Springfield City Council — September 28, 2026

0:06 >> All right. Good evening everybody. Uh I'm going to call the Springfield City Council work session to order with roll call. >> Mayor Van Gordon >> here. >> Councelor Weepard here. Councelor Mo, councelor Rodley >> here. Councelor Cuadro here. Councelor Buck >> here. >> Here. Thank you. We are expecting councelor Moarily. We have two items this evening. The first one is the city hall deferred maintenance and modernization project update. The Jeffoff. >> Thank you. Uh again, Jeff Pascal, community development director. Um so tonight, we're back in front of council um with a revised RFP from June. Um so with that, in June, just as a reminder, council chose not to award the contract from the first RFP. Um gave specific direction back to staff. Um staff took

0:51 that direction, evaluated the RFP over the summer. Um and per the direction from the council, we met with or we reached out to all of the participating contractors offered to meet with them. Four of them took us up on that offer. Um myself and Christina, the assistant city um attorney met with those four and we received a lot of good valuable information, some really good candid conversation. So with that, we took that information, that feedback, and we incorporated it into the revised RFP. And where you'll see that and it's highlighted in the memo is one thing we instead of asking for a pre-construction price, we're giving a pre-construction allowance. And under that allowance, have them describe what services they can provide under that $75,000

1:38 cap for pre-construction services. Um the other is for CMGC fees. So for those fees, that percentage, we're providing a table to kind of clearly spell out what fees go where, what's part of the CMGC fee, what's part of the GMP, what's part of the general condition. So, and that's really for the evaluators to be able to look at each CMGC fee and go, how do these compare? So, we can kind of get to comparing apples to apples, kind of take a little bit of mystery out of it. And then, um, the other thing we heard from them is interviews are valuable. So, last time we had interviews as optional. this time we will do interviews with the top um scoring proposers to kind of it it just gives you that opportunity to meet the project team that you are you will be working with. So those are some

2:23 of the key things as far as scoring. The other thing is is we heard also on the local and how do we kind of get that into the RFP. So, we added with uh Christina's help some um language in there that they'll include as part of their narrative of how they go about doing the business, which is how do they do local outreach with subcontractors, how does what is their local office presence, how do they respond to the job site and all of that um in a quick fashion or rapid fashion when things are going on. And so that'll be spelled out in that that narrative. Um, and so the other thing we heard from them is the majority of the contractors we did meet with felt that CMGC was the correct process or was a useful process for this

3:08 type of project given the complexity schedule and the nature of the occupied building um, city while they're working on an occupied building in city hall. And so with that, we wanted to bring you the revised RFP in a work session to get your reaction, your review on that. Our our plan is to have it out advertised in October um with the goal of having it scored and brought back with a contract before council goes on recess. >> I think you were first. Okay. Um thank you for this. I'm curious about I know kind of immediately after uh after we decided not to continue the process as it was and and we're we're here there's

3:54 quite a lot of discussion and some amount of relief among a lot more than just four uh individual contractors. I'm thinking like about 30 or 40 local contractors. Do you have any sense I and I I don't think these I think these are all within the public records and so do you have any sense of just how the overall temperature and climate of this conversation with a lot of our local partners has been outside of just our the four interviews that you did and I I really appreciate you going to um to talk with at least those four uh with Christina. That's great. So I think where I put that is I think when I if I'm understanding where you're putting kind of the bigger picture is a lot of those will probably be subcontractors. This is a bigger project.

4:39 >> Um one thing that we did learn and that we did remove is we removed the requirement before we had a requirement of the um general contractor had to demonstrate that they had the ability to provide 51% of the project. We've removed that alto together because one thing we did hear from the at least three of the contractors is the reality is they only >> they may only um perform on maybe 15 to 20% of the total project. Um and one of the things the reason for that is it's a competitive process. So say a plumbing package is put together they have that plumbing package goes out for bid. And so not only that, say it's contractor A, their plumbing group out of that contractor would have to bid on that package and they may not be the lowest bid or maybe they don't have

5:25 availability to do that. And so each one of those packages that goes out is competitive for all of those. And I think that's where getting to that how do they do that local outreach for supplier subs and that sort of thing for the local economy is kind of critical and where we saw that playing or um having adding value to the criteria and the narrative. >> That's excellent. Thank you >> Rodley. >> Thank you. Um so first of all, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I really appreciate you that you all went out and did that due diligence and um and had those conversations because I think it's only going to make it stronger going forward. And I thought I would confess because as the person who made the motion to to make you do all that work, um I also wanted to do some educating on

6:11 my own part and so I've had some conversations with folks and particularly with some of our labor partners around that. So what you were just talking about I think is such a crucial piece like the first piece is yes we want to try to prioritize working with developers and contractors and folks around the community. Second piece is how are they also engaging with um the folks who work and live and play in this community. And so when you started going I'm like yeah that's the thesis like I don't know sounds like having those conversations we're getting closer to that because I think um what I heard us saying as a council was like all of those layers are so important to us being in Springfield is we want to make sure we keep as much of the work and as much of the money and all of that local and we want to work with really great partners who are good to the people that

6:56 they work with. So, I just want to thank you for all of that and confess I also was like if I'm going to be a big butt, I need to also do some more work on this that I feel really solid that we're going in the right direction and I like the revised RFP. And I think I think I feel really good about the fact that we were able to take a pause, regroup and move forward even stronger and more connected to the communities. up. >> I got him late. But see, my day long time ago, used to be state highway projects and we had to go to Salem to do that. And the subcontractors would be bringing numbers in. I would actually go to a drugstore in Salem and call the office to get the latest numbers to add to to the bid. And that's the way it was done

7:42 then. >> Right. Anybody else? Councelor Quadras. >> Yes, please. So, um there are some things that I think turned out great. Um the ability to respond quickly um is explicitly included in score. Knowledge of local conditions uh require um not necessarily expressly repeated in the scoring prompt, but it's clear. Um the local suppliers and vendors very clearly included. Um I I noticed that local office presence uh didn't it's it's included. um but it didn't get its own points assigned. I still think we're moving in the the right direction um on this one, but I think there's work that

8:28 can still be done. Um our relationship with local contractors, it's stronger than it was, but it uh asks about outreach rather than demonstrated history and relationships. Um the local workforce utilization, this is the area that I feel like we're still the weakest on. um the local workers are mentioned in the proposal requirement, but they're not in the scoring criteria. Um and so maybe um in future RFPs, we could um be a little stronger in that. Um and then again, the economic inclusion, we did the COVID outreach required and uh participation is referenced, but there's no separate points um targets or measurable commitments in that area either. Um

9:13 I think that there may be an error in um one of the areas or maybe I'm just uh tired of reading but in the um 4.10.2.3 their scoring language um but then it doesn't come out in the um scoring down below. So um the scoring was around go back to my notes here. The local supplier vendor outreach, the local subcontractor engagement, the COVID participation, but then when you get down to um that scoring, the local workers, it says 0 to 10, then I can't find it in in the below. So, I see it

9:59 goes to a total of 85 and I'm wondering if it should be a total of 95. >> Okay. Well, we'll yeah, we'll double check all of that or if any of you that know. So, I think we're definitely moving in the right direction and I appreciate it. Thank you, Council Buck. >> Um I I agree with uh my fellow counselors that I I feel like this is a lot of work in the right direction. I feel like you guys put in a lot of lot of time and effort and I was definitely um I definitely somebody that I'm very critical of when we use CMGC. I don't think it's appropriate for every project. I think it gets overused. Um, and I've been pretty clear on that point. Um, I

10:47 I'm definitely comfortable in the in the direction you're going. I really like the effort and the focus that you guys have put into this. Um, I I think what's what's important to me and what I think CMGC sometimes loses is the ability for it to really feel like a fair bidding process. And and I think all of the points that Councelor Codrus made um are are the ones that I had in mind as well. Um or most of them, not all not all of them. She thought of some things I didn't. Um, but I I really like the direction you're going and I think that it's very important to me that all of our local contractors, whether they win the bid or not, whether this goes to somebody local or somebody

11:33 elsewhere, that everybody feels like they had an opportunity to truly compete on this. I don't feel like that was the case in in, you know, when we we looked at this. Um, our contractor community was very clear on that. I'm very I'm very excited about the work you guys have put put into this. I think that we um it's also a project that needs to get done too. I mean like we can't we we we can't spend forever trying to get the process perfect. So, I appreciate all the work you guys have done and and as some somebody who I feel like I was the one that was all along kind of objecting to this. Um, I'm not the only one, but I I was definitely leading that charge.

12:18 Uh, thank you for for putting this out there and thank you for spending some time listening to the folks in our community. I appreciate that. I know that was extra work and that was a little bit of a pain that I helped create, but I appreciate it very much. >> You have all the feedback you need. >> One question. >> One of the things that we could do in responding to councelor Cadro and other sorry um >> you're gonna be up here in a minute anyway. >> Ask a question about this. So in the RFP, one of the things that we haven't changed are the references and the reference checks, but um regarding that demonstrated history of working with local um partners as opposed to how would you try to engage them on this

13:04 project, which both are important um we could adjust that reference check. Right now that would occur in the finalists, but we could ask references to tell us how they felt the contractor worked with the local workforce. Was that like an important part or did they do that effectively? Um, [clears throat] if that would help bring this closer to what council has in mind. >> Yeah, >> I think for me I I think that that's that's a really important piece and I and I think um them being able to demonstrate that's a tool to also demonstrate they have the ability to do the project, right? and and so making sure that they're able to say this is why I feel comfortable bidding on this project and this is why I I can do this is is

13:50 definitely important piece and I think that your your suggestion makes a lot of sense to me >> thank you Jeff thank you for letting me >> of course the next item is the international way annexation for synographics till end. >> We have the expert too heavy. >> We need >> mayor. Uh we also have Michael Leer coming up and um so folks know he was recently promoted to our traffic engineer at the city. Excellent.

14:39 >> Feel like you should have cake >> in the shape of a bicycle. When he gives you his expertise, he really means it now. >> Okay. Um to get started, we will do our um we won't do exparte contacts disclosure um this evening, but I do want to have you do any your restate potential conflicts of interest or announce any new potential or actual conflicts of interest. That's something we just need to do each meeting. Um if we can get the PowerPoint pulled up then while we go through that I can after that I'll give the >> Yeah. So can we >> Oh, okay. Sorry. >> Can we start with Mo? I have a segment. >> Do you have any uh conflicts of interest to us? >> Contact

15:24 thing I've been reading has been the emails from staff. >> We go in more order here. >> Um my my potential conference of interest would be that um I'm an insurance agent. I do business in the area. I also our our office is impacted by the by the traffic in the gateway area. So, um I'm not sure how that factors in here, but I'll state it for the record. >> I have two potential conflict interests. I think I forgot one last time. One, um I work for Lane County Services. I'm in developmental disabilities, which is a different division. Um my other potential conflict of interest is as a

16:10 property owner in the Gateway area. Um, I have a potential conflict of interest. Uh, I'm employed by United Health Group, which is a health insurance company, and they do business with PE cells. >> No conflicts of interest. >> Uh, no exparte contact. And the only potential conflict of interest is that the land that this is on would be 4J students. And I work with 4J, but We're going to get really good at this. >> Much fun. >> Okay, so again, this is the application. Um, it hasn't changed. Still the same property. Um, and with me tonight are

16:55 Andy Lindberg and Michael Lee and Clayton McKe. Um, and we got the like more expertise goes, you know, on this side of me. So, I hope that you'll hear from them a lot more than me tonight. Um, we're going to briefly review the criteria of approval and we're looking at different criteria than the last two meetings. That's going to include a review of annexation agreement terms to answer any questions the council has. And then um that's going to be like these folks largely and then we'll at the end I want to take make sure we keep 20 minutes to talk to council about the status of the record and the hearing. Um you did receive an objection to the request to reopen the record and hearing um and it expressed some concerns around

17:41 um statements made in the deliberative process and whether the council was improperly considering exparte contacts and whether the mayor's status as a commissioner elect was factoring into the process somehow. Um, I want to reassure the council that elected um, being elected to another office cannot be a conflict of interest under Oregon law. Um, or conflicts of interest revolve around businesses with which you are associated or your family members or household members are. And governments are not businesses under that law. So being affiliated with another government in whatever capacity can't form a conflict of interest um, under the statute. And so to the extent that that um comment raises some allegation of bias, I think the way to resolve that

18:27 under Landis and Oregon is to be clear that the council and each counselor and mayor are making their decisions on the evidence in the record and the criteria of approval. Um the council is allowed to reference that you've received exparte contacts. We will address those once we know whether you need to reop whether you want to reopen the record and hearing. We'll talk about what to do with exparte contacts, but all of that can be dealt with procedurally. Um, and so I don't want to take too much time on that, but if you I don't know if you want to briefly. >> Yeah, and this is a good this is a good opportunity for me to make a comment about it. Um, I appreciated uh them bringing it up. It can this is a annexation that's fairly complicated. You know, it is one that has gone back and forth um you know, on different procedural pieces. And I'm so glad that

19:13 people are asking questions that they have and that are on their mind. This is probably the most complicated annexation that I've seen in my time here. And it's probably the most complicated annexation since the hospital. And the only reason I say that is because hospitals are so big. But it's a good I say all this as a good reminder that says look the superersiding bills confused this, right? So we're like people are asking questions about reszoning and that's all stuff that is not part of this annexation process. And when I'm making my decisions and when I'm thinking about this, I am thinking about it in the context of the criteria that's in front of us and the evidence that's in the record. So I guess that is all I have to say about it. >> Okay. >> And so then criteria of approval. So

19:58 previously we were talking about consistency with a comprehensive plan. Um the council hasn't totally resolved how you know your direction on that. I think that um is something some counselors may want more time to think about and you may decide that you want to reopen the record or hold a hearing to address um questions you still have, but we're not going to get to that until the very end. We're going to focus on the two at the bottom in bold there. Minimum level of key urban facilities and services and then an annexation agreement that mitigates fiscal impacts. So just briefly to ground you in the language of what does it mean around this like does it have the right

20:43 infrastructure. The standard is the minimum level of key urban facilities and services and those are defined in the plan what those are and that they can be provided in an orderly efficient and timely manner. And again, this is one place where the anticipated or likely future use of the property is relevant to whether um those services, you know, the minimum level of those services because if you can conceptualize a water pipe to serve a house is different than a water pipe to serve a shopping mall. And so that what that minimum level that need is will depend somewhat on the future use of the property. the this is and you don't need to read all this. This is mostly to like remind

21:30 us it's coming from the urbanization element. So the comprehensive plan element that talks about annexing property into city limits. It defines what those key urban facilities and services are. So those are wastewater, storm water, transportation, solid waste management, water service, fire and emergency medical service, police protection, citywide parks and wreck, electric service, land use controls, communication facilities, and public schools on a district-wide basis. The elements of this that have had the most attention and public comment are um transportation is the big one and then also storm water service um and police protection. and then some um discussion of land use controls. Any questions on what those key urban

22:16 facilities and services are? Just the list. >> Okay, I think we're good. >> So then the next policy that's relevant is what do we mean by orderly, efficient, and timely? So the second part of policy 30 is how do you know that this is an orderly, efficient, and timely provision of service? It has to be consistent with the timing and location for that service in a city infrastructure plan. So this would be the transportation system plan for transportation and the public facilities and services plan for water, storm water, um electricity and wastewater and there um and the timing is in that plan and it's consistent with that timing or the council's determined a logical alternative time timing and that has to be tied to the record somehow in terms

23:02 of need and budgetary priority. So there has to be some council consideration of what's logical. And then this is a different criteria, but it's it's they're very closely tied together. Fiscal impacts to the city typically for providing those urban facilities and services have been mitigated through an annexation agreement or some other form of agreement the council approves. The annexation agreement that's in the packet is one that staff have worked with the applicants um over the summer to come up with the terms of an agreement that staff um recommend meet this you know the level of mitigation the council has discretion to decide what an appropriate level of mitigation

23:48 is and so ultimately that's your decision on does that annexation agreement appropriately mitigate those impacts. Um, but the one in the packet meets criteria. And so with that, are there are there any questions about the two criteria before we get into answering your questions on any of the >> questions? >> I think then we're going to take it. Oh, yeah. >> Can you define exactly how we're supposed to be looking at transportation? When we say transportation services, what is that? Is there is there an [clears throat] like hard definition of that or is that open to interpretation? >> Yeah. So it would be that the provision for transportation services to the area

24:35 proposed for annexation is consistent with the timing and location of the transportation network improvements that are in the transportation system plan. Um and or like so it' be the location of projects in that plan. Um, and that plan is usually like at a high level location. It's not like parcel specific like here's a, you know, legal description of that road. Um, and so the timing has to be consistent with TSP or a logical time within which to deliver that service is determined by the council based on demonstrated need for that facility and then how you [clears throat] want to prioritize budgetary decisions around that. So, you have to find that it's consistent with those things. And so we'll get it more

25:20 into the TSP and Michael will cover that get to transportation. There's no questions. So we can go back. We'll start just quickly with storm water to make sure that's I think we'll not that this is easy, but this is a less complex question. So wanted to make sure the council doesn't have any questions about storm water. Um, Clayton, do you want to briefly just give an overview of the annexation agreement options for storm water for this? >> So, their options are to extend the public system, which the the public system in this area is supposed to be extended down the Maple Island Road, which doesn't exist yet, >> and we're not looking to get it built with this project, my understanding. [snorts] >> So, that would be a huge expense, and we

26:05 don't have like they're probably not going to go for that, and it's not I would not recommend them going for that either. Uh their second option is to treat all the water on site. This area of town, this like the the flood plane bank of the Mackenzie has usually has phenomenally good infiltration rates. >> There's several developments nearby that have come in with really good ones. Uh the Justina corporate offices, the recent L LDS temple, uh actually Robertson next door when they expanded a few years ago, they were able to handle all theirs on site. Uh Richardson, sorry. Uh so every end every reason to believe that's probably what they're going to go here. They've got a big area and reserve areas on site where that can be done. The third option would

26:50 be if that doesn't work out, they could pursue and get a discharge permit to add a new discharge to our MS4 permit into the Maple Island Slooh, which is next door. And that's a bit of a regulatory burden they've got to meet, but it's doable. you know, it happens then nationwide to get those kind of discharge permits. So, they've got a lot of options to uh to develop it in a way that's going to meet the requirements in the development code with no it's it's engineering challenges, not an actual problem that that requires like a huge infrastructure lift to solve. It's all on-site engineering challenges, which is normal that we deal with all the time. Any

27:40 questions on storm water? Okay, here's the fun one. Transportation facilities. Okay, so briefly, these are the those plans. Um there's just a lot of maps here, so I'm going to turn this over to you. I don't know which map you want if you want to pick a map to start with. >> Um so I guess we'll first talk about what we have in the transportation system plan. So, we have a conceptual um street map which kind of shows us where we're kind of already thinking the collectors and our our grid system working. I don't know if this has a laser pointer to it. >> So, I think one of the issues is there's kind of a large gap here in our grid. All right, we have this planned TSP project R3. We have the Maple Island

28:27 project which comes all the way around here. What's shown in the conceptual um street map is the sports way and then kind of just a a ghost in area that was through an easement that we set when we vacated the sports way right of way to put in Royal Caribbean. Okay. when we put in that easement um language in that was meant so that in the future when we figured out you know some kind of other connection to the the UGB expansion area that would pretty much go away and whatever decision that we made for this gap in this area would replace that. So right now we have this project coming in with this property which is kind of you know a key property in terms of

29:12 providing access and providing some sort of form of connection to the larger UGB expansion area. I think there's two different topics here. as part of the annexation, you know, [clears throat] you have a requirement that the infrastructure is there to serve this property, right? But there's also a certain obligation to set up um the future um since this is such a key property that includes Maple Island and kind of a missing connection between there for the future for UGB expansion area. The Lane County's proposal was to replace kind of the access easement with a short section of collector wide enough um right away for a collector in the future along this portion of the property.

29:59 the question the council really has in the future as we work towards a tsp update um as we work towards looking what the final infrastructure will be what the final grid of streets here is how do we make those connections and what's the most logical connections in order to serve this property but also to serve the future UGB expansion area kind of down. >> There we go. Oh, I went too far. Okay, back up. So, once again, here here are the TSP projects. Um, not quite built yet. Maple Island. This one right here, R3, which is not built yet, just still

30:44 conceptual to a certain degree. Um, in this area, once again, the projects really don't show a TSP project through here right now. Um, as opposed to that previous map. So this kind of area is kind of left open. Usually collectors or collectors do always get set through the TSP process. You have the larger public outreach. You have more analysis and more volumes according to the land use to see what exactly the road needs to be and how it needs to function. But you can probably guess that in order to serve kind of an industrial UGB expansion area, you want kind of a logical road for trucks, for emergency services, and for passenger vehicles for that area to be viable.

31:32 Here's the proposal um from the county for the stabilization center. You can see that it serves the property through a driveway and we are also next to it have a multi-use path that we work with them for this annexation agreement and that serves for some of their block connectivity. Um but it still kind of leaves the question of how is the road supposed to go through this area to serve the UGP area. Right? So with their proposal, they reserve this kind of 70 foot worth of rideaway that a collector or a local could go into. And it kind of leaves us with a question in the future, right? How do we want to connect international way to the UGB area and

32:19 will what they have provided here work for their pro purposes for annexing? Hospitals typically need a a secondary emergency access. So within the plan they have a driveway here cut through but they also have another driveway plan to come to connect to um sports way to provide that secondary emergency access. So for them they have access they can provide it. We're setting this up for possible collector local in the future. Um I think the the larger question is how are we going to connect and what's the best way to serve up future traffic in the UGB area. There's different options through the TSP update, through that regular planning project and process.

33:06 Um, council will have an opportunity and can look at, well, maybe Maple Island is the only connection that goes up there. Maple Island in order to get up to the UGB area is definitely farther to the east. So, it's a little farther out of direction. most of the traffic for the UGB expansion area and for this is mostly going to be derived from gateway belt line and reception. Um so most of it's generating from down here and coming up this way and more of a straight up and north and south motion. So that's one option in the future. Another option maybe continue to use the rightway for sports way in Royal Caribbean as we've discussed before is kind of doing a 90 then a 90 then a 90

33:52 then a 90. While that does provide some access in the future, um it isn't exactly ideal in terms of operations and efficiencies for serving a new GD expansion area, but it is something. Um in your report, there's another diagram, not sure if we want to bring it up, but it shows different options if you were to choose to make a connection from International Way to this um proposed rideway more directly. One option is to kind of connect where that R3 was. I can go back, I think, see where the R3 is there to kind of make more of a direct connection from that R3 that comes up

34:38 down here and then goes straight up to meet up this in the future. Another option would be to use sports way and then kind of put in a reversing curve, right? And that reversing curve, if you build it for a Klesher standard, which usually has a little bit higher of a design speed, has larger radiuses, will probably cut through these properties here and use up more of those properties. Both the R3 connection option and the sportsway reversing curve at a collector design speed option take up a considerable amount of these properties here. Um the R3 to straight up is definitely a direct connection. Um probably the most

35:23 ideal in terms of operations and response time for emergency vehicles. The reversing curve from Sports Way is is not as ideal, but still gives you a pretty direct connection and and sets you up to go moving more to the north. If we used a local kind of standard, you're almost back into the rideway really doing sharp 90deree turns going up there, which is just a little less efficient. So council in the future, if they choose to select this annexation agreement option, will have to make some decisions about how they want to serve and how efficiently they would like you would all like to serve the UGB expansion area. >> Go ahead. So, uh, I I'm interested in

36:10 this question of the UGB expansion because I think that that's I'm I'm curious what is the timeline on actually seeing that expand because there's nothing but just agricultural land right there right now. There's nothing else out there. >> Y, >> I would say that I think that the property owners to the north are keenly interested in the transportation connection. The transportation connection often comes with additional utility connections and often spurs development in those areas. The the the properties to the north, it's it's really almost impossible to to develop those and start utilizing them if you don't have a robust and good transportation connection. And there are very limited um transportation connection options in the north UGB expansion area as it sits right now.

36:56 >> Importantly, the UGB is already being expanded though. Yeah. >> So they're inside the UGB and they're awaiting further infrastructure and land use planning. >> I see. >> Uh so um and they're eagerly awaiting that action by the city. So so it's not it's not a pending EGB expansion which could take a long period of time. It's been done. >> Perfect. Thank you for that. Is there a stronger term than eagerly waiting there? >> Buck next. >> I was just going to say there's also not sewer service out there. Is it possible right now that as well as the transportation need to build a lift station toward the toward the north end of that expansion area. That's a significant infrastructure left as well as roadway before that area can develop.

37:41 >> I have other questions. Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. >> [clears throat] >> So I I guess what I'm thinking about here and I'm not sure the best way to ask this. I'm just going to put it out there and hopefully maybe you can can help me through this. So the the the challenge I have with this, no matter how you how you deal with this this particular area, it's being fed by an intersection that by our definition has failed. it is not performing to the standards which I can definitely personally attest to having sat through that light multiple times on multiple days. So

38:27 I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how do we how do we create a successful solution for the future when we don't have a suess successful solution currently. And so that that is that is the piece that I'm I'm I'm hung up on. And there's to me it seems like we we just have too much traffic for that intersection to serve right there. I mean there's just there so there has to be a different way of going and Eugene has the same problem. You go to the other side of the freeway by Costco and that intersection is the exact same problem. And so there's just there that whole area um those those infrastructures on on both

39:14 sides are just not able to serve the amount of volume. Um and again try going to Costco on a Sunday afternoon and you'll know what I'm talking about. Right? So I when we talk about the the [clears throat] the UGB, you know, to to me, one of one of the ways that that I'm I'm wondering if we can explore is there's that maybe there's got to be a different way of accessing that area off of I5. And um that is a whole different conversation, whole different piece. And I understand that. But I'm putting that out there to say how how do we how do we say this makes sense with a system that's already failing. >> Okay. We may have to come back to the

39:59 gateway portion because the transportation things got multiple layers of of that. And we're going to go to councelor Mo and then we'll come up to councelor Rodley. Yeah. >> I seem to always say I'm looking at the bigger picture as Springfield is is limited the way it can grow. to the north here over this. There's land out there that's going to be developed someday. So, we need we need to be aware. We're going to be addressing that and this is part of we're going to go through this. We're clear out there. I don't know how we're going to do it, but it's available. So, plan for the future. Councelor Bradley, >> thank you. Um and and I appreciate the the sort of thinking about the big picture in both of these because I um

40:45 that we have known for a while that gateway is not sustain. I mean that's why we've done all this planning and we've been trying to figure out what does that look like and when this all started to first come up some of our first reactions were like we don't have the infrastructure for that. But that is not necessarily I don't want to say the fault but that is not necessarily connected to this particular annexation which is what the mayor was trying to say right is that we know that we have this is an area where we are going to be developing we do not have the traffic infrastructure to meet what's happening there um and so there have been a lot of us have been talking about how do we advocate for whether it's legislative assistance or what does that look like and would love to have I

41:30 know when we were first directly talking about these what it looks like to to move into this area. It was like how do we have good partners with the people want to develop out there because we want them to understand how important it is for us to kind of grow this whole area. So, I appreciate the thinking of that and I think it's important as you said that we sort of separate out what's going on at Gateway and I5 and all of that from the conversation we're having about this annexation and knowing that um to councelor Mo's point like we are I tell this to people all the time like we are sandwiched between two rivers. We don't have a lot of developable land. So, we're going to have to get um sort of creative about how we we have a forward thinking about how we're going to reach those lands because people do

42:16 want to develop out there. They do have the land and they need us to help move that to >> I've got I guess a question and a and a statement in in the um when you talked about the reverse curve, right? There was a comment from one of the land owners out there that was like, "This thing is choosing the highest impact thing to my piece of property." That spoke to me, right? Because, you know, as we go through this and we're starting to work through like having a road to the middle of your property does impact how you're going to develop out there. I don't have a great answer to that right now, but I think the challenge with Well, let me ask my question first. Is the problem that we're seeing is this

43:02 a problem the gateway has regardless of the stabilization center or is this a problem the stabilization centers causing? I would say that the stabilization center is contributing to it but not to a point that it's breaking it on the critical movement that um would trigger a need to have a more um expedited solution to the intersection. So it contributes but it is not the whole driving factor or issues at that intersection. >> And I want to answer too from the agreement standpoint of it. So because there is no so this so we know that we want we plan

43:47 hypothetically for a minor collect second minor collector we don't have a project >> we don't have anything with the like you know our whatever um so regardless of this annexation something council has to consider in the upcoming TSP update is what do we do about that what project do we plan to match the idea that we want a future minor collector? Um because this and we put lines for like in the future this will become a minor collector. We do that when there's right of way and there's like an existing street and we're projecting that in the future traffic on that street's going to become a higher level but we don't have a specific project for how we're going to do that. In this case there's a bit of a

44:32 mismatch because it's not actually right away and it was just an error. Um I mean I was not aware of that when I was advising on this TSP. So it's just an error um that staff made that then got adopted which you know there's a lot of streets on this map. It's going to happen I think sometimes. So council's got to decide how to remedy that situation if this annexation doesn't happen. >> Okay. >> The difference Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> I got just a question about R1. So are we saying that R1, which is the Maple Island connector, right, based on how the annexation agreement is written today, is sort of solved for, for lack of a better word, right? >> Yeah. The annexation agreement today includes provision of rightway for R1

45:19 and it includes a requirement to dedicate that so that that right ofway is available when the city determines construction of that is needed which is consistent with that orderly and efficient provision of service. The timing of when Maple Island Road is delivered is going to depend on when there is something to connect it to under the current TSP. When there's something to connect it to because the city has obligations to fund other parts of Maple Island Road through other properties. And so we need to have that um capacity to do that. If R1 goes first, the annexation agreement provides that the county will pay their um agrees not or county and PP self, you know, the property owners agree not to um protest

46:07 being included in paying for that and to pay their portion through a local improvement district, which um there's a council process to go through a local improvement district, but it can be a very helpful solution when you um want to be able to spread costs between multiple parties. um it doesn't require property owners to pay all the cost and in fact other owners have agreements that they won't pay portions of that cost. Um >> so >> so yes R1 is covered. >> Okay. So the three things as I see then right we got to decide something about the north south piece right >> and then we got to talk about the intersection. >> Yep. So the on the north south piece what I wanted to highlight is there's this disconnect where it might be this but this isn't really right of way. We have right ofway that's dedicated but

46:53 not constructed here and that exists regardless of the sanexation. Um we have an old plat and uh no longer any agreement that the property owners will pay but we have at least right of way we could require to be dedicated for local street only because there's no minor collector shown here on the TSP. Um, so we can require a local street here and that was staff's original proposal that does still defer decision- making to the TSP around is that local where the council wants to set a minor collector. Um, and do you want to sort of up upzone the rightway? I don't know the right way to say that into a minor collector which is, you know, staff may end up recommending that if that was what went in. Um but that's not a decision that's

47:39 actually in front of the council. And then but then the council would still need to address well then does R3 um you know then we have got right angles here if R3 becomes the minor collector or does R3 move over and impact you know a different property there. In this case, the annexation agreement that staff negotiated takes this, you know, local possibility that takes a local street that has the possibility of becoming a minor collector off the table and says the options now are if there's a minor collector here are going to run at least through here. And then that just leaves the council to resolve how to get from here to here. Um, and there are multiple ways to do that and there could be

48:24 negotiations, you know, with a property owner. We, you know, the council could talk about vacating right of way here in order to make that available for private development. If the Royal Caribbean site does redevelop, um, to where that building goes away, there might be even other options to where you don't use this right of way um, that you know, we're not I don't want to foreclose any potential other options. So dedicating the right ofway here doesn't say that that there has to be a road there, but it keeps it um keeps that 70 foot reserved to be dedicated in the future so that it's a a chess piece the council can use to solve the TSP problem. >> But you're not asking us to solve all these north side problems. You're asking us to say whether or not we are good

49:10 with the 70 ft dedication. >> Yes. >> And talk a little bit about like well what's our strategy here? Right. Are you okay with accepting more certainty and a generous right ofway here in exchange for a local street that might be able to become a minor collector later? That like it's a trade-off. There are pros and cons to both of those and Michael can talk through if you've got questions on what those pros and cons are. Um but that's the and then to meet local connectivity standards which are are not being met if there's no local street there's alternatives for pedestrian um and bicycle connectivity which is what the council's policies say that local connectivity really also needs to serve bike ped

49:56 >> okay questions about that. Well, I how much of it would how much of this will we effectively defer into the the TSB update? Like what's the smallest piece we have to decide tonight versus how much would the TSP update solve for us? The smallest piece that you would be considering tonight is according to the annexation agreement is just are you setting yourself up by agreeing to this annexation agreement for this 70 ft of rideway that extends north and south. By doing that, you're kind of setting an expectation or having that chest piece in the future as Christina mentioned to be able to talk about how we make that connection in the future. whether we do

50:41 really sharp 90 degree corners and provide that as an access way through there some kind of softer reversing curve or a more direct connection to that other TSP project >> or no roadway there >> or no roadway at all and just rely upon Maple Island >> which is not maybe yet the number the the data you don't have the data yet to evaluate that but you know there's not a require it doesn't lock in any requirement to put a road here >> okay questions Steve >> the acres is 18 acres, correct? >> Yeah. >> And what's the footprint of of the facility? >> Um I we don't have that information yet. >> Anyway, when we do this and this facility is is developed, there's

51:26 [clears throat] going to be all that other land out there that's going to be available to be developed for some purpose. So that's going to be affect everything. I just council stout I have one question on the proposed um uh small street road that's that's further to the west of this one that's not the Maple Island road that's immediately abuing I think the FedEx center there am I seeing that right uh of the driveway >> yeah the driveway um is what we're proposing as an alternative going to increase traffic on that already built driveway or would it be a separate driveway way that's being built. And I only look at that just because I'm

52:11 looking at the the plat maps and that sort of thing. I'm like, okay, I see it kind of curves out onto the other property, is that a considered I'm just not sure exactly how that's considered in terms of transportation. I I think once again if council chose in the future as part of the TSP process to put a roadway down there that's like part of the consideration would be the joining properties and and design of drive aisles and their other things to make them whole as a development. Um, so whether or not that driveway would need to be relocated or redesigned um to accommodate that road be something that we would develop once we kind of made a decision in terms of that and like a feasibility kind of activity um

52:57 in relation to the their current activities. >> Sure. I I think the upshot of what I'm what my kind of thought is is that um I I like the Maple Island Road as the primary collector for that region. It it seems to make an intuitive sense to me. Um and so like I don't have any issue with what's being proposed currently. My only consideration is making sure that there's not a detriment to the neighboring property for any potential uh roadways that need to be built or any potential uses that might interfere that. I don't know that there is and I don't know that there isn't. That's just really um I know it's more higher level than maybe what we're looking for, but um I'm perfectly fine with um that 70 foot

53:42 right of way along Maple Island Road as being what I'm comfortable with. >> Farmer, we we've gone through several different scenarios here. So, if I'm a little confused, maybe we just need to go back and talk about it in a different way. But I remain concerned about 90 degree angles for emergency vehic ve vehicles and um that you know I just have that concern and I don't I I don't want to see anything that we decide having a negative impact on the neighboring properties. I don't think they should have to be negatively impacted by this annexation decision. So in conjunction with Maple Island where councelor Stout

54:28 is saying he's comfortable to talk me through where those 90° angles are again which road which are 31 you know the options. >> Sure. So it stands right now the rideway we have comes up from Sportsway and takes a sharp 90. This would then kind of create a situation where we're really put putting curve curves in. We'd be putting essentially intersections in. So they like an intersection here, an intersection here, an intersection here. Um the other options were to come off a sports way and kind of slowly curve it and then reverse curve it back in there, which wouldn't make intersections but would allow for the free flow movement. It's not the same as a straight

55:13 line. Obviously, you know, the fastest way between two points is a straight line. The other option was to kind of connect where R3 is already shown, which would kind of connect up to here and then be a straight shot up to this 70footer right away. Both the reversing curve option and the straight one probably impact these properties the most, but provide a higher level. It's like a balancing act here. Yeah, the the straight one from R3, which is just the straight shot, highest efficiency, highest response time probably for emergency services. The reversing curve, which still gives you free flow motion, which still gives you good volumes and reasonable speeds, but it is curved, so it's it's a little slower. And then

55:58 there's the the more option that's kind of set there right now, which is still going to be accessible by emergency services, just not as efficient and not as for them. Um, not as direct, not as safe for them. Um, and also not as efficient and safe for trucks or passenger vehicles trying to serve that UTV area. Does that help? >> Yes. Um but a followup, how does So I know we've made some negotiations in the annexation agreement from where we started on this conversation about 90 degree angles and and we've reduced the number. Um so talking through kind of some of these different options, how is that

56:43 related to the how does that relate to the current negotiation that were in the annexation agreement as it sits today? So changes or um so the annexation agreement as it sits today would um reserve right ofway for the minor collector in light blue and then the council's decision on how that connects to avoid or allow right angles would come at the TSP process. So um the council could balance how much do right angles how much of a concern do right are right angles going to be in that context of that TSP update? Um so

57:30 you know council would have more information then about total traffic going to the UGB area. Um other alternative projects that might be taking like can that be can it actually function as a local street and that is all that's needed. Um, how is there a way for Maple Island Road to be more effective and less out of direction travel, you know, feeling? Um, is there an opportunity through the TSP update to work with the property owner of those properties to look at ways the city can help offset the impact of a straight line connection? Could the, you know, can the council look at um, so that property is also not annexed, so at some point they need to come in and annex. So through a future annexation process, could the council look at um how to make

58:18 that owner whole in exchange for a straight line connection um by vacating other rightway or offering um you know to flex on other requirements that that property owner might have to pay at time of annexation. Um I think there would be more you know there there could be a voluntary negotiation with the property owner. there could be considerations through the TSP update process are are the things I'm saying at this point. You know, also as staff wanted to be really transparent about what future options could be for this property owner so that they did not feel like there was like a ball hidden in terms of like what things the council would consider in the future. But council, considering how this property is impacted, um there's an element of this property, there's not

59:03 very many properties between where we have connections already and where we need a connection. And so it really is like these five properties, well six. Royal Caribbean, the two owned by Ggroup, the existing developed FedEx site that doesn't I mean there's a building there, there's not much flexibility, and then these two properties that are subject to annexation. So we're trying to I mean the council was going to have to figure out how to solve a transportation problem in the context of these six properties regardless of this application. So the question is which trade-offs do you want to make now um in this annexation process um which will not decide the final outcome at the TSP update but does set it's just going to take some options off the table um but give you more leeway in other places.

59:50 So, I'm just I'm not comfortable making any decision that impacts neighboring properties um in a way that says, "Hey, this council just decided that they're going to impact me in a negative way. I'm not I'm not comfortable going down that path." So I think I just need to be very really clear and understand and maybe I just need some time to think through this a little bit more but um this is you know this whole thing has been very cart before horse and I don't want to continue the cart before like I want to make sure we're we're really focusing on the fact that there are neighbors being impacted by this decision and um there's already some

1:00:36 major their frustrations around this and I just don't want to continue to make these impacts on them harder. >> Anything else, Counc [clears throat] I want to make sure I didn't get lost in kind of like, you know, the options here. So, if I'm understanding this that 70 ft in light blue, if we go with that, it it opens up future options, which you referred to as kind of that chess piece earlier, you know, kind of on the lower half of that. If we don't, then really what we're left with is Maple Island Road. So,

1:01:22 the 70 ft is what we're deciding tonight. like that's that's the one piece of this. Now when what you're saying is that decision is going to impact where what you can do in the future. Um but for tonight it's do we want to create that 70 ft to give ourselves the most options or do we want to say we're good with Maple Island Road. We're not going to do the 70 ft and and and we we feel we feel good about that. Is that what I'm hearing? >> Yeah. I think the other options on the table were local street. The applicant originally proposed local streets that go up where the bike ped path would be. That just becomes local streets. Um, the staff's original recommendation was a local street that goes straight through. Um, that the applicant said was a dealbreaker for their design of their

1:02:08 facility. Um, their traffic impact study says that's 45,000 square feet, but like Andy said, we don't know details on layout or that yet. Um, so it's it's really like does this option work for the council um to mitigate sort of the impacts this facility just generally will have on the city um or the future um or does council want a different set of options available to you in the future? And you know I also share um council rubber's concern and I think councelor stut said the same is if approve if going with that 70 ft has a negative impact on those on those neighboring facilities and and those folks um that's

1:02:54 a concern to me if it if the question is the 70t's not a concern and it's it's future decisions may be a concern Um, I mean, kind of knowing that that's kind of a future question. I mean, I'm fine with, you know, saying, "Okay, that's tomorrow's tomorrow's problem." I just want to make sure that that we're being mindful to all of our community partners and all of our neighbors over there, too. >> That's a good summary, I think, of it. Um, I guess my question, I saw it in the, you know, in the record, is there's a deep concern from those property owners to the south, right? If we punt these conversations, we're not actually solving their I don't know abrasion point with us. So, how do we give how do

1:03:41 we give some certainty that maybe we're okay with Maple Island, we're okay with the 70 ft. We know we have to study the north south options, but maybe, you know, we understand that the lazy S curve that goes through the middle of their property is probably not a good solution. That that that is effectively off the table. Um, can we do that in this like you know is part of our discussion here tonight? >> I mean I that that wouldn't be part of your decision because it's not within the >> scope of but the council can give direction to staff, you know, on other issues. I want to just be clear that that's not like part of your decision-making criteria. Um, but you also are going to I mean the the transportation system plan process

1:04:27 is teeing off like we're it's underway the early parts of that. So council's going to be able to talk to staff about this like it's it's not a well someday we'll update the TSP and you can talk about it like you're for better or for worse you get to update the TSP. Um they're working on that. So >> go ahead councelor Rley. Well, and I I appreciate I think that you did synopsize it correctly, right? Because we've looked at a lot of different options and we really have to we h we have to do two things, right? We have to do this in these doable chunks that we can control in this decision based on this criteria while we know that we are keeping an eye on what's the long-term plan. What how do we how are we going to enable development? How are we going to do that and try to minimize impacts on

1:05:12 the people who have been what I would say maybe early adopters, early investors in that area? We know we have to do those two things. We cannot do all of those things in this decision. Right? So that's what I think that is very carefully trying to say you you do know this this future council whoever that is is going to have to solve these. We can we can put our our priorities on the line and say all of those things are important to us in terms of minimizing impact to the property owners currently also you know teeing ourselves up for future development means we have to make a decision at some point around those criteria. So, um, I feel comfortable with the the the two the two pieces, the Maple Island and with this making it a

1:05:58 70 foot decision knowing that we don't want to zigzag through somebody's property. We want to keep safety in mind for that future tsp. That's just saying where I'm at on this. >> Could people be okay with that? It's going to come crers >> and the option for avoiding impact to the property owners would be living with 90 degree angles. Correct. >> Oh wow. >> At the end of the day >> I or the other option is we're rely on relying on everything for for Maple Island, you know, coming out off Maple Island Road, right? like but we don't that's not a decision we're going to make tonight

1:06:43 >> or you know requiring a local street that maybe you can reclassify to a minor collector through that other process but a local street doesn't automatically get to the minor collector and you would still then have to address R3 which would be a whole other set of property impacts to the south that haven't been factored in. So, you know, one of the options is a local street, but that also creates a whole other set of impacting >> propert. >> So, I think I'm looking for like we've kind of talked through this enough, we still have to talk about the intersection itself. Could people are do people want to talk about this a little bit more? Do they have different ideas? Are they fine with what they're seeing? I I don't really know if I'm fine with

1:07:28 what I'm seeing right now. I think I just need a little time to to think about it and absorb what what we're really talking about here. >> Is there Can I ask a question? Sure. >> Is there information that you don't have that's not in the record that would be helpful to process this? Um because that's and don't have to answer me, but I just want you to think about that before we get into the what to do about the record. If you're if you're not sure where you're at on this, is it because you need to sit with it >> [clears throat] >> um and look at the materials that are there already or is it like I don't know some fact and we could you know then that points towards the record. Well, just it's been very helpful helpful for me personally as we're continuing down this conversation uh to go back and watch previous meetings where we've talked about these things and really be

1:08:14 able to just sit in my own space, listen to all the things that were said and kind of digest it in that way. And I'm kind of feeling like that would be helpful with this too. There's just, you know, they're all they're all the different options, the impacts on the neighbors, the imp impacts on our, you know, firefighter trucks, all of the things, right? It's just it's just a lot to think about and I'm not really comfortable just saying yes, I'm comfortable with something right now. >> Could could we maybe we do this? I know we're going to work through a bunch of decisions, but we've talked through about three different three different things and you've given us kind of the big picture, right? We all said at the goal setting session we wanted to talk about gateway. Now, here we are. Um, could you maybe take this diagram and

1:08:59 somehow circle the portions that the annexation agreement covers, right, that we're agreeing to in whatever this decision point is, and then circle the point where that yes, we know these are all issues, but these issues are sort of out of scope for the annexation agreement. That way it could kind of help clarify for people that this is the decision they're making now and then this is the actual deci the decision that's coming down the road that the PSP will make. And then I think the third point that I will make a plug for is like if we're all saying that you know we want to mitigate mitigate impacts right we got to figure out how to continue to say that to to folks because we they shouldn't have to carry all the impacts of this.

1:09:45 And to me, those two things might help us get, you know, I think we have all the information. We just need it to kind of clear the noise and really just articulate here's the decision that you're being asked tonight. Here's the decision the TSP will make in the future. If it's possible, it might be helpful to add to this map those different options that Michael's talked through in like a red line and purple like show the different what does that really look like on this map. I'm very visual and just have a hard time sometimes with the pointer following it and getting you know all that way. So just really visualize it for me. >> Yeah.

1:10:31 are you going to be I mean that's like I think that's helpful but we also I think just need to keep where the line of decision is for like and then these are all the TSP options. >> Yeah, we can color code that. So I mean be like these are the annexation agreement facilities that you would be bringing that you're accepting right of way forward. Um or in the case of the bike pen path, the applicant would build and maintain actually and then here's the right of way that like is getting set down on paper and there's some agreement to fund whatever comes first and then here's other decisions to be made later. So the I mean the really the there's a red line around like the stuff on the property is what you're agreeing to stuff that's not on the property is what you're figuring out later. But we can put that together and that doesn't require you to reopen the record because that [clears throat] information is all in the record. We just need to make one picture that gives it to you the same.

1:11:18 >> That's perfect. Okay. Any other questions about this before we ask them to move on to the other? We only have like three more decisions to make here. >> Yes. >> Okay. I think we're ready. >> I don't think there are actually slides for the gateway belt line intersection. Um so do you just want to talk about the additional there's more traffic information that's in the packet. Um do you want to talk about what that >> Sure. So, you know, one of the most critical movements out there is kind of the eastbound now left, right? Um, previous agreements with the Oregon Department of Transportation, we had we had agreed with them to manage that. We manage the rest of the intersection so that the other legs um take more of the brunt of the traffic so that we don't have cues extend back to the ramp signals, right? So, this development

1:12:05 definitely adds traffic to to those movements. It's primarily most of the incoming traffic comes up there. We ask the applicant um essentially to provide additional analysis to see how much that's affecting the queue. It does affect the queue, but not to a point where it's it's breaking it to where we would trigger the previous couplet project that we had talked about that council had provided direction to staff to start a process or start to look at alternatives to that project. Part of the annexation agreement that was put forth and um provided um in negotiation with the county included some funding um to do that study for alternatives to that R50 couplet project. But to what

1:12:52 Buck had been saying before, it is failing in terms of a level of service. Um but we are able to manage it so that that critical queue as of right now um is still under the threshold to really trigger the next project. >> So [clears throat] I just want to clarify that I'm visualizing this. So you're saying the eastbound so coming off of Belt Line kind of towards Springfield like you know that left-hand turn is is the concern. [clears throat] I I would argue that's one of the concerns. >> Yeah. Um, I I would I would also say that it's [clears throat] a it's it's also pretty

1:13:38 any a lot of most of the day, you know, if if you're you're looking at northbound on on gateway, that intersection is usually backed up two lights and some of that a lot of that traffic is trying to make that lefthand turn there. So, I would say that there's multiple lefthand turns that are that are concerns and um and so I just want to kind of throw that out there. I don't I think that it's probably more than one that's the concern. Um, and then I guess I would I would like more information on it's not meeting our standards, but

1:14:25 help me understand when you when we say it's it's still within the queue. I'm trying to trying to understand what that means. >> Sure. So, you know, your your Q's are the amount of storage that you have versus how much of that storage is taken up at any given part of the day. >> So, you have Q storage. So, for that eastbound movement, it's not just the left, it's anything that might extend back to the ramp signals. >> Um, we look at that. So, that's that's one way to kind of gauge how well you're doing. Those other legs that you said, it's very true. those other legs of the intersections, northbound leg, it extends back to the crossroad signal consistently almost every peak hour. Um, in addition to the other legs also extend rather far back. So yes, that to

1:15:12 to validate your earlier statement, yes, many other legs of them in terms of looking at queuing um are also failing. Um, but what we're kind of talking about here is what's the major contributing factor from the proposed annexation. Um, and what what what leg it's really affecting the most, the critical one that might trigger the need for the couplet project. In terms of the other standards that we have, those are often level of service standards. Those are those are more based off of delay. How long you're waiting um how long you're waiting kind of affects the safety of the intersection, the operations of the intersection. um and and other standards that we have. Um and so one's more of a how long you're waiting, which can affect safety and definitely affects

1:15:58 operations. The other is just how much available area you have to store cars. Um and what are the consequences of not having enough for to store those cars? So we're saying for for the consideration of this particular application, we feel like the the major consideration is that that east those eastbound lane and what we're saying is at least right now traffic is not backing up to where those traffic signals are. So we have that capacity because right now it's not backing up to that level that that's kind of our measuring point. Is that am I hearing that correctly? >> So according to the analysis provided by

1:16:43 the applicant >> it's showing that and according to the procedures that they have there. saying that because of the existing condition and they're adding a little more to that but not so much according to their analysis that it's it's getting to that point next ramp >> in the year >> in the year 23. So there's 525 ft of queuing length to turn eastbound off belt line onto to go north at Gateway. And without this um these uses that length at the 95th percentile most traffic through there it's 450 ft of queuing length used out of 525 and this development will take it to 475 ft. So,

1:17:28 one more car um at the worst like the 95th percentile time, but that 475 is still not more than the 525 that's available. And that's out to year 2035 at the end of the TSP. >> And and past 525, I'm sitting in a lane of traffic. >> Past 525, you're on the other side of a light um for the ring. Yeah. >> And then ODOT's calling. >> Yes. Yeah. that ODOT's calling people and not Michael's boss now because Michael is >> boss calling the promotion Michael >> um I have a statement and then I have a different sort of a traffic question um I think part of what I hear us wrestling with is that I mean we we know that it is a hot mess out there right but we

1:18:14 haven't had this conversation >> yeah but we have not had this conversation about the traffic as you know businesses are going in and other development is happening that actually, you know, when I think about a fast food restaurant brings a lot more traffic in and around than what I anticipate and I'm not an expert, but what I anticipate this facility will do. Um, you know, we've talked about it might have some more emergency vehicles and, you know, but it's not like it's it's not like it's another Costco, right? It's like people are going there for, you know, treatment. Um, but one of the things that we that I'm a little bit more interested in, and maybe it doesn't have anything to do with this, maybe it does, is just thinking about this area and how it's going to be annexed and what roads and things are over there. I'm more interested in in what is the sort of

1:19:00 intermed facility traffic look like? Because that's where I think that maybe you would see, you know, somebody comes into the stabilization center and then needs to be transported to the hospital or or people are being or vice versa. And so I'm thinking about less of like folks, you know, like an emergency vehicle or 59 cars coming off a I5 or to that and more of like, you know, do we have the capacity and what's the impact going to be if there's more of, you know, there's a tight corner right there if you're coming from the hospital or you're going the back way to get to this. So, I'm thinking more about that and it still might not be part of this conversation, but when I think about what is the more likely impact to the traffic situation in Gateway, it's less a whole bunch of people coming off of

1:19:46 the freeway and more sort of inter but I'm not you. So, >> okay. >> Yeah. So, my question is have we thought about that larger area map too? >> Yeah. So I I I think the the larger area is part of the TSP analysis, you know, and they put together all their models and then they they load up the model with the different land uses and calibrated according to existing. So I what I say is through that process, we look at more of those interconnects and more of the the larger area and and kind of how the different trips will go to different areas and how that's affecting that intersection. Um, and you're very you're very correct. You

1:20:31 know, the the the two connected trips between different hospitals and getting others. It's not just coming off of I5 for that intersection. Um, when we talk about the an annexation agreement, we do that traffic analysis because of how it generates traffic. We're really looking at that. Um, but as part of the TSP, we look at the whole system and other generators and other planned uses that would contribute to those different types of movements that would that would affect that intersection. >> And could you clarify when when we when I read the annexation agreement and I'm not going to get the dollar figure right, the off like the offer would have been would be $300,000 of funding to to study the intersection and come up with a new plan. That's really the that's really the kind of offer in the

1:21:16 annexation agreement, right? >> Yes. >> Um, one question I do have is when you look at that is a share of because we had all these property owners for the last 20 years who've built out there and they've all contributed to that intersection in some way, right? And they've all paid into that intersection some way. is that $300,000 when on on par equivalent like then comparable to to what everybody else has contributed into that intersection for support, right? Because I don't know that it needs to be we don't want the couplet, right? We may have to figure out what we need and then figure out how to build it. So, is it comparable? I think it's reasonably comparable to to other annexation agreements. I think we

1:22:01 developed that in line with kind of um looking at other annexation agreements, but also looking at TSP projects that are similar to that and in our RTP and our TSP and the values associated with that. So, in general, I I'm comfortable saying it's it's comparable to other um agreements that we've made. So, for comparison, when the hospital came in um with more beds, but not orders of magnitude more, >> um they paid um $10 million in those, you know, 2009 something 2000 funds. Um and this is in a city

1:22:46 ordinance, so you know, it's something the council can take notice of. Um, so they paid about $10 million and so um, but there was like a whole complete lack of infrastructure for the whole area and it was significantly upzoned from what it was before in terms of impacts. So here you have we have information that there is a traffic impact but if we look at the specific medical uses and not just general medical uses that are proposed here, it's not as extreme. Um, the like any medical use is a lot more traffic intensive. Um and then other property owners along Maple Island Road have um also paid in money but you know less um and also dedicated

1:23:31 um right of way to help try to meet that balance but then they were under campus industrial uses where there's not as much traffic. So I would say it's sort of it's not there's no one number that's been paid because each context has been different but it's within the same boundary I think of what other property owners have done. >> Okay. So I think the question for the council is and correct me if I don't have it is are we okay with for the for the the impact intersection accepting the $300,000 for the study or do we want something else put in there? Is that what we got? We have to decide. Okay. >> For example, what what else would there be that we would want >> in ex in instead of

1:24:16 >> 300,000 >> 300,000 you could look to requirements to construct specific elements, you could look and pay a percentage of impact. Um we would have to define what that percentage of that impact would be and come up with a a measurement. One of the challenges is that the council had a methodology for assessing the amount that each property would pay into per acre um back when the most recent other properties annexed, but that was before the current TSP. So, we can't just go back and use that methodology anymore because we have totally different projects like we have a group of different projects now. It's not totally different projects. Um, [clears throat] so we'd have to come up with some other new methodology to apply based on trip numbers and and through intersections and stuff. I think

1:25:02 that's one of the challenges. Uh, councelor Bradley. Um, I appreciate that and I I was going to ask the same question, which is why I jumped over the top of you to say comparable because I think if it's if it's a if it comparable to what others have contributed in, then I am fine with that 300,000. And I want to also put a pin somewhere to when we do that TSP work to figure out what is a reasonable um metrics or whatever it is you said criteria for doing that because you know this is not the end. Plus we we we open this up to develop. We need to set some clear guidance. I also want to say there are so there are SDC's that every development pays and so the main way the city captures the funds needed to pay for transportation is through SDC's. The problem is that all the

1:25:49 projects the city needs to construct the council does not want to set SDC's that high because it would then you know it would have >> Yeah. So this property will also pay SBC's and so the SDC contribution will offset some of their impacts as well. So this is really like what's that other piece that's not covered by SBC's. >> Okay. So I think my my the question is still hey we could take a little bit more time but I think the the question is do we want to accept the $300,000 in lie of some other methodology so we can restudy then we can restudy the intersection and I will just note one of the reasons why that's appealable that allows us to get rid of the couplet that we've been trying to get rid of for about I don't know I feel like 10

1:26:37 Or >> do you mean appealing and not appealable? >> No, I I'm not you that's appealing to me as an individual. >> Let's let's just let's just clarify. >> No, it's appealing to me as an individual like if we get rid of the couplet which impacts a lot of those businesses on the south on the south gateway side. So, I'm looking for we probably need to give them some direction that is saying are are you are you okay including the 300,000 in l of everything else. Go ahead. >> So, one of our jobs here is to mitigate financial impact on the city. So, I guess my question is, does that $300,000 allow us? Are we comfortable as staff

1:27:22 that are planning this and looking at all of the future options and the different things? Do do we feel like 300,000 is sufficient to to do what we need there? It's it's it's the amount that we have that is like relative to what we plan for for studies relative to it. Right. So I can't I don't have a magic ball to say that you know when we get to the actual study that it might not pay a little more or less. We starting to work with ODOT. We did talk with the Oregon Department of Transportation a little bit about this in the past in terms of what level of analysis we do since it's close to an interchange, but I think we we develop this amount based off of our already

1:28:08 developed planned projects that were similar. So, we have confidence in in that realm that the amount is sufficient to do the analysis um to take a look at the couplet and to take a look at a replacement for that project. I still can't guarantee that going through that process that the couplet is won't still be the preferred alternative after we do all that analysis. We all hope that you know and and that's the intent of all that but um but it is the appropriate amount >> piece right not the instruction >> right >> this is the this is the study and it's and I think so some of the trade-offs in this and why you know I felt like with Michael's you know input this is reasonable mitigation to to negotiate to bring forward to council is because this

1:28:53 is saving the work on the applicant side but also on our own staffs of trying to come up with that methodology and is that methodology the right numbers right now when we're going to go through a TSP update and that's a better time to figure that out. Um so you know it saves some work trying to more specifically quantify it still we know there's a fiscal impact to the city it mitigates that impact um it does it in a meaningful way um we also get other there's other fiscal mitigation in here um in the paying to construct whatever minor collector goes first their proportional part that's fiscal mitigation there's a requirement to work to enter a good neighbor agreement between the city and Um, you know, ideally other property owners, but that,

1:29:38 you know, is another thing we can talk about with council. I think for time, um, we need to check in on where we're at on the record and the hearing. I know the council wants to talk about good neighbor agreement. We didn't get to that tonight. >> Anyway, I'm saying like there's it's not just that this one number mitigates fiscal impacts. There's a bunch of things in this agreement are intended to get to that al together. But in terms of like providing a meaningful mitigation to gateway belt line um this is one way to do that. >> Okay. So I'm seeing head nods that like this is the way we want to go. Like we're penciling this stuff in. We still probably have another 90minute

1:30:23 discussion before we get to the finish line. So you have the >> we have the option to change our minds. >> Correct. >> Thank you. Um, so I think you're hearing put the 300, you know, put the price for the study. I keep saying 300,000. I'm not looking at it. Put the price for the study in it. Uh, and we're good at saying that that's that covers the the uh the uh impact from Gateway. Um the one thing that when we when you look at the staff report that I think we really have to sort of spruce up is really describe how this is roughly the same like this is you know equitable among the property you know property owners in North Gateway right because this is one of the the things that came very clearly away from the hearing is hey are we all doing this together >> okay

1:31:08 >> go ahead councelor >> I just want I'm gonna also keep saying this it's like we are trying to put everything in one bucket, right? And this is work we would have had to do anyway and was budgeted to do anyway that we would have had to pay for because we're committed to do solving this problem. So, I just want to just keep reminding them out loud to is that we're trying to put everything in and say we're fix it all with this annexation as opposed to letting you know we're going to this is one more step as we keep trying to work this area. >> Okay. So, we're going to have to find additional time and we'll do that at agenda review this week to finish up this conversation, but you have more we have to talk about the record. So, >> yes. So, um it sounds like at this time the council doesn't need more information in the record on the

1:31:53 transportation issues. Um so, I think that the remaining question then is um the next thing I think you want to talk about is good neighbor agreement. Um, are counselors thinking that you may want more information in the record on that topic or that you're not ready to like close the door on that topic yet? >> I think I think the question that I had was the abundance of additional feedback that we have gotten. Okay. >> Um, maybe start there because if we have to open the record anyway to sort of clean up the because we've gotten a lot. >> Yes. So, the council has gotten a lot of comments from the public. I would say that are similar to information that was already received by the council during the public hearing process during the

1:32:38 open record period. But there's a number of more comments. Um the law around exparte contacts. So those are all exparte contacts. The law around exparte contacts. The way we can deal with them is one, we can make it really clear um in your findings and in statements from the council that you recognize that you've gotten those comments, but they don't have information that is different than the information that's already in the record and they don't have relevance to the criteria directly and so they're not part of what the council's considering. So you can take steps to formally exclude them from the record. That's not telling the public that their input to council is not important or meaningful. It's a legal step to say we're not using this information to make

1:33:24 our decision. So we have to be clear. The other thing is number of comments don't relate to any of the criteria of approval. Um so I've reviewed the comments that have been received and so far I haven't seen anything that is different than the facts that are already in the record. So if the council um wants to you can say you know we don't think that these need to be part of the land use record we um then the consequence of that is that people that have submitted those comments do not have standing to appeal later on. You would have had to participate when the you know record and hearing were open. Um and that general concerns raised are still part of what's in the record. the council just wouldn't be considering any new information that's raised to the

1:34:10 extent there's new information. Um the other option is for council to reopen the record to admit everything that's come in so far and then provide the um public the opportunity or you know opponents the opportunity to respond to all of that um and then the applicants time to respond to that as well. I think if the council is going to reopen the record in hearing the council needs to be really constrained in what you're reopening the record for. um and for how long and for what issues. Councelor Rley. >> So, um, my question is on the flip side of that, which you can kind of maybe give me some guidance, is if we say, "All right, all of those 200 emails or whatever it was and all the meetings and the places and the people that cornered me in the grocery store, if all of those

1:34:56 things are not part of the public record, how do we um how do we how do we declare that as exparte?" Like do can I just say I have talked to a thousand people have come and talked to me. I'm like how do we do that if we don't have a way to collect that? Like I would want some guidance as to like how do I do how do I go declare that I got all of that stuff and got cornered this and that in a coffee shop and all this >> and I can work on providing specific guidance to council on that point. um and and clearer but at a high level you would sort of disclose the information like you know it's we received XYZ emails I have these contacts and then explain the substance of them and and

1:35:42 then either it's not and it's not relevant to the criteria of approval I'm not considering it and making my decision you know I'm sort of like walling myself off from taking that into account and then staff will not draft findings that rely on any of that information um for you to adopt. But I can give more sort of detailed information on on how to respond. Um if there's information though, if you've had expert contacts where you're like really this is relevant and I have to consider it, then that's when we need to reopen the record and allow response. But if you've excluded it, rejected it from the record, then it's not a contact that needs to be cured by allow response. It's cured by saying I'm not considering it. I'm just, you know, setting it over here. What would be the time frame if we reopen the record and

1:36:27 not the hearing, just the record to let all this other content in to make it just really clean for folks? Are we talking 5 days, 10 days, 3 years? >> It would Well, you'd have to decide if you were opening it up um you'd have to decide if you were opening it up for any other new information or if you're just retroactively taking in everything that had been submitted to that date and allowing responses to those things. if you're just taking in everything that's been, you know, provided to date and not allowing the additional testimony the applicants have requested on the other criteria. Um, then you need to provide a week at minimum seven days for response to information that's been sort of retroactively submitted from members of the public and then seven days for the applicant's final rebuttal. If you're

1:37:13 going to allow the applicants or others to submit new testimony um for a prospective period of time, then you would need to provide seven days to, you know, however 14 days, however long makes sense to council for new information to come in and then that closes and then you need to give seven days and seven days um on that end. So, it's about a month. But also, the council can't take action to reopen the record in a work session. So, you would need to do that um on the bid. >> Okay. And I think so no matter what it's no matter what it's about a month. Can we have the good neighbor agreement conversation while the records open or are we sort of are we sort of >> So I think look my preference right now is with the request and I'm jump in here

1:38:00 and all this additional content it seems cleaner to me to open the you open the record back up and just bring all the material like bring all the material in. So we don't have to sort of say we have a wall from this in place. We can just let everything back in. >> You will likely continue to have the problem of needing to declare a wall though because unless everybody stops talking about you the second talking about you talking to you about this the second the records closed again you're still going to be getting some extra contact on. So, I think that's just I don't want to tell the council there's some solution where you don't ever have to say we're cut off and we're not considering that because um there's just if unless the applicant waves their final rebuttal, you can't close everything down and then just make a decision.

1:38:45 >> How much additional staff time will reopening the record, not the hearing, the record take, do you expect? >> Um, >> very little. Quite a bit. >> It will we'll have to mail new notices. We'll have to mail notices out. Um and it will take >> there'll be additional costs. >> There'll be additional costs, but the um way annexation application fees work is the applicant pays those costs. So the applicant has requested the opportunity to reopen the record. So if the if the council's granting the applicant's request, then that's a charge available to the applicants to >> is is the aware I'm sure the applicant is aware of that then and is I'd be interested in checking in with them to see if they still >> they are now. Okay. >> We still can decide something else. Go ahead. That's true. >> So

1:39:31 on on the piece of this about um considering new information that is not in the form of the emails and things like that that that have come in but you know at one point it was suggested that there may be other information that could be um you know brought to us. You know, I don't want I I I don't want to say I'm not open to to hearing all the information. I don't think there's any counselor here that wants to kind of say, "Hey, I don't I've heard enough." if there is is relevant information. I mean, I feel like a lot of what we've heard is

1:40:19 interest in this in this facility, interest in the services that it would bring. And I don't think that there's any disagreement on that. Um that that's not the source of of what we're talking about. And so I don't know how to say, hey, there's if there's information on um that the county wants to bring or the applicant or or or the opponents of this. I mean, I definitely want to be open to that, but I feel like a lot of what we've heard is the same kind of thing. And I don't feel like it's speaking to the questions we're wrestling with right now. So, I don't know how to navigate that. And that's a really probably messy way of of putting that out there. But that's kind of that that's kind of what I'm trying to figure out here. I'm open to opening the record, but how do we how do we navigate

1:41:05 that? Look, I'm I'm looking at it from the place that we've got like we've got all this material and we're going to say, you know, a thousand people talk to Corey in the grocery store, right? How do we make that as clean and transparent to the public as possible? I don't necessarily feel like I need new information. I feel like it's all there, but it is possible that somebody around the table feels like they do need net new information. I think the part we have to do a good job of is if we want are asking them for net new information is get really specific about the question we want them to answer. Otherwise, they will duplicate effectively what's in there because the record is so large on this issue. So, I think the the choice is we we walk in fit and we say we're not opening the

1:41:50 record, right? We understand that Christina is going to help us build a wall between, you know, the kind of public comment and the stuff that's in the record. Our other option would be open it in to kind of clean up some of this other stuff, which is what I'm suggesting. And then the third one would be ask for net new information, but we have to say what that is. >> Yeah. And I don't feel like there's any I don't feel like I have a burning question of like I need new information on this um particular issue, but I I do feel that as clean as possible and being able to put all the information on the record um that we've that that's come in and and have that as clean as possible would be would be really helpful. What I can do for next week is bring to

1:42:36 you um options for scope of reopening the record like some some points where council may and you wouldn't be limited to that. You could decide no, we don't want that other information, but I can try to help tea up here's some things that I've heard or some places you might want to go with a reopen record. Um I'm not hearing interest from the council in a new hearing. Um so I won't bring that option forward. >> I don't think there's interest in a new hearing. Um, I do want to be clear that that is part of what the applicants did request though. Um, so and so I'll bring those options forward. So we'll have a a proposed timeline and what that can look like and then we'll also have um sort of what are some of those ways to draw a line around the information council's asking for that work? >> Sounds good.

1:43:22 >> Really good. Really appreciate it. This was really helpful. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> We are adjourned. We're going to reconfigure in this room for SEMA. You need to spell us. We've got children.