Springfield work session introduces housing-related code and plan update to meet state rules and reduce regulatory barriers

Hailey, a city planning staffer, told the Springfield City Council at a work session that the city is beginning a housing-related code and plan update to bring the development code, comprehensive plan, and neighborhood refinement plans into compliance with state housing statutes and administrative rules and to reduce regulatory barriers to housing production.

The project will proceed in three phases: a code-and-plan audit, high-level code-and-plan concepts, and draft code and plan amendments. Cascadia Partners, the consultant working with the city, is completing the audit phase and anticipates a draft audit by early April, Hailey said. Community engagement rounds are scheduled for MaytoJune and SeptembertoOctober, with a public review draft of code and plan amendments expected by Dec. 2.

The audit will check for compliance with state statutes and Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) rules, and also identify local policy-driven changes that could promote housing. Hailey said the statutes and rules to be reviewed include ORS 197 (comprehensive land use planning), ORS 222 (city planning and zoning), ORS 92 (subdivisions and partitions) and OAR 660 (DLCD administrative rules), with emphasis on provisions addressing climate-friendly areas and walkability. The audit will "redline" code sections that are noncompliant and flag development barriers to test against walkable-standards feasibility tests.

Hailey gave two code examples where Cascadia found current language is not "clear and objective," a state requirement under ORS 197. She said one development-code standard requiring compatibility for massing and scale in a nodal area did not meet the clear-and-objective test; Cascadia suggested language such as "building shall incorporate at least two of the following massing techniques for any facade longer than 50 feet." Another example, a Glenwood Riverfront mixed-use district standard calling for "a high level of transparency" at ground floors, was flagged; Cascadia suggested a measurable alternative such as glazing equal to at least 40% of the ground-level wall area up to 10 feet above finish grade.

Councilors asked about three governance options: rely on scheduled council work sessions and Planning Commission review, reconstitute a governance committee as used in earlier phases, or form an advisory committee. Hailey recommended forming an advisory committee to review draft materials; she said the technical advisory committee used in phases 1 and 2 included developers, staff and topic-specific agencies, and that staff would invite previous participants and other interested parties to reengage. She emphasized this phase focuses first on meeting the stateminimum clear-and-objective requirements and, separately, on policy-driven items where the city can choose to go beyond the minimum.

Councilors pressed on staffing and timing. Councilor Rodley said staffing capacity for running an advisory committee and complying with public-meeting requirements is a concern. Councilor Stout favored a limited governance committee, perhaps a single summer check-in, to provide a logic check and avoid getting to the end of the project and finding dissatisfied stakeholders. Councilor Weber said forming both a governance and advisory committee could be useful if it improves long-term efficiency. Hailey said if the council does not create a governance committee, scheduled work sessions with the council can serve as formal check-ins.

Hailey described the timeline in more detail: staff will bring the community engagement plan to the Committee for Citizen Involvement (acting as the Planning Commission) on March 18 for discussion of advisory committee formation; the audit findings will be summarized to council on April 28; staff will share the audit findings with the Planning Commission on May 20 and may appoint advisory committee members then; Cascadia will present code-and-plan concepts in August and September; and staff expects a public review draft by Dec. 2.

Hailey said the policy-driven portion of the project will evaluate walkable-design standards tied to the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) program (OAR 660-012-0030 and related rules) and consider which building types and standards to allow outside and inside designated climate-friendly areas. She said that overlap with CFEC requirements is expected and that the city will evaluate trade-offs between clear-and-objective language and discretionary review.

Hailey and councilors repeatedly noted the two-track nature of the work: first meet state-required clear-and-objective standards for sections that are noncompliant; second, consider broader policy choices where the city can decide whether to go further to promote housing and design outcomes.

Council discussion ended without a formal motion; staff will return with the community engagement plan to the Committee for Citizen Involvement on March 18 and with audit findings to the council on April 28.