Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/12/2016 Joint Elected Officials (JEO) (2) MINUTES OF THE JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL, AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY SEPTEMBER 12, 2016 A joint elected officials meeting with the City of Springfield and Lane County was held in the Library Meeting Room, Springfield City Hall,225 5th Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday September 12, 2016 at 7:05 p.m.with Mayor Christine Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Mayor Lundberg opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council. Board Chair Stewart opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Planning Commission Chair Charlie Conrad opened the meeting of the Lane County Planning Commission. Present from Springfield were Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilors Wylie,Moore,Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Development and Public Works Director Anette Spickard(as AIC City Manager) and other Springfield staff were also present. Councilor VanGordon was absent(excused). Present from Lane County were Board Chair Stewart and Commissioners Leiken,Bozievich,Farr, and Sorenson. Also present were County Administrator Steve Mokrohisky and Senior Planner Keir Miller. Present from Lane County Planning Commission were Chair Conrad and Commissioners Hledik, Sisson, Coon,Thorp, Rose,Thiesfeld, and Kaylor. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Adoption of Amendments to the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary(UGB)and Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Designating Land to Meet Employment Land Needs for 2010-2030 Planning Period and Designating Land for Natural Resources; Public Facilities; Parks and Open Space. (Metro Plan Amendment File No. LRP 2009- 00014). Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing for the Springfield City Council. Acting City Manager Anette Spickard read the Springfield Ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY; THE EUGENE- SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN(METRO PLAN)TEXT AND DIAGRAM TO AMEND THE METRO PLAN BOUNDARY,ADOPT THE SPRINGFIELD 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2030 PLAN)ECONOMIC AND URBANIZATION POLICY ELEMENTS AND ASSIGN PLAN DESIGNATIONS TO NEWLY URBANIZABLE LANDS; THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP TO ASSIGN NEW ZONING; THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD SECTIONS 3.2-915 —3.2-930 ESTABLISHING THE AGRICULTURE-URBAN HOLDING AREA LAND USE ZONING DISTRICT(AG); ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. September 12,2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting Public Hearing City of Springfield Lane County Page 2 of 11 Lane County Board Chair Faye Stewart read the Lane County ordinances: ORDINANCE NO. 1304.AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY; THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN)TEXT AND DIAGRAM TO AMEND THE METRO PLAN BOUNDARY, ADOPT THE SPRINGFIELD 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (2030 PLAN)ECONOMIC AND URBANIZATION POLICY ELEMENTS AND ASSIGN PLAN DESIGNATIONS TO NEWLY URBANIZABLE LANDS; THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP TO ASSIGN NEW ZONING; THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD SECTIONS 3.2-915 —3.2-930 ESTABLISHING THE AGRICULTURE-URBAN HOLDING AREA LAND USE ZONING DISTRICT(AG); ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE ORDINANCE NO. PA 1341/IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE LANE COUNTY RURAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO MODIFY OFFICIAL COUNTY PLAN AND ZONE MAPS TO REFLECT THE EXPANSION OF THE SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AS AMENDED BY ORDNANCE NO PA 1304 ORDINANCE NO. 16-05 IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING LANE CODE CHAPTER 10.600-15 TO ADOPT LAND USE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE WITHIN URBANIZABLE LAND WITHIN THE SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY. City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said tonight's hearing is a legislative public hearing to receive testimony on the 2030 Expansion. Towards the end of the public hearing, discussion can be held regarding coordination for deliberations, leaving the records open or closing the hearing. Board Chair Stewart opened the public hearing for the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Planning Commission Chair Conrad opened the public hearing for the Lane County Planning Commission. Linda Pauly, Principal Planner,presented the staff report on this item. The ordinance that is the subject of tonight's hearing for Springfield File No. LRP 2009-000014 and TYP 413-00007 and Lane County file numbers PA-509,PA-1330593 is the next step in a multi-step phased adoption process for the Springfield Comprehensive Plan, as described in previous work sessions. The Plan amendments were initiated by submitting City and County joint notice to DLCD on December 31, 2009. The first evidentiary hearing on the 2030 Plan amendments was conducted by the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions on February 17, 2010. Mixed recommendations were forwarded to the respective elected officials. The AG Zone zoning code amendment(Agriculture Zoning District)was initiated on November 14, 2013. File no TYP 413-00007 has been incorporated into the record of tonight's proceedings. The first evidentiary hearing was conducted by the Springfield Planning Commission on December 18, 2013. The Planning Commission forwarded recommendations to both the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners on the proposed AG Land Use Zoning District. Subsequently a separate Springfield UGB and 2030 Plan residential policy element were adopted and acknowledged by the State on July 6, 2011. The City of Springfield and Lane County adopted a September 12, 2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting Public Hearing City of Springfield Lane County Page 3 of 11 separate Springfield Urban Growth Boundary(City of Springfield Ordinance No. 6268 on June 20, 2011; Lane County Ordinance PA-096018 on July 6, 2011). Since the beginning of this work in 2008, the 2030 planning process has been iterative. Several drafts of the employment analysis have been produced, and multiple alternatives for meeting land needs have been considered,proposed, examined and evaluated. The amendments before the Council,Board and Planning Commission tonight address Springfield's need for commercial and industrial employment land for the 20-year planning period 2010-2030. The Springfield Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory, Economic Opportunities Analysis and Economic Development Objectives and Implementation Strategies are an evaluation and determination of Springfield's commercial and industrial land needs, pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 9. The technical analysis you are being asked to adopt will establish the baseline inventory and economic opportunities analysis of commercial and industrial land needs for the 2010-2030 planning period. Upon acknowledgement of the 2030 Plan amendments before you tonight,the CIBL will replace the Springfield Commercial Land Study as an important factual base for evaluating future land use plan, zoning and policy proposals. The conclusion of the CIBL/EOA is that the City of Springfield has a deficit of industrial and commercial mixed-use employment sites larger than 5 acres, a deficit that requires expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary of at least 223 suitable acres to accommodate identified employment needs. The proposed UGB amendment-as proposed in the maps in Exhibit A of the agenda packet- addresses Springfield's need for employment land sites 5 acres and larger. As summarized in the staff report and draft findings, approval of the proposed UGB amendment would add approximately 257 acres of land suitable to meet the specific site needs of target industry employers identified in the CIBL/EOA on 273 gross acres in the North Gateway and Mill Race expansion areas. The suitable employment lands are designated"Urban Holding Area—Employment". The proposed Springfield Urban Growth Boundary amendment also includes 53 acres of land located within the FEMA Floodway in the North Gateway expansion area and designates these 53 floodway acres"Natural Resource". The proposed Springfield Urban Growth Boundary amendment also includes 455 acres of existing Public, Parks and Open Space Land and designates these lands"Public/Semi Public". Approval of the proposed amendments to Metro Plan text will establish the"Urban Holding Area- Employment"(UHA-E)Plan Designation. The Metro Plan text is proposed to be amended in Chapter II, Section C: Growth Management; Chapter II, Section E: Urban and Urbanizable Land; Chapter III, Section B: Economic Element reflecting that these sections no longer apply to Springfield and have been replaced by the city-specific Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Economic and Urbanization Elements; also amended in Chapter II Section G to add the UHA-E land use designation, remove the Springfield specific reference to the Natron Special Heavy Industrial(SHI) site and change footnote 7 to add a reference for this ordinance. Pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 9,the Metro Plan is proposed to be amended to adopt Springfield's City-specific Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Economic Element including Economic Development Goals, Policies and Implementation Strategies as well as its Technical Supplement the Springfield Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory, Economic Opportunities Analysis, which will replace the Springfield Commercial Lands Study. September 12, 2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting Public Hearing City of Springfield Lane County Page 4 of 11 Pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 14,the Metro Plan is proposed to be amended to adopt Springfield's city-specific Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Urbanization Element including Urbanization Goals, Policies and Implementation Strategies. The Metro Plan Diagram is proposed to be amended to move the Metro Plan Boundary to be coterminous with the amended Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. Proposed amendments to the Springfield Development Code would establish the"Agriculture-Urban Holding Area"(AG)Land Use Zoning District. Proposed amendments to the Springfield Zoning Map assign"Agriculture-Urban Holding Area"(AG) zoning to 328 acres of land and"Public Land and Open Space"(PLO)to 455 acres of land. Staff conducted public involvement activities over the multi-year period and received input from hundreds of people. Complete documentation of planning process to date, including the previous hearings,public involvement activities, Council work sessions to develop the draft plan policies and UGB amendment proposals before you is provided in the record. Those who participated or requested information have been provided with mailed and emailed notice of tonight's proceedings. The proposals before you have been developed after conducting the thorough analysis of Springfield's land needs and development of land use plans and policies to meet those needs as required under Statewide Planning Goal 9 rules and the urban growth boundary location alternatives analysis under ORS 197.298 and Goal 1 14, and after considering public input received to date. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearings,pursuant to Springfield Development Code Section 5.2-115,has been provided. The Notice established a date of August 22nd for testimony to be submitted to be included in the Council and Board's agenda packet. Testimony received. One letter with attachment was received from the Law Office of Bill Kloos representing Johnson Crushers International and has been included in the agenda packet as Attachment 3. Prior to the hearing, staff received the following testimony: Email from Mike Eyster, representing Springfield Chamber of Commerce, in support of the UGB amendment Approval criteria. The Springfield 2030 Plan proposal contains an amendment of the UGB by a city with a population of 2,500 or more that adds more than 50 acres. Pursuant to OAR 660-025-0175,the UGB Amendment is submitted to the Department and Commission for review for compliance with the applicable Oregon Statewide Planning goals 1,2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, statutes and rules in the manner provided for review of UGB amendments. The amendments must be consistent with the relevant comprehensive plan policies. Criteria include but are not limited to: Metro Plan diagram amendment criteria: Lane Code Chapter 12 Sections 12.210, 12.220, Springfield Development Code (SDC) Section and 12. 225 5.14-135C. Springfield Development Code amendment Lane Code 16.252 Procedures for Zoning, criteria: SDC Section 5.6-115. Rezoning and Amendments to Requirements September 12,2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting Public Hearing City of Springfield Lane County Page 5 of 11 Springfield Zoning Map amendment criteria: SDC Lane Code Ch. 16.400 Rural Comprehensive Plan Section 5.22-115C. Amendment Criteria Lane Code Ch. 14.200 General Hearings Rules Mayor Lundberg asked that speakers provide their name, address and zip code when they came forward to speak, and to limit their comments to 3 minutes or less. The following spoke under the public hearing: 1. George Grier, Thurston Road, Springfield, OR 97478. Mr. Grier said conversion to rural lands to urban use can result in conflict with adjacent rural landowners. One example he encounters are uncontrolled dogs that present a serious threat to their livestock. Their farm is in the floodplain and is not a good candidate for urban use. But their ability to continue to farm is threatened by these conflicts. They hope that bringing Ruff Park and all of Lively Dog Park into the City will result in increased enforcement and communication between the City and its rural neighbors. There are some activities that preclude being good neighbors. In almost 50 years of farming here, they have been forced to curtail some of their normal farming operations due to proximity to their urban neighbors.Never have the roles been reversed,where their urban neighbors have considered modifying their activities so that they can continue to farm.Maybe now is a good time to start that discussion. Mr. Grier served on the CIBL,taskforce. At its conclusion,he was concerned that Springfield was overestimating its future need for expansion and was relying too heavily on investing in expensive infrastructure in the floodplain. He appreciates the reanalysis that has occurred over the last few years and commend the City and its staff for the resulting refinements. One thing this exercise has brought into focus is the natural constraints Springfield faces to any future expansion of its UGB. The strategy of pursuing future expansion of the City into the floodplain is very risky. Funds for infrastructure improvements and expansion will continue to be limited.Using scarce funds for development in the floodplain is unwise.Many of the targeted businesses are unlikely to want to locate in areas that are subject to flooding. Flood insurance premiums in the aftermath of a Congressional overhaul of the NFIP have become prohibitive. Expansion into the floodplain is a high risk/low reward strategy. Springfield has shown great foresight in its vision of redevelopment of Main Street and Glenwood. This is the future of our community. Whatever the outcome of the current UGB process,he urged them to look beyond this moment. While the potential for parcel assembly was raised at the CIBL, it was never a serious consideration. Many of the targeted business from the analysis could be adequately served by parcel assembly or by more intensive development or repurposing of underutilized parcels. This is especially true along Main Street and within Glenwood. The City has a history of successful parcel assembly and should continue to use this powerful tool. He is deeply concerned that the City has retreated from its vision of dynamic redevelopment along Main Street catalyzed by a transit-friendly corridor. Please don't let short term concerns from a vocal minority keep us from embracing this vision of Springfield's future. 2. Dan Terrell, Law Office of Bill Kloos, Eugene, OR 97401. Mr. Terrell said they represent Johnson Crushers International. A letter was submitted for the agenda packet. He thanked them for the time and effort they have put in reviewing the material. Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) September 12, 2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting Public Hearing City of Springfield Lane County Page 6 of 11 recently handed down a decision regarding the City of Coburg's proposed UGB expansion, continuing the precedent of DLCD of not cutting local governments much slack. As harsh as it may seem,they always say there is some flexibility,but reality is that they place great emphasis on that statutory priority scheme. The letter submitted included a passage from LUBA that essentially explains why. The proposal before them today greatly resembles those decisions that were remanded by DLCD and the Court of Appeals some time ago. It leapfrogs exceptionary lands and EFU lands on poorer soil quality which is higher on the priority scheme in order to bring in EFU lands that has better soils. The facts in the record advocate for bringing in Seavey Loop area before any other area that is being considered in the Springfield UGB expansion. It has the greatest amount of exception lands,the only areas that include employment exception lands, and the EFU lands were part of the study area are of the poorest soil qualities of all the areas considered, and higher priority than either of the two sites being considered. The Seavey Loop area contains parcels that individually or combined could meet a significant percentage of the medium and large size need for industrial uses the CIBL demonstrates are necessary. It doesn't cover all of the City's needs,but before they get to the other areas,they need to include Seavey Loop. They believe a Springfield UGB expansion for employment land purposes that does not include the Seavey Loop area will be remanded. 3. Walter Johnson,Armitage Road, Eugene, OR. Mr.Johnson said he is representing the North Gateway area from a unique perspective. He has farmed all of the farmable property in that area for over 50 years and spent his entire life living on it. Making a living on the property is dubious due to the soils and other aspects of the ground in the area. Some of it is very good,while other portions are a waste of time. The parts that are good are excellent,but are bisected and trisected by portions that are gravels and other issues. In trying to balance the need to balance the need for farmland to produce food can be taken care of by other agronomic systems in other locations, and we would still be fine. People are concerned we are losing farmland and we need to preserve it as much as possible,which he agrees with. The need for places to grow and provide opportunities for a growing population need to be balanced out and he thinks this is a good zone for that. He is in support of this in North Gateway. The designation for floodway is 600 to 300 feet wide along the entire length of the north Gateway zone,which he feels is excessive and unnecessary and restricts the capacity for growth in that area. He feels it could be accomplished with as little as 150 feet.A berm along that area could be built to bring it up about 3 feet to keep water from flooding that area. He has seen only one flood cover the area in the 70 years he has lived here. He said he would provide written testimony with additional ideas and thoughts. 4. Mike Eyster, Springfield, OR 97477 Mr. Eyster said he serves as the Chair of the Springfield Chamber Board. The board discussed this at their August 17 meeting and is in support of the proposal presented by staff. 5. Richard Proulx, S 28th Street, Springfield, OR 97477. Mr.Proulx said he owns three businesses in Springfield. He received several letters from Ms. Pauly over the years, but this is the first time he has attended a meeting. He appreciates what they are trying to accomplish. His family moved into the South M area in 1958. It was a peaceful area with deer, eagles,walks to the river and a nice area to raise a family,with limited traffic on the gravel road. In the late 1980's, property was sold to SUB for wellfields,but no development. SUB put in some modified fencing and gates, limiting access to the river. In about 2000 or 2005,the residents were invited by SUB to a meeting about a filtration system they were putting in for better water. They promised to be a great September 12, 2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting Public Hearing City of Springfield Lane County Page 7 of 11 neighbor,but they put up more extensive fencing and gates and completely shut off access to the rivers. There have been people who have lived in this area for many years, and the area has changed dramatically. He is not sure what becoming part of the UGB will do to the area. If businesses go in,they will need more roads or road access. They are already seeing traffic that the roads or bridge can maintain including large trucks. For personal reasons, he is not supportive of the expansion. 6. Mia Nelson, 1000 Friends of Oregon, Eugene, OR. Ms.Nelson distributed copies of her letters. The letter with attachments was provided for the record.Ms.Nelson said she has been testifying on this matter since 2008, even before she was hired by 1000 Friends of Oregon. It has changed a lot and staff has done a lot of great work which she appreciates. This is a much better proposal than it was before, but they are still not able to support it completely. They support a lot of what the City is doing,but there are a few problems as outlined in her letter.Many of the issues are similar to the City of Newberg's industrial UGB expansion which went before DLCD two years ago. The problems identified needed to be fixed and were remanded. It would be a real waste for Springfield to send this proposal to DLCD for review without taking time to check with DLCD staff to make certain you know how they will recommend. When she was reviewing the buildable lands, she was struck by how much vacant and underutilized land already exists in the UGB. IT is an opportunity for Springfield to grow inside the current UGB. She also noted how expensive it is to extend infrastructure to any of the areas outside the UGB. Her letter addresses those higher costs, and how those will have an effect on those building in Springfield. She is available if staff or elected officials would like to talk more. 7. Paul Dixon, S 28th Street, Springfield, OR. Mr. Dixon said he and his wife own property already in the UGB and is not proposed to be annexed. They have lived there about 20 years. He asked if any of the elected officials had ever been down this part of South 28th Street and looked at the affected properties. Depending on the time of year, a stretch of South 28th Street is in worse condition than some of the hunting roads he uses. This is a very unique area with farmland and about 13 to 14 families,with only one source of egress and ingress on 28th Street.He encouraged them to look at what 28th Street is capable of servicing now and what would have to be done in order to serve any type of job creating businesses that would locate in that area, including replacing bridge. The City has not been willing to take care of that stretch of the road and is not something in their upcoming plans. Over the past five years or so,the City and SUB has purchased all of the major pieces of land except one in this area. The City and SUB may benefit the most from the development of this property. 8. Randy Fulkerson, S 28`t' Street, Springfield, OR, Mr. Fulkerson said he is a retired contractor from Springfield, as well as a retired combat veteran. They have seen a lot of impact in this area over the last 15 years he has lived in that area. They started raising horses and cows as most of this area is farmland and has been used as agricultural farmland as long as he has lived there. They have been able to use the School District's land behind Agnes Stewart Middle School for a number of years. There had been a lot of homeless people camped in the area and drug use. They talked to the School Board who allowed them to fence it in to keep their horses and take care of it. They have done so until the path was installed, at which time they were told to vacate the property and remove the horses and fence. In this time frame,there has been a tremendous amount of traffic,the deer population has been decimated,and the fish population was destroyed with the Mill Race upgrade because it went dry for two years. They have seen a bigger population of September 12,2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting Public Hearing City of Springfield Lane County Page 8 of 11 people come along and their property line is no longer protected. The Mill Race is the only thing that keeps people from coming from that path to their properties. They are vulnerable to people coming into their barns and messing around with their animals. They had one horse shot in the pasture a few years back and they are not looking forward to this happening again.He has had run-ins with vagrants in that area that didn't used to be there. Because of where they live,they are not able to get the City Police or County Police to respond because they are not in city limits. Occasionally,they are able to get State Police to respond with Springfield Police as backup. He also noted the egress problems and the issues of getting to the fire at Swanson. Board Chair Stewart asked about the Metro Plan text amendments. In 2005,the Board of Commissioners attempted to have some text language changes in regards to creating a public service district.He asked if this was an opportunity to change the Metro Plan text to address this topic. Ms. Spickard said there are amendments in the document to address urban services. Ms. Pauly read from the pages in the agenda packet that include the added text under Urbanization Element, "This plan does not address facilities and services provided by Lane County,the State of Oregon, or the Federal government, and does not preclude provision of those services within Springfield". The footnote states, "Lane County provides the following services on a county-wide basis: sheriff and corrections, criminal prosecution,parole and probation; elections; regional transportation; mental health and public health services; workforce assistance; animal services; and regional parks and facilities". Policy 31 regarding key urban services also addresses urban services and retains the current Metro Plan language regarding annexation, and includes a footnote that"This plan does not address facilities and services provided by Lane County, State of Oregon or the Federal Government and does not preclude provision of those services within Springfield". Mr.Miller said Lane County staff is working with Springfield on development policies to address the issues brought forward by the Board. What is reflected is their effort to make sure the policies of the City would not be contrary or create obstacles. There are still fundamental policies that could be a deterrent,but those are not part of this process as they would involve the City of Eugene as well. Commissioner Bozievich said recently the City of Coburg's UGB was remanded for a number of reasons. Their proposal included using 20%of the demand for large parcels for economic development along the I-5 corridor. He asked if Springfield looked at all of the study, and what percentage Springfield is proposing to take in comparison. Ms.Pauly said they were not approached by Coburg to be involved in their decision regarding the regional land need. Mr.Miller said his understanding is that the City of Springfield is looking at the only the needs of the City,not the region as a whole. The reality is that this is a region. Following State rules,the City is allowed to evaluate property just outside their UGB. Ms. Pauly said she is not aware of how they estimated their percentage. They also had a different planning period. September 12, 2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting Public Hearing City of Springfield Lane County Page 9 of 11 Commissioner Bozievich referred to the testimony by those from South 28th Street and said he used to work with Branch Engineering and has been and is very familiar with the area. Councilor Moore asked about the"Urban Holding Area—Employment"and asked for an explanation of that zone designation. Ms.Pauly said this is a new designation for the Metro Plan, although other cities have it in their plans. It is an interim step. When land is brought into the UGB, it needs to be plan designated right away, but the City doesn't always know what type of employment land that area should be until they have interest from a property owner or developer. This allows the land to be brought into the UGB and keeps the parcels large until the land would be developed. Councilor Moore said this designation would cause no impact on the current properties at this time. Ms. Pauly said that is correct. The City does have the AG Zoning District which ensures the parcels are not divided below a certain size. The language is similar to our current zoning language. The Code currently includes the Urbanizable Fringe and Zoning District which includes land within the UGB, but not annexed. Councilor Moore said many of those holding areas have been developed into residential. Lane County Planning Commissioner Randy Hledik asked if it will be necessary to make a plan amendment when development is appropriate to change the holding designation to something else. Ms. Pauly said they would have to do a plan amendment and zone change to apply the new designation. She explained. Commissioner Hledik asked if it was possible to do a lot of that background now so the appropriate designation could be assigned. Ms. Pauly said there was not time in this process. There is other planning work that needs to occur in the Urbanization Element policy and Code prior to development. A gentleman from the audience asked if everyone could speak louder as it was difficult to hear. Mayor Lundberg said this is done in an orderly fashion to get us where we need to go. Commissioner Sorenson referred to the letter from 1000 Friends. He asked if staff could review it. Ms. Pauly said she just received the letter this evening. Staff will respond to all testimony received, including the letter, for the next Council and Board packet. Commissioner Leiken said Ms.Nelson asked a pertinent question about whether or not the City could make the case to DLCD. Ultimately,the LCBC co-adopt this,but it is the City's plan. There has been a lot of work that has gone into this. The fact they have been nimble enough to move from one area to another makes sense. They could likely make the case that the infrastructure costs for the North Gateway area will be simpler. He appreciates those people that came out to testify. This is the future of September 12,2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting Public Hearing City of Springfield Lane County Page 10 of 11 Springfield which he put a lot of work into early on when he served as Mayor. He feels they can make the case,but it is up to the City and DLCD. Ms. Pauly said staff has been working with DLCD staff in Salem who seem to be accepting of what has been presented. They have offered very few comments. It is staffs position that we have substantial evidence for the proposal and it meets the requirements of the Metro Plan and Development Code and all equivalent State and local law. Mayor Lundberg said she has also been involved with this process since 2009. We have gone through many iterations. She believes our land use laws were intended to allow growth in an orderly fashion that was meant to account for all of the things accounted for in our proposal. We have significantly changed where the City started from in response to a myriad of the changes in regulations and other land use decisions made. We have carefully considered what we are trying to do, but she firmly believes Springfield is a community that will grow,we need employment opportunities and we need places to put employment.A new variation of our regional planning is now in place so we will be in a cooperative mode regarding businesses moving in to the area taking into consideration the whole area. She is confident in the work that has been done and is hopeful we can make the right decisions on behalf of the community and region as a whole. Commissioner Bozievich said he attended the Association of Oregon Counties(AOC)Legislative Committee. One of the committees he sits on is environmental land use. They had a presentation by staff from DLCD about Biological Opinion and Reasonable Prudent Alternatives being proposed to the State. One of his concerns about the North Gateway area is flooding. One of the things communities have to address in the subset of plans adopted is potential channel change and restrictive development in those areas. On the other hand, he is concerned about how that will impact current, existing employment lands within the City of Springfield regarding redevelopment. The Glenwood Refinement Plan may be impacted. It is a balance since the City is counting on some of that land that may be impacted by those decisions. He questioned whether or not the City over-counted some existing lands for redevelopment due to them being in the floodplain. Ms. Smith said the next step is for the elected officials to decide if they want to continue the public hearing or close the public hearing, and if they want to leave the written record open longer. She recommended they close the public hearing tonight and set a date for the record to be extended so others in attendance tonight could submit information. That would give staff time to respond to Commissioner Sorenson's question about 1000 Friends letter and other comments. She also noted that the Lane County Planning Commission did not have a quorum. They could extend the public hearing to October 10, or close the hearing and extend the record for 30 days(October 14)with time afterwards for staff to respond. There is a placeholder for a meeting in November for deliberation. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WOODROW TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND LEAVE THE RECORD OPEN.THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 IN FAVOR, 1 OPPOSED (MOORE)AND 1 ABSENT (VANGORDON). It was determined that the Lane County Planning Commission could not take any action as they did not have a quorum. Those members who were absent could listen to the audio recording. They can choose a date to reconvene. September 12, 2016 Joint Elected Officials Meeting Public Hearing City of Springfield Lane County Page 11 of 11 IT WAS MOVED BY LANE COUNTY COMMISSIONER FARR WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LEIKEN TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND LEAVE THE RECORD OPEN UNTIL OCTOBER 14.THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 IN FAVOR AND 0 OPPOSED. Ms. Smith said the two elected bodies could deliberate together or separately after the record closes. Sometimes the moving jurisdiction acts first, followed by the County. That can be determined later. She announced to the audience that the record will remain open until October 14, and staff has until October 21 to respond. There is a placeholder for deliberations in November. Ms.Pauly said the Lane County Planning Commission could deliberate sooner when they have a quorum. ADJOURNMENT The Springfield City Council meeting was adjourned by Mayor Lundberg at 8:15pm. The Lane County Board of Commissioners meeting was adjourned by Board Chair Stewart at 8:15pm. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa City Recorder 774(...t ‘t_.)(R)C3e4 Chi istine L. Lundberg Mftyef- Council President Attest: City Reco er