Springfield City Council — September 14, 2026

0:04 I'm going to call the Springfield City Council work session to order with roll call. >> Mayor Van Gordon >> here. Councelor Weber >> here. Councelor Mo >> here. >> Councelor Rodley >> here. >> Councelor Cuadros here. Councelor Buck >> here. >> And councelor Stout >> here. >> All right. Fantastic. We have one item this evening. It's the International Way annexation. And I think Christina is going to take us. Come on up. I do want to remind the crowd today, this is a work session item. So, we're not going to take any public hearing. We're not going to be voting tonight. So, but we appreciate you coming out and to meet with us. >> Um before we begin, I'm going to have council I'm going to ask that you go through your conflicts of interest um for this item. Um those have to be

0:49 declared at each meeting that this topic arises. Um if you have a potential or actual conflict of interest, we are going to not deal with experte contacts during the work session. Um and the towards the end of our work session, well maybe about halfway through we'll talk about the record and a request to reopen the record and hearing and um um that matter. Um I'm going to plan for about 6:30 on that. Um so just if you want to run through your conflicts of interest, we'll begin after that. >> Right. Council Mo, would you want to start? >> Microphone's still on. I have no conflict of interest or exarty contract and I haven't even read the emails. So,

1:38 >> um I don't have any new conflicts of interest. The ones that I've stated are that uh we do business, our office is located in North Gateway and I do business in the city of Smok. I have a potential conflict of interest as a property owner in the great gateway area. >> Uh I I have a potential conflict of interest. My employer is in health services and does business with Peace Health. >> No conflicts of interest. >> Uh no conflict of interest other than I work for 4J which the property is attached to. >> All right. Before you start, Christina, I think some people want to make some comments. Um,

2:24 do you >> Yeah, I do. I thought before we start down the road of all the rules and the regulations and the what we can and we can't say. Um, and I thought we were also going to talk about expparte, I I just I want to acknowledge that first of all, last week I said that I thought it was very important that we find a way to Yes. I still feel that way. Um, and I'm hoping that we continue to work this. And um, I will say that I want to just express my appreciation to the probably 150 people who wrote emails. I will say that I read every one of those emails. Um, and you know, many of them were full of of um, you know, professional experiences, personal trauma of folks who've, you know, the kids who've committed suicide and all of those

3:10 things. So over the course of the past week read all of those and acknowledged those. Um I also have been in several meetings in community where people have wanted to talk about it. People um when we're knocking doors want to talk about it. Um so I just want to acknowledge that the community has definitely made their thoughts and concerns about this. And I will say that for me the motivation for like why it is so important for us to try to get to yes. And I realized that we can we can start to feel very immobilized by process and the rules. And there's a there's a reason there's a reason that land use is so difficult in Oregon. And part of it is it is intended to keep things like affordable housing and behavioral health and all of these things not built. And I

3:56 believe, and we'll see where my counselors land, but I believe that our job is to do the will of the people and to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. And that doesn't necessarily mean that we succumb to tight land use laws. So when I heard folks say, "This feels like a stretch," it is in fact a stretch. And it is our job as representatives of the people of Springfield to try to stretch the rules that hold us back from doing the things that people need. So that's not saying that we will get to every step of this and be able to say yes, but as far as I'm concerned for the annexation, I think that it's important for us to find a way to get to yes. Thank you. >> All right. Anybody else? Council Weber.

4:43 >> Okay. Um, again, I've written this statement because it's some of it's very emotional for me and I want to make sure I stay on track. As far back as 1977, my family has faced serious challenges with severe depression, anxiety, and paranoia. My father, my brother, my son, my niece, and my great niece have all struggled with behavioral and emotional health issues. I have lost friends to suicide. My son also lost a teacher and a friend to suicide. Nothing. Absolutely nothing prepares you for the moment when your child or a close friend tells you they are contemplating suicide and you realize in that instant you are their lifeline. I have been there more than once. So I genuinely understand the

5:29 urgency, the passion, and the political pressure driving this conversation. This council has never questioned the need for a behavioral health facility. The question before us has always been whether this annexation meets criteria we are required to apply. My frustration is that this council did not choose this path. In my view, our county partners selected this annexation route versus a zone change request, believing it would be the path of least resistance and would effectively force us into approval. As we've worked through it, it has become clear that this is far more nuance nuanced and complicated than they anticipated. Northgateway is currently zoned campus industry industrial.

6:14 This is where the issue is, right? We have to work through that. Springfield does not have a medical district regardless of what has been posted on the county social media platforms. Today, we are being asked to force a square peg into a round hole by setting aside annexation requirements and our comprehensive and refinement plans to accommodate a request that would have been better served by following a different process. I do not appreciate being placed in a position where this council is villainized if we find this application after hours of research and deliberation does not meet the criteria. Again, we didn't choose this path. Our our deliberation should continue, but not with how do we get to yes or how do we get to no. It should continue with how do we reach an outcome that reflects thoughtful, intentional, and thorough

7:00 consideration of the criteria, the record, and the testimony we've received. Or do we choose a different path? I remain concerned that one-off decisions will continue to have long- lasting impacts and unintended consequences on economic development in North Gateway. That said, the Haw building and Peace Health Rehabilitation Center are examples of our willingness to support zoning changes to fit business and community needs. These projects were approved because they aligned with zoning tools available and followed the city's established procedures rather than bypassing them. Whatever decision we ultimately reach, one priority is clear. We must promptly define our next steps for North Gateway. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Anybody else? All right, Christina. [sighs]

7:51 Wait a minute for the slides to get up. Um so for this um item tonight I the materials in your packet are essentially the same as the materials from the last meeting. Um my understanding is that council wants to continue with the same conversation that the council was having last week. Um, I have thought about some questions that council asked in the last session and I think I can frame up some answers or some different ways of thinking about um, some of the answers I provided last time to hopefully give more helpful guidance um, and answer some questions that were outstanding. So, as a reminder, so this was the overview of what we went through last time. Um, we're going to jump right into

8:37 criteria of approval. As a reminder, I think everyone's aware this is a quasi judicial decision and I recognize I think one of the tensions in the discussion has been several city councilors are recent or former planning commissioners and so there's some tension in the training and experience that you have as planning commissioners in being provided an interpretation from city staff based on text and context. And it's a very legalistic and um you know single recommended interpretation of criteria and plan policies. The reason for that is because under Oregon law when a decision of the planning commission is appealed that decision does not get deference from a court. As

9:22 city councilors the court recognizes that because you are the body that enacts those plan policies and language. you are the body with discretion to interpret how they should apply to an to a decision and that's for quasi judicial decisions and for legislative decisions. So there's more authority and leeway that the city council has to apply language in criteria of approval and plan policies to reach um your ultimate decision. your goal in this um your requirement in this process is to apply the criteria of approval and the plan policies to the facts of the specific application and I that's something that we will um that council can discuss tonight. Um also as it's been stated um

10:14 there um has been a lot the council has expressed interest generally in legislative planning for this area and for North Gateway. The matter before the council tonight in the comprehensive plan consistency criteria is whether the annexation proposal is consistent with the criteria in 4.7140 and that includes the criteria we focused on last week which is B the proposed annexations consistent with applicable policies and the comprehensive plan metro plan and any applicable refinement plans which for this area is the gateway refinement plan. I want to be really clear that the council is not being asked to decide what the plan should be, how the plan could be changed in the future or whether another plan would be better. It

11:00 needs to be based on the comprehensive plan policies that applied when the application was filed and on the record in the matter that's been developed. Um and I just want to advise the council that if we detour into legislative topics, while those are appropriate for the council to consider um in a legislative process, it creates appealability and legal issues and a quasi judicial quasi judicial process. So my role is to keep you focused on the criteria and the record in this matter. Are there any questions about that generally? Okay. So, if we uh bring up legislative issues, we're going to come back later and have a discussion about them. >> Correct. >> Perfect. Thank you, Councelor Buck. >> Uh thank you, Christina. Um I'm

11:46 definitely one of those counselors who um you did a really good job of training us on on planning commission and now you get to kind of back some of that off. And so I appreciate you kind of taking the time to to to really look at and appreciate those differences because it is hard to shift, right? It is hard to look at something differently when you've looked at land use one way for four years and now it's it's looking at it differently. So I'm definitely interested in in those topics and and how to to shift perspectives on that. So thank you going to the next slides. So this is the um urbanization element. This is policy

12:32 number one. And I started with this policy because it is the number it's literally number one in the urbanization element. Um it is a policy that applies at annexation by its language. It talks about urbanizable lands within the 2030 UGB shall be converted to urban uses as shown on the Springfield comprehensive plan map and more particularly described in neighborhood refinement plans and the policies of this plan. So the council's job is to determine if the annexation application is consistent with the text of this policy. And I one I think my recommendation is the best way to think about this policy is would annexation of

13:19 this property on this record contribute to would it be inconsistent with this policy? And so council's job is to apply that text to the annexation. I want to be really clear that there are multiple layers of regulation that apply to development. The comprehensive plan is the top 30,000 foot level. Typically, the zoning implements the plan. So, the zoning becomes then more specific than the comprehensive plan. And the standards in the development code implement the zoning. So, the council is not being asked to consider whether development proposed in the future or anticipate a future use of the property

14:04 is approvable under site plan review standards or zoning district standards. council's not being asked to consider um what the zoning for the property is. Uh for this particular property, it becomes a little bit confusing because the comp plan designation name is campus industrial and the zone is named campus industrial. But for the purpose of council's deliberations, we're looking at the higher level campus industrial designation. Um, you can think about that there are maybe many things that can be consistent with a comprehensive plan designation and not all of those things get enacted through a zoning ordinance because council will make legislative decisions at different times about how to best implement the bigger

14:50 picture higher level campus industrial designation. The best statement we have in the comprehensive plan and we talked through the details of how you get to this from the gateway refinement plan as well last week. So I'm not going to get into that like step by step, but the best language for the intent of the campus industrial designation, which is what's shown on the comprehensive plan map is the this policy language here defining the objectives of the campus industrial designation. last week when you met um I gave two examples of interpretive frameworks the council could use to work through the language and then to look at facts in the record that apply to those two

15:36 options. Um those are not the only two options or framework as I stated last week. Um, and it I think the providing two examples became a more of a discussion of A or B rather than how is council interpreting or applying the policy language. And so for this work session that it would be more helpful if the council just stays focused on the language of this policy that's on the slide. There is a second part um to the policy. This deals more with how you get to development approval, which is not what's proposed at the time of annexation. Um, and this has to do with minimum lot sizes that aren't an issue. So, if the council wants to come back to this language, I can put this slide up.

16:21 Otherwise, I want to I'm going to keep it here. Um, what I recommend council do is work through this language in your deliberations. look at the words that are used and the way higher level sort of plans for this area are discussed and determine if there's if you have enough information in the record or there are there things that could be clarified about the facts of this proposal that would help you figure out how this policy language applies to this application and whether the annexation um is consistent with this language. I do recommend that there's a highle consideration of the general type of use that's proposed is relevant to the

17:07 criteria of approval. I'm aware that the applicants disagree and they've made legal arguments disagreeing with that. Um I think Springfield has a um is clear in the totality of all the policies in the urbanization element that you have to consider proposed use or you don't know how to make decisions around planned infrastructure and other aspects. Um, and then the policy. I think the other thing that supports that I'm going the wrong way. I'm sorry. Ignore these slides. We're not going to get into I just clicked the wrong arrow. Um, this language urbanization is the process annexation facilitates urbanization. And so the fact that the

17:53 urbanizable lands within the 2030 UGB shall be converted to urban uses as shown in the map, I think that is what's bringing in some consideration of the nature of the uses that are proposed and are those going to advance the policy to convert to urban uses as shown in the Springfield comprehensive plan map and more particularly described in refinement plans. So that's the outline that I wanted to give council. I'm going to leave it on if I can remember how to go the right way. I'm a better driver in a car than I am with PowerPoint here. I can promise. Um I'm going to leave it here um available to answer questions. Andy has the record. So if there's questions about what's in the record, we can do our best to answer those. Otherwise, um we're all discuss. >> Was that a team lift, Andy? To get the record down here. Safety first.

18:42 Uh before I open this up, could you uh remind us what the applicant's argument around this policy was and vice versa what the opposition's was? You've got the record. We might as well make use of it. >> Yes. I think the the applicants have made a largely legal argument that the proposed future uses are not relevant to the city council's consideration. And if the council finds they are relevant, then they're preempted by House Bill 2005. Those are primarily legal arguments, um, my advice is that I don't think that that's the correct legal framework to look at this. The applicants have brought in some facts about the annexation, um, that would support, I think, finding that the annexation advances the primary

19:27 objective um, in that it will provide employment um, and meet an employment need in the area. And then there are other um there's other information in the record from applicants and otherwise um that the council could apply to determine compatibility or how this policy is advanced. The primary argument from the neighbors who have spoken in opposition as I understand it. Um and again all of these are in your the final arguments capture this and are in the document. So, um, my summary of that argument is that your zoning district standards are the best indicator to council of what should be considered within the scope of the campus industrial designation. Um, and so the

20:13 council's not required to expand that further or to, you know, be more flexible at the comp plan designation level. and that they they've urged that it's not a complimentary use um to light industrial development and doesn't meet the language of the plan policy. Um there are um there are some facts in the record about what types of compatibility issues there are, but it's I would say there's not an abundance of facts like of concrete information. There's some um concern about traffic and sort of the types of the way the public engages with a site that is you know intended to have the people seeking services showing up to

20:58 the site that's different than the way a light industrial firm would operate. So there's concerns about sort of compatibility there. Um there are not a lot of concrete facts that um I would say have been developed around that argument, but I do think there are facts in the record for both um positions. >> All right, who wants to uh jump in here? >> I'll jump in. zoning uses. What I have found in Glenwood refinement plan, which I've been through that a lot, zoning uses, you go down that list, the staff has

21:44 done a very good job of say yes or no on every item, but you know, they don't get it all. They miss one. In this case, apparently they didn't miss one, the medical field. So, I feel that that should be included in this as time goes on. And um and as far as Glen Refinement Plan's concerned again, that was 20 years ago. That's been frozen. That's that community has been frozen for years. Not able to do anything over there because everything said no here. Suddenly the city's relaxing peuh companies with money are coming in getting it changed when the little people haven't been able to do it and it changes. But I wish it hadn't taken that long for that community. Councelor Rodley,

22:29 >> I don't know how to follow that. Um, I think that, um, I I appreciate the fact that we're coming back and we're refraraming it. Um, the reason I asked last week is I was trying to figure out where medical fit in terms of like the comprehensive plan and found out well, we don't we haven't necessarily called out. I think that um when I was reading through this last week as well um as an employer, right, and the Peace Health, as I understand, at least owns part of the land. Is it right that Peace Health owns part of it and the county owns part of it, right? So, it's not land that we own. It's not land that other businesses own. This is land that they own and want to annex in. And we've done a bazillion annexations.

23:17 And every time that I can remember except for the one time because the mountain might fall down. Um we have said people have purchased this land, they are contiguous, they meet these requirements, we are able to then annex that in and then we see what happens because we don't know we don't know what the next steps are but the annexation criteria we I can only remember one time we said no. Um so for me when we were talking last week I thought ah great we've narrowed it down. We're just talking about annexation. we know how to do this, but apparently um sometimes things get more convoluted and confusing. So, I think that just thinking about it in terms of an annexation makes it even simpler to me than thinking about all of the conversations that we've been having around things. And I think, you know,

24:04 one question that I ask myself all the time is who would we would do this for anyone else, right? Who would we do this for? Who would we do an annexation for if they met if they were, you know, reasonably aligned? We would do it for all sorts of different I mean I can't think of anybody else that we would probably say no to. So for me it feels it it feels almost that simple and I realize that it is not that simple for everyone. Um but those are some of the things that I think about just in terms of like how do we you know is it does it meet this criteria? Maybe it doesn't meet every single one of them but it meets enough of them that I think that we could move forward with it and I would feel very comfortable with that. >> Councelor Weber. So, I actually do have a a comment to make in regards to we would

24:49 do this for everyone. The next big conversation is going to be data centers. And I'm not saying a data center is the same as as this situation we're dealing with, but it's going to be a question we're going to be asked to talk about. So, I'm just throwing this out there as a would we really interpret that application in in the same with the same considerations. I'm just I'm just asking us all to con to consider that and think about that and and is that really how we would would handle it. >> Do you want to jump in here Christina before >> very very briefly? Um I did make a note to discuss and then I skipped over it so my apologies. I did want to give the council some direction on a question that came up last week about how does

25:35 your decision in a quasi judicial context now maybe bind or affect council's decision-m later. Um, and the there's I think some concern that the way the council applies the policy language to this application may have an unintended consequence for a legislative decision down the road. So I want to be clear with council that generally legislative decisions are what bind quasi judicial decisions. In legislative decision-m the council's deciding what the policies should be um and then the council has to apply those policies and you may need to do some interpretive work but you apply those policies and criteria in the quasi judicial setting. So it doesn't go the other way where in

26:20 a quasi judicial context applying the existing plan criteria and policies to the facts of an application that later on when you are in a legislative mode you'd have to follow something you did quasi quasi judicially. So when you're acting legislatively you have flexibility if something's going to be inconsistent with a plan policy legislatively you can also change that plan policy as you go. So there's more flexibility there. So, I'm not concerned about binding the council in some future legislative decision-making process in a future quasi judicial application. It's more nuanced. The council generally should try to be consistent in how you consider what words mean and and how language what the primary objective or purpose or

27:06 context of a a policy is. However, each application is reviewed through its own set of facts and you apply the policy to the specific facts of each application. So, the likelihood that the council would have in front of you an identical factual application in the same context is relatively low. Um, but you should be thoughtful to being consistent with what words mean and that type of like to the extent that you're saying we think a light industrial firm means XYZ that should mean the same thing no matter who comes in. um but your your discussion around XY this aspect of the annexation meets or doesn't meet this language that's

27:52 that piece is going to be different for each application and each set of facts. So I wouldn't be too concerned about how different facts might apply um to hypothetical other decisions. >> There's mud. [laughter] >> Yes. Council Quadras did you were you getting in here? Nope. Okay, councelor Buck. I want to make sure that I'm following you here, Christina, because I think I got a little lost in in in some of that. So, I just want to clarify a couple of things that you said. Um because I'm sure I got it wrong. So, [sighs] we've heard a lot of of things about what

28:37 about the criteria, right? And so can you um say it again when you were talking about the annexation um that being different than zoning um you know when you talked about light industrial from that that annexation um that's different than the zoning uh that I was a little unsure what you meant there are I want to make sure you know I'm communicating my question clearly okay I just want to want to understand what is it? Like this this this process is going to have multiple layers and multiple steps. Um, and one of the things that I I've recently been reminded of helping my sophomore at

29:23 Thirstston through algebra 1, order of operations really really matters. And so we've got to get the like what step we're on now. And it sounds like we're on the step that doesn't really necessarily consider what goes on there yet. I mean, that's going to be a different step. Um, so am I am I understanding that correct correctly? >> I I'm not I'm not sure. Um, I would say this is the policy language. urbanizable lands, which means lands that are being annexed um that are outside city limits and are being brought into city limits shall be converted to urban uses as shown in the Springfield comprehensive plan map and more particularly described in neighborhood refinement plans. So

30:08 that's a policy that applies to your decision. And so your job is to determine whether the annexation is consistent with that policy. Um, if you find that the annexation will interfere with that policy by not leading to urbanizable land being converted to urban uses as shown in the Springfield comprehensive plan map, then that would mean that policy is not met and the criteria of approval are not met. Um, you can look to the context of the plan and to language in the plan to help you decide how that policy is met. Um, the council could find that that policy does not apply. It's not my recommendation. My recommendation is this policy is the first policy in the comp plan element about annexation. And

30:55 so this I believe this policy by its terms and its position in the plan applies at annexation. Um so you're what you're not doing is you're not looking at is this is the applicant's intended use or details of their development approvable under the development code after annexation. you're looking at whether the annexation furthers or conflicts with this policy. And um I recommend that you do that through the framework of looking at what's the discussion about the campus industrial designation and some discussion around if the annexation is consistent with that description.

31:44 Okay. So let's let's take a step back towards the employment land question, right? Ultimately, all our work around North Gateway has been around driving has been around diversifying our employment lands. Is a way that we could look at this um around total employees. So the applicant's use is bringing is bringing employees into the into the mix. Is that roughly the same, I guess, density, employment density for lack of a better word, than um than if it was a say a business park with campus industrial on it. >> I believe they've stated that there are about 200 the record shows about 200 employees anticipated on the 18acre site. I don't know that we have information on the record about what

32:30 density of employees there would be on other on light in a light industrial firm. >> Council Rodley, >> but I like that thinking just might give you because I think that part of what you're asking us to do is to kind of dig into like what what do we mean what what does campus industrial mean in 2026, right? And um to the mayor's point, I mean absolutely in Gateway it has been um leaning towards how has that become employable land and that's been part of our concerns around prior to this right about what do we need to do about infrastructure if we continue to develop out there for light industry and um other businesses. So I I'm very

33:15 interested in that and I don't think it's in your stack of papers, Andrew, but it you know um I think that thinking about it that way in terms which is how last week we were talking about like is it employable and it is how many people are they going to employ and also how does that um how does that help grow the um the just the general employment in that area. So I like that thing. >> The I guess my follow-up question is we're not technically reszoning it, right? because that would be a question from a from a from a different perspective. But could you bring up the zoning map again? Like do we still have campus industrial land that would be out there if we brought this annexation in? >> I should let Andy drive. >> We do. We do.

34:00 >> Here's the map. Um, and this is an older, this is the gateway refinement plan map prior to one semi-reent plan amendment um, for the life point inatient rehabilitation. Okay, >> which is almost at the exact midpoint on the bottom sort of zoning boundary where you can see Maple Island Road that runs north south. that bisects sort of the uh southern boundary of the campus industrial district. So in that corner, the southeast uh side of that um well I guess it' be the northeast edge of the intersection there, there's a 5 acre medical services district that is the zoning and the designation is

34:46 commercial. So that importantly cannot be zoned medical services with campus industrial designation has to have a different designation and so that exercise was done a couple years ago and the hospital was approved through site plan but that was the rehab facility right yeah the rehabilitation hospital that's now opened okay other questions going to keep I'm going to keep firing them at you then so if if and and the Haw building is changing into, for lack of a better word, like maybe a a clinics going downstairs. I'm not exactly sure what their tenency is like, but they wanted to have the

35:31 opportunity to bring other types of offices, including those that serve the public. Um, and broadly that include that could include like Lane County facilities, Lane County um, offices and at the IRS for example, not necessarily customers coming in, but serving the public and how that was interpreted. And it also allowed for medical clinics and medical offices that have limited hours of operation, not not a urgent care facility or emergency clinic or anything like that. It was more like just professional practices. So, from a staff perspective, if the, you know, if the application was coming in, I'm just testing my thinking here, right? Because I only play a land use planner on TV. Um, if if they had come in looking for a

36:16 medical use, but had on pre-established hours, would we have said that they were consistent with the plan? It would have to be advanced as a business park and there would be um limitations on hours of operation and overall um aerial um allocation to that. So it would have to be a minority component of the of the overall business part. This would be an 100% component and it's an all hours operation being proposed. I I I think there are some big differences between the two, but I'm what when I'm thinking about the question that Christina is asking, I'm kind of working my way down the language going, okay, overall at a high level, we're trying to, you know,

37:01 diversify our employment lands, right? So, does it bring employees on there? Overall, are they uses that I would expect to see in in mixed in with business parks and campus industrial parks? Right? So, it seems like we've accepted that from a legislative perspective before that some medical facilities are usable and but the hours differ, right? And then I'm I'm kind of working my way down down these down these questions as I read the read the language. Anybody else want to jump in here? because we're we're we're collectively gonna have to give them direction on whether or not we think we get through policy number one here. And then I think I guess the other comment I would make

37:46 would be I it's pretty well we still have two big topics after this. So I'm I'm making an assumption around transportation but that when you look at where it is in the city, right, it's very arguable that you could serve this with urban services. It's not like the challenges we had where, you know, we had the we had a mountain that was getting in the way. There's no concerns with serving this from an infrastructure perspective minus the transportation. >> The the record does identify storm water. Um there's there's been significant public comment about the storm water. Um and there may have been well it say there's not been like significant in terms of number of parties commenting about storm water, but there's been a lot of discussion about storm water in the record. Um and then there may have been some discussion about wastewater but there's there's a

38:32 specific annexation agreement um that staff had discussed with the applicants has provision around like a more specific provision around wastewater service. Um so that's been there's more detail there >> engineered solutions to sight specific problems I think was >> yeah but effectively we're assuming the council wants to go down this road we would be pushing those sort of conversations into the question around the around the annexation agreement >> that would be in criteria C and D both depend on the annexation agreement one in how we ensure that key urban facilities and services are provided in a timely orderly and efficient manner and then also how we ensure that the cost is of doing that is mitigated for the city. Um, and that is a pretty

39:17 discretionary um the mit adequate mitigation is a pretty discretionary decision the council gets to make. >> And I will again note that I have a ton of transportation questions here that you know I've wanted to dive into for a while, but I'm trying to keep us me kind of focused around this other question. All right. Other questions or do people want to talk about maybe what they're thinking about the first the first criteria? Councelor Weber, >> before we move into anything else, we we clearly need to decide what you know where we're at with this point. But can you remind me again what the applicant's request for us tonight is? >> Thank you. I was going to ask this >> since it's 6:40. if you want to check in on the does the applicant has requested

40:04 um in a letter to council to reopen the record and to continue the public hearing for um the council at this stage has discretion on that request. The council um the applicant has requested that be a limited scope and the council has discretion on the scope of reopening the record and hearing. Um I do want to be clear that the um two participants in this matter um Group and Richardson opposed the council reopening the record and hearing um and objected to the council's consideration of the letter. I think that we can deal with a procedural objection on the letter itself depending on how council decides to reopen the record and hearing. uh it's very uh it's

40:50 within your discretion and if you I would if it's something where the council would benefit from further development of facts or um or arguments or testimony that comes in with that um then it's beneficial to council to reopen the record and hearing. If the council feels that the information needed to make the decision exists in the record and what just needs to happen is you need to deliberate through that information then um you can decline to reopen the record and hearing. I am open to anything that will help us work through this in a way that this community feels good about that we all feel good about like we feel like we've really done our due diligence. We've

41:36 done what we need to do. We've heard everything we've need, you know, we need to hear and we've really given we just and I'm I'm not about saying yes or no. I'm I'm about saying let's like let's get to the right decision because we've done the right things. And if that means listening to the reopening things and listening to more um input, I'm I'm fine with that. >> Councelor Buck, >> um you know, first I I definitely appreciate the letter that um the applicant put out there. Uh I I think that they put in put a lot of thought into not only listening to our process um which was appreciated recognizing

42:22 that we are trying to take our time to get this right. Um those things are definitely appreciated and I am I'm also very open to um consideration of opening the record. I guess my only question um and it's a hard question to answer but just putting out what I'm thinking right now is I'm I'm wondering what that what more information there might be that hasn't been presented that could help us on this because at this point for me I [snorts] am really clear that the community I mean there's no disagreement that this is something that the community sees the need for values whether you oppose this or whether you're for it there's no disagreement ment that it this this type of service

43:07 is needed that that's [clears throat] that's clearly established and um and so that's that's definitely there. Um if there is other information that the applicant feels they might be able to share when it comes to their criteria how we can apply it as they indicated there might be um I'm I'm definitely open to that. Um, but I definitely want to be as efficient as we possibly can with this as well. >> Councelor Stone. >> Um, and please push back on me if this ends up being too legislative or outside the scope of what your advice would be. Um, if so, so related to that, if I if

43:52 we as a council decide that we could not in fact find that the um the proposed used conformed with the campus industrial. How fast or could we invite the applicant to reapply and if so, how fast could Andy and his minions make it happen so that we see this again in a little bit different application format? I'm specifically thinking about like it's it's been such a con convoluted process for how we got here right now. I I would I'm wondering if there's a way where we can have a more coherent legislative conversation after this application is done and then bring this back to council. I'm just I don't know if that's a possible question to answer.

44:39 I guess that's difficult to answer because it depends on whether council is directing staff to make changes to a specific element of the refinement plan or a code amendment or if they're opening up the applicant to reapply with a different strategy in making refinement plan amendment or andor development code amendment similar to what was done in the e webb situation which was cited in correspondence to council um which was a later action Um, and I guess it depends on how all-encompassing the council is looking for because in any event, something's going to have to be presented to your planning commission first. Um, as a step and we we'll need to meet all of our required I mean, we'll have to we'll have to have

45:24 something tangible to bring forward to the planning commission uh for vetting and for review at a public hearing before we can bring it to city council. So I would say is it would be several months to bring any type of a quality viable option to the city council uh for implementation. Um and I guess you know the the broader the scope the longer that might take. So, it I don't I don't see it as being a solution or, you know, an a comprehensive addressing of all of the issues in the gateway area. Um because I think that conversation is going to have to take longer than just some type of a well, pun intended, surgical um

46:11 amendment to bring this particular use forward. The other um option that's available to the applicants should the council deny this annexation is the applicants could look at whether it's feasible to present an annexation application concurrently with development review applications which is not typically done. Um but our code allows you know combined applications to move forward concurrently and then house bill 2005 would apply differently um to the prop to the proposal. Um the applicants could also seek a plan amendment zone change quasi judicially um before or combined with annexation um at their option and I don't want to speak for the applicants

46:56 about whether any of those options are realistic or things that they would pursue. >> Councelor Rley, >> thank you. Um I'm going to try to wrap this in as much sugar as possible so nobody throws a shoe at me. Um, I do not need to have the record reopened. And if it's something that everyone else feels they need, that's fine. I just would also like us to think about as a team, as a council, um, whether or not we're trying to not make a decision. So, I think that we have folks that feel uncomfortable making difficult decisions perhaps. Um, and to drag this out, you know, it doesn't get us any closer to yes, potentially. Um, and so I'm I'm not it's

47:44 not a hill I'm going to die on, but it's not something that I can't imagine that there's going to be more information that hasn't come to us in the myriad ways that it has over the past I mean, this project's been folks have been working on this project for 10 years, and I realize it's just come to us as an annexation recently, but that's all of that stuff has gone into that. So, this isn't something new. So that was my long- winded trying to wrap it gently so that nobody feels like I'm picking on them to say are we using this to not make a decision or are we able to do we have enough information to move forward. [sighs and gasps] >> Um I don't feel pecked on so that's okay. Um >> right that's fine. That's fine. Um I I just want to push push back a little bit if that's okay. I'm I'm specifically responding to the comments in the letter

48:29 that we received saying that they think that there are might there may be other avenues that we haven't considered. And if that's the case, if there is more information that isn't being considered, then um that's my position is if if there's more that we need to hear that we're that we haven't heard that isn't that isn't being discussed here, that isn't on the table, I'm definitely open to that. But I'm also very much aligned with you in that we've heard a lot of testimony. We've heard a lot of information. There's a lot on the record already. Um Andy's going to need one of those wagons pretty soon. Um and so that's that's my my thing. I just don't want to discount if there is something that the applicant feels we're not considering. That's my piece of it. But

49:16 I also So that's that's my piece of it. And um I appreciate your line of thinking, counselor stout, [clears throat] on on looking at that. Um my only hesitation is are are we trying to fix step one so that it fits neatly? Not but but then we have we still have steps two, three, and four, right? I mean like it's at [clears throat] some point this might not be the step that there's the the most cumbersome pieces with there. There may be greater challenges ahead of us. I mean that's that's my only thinking. It's like where what's the biggest mountain here? And I'm not sure and I'm wondering if step one is is is just like base camp kind of

50:04 thing. [laughter] Well, I I'm going to gently push back on you, Councelor Buff. The um I think if we choose to open the hearing, we have to get a lot more specific about what we actually want to hear and how that's going to make make a uh help us make a decision uh going forward. And one of the things I haven't heard tonight is people articulating what additional information they might need or what additional facts they might be looking for. And that's the I think that's the trap of like this could just delay uh a problem unless we're really specific about what we're what we feel like we're missing. I don't feel like I need to open the record at this point because based on this but this issue I got some

50:50 more questions. I could probably work through all of them but I haven't heard something to me that says that I feel like I need to open it to get uh to get more information about it. But I think we got to get if we're going to ask them to do work, we've got to give them direction about what actually we need. >> Go ahead, Councelor Weber. >> I don't feel picked on either. I just This is a really hard discussion for all of us and it it just has been. Um I'm also responding to uh Mr. readers offer to provides uh information related to in response to our last conversation. Um if in fact he feels that that information is relevant then I'm open to hearing it. But I agree

51:37 we also have other conversations to still work through. So I guess I have a question. Can we hold off on this decision to open the record? because I would guess that if we reach that point where we have other questions, they're going to want to revisit opening the record to re, you know, respond to those two. That would just be my my guess. Correct. It's entirely discretionary. So, the council doesn't need to reopen or continue a hearing um at this point and could sort of just hold this off to the side and work through other questions that you have so that you can be clear about the scope of a record that you want to open. Um, and you also don't have to define a scope for reopening the record and hearing, but it helps to kind of keep the content more limited. >> All right. Anybody reading?

52:28 Anybody else? Go ahead. Councelor St. Just just real quick. So, uh, your direct you need direction tonight. I'm just want to come back to what what is our exquisite attorney asking for tonight? I e I need some direction of either let's continue to discuss this criteria, let's assume this criteria is met and look at the other criter like I need some direction for your next meeting. If that's going to be we need the record reopen, we want to hold a continued hearing. Then we'll look at time that can accommodate a hearing and a we'll prepare a schedule for what the reopen record would look like. But the council could also, you know, hold that in obeyance and not make a decision on reopening record and hearing and decide we want to have another work session or a regular session. Um, and we want to discuss XYZ or ask questions about, you

53:16 know, XYZ. So just just to clarify on that one. Um I mean I I think all of us want to move forward with uh with one decision or another and we need to ask you know we need to figure that out amongst ourselves. It's hard to make a decision in a work session legally. Um and so I just I kind of I think I am trying to figure out what is the right uh just in terms of parliamentary procedure like what's the right thing for us to do so that we can really [snorts] you know move things forward and uh at this point because I'm struggling I think we all have a lot of nuanced thoughts and comments. So you can't make a mo you can't you don't do you don't

54:01 make a motion um and that you adopt or vote on in a work session but unlike an executive session there's no like legal issue with deci making you know an informal decision that sets your you know next steps so I think what I need from council is a um as much as you can agree on a common next step then that will assist you know me and Andy and city manager's office in scheduling the next meeting on because you're clearly couldn't vote tonight on denying or approving the application anyway. Um, so is the next step for council a further work session? If so, what topics would you like staff to be prepared to cover with you? Is the next step a vote? Um, I'm not hearing that that's what council's ready to do, but I might not

54:47 be hearing that correctly. If so, we will bring back the documents to vote on at a regular session. or is the next step a continued hearing followed by a record period in which case the next step is we will schedule a hearing. But you don't have to decide. If you don't decide to schedule a hearing as the next step tonight, that does not mean you can't make that decision later. So we we need a a little bit to provide them a little bit more direction. And I think we're all struggling with how we want to do that. My preference right now and I'm one of would be we give them clearer direction on if we can agree whether or not the first pol policy applies or not or if we want more

55:33 information that we get really specific about what information they need to provide us. Right. That's [snorts] >> right. And and I think I I don't disagree with that. Um I think that is right. I think I'll have to be I'll start out by saying I would love for this center to be built. I am struggling to the point where I can't quite get there by saying I can't interpret the text of this campus industrial reading to be inconsistent with what the applicant wants to do. So I can't get there and I don't know what else you need in terms of like information from the other uh counselors in order to make a decision going forward. But that would be my my public statement is that is

56:19 that the the how of this matters to me just as much as the what matters to me. Actually the what matters more but I cannot do good governance I think without having that how piece done right. And so I just cannot stretch that far. Um that's not to say I think it's not a choice but I just can't quite stretch that far uh to see this uh going any further. So if that nullifies the conversation then it does. Um, but I'm just one voice on a council of six. >> Council. >> Okay. I'm going to take an opportunity to ask a question that I asked earlier and I'm that I as sent email on and I want to make sure that I'm understanding

57:05 what you're saying. So, if we're in a position again in the quasi judicial um setting, does the decision that we're making on this impact that next decision in the future as a and I'm going to use more of an HR term, but as a past practice or we've opened ourselves up for to the extent that the facts are the same. So if um and and I would say to the extent that the facts are the same then that triggers more legal process the council has to go through. If the council at that time which could be entirely different people decide that the interpretation or application of the

57:50 policy to the same facts later needs to be different. then there's a there are just extra notice and steps that have to be go that you have to go through if the governing body is going to change an interpretation that was applied earlier. Um, so it would I would say that if the city council is considering later on a quasi judicial application for annexation in a campus industrial plan designation where a future anticipated use is not spelled out as permitted in the underlying zone and there is reason to expect the applicant is not going to go through some other process to change the comp plan or code

58:36 or zoning. Um that you could defer some decision-m to that process, then the council would need to be consistent in the way the council approaches that medical use and whether it's consistent with the comp plan. Um any other type of use is going to just trigger different facts. So the it's been discussed um concerns around data centers. data centers are going to be very different factual background and setting and I don't believe that the way you would interpret um this policy for the present application would be applicable just based on the difference in facts for something like a data center or another

59:22 there's just it's going to be if there's a medical use annexation and reason to believe someone's not going through the same the process that you could defer those findings to otherwise So hopefully that answers your question. >> Okay. And then I'm I'm going to shift and I'm going to be a little bit different than everyone. Um I also don't see um this fitting in the way that folks would like it to because it is an important project. And so if opening that record will bring something new to change my mind, I would open that record. Um, but short of being new. >> Councelor Rodley, >> thank you. Um, I am not conflicted and

1:00:08 I'm not confused. Um, and I do think that there is a path to annexation under the campus industrial. Um, so unlike a couple of my colleagues, I feel comfortable moving forward with it. Um, if it takes opening the record to help folks to feel more comfortable and less confused, that's fine. Um, but I am in, as far as I'm interpreting this, I think that we are can move forward. answer. I think there's pro I think there's definitely more questions that remain as to some of the zoning questions and some of those things, but as I understand it,

1:00:53 like those are next step questions if if if we're talking about annexation here and and and so if our if we're just focusing on um interpreting the campus industrial and and looking at that and saying, you know, there may need to be further discussion around how zoning applies in the legislative process. That's how I understood it earlier when we were talking. Maybe I misunderstood that, but if that if if we're if we're kind of taking this in in steps, um, you know, I I I think that that makes sense to me. Now, maybe I'm misunderstanding what was discussed here, and if if I am, please please

1:01:38 clarify. Um, but I I think that um I I think that there's lots of challenges to to moving forward this process, but I'm thinking with the annexation piece, we might have enough to move forward and and see what those next steps are and and you know, and I think the applicant has also been really aware that it's there's lots of challenges in that area. Um, well, we're not going to get into the transportation piece. I mean, transportation is is is a big is a big piece of that. And so, but I don't know that those challenges um are going to keep me from considering just the annexation right now, but maybe

1:02:24 I'm misunderstanding what was discussed, Christina. Um so for this property once these applicants annex assuming the council approves the annexation agreement as proposed by staff they just move right to site plan appro review approval with a limited with the standards defined in the annexation agreement because house bill 2005 preempts application of the zoning standards or anything else. Um, so legislative work the council might do would be just this general concern around whether the campus industrial policy language fits the council's vision for North Gateway on a broader sense. It would have nothing to do with the current annexation or application. Um, the the annexation is really the only time because of the way House Bill 5 is written that the city council is going to interact with this proposal at

1:03:10 all. Transportation is related to the criteria of approval for the annexation. So that's the next criteria the council considers in approving or denying the annexation if you want to move forward with working through the approval criteria. I mean, I guess where I land on this is it seems clear to me that there's there there's paths forward when I when I think about precedent and that was a concern that I had as well, councelor Cuadros. It seems like it's a very narrow target in order to get the same application with the same set of facts

1:03:56 and the same criteria. I I think um that would be unique. Um I think that every application does have some some some of its own facts to it. I I guess the other piece of this is I also feel really clear that the community is is asking us to find a way to see what we can do here and and if the next steps are we need to approve the application and then work through the logistical challenges and and figure that out then um then maybe we do. I have concerns about how it fits, but I I I think I see there's a way to say yes. There's a way to interpret it. No.

1:04:42 But I think at the end of the day, you know, there's no disagreement that we need these services. And um I think that if if it was if it was clearcut, we would have made a decision. So I I guess I'm leaning at let's see if we can figure this out. Let's see if we can figure out what the next steps are and and move forward with annexation. And I realize that that that means that as soon as we we vote to approve annexation, House Bill 2005 comes into play, the super sighting, all of that. And then so zoning gets kind of pulled into that. And at the same token, the legislature decided to put 2000 House Bill 2005 out there. They put it

1:05:28 in place. um that was their decision. We didn't we didn't decide that either. So that's that's where I'm at with it if that is clear. >> Yeah, I'm going to try to sum this up in a second after uh councelor Weber hops in here >> hopefully. Really quickly, um so just a question again as we move down into these other areas, that's still opportunity to consider that we might want additional negotiations within the annexation agreement. like that's not a done deal, right? We have we have opportunities to still say, hey, if this then we could get comfortable with, you know, some some aspect of the the other two pieces. Um, I am concerned and I've

1:06:13 said this more than once that we get every single counselor up here comfortable with the next step. So with that, I want to say I do appreciate the shift from the applicants to the to the earlier um what I perceive to have been we think this is a pretty easy decision to make to maybe not so much. Maybe there's more than we considered and I and I do appreciate that acknowledgement more than you could possibly know right now. Um so if if Mr. reader is really convinced that he has something new that would help us get over this hurdle. I'm willing to hear it. I'm going to ask that that be like

1:07:00 I mean I need that to be true that that really is going to >> to give us some new information. Um so just >> that's where I'm at. >> Okay. Councelor Cuadras. >> Uh I agree and I would be looking for tangible. I don't need uh comfort or work on confusion. I need something tangible that I would be willing to open the record. >> Okay. Can we go back up to the policies because I'm going to see if I because I I think we're kind of ending up in one or two places. Okay. So, I'm going to try repeating back and see if I captured this right because we got some people that want a little bit more information about one. We've got some people that seem fine going forward. So, I think we're what

1:07:48 I'm hearing where people are is I think we are fine saying we're good with one. We need to we we're ready to move to the next thing and then hold the hold the offer from the applicant about additional hearing uh about additional hearing and more information and let us kind of work down this a little bit further. like that. We want another that we're ready to dive into the next work session, you know, about policy number uh policy 30. >> Sorry. On and to be clear, sorry, I'm going the wrong way. I said I should let you drive and I didn't. >> You should have. Um, so, so the council may want more information on policy B

1:08:33 consistent with the comp plan, but doesn't need to sort of discuss or deliberate in a work session on that anymore. this point you want to move to criteria C and D to determine if there's more information needed about those and then you can make a decision on are you just reopening the record or in that time does it sort of cement and clarify to the council how the council's approaching be and you don't need the record open but you're going to wait to make a decision on that till you get through the other two >> I I think that's right is like I'm hearing a group of people uh a majority of folks saying that they're kind of comfortable going forward I hear some folks that definitely want questions and I hear uh more information. I hear councelor Stout worried about the legislative piece which we will come back to eventually, but I think people

1:09:18 could be comfortable with going to the next deliberation knowing that it may harden up how we how we view the first one. >> Okay, >> Steve, >> as I said last meeting, some of this stuff is irrelevant. It needs to be annexed. Period. It's got services. It's right next to the city. We need to move more room. I don't know what's going to go on it, but then it'll be available for for redevelopment. Hopefully this development. That's fine. And uh one other thing I remember by the way is city of Springfield. I don't know what year 19 anyway annex spring east Springfield from 28th to 71st Street all at once. And they did they made it work.

1:10:03 >> Okay. So, I want to look around and see if I capt if people are comfortable with that approach, right? That we're kind of saying soft yes, let's go forward to the next criteria, keep the offer for an open hearing on on the table knowing that it's going to take probably four weeks to get set up. So, we probably have to decide the next time and thinking that more conversation and debate may sort of firm everybody up. Are people comfortable with that or are they the other option would be just to get more information now? comfortable. >> I think it makes sense to identify the other I mean we don't want to keep reopening the record for each time we we reach a hurdle. So this just kind of makes sense to me to move it forward and

1:10:48 find out what those hurdles are. >> Yeah. But we're sort Yeah, we're kind of saying soft. Yes, we're going forward a little bit here, right? Okay. So for the next work session if we focus just to for brevity um if we focus on the transportation issues that were raised and the um storm water issues that were raised and then how those are dealt with and staff's negotiated annexation agreement um and then also I think there were questions around a good neighbor agreement and what that entails and how that's why that's incorporated into the annexation agreement. We can bring those issues back um for a work session. >> Yes. and more time for that like a a decent chunk of time for that work session. And >> I I would Yes. Okay. The rate we're moving through this we got to get the we got to get everybody an answer. Um so we I'll you know uh council Weber and I

1:11:34 will work with you on that giving you the time that you need. >> Um the other question that I have is do we have an option to open the record and not open the hearing if we get down the road where we can just ask for a written >> you do. Okay. >> Yeah. the applicants have requested be to be able to present their arguments themselves rather than having staff recap them to council based on what's submitted in writing. Um, but it is completely discretionary with the council. You can't open the hearing and not open the record. That's the only It goes that way, but it doesn't go the other. You can reopen the record, but not the hearing. >> But if we're thanking them for their offer, but you know, let us work on this a little bit more. If we come back to it, we could just ask for another letter if we wanted some additional information. Okay. Okay. Is everybody good? Last chance for questions. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. >> Thank you very much.

1:12:24 >> You didn't you didn't have other comments besides thank you. >> All right. >> All right. Thank you. We do have another meeting in here for CEDA. You're more than welcome to stay, but we're going to give people a couple minutes so we can reset the room. We are adjourned.