Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/2011 RegularCity of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2011 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 4, 2011 at 7:01 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present from Springfield were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney. Bill VanVactor, City Recorder Amy Sowa, and members of the staff. Present from Lane County were Board Chair Stewart and Board Members Leiken, Bozievich, and Handy. Commissioner Sorenson was absent (excused). Also present were Interim County Administrator Liane Richardson, Acting Lane County Counsel Stephen Vorhes, and members of the Lane County staff. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others. 1. Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan: Adoption of Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to`Comply with HB3337 (ORS 197.304). File Number LRP 2009-000143 LRP 2009-00012. ORDINANCE NO. 1 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (Metro Plan) TO ADOPT THE SPRINGFIELD 2030 REFINEMENT PLAN RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND HOUSING ELEMENT AND TO ESTABLISH A SEPARATE SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY PURSUANT TO ORS 197.304. Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly presented this item. She noted that the topic of tonight's public hearing was an important one for Springfield's future. The work products the elected officials were reviewing addressed Springfield's existing and future community housing needs for the next twenty years. Adoption of the Residential Land Use and Housing Policies and a Springfield urban growth boundary was the City's first step in creating a new citywide Comprehensive Plan: The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan. This would be a refinement plan of the Eugene- Springfield Metro Plan that would allow Springfield a greater degree of autonomy in making local, planning decisions that fulfilled the City's mission of making the City of Springfield a desirable and preferred place to live and work. The Refinement Plan would create a comprehensive roadmap that looked at all of Springfield and the neighborhoods as a whole. Adoption of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land and Housing Element would articulate, support, and advance many of the City Council Goals as it addressed community and City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 4, 2011 Page 2 economic development and revitalization, creating a positive environment that valued diversity and encouraged inclusion, and preserving hometown feel, livability and environmental quality. Ms. Pauly said the technical. analysis the elected officials were being asked to adopt would establish abase line buildable lands inventory and housing needs analysis that updated and informed our understanding of what kinds of housing our community would need and where such housing may be built to accommodate the need. This would help the City make informed decisions as detailed planning studies were conducted for Glenwood, Downtown and other districts and neighborhoods throughout the City. It would also inform and help guide decision making about updates to the Springfield Development Code. Ms.. Pauly reminded the elected officials that the ordinance that was subject of tonight's public hearing was Step 1 of a multi-step phased adoption process for the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan as described in detail at the February 7 work session. In response to testimony received during last Spring's joint Planning Commission hearings on the 2030 Plan, and after subsequent meetings with the Director and staff of the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Springfield staff developed a phased plan to simplify and streamline the adoption process by focusing on the items required for compliance with HB3337, Step 1. The remaining 2030 Plan elements were an economic element, an urbanization element, and a land use urban design element. Those elements would be brought forward for adoption later this year or early next, including a parcel specific plan diagram for Springfield and a proposal to expand the UGB to bring in employment opportunity sites Amendments to the Springfield Development Code to implement new residential land use and housing policies would be part of that package. Ms. Pauly noted that staff would present an overview of the proposed ordinance, criteria of approval, and a slide show to illustrate the methodology used to develop the UGB map. Staff would also read new testimony received since the packet was created, and City Attorney Bill VanVactor would discuss procedures for tonight's first reading for Springfield of the ordinance, the public hearing and subsequent coordination with the County to prepare the final ordinance for subsequent readings. Ms. Pauly said the proposal was to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to establish a separate UGB for the City pursuant to ORS 197.304 and to adopt the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan, Residential Land and Housing Element and its technical supplement, The Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis to demonstrate that Springfield had a twenty year supply of buildable land as required by ORS 197.304. Springfield currently shared a UGB with Eugene. ORS 197.304 required Springfield to evaluate the sufficiency of the residential lands supply and to establish a separate UGB. Springfield had completed its analysis of housing needs and had prepared a new residential land use and housing policy document in response to the findings of the analysis. Springfield had also prepared a tax lot specific map of the Springfield UGB. Ms. Pauly noted that the proposed Metro Plan amendments implemented ORS 197.304, Lane County's Accommodation of Needed Housing. Another criterion was OAR 660-024-0020, adoption or amendment of a UGB. That rule stated that the UGB and amendments to the UGB must be shown on the City and County plan and zoning maps at a scale sufficient to determine which particular lots or parcels were included in the UGB. Ms. Pauly said the amendments before the elected officials must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals and rules, applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and the Metro Plan City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 4, 2011 Page 3 criteria Springfield Development Code (SDC) section 5.14-135 and Lane Code 12.225(l). The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). Adoption of-the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally consistent. The record for tonight's decision was available and at the meeting, and included substantial evidence to demonstrate that the City's proposed amendments were in compliance with ORS 197.304 (separate UGB statute), ORS 197.295- 197.314 (needed housing statute), Goal 1 (citizen involvement), Goal 2 (land use planning), Goal 10 (housing), OAR 660 Division 008 (interpretation of Goal 10), OAR 660-024-0020(2) (related to the precise location of Springfield's UGB). Ms. Pauly said the Springfleld 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element addressed statewide planning Goal 10, Housing, to provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the State. This element included goals, objectives, policies and implementation actions that were consistent with, and carried out, the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan, Residential Land Use and Housing Element, Chapter 3A, while demonstrating the City's ongoing commitment to increasing housing choice. and residential densities within Springfield's separate UGB. Together, Goal 10 and Oregon's needed housing statutes required that Springfield provide a twenty year buildable lands supply within a separate UGB to meet the housing needs of current and future residents. The policies in this element had their basis in the Residential Lands Study conducted by the City from 2007-2010. The residential buildable land inventory and technical analysis was contained in the supplement, The Springfield Residential Land Housing Needs Analysis, which was an analysis of land supply and housing demand prepared for the City by ECONorthwest. The current version proposed for adoption was dated February 2011. That document incorporated input from citizens, stakeholder groups, commissions, and elected officials received throughout a multi-year citizen involvement process, that included a residential lands advisory committee, online public surveys, community workshops, work sessions, open houses and public hearings. The Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis and The Housing Element demonstrated compliance with Goal 10 and the related needed housing statutes. The factors reviewed to develop a projection of future housing demand included historical development trends, residential development trends, and trends in housing mix, tenure, density, a projected number of type and size of households, and the demographic characteristics of the population. Ms. Pauly said the provisions in the 2030 Plan supplemented, refined, and supported policies, contained in the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan, and were applicable only within the Springfield UGB. The goals, policies and implementation actions were developed to respond to the findings in the Housing Needs Analysis in ways that best implemented Springfield's preferred residential land use growth management strategies. as identified and prioritized through the public involvement process. In those instances where findings and policies in the Springfield Housing . Element differed quantitatively from policies in the Metro Plan, Residential Land Use and Housing Element, the Spring/leld 2030 Refinement Plan Housing Element would prevail. Issues that were not addressed in the Springfield 2030 Plan were addressed in the Metro Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element. She provided an example. As documented in the Springfield analysis, the land currently designated for high, medium and low density residential and nodal mixed-use plan designations would accommodate Springfield's expected need for residential development and redevelopment over the next twenty years. Springfield's residential and mixed-use districts as depicted in the Metro Plan Diagram and Springfield Refinement Plans . and as proposed in the Implementation Strategies in the Housing Element, provided a residential land base with sufficient capacity for the market to develop adequate numbers of needed housing units to meet expected demand through 2030. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 4, 2011 Page 4 In 2010, when the document was prepared, there was a surplus of buildable land in both low and medium density residential categories, but a deficit in the high density residential category of 28 gross buildable acres. Springfield included a mandatory commitment to amend the Glenwood Refinement Plan by 2012 to establish 28 acres of high density housing in the Glenwood Riverfront Area. That would be done through the Glenwood Refinement Plan process. The residential and mixed-use designations and the policies adopted in the Housing Element were of sufficient specificity to accommodate the varying housing types and densities identified in the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis. Ms. Pauly provided more detail on the Glenwood Refinement Plan amendments for housing. The land on the Glenwood Riverfront was already designated mixed-use and allowed high density residential. The area under consideration was Subarea 8 and part of Subarea 6. The proposed policy included in the Residential Land and Housing Element would increase the required density in that area to at least 28 dwelling units per net acres, which was the high density residential minimum. Subarea 8 was currently designated mixed-use and allowed 30-60% residential. It was not a big change, but did require the residential to occur. The part of Subarea 6 that would be re- designated for residential mixed-use was currently. designated light medium industrial, so when adoption of the industrial inventory was done, compensation would be made. Ms. Pauly said ORS 197.304(l) required each city to meet its obligation under the needed housing statutes separately, from the other. This was why Springfield was creating a separate UGB. The UGB amendment necessary to establish a separate Springfield UGB would not result in a UGB expansion. To accomplish the statutory requirement, Springfield had amended the acknowledged Eugene-Springfield Metro UGB to create a separate Springfield UGB for Springfield's jurisdictional area of responsibility as described in the Metro Plan. The Metro Plan Chapter 2D Jurisdictional Responsibility stated "the division of responsibility for metropolitan planning between the two cities was the Interstate 5 highway. Lane County jurisdiction was between the urban growth boundary and Metro Plan boundary and the County has joint responsibility with Eugene between the City limits and UGB west of Interstate 5, and with Springfield between the City limits and UGB east of the Interstate 5 highway. Since Interstate 5 separates Springfield's jurisdictional area of responsibility from that of the City of Eugene, the I- 5 center line will serve as the western portion of Springfield's UGB, and Eugene's UGB. The Metro UGB will continue to serve as Springfield's UGB to the northeast and south, thus. the external Metro UGB, as opposed to the Springfield/Eugene intercity UGB, will remain unchanged subject to the site specific interpretations of this boundary required by OAR 660-024- 0020(2)". No changes to existing intergovernmental agreements among Lane County, Eugene, or Springfield were proposed or necessary to implement ORS 197.304. The conduct of tonight's Council meeting would follow the procedures found in section 5.2.135 of the Springfield Development Code. Testimony and evidence of those testifying must be directed towards the applicable criteria which had been described, or, other criteria in a plan or land use regulation which the person, testifying believed applied to the decision. An issue which may be the basis for an appeal to the State, should be raised by the person testifying not later than the close of the record, at or following the final evidentiary hearing on the proposal before the local government. Such issues should be raised with enough specificity for the City Council, Lane County Board of Commissioners, and all parties involved an adequate opportunity to respond to each issue. Failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker and the parties involved an opportunity to respond, may preclude such issue being raised on appeal to the State based on the issue. All decisions of the City Council and the Board were final unless City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 4, 20.11 Page 5 appealed by a party.to the State within twenty-one days of a decision. She again noted that the amendments did not change the amount or location of urban land subject to the acknowledged Metro Plan, the acknowledged plan map designations applied to the land within the separate Springfield UGB, or the implementation measures in the acknowledged Springfield Development Code and other acknowledged land use regulations applicable to such land. Except as addressed elsewhere, compliance of this plan amendment with Statewide planning goals 5-9 and 11-15 was assured by the City's continued reliance on the acknowledged Metro Plan and implementing regulations as the controlling land use planning documents for the City's jurisdictional area. City Planner Steve Hopkins provided a power point on the methodology used to define Springfield's UGB, as required by ORS and OAR. He noted the original UGB line drawn in 1982, which was very vague and about 200 feet wide due to the scale it was drawn. The following were looked at to determine the actual boundary: tax lot lines, City limits, or geographic features. All of the policies used to create this methodology were from the Metro Plan and applied during this process. Mr. Hopkins said three items were produced during this process: the printed map, the list of tax lots inside and adjacent to or split by the UGB, and the GIS shape file which was geo-referenced. He displayed the map that was produced. Aerial photos were displayed with the UGB tax lot lines and City limits imposed. Mr. Hopkins described several locations that were not clearly defined by tax lot lines or City limits and where the Metro Plan policies were used to help identify the line. Brentwood Village and Filbert Meadows included the specific boundary -in their land use decisions. He noted that 80% of the UGB followed tax lot lines. The other 20% followed something other than a tax lot line. Some of the areas that did not follow tax lot lines included: North Gateway, Hayden Bridge, High Banks, Southeast Hills, and the Clear Water area. He explained how those lines were identified. He met with the owners of property on Jasper Road and was proposing a slight change to that line. He explained. Commissioner Leiken confirmed that tonight's hearing was not to dissolve the Metro Plan boundary. He noted properties in the Hayden Bridge area that needed clarification in that regard. He asked where they were in the process to make sure the Springfield UGB and the Metro Plan line aligned. That could be something discussed after the public hearing. County Planning Director Kent Howe said the process proposed was for the joint elected officials to first adopt the property specific UGB during Phase 1. The County process would come at a later date to propose movement of the Metro Plan boundary to the property specific UGB . boundary. A joint Planning Commission meeting on that topic was scheduled for June 77 2011. A gentleman from the audience interrupted and asked about a map. Mayor Lundberg asked him to please wait until the public. hearing to speak. The gentleman left the meeting. Mr. Hopkins said there were several property owners that were in the audience. Mr. and Mrs. Nagel owned property at 5119 Jasper Road. He described the proposed line, which cut through their barn, and his recommended line based on a site visit. He referred to photos of the property and described the line. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 4, 2011 Page 6 Councilor Ralston asked if the change was at the property owners' request. Mr. Hopkins said it was. Ms. Pauly noted three letters that had come in after the packets were delivered. The first was a letter from Lisa Gardner, Planning Director from the City of Eugene dated March 29, 2011, thanking Springfield staff for coordinating with them on the UGB. The City of Eugene assisted the City of Springfield by preparing metes and bounds descriptions for the UGB section at I-5. That information would be part of the ordinance when adopting Springfield's UGB. There were two letters from the law office of Bill Kloos PC representing the Lane County HomeBuilders' .Association. The first. of those two letters was dated April 1, 2011 and the second was dated April 4, 2011. The letters were distributed to the Council and Commissioners. Springfield City Attorney Bill Van Vactor said staff was not looking for the elected officials to take action tonight, but just to hear public input. After tonight's public hearing, staff would meet and examine both ordinances from Springfield and Lane County to make sure both packets were identical. In addition, Lane County had a more complex reading requirement for ordinances. After staff had completed their final review, Lane County would need to schedule additional readings of the ordinance with the appropriate attachments. Once the public record was closed, staff would begin to draft the findings. If the elected officials chose to leave the public record open, staff could begin drafting some of the findings, with the final findings drafted after the record closed. At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff would. look for. direction from the elected officials regarding continuing the public hearing and for any direction on follow-up. Finally, a date would need to be scheduled for deliberations and a decision. The dates of May 16 or June 6 were available for subsequent meetings if needed. Mr. Van Vactor noted that Ms. Pauly, Assistant City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith and he had met with Ed McMahon from the HomeBuilders' Association (ABA) and Bill Kloos on Thursday, March 31, 2011. They had reviewed the information that had been prepared in January 2010, and that map was not part of the current packet. It was important to the HBA for that map to be produced: Staff would recommend adding to the ordinance something to the effect that "during public hearings you received testimony from the HBA urging the City to.include in its work plan the development of a parcel specific plan designation map, and whereas the Council finds merit to such a request, and therefore .agrees that Springfield shall adopt as part of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan a parcel specific plan designation map for all of Springfield". A timeframe for the next periodic review would also be included. Staff was trying to work with the HBA to accommodate their needs. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. 1. Ed McMahon, Executive Vice President of the HomeBuilders' Association (HBA) of Lane County, 4780 Village Plaza Loop, Eugene, OR. The Springfield Council, staff, and the HBA had worked together on this process since the beginning when HB3337 was drafted. The HBA invested about $17,000 to help pay for the study and hundreds of hours of staff time on the local and State level. No doubt the City's investment, was much larger. It had been a pleasure to work with the City in such a professional and cooperative manner, and he was confident they could finish together. Because of several factors, Mr. McMahon felt he had not followed through on behalf of the HBA. In February 2010, the HBA issued testimony, but hadn't been involved since. They now saw some concerns City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 4, 2011 Page 7 and appreciated staff's willingness to work with them. Periodic reviews and processes such as this didn't come along often, and this was one opportunity to get it right. It was important to get it right now before the housing recovery began again. He asked for a slight delay of 45 days to get everything resolved. He thanked the elected officials for the opportunity to testify. 2. Bill Kloos, 375 West 4`h Street, Suite 204, Eugene, OR. Mr.. Kloos referred to the letter that was distributed along with his letter from 2010. The 2010 letter made four points, one of which was the parcel-specific refinement plan for the City. The other three points were suggestions. When looking at this year's proposal, he had 12 suggestions. The reason they had more issues this year was because of the less robust proposal from. the City. He understood this would happen in 3 phases, but when adding up all three steps it was still a much smaller package than was presented in 2010. He spoke regarding the four most important topics which were summarized near the beginning of his letter from today: 1) the ordinance as drafted did not include adopting an actual inventory of buildable lands for housing, but just reflected that Springfield had one. To be defensible under State law, the inventory should be part of the ordinance and include tax lots, how much vacant land was on each one, the plan designation, and the zoning. That information was currently in the database. After meeting with staff last Thursday, he made a records request on Friday asking for that data. Once that information was received, he would present it to the elected officials for the public record. They would like the ordinance to reflect that information; 2) In order to be in the inventory, every one of those tax lots needed to be plan designated residential. He felt the consultant that did the study assumed everything was plan designated to residential, but that was not necessarily the case because there wasn't. yet a parcel specific Metro Plan. The City either needed to get a parcel specific Refinement Plan for Springfield, or make the interpretation in the ordinance that all of those parcels were plan designated residential; .3) Each parcel needed to be zoned residential, and currently that was. not the case. Last year, staff identified a lot of mismatches and were trying to clean those, but the cleanup was not in the current package; 4) Each parcel needed to be developed under clear and objective standards. Last year they made that suggestion and staff supported it, but it.was not in this year's proposal. 3. Bill Nagel, 5119 Jasper Road, Springfield, OR. Mr. Nagel said he' was the owner of the property on Jasper Road that was identified in Mr. Hopkins slide presentation. He was in agreement with Mr. Hopkins' idea of changing the line and hoped they could go from an educated guess to an educated answer. 4. Mia Nelson, 1000 Friends of Oregon, 220 East 11 ?' Avenue Suite 5 Eugene OR Ms. Nelson thanked ECONorthwest and Springfield staff for taking an overall reasonable approach to doing this work on the inventory and density calculations. They embraced the idea of redevelopment and mixed-use as a method of accommodating Springfield's future growth; and also addressed all of the concerns raised by 1000 Friends in 2009 and 2010. Because of that, they supported this proposal. They did share some of the concerns raised by. the HBA. There was some important companion work yet to be done. They noted the deferral of some important tasks such as the Glenwood upzoning referred to by Ms. Pauly, the adoption of parcel specific plan designations, the reconciliation of those plan/zone conflicts, and the revision of the Development Code to include clear and objective standards. Those were all good ideas and she hoped those tasks would be completed soon. Much of the benefits of the proposal before the elected officials tonight City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 4, 2011 Page 8 could not be realized until those were done. She felt UGB expansions rarely solved cities housing supply and affordability problem, but they could agree with the HBA that the most important things were providing infrastructure, appropriate plan designations and zoning, and reasonable development standards that. facilitated the kind of efficient development they wanted to see. Full execution of this proposal would provide most of those critical pieces. There were a lot of good concepts and policy statements in the proposal, but they didn't appear to be binding. The plan called for dense mixed-use development in Glenwood for more residential development along commercial areas and transit corridors, and for creating incentives to promote the dense development and removing disincentives. Those were highly worthwhile goals, and they encouraged the City to pursue the implementation of those policies as soon as they had the financial. ability to do so. Springfield would face a coming shortage of land because of natural barriers on all sides that prevented future growth. Springfield should focus on ensuring that what land remained was used efficiently. That provided additional benefits such as reduced housing and transportation costs for the residents, and reduced infrastructure, public safety, and fire and life cost services for the City. It was in all of our best interests to start using the limited land base in a frugal, careful manner. They appreciated the work Springfield had done to date, and they did support tonight's proposal as written. They looked forward to the execution of the remainder of the plan. 5. Je Ritter Oregon Communities for a Voice in Annexation Springfield UGB Chapter, 1865 Yolanda, Springfield, OR. Mr. Ritter said he didn't have a chance to read the full report, but did scan the portions regarding annexation and was pleased that things were not included that were in other cities' plans. They were dealing with three acrimonious annexations around the State, and had dealt with a number of others throughout their history. Springfield had done an amenable job in keeping things above board and keeping a good relationship with its neighbors. He would encourage them to continue that as they moved forward. Staff had done an exemplary job keeping everything above board with public hearings and ample opportunity for citizens to become involved..Springfield had set an example around the State of keeping the public involved. 6. Michael Farthing, P.O. Box 10126, Eugene, OR. Mr. Farthing distributed a letter with an attached map of Gordon Webb's property, whom he represented. A.second map of a portion of Mr. Webb's property was also attached. Mr. Webb owned approximately 575 acres in the Jasper Natron area, about half or which was inside the UGB and half outside. He was here to discuss a line that ran across the northeast corner of the property. Mr. Olson had sent a crew up there and identified the ridgeline. He asked that the UGB line in that area be shifted to the actual ridgeline. It was site specific with a metes and bounds description. He also requested a 30 to 45 day extension on this item. There was a lot of information and it kept growing. He asked if they were adopting final land use decisions when they did a site specific UGB and the adoption of the Housing Element, or if it was just Phase 1 of a three phased process. He noted that the Jasper Natron area was a unique area. There had been a Refinement Plan pending in that area for about eight or nine years that had never been adopted. Once that went in, it would change some of the plan and land use designations, which could alter their inventory. Mr. Webb had a large amount of single family residential, but there was also proposed in the pending Refinement Plan, some medium density residential and neighborhood commercial. He agreed with Mr. Kloos regarding more specifics in the ordinance. It would be more helpful for Mr. Webb's property to have a site specific land designation. He also agreed with Ms. Nelson. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 4, 2011 Page 9 ` Mayor Lundberg asked if there were any other speakers that wanted to come forward. There were none. Councilor Ralston said he heard two situations where property owners wanted the line in a different location than was first identified. If this didn't get set down soon, many people could ask for changes to the UGB and that concerned him. He asked if most of the issues had been vetted out. Mr. VanVactor said all of the property owners.that were affected had been noticed. Ms. Pauly said that was correct. They also held-an open house where those people were. all invited and about 20-30 people attended. Commissioner Leiken asked if the two dates presented by, Mr. Van Vactor earlier in the evening were far enough out to accommodate the request for a 45. day extension. Mr. Van Vactor said May 16 was 42 days out and June 6 was 63 days out. Ms. Pauly said the data requested by Mr. Moos would be ready this Thursday, not next week Mr. Van Vactor said it was at the discretion of the elected officials how long they held the.public record or hearing open. The minimum in a quasi-judicial matter was seven days. Councilor Wylie asked if any of the staff knew the man that left without speaking. No. She thought it would be nice if we could reach out to him to provide the map he requested. Mr. Van Vactor said the elected officials had two options: to continue the public hearing to May 16, or to keep the record open until May 16. If it was just left open, the information would come in writing and if the public hearing was continued, there could be additional testimony. Councilor Moore asked Commissioner Leiken if he .knew the gentleman that left. Commissioner Leiken said the County would initiate the Metro Plan boundary issue, but he didn't know the gentleman that left. Board Chair Stewart asked legal counsel about making sure the processes for Springfield and Lane County were the same. He asked if they were recommending another joint public hearing if they left the record open on May 16. He would like to work the process together so they made a decision at the same time. It was easier to have all the staff in the same room at the same time. Since this was for Springfield, the Commissioners could come back to Springfield for the subsequent meeting(s). Mr. Vorhes said it was possible and could be done with the May 16 and June 6 dates. It would depend' on whether they held the record open or the hearing open. If they just left the record open until their next joint meeting on May 16, they may have all of the information needed to deliberate and give staff direction so they could have the work done to allow the elected officials to take action on June 6. The Board could sift through and make sure all of the pieces of the ordinance were clear and hold another reading of the ordinance between now and May 16. They would then be ready to hold their fourth reading on May 16 and be in a position to consider the City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 4, 2011 Page 10 rest of the evidence or testimony. It was possible to coordinate joint meetings to deliberate and make a decision. Board Chair Stewart said the Board could set their third reading for April 27 with the changes then set the fourth reading for May 16. Mr. Vorhes said that was correct. He would suggest they read the title of the ordinance when making that motion. Commissioner Leiken agreed with Board Chair Stewart. This was Springfield's ordinance and Lane County was here as a co-adopter. He noted the good example of those in the audience who were agreeing with each other. It showed the good work done by the Springfield staff. He, too, would like the County to work in conjunction with Springfield. Commissioner Bozievich asked if it was the intent to address the issues of the parcel specific land designations over the 45 day period. Mr. Van Vactor said seeking to address that was a significant work task for Springfield that was . not an easy issue. They would like to meet with the HBA again and try to determine what they could do to address their issues. Commissioner Bozievich said if that was to be produced, they would need an additional public hearing. He agreed with the parallel process, and would leave it up to the Mayor and Council to determine whether or not they wanted to keep the record open or the hearing. Councilor Ralston said he would prefer to just leave the record open, rather than the hearing. Councilor Pishioneri said in the spirit of public involvement that had been applauded tonight, he would prefer to extend the public hearing. He asked if it was more staff work either way. Councilor VanGordon said he would prefer extending the public hearing. Perhaps they could reach the gentleman that left and he could speak. Councilor Woodrow was in favor of a further public hearing. Councilor Moore asked if it was more work for staff. Mr. Van Vactor said extending the public hearing might just mean that additional time would be needed by staff to draft the final findings. Mayor Lundberg questioned how much more public input they would receive from leaving the public hearing open. Councilor Wylie said by leaving both open, it made the process more open and accessible. Mr. Van Vactor said May 16 would work, but noted that Lane County had two other evening meetings that week. Mayor Lundberg asked for a motion to keep the public hearing open. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 4, 2011 Page 11 IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR WYLIE TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC BEARING ON THIS MATTER AND KEEP THE RECORD OPEN UNTIL MAY' 16, 2011. THE MOTION PASSED WTH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. Board Chair Stewart asked for a motion for their third and fourth readings, and the extended public hearing. Mr. Vorhes said they needed to read in the correct ordinance title. He read that to them. IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER LEIKEN WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOZIEVICH TO MOVE THE SECOND READING AND SETA THIRD READING FOR APRIL 27, 2011 ON-ORDINANCE NUMBER PA 1274 IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN), TO CO-ADOPT THE SPRINGFIELD 2030 REFINEMENT PLAN RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND HOUSING ELEMENT, AND TO ESTABLISH A SEPARATE SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (UGB) PURSUANT TO ORS 197.304 AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES. THE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT - SORENSON). IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BOZIEVICH WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LEIKEN TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MAY 169 2011 AND KEEP THE RECORD OPEN. THE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT - SORENSON). Mayor Lundberg asked if an additional mailing would go out to affected property owners. Mr. Van Vactor said.they normally would not send out another notice, but it would be in the newspaper. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:22 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: ahw" City Reeler