Code audit: Springfield largely compliant with state housing rules but consultants flag fixes and strategic changes

Haley (city planning staff) introduced the Housing and Design Initiative code audit to the Springfield City Council and turned the presentation over to Cascadia Partners. Rachel Cotton, senior associate with Cascadia Partners, and Jamin Kimmel, the project principal, summarized the audit’s two parts: legally required compliance work and a set of strategic recommendations aimed at increasing housing production, affordability and choice.

Required amendments and compliance findings: Cascadia reported that the majority of Springfield’s development code is compliant with state housing-related statutes but identified several areas needing amendments. The memo in the council packet and the consultants’ presentation listed partially compliant areas that include allowances for residential homes and residential care facilities, prefabricated dwellings, and manufactured home parks (noting a statutory limit on minimum lot sizes). The consultants identified one explicit noncompliance: state rules requiring the use of recreational vehicles (RVs) for residential occupancy when they are connected to water, electricity and sewer in RV parks, and temporary RV occupancy following a natural disaster; the code’s timelines and allowances will need revision to meet that statute.

Clear and objective pathway: The audit evaluated whether the code contains clear and objective standards (measurable criteria that different reviewers would interpret the same way) for needed housing. Cascadia found parts of the code meet that test, particularly recently amended development sections, but flagged mixed-use districts (including Glenwood and Riverfront) and certain overlay districts (Willamette Greenway, Floodplain, Hillside) that contain discretionary or vague language. Examples of non‑clear-and‑objective phrasing cited were terms such as "maximum extent practicable," "substantial adverse impact," "adequate," and "significant clusters of trees" without numerical thresholds.

Strategic recommendations and barriers to housing: The consultants identified strategic barriers in refinement plans and mixed-use districts that could impede housing production: large minimum development area requirements cited in plans (for example, references to 10‑acre minimums for new residential development), master-plan or development-area triggers that add cost and delay for smaller projects, and policies that favor commercial zoning or require ground-floor commercial space on every site. Consultants warned that mandatory ground-floor commercial requirements can raise construction costs (often triggering podium construction) and may not pencil in weaker retail markets; Cascadia presented two decades of local retail lease-rate data showing modest lease rates and persistent vacancy as context for that point.

Relationship with market analysis: Councilors asked how this audit aligns with a prior climate-friendly areas market analysis. Cascadia clarified that the prototypes discussed are not tower-style steel-frame buildings taller than seven stories; the consultant said up to six or seven stories can be feasible using podium (mostly wood-frame) construction and that height, not density per se, drives a large cost step. The consultants said they would check consistency with the market study appendix where questions remained.

Process, governance and public engagement: Haley summarized the schedule: finalize the code audit, then develop code and plan concepts with community outreach July–August, convene an existing technical advisory committee (17 members appointed), form a governance committee with two council members for summer check-ins, proceed to drafting amendments in the fall, and seek an adoption-ready package by year end. Councilors emphasized the need to preserve flexibility in standards (to avoid over‑prescriptive rules), to prioritize walkability and multimodal design, and to ensure public engagement materials use clear, plain language.

Ending: Consultants and staff will revise the audit language per feedback, return concept options for council consideration, and circulate a public engagement plan ahead of the July outreach. No code amendments or formal appointments were adopted at the meeting; councilors were asked to consider serving on the governance committee and to provide feedback on strategic priorities.