Council hears introduction to housing code and plan update; staff seeks guidance on governance and outreach

Hailey, planning staff, told the Springfield City Council in a work session that the city will begin a targeted housing‑related code and plan update to bring Springfield into compliance with state housing statutes and to “facilitate housing production, affordability, and choice by reducing regulatory barriers.” Cascadia Partners is the consultant working with the city on the project and will deliver a code and plan audit, high‑level code concepts, and draft amendments.

The audit phase will identify development code, comprehensive plan, and neighborhood refinement plan sections that are not compliant with state law and code sections that create barriers to housing. "The audit will identify the portions of the development code, comprehensive plans, and neighborhood refinement plans that need to be amended to comply with state law," Hailey said. Cascadia will redline noncompliant sections and produce alternative approaches as part of the code concepts stage.

Staff outlined a three‑phase schedule: an audit (underway, draft due early April), two rounds of community engagement (May–June and Sept–Oct), and completion of draft code and plan amendments by December. Cascadia will produce materials for engagement; the planning commission (acting as the committee for citizen involvement) will review the community engagement plan. Staff recommended forming an advisory committee to review materials and suggested the council consider reconstituting a small governance committee consisting of councilors and planning commissioners, similar to earlier phases of the development code update.

Cascadia’s compliance review will explicitly examine state statutes and administrative rules cited in the presentation, including ORS 197 (comprehensive land use planning), ORS 222 (city planning and zoning), ORS 92 (subdivisions and partitions) and OAR 660 (DLCD rules for climate‑friendly areas and walkable design). The presentation noted specific code provisions that Cascadia found were not "clear and objective," citing Springfield development code examples and offering sample replacement language (for example, objective facade massing techniques for facades longer than 50 feet, and a 40% minimum ground‑floor transparency requirement for some mixed‑use districts).

Councilors asked several procedural and policy questions. Councilor Rodley asked whether advisory committee meetings would be public and raised concerns about staff capacity to support additional committee meetings and noticing requirements. Councilor Victoria (surname not recorded) asked whether Cascadia was the only consultant option and whether the firm had been selected by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD); staff replied that Cascadia (and a named DLCD planner, Chelsea Hartman) were chosen by DLCD and that Cascadia is coordinating the CFA (climate‑friendly areas) work while city staff are managing the broader audit and policy items.

Several councilors emphasized the need to preserve flexibility where state law requires clear‑and‑objective standards. Councilor Moe said the project’s focus is to bring noncompliant sections into compliance rather than remove discretionary tracks: "We're just focusing on the sections that are not in compliance right now with the clear and objective." Other councilors recommended including developers and technical stakeholders in advisory discussions to ensure proposed standards remain economically feasible.

On timing and governance, staff noted earlier phases used a governance committee of two councilors and two planning commissioners and a technical advisory committee with developers, utilities and agency staff; those groups met infrequently. Staff suggested the scheduled work sessions with council could serve as periodic governance check‑ins if the council opts not to reestablish a standing governance committee. The timeline presented includes returning to council on April 28 with audit findings and, if applicable, appointing advisory committee members at the May 20 planning commission meeting.

The presentation distinguished two audit strands: (1) a mandatory compliance audit to meet statutory and OAR requirements, and (2) a policy‑driven review to identify local pro‑housing changes the city may choose to adopt. Staff described the policy‑driven work as the space where the city can go beyond baseline compliance to promote housing types and design outcomes that match Springfield’s goals.

The work session concluded with council general agreement to continue with the schedule and with several members asking staff to return with details on committee scope, participant selection, and expected staff support requirements. No formal council action or vote occurred at the work session.