HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/2007 Regular
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, MAY 7,2007
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Ballew, Ralston, Woodrow and
Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery,
City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Leiken.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
1. Earth Day Poster Winners.
Public Information and Education Specialist from the Env~ronmenta1 Services Department,
Rachae1 Chilton, presented this item. This year marks the first Mayor's 5th Grade Earth Day
Poster Contest. The contest is a way for the City of Springfield to connect with our community's
children in a fun and educational way. Springfield is a city of rivers, bound by the McKenzie
River to the north and the Willamette River to the south, making this year's theme of "keep our
rivers clean" relevant to all of us who live here. Looking at the 225 entries, it was apparent that
the children of this community understand the importance of protecting our waterways. Across
the board the entries displayed artistic talent and bright ideas which made selecting the top five a
very difficult job. The five winning posters will be on display in the lobby of City Hall through
the month of May.
1 st Place: Adey1ine Starling Gabuya from Centennial Elementary
2nd Place: Antonio Escobedo Castro from Douglas Gardens Elementary
3rd Place: Bree Fowler from Thurston Elementary
4th Place: Tasha Flippen from Centennial Elementary
5th Place: ~ichae1 Williams from Douglas Gardens Elementary
Mayor Leiken said he was very impressed with the students that entered the contest. He called
the winners forward and congratulated the three winners that were present.
2. Springfield Education Day Proclamation.
Mayor Leiken said Springfield School District held a literacy event at Lane Community College
last year on Springfield Education Day. Mayor Leiken proclaimed May 31, 2007 as Springfield
Education Day. He thanked the partnership with the TEAM Springfield members including the
Springfield School Board.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 2
3. Arts Week Proclamation.
Mayor Leiken proclaimed May 20-27,2007 as Arts Week. He introduced Dottie Chase, Emerald
Arts Center; Mike Fisher, A3 Academy; Bob Keefer, Willama1ane; Tom Draggoo, Wildish
Theater and SRDC; and David Stayton, Springfield Museum. He also mentioned Debi Davis, a
member of the LTD Board, who was not present. He acknowledged the partnership with these
people and their respective agencies with the City.
CONSENT CALENDAR
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
1. Claims
a. Approval to Accept the Financial Reports for March.31, 2007.
2. Minutes
a. April16, 2007 - Work Session
b. Apri116,2007 - Regular Meeting
c. Apri123, 2007 - Work Session
d. Apri123, 2007 - Special Regular Meeting
3. . Resolutions
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Authorize the City Manager to Sign an Extension of the Current Audit Services Contract
for FY07 with the Firm of Grove, Mueller and Swank, P .C.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
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. Fiscal Year 2007-2008 One-Year Action Plan of the Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan
for Housing and Community Development (City of Springfield Section).
Housing Manager Kevin Ko presented the staff report on this item. In May of2005, the Cities of
Eugene and Springfield submitted to HUD a five-year Consolidated Plan for Housing and
Community Development, effective July 1, 2005 and expiring June 30, 2010. One-Year Action
Plans must be submitted to HUD prior to the beginning of each fiscal year as amendments to the
five-year Consolidated Plan, and are designed to indicate how communities intend to fulfill the
priorities established in the Consolidated Plan. At a meeting on April 16, 2007, Council directed
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 3
staff to provide more information regarding a CDBG proposal for Wynant's Family Nutrition.
This packet contains the requested information and a staff recommendation for funding.
The City of Springfield receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds as an
entitlement community and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds as a
participant in a HOME consortium agreement with the City of Eugene. CDBG funds are awarded
to communities who carry out community development activities directed towards neighborhood
revitalization, economic development, and the provision of improved community facilities and
services. HOME funding is a housing block grant program allocated to communities to be used
for housing rehabilitation, new construction, acquisition and tenant based rental assistance
activities. A public hearing was held on April 16, 2007 to hear testimony on seven applications
for CDBG or HOME funding. Council approved funding for six of the seven projects. A funding
decision on the Wynant's family Nutrition project was postponed until May 7, 2007. Council
directed staff to present additional information about the Wynant's project, and possible funding
strategies for this project. The Council also directed staff to present possible criteria for
considering future funding applications by private for-profit businesses. Staff will be presenting
the requested information at this public hearing, and will make a funding recommendation for the
Wynant's project. Also presented for future consideration is a memorandum discussing possible
criteria for awarding CDBG funds to private for-profit businesses.
The FY2007-2008 One Year Action Plan includes the CDBG and HOME funding allocations for
projects and activities and must be approved by both the City of Springfield and City of Eugene
prior to submission to HUD. The City of Springfield section of the document (less final fund
allocations) was available for a thirty-day review and comment period ending May 7, 2007. As
of April 30th, no written comments have been received. Oral testimony may be provided at a
public hearing before the Council on May 7, 2007. The City of Eugene section of the Plan is
being adopted separately by the Eugene City Council. The combined Eugene-Springfield One-
Year Action Plan is due to HUD on May 15, 2007.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
1. Joan Havdn. 3764 Old Kendall Road. Dexter. OR Ms. Haydn said she represented the
Wynant's Natural Food Store project at 722 South A in downtown Springfield. She thanked
the Council for their consideration of their grant application. She said she understood the
Council's hesitation since it was an unusual request. She said the store had the ability to offer
a convenient natural food shopping option in downtown Springfield to keep Springfield
shoppers in Springfield and would give the Springfield Chamber a location to recommend to
visitors looking for natural food choices. She said they were excited to be part of the solution
and ongoing regeneration and rebirth of the downtown Springfield area and looked forward to
working with the City to ensure design compatibility with the downtown theme.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
Councilor Ballew asked what would normally be an equity investment compared to the amount
borrowed.
Councilor Woodrow said in the personal business that he currently ran, the company invested
$50,000 in a $500,000 piece of property. The company's income was greater than the payments
to payoff the loan.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 4
Councilor Ballew said there was a lot of outstanding debt.
Councilor Woodrow said that was common when businesses improved and grew.
Councilor Ballew asked how many people the store was proposing to employ.
Mr. Ko said five to ten employees. HUD requirements were a minimum of three FTE.
Councilor Ballew asked about the wage those employees would be making.
Mr. Ko said he hadn't talked to the Wynant's about wage. HUD didn't specify a wage, just an
opportunity for low income people tp work there.
Councilor Woodrow said there had been concern about allowing for-profit business to receive
this grant. The City had asked businesses to move downtown and had made special provisions to
bring businesses downtown. This business met two of the criteria to receive these funds. This '
company would be paying taxes that would help the City. He asked for Council support to allow
this grant to be awarded to get Wynant's downtown and the people employed by them.
Councilor Lundberg discussed the options available in the agenda packet. She said the business
plan had not been reviewed yet. She recalled that sometime in the past, it was stated that if an
entity could finish the project without the CDBG money, the grant wouldn't be awarded.
Normally, that included non-profits that didn't have a lot of other options for financing. She
would prefer to choose one of the options listed in the agenda packet, but wanted to see the
review of the business plan first. She confirmed that as long as the money was set aside, the store
could submit what was required.
Mr. Ko said there were federal safeguards for the funds and Council could put additional terms,
restrictions and requirement as safeguards. Council could instruct the City Manager not to sign
the CDBG agreement until he was satisfied with the business plan. Conditions had been placed
on agreements in the past.
Councilor Lundberg asked if Option 1 was still for $90,000. Yes. She thought that was too
much. She liked the idea of looking at special criteria for for-profit businesses to receive these
funds. She felt more comfortable having a set aside, a review of the financial plan and a
discussion in the near future.
Mr. Ko said the options listed were only a few of many possibilities.
Councilor Pishioneri said he concurred with Councilors Lundberg and Woodrow on different
points. He wanted to see the business plan review, wanted to help them move forward with the
project, but noted the Council did have an obligation to the public because this was taxpayer
money. Option 1.C made sense and held the business at risk. The key was that the obligation
was satisfied after an established period of public benefit had been met. That fit all concerns.
Councilor Ballew said she was in favor of reserving the money for Wynant's, having the City
Manager review the business plan and make the decision on the amount to award, and
implementing conditions on the property relative to its use.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 5
Councilor Woodrow said he appreciated Councils' position. Staff had recommended Option 1.C.,
and he felt that was a good choice, with the addition of a condition regarding use of the property.
Councilor Ralston said it was a great business to be downtown, but he didn't feel the City needed
to give out such large sums of public money to bring business downtown. He would be in favor
of giving them $45,000 and setting aside the remainder for other projects downtown in problem
areas. He didn't like Option 1 at all. He suggested giving them half of the $90,000 as long as
some criteria were established for future offers. He didn't want to set a bad precedence.
Councilor Pishioneri concurred with Councilor Ballew. He was in support of this business only,
not something less desirable. The store was asking for just what they needed regarding the dollar
amount. There were already funds set aside for downtown. Council needed to look forward to
other projects, but Wynant's needed the amount they requested.
Councilor Lundberg said there were two issues. Downtown criteria wasn't yet in place and there
wasn't a premier project set for downtown. The other issue was her concern about losing that
amount of money if there was a default situation. She said there were other situations when
properties had come back to the City. Loans were questionable, so she would be more
comfortable with a smaller amount in the $40,000 range.
Councilor Wylie said she would like to see the business plan. The Federal guidelines were
designed to protect the taxpayers, so ifWynant's met the requirements, she was satisfied. It
would bring families downtown and would make it safer downtown with increased family
activity. She said it would also upgrade the building stock downtown. The funds were to
improve buildings. Ifthey met the guidelines, she was fine with giving approval. She would not
be opposed to a lesser amount, but wanted to encourage this business to move downtown.
Councilor Woodrow said if the project received the funding, they could create more jobs, stay
open later in the evening and open by September 2007. The Federal guidelines were specific and
protected the taxpayers and the process. The City had asked businesses to come downtown and
Wynant's was already taking' the risk. He felt the Council should give them as much support as
they gave non-profits, as this would pay taxes and bring jobs.
Councilor Pishioneri said if the business was asking for $90,000, giving them less could decrease
their ability to become successful. They followed the guidelines and the Council was now asking
for the business plan. If the City Manager felt it was a healthy business plan, it should be funded.
Councilor Lundberg said in years past, applicants had to take only a portion of what was asked
for and were appreciative of whatever they received. They often had to come back year after year
to get all the funding they needed. The City had a good track record in getting projects started
and completed. Wynant's said they would do this whether they received the funds or not. All of
the Council wanted to see the review of the business plan. She would like Council to consider a
lesser amount and put together criteria for future use ofthe building. Staff could then bring this
back to Council.
Councilor Woodrow noted that some of the places that received funds over several years didn't
open until the funding was complete at the end of three or four years. This project wanted to be
open and operational in September 2007. Option 1 set the money aside and waited for the City
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 6
Manager to review the business plan. Council could wait until the City Manager passed his
recommendation along to Council. Option C built in another safeguard to protect the Council and
the taxpayers' money to make sure it was a good decision. The applicant had asked for what they
needed and they should be commended. He felt they should go forward with Option 1.C. with the
addition of Councilor Ballew's request for a condition on future use.
Councilor Ballew said Council seemed to be at an impasse. She said Option 1.C. would work
with the City Manager reviewing the business plan. Ifhe determined $90,000 was not warranted,
he could award a, lesser amount, with the rest going back to the downtown pool.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO APPROVE WYNANT'S FUNDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH
OPTION 1.C WITH THE ADDITION THAT THE CITY MANAGER MAKE THE
FINAL DETERMINATION AFTER REVIEWING THE BUSINESS PLAN TO SEE IF
$90,000 IS THE CORRECT AMOUNT OR A LESSER AMOUNT WOULD BE MORE
ACCEPTABLE, INCLUDING APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS OF UTILIZATION OF
THE PROPERTY.
Mr. Leahy said the more the property was conditioned the more difficult it could be to secure the
bank loan.
Mayor Leiken agreed.
Mr. Leahy said language for the condition to prohibit the property from becoming an adult store
would probably be acceptable, but further conditions could make it difficult to secure a bank loan.
Councilor Lundberg asked Mr. Ko to review past agreements with conditions to see how the
conditions could be applied to this project.
Councilor Pishioneri asked for clarification on the motion.
Mr. Grimaldi restated the details of the motion.
Councilor Pishioneri said he would like information back if the amount was reduced.
Mayor Leiken said this was a very good deliberation. This proposal was very different, but one
of the things that made him comfortable was that this store had been in business for a number of
years. The new location was not in the core of downtown, but was a niche business and very
unique. The clientele would follow the store wherever they went. Council would need to begin
looking at criteria regarding downtown development as more ideas and plans came forward. He
commended Wynant's for looking into this grant opportunity. He thanked Councilor Ballew for a
good compromise motion.
Councilor Lundberg said she would like to move forward on downtown criteria as quickly as
possible so Council would not be in the same position next year.
Councilor Ballew said downtown had become more focused for Council. She would like a
portfolio put together that showed what the City could offer relative to financial incentives, loans
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 7
or CDBG funds to businesses that wanted to locate downtown. Such a portfolio could help
Council be more informed and prepared and would give the City somethirig to offer.
Councilor Woodrow thanked Council for their consideration and agreed that criteria was needed
as soon as possible to address for-profit businesses coming forward requesting grant funds.
Mr. Ko said staff would work on that right away.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 1 AGAINST (Ralston)
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO APPROVE THE SPRINGFIELD SECTION OF THE FY2007-2008
ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0
AGAINST.
2. Amended Request by the Relief Nursery to Purchase City-Owned Property for a Proposed
Chi1dcare Facility.
Housing Manager Kevin Ko presented the staff report on this item. The City owns a 1.37 acre
parcel located at 870 South 42nd Street. Council held a public hearing on December 4, 2006 and
approved the sale of the property to the Relief Nursery for the appraised value of $267,000.
Based on subsequent information from a survey and discussion with staff, the property is slightly
smaller than indicated on the appraisal. The Relief Nursery is seeking to purchase the property at
an adjusted price of $248,836.
On December 4, 2006, a public hearing was held to receive testimony and make a decision
regarding the proposed sale of City owned property to the Relief Nursery. The property is
located at 870 South 42nd Street, and was appraised for $267,000 in April, 2006. At the
conclusion of the public hearing, the Council approved the sale of the property for the appraised
value. As part of the due diligence process, a survey of the property was conducted by the Relief
Nursery. A surveyor's report dated January 17,2007 was provided indicating the measured area
of the property was 1.32 acres, which is approximately 10% less than in the 1.47 acres on which
the appraisal was based. This was due in part to an adjustment made to provide necessary right-
or-way for improvements to South 42nd Street. Based on the survey, the Relief Nursery sought
to revise the sale price downward to $240,300. After discussion with the City engineering staff, it
was determined that the amount of right- or- :way needed was less than what was reflected in the
survey. Staff concluded that the size of the property was approximately 1.37 acres, and based on
the initial value established by the appraisal, the revised value of the property should be
$248,836. This value was agreed to by the Relief Nursery.
An Agreement of Purchase and Sale is attached for Council's review. Part 24 of the Agreement
describes the City's option to repurchase the property from the Relief Nursery for $248,836 if
construction of the facility has not commenced by January 1, 2010. Staff is recommending that
the City sell the property to the Relief Nursery for the price of $248,836 with the terms and
conditions provided in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale. Because of the history of the site, the
proceeds from its sale would become CDBG "program funds." If the sale is approved, staff
recommends that proceeds from the sale be earmarked for CDBG-e1igible downtown
redevelopment activities.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 8
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
1. Rodger Terrall. 3117 North Ridge Way. Eugene. OR. Mr. Terrall was currently the president
ofthe Relief Nursery Board. The Relief Nursery was requesting an amendment to the price
for the decrease in footage found in the property. He thanked Council for the effort they had
put into this project and asked for approval. They were located on 18th and M Street in
Springfield and had been well received and gained a lot of support from the families. Mr.
Terrall acknowledged School Superintendent Nancy Golden who served on the board.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
Councilor Ballew asked how the discrepancy occurred.
Mr. Ko explained. The appraisal was originally taken off Regional Land Inventory Database
(RLID). RLID was not down to the exact square footage, but the property had now been
accurately surveyed.
Councilor Ralston asked if part of the change was because 42nd Street was widened.
Mr. Ko said that was part of the change. He explained.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO ACCEPT WITH CONDITIONS THE OFFER FOR THE RELIEF
NURSERY TO PURCHASE CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 870 SOUTH 42ND STREET.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
3. Proposed Amendments to the Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram and the Springfield
Zoning Map.
ORDINANCE NO.1 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING 56 ACRES
FROM CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL TO: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL: MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/NODAL DEVELOPMENT AREA: AND
COMMERCIAL/NODAL DEVELOPMENT AREA ON LAND LOCATED NORTH OF
MARCOLA ROAD AND EAST OF 28TH/31 ST STREETS. (FIRST READING)
ORDINANCE NO.2 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING
MAP BY REZONING 56 ACRES FROM CAMPUS INDUSTRIAL TO: COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL: AND MIXED USE
COMMERCIAL ON LAND LOCATED NORTH OF MARCOLA ROAD AND EAST OF
28TH/31 ST STREETS. (FIRST READING)
City Planner Gary Karp presented the staff report on this item. The subject site was formerly
known as the "Pierce" property. The current Metro Plan designations and zoning are: Campus
Industrial (56 acres), Medium Density Residential (35.7 acres) and Community Commercial (8.6
acres). The applicant requests approval of a: Type II Metro Plan diagram amendment to change
the 56 acre Campus Industrial designation to: Community Commercial (11 acres); Medium
Density Residential/Nodal Development Area (19 acres); and Commercial/Nodal Development
Area (26 acres); and amendment of the Springfield Zoning Map from Campus Industrial to
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 9
Community Commercial, Mixed Use Commercial and Medium Density Residential (same
acreages). Both applications are interrelated; they both must be approved because of the required
consistency between the Metro Plan designation and zoning. All issues related to the effects of
the proposed development on neighboring properties raised during the Planning Commission
public hearing are issues that will be addressed during the Master Plan review process, a
condition of approval of these applications, which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission
at a future public hearing. The Master Plan will contain proposed mitigations to positively
respond to the issues raised by the neighbors. In making their decision on these applications, the
City Council should consider if: the City will be better served by converting Campus Industrial
land to Commercial and Multi-family Residential; Springfield's citizens, especially the neighbors,
can be assured that a "quality" development will be constructed over time; and whether the
removal of the Campus Industrial designation can be absorbed or should be offset by a
commensurate addition of Campus Industrial designation elsewhere in the City as an element of
the upcoming commerciallindustrial1and supply demand analysis.
Mr. Karp said this was a quasi-judicial public hearing and DeNovo. DeNovo meant there would
be no limitations on who testified or what evidence was offered. At the commencement of a
public hearing such as this, it was stated in ORS 197.763(5) that the criteria of approval must be
listed. The zoning map amendment was from 12.030(3) ofthe Springfield Development Code
and criteria of approval were a) consistency with applicable Metro Plan policies and Metro Plan
Diagram, and b) consistency with applicable Refmement Plans, Plan District Maps, conceptual
development plans and functional plans. The property was presently provided with adequate
public facilities, services, and transportation to support the use. The above noted services and
transportation networks were planned to be provided concurrently with the development of the
property. The Metro Plan criteria of approval were from Section 7.070(3): a) the amendment
must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation
and Development Commission (LCDC) and b) adoption of the amendment must not make the
Metro Plan internally consistent. The staff report was utilized using those criteria. The testimony
should adhere to those criteria or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which the person
believed applied to the decision. Failure to raise'an issue accompanied by statements or evidence
sufficient to afford the decision maker or parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precluded
appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) based on that issue.
Mr. Leahy said for the citizens testifying tonight, the criteria were noted in the staff report and on
the wall behind the Council. The hearing was quasi-judicial and DeNovo. DeNovo meant that
any issue, procedural or substantive, could be raised that was relevant to the approval criteria.
Quasi-judicial meant that certain due ~process procedural rights were associated with this decision
making process. Those rights included the right to notice (which had been done), the right to
present evidence, the right to have a written decision based upon standards (set forth in the
criteria), and to an impartial decision maker, the Council. The primary purpose of this hearing
was to establish a record upon which a decision could be made. The evidentiary rules associated
with the hearings were less restrictive than those used in Circuit Courts and all relevant testimony
(relating to the criteria), including heresy testimony, could be considered. It was important to
note that those giving testimony were to raise procedural and substantive issues at this hearing, or
they would be prohibited or precluded from raising those issues subsequently on an appeal before
the Oregon LUBA. If they raised an issue, they must support it with statements or evidence
sufficiently specific so the Council could understand it and the Council had an opportunity to
respond to the concern or issue. The applicant must raise any concerns regarding any proposed
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007.
Page 10
conditions of approval to preserve their right to appeal and/or to seek damages in Circuit Court,
which would be on a Dolan claim.
· Burden of Proof: In this proceeding, the burden of proof was on the applicant to show by a
preponderance ofthe evidence that all of the applicable approval criteria (noted in the staff
report and on display behind the Council) had been met. The record in this manner consisted
of the application and any supporting information; any staff report and any supporting
documents; and any testimony and documentary evidence admitted during the Planning
Commission hearing and the City Council hearing. If anyone wanted an item entered into the
record, they needed to present it to the City Recorder orally or in writing. If there was any
question whether any materials were in the record, the person submitting the testimony
should make a point of asking that it be accepted into the record. By statute, anyone giving
testimony had the right to request that the record be held open for seven days. They did not
have to give a reason for the request, but must make the request before the hearing was
closed. If new evidence was introduced during that time, the record may be held open for an
additional period of time to allow other parties an opportunity to respond to the evidence. He
gave an example. In a DeNovo hearing, the applicant always had the last word. There was
also the ability of anyone to request continuance of the hearing, which was different than
keeping the record open. A continuance of the hearing was discretionary with the City
Council and the party requesting it must show that prejudice to his or her rights would not be
cured by merely holding the record open, or the City Council could decide on its own that
they wanted additional information and hold the hearing open.
· Testimony: This hearing was being recorded on tape. He asked those that wished to testify
to follow a few procedures: 1) Testify from the podium, not from the audience. Don't holler
something to the Council and expect it to show up in the record in approval or non-approval
of a statement; 2) Begin testimony by stating your name, address for the record. This would
enable the City Recorder and Council to identify the testimony offered by each speaker and
will assist in creating a transcript of the hearing if that is necessary; and 3) If you want a
written copy of the written decision, please provide your name and address to the City
Recorder.
Mr. Leahy outlined the procedure the Mayor would follow:
1. applicant testimony
2. testimony by those in favor
3. testimony by those neutral
, 4. testimony by those opposed
5. staff summary if staff chooses to summarize or respond to information presented or
questions from the Council
6. rebuttal by the applicant
7. public hearing closed unless Council determines to extend the public hearing.
8. discussion of the public hearing and whether or not to keep the public record open
9. discussion on policy issues and compliance with adopted plans
10. decision by Counci1- the decision could be tonight or after the record was kept open
or after the public hearing was continued.
The Council would issue a written decision within a specified time of the date the record was
closed at another hearing. Council would give direction regarding a decision and the staff
would present findings for the Council. Any person that participated in this hearing or was
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 11
on the record before the Planning Commission may appeal the Council's decision to the
LUBA. Please consult an attorney regarding a deadline for that appeal and the form of the
appeal.
· Impartiality: The Oregon Land Use Law required that the Council disclose any exparte
contacts or conflicts of interest related to this matter and allow any person to challenge the
Councilor for bias. Generally, a conflict of interest involved a situation where the decision
maker, his or her family, or business would benefit or suffer by the decision. An exparte
contact was a communication to the decision maker that included substantive issues regarding
the application and occurred outside the public venue.
Mr. Leahy asked for any ex parte contact or conflict of interest.
There were no conflicts of interest or ex parte contact from the Mayor and Council.
Mr. Karp asked Council to turn to page 4 - 5 of the zoning ordinance, condition # 1. In that
condition, number 10 stated "either/or". Upon further review of that condition, staff determined
it should be made clearer. Staff discussed the change with the applicant, and the applicant
concurred with the change. He said when the ordinance came back to the Council, staff would
prefer the "or" language.
Mr. Karp described the property and the Metro Plan amendment and zoning amendment being
requested. Council needed to consider whether the City would be better served with this zone
change. Springfield citizens, especially neighbors, could be assured that a quality development
would be constructed over time. He discussed the possibility of additional Campus Industrial
property in other parts of the City. Staff recommended approval of both applications with
conditions.
Mayor Leiken called the applicant forward.
1. Rick Satre. President of Satre and Associates. 132 East Broadway, Suite 536. Eugene. Or.
Mr. Satre said he was the applicant's representative. He said tonight's hearing was regarding
planning and zoning, yet much had been said in prior testimony and in the media about a
certain home improvement center. These applications were not about Lowe's or any other
home improvement center or any other particular tenant or occupant. If Lowe's went away,
the project would go on. If Lowe's were to move to another site in Springfield, this project
would go on. Tonight's hearing was about a 100 acre master plan community, a mixed-use,
residential, commercial master plan. This property had long been known as the Pierce
Property, and was now a master plan community known as the Villages at Marco1a Meadows.
He referred to a slide show that showed the potential development and the type of buildings
that would be included in this area, including open space. He said this community would be
good for Springfield and would offer exciting places to shop, a high quality outdoor
environment, and a sufficient amount of open space. He said within the 100 acres, 54.7 acres
would be medium density residential and the balance would be commercial. Of the 54.7
residential, nearly twenty percent would be dedicated as common open space available to the
public at large. There would be a wide variety of uses, occupations, and residences within
this master plan community. In addition to medium density residential and a number of
residential types, there would be a number of commercial types, including opportunities for a
high quality office environment integrated with open space and pedestrian connections.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 12
There would be a variety of places to live including townhomes, apartments and cottages.
The master plan community was paying attention to the concerns expressed by the
neighborhood and the community at large. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on
March 14 at Briggs Middle School, with nearly SO attending. Forty signed up on the
attendance sheet, the applicant took questions and provided written response to those that
entered their name and address on the sheet. Their written responses were part of the public
record.
Mr. Satre discussed the color booklet that was received into the public record and by the
Council. He then entered into the record three new documents: 1) pie chart indicating that of
100 acres, twenty percent of the residential would be open space, accessible to the
community at large, including a 1.5 acres addition to the undeveloped Willama1ane Pierce
Park, connections to the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) corridor, and connections
to the school grounds. The applicant had met with the representatives from the school
district, from EWEB and Willama1ane to make sure that as the master plan took shape, the
applicant would respect those existing community resources and inake due connections and
relationships with the proposed master plan and those existing parks and school grounds; 2) a
digital image of what the facility would look like from the south side of Marcola Road
showing that the mountain views would still be visible. They were proposing a thirty foot
landscaped buffer from the north side of the Marcola Road right-of-way; and 3) a one-page,
two-sided document that was originally shared with the neighbors at the neighborhood
meeting to provide a little more narrative about the vision behind Marco1a Meadows.
Mr. Satre explained why he felt Council should approve these proposals. The request met all
applicable criteria as stated by staff and agreed upon by the Planning Commission. The
applicant had worked with staff over the last eighteen months to develop a master planned
community which met all applicable criteria, met Sprmgfield's goals for residential densities,
applied the nodal overlay for this development and limited vehicle trips. The applicant was
implementing Springfield's recently adopted mixed-use commercial zone. The nodal and
mixed-use commercial zone would help Springfield comply with TransPlan and with TPR
regarding trip reduction. In addition, they were best utilizing vacant land within the urban
growth boundary (UGB). This project would add to the tax base and would create jobs. The
applicant had met with the neighborhood, representatives from the school district, EWEB,
Willama1ane, and DLCD regarding statewide goal compliance, particularly with respect to
the land inventory and the job creation.
Mr. Satre said in the adopted and acknowledged inventories for commercial and industrial
land within the plan year of 20 15, there was a documented shortage of commercia11ands in
the community. There was also a documented projection of surplus industrial land in the
community. In the Campus Industrial (CI) district in Springfield, as of March 13,2007, there
was still 116 acres of vacant CI land in the Gateway area. There was also a possibility of a
large amount of CI would be designated in the Jasper Natron area.
Mr. Satre summarized his presentation. Demand for industrial manufacturing uses originally
intended for this CI district had greatly diminished. The Pierce Property had been shovel
ready CI land for over thirty years, but there had been no CI development proposal submitted.
The original Special Light Industrial (SLI) and later CI designation of this property was
adopted to assist in the diversification ofthe metro areas decline in the wood products
industry twenty to twenty-five years ago. There was a change in market forces regarding the
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 13
high tech industry that CI was intended to address. He gave the example of Sony
Manufacturing locating in Springfield, but then later closing due to new technologies. The
last industrial use that was developed in the Springfield community on CI land was ten years
ago. There was not a high demand for industrial property in Springfield. In the adopted
acknowledged inventories there was projected to be a surplus of nearly sixteen hundred acres
of industria11and in the metro area, while there was nearly a two hundred acre deficit of
commercial land in Springfield alone. Mr. Satre said this proposal satisfied Goal 9 and
DLCD's concern regarding land supply. The applicant met with staff and DLCD
representatives and discussed their concerns. The City's findings needed to be based on the
adopted and acknowledged inventories. In addition, the applicant had communicated with
representatives from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) regarding traffic.
The applicant proposed a trip cap. This was not a limit on trips, but was a limit on trip
generation development so that under the proposed planning and zoning, the trip generating
development (i.e. the amount of square foot of commercial use and the number of dwelling
units) would not exceed the trip generation that could occur under the existing planning and
zoning. In addition to that, there was a letter from ODOT in the agenda packet, stating that
ODOT had reviewed and agreed with the applicant's traffic analysis and mitigation. The
applicant was planning a number of improvements to City street system, and the ODOT
controlled on and off ramps at 1-105 and the Mohawk Road overpass. Springfield and its
citizens would be better served by changing CI to commercial land due to the current
shortage. This proposal introduced equilibrium in the supply by increasing the supply of
commercial land. Addressing the projected shortage would assist with economic
development.
Mr. Satre thanked Council for their consideration. He said he would be available after the
public hearing for any questions.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
1. Karen Boden. 2187 North 23rd Street. Springfield. OR. Ms. Boden said she lived directly
behind this property. She said with a total of 192 homes, 123 townhouses and 120
apartments, that would equal 435 dwellings in that area. She said she was concerned with the
schools in that area because Yolanda Elementary, Briggs Middle School and Thurston High
School were already very full. She discussed trip generation and felt that the traffic numbers
would be very high. Living directly behind this development, she was concerned with the
waterway and asked if there would be a barrier. She asked if there would be a wall to keep
the noise level down for the residential area. She said she was opposed to this development.
She would prefer to see a retaining wall, but noted she would no longer see the mountains
from her location. She said all of those from the neighborhood were nervous and trying to
help each other fill out their cards, but the developer was standing nearby.
2. Jean Fraga. 2074 Lomond Ave.. Springfield. OR. Ms. Fraga said she lived on Lomond
Avenue for thirty-eight years. She said some of the lots in the original subdivision were a
quarter of an acre. She said she was concerned about packing too many homes in this area
and was most concerned about putting another home improvement store in this area. There
was already a Jerry's nearby.
3. Gail Wagenblast. 2457 Otto Street. Springfield. OR. Ms. Wagenblast said she was opposed
to this proposal. More than the commercial development, she was opposed to adding more
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 14
medium density residential. There was not a shortage of housing in Springfield. She said the
neighbors had gotten mixed messages from the developer on what type of housing they
wanted to incorporate. She said it could equate to 228 additional residences on the nineteen
acres, if there were twelve homes per acre. She said Briggs Middle School was very full and
she was not sure where any new students would fit. She said the lot size was a concern
because it gave no area for children to play. She said part of the open space was in the
commercial area. She referred to the thirty foot swatch along the road which was part of their
open area. That area was not suitable for children to play. She said we couldn't rely on the
schools to allow kids to play there because part ofthe schoolgrounds could have to be used to
build something new. Another concern was the drainage system. She said the system didn't
work now in the area and adding all the cement and buildings with no additional drainage
would be a problem. The roads around that area flooded every winter. She referred to the
argument that we have a surplus of CI in the Gateway area, but most of that CI land was not
usable and was located in the flood plain. She referred to the limited vehicle trips and noted
that they were adding 1491 parking spots to this development. If they weren't planning on
having cars drive to this area, they wouldn't need that many spaces. The traffic was also a
concern.
4. Nancy Fa1k. 2567 Marco1a Road, Springfield, OR. Ms. Fa1k said she had owned the property
since 1957. It was created as North View Subdivision by former Governor Bob Straub and
she noted that the Jasper Road Extension was named after Mr. Straub. She said a better way
to honor him would be by not placing this development in this area. She asked why the
applicant would want to put a home improvement store in the middle of this development.
She said there was no need for another home improvement store with Jerry's nearby. There
were other places available for development, such as Centennial and Mohawk or Glenwood.
She said there was property on the old Wildish property south of Franklin Boulevard. The
parcel was on the west side and had a railroad spur which could be beneficial for a home
improvement store. It was also off the main thoroughfare and could draw traffic from other
areas.
5. Lou Christian. 80767 Turkey Run Road. Creswell. OR. Mr. Christian said he represented the
Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 290 on 2861 Pierce Parkway in Springfield. He said they
were opposed to seeing this project put in with the rezoning of the CI area. The current
zoning was meant to provide family wage jobs and the commercial and residential would add
more residents to the area with lower paying jobs than generally CI would present. This
would reduce the CI inventory by nearly one-third and much of what would remain would not
be usable for any medium sized campus. It would take out a very vital part of the CI
inventory. He noted that CI and Industrial were very different. Lowe's built a regional
distribution center using a lot of tax money from people in Oregon through economic
development funds and used many out of state contractors. The union strongly recommended
retaining CI in this area. It was needed to provide family wage jobs. He referred to an article
in the Oregonian that came out April 30, 2007 titled "The Payrolls Grow, but not so the
Paychecks". The article discussed the industry that was left and the downward spiral of the
wages. He provided a copy of the article to the City Recorder for the record. Bringing in this
type of development and more houses put more pressure on the wages. Mr. Christian
requested that the record remain open for 7 days.
6. Brian Jones. 2491 16th Street. Springfield. OR. Mr. Jones said he approved of mixed-use and
commercial, as the City had a great need for that. He grew up in the area and yet often had to
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 15
go to Eugene for shopping. He would prefer to stay in Springfield. The only commercial
area Springfield had was Gateway and that area would be inconvenient with the added
facilities going into that area. Having a commercial area centrally located would be a benefit
to the community. He said it depended on the type of housing that was put in to the
development and also the commercial use located there. He referred to the shopping center
off Coburg Road that had turned itself around. He noted the development in outlying areas
because of shortage of housing in Springfield. He said it did put a burden on the schools and
infrastructure, but there were ways to get around those issues. We needed to look at ways to
improve our community, not detract from it. If done in the right way, this commercial center
and housing could be a significant benefit to the Springfield area.
7. Lauri Segel. Goal One Coalition. 642 Charnelton #100. Eugene. OR. Ms. Segel said she was
a committee planner and although she didn't live in Springfield, she lived in the
Eugene/Springfield community and did care about livability. She commented on issues
regarding Goals 9 and 12 and nodal development. She felt that staff incorrectly dismissed the
applicability of the provisions ofGoa19, administrative rules that became effective January
2007. Staff's response to written and oral testimony insinuated that because the application
was submitted in September of 2006, prior to the effective date of changes made to Goal 9 by
DLCD, that the new rules didn't apply. That was incorrect. ORS 227.178(1) established that
"except as provided in subsections (3) and (5) of this section, the governing body of the City
or its designee shall take final action on an application for a permit, limited land use decision
or zone change (of which a plan amendment is not part of) including resolution of all appeals
under ORS 227.189, within 120 days after the application is deemed complete." The current
proposal included a plan amendment, which was not a permitted land use decision or zone
change, ORS 197.175(2) states, "pursuant in relevant part, each City and County in this state
shall prepare, adopt, amend and revised Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the goals
approved by the Commission." This provision establishes that plan amendments must
comply with the goals. In this case, that meant the new Goal 9 rules. Ms. Segel spoke
regarding the industrial land. The applicant mostly relied on two ofthe thirty-two economic
element policies in the Metro Plan, Policies 6 and 12. The applicant seemed to believe that
Policy 6 was imperative and provided clearer guidance than Policy 12; however, this policy
addressed zoning only, not plan designation and concerned the necessity of having adequate
supplies ofland of both commercial and industrial designation, and said nothing concerning
the applicability of favoring one plan designation over the other. Policy 12 stated
"discourage future Metro Plan amendments that would change development ready industrial
lands, sites identified as short term in the Metropolitan Industrial Lands Special Study, to
non-industrial designation".
8. Darlene Hrouda. 2595 Marco1a Road. Springfield. OR. Ms. Hrouda said she had a lot of
concerns because she lived on Marco1a Road. Traffic was already bad enough and she had
trouble getting out of her driveway. She said a speeding car just rolled over in her neighbor's
yard. She was not as opposed to the industrial part as she was the residential. She said there
could be about 489 residences, totaling about 1200 people with between 500 - 1200 cars a
day in and out of there in an area that was already saturated. She said there were not enough
roads to support that amount of traffic. She said she moved to Springfield from Eugene
because it was more open than Eugene. She had a problem with overcrowding the schools
and there would be nowhere for the kids in this development to play and they would get into
trouble. She was concerned about what this development would do to their property taxes as
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 16
homeowners and the property value. She had real concerns and would like to request to leave
the record open.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR LUNDBERG WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO LEAVE THE WRITTEN RECORD OPEN FOR ONE WEEK UNTIL
5:00 P.M. ON MAY 14, PROVIDE THE APPLICANT AND STAFF ONE ADDITIONAL
WEEK TO RESPOND TO TIDS TESTIMONY AND RECONVENE FOR COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF TIDS APPLICATION AT 7:00 P.M. ON JUNE 4 IN THESE
CHAMBERS. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
Staff response:
Mr. Karp said some of the issues addressed were not to the criteria of approval and would be
addressed during the master plan process if the amendments were approved by Council. He said
staff would review the issues related to Goa19 and Goal 12. Staff would also review what was
submitted into the record tonight and reply on June 4.
Applicant rebuttal:
Mr. Satre said a number of legitimate concerns were expressed tonight and deserved due
consideration. The master plan would address those issues, such as drainage, noise, etc. There
would be public notice and a public hearing for the master plan. He addressed the concern
regarding school overcrowding. On page 7-21 ofthe agenda packet, there was a letter from the
Springfield Public Schools stating that there was adequate capacity in the school system for all of
the allowable housing on these acres. With respect to the open space, someone had testified that
the thirty foot setback along Marcola Road was part of the open space and that was incorrect.
Twenty percent of the residential acreage would be the common open space. He addressed the
issues regarding Goa19, Metro Plan Policies 6 and 12 being in conflict with each other. He
encouraged Council to continue reading or re-read their packet, in particular page 6-28 of the
packet which included a Metro Plan statement that said it was o.k. if there were conflicts and
inconsistencies between various policies within the Metro Plan. When local jurisdictions
discovered that there may be inconsistencies and conflicts, it was up to Council to sort those out.
In regard to density, number of housing, traffic, and things related to trip generation, he reminded
Council that they had voluntarily proposed a trip cap. He reiterated that trip cap was not a limit
on trips, but a limit on the amount of commercial square footage, a limit on dwelling units so that
the number of trips generated by this development would not exceed the number of trips that
would be generated by the existing planning and zoning use.
Mr. Satre thanked Council for their consideration.
Mayor Leiken said the written testimony would continue to be open for one week. No decision
would be made tonight.
Mr. Leahy said there would be no public testimony on June 4. Written testimony would be open
until 5:00pm on May 14.
Councilor Ralston asked which items discussed were part ofthe criteria. He asked if TransPlan
was part of the Metro Plan. Yes. Anything related to traffic had relevance to the criteria.
Councilor Lundberg said she would like a follow-up with the School District. She asked where
the two new schools would be located that were part of the School District's last bond measure.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 17
She wanted to know if that was why the district was saying they could accommodate, or would it
mean moving students to other areas. She would like more clarification regarding absorbing
students. There was something currently in the legislature regarding school input when
development was proposed. It was a critical issue to this application.
Councilor Ballew asked about the written record being held open.
Mr. Leahy said the record was being held open for one week, until Monday, May 14 at 5:00pm.
He suggested a slight change to the rest of the schedule. He suggested that if any new
information came in dl,lring that week by either the applicant or anyone opposed to the
development, either party could comment on the new information during the next week (through
May 21). There could be a three day time period after that for the applicant to make any rebuttal
and no new information could be introduced at that time. Per Councilor Lundberg's request, new
information would be entered into the record that would need comment.
· First period: Written record open through 5:00pm on May 14
· Second period: Respond to new information from all parties through May 21
· Third period: Applicant to file rebuttal by May 29
Jim Spickerman, attorney for the applicant, 975 Oak Street, Suite 800, Eugene, Oregon addressed
Mr. Leahy regarding the timeline. He said by statute, the applicant had one week for their
argument. He also noted that during the last week, he could comment on anything in the record,
not just new information.
Mr. Leahy asked Mr. Karp about time for staff to prepare the information to bring back to
Council.
Mr. Karp said in order for him to prepare the information for the Council packet, he would need
to schedule this to come back for the meeting on June 18.
Mr. Leahy said he would prefer to have a record that everyone could be involved in and the
Council had all the information it needed.
Mayor Leiken noted that he would not be in attendance on June 18.
Mr. Leahy said if there was a tie, the Council could continue the meeting and the Mayor would
review the record before coming back for a final decision.
Councilor Ralston asked about a park called Pierce Park that was shown on the map. He asked if
Pierce Park wa~ private or a Willama1ane Park.
Mr. Satre said it was Willamalane property that had not yet been developed. Pierce Park was the
name given to that property by Willamalane.
Mayor Leiken thanked all those that had come to testify before Council and for their thoughtful
testimony.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 18
Mayor Leiken announced that Council would take a five minute recess (9: 10 p.m.)
Mayor Leiken resumed the Council meeting at 9: 17 p.m.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
BIDS
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
1. Councilor Ballew said she went to an all day Oregon Metropolitan Planning
Organizations Consortium (OMPOC) meeting on Friday. Not a lot was
accomplished, but she had a couple of things to distribute to Council regarding a
legislative policy that was discussed. She didn't want to commit to anything without
full Council approval.
Councilor Ballew also reported on the Little Look meeting that she and Councilor
Woodrow attended today. The facilitator was very nice and would be putting
together a collective statement of what appeared to be the attitude ofthe three
agencies. There was a lot of difference in opinions.
2. Councilor Woodrow said he also attended the Little Look meeting. The Eugene City
Council was unhappy that this wasn't brought to them ahead of time. Mayor Piercy
stated that Eugene and Springfield were not fighting about this issue, but were
discussing it. Most. of the questions at the session were ambiguous.
3. Councilor Lundberg attended the ribbon cutting for the Northwest Credit Union
located on Main Street in Springfield. She said it was another Carl Sherwood design,
was beautiful and was all done in wood. The first NW Credit Union member was at
the ribbon cutting. She encouraged everyone to stop by to see this beautiful facility.
4. Councilor Wylie said she had been appointed to the Blue Ribbon Committee to
finance home1essness and housing programs. It was a Eugene Mayor program, but
, they seemed happy to have a Springfield Councilor on board that was also familiar
with social services. She will keep Council informed on the plans of this committee.
5. Councilor Pishioneri attended leadership training last week for two days and found it
to be very beneficial. It was put on by League of Oregon Cities (LOC). He will
return at the end of the month for the second part of the training.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 19
6. Mayor Leiken said HB3337 passed 50-5 at the House. It would now be determined
which Senate committee it would be going to.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Council Initiation of Vacation of Right-of-Way.
Police Chief Jerry Smith presented the staff report on this item. When the design of the Justice
Center began in December 2005, the project architect was required to examine the existing site
and to develop options for the use of the site. Initially, more than 15 concepts were examined and
ultimately 4 site options were developed. On February 28, 2006, the Council considered these
options and selected Option 2. This option was determined to be most likely to provide for the
City's requirements for the new facility while also meeting the City's budget constraints. This site
design option has been the basis of the design of the Justice Center project. In order for the
construction of the project to proceed as designed, the one-block section ofB Street between 4th
Street and Pioneer Parkway East must be vacated.
Oregon Revised Statue section271.130 provides for the City Council to initiate vacation of
public rights of way. Ifthe Council decides to initiate this action, staff will process the vacation
application using the criteria approved by the City Council on April 2, 2007. This criteria is
related to vacation of public rights of way, easements and other public lands that will remain in
public ownership and public use. The procedures for the review of this vacation application will
be as any other request for vacation of right of way. Staff will review the application in
accordance with the criteria and will prepare a staff report which will include draft findings. This
report will be scheduled for a Public Hearing by the Planning Commission and the Planning
Commission will make a recommendation regarding the application to the City Council.
Following the Planning Commission hearing, a Public Hearing will be scheduled for the Council
to hear testimony regarding the application.
If the Council decides to approve the vacation application, the construction of the Justice Center
will proceed as designed. If the Council does not approve the vacation application, some
components of the Justice Center will be re-designed to remove the secure parking and Ancillary
Building from the B Street right-of-way and construction of the project will proceed as re-
designed.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISHIONERI TO INITIATE VACATION OF THE ONE BLOCK SECTION OF B
STREET BETWEEN 4TH STREET AND PIONEER PARKWAY EAST. THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 2 AGAINST (Ballew/Lundberg)
2. Joint Participation with Eugene and Lane County in a Ballot Measure 37 Claim.
Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item. A Ballot Measure 37 claim
has been filed with Eugene, Springfield and Lane County alleging diminished value as a result of
Metro Plan policies. The claim was filed with each of the Metro Plan's co-signatories despite the
property's location west ofI-5 between the Urban Growth Boundary and Plan boundary. The
question is: "Should the City of Springfield apply the plan amendment procedures regarding
jurisdictional participation in Plan amendments to a BM 37 claim?" The law establishing claims
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 20
for diminished value clearly exempts this process from the "land use decision" and "limited land
use decision" process specified in ORS 197.
Notwithstanding this distinction, the BM 37 claim will result in compensation, i.e. functional
equivalent of a development denial, or waiver of the land use regulation, i.e. functional equivalent
of a development approval. In either case, Springfield's participation, if this was a land use
decision under ORS 197 and the Metro Plan, would be optional, not compulsory: "All three
governing bodies must approve non-site-specific text amendments; site specific Metro Plan
Diagram amendments that involve a UGB or Plan Boundary change that crosses the Willamette
or McKenzie Rivers or that crosses over a ridge into a new basin; and, amendments that involve a
goal exception not related to a UGB expansion." (Metro Plan, page IV -3).
The claim seeks approval to develop property between the McKenzie River and the UGB, west of
1-5, with residential development of varying densities. Under Metro Plan land use procedures,
the property owner would request an amendment to the Urban Growth Boundary and concurrent
Plan diagram amendments from agricultural to residential. Because none of the site-specific
guidelines identified at Metro Plan IV-3 cited above apply to this claim, Springfield would
receive a referral to allow for determination of "Regional Impact" and subsequent decision to
"opt-in" or "opt-out." In previous land use actions west ofI-5 of similar purpose and scope, the
Springfield City Council has declined to participate, consistent with the provisions of the Metro
Plan and the Springfield Development Code, Article 7.
Mr. Mott explained how the implementation of the jurisdictional responsibility existed and the
options for Council.
Councilor Ballew asked about the Metro Plan and the responsibilities noted in that plan.
Mr. Leahy said it was a contract with no end. Part of the terms ofthat contract contained
provisions for Council to opt out. Mr. Mott was recommending that Council opt out and
eliminate this BM37 claim.
Councilor Ralston said if Springfield opted out, would the claimant still go forward with the
BM37 claim.
Mr. Mott said that was correct.
Councilor Ballew asked if they were filing the claim against all three jurisdictions.
Mr. Leahy said he discussed this with the claimant's attorney, Mr. Kloos.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISmONERI TO DECLINE PARTICIPATION. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
Mr. Grimaldi reminded Council that there was a Budget Committee tomorrow night.
Councilor Ballew said the Museum was honoring the Over the Hill Gang, including Don Lutes,
on Friday, May 11 from 5 :00-7:00pm.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2007
Page 21
Councilor Lundberg noted the wonderful article about Don Lutes in the paper today.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
Mr. Leahy said he attended a municipal attorneys' workshop last week. A panel on Saturday
morning included Eugene City Attorneys, a Eugene Risk Management staff member, and another
law firm that Eugene hired regarding the Police cases. While the Eugene law firm was defending
the cases, they hired a law firm from Portland with the goal of settling the cases.
He thanked the Council. He said he attended the Cinco DeMayo event at the Regional Sports
Center and thoughtit was great to have it in Springfield.
Discussion was held regarding the issues around naming of that facility.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:32 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
Attest:
Cit~~