearings and business from the audience. If you are attending in person, please complete the request to

59:03 speak card located at the front of the council chambers and turn them into the city of the corner. If you're joining us uh online with the tablet, smartphone, or computer and wish to speak for either of those options, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom. The order of public testimony is as follows. Anyone in the council chambers and then anyone who has raised a virtual hand. First item, please. >> First item is the consent calendar. I move approval of the consent calendar. >> Second. >> No. Could you call the vote, please? >> Yes. Councelor Weber, >> yes. >> Councelor Mo, >> yes. >> Councelor Bradley, >> yes. >> Councelor Buck, >> yes. >> And councelor Stout? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Motion passes. Five yeses, zero nos. Next item, please.

59:48 >> Next item is public hearings. You have one public hearing this evening. It is annexation of territory to the city of Springfield. Annex 5.67 67 acres of Glenwood employment mixeduse property located at map 17-03-34-44 tax lot slots 800 900 1100 1200 and402 withdrawing the same territory from the Glenwood water district. Uh this is the second reading and Tom Severs is here for this item. >> All right. Thank you. Welcome Tom. Before we hear the staff report tonight, the city attorney will provide a statement regarding the procedures for tonight's hearing. >> Uh, thank you, mayor. Excuse me. I'm going to lay out the procedural aspects of a quasi judicial hearing for the record tonight. The hearing tonight is

1:00:34 characterized as a quasi judicial hearing. That means that the applicant and the public are entitled to certain procedural rights. These rights include the right to notice, to present evidence, and to have a written decision based upon standards, and to have an impartial decision maker. Any person with an interest in this annexation and the withdrawal from the special district may offer relevant oral or written testimony, or both. If you would like the city council to consider your testimony and to preserve your right to appeal to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals, you must testify orally or in writing to the city council before the council closes the record. You must raise an issue clearly enough so people can understand what the issue is and offer evidence to support it. And you must also offer evidence to support it,

1:01:20 or else you cannot raise that issue on appeal. If you're the applicant, you must raise concerns about any conditions of approval clearly enough to allow the city council to respond and to preserve your right to seek damages in circuit court. If you feel you need more time to prepare evidence or testimony for the city council, you can ask the council to hold the record open or to continue the hearing. and you must make that request before the mayor closes the public portion of the hearing. Please make sure that your testimony is related to the applicable criteria. The criteria for annexation is in the Springfield development code section 5.14.135 which is in more detail in the staff report that was posted in the meeting packet and will be summarized by staff in the presentation for withdrawal from special district at Springfield

1:02:05 development code 5.7.160. Last, Oregon land use law requires that the city council act as an impartial decision maker. Therefore, counselors must disclose any exparte contacts or conflicts of interest related to this matter. A conflict of interest is a situation where the decision maker, their friend or family or their business would benefit or suffer by the decision maker's decision. An exparte contact is a communication to the decision maker that includes substantive issues regarding the application and occurs outside the public venue. Bias occurs is an actual personal interest in the outcome of the decision or prejudgment by the decision maker as to the outcome without regard to evidence and argument submitted to the

1:02:50 decision maker. Mayor, at this time I'm done with the procedural rights. Please clear the council and also disclose yourself any exparte contact or um for the record. >> All right, we'll start with councelor Mo. Could you please disclose any exparte contact or conflicts of interest? Exarty con contact or conflict of interest. >> No exparte contacts or and no conflict of interest. >> I have no exparte contacts or conflicts of interest. >> No exparte contacts or conflicts of interest. >> No exparte contacts or conflicts of interest. >> No exparte contact or conflicts of interest. >> All right. Now we're ready for the staff

1:03:35 report. All right. Good evening, mayor and counselors. I'm Tom Sever, senior planner with the current planning section. Tonight, the council is requested to hold a public hearing on an ordinance to annex an approximately 5 1/2 acre area that includes five tax lots in Glennwood. The council is also requested to adopt or not adopt the ordinance tonight. If you recall, a public hearing was not officially open during the first reading back on January 5th. The city attorney's office advised staff that a second reading uh be held to officially open the public hearing and to make a decision tonight.

1:04:34 I don't Yeah, just you can hold on that one. That's all I need tonight. Uh, so the proposed annexation area is outlined in red uh and is currently improved with commercial businesses. The applicants are the property owners who initiated the annexation by submitting the required application materials. It is contiguous to the city limits and meets all approval criteria as found in the staff report uh which was first detailed during our first reading on January 5th. If annexation is approved, no other zoning changes are requested except for the removal of the UF10 overlay. An annexation agreement has been prepared by staff and is ready to be signed by the applicants. The agreement covers obligations for the applicants and for the city, including any financial responsibilities. The agreement includes details on future connection to key urban facilities and

1:05:19 services and withdrawal from special service districts. The agreement is ready for execution by the city manager upon approval of the annexation. That is all and I'm here for any questions you have. >> Does anybody have questions before I open the public hearing? All right, we'll now open the public hearing. Um, I do not have any cards for this item. Do we have any hands raised? And we're looking for the applicant first. >> Looks like we have no hands for this item. >> Okay. And then and we have no hands at all. All right, then I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. Um, and I think I can go I'm going to go ahead and close the record as well.

1:06:05 And we're ready for a motion. I move to adopt an ordinance annexing certain territory 17-03-34-44 tax lots 800900100 1200 and402 to the city of Springfield withdrawing the same territory from applicable special districts adopting a severability clause and providing an effective date >> second you could call the vote please >> yes councelor >> yes >> councelor Mo >> yes >> councelor Rodley >> yes >> councelor Buck Yes. >> Councelor Stout. >> Yes. >> Motion passes. Five yeses, zero nos. Next item, please. >> And the next item is business from the audience. >> I do not have any cards. Do you have any hands online?

1:06:50 >> No hands for this item. >> Next item, please. Next item is ordinances. You have one ordinance, an ordinance amending the Springfield Municipal Code regarding criminal misdemeanors and violations. Mary Bridget Smith is here for this item. Good evening, mayor and council. I'm before you tonight on a item that the city attorney's office brings to you on a fairly regular basis, and that is to readopt the um applicable criminal statutes and traffic statutes into our

1:07:36 municipal code that allows our um city prosecutor and municipal court to prosecute those cases in Springfield Municipal Court. We try and come to you after um a legislative session uh to incorporate any of the changes through the past um legislative session. So today before you is an ordinance for first reading. Um we did not do a public hearing for this item, but to ask the uh council to consider adopting this ordinance. There's also one um minor item updating. We have a old section in our code about unmanned um aerial airplanes and um it was written before drones became popular and didn't distinguish between drones and these other types of airplanes. And we'd like

1:08:22 to explicitly put in the code that our municipal code does not apply to drones. That's because we're preempted. That's regulated by the state and by the federal government. And the reason for that update, even though it seems um fairly innocuous, is it's nice sometimes to have that specific language in there and then the residents know, oh yeah, drones don't apply here. I don't have to worry about this regulation, city regulation for my drone. Or if someone calls um the city and talks to a department, they can point to the code more easily and conveniently about whether it applies or not. So that's why this section is in there. Um I do have some updates about um other changes that occurred in the long session that the council um may want to consider with regard to um

1:09:08 criminal law and some updates and then um we got a little information today about the current session. So in the last long session there was um adopted into law a um and it's written kind of clunkily in the AIS but I wanted to follow what was in the um actual statutes. So now if someone um is convicted of menacing and the victim is a public official that's the type of crime that is added to um prohibition against carrying a firearm. Now, that's been adopted. That was adopted in the last session. This session, uh, we learned that, um, there is a new law being contemplated that would be a, um, specific misdemeanor charge for

1:09:54 threatening a public official, menacing a public official. And menacing is um action that is intent to put another person in fear of imminent physical injury. and if it uh made it out of committee in this session. Um so there'll be more uh debate about it, but it looks like for now that's moving forward. So that would be a separate standalone crime for those types of um behaviors. And then the other um thing for the council to consider is that in the uh 25 session they did um a community safety act to follow up on the gun bill. And one of those options is the option to prohibit um concealed carry weapons in

1:10:41 um public buildings where they have public meetings. So school districts have had this um prerogative for some time. What it requires is a uh ordinance, a sign, and posting on the website. So now um in this type of building now you um couldn't have a open carry, but you could potentially use as an affirmative offense your concealed carry um right and permit um to have a weapon in like a public building um excluding some public buildings like courouses. There are some have specific rules. So now that ability applies to all local governments and special districts. I looked today. Um, so far Multma County has done it. Eugene has um

1:11:28 provided support about it, but I didn't find it where they actually when it was being contemplated in legislature, but I haven't found where they've actually done it. So, if that's something that the council's interested in the future, I can bring that back to you in more detail or when I come back to you periodically to update the code, I can check in with you and see if you'd like to move that forward. Um, and then the last thing would be from this current session. Um, I know I've talked to you before about the um proposed changes for what I call cheese and crackers, which is the food and beverage at uh public meetings that um and an update to serial meetings allowing a little more flexibility for counselors and elected officials to talk about items and not violate the um public meetings law. Those um headed their hearing today, so

1:12:14 we'll know more. Um, more about those soon. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about our criminal code or this update. >> Does anybody have any questions? Okay. This is a first reading. It is no action required tonight. >> That's correct. It'll come back to you on consent at your next regular meeting. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Thank you. >> Next item, please. Any business from the city council? Councelor Wley. Thank you. Um, and I have a little statement that I I gave the mayor a heads up that I'd been working on. Um, I don't know about the rest of my counselors, but I've had a lot of folks reach out to me via email and phone and conversations, and um, I thought maybe

1:13:01 there would be people here tonight, but it's a quiet night, so you all just get to hear me talk. Um, I want to acknowledge how difficult the past several months have been for so many of our Springfield neighbors. And I I wanted to name it and say it out loud from this side of the dis. And I also want to say that not everyone is experiencing these turbulent times in the same way. And that is part of what has challenged us as policymakers. How do we listen, serve, and protect everyone who has chosen to live here and contribute to this community? How do we ensure that all the voices, the loud, the passionate, and the quiet and timid are heard and considered? And we talk about different populations of people as

1:13:46 if they are completely separate communities. The business community, the immigrant community, the LGBTIQ plus community. While we might have different experiences and different identities, we are all living here together in this community. And many of us embrace multiple identities. Many immigrant neighbors are also small business owners. People live in Springfield and work in another community or they work here in Springfield. They have students in Springfield schools and they live elsewhere. We are all invested and we all care, but we aren't all feeling the same levels of safety and opportunity. And as a city council, we have not yet made any declarations or statements

1:14:31 regarding ICE activity in our neighborhoods. Although we have done as a city tangible operational things, setting up the resource page, ensuring our police department follows state sanctuary promise laws and the encouraging of team Springfield partners to reiterate our community values on belonging, for example. And there have been several people and organizations who have been passionately advocating for declarations and statements. There have also been many people who are advocating for different approaches, including immigrant families who do not want us to bring exaggerated attention to immigration status. We have not been as quick to declare emergencies or put outrage on paper as some others. And I hear that criticism.

1:15:17 Speaking for myself, this is not for lack of concern or frustration. It is because I genuinely want to do whatever it takes to meaningfully improve the lives of my neighbors. I want to make things better and not worse. I want to mitigate any backlash or misunderstanding. And I want to consider the authentic needs of those most impacted, not just those with the loudest voices. Here is what I know. the divisive federal overreach, the threats and attacks on LGBTIQ folks, particularly transgender people, the presence of federal agents causing fear and violence and undermining community safety for black and brown people. The chaos, the loss, the grief, as well of the e as

1:16:02 well as the economic impacts are all real and they are all being felt here in Springfield. And for me, this is heartbreaking. It's infuriating and it's unacceptable. Children are unable to go to school. People are losing work, their livelihoods and access to connection and community. There is a growing distrust of local public safety. We are not at our best as a city when we are facing these overwhelming challenges. And I am very interested in working with my council colleagues to continue to explore the strongest and most useful ways for us to respond, acknowledging that currently things are changing and evolving rapidly. And I also want to encourage people who can to continue

1:16:49 those peaceful protests, the mutual aid, checking in on neighbors, fighting for the rights and safety and community that we all deserve. I myself have been at protests and vigils and marches. My spouse and I have made contributions to trusted organizations that are working directly with populations who are being targeted. And I have been advocating with the state and federal policy makers. Many of the same things that many of you are doing. I am also supporting the Oregon immigrant justice package which is trying to reinforce the sanctuary state status that we already follow here providing for legal representation, housing, and food aid to immigrant communities. There is no one right way to show up in this moment. It is going to take all of us doing

1:17:34 whatever we can and putting the needs of those most impacted at the heart of the fight. This is not a time for easy political wins or posturing, but for truly authentically digging in and showing up in public, behind the scenes through action and policy and prioritizing resources. This is a big, hard, risky, and painful time. And I truly believe that as Springfield residents, we are going to show up for each other. We just are going to need to take some time and work on it together. Thank you. Anything >> What I have is not nearly as important as what council just said, but it's of

1:18:20 interest. The annexation of the U-Haul property. We used to call that West Springfield. And in 19 uh 1940, there were bunch of businesses on the on the southwest corner. a lot of businesses on the southwest corner. A burnout in July or J July of 1941 that triggered the formation of Glenwood Water District which provided water system which still exists to this day. Uh after that it was rebuilt as Greg's Drive-In. It was a center point for everybody with cars to collect Eugene Springfield. Really big deal. And then it burned out and it burned out again. Uh so after that it was rebuilt as

1:19:07 uh Kentucky Fried Chicken, the first uh in in this area and then it morphed into the U-Haul. So that's his history. It's West Springfield as part of us now and I'm really glad we did it. >> Thank you, Steve, for sharing uh the background of uh of uh Glenwood. And I and and I hope for the many reporters in the room, they continue to interview you about your substantial knowledge of of Glenwood. >> Well, I do. I've lived a lot of it, but West Springfield is is the area that is most important to me. >> Anybody else? >> All right. So, I guess the the comment

1:19:52 that I that I want to make and I and I wanted to thank Councelor Rodley for bringing up bringing up that statement. Um, I think we all feel it and I think we're all, you know, working our way through this as thoughtfully and as diligently as possible, understanding that we really do have people in this community that are are scared right now. And I think the message that I would love want people to hear is that in a very Springfield way, we've looked for places that to diligently move move the needle and be helpful to people that are impacted right now. That includes the community resource page, which the staff did a great job of putting together, and that includes, you know, going through policies and procedures and making sure that we're as squared away as we we

1:20:38 potentially could be. But I do think there is room for broader community conversations. Um, I'm interested in chatting, continuing to chat with folks and continuing to see that in this moment we really are, people really are scared and that, you know, we feel the powerlessness too of what uh what happens out of the federal government, but please, we keep bringing up your concerns. We are listening. We are interested in having additional conversations. Anybody else? All right. Next item, please. Thank you, mayor. Just a quick note from the city manager's office, an update on the weather that we're tracking. Uh staff has been in briefings with the National Weather Service as we typically

1:21:23 are. Um we're not exactly sure what we'll see over the next couple days, but we have the full winter fleet at operations ready to go. We've been in contact with our team Springfield partners. We'll keep you posted if we hear anything, but um just wanted you to have that note. >> Are we to the point that we're going to push out winter emer winter weather messaging to people? Are we just still monitoring? >> Still monitoring. We don't have enough information yet, but we can move that pretty quickly. >> Yeah, I I know we go from 0 to 60 pretty quick in the ops department. So, >> any updates from the city attorney's office? >> No, no updates tonight. Thank you. I think that is a wrap. But thank you

1:22:08 everybody. We are adjourned.