minhead.gif (11357 bytes)

Approved 12/14/99

November 8, 1999



6:00 p.m. - Springfield City Hall

Commissioner Bobby Green, Sr., presided over the Board of Commissioners with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Anna Morrison, Peter Sorenson and Cindy Weeldreyer present. County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.

Mayor Maine presided over the Springfield City Council. Anne Ballew, Tammy Fitch, Lyle Hatfield, Sid Leiken, Christine Lundburg and Fred Simmons present.

Joint Work Session

Mayor Maureen Maine opened the meeting for the Springfield City Council.

Commissioner Green opened the meeting for the Board of Commissioners.

Gary Karp, Senior Planner, City of Springfield, reported that this was the last action of the change of jurisdiction from Eugene to Springfield. He noted that two previous actions included the Metro Plan Amendment change, and rezoning of properties that changed the zoning title from Eugene to Springfield. He reported in that 1998, there was a jurisdictional study that laid the groundwork for the change in jurisdiction, and directed staff to reestablish the Glenwood Planning Advisory Committee. He noted in January of 1999, the Glenwood Planning Advisory Committee first met, and there were eight meetings, with the process ending in April. He said from May to September, there were 12 work sessions with little comment on the Refinement Plan, but the issue that needed resolution was dealing with non-conforming usage.

Karp stated that it was determined after a number of discussions that Eugene’s code had provisions that exempted non-conforming uses from non-conforming use regulations. He said that the planning commission directed Springfield staff to use the same process for Glenwood, and that is what they have done. He noted under Section 5.070 exemptions, the language was finalized through the review process on October 19, by a joint Springfield and Lane County Planning Committee.

Mike Copely, Land Management, Lane County, noted that the Springfield packet pertains to the Glenwood materials in one ordinance, and for Lane County, (because of the urban transition agreement) the materials of the Springfield Development Code are in Ordinance 7-99 and the Glenwood Refinement Plan is in Ordinance PA 1143. He requested when the Board adopts the order, they adopt Ordinance PA 1143 first, and then Ordinance 7-99, in that sequence.

Karp reported since the October meeting, there were four minor text amendments to the Refinement Plan. (Copy in file.)

Copely noted that three of the text amendments were sent to the Board of Commissioners, with a memo from him, last week.

Karp noted on page 21 in the Refinement Plan, language needed to be deleted because when the plan was adopted by Eugene, the Metro Plan was amended and the manufactured dwelling park that is referenced was changed from low density residential to light-medium industrial. He said that statement in today’s version is moot and that is why the language is being deleted. He noted the next three changes on pages 52, 60 and 107 are based on comments from Lane County, deleting Lane County from the text of the plan because Lane County is not involved in those issues. He said Springfield’s staff looked at the proposed change in the language and agreed with that change.

Copely noted it is difficult to make zone changes with the city because they would have to show compliance with plan designation. He added that Lane County and Springfield share the Refinement Plan because it extends beyond the city limits and that is County responsibility.

Lyle Hatfield, Councilor, City of Springfield, asked about creating an urban renewal district.

Karp responded the language had been carried over from the original Eugene language and the possibility is there.

Maine asked for an update about the utilities.

Karp reported that EWEB, SUB and the Rainbow Water District are working together where SUB will eventually be the electrical and water provider in Glenwood. He noted there has been a consultant hired to do feasibility studies to look at the costs involved.

Copely noted the matter before the Board is a legislative one and they would be able to make minor changes and still be able to adopt it tonight.

Mel Oberst, Planning Department, Springfield, discussed the proposed center and presented maps and pictures. He said with this project, the decision is to bring in approximately 37 acres into the urban growth boundary that will amend the Metro Plan diagram and the Gateway Refinement Plan Guide. He said there also needs to be a zoning change from the County’s zoning of exclusive farm use to the City of Springfield. He noted there were two public hearings before the planning commissions with Lane County and the City of Springfield, on September 21, and six people testified in favor of this urban growth boundary amendment. He said there was no opposition that day and he had received no letters of opposition. He said a second public hearing was held where three more people spoke in favor of the amendment and both planning commissions recommended approval on the urban growth boundary amendment to the Lane County Board of Commissioners and the Springfield City Council. He added he received comments from the Department of Land Conservation and Development which were constructive criticism to perfect the urban growth boundary amendment, staff report and findings.

Oberst noted in order to do an urban growth boundary amendment, they had to do a study of all the sites that may be suitable for that use inside the urban growth boundary and they did an alternative site analysis, ranking criteria. He said there were 55 sites and all were in West Eugene and all had wetlands. He added the state asked if consideration was given to urban reserves, but in both cities the urban reserves were out on the fringes.

Oberst stated the site chosen is centrally located to all users in the metropolitan area and particularly for Springfield, which needs the site. He added that this site met with the statewide planning goal for recreation. He said because there was no testimony against this location, this is the place for the sports complex.

Sorenson asked if there could be a land trade within the urban growth boundary to allow usage outside of the urban growth boundary.

Oberst stated it was considered, but finding the land was difficult.

Mike Kelly, City Manager, City of Springfield, stated that the non-resource land would be leased to non-profits to allow a sports complex with a 30 year lease. He added there would be performance based measures and if the developer of the non-profit violates, the lease could be terminated. He said they want to make the complex affordable and accessible for youth.

Green said that he has a concern about using public dollars for this complex and asking the public to pay to access it. He said that affordability is key.

Oberst noted the location is now a difficult site to farm as the land is surrounded by non-farm uses. He added the only access to the site is through the urban area.

Fred Simmons, Councilor, City of Springfield, stated that prior to the state having used this land as a barrel pit and a construction debris dump, it was classified as Class 1, but in 1999, the land is not suitable for growing and that is why there is no farming activity within the boundary of this expansion. He said this is not Class 1 land in the true sense.

Sorenson asked why this complex couldn’t fit on another parcel of vacant land.

Oberst stated that the complex is large, 160,000 square feet that would not fit on an industrial parcel. He added they looked through the whole metro area for sites that had enough area to have soccer fields and a large indoor sports complex, but there were many constraints.

Sid Liken, Councilor, City of Springfield, noted that social consequences are something that needed to be examined for this. He said this is a regional sports center, (not just for Springfield) that enhances the quality of life and increases sustainable economic activity in the metro area. He added that it creates an environment that provides meaningful personal experiences and growth for youth.

Weeldreyer echoed Liken’s points. She said it is a logical addition for all of the right reasons. She suggested going forward with this.

Lyle Hatfield, Councilor, City of Springfield, stated that this area of land would not be economically feasible to restore the site to Class I soil and farming, and suggested to leave the staff report as is because of the information that is included.

Mayor Maine adjourned the Work Session at 6:00 p.m.

Ordinance No. 1 - An Ordinance Adopting the Amended Glenwood Refinement Plan and Related Amendments to the Springfield Development Code; Including a Severability Clause; and Declaring an Emergency.

1. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance PA 1143 Adopting the Revised Glenwood Refinement Plan, a Refinement Plan to the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan; and Adopting a Severability Clause.

Public Hearing

Mayor Maine opened the Public Hearing for the City of Springfield and noted that all councilors were present.

Commissioner Bobby Green, Sr., called the Lane County Board of Commissioners into session and had a second reading and public hearing on Ordinance PA 1143 in the matter of adopting the revised Glenwood Refinement Plan to the Eugene/Springfield Metro Area General Plan and adopting a severability clause.

Tom Lester, 1826 Lincoln, Eugene, recommended removing nodal development in bus rapid transit in the Glenwood Refinement Plan because TransPlan hadn’t been adopted yet. He noted the references on pages 49, 55 and 106 are vague and don’t address the requirements of Oregon Administrative Rule cited on page A 12 of the staff report. He said having vague references to bus rapid transit and nodal development in the Refinement Plan doesn’t fulfill the Oregon Administrative Rule that was cited.

Steve Pardo, 1715 Lexington, Glenwood, stated he was on the advisory committee and that it was a worthwhile process. He thanked the Springfield staff and all the people that were involved on the committee for going through the process.

There being no one further signed up to speak, Mayor Maine closed the Public Hearing.

Karp asked that both bodies adopt the ordinances as written and include the attachment addendum that has the minor language changes on pages 21, 52, 60 and 106. He noted that LTD wanted them to show what route was proposed. He said staff didn’t feel comfortable about that but they wanted to recognize the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) process at the time. He noted the bus rapid transit had not been finalized yet and the nodal development hadn’t been formally adopted, but when staff was looking at the Refinement Plan, rather than going back and making a major amendment, staff put in language on page 55 under subsection 6.

Hatfield reported that BRT and nodal development couldn’t be defined in specific terms yet. He added that nodal development is a part of Springfield’s policy direction. He added that Springfield was also committed to alternative transportation and having the rapid transit in the Refinement Plan is appropriate.

Simmons stated that when BRT is mentioned in the draft and refinement plan without the foundation of consensus, there could be problems. He added it is a convenient strategy to get endorsements. He said a refinement plan is more specific in nature than a global plan. He said he is in agreement to reference BRT, but without fully understanding how it is going to work does a disservice to the public process. He said he is willing to go with the majority and not have it in.

Maine noted the language stated that the major transportation network would be improved, including considering BRT as an option.

Dwyer suggested not to make references to things that have not come about.

Hatfield noted that the BRT could be deleted because it is set up as an example in the Refinement Plan. He said for nodal development, he wanted it to be retained in the document because Springfield does have a commitment to nodal development and it is site specific. He added it is vague in the document because they haven’t gone through a process of trying to define what nodal development means in Glenwood. He said if the council wants to delete BRT as a reference, he would have no objection, as long as there is a method of commitment to alternative and mass transportation.

Christine Lundberg, Councilor, City of Springfield, stated she would support deleting BRT as Springfield is committed to nodal development.

Tammy Fitch, Councilor, City of Springfield, suggested replacing Bus Rapid Transit with mass transit. She said they want to keep the idea that they are supportive of alternative transportation.

Maine stated they would substitute mass transit on page 49, striking the words "Bus Rapid Transit" (BRT) with mass transit. She noted on page 55, striking the last two sentences, beginning with "convenient and ending with page 48." She added on page 106 under 2 a 6, striking Bus Rapid Transit and replacing it with mass transit and nodal development.

Sorenson suggested that the proper forum for the discussion of the BRT would be by the TransPlan. He said it would be the best place to come to an intergovernmental jurisdictional approval.

Maine responded that the intent is to make sure that Glenwood residents have some convenient transit service without weakening other statements that were made to provide that.

MOTION: to adopt the Glenwood Refinement Plan with the changes to Ordinance 1, adopting the amendment provided by staff and deleting the references to BRT and replacing those references with mass transit.

Hatfield MOVED, Leiken SECONDED.

VOTE: 6-0.

MOTION: to adopt the revised Ordinance PA 1143 with the noted amendments.

Morrison MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.


2. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. 7-99 Amending Chapter 10 of Lane Code to Adopt Amendments to the Springfield Development Code for Application to Urbanizable Lands Within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (LC 10.600-15), and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses.

Mayor Maine opened up the Public Hearing for the City of Springfield.

Green opened up the Public Hearing for Lane County.

Mike Copely, Land Management, noted this is the portion of the County’s action that picks up the Springfield Development Code changes associated with the Glenwood plan action. He added that the ordinances needed to be split and co-adopted.

There being no one signed up to speak, Commissioner Green closed the Public Hearing.

MOTION: to approve Ordinance No. 7-99.

Dwyer MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.


3. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance PA 1144 Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram and Gateway Refinement Plan to Enlarge the Urban Growth Boundary and Adopt an Exception Pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 2, Redesignate Land from "Agriculture" to "Parks and Open Space" and "Natural Resource", and Rezone that Land from Lane County "Exclusive Farm Use/Floodplain Combining (E-30/FP)" to Springfield "Public lands and Open Space"; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses.

2. Ordinance No. 2 - AN ORDINANCE In the Matter of Amending the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and Gateway Refinement Plan to Enlarge the Urban Growth Boundary and Adopt an Exception Pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 2, Redesignate Land from "Agriculture" to "Parks and Open Space" and "Natural Resource," and Rezone that Land from Lane County "Exclusive Farm Use/Floodplain Combining (E-30/FP)" to Springfield "Public Lands and Open Space," and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses.

Mayor Maine opened the Public Hearing for the City of Springfield.

Commissioner Green opened the Public Hearing for Lane County.

Oberst noted that the previous hearing was legislative and this is quasi-judicial because it is site specific to the urban growth boundary amendment. He said criteria for approval for the Metro Plan Amendment that are found in the staff report (Attachment A in file and in the Ordinance, Attachment F in the file) are as follows: the urban growth boundary amendment must be consistent with relative statewide planning goals adopted by LCDC. He added the relevant goals are Goal 2 and Goal 14. He said adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. He noted the concurrent Gateway Refinement Plan Amendment must be consistent with the Metro Plan applicable state statutes, applicable statewide planning goals and administrative rules. He said the zone change by the Lane County Board of Commissioners must address the following criteria:

consistency with the Metro Plan text and diagram, consistency with the Gateway Refinement Plan, and determination that the property can be served by the key urban services described in the Metro Plan. He stated that testimony and evidence must be directed towards this criteria. He said that failure to clearly raise any issue may preclude the ability to appeal the decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. He added upon request of a participant to this hearing, the record may be held open for at least seven days after that.

Maine asked for any ex parte contacts.

Sorenson responded he had a couple of people from youth sports group visit with him about six months ago to talk to him about this project and the plan to build a building outside of the urban growth boundary and the need for youth soccer facilities in Springfield.

Dwyer stated he also had a discussion with some people but nothing specific, only about the concept.

Green replied that he had the same meeting as Sorenson, but on a different day.

Oberst noted that the two compelling criteria approval is Statewide Planning Goal 14 and Goal 2. He noted with Goal 14, there are seven factors in which they needed to evaluate the site: demonstrated need to accommodate population growth, need for housing, economic provisions for public facilities and services, maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of an existing urban area, environmental energy economic and social consequences, intention of agricultural land as defined as Class I being the highest priority and compatibility of the proposed urban use. He read the summary finding of F 12 (for the Board of Commissioners, Exhibit D, page 5.)

John Tamulonis, City of Springfield, noted that the lease they talked about was for the long term use of the property on the west side. He added they have a 20 year lease with Kidsports for soccer fields development. He added on the east side they have an existing lease for 50 years for the property. He said it was because of the need for financing that was reasonable to the banking community.

Tom Lester, 1826 Lincoln, Eugene, stated he thought it was a good idea for a land swap for finding somewhere to shrink the urban growth boundary for a comparable amount for expanding the sports complex. He said it would send a signal that there is an issue about urban growth boundaries and sprawl.

John Crane, 2268 Lassiter, Eugene, stated he is the President of Kidsports. He read a statement into the record.

Mrs. Wicklund, Maple Island Farm, said she was concerned about Kidsports having a lot of open space. She said they get a lot of people looking at the open spaces to get to the river. She said there should be some consideration for how they can protect themselves. She said there is vandalism in the area because they are connected to Gateway and the freeway.

Sorenson asked how difficult it would be to find areas that are currently inside the urban growth boundary that have Class I soils to either put in this process or to initiate another 35 acre contraction of the urban growth boundary on the Springfield side.

Susan Daluddung, City of Springfield, responded they did not ignore that possibility. She said due to the salmon listing and the 4 D Rule, there will be land located close to the river that will be considered in the future. She said they tried to work through the Public Facility Planning Rule that is being adopted to provide for such a swap. She said Springfield is in the front, trying to make it happen, but they could not make that commitment at this time.

There being no one else signed up to speak, Mayor Maine closed the Public Hearing for the City of Springfield.

There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Green closed the Public Hearing for the Board of Commissioners.

Hatfield stated he was in support of the proposed amendment and wanted Factor Number 6 on their page B7, to include the language that is in the summary finding of their F 12, so it clearly defines that they are not setting a precedent by pulling in Class I land. He added the area that might be Class I land will be dedicated to open space and its use will not change, it will be both in and outside of the urban growth boundary. He said as a councilor of Springfield, he did not want to spend the money to find 30 acres of land to swap. He said he supports this with the changing of Factor Number 6.

Dwyer said he thought this property should be in public ownership and could eventually serve as an open space buffer and the city should own it. He said the agricultural use of the land is limited because there is no farming access. He said the city’s effort to preserve it to natural resource and open space is an admirable way to go in terms of a first start in recognizing that communities need open space and farming to protect the integrity of the agricultural soils. He said as a Board, they have a super goal to help youth and this becomes a win-win situation for everyone. He suggested to possibly buy the development rights to some of the farms so they will stay farms and not allow the land to be piecemeal.

Simmons stated he was supportive of the inclusion within the boundary because it provides protection for two viable sources of water. He added it is land that is not currently utilized for agricultural and has been diminished in value. He said the commitment on the city’s part is to protect the natural resource on the north end and enhance the salmon runs through the Maple Island Slough. He said he is defensive of Class I legitimate farmland, but this property is not at that level. He said the land meets the needs of Kidsports and the commitment has been made through the city with the lease that is broad based, to ensure that it is there and available on an affordable basis for people in the community. He said it is a natural conclusion for this property as it had been dramatically abused over the years. He said the goal is to have it as a good natural habitat on the north side and a functional sports facility on the south side, and thinks it is a good move.

Weeldreyer stated for the reasons that were in the written material, staff and testimony of her colleagues, that this is the highest and best use for the property in its current condition. She said she was in favor of support of this action.

Oberst noted that Hatfield’s proposed amendment to add the finding is included in the ordinance, referenced to as Exhibit "B", so it did not need to be in the motion.

MOTION: to adopt Ordinance No. 2.

Ballew MOVED, Hatfield SECONDED.

VOTE: 6-0.

MOTION: to adopt Ordinance PA 1144.

Morrison MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.


There being no further business, Mayor Maine adjourned the meeting for the City of Springfield and Commissioner Green adjourned the meeting for the Board of Commissioners at 8:00 p.m.

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices

Contact the webmaster@co.lane.or.us Read the Lane County Liability Disclaimer and User Agreement
Updated: 11/03/05 URL:
Copyright 1997 Lane County Information Services.  All rights reserved.