HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 04 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/21/2012
Meeting Type:Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Amy Sowa/CMO
Staff Phone No: 726-3700
Estimated Time: Consent Calendar
S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Mandate
ITEM TITLE:
COUNCIL MINUTES
ACTION
REQUESTED:
By motion, approval of the attached minutes.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The attached minutes are submitted for Council approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes:
a) March 13, 2012 – Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing
b) May 7, 2012 – Work Session
c) May 7, 2012 – Regular Meeting
d) May 14, 2012 – Work Session
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
None.
JOINT ELECTED OFFICIAL/BOARD OF COMMISSIONSER
REGULAR MEETING
March 13, 2012
6:00 p.m.
Commissioner Sid Leiken opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
City Councilor Dave Ralston opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council
City Councilor George Brown opened the meeting of the Eugene City Council
Present from Lane County were Board Chair Sid Leiken, Jay Bozievich, Rob Handy and Faye
Stewart. Pete Sorenson was excused.
Present from the city of Springfield were Sheri Moore, Dave Ralston, Sean Van Gordon and Joe
Pishioneri. Christine Lundberg, Hillary Wylie and Marilee Woodrow were excused.
Present from the city of Eugene were George Brown, Pat Farr, Andrea Ortiz and Chris Pryor.
Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor and Kitty Piercy were excused.
1. WORKSESSION
A. Joint Work Session for the Metro Plan Boundary Amendment for PA 11-5092 to
include a review of Ordinance Items Nos. PA 1281, PA 1283, PA 1284, PA 1290
& 2-12.
Kent Howe, Land Management, recalled in 2004 the Eugene Springfield Metro
Plan was just completing the Periodic Review. He reported the Board of
Commissioners identified five issues with the Metro Plan they had concerns with:
the description of urban services, relating how it affects to special districts; the
urbanizable area citizen representation of the Santa Clara River Road area; the
jurisdictional autonomy with the Metro Plan boundary adjustment; the dispute
resolution process and farmland and open space protection. He indicated that it
took some time to get the cities’ interest around those issues. He noted in 2009
the Board of Commissioners and the two city councils started meeting as the Joint
Elected Officials. (JEO) He added that a subcommittee was formed and they
reported back on recommendations in June. He added that the JEO in June
adopted those recommendations, giving staff direction to work on specific
changes to the Metro Plan based on recommendations from each jurisdiction that
include but were not limited to the following: the overarching policies of
identifying and addressing regional issues; policies that allow for individual
Refinement Plans for Eugene and Springfield to address jurisdiction specific
issues; adjustments to the Metro Plan Boundary and text to address jurisdictional
specific issues arising in the urbanizable areas and the area outside of the urban
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
growth boundary. (UGB) He added there was a dispute resolution process that
reflects the changes.
Howe reported that in 2011 the Board of Commissioners initiated the application
before the JEO. He said this Work Session is to provide details regarding the
Lane County initiated Metro Plan Boundary Amendments.
Howe indicated that the three jurisdictions are continuing to work on updating and
amending the Metro Plan to reflect the June 2009 JEO subcommittee
recommendations. He reported that Eugene and Springfield have been working
extensively to implement HB3337, the legislation requiring two separate urban
growth boundaries. He added that Lane County has been working through
regional issues that are of importance to the County. He noted that Springfield is
gathering more information about the UGB expansion areas reviewed and
recommended by the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions and
Springfield and Lane County are preparing amendments to the Metro Plan
Chapter 4 clarifying and re-describing the classification of Metro Plan
Amendments. He reported that Eugene is unveiling its results from the Envision
Eugene process in preparation for a UGB proposal this spring. He added that
these are all a part of the June 2009 subcommittee recommendations of which it
states that the jurisdictions shall work on adjustments to the Metro Plan Boundary
and text to address jurisdictional specific issues arising in the urbanizable areas
and the area outside of the UGB. He recalled that this area’s first Comp Plan was
the 1990 Plan and it was adopted in 1968.
Howe recalled when the Metro Plan was submitted for acknowledgment in 1980,
many of the concepts and components of the 1990 plan were carried forward. He
added that the UGB had to be justified on the rules and statutes of the Goal 14
Inventory Requirements as opposed to the aspirational concepts of the 1990 Plan.
He said because of the historical regional planning and the fact the County had
not submitted a Comprehensive Plan for the rural area, the elected officials
included most of the 1990 plan urban service area extremities within the Metro
Plan, resulting in a plan boundary unique statewide that was exterior to the UGB.
He added that the Metro Plan was acknowledged in 1982. He reported that Lane
County was not acknowledged as meeting the requirements of the statewide
planning program until 1984 and that year the same regulations that protect all of
rural Lane County were applied to the lands outside the Eugene Springfield UGB
inside the Metro Plan. He noted the artifact of the Metro Plan Boundary remains,
that it does not provide any additional regulatory protection. He reported that
there are rural resource lands within the boundaries of the Urban Comprehensive
Plan and the role of the two cities is elevated from interested parties to decision
makers. He explained that this unique plan allows for either city to prevent a land
use action proposed on Rural Resource land outside the city’s UGB. He noted
2
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
that now Lane County implements the Statewide Planning Goal Protections to
resource lands outside the UGB, just as the cities of Springfield and Eugene
changed the amendment process in the early 90’s to provide the cities with
autonomy with amendments inside city limits and established home city and
county responsibilities for amendments between the city limits and the UGB.
Howe recalled in 2007, HB3337 was passed to provide additional autonomy
requiring Eugene and Springfield to adopt their own separate UGB. He indicated
that the Lane County Board of Commissioners is now interested in achieving a
level of autonomy from the cities for the rural lands outside the cities UGB and
outside the cities’ purview of providing urban services. He recalled that the JEO
directed staff to explore these concepts during the implementation of HB 3337
and last year Lane County initiated the proposal in front of the JEO.
Alicia Hanson, city of Eugene, gave a presentation of the Metro Plan Amendment
Review process. (Copy in file).
Keir Miller, Land Management, distributed a supplemental memorandum from
staff (copy in file) and a two sided color diagram. He noted the supplemental
memorandum has attached to it a revised ordinance that if adopted would amend
the Metro Plan Boundary. He explained that the reason there is a revised
ordinance is that as a requirement of the Metro Plan, Chapter 4, Policy 7, each
jurisdiction participating in a Metro Plan Boundary Amendment must adopt
substantively identical ordinances affecting the change. He noted that city staff
reviewed the ordinance that Lane County came up with and they had some minor
modifications. He noted the ordinance was reviewed by Legal Counsel from each
of the cities and they have each developed a substantively identical ordinance that
would implement the change. He also distributed a decision tree diagram
regarding policy choices during deliberations. (Copy in file).
Miller explained the issue the County is seeking is one of equity. He said since
the early 90’s the cities have exercised full jurisdictional autonomy over land use
matters that fall within their city limits. He said Lane County is a decision maker
in the land use actions that occur within their city limits, but this is not
reciprocated on County land. He indicated that the city can be a decision maker
on certain plan amendments outside of the UGB on rural lands. He noted the
cities have decision making powers that the County doesn’t and that is the root of
the proposal. He indicated that Chapter 4, Policy7 in the Metro Plan requires any
proposed amendments to the Metro Plan be jointly approved by the County and
the partner city or cities, otherwise the amendment is referred to the Metropolitan
Policy Committee for study, possible conflict resolution and recommendations
back to the governing body.
3
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
Miller indicated that they are doing the amendment in two phases. He indicated
the first phase deals east of Interstate 5 in the area outside of the Springfield UGB.
He noted that Springfield is ahead in their HB3337 work program and they have
identified their parcel specific UGB. He said Lane County is proposing to amend
the Metro Plan boundaries so it is co-terminus with the new parcel specific UGB
that has been developed by the city of Springfield. He commented that no other
city has a boundary that extends outside the UGB. He said that cities typically
plan for further expansion within the UGB area and the Metro Plan is one step
beyond that. He stated the County’s proposed solution is to modify the plan
boundary to move it back to make it co-terminus to the UGB. He noted there are
concerns over the Springfield Utility Board’s drinking water supply. He thought
there might be similar issues on the Eugene side.
Miller reported there are six actions the County is proposing to do to modify the
plan boundaries. He added there are no policy amendments they are trying to
change in the Metro Plan at this time. He noted this was an issue that came up
during the Public Hearing of the Planning Commission. He indicated that they
are adopting the Springfield Parcel Specific UGB on the County’s Comprehensive
Plan maps. He said they are applying plan designations to the lands leaving the
Metro Plan. He added that they need to receive some type of plan designation, as
currently Lane County carries the Metro Plan designations. He said Lane County
is proposing to apply corresponding plan designations within the Rural
Comprehensive Plan. He indicated Lane County would amend the Rural
Residential Zoning and there are minor rezones that need to occur as part of the
process. He added that Lane County would adopt Rural Comprehensive Plan
Policies to existing Goal 5 resources. He indicated that within the Metro Plan
there are adopted inventories for Goal 5 resources and since those areas will be
coming into County control, they would either need to go through a process to re-
inventory those lands or to adopt the inventories that have already been
established for those areas and apply the existing policies that are within the
Metro Plan into the Rural Comprehensive Plan to provide the proper protections
for those areas. He added that the net effect would be no change to the treatment
of Goal 5 resources in that area. He noted that the sixth proposal will be minor
housekeeping code changes necessary so the code reflects the new inventory of
Goal 5 resources in the Rural Comprehensive Plan.
Deanna Wright, Land Management, reported there are five affected areas equaling
80 properties where the zone change would take effect. She said the Metro Plan
RR Zoned land contains what is to be considered an outdated version of the Rural
Residential Zoning in the Oregon Administrative Rules. She said the changes are
necessary to gain consistency with the Goal 14 Rural Residential Oregon
Administrative Rules. She added that it is also known as the 1994 Community
Rule Change. She indicated that it was updated for the rest of the County zoned
4
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
RR lands during the County’s last periodic review but the Community Rule
changes were not applied to the Metro Plan Boundary RR Lands because the
change was a Rural Comprehensive Plan Periodic work task. She added the Goal
14 Rule compels jurisdictions to come into compliance when they amend their
plan provisions that apply to rural lands. She said if the Metro Plan Boundary is
to be adjusted; the rezone items will all need to be approved.
Miller explained that the final two components to the Rural Comprehensive Plan
changes are adopting Goal 5 regulations into the Lane Rural Comprehensive Plan
and removing references to the Metro Plan within the Riparian Code Ordinance.
He indicated those are considered housekeeping changes and if they make the
changes, they have to amend the riparian regulations to take out existing
references to the area that will no longer exist within the Metro Plan.
Ralston asked what happens to Springfield’s Riparian Zone requirement when
adopting Goal 5. He asked if Lane County’s requirement was different than
Springfield.
Greg Mott, city of Springfield, responded that there is not a direct answer. He
indicated that the city of Springfield undertook the periodic review assignment to
update their Goal 5 inventories within their UGB. He said that occurred during a
rule change regarding Goal 5 preservation. He noted that each city was able to
determine the values they would place on their Goal 5 inventories based on
protection regulations. He added that Springfield’s are different than the city of
Eugene. He stated they recognize their wetlands and stream corridors based on
flow volume and presence of fish. He said at the time they were evaluating for
Goal 5 they were also subject to the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water
Act. He reported that they applied a simple preservation protection setback along
the streams, based on a 75 foot measurement. He added that they have adopted
measures to regulate the activities that can occur in that setback but they are
specific to streams of a certain volume and the presence of fish. He stated that
there is no guaranty their measures are the same as the city of Eugene or Lane
County.
Ralston asked about Lane County’s requirements.
Miller explained that for Lane County’s riparian regulations, because of the Metro
Plan and boundary, their current regulations inside the Metro Plan follow the
same as Springfield’s based on the cubic feet per second flow. He added the
setbacks are either 50 feet or 75 feet. He reported that outside of the Metro Plan
Boundary, Lane County’s riparian regulations are either 50 feet or 100 feet. He
explained that what they are proposing to do would create a larger buffer by
changing the riparian ordinances.
5
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
Ralston commented that as a Springfield City Councilor he wasn’t sure that he
would want to have the same buffers Lane County is proposing because they are
talking about lands adjacent to Springfield that could someday come under
Springfield’s jurisdiction and they will have to deal with buffer zones that don’t
make sense.
Mott explained that the city of Springfield’s regulations apply only within their
jurisdiction which is the UGB. He said in the event the city of Springfield sought
to expand the UGB, one of their obligations in the expansion would be to identify
Goal 5 resources. He said the County will have adopted their inventory. He
believed they would be subject to their own standards once it was being
considered for inclusion in their UGB. He said they would probably recommend
the city standard be adopted.
Handy stated that he will need persuading about the phasing approach and why
they are doing some of the changes with the Metro Plan now as opposed to some
of the other things that need addressing. He recalled this started with the County
in 2009 when they wanted to see issues of jurisdictional representation and
authority dealt with in the unincorporated and unannexed areas inside the UGB.
He said they wanted to see issues addressed with River Road and Santa Clara and
in North Springfield. He asked if there was anything drafted for the River Road
Santa Clara area.
Howe responded that the recommendations the JEO acted on (providing direction
to staff on specific changes to the Metro Plan) were the direction on overarching
policies that identify and address regional issues. He added they were policies
that allow for individual refinement plans for Eugene and Springfield and
adjustment to the Metro Plan Boundary and text to address jurisdiction specific
issues arising in the urbanizable areas and the area outside the UGB. He noted
that tonight they are working on the area outside the UGB and the areas inside the
UGB. He also noted that the Envision Eugene is addressing the River Road Santa
Clara issues.
Miller reported that they have had public input on this process. He said after the
Board gave direction to process this proposal in a phased approach, they had a
public work session in April. He commented that it was not well attended and
there wasn’t a lot of interest in the project initially. He indicated they sent out
notice to 2,600 landowners and they had a discussion during the Planning
Commission process. He said as a result, 23 comments were submitted during the
Planning Commission Public Hearing. He noted five were in support; ten in
opposition and the rest were neutral. He reported the major concern they heard
initially was that this proposal would negatively impact regional planning efforts.
6
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
He added that it was echoed by several people who gave testimony. He indicated
that County staff response was that regional planning will still carry forward. He
said the Metro Plan is not going away as a result of the proposal and there will
still be incidents where the cities and the County will have to coordinate on
planning efforts. He noted the plan limits the area the cities might have a say in,
but it doesn’t stop regional planning efforts. He said many people thought they
shouldn’t address this as a phased approach. He said it was put on their work plan
this year to deal with this phase. He indicated the city of Eugene is not in a place
yet with their UGB where the County could initiate this process.
Miller stated that he had heard a blanket fear that this would lead to annexation,
but this project has nothing to do with annexation. He added that it won’t change
the annexation policies with the cities. He indicated that part of this is dealing
with the Donna Robinson property. He said she is hamstrung by some of the
policies in the Metro Plan that currently exist and adoption of this proposal would
address her concerns. He noted the big issue that came up during the joint
Planning Commission Public Hearing process was a concern over the Springfield
Utility Board’s drinking water. He said in the process of moving the boundary,
Lane County would be the sole decision maker on those types of land use issues.
He indicated that the criteria and zoning is the same, it is about who makes the
decision on the land use change.
Miller reported that four potential options came out of the Planning Commission
Public Hearing to deal with the Springfield Utility Board’s issue. He said the first
option would be to move the plan boundary as proposed except leaving out the
large area. He added that the second option would be to move the boundary but
have Lane County adopt some type of drinking water protection plan like
Springfield has in place that would address Springfield’s drinking water concerns.
He indicated the third option is to move the plan boundary and develop an
intergovernmental agreement between the County and the city that would enable
the city to be a decision maker on certain types of actions they feel would impact
the ground water. He added there is also a no alternative option to address the
Springfield issue. He reported that the Lane County Planning Commission voted
7-2 to deny the proposal. He said they unanimously voted to amend the maps to
show Springfield’s parcel specific UGB, a requirement of state law. He said the
Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 to support the amendment and the
Springfield Planning Commission voted 4-2 to support the amendment with the
understanding that the County and the city enter into some type of agreement to
address the Springfield Utility Board’s concerns. He said if they agree on
changing the plan boundary, the Rural Comprehensive Plan Amendments item 2
through 6 need to happen if a plan boundary has changed. He said if consensus is
not reached, what would need to occur is for no action to be taken on the Rural
Comp Plan amendments. He said they could direct staff to implement an
7
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
ordinance to adopt Springfield’s parcel specific UGB or they could direct staff to
modify the proposals.
A. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281/In
the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) by Adopting a New Metro Plan Boundary that is Coterminous with
the City of Springfield Urban Growth Boundary East of Interstate 5; and
Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses.
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE NO. PA 1283/In
the Matter of Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan by Applying
Plan Designations to Lands Removed from the Metro Plan Pursuant to
ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281; Adopting the City of Springfield Parcel Specific
UGB Boundary on official Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan Maps to
Comply with OAR 660-024-0020(2) and Adopting Savings and Severability
Clauses.
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE NO. PA 1284/In
the Matter of Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan by Rezoning
Rural Residential Lands Regulated Under Lane Code 16.231, Which were
Removed from the Metro Plan Pursuant to ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281, with
Updated Rural Residential Zone Language Contained in Lane Code 16.290 and
Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses.
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE NO. PA 1290/In
the Matter of Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan to Apply
Goal 5 Inventories, Policies and Findings of the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan to those Lands Removed from the Metro Plan by
ORDINANCE NO. PA 1281 and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses.
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE NO. 2-12 in the
Matter of Amending Lane Code Chapter 16 by Modifying Existing Stream
Riparian Regulations to Continue Applying Safe Harbor Setbacks to Goal 5
Riparian Resources on Lands Removed from the Metro Plan by ORDINANCE
NO. PA 1281 (LC16.253)
Leiken opened the meeting for the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Present from Lane County were Board Chair Sid Leiken, Jay Bozievich, Rob
Handy and Faye Stewart present. Pete Sorenson was excused.
Mayor Piercy opened the meeting for the Eugene City Council. Present from the
Eugene City Council were Mayor Kitty Piercy, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling,
8
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
George Brown, Pat Farr and Chris Pryor. Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka and Betty
Taylor were excused.
Mayor Lundberg opened the meeting for the Springfield City Council. Present
from the Springfield City Council were Mayor Christine Lundberg, Sheri Moore,
Dave Ralston, Joe Pishioneri and Sean Van Gordon. Hillary Wylie and Marilee
Woodrow were excused.
Leiken explained that tonight they are holding a joint Public Hearing of the
Eugene and Springfield City Councils and Lane County elected officials to
consider amendments to the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan General Plan,
commonly referred to as the Metro Plan. He added that the Lane County Board of
Commissioners will be considering related amendments that are specific to the
Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan for areas that are removed from the
Metro Plan.
Mott explained that the Springfield City Council is conducting a joint hearing and
the First Reading on the following ordinance: an Ordinance amending the Eugene
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Metro Plan by adopting a new Metro
Plan Boundary that is co-terminus with the city of Springfield UGB, east of
Interstate 5 and adopting savings and severability clauses.
Leiken stated the Board’s decision will be subject to findings of fact showing
compliance with the applicable Metro Plan policies, Rural Comprehensive Plan
policies and Lane Code criteria sited in the staff report. He said that evidence and
testimony must be directed toward the approval criteria and testimony not
directed toward the approval criteria is irrelevant to this land use proceeding.
Miller explained that Lane County has initiated an amendment to modify the
boundaries of the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. He said
pursuant to Chapter 4, Policies 5 a and 6, implementation of this amendment
requires review and approval by each of the Metro Plan partners. He added that
in addition to the Metro Plan Boundary Amendment, Lane County is also
proposing several related amendments to the Rural Comprehensive Plan which
will be necessary if an amendment to the Metro Plan Boundary is adopted. He
stated these Rural Comp Plan specific proposals must be reviewed in a Public
Hearing of the Lane County Board of Commissioners. He noted the proposals
under consideration would perform the following six actions: 1) to amend the
Metro Plan Diagram and Boundary Maps to modify the Metro Plan boundary east
of Interstate 5, so the boundary is co-terminus with the parcel specific UGB that
has been developed by the city of Springfield. He explained that action would
remove 12.5 square miles of land currently under jurisdiction of the Metro Plan
and place it under the jurisdiction of the Rural Comprehensive Plan. He added
9
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
that action will not change the plan designations for any properties that remain
within the Metro Plan boundary after this action.
Miller noted the current and proposed Metro Plan diagram map and boundary
maps are included as Exhibit A through D to attachment 1 in the packet. (Copy in
file) He indicated that legal staff from each jurisdiction have developed
substantively identical ordinances that if approved would implement these
amendments.
Miller explained that Action 2 would amend the city of Springfield’s parcel
specific UGB on Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan maps. He said that
Action 3 would apply correctly corresponding Rural Comp Plan designations to
lands previously designated under the Metro Plan. He added that the Rural Comp
maps that depict both current and proposed parcel specific UGB change and the
Comp Plan designation change are Exhibits K through R to attachment 2 in the
packets. (Copy in file). He explained that Action 4 would update the Rural
Residential Zone updating of properties removed from the Metro Plan to maintain
consistency with residential zoning regulations applied to other lands within the
Rural Comp Plan boundaries. He noted the current and proposed official zone
maps depicting these changes are included as Exhibits A to F in attachment 3 and
the current and proposed residential zone language has been included as
attachment 11 and 12 in legislative and standard format in the packets. (Copy in
file).
Miller indicated that Action 5 would amend Rural Comprehensive Policies to
apply existing Goal 5 Metro Plan policies to Goal 5 resources removed from the
Metro Plan. He said the proposed Rural Comprehensive Policy is included in
Exhibits A and B to attachment 4. He noted that Action 6 would perform minor
housekeeping amendments to Lane Code 16.253 to maintain existing Safe Harbor
riparian setback regulations to lands removed from the Metro Plan. He indicated
the changes are shown in attachment 21 in the packet. (Copy in file). He added
because the Metro Plan and the Rural Comp Plan amendments are interrelated, all
of the amendments will be the subject of tonight’s hearing and public testimony
may be directed toward any of the proposals.
Miller reported that notice of tonight’s Public Hearing was mailed out to
approximately 2,600 property owners within or adjacent to the proposed boundary
adjustment area and an ad announcing tonight’s hearing was published in The
Register Guard. He recalled a First Reading and announcement of the Public
Hearing occurred on February 21 in accordance with the requirements of the Lane
Charter and a public information open house concerning the proposal was held on
April 21, 2011. He noted on July 19, 2011 a joint hearing between the Eugene,
Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions was opened. He added that
10
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
hearing was continued to August where additional testimony was heard. He said
the Planning Commissions then closed the Public Hearing and left the record open
for four additional weeks to allow additional written testimony to be submitted
into the record. He recalled that during the Planning Commission process, 23
comments were received on the proposals. He indicated that staff responses are
reflected in the adopted minutes to the joint Planning Commission Public Hearing
process and in supplemental memos to the Planning Commission. He said the
minutes and supplemental memos have been included in the packet materials as
attachments 15 through 20. (Copy in file). He reported on October 25, the
Planning Commission deliberations on the proposal were held and the Lane
County Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposal by a vote of
7-2. He added the Eugene Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend
approval of the proposal and the Springfield Planning Commission voted 4-2 to
recommend approval with a condition that Springfield and Lane County enter into
an intergovernmental agreement to address concerns about Springfield’s drinking
water. He stated that Lane County staff recommends approval of the Metro Plan
Boundary amendment and related Rural Comprehensive Plan amendments. He
added that detailed findings of facts supporting this recommendation have been
provided as Exhibit E to attachment 1. (Copy in file). He said it should be noted
that if deliberations begin tonight, Springfield and Eugene elected officials should
limit their deliberations to the Metro Plan Boundary amendment element only.
He added if consensus on the Metro Plan Boundary change is reached then the
Lane County Board of Commissioners may deliberate and take action on the
Rural Comp Plan specific amendments. He noted in addition to the 23 comments
they received, they have received two other pieces of testimony to be entered into
the record. (Copy in file).
Commissioner Leiken opened the Public Hearing.
Donna Robinson, Springfield, said her family owns the 8.6 acre parcel that lies on
the far eastern border of the Metro Plan. She had given previous public
testimony in favor of Phase 1 of the Metro Plan as this amendment would remove
her property from the Plan and would permit her to split the lot in half as
originally planned. She said the written facts in tonight’s packet do not tell the
important element of her story. She said the facts make her sound like a
disgruntled old lady who has a five acre zone and wants a two acre zone. She said
that was not what happened. She explained that when they purchased the acreage
in August 2008, Lane County assured her that the property was zoned RR2 and
that she could divide the property in half for her sons and that was why they
purchased the property. She stated that Lane County staff failed to note the
property lies within the jurisdiction of the Metro Plan and is subject to the
restrictive RR5 zone. She indicated that eight months into the partition process
the County caught their error and called her saying she had a problem. She added
11
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
that it has been four years since they purchased the property. She indicated that
neither of her sons can obtain a construction loan until they own their half of the
parcel and that can’t happen until they can partition the land. She recalled that
last October one of the planners pointed out that there is a process she can follow
if she wanted a zoning change. She was aware of the filing fee of $26,458 and
that the process could be risky and could fail. She stated that this was all to
rectify a mistake that was made by the County, not by her. She said that they
followed all the rules and contacted the proper officials, paid the necessary fees
and they were assured the land was zoned RR2 and they purchased the property
on that basis. She commented that they have a problem with accountability and
transparency. She said if her property is zoned RR2 but she has an overlay zone
of RR5 for properties in the Metro Plan, she should have been told of that fact.
She added that to date there are only four rural residential parcels in the whole
Metro Plan that could be partitioned and if they added them, there would only be
nine parcels in the entire plan. She asked that if the amendment doesn’t pass, to
find one of the options outlined in the packet that would help her family.
Janet Calvert, Eugene, stated that she represented the League of Women Voters of
Lane County. She said the League of Women Voters is a non-partisan grass roots
organization that encourages citizen participation in government. She said their
group studies and reaches positions on issues of concern to the public well being
and public policy. She said the League is concerned about the proposal of the
County to exert jurisdictional control over the lands that lie between the UGB and
the Metro Plan boundary. She said they support interjurisdictional planning
authority with comprehensive citizen participation that supports and coordinates
sustainable development and considers the impact of growth decisions on adjacent
areas over the long term. She said the quality of drinking water for Eugene and
Springfield is at risk under this proposal. She indicated that at this time there are
no County protective regulations regarding water quality or the resources to
provide them. She said the League believes that interdependence of land use
planning and water planning must be recognized and required at all levels of
government. She commented that water is a resource that should be managed for
the benefit of the public and sustainable habitat for all life forms. She said the
League opposes Ordinance PA 1281 and urges the Board of Commissioners to
reject it.
Mia Nelson, Eugene, 1000 Friends of Oregon, commented that this is a major
change and one of the most important decisions they might ever make. She asked
for Springfield and Eugene to be careful. She said this is only about the County’s
ability to say no. She stated that if the cities say yes to this, they will have the
same rights that any citizen has and not more. She didn’t understand why the city
would give that up. She commented that this is not just about the County and
12
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
Springfield; there are substantive rights for Eugene at stake. She thought the
phased idea was a bad idea. She stated there is no urgency to this.
Robert Emmons, Fall Creek, said he is President of Landwatch Lane County. He
commented that it was disingenuous to say that this proposal would retain
regional planning. He said when Springfield instigated HB3337 to separate itself
from Eugene; regional planning was on the way out. He commented with
Metropolitan Planning, Eugene, Springfield and Lane County benefit singularly
and collectively by having a governing body where decisions of regional import
are based on the separate but equal authority of its three jurisdictions. He said
that land use decisions that affect Eugene and Springfield affect the County as a
whole and the reverse is true. He thought that regional or interjurisdictional
planning could help mitigate or eliminate negative impacts and protect common
resources.
Kate Kelly, Eugene, said she is speaking as a private citizen and River Road
resident. She recalled that since the 80’s Eugene, Springfield and Lane County
have worked jointly concerning issues around the Metro Plan Boundary and all
three jurisdictions have had a joint voice in what is happening in the areas. She
stated there is a move by the present Board of Commissioners to do away with
this long established tradition. She added that the Board wants to establish sole
authority for the land between the UGB and the Metro Plan, leaving Springfield
and Eugene without a voice in how these lands are developed. She said she was
concerned about the potential of water quality. She asked why Springfield would
give up authority over its drinking water and leave it to the discretion of the
County. She noted that both Eugene and Springfield are looking to expand the
UGB’s in the future so she didn’t know why this issue was taking place now. She
was concerned about eliminating the checks and balances that are in place. She
asked the elected officials to think long and hard about giving up this right.
Carleen Reilly, Eugene, said she was dismayed at Lane County’s efforts to give
County Commissioner’s sole authority over property between the UGB and the
Metro Plan Boundary. She thought advance planning would allow the Sheriff’s
Office and other emergency services to focus on crime, health emergencies and
house fires instead of being engaged in search and rescue during flooding. She
commented that the drinking water ordinances proposed for the McKenzie would
have come in handy in dealing with the flood conditions they experienced. She
thought prevention would have been less expensive and less emotional wrenching
than cleaning up the crisis. She stated that water must be their first priority over
gravel resources. She thought County staff could focus on their primary task
instead of throwing all personnel into search and rescue. She commented that
regional planning is a prevention measure and a flood is a failure to plan. She
13
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
urged that the Metro Boundary UGB region be maintained with multiple
jurisdiction decision making.
Lee Deveau, Eugene, said she was in opposition to the proposal by the Lane
County Board of Commissioners to amend the current Metro Plan. She stated that
she is a resident concerned about her community. She thought the Metro Plan
should continue in its present form as a collaborative process between the cities of
Eugene and Springfield and Lane County. She thought it was appropriate and
important that the two cities have a vote on proposed development and it would
be negligent for the cities to abdicate their responsibility to their residents and
leave land use decisions solely in the jurisdiction of Lane County. She stated the
Metro Plan has served its function well as a collaborative planning tool that
includes all stakeholders in decision making. She thought they would be doing
more collaboration instead of less. She urged the cities of Springfield and Eugene
to vote against the proposed amendment and continue the current Metro Plan.
Jozef Siekiel Zdzienicki, Eugene, opposed Ordinance PA 1281. He said the
interface between urban and rural areas is the one where the most conflicts arise.
He said if the ordinance is passed, there will be less voices heard. He thought the
Robinson issue could be solved with site specific designations. He thought the
water issue in Springfield could be resolved with an IGA.
Walt Johnson, Eugene, asked that Ordinance PA 1281 not be approved. He was
concerned with the acceptance of this proposal that LCOG will disappear. He
said if that is the case, more citizen involvement will be taken out of the picture.
He thought since they were on the cusp of making UGB decisions, it makes more
sense to do that now.
Joel Narva, Eugene, said he sent a letter to the elected officials. He said his
comments are addressed to the city councilors of Eugene and Springfield. He
asked them to deny Ordinance PA 1281. He thought if the city councils give up
their authority they might be making a huge mistake. He commented that if the
cities give up their sole authority of the lands to the County, it will be easier for
industries and sand and gravel and residential developments that are not
appropriate for the cities’ urban atmosphere to be approved easily and quicker.
He stated to the city councilors that if they vote for this plan amendment, they are
shirking their duty to their constituents because they will be giving up their
authority on these important boundary questions.
Amy Chinitz, Springfield Utility Board, Springfield, said she is SUB’s water
quality protection coordinator and she was speaking on behalf of SUB. She stated
that SUB was concerned that the proposal to modify the Metro Plan Boundary to
be co-terminus with the Springfield UGB, weakens Springfield’s ability to protect
14
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
its drinking water sources. She noted that 31 out of 35 SUB and Rainbow Water
District wells are located outside the UGB. She stated the source of over 75
percent of Springfield’s total groundwater based production capacity is located
between the UGB and the Metro Plan Boundary. She noted that the Metro Plan
establishes a means for coordinating planning across jurisdictional lines. She said
planning for the protection of drinking water source areas that follow hydrologic
instead of jurisdictional boundaries is a logical subject for cross jurisdictional
coordination. She reported that currently any proposed zone change within the
Metro Plan boundary that would have an effect on Springfield’s water supply
would allow for multi-jurisdictional decision making. She added that this process
allows the city of Springfield to participate in major decisions that could affect its
own municipal water source. She stated the proposed modification to the Metro
Plan Boundary would remove the city of Springfield from this process for areas
between the UGB and the current metro plan boundary. She said SUB, Rainbow
Water District and the city of Springfield adopted a pro active drinking water
protection program in 1999. She said they value the partnership with the County
and look forward to furthering their work together but even with successful
partnerships with Lane County, they view the city of Springfield’s participation
and decision that could affect their water supply absolutely essential. She
believed it was possible to avoid the setbacks for drinking water protection while
still meeting the County’s goal of establishing jurisdictional autonomy. She asked
that this conversation continue during the JEO process so they can be sure that
shrinking the Metro Plan boundary does not lead to any unintended harmful
consequences.
Joe Meyers, Springfield, said that he has lived in Springfield his entire life. He
noted that the cities of Eugene and Springfield are inside of Lane County and
surrounded by Lane County and not the other way around. He believed they
should have some sort of control on what goes on directly around the cities. He
thought it would be bad for an entity to have sole jurisdiction over so many
people. He thought it added to mistrust and the potential abuse of power.
Donna Riddle, Eugene, said she would personally benefit from Phase 2 because
she has five acres that border the UGB west of I-5 and the city limits of Eugene.
She said her main concern is clean water. She stated that interjursidicitonal
decision making on water is better to protect the rivers and the other wetlands.
Rodney Meyers, Springfield, said he has a shop near Cedar Creek. He said if
there are setbacks, he asked what the affect would be on the operation of his shop.
Leiken indicated that what was submitted tonight will be part of the record. He
added that failure to raise an issue to enable a response, may preclude an appeal to
15
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
LUBA. He stated that only persons who qualify as a party may appeal the actual
decision of the elected officials to LUBA.
Commissioner Leiken closed the Public Hearing for the Lane County Board of
Commissioners.
Mayor Piercy closed the Public Hearing for the Eugene City Council.
Mayor Lundberg closed the Public Hearing for the Springfield City Council.
Stewart said this has been going on for a number of years and the Board gave
direction over a year ago to move forward with this phased approach. He added it
was the recommendation because Springfield was further ahead in their UGB
work than Eugene and Lane County was approached with Mrs. Robinson’s family
issue and he thought it was one of the most logical ways to move it forward to fix.
He stated that this metro boundary is specific to Springfield. He indicated this
exercise is trying to find out if the metro boundary is appropriate and having the
discussion to see if it is worthy to have it go back to a different location or leave it
alone.
Handy thought they had the cart before the horse on this issue. He noted in River
Road and Santa Clara, a Mr. and Mrs. Getty fell into a no man’s land. He
indicated that the Board worked for a legislative fix to address that particular
parcel. He added that was passed in the legislature without any controversy. He
said it avoided the bigger issue that has unintended consequences they haven’t
looked at. He thought they should look at a site specific redesignation to look at
to address the concerns of some of the property owners without their moving into
the bigger proposal. He wanted a fifth or sixth option to address Mrs. Robinson
and others’ concerns while they have broader concerns about the bigger issue.
Ralston stated that he did not have a problem with the phased approach as it made
sense. He said according to what they have heard tonight, for the areas between
the Metro Plan Boundary and the city limits, Lane County will have sole decision
making authority. He thought those areas were close enough to Springfield that
Springfield should have code decision making. He did not like an all or nothing
proposition. He didn’t like any of the options but he said if they change the
boundaries and go the phased in route, that Eugene, Springfield and Lane County
would have code decision making. He said for Phase 2 he would support Eugene
and Lane County having authority on their sections too. He added if the areas
outlined are going to be solely for Lane County decision making, then he
wouldn’t support it.
16
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
Bozievich asked if there were any wellhead protection ordinances that cover the
areas outside of the Springfield UGB currently.
Chinitz responded that there are no local ordinances. She indicated that the
wellhead zones extend quite a bit. She added that they have their wellhead
production areas delineated out to the 99 year time of travel.
Bozievich asked how many of the wells that lie in the area are under the influence
of surface water.
Chinitz reported their Willamette Well Field has 13 wells designated as being
under the direct influence of surface water. She added that they run that through a
treatment plant and they have one well in the Thurston Well Field that is
designated. She said the actual ground water under the direct influence of surface
water is active in their Willamette Well Field where they have their treatment
plant.
Bozievich commented that there is little protection in the area they are discussing
and how much of the area that needs to be protected is outside the plan boundary.
He reiterated that there is a request to have some jurisdiction in an area where
there is none. He said he had no objection in the future to Lane County adopting
a wellhead protection ordinance in the zones they are discussing, similar to the
fact that they have adopted pollution discharge with regard to stormwater
regulations that are the same as the city of Eugene. With regard to sole
jurisdiction, Bozievich asked under what authority Lane County exercises their
Rural Comp Plan.
Miller responded that it is an acknowledged Rural Comprehensive Plan under the
statewide planning program. He added that Lane County’s plan has been
acknowledged by the state and that is the authority they have to administer their
Rural Comp Plan.
Bozievich said this is a question of having representation in the body that actually
has jurisdiction over the land they own. He thought it was questionable in the
UGB areas. He said the issue is they have people who live in an area who are not
able to ever vote for a city council member but with the Metro Plan Boundary, the
city council members are allowed to have jurisdiction over land use. He asked if
there is a question about jurisdiction, why they are stopping where the Metro Plan
Boundary is now. He indicated the Metro Plan is a leftover artifact of a 1968 plan
that was developed before the statewide planning goals were made and Lane
County is the only jurisdiction in the entire state that has it. He added that it takes
away the rights of people to have representation and the people governing their
land. He stated that is why he wants to make them co-terminus. He thought this
17
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
was about being fair to the people who own the land. He thought they could deal
with the issues by coming up with agreements and passing their own wellhead
protection ordinances. He didn’t think Lane County having sole jurisdiction was
endangering the water quality of Springfield or Eugene. He added that all of
Eugene’s water comes under the sole jurisdiction of Lane County.
Ortiz said she was concerned about this. She said that Eugene has been going
through a lot of work around Envision Eugene. She added that they are working
on the issues of Santa Clara River Road and what they can do to help be better
neighbors. She hoped that they can have that conversation before any of this gets
decided. She asked what the next steps would be for the jurisdictions.
Miller explained that is up to the elected officials whether or not they want to
continue deliberations. He recommended a joint deliberation as it is better for the
public and it is more efficient. He added that if they can’t conclude deliberations
this evening, they can coordinate a future date. He stated it was important to give
the date, time and place of the future deliberations so they don’t have to notice it.
Emily Jerome, city of Eugene, didn’t think anyone anticipated additional hearings
from the governing bodies. She wanted to know if the elected officials were
going to close the record. She added that then the three jurisdictions would
deliberate on their own and those minutes would be included in the overall record
and the three jurisdictions make decisions separately. She stated that because the
city of Eugene is the least affected, they would wait until Lane County and
Springfield makes their decisions.
Ortiz requested to leave the record open for one week for additional comments
and this would be the city of Eugene’s last Public Hearing on this matter.
Mott explained that the Springfield City Council cannot make a decision on the
night of the First Hearing and Public Hearing. He added that was stated in their
charter. He indicated there was a need for the Springfield City Council to have a
work session. He said it was rare for the elected officials to reconvene after their
initial Public Hearing to jointly deliberate on the same night. He added the
protocol is that for whichever entity initiated the hearing to be the first to act and
then the other jurisdictions would act as soon thereafter if they can, assuming they
all adopt identical records. He recommended that the city of Springfield have a
work session that will occur in May.
Moore said she had concerns about Phase 1. She asked how Ordinance PA 1281
was advantageous to the city of Springfield. She added that she had heard things
that made it advantageous to Lane County.
18
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
Lundberg indicated that issue needs to be discussed in a work session to look at
what it means for the city of Springfield.
Miller explained that the intent is to help provide recourse and accountability to
the elected officials for the people who live outside of the area but who are
impacted by the decisions that the elected officials make. He said the County is
interested in a quality relationship among all of the jurisdictions. He indicated
that the cities currently enjoy decision making autonomy within the city limits but
the County doesn’t have the same authority and this reciprocates that relationship
and it helps the cities and the County.
Councilor George Brown left at 8:20 p.m. There is no quorum for the city of
Eugene.
Piercy commented that there is a strongly improved relationship between the three
jurisdictions and a current good working relationship. She thought that they were
at the front end of the water issue. She thought it is going to get more
challenging. She added that water issues are the issue of the future. She thought
they needed to be thoughtful before they relinquish any oversight over water.
Poling concurred that they should keep the record open for one week. He recalled
they started the meeting with a quorum but Councilor Brown had to leave. He
asked if they could put out a motion and vote on it.
Jerome responded that the Eugene City Council cannot take action without a
quorum. She thought they could discuss this issue at the next meeting.
Poling recommended that the city of Eugene not have another Public Hearing on
this issue. He wanted to make sure the city of Eugene was the third group to take
action in this process. He thought they needed another work session to discuss
this issue.
Piercy asked about extending the record without a quorum.
Jerome said the city of Eugene cannot close the record these evening. She said
the default for the city is the record remains open and tomorrow there is a meeting
at noon when they will have a quorum. She recommended moving forward with
the city of Springfield and Lane County to take the action they want to take. She
recommended that all three jurisdictions do the same thing with the record. She
said if they have to file a LUBA record, they want to file it as one.
Pishioneri commented that this was one of the first JEO meetings where he had
enjoyed the comment and thoughtfulness that had been shown. He concurred that
19
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
they have huge water issues. He said with their combined abilities within their
jurisdictions, they can place protections and get to where everyone wants to go
but it will take work. He was willing to move forward with this as long as they
keep in mind that the County will have to put wellhead protections in place.
Lundberg stated that they have come to a new level of cooperation. She agreed
with Bozievich on many points. She agreed that water is an issue for everyone.
She thought from this meeting they will go back and have a meaningful work
session. She added that many options are workable.
Farr commented that he was happy they were moving forward with this.
Leiken thought the relationships between Springfield, Eugene and Lane County
have improved greatly since HB3337 passed. He commented that no matter what
they end up doing, that drinking water will be protected. He added that it is a
large priority for him.
MOTION: to move that the Lane County Board of Commissioners close the
public record on Tuesday March 27 at 5:00 p.m.
Bozievich MOVED,
Stewart asked that the motion include a Third Reading and Deliberation of the
ordinances for June 13, 2012.
Bozievich modified his motion : to close the Public Record at 5:00 p.m. on March
27 and set the Third Reading for June 13, 2012 for Ordinance PA 1281,
Ordinance PA 1283, Ordinance PA 1284, Ordinance PA 1290 and Ordinance
No. 2-12.
Stewart SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-0.
Ralston thought since Lane County was taking the lead on this, they should make
a decision before anyone else.
MOTION: to move to keep the record open for two more weeks to March 27 and
have a work session on May 16.
Pishioneri MOVED, Moore SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-0.
20
March 13, 2012
Joint Public Hearing
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Springfield City Council
Eugene City Council
21
Stewart stated that he had concerns about the additional layer and different land
use laws that apply inside the Metro Boundary. He thought if at a minimum the
land use laws were the same as what is allowed in the County, that Ms. Robinson
would have been able to proceed. He indicated they are different now. He said
the reason the Metro Boundary was there was the potential for growth in the
future, but they were told because of the location of the piece of property,
Springfield will not be able to justify moving in that direction. He commented
that there are protections on the land to protect it from future growth from the city
but there is no intent to move it out. He thought that needed to be dealt with. He
said they need to bring the plan up to date to what the needs are today.
Piercy said if it deals with representation, she wants to make sure that no decision
they are making over representation will be balled up in that discussion. She
added the same applies with the Santa Clara River Road area representation
issues.
Leiken commented that was why the phased approach makes sense to pursue.
Commissioner Leiken adjourned the meeting for the Lane County Board of
Commissioners at 9:05 p.m.
Mayor Lundberg adjourned the meeting for the Springfield City Council at 9:05
p.m.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 9:05 p.m.
Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 7, 2012 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and Woodrow. Also
present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney
Matthew Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor VanGordon was absent (excused).
1. Springfield Economic Initiatives.
Community Development Manager John Tamulonis introduce this item. Claire Seguin-Carpenter from
NEDCO and Dan Egan from the Springfield Chamber of Commerce were also in attendance to
provide information.
Mr. Tamulonis said at TEAM Springfield on January 28, 2012, the Springfield Chamber of Commerce
and NEDCO described each organization’s activities and a desire to do additional programs in
Springfield to help turn around the local economy in useful and effective ways.
Ms. Carpenter, Executive Director of NEDCO, said they felt that between the two proposals, they had
a comprehensive approach to economic development strategies for Springfield that were focused and
with good measurable outcomes. NEDCO was initiating a Business Assistance Program. They would
be focusing on businesses of about 30 employees or less who already existed and perhaps some start-
up businesses interested in locating in Springfield. They were hoping to do some assessment on these
individual businesses to find out their individual needs, how they were doing their business now, if
they had good operations and capital, and what they needed to move to the next level of productivity.
Ideally, they would be looking at job creation and increased revenues. They also had some strategies
that could be combined with their Incubator Program to potentially fill up some empty storefronts in
various parts of the City. This program would be targeted assistance based on the actual needs of the
business. It would require some classroom work, one-on-one business coaching and counseling, and
mentoring. They wanted to make sure the businesses that were more technically specific got exactly
the type of technical expertise they needed. The program would provide industry specific training as
well as general business practices to help people who were doing business in Springfield, or wanted to
locate in Springfield, take advantage of market opportunities and grow.
Mr. Grimaldi said this program would be funded mostly through TEAM Springfield ($20,000), with
an additional $15,000 of budgeted City funds.
Mr. Egan, Executive Director of the Springfield Chamber of Commerce, said their program was more
focused on new businesses coming into Springfield. The Chamber had been very anxious to do this
work for the City as they saw the growth and diversity of the economy. Part of that growth was
businesses expanding and doing better, but part of it was to welcome new businesses to our City.
Many of the businesses in the Gateway area had come from other states and cities, and they had added
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 7, 2012
Page 2
energy and diversity to our economy. The Chamber of Commerce would like get started so Springfield
would have a continual program of recruiting and welcoming businesses. There were three
components to this program. The first two would be done by a university class from the University of
Oregon. The Chamber had already contracted with the University and they would begin work in June
or July to do an economic scan to show where Springfield was now, where the strengths and
weaknesses were, and qualify clusters. Qualifying clusters was a common strategy to try to increase
businesses within clusters that were already successful in cities. The students would be conducting
interviews with people in all parts of Springfield where businesses could grow. Implementation would
flow from the first two parts. It was likely they would start with two clusters to support and grow with
new businesses coming into Springfield or expanding into Springfield. He and Mr. Tamulonis had met
with a couple of businesses from Eugene that were trying to find a location in Springfield. They would
meet with businesses such as that on a continual basis, but would also proactively reach out into the
national development community and ask them to look at Springfield. Springfield needed to get to a
place where we could compete and that took a lot of research. The end result of their activity would be
more businesses from other areas coming to Springfield and adding jobs and investment in the land.
The Chamber would self-fund this initiative by working with the University and also raising funds
from the private sector. They would like the City to be involved in a small way when needed, but for
the most part they believed the private sector would support this effort.
Councilor Woodrow thanked them for the two-pronged approach. She asked if the students would
identify future clusters for specific areas in Springfield, such as Thurston.
Mr. Egan said clusters weren’t necessarily location specific, but more industry specific. It might mean
second or third tier businesses with good jobs locate in Springfield. Some clusters may fit better in a
certain location, but currently they were looking at clusters of businesses where Springfield could
compete.
Councilor Pishioneri said he was pro business in both finding businesses and for existing businesses.
He asked where Lane Metro Partnership fell into this plan and if there was redundancy. The City
currently paid funds to Lane Metro Partnership.
Mr. Egan said the Chamber had approached the City several years ago with a modest proposal to begin
this type of work. In the interim, the things noted in phase one and two of their proposal did not occur
in Springfield. He felt that unless the Chamber took on those tasks, it would not get done by another
agency. The Metro Partnership’s role was to do some of the things listed here, but he was convinced
Springfield needed to take care of business in Springfield and the Chamber had a desire to take on that
task in order to get it done. He didn’t feel there would be a redundancy. The Chamber would meet
with the Metro Partnership and gather information, but this would be breaking new ground that the
Metro Partnership had not done.
Mr. Grimaldi said the Metro Partnership primarily responded to leads from the State and a couple of
other sources and were not doing active recruitment. The Chamber proposal would be actively
recruiting businesses. That was a distinct difference.
Councilor Ralston said he had thought of clusters as area specific, but it sounded like they meant more
of a business cluster.
Mr. Egan gave examples such as RV industry, health care and manufacturing clusters. The clusters
were base on activity.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 7, 2012
Page 3
Councilor Ralston said it could also be based on vacant land available.
Mr. Egan said that was true.
Councilor Moore asked about the scan that would be provided by the University students. She asked if
this was an inventory of businesses in Springfield.
Mr. Egan said developers wanted information about communities such as the tax base, SAT scores,
available land, etc. The students would be gathering that type of information.
Councilor Moore said it sounded like it was more workforce, livability and tax rates, and not so much
the businesses currently located in Springfield.
Mr. Egan said the businesses here did come into play as well.
Mayor Lundberg said she was very happy NEDCO was taking on small businesses because they were
great champions of small businesses. Many small businesses didn’t have the extra time or energy to
focus on those types of things. She supported that partnership and putting funding towards that effort.
She recalled when the Springfield Chamber came to the Council last time with a proposal to help take
care of Springfield in their approach to businesses. The Council needed to think about what was
provided by the Lane Metro Partnership, who benefited and what level of support should be provided
by the City. The purpose of the Metro Partnership was economic development. She wanted to know
what it would mean if the Chamber worked on bringing large businesses to Springfield in terms of
funding.
Mr. Grimaldi said during their upcoming budget process, Council would have the opportunity to
discuss how much they would put into the budget. They could also look at their contracts with various
outside agencies.
Mayor Lundberg said the Council needed to determine what they wanted to see happen and who
would participate. She said the two initiatives presented were great and could help bring jobs to
Springfield. She thanked Ms. Carpenter and Mr. Egan for sharing their initiatives.
2. Scenario Planning Update.
Planning Manager Greg Mott and Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt presented this item.
Mr. Boyatt said the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) would meet on May 10 to review a draft
work program for scenario planning. Attachment 1 of the agenda packet was a one page piece on the
scenario planning framework, and Attachment 2 was the draft Scope of Work which the various metro
area agencies had been putting together. Attachment 3 was a slide show that had been presented to the
MPC by a representative from Fregonese Associates and was provided to the Council for information.
He referred to page 3 of Attachment 2 of the agenda packet which included the three stages of scenario
planning. This outlined how staff planned on proceeding. It included time to determine the choices,
strategies and actions, and output measures. The next step would be designing and evaluating
scenarios in 2013, and testing the choices in 2014. Their hope was to take this state-mandated activity
which would be reimbursed by Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and investigate
different pieces for the community and look at community livability to make things easier for people
such as Mr. Tamulonis and Mr. Egan to bring businesses to the community. There was a lot of positive
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 7, 2012
Page 4
in this process. There were benefits to Springfield that could be investigated through the scenario
planning process.
Councilor Woodrow asked if the scenario process determined realistic end results.
Mr. Boyatt said it could do that as a second layer. He provided an example of reducing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions which was cost prohibitive. The first step was to dream big, then find ways through
the process that were feasible.
Councilor Woodrow said the graph going out to 2050 showed very few people in cars. She asked if
they were realistically headed in that direction or if that was the big dream that could be brought down
to something more realistic.
Mr. Boyatt said the ultimate preferred scenario needed to be agreed to by the Metropolitan Policy
Organization (MPO) members, but there was no requirement at this time for implementation.
Councilor Wylie referred to the Sustainability Conference she just attended, and was excited about the
scenario planning.
Mayor Lundberg said she understood there was a lot of work to do and it was difficult to determine
what was wanted and how they would get there. She asked if they would eventually be required to
implement the planning scenario.
Mr. Mott said the law didn’t require it at this time, but Council could determine they would like to
move forward with some of the plans. It was hoped that the values Council wanted to see enhanced in
the community were consistent with what would be done whether or not they were required to go
through this process. It could be something that was out of our reach financially or because of timing,
but was now something they could move forward with. He would hate to see this effort taken without
a product as an end result. This could be very beneficial and in the City’s best interest. He also noted
that the biggest investment the City had other than its citizens, was the transportation system. It was
hard to imagine that infrastructure wouldn’t continue to be shared. It was a good transportation system
and would still provide efficient connections for everyone, including automobiles.
Mayor Lundberg asked if the scenario planning was for Springfield, or Eugene and Springfield, and if
it would then go to the State.
Mr. Boyatt said this was a several year process. The MPO was charged with doing this by legislation,
but the jurisdictions (Springfield, Eugene, Lane County) were charged with cooperatively selecting the
preferred scenario. There was a report back requirement where the MPO would report to a State
legislative committee. He was not sure what would happen from that point.
Mr. Grimaldi said Springfield’s scenario would be independent of Eugene. If something conflicted,
that could be sorted out between parties.
Mr. Mott said looking at the benchmark or measurement required by statute, it would be possible
based on the work Envision Eugene had done, that they could make some changes to their number and
location of town centers, mixed-use centers and transit ridership, and achieve the benchmark mandated
by the State. He provided the example of Metro who had already undertaken this task. They had
developed a number of different techniques to make changes to their land use and transportation plans.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 7, 2012
Page 5
As a result, they were able to meet the standard benchmark in over 80 of 120 scenarios. The local
effort was to create two scenarios to select and agree upon.
Mr. Boyatt said the different pieces of the scenario could be different in Springfield compared to
Eugene.
Councilor Ralston said the goal was to reduce greenhouse gases from vehicles under 10,000 pounds by
20% below the 2005 level by 2035. He asked if they had the benchmark from 2005. Yes. He asked for
clarification of a 10,000 pound vehicle.
Mr. Mott said that would include almost every automobile and most every pickup truck. When
creating the legislation, the vast majority of vehicles on the road were personal vehicles. Freight was
subject to State, and the State was trying to plan for a reduction of GHG emissions on the freight
system, air rail, buildings, etc. It was a broader approach to GHG emissions.
Mayor Lundberg thanked them for the information.
3. Police Special Levy Renewal.
Finance Director Bob Duey and Police Chief Jerry Smith presented the staff report on this item. The
current 5-year Police Special Levy would expire at the end of the next fiscal year (June 30, 2012) and
would require a successful vote, most likely in November 2012, to renew the levy for an additional 5
years. Essential services provided by the City relied on the $1.09 per thousand of assessed valuation
levy for funding. This levy, first passed in 2002, added funding for the Municipal Jail in 2006 and
now included police and jail services as well as municipal court and city prosecutor. Staff was asking
Council to consider both service and funding level requirements in establishing the final ballot
measure. Staff was recommending that the Council execute a request for a special levy election to be
filed with Lane County Elections prior to any summer break.
Mr. Duey said the questions tonight were regarding rates for a levy and what to put on the ballot.
Tonight staff was looking to see what additional information Council would need for their second
work session on June 4. During their June 4 work session, it would be best if Council could provide
direction to staff about how to prepare a final ballot title that could be filed with the County.
Mr. Duey explained the process of putting a measure on the ballot and submitting it to Lane County.
There were requirements for the ballot title regarding number of words for the title, question and
summary. Council would hold a public hearing on the ballot title and adopt it by resolution. The ballot
title would then be submitted to Lane County and provided a number. Any informational distributions
by the City or campaigning by a political action committee (PAC) could begin after that time. Staff
would like to have the ballot title approved by resolution of the Council prior to summer recess to
allow adequate time to provide information to the public. If Council was comfortable with a figure
during their June 4 work session, staff would bring it to Council for formal approval on July 2.
Mr. Duey provided some history on this levy for those councilors that were not here when it was first
put on the ballot. In 2000, staff met with Council to discuss how to improve services. One of the
highest priorities was to improve response time with a levy. Discussions were also held at that time
about whether a levy for services or a bond measure to build a jail should go first. In 2002, Council
decided to put the levy of services on the ballot. That first levy allowed Police to hire about 22 FTE,
most in the Police Department, some in Court and some in the Prosecutor’s Office.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 7, 2012
Page 6
Chief Smith said response times were cut significantly with the first levy.
Mr. Duey said by the time the 2002 levy expired, the bond measure for the jail had been approved.
Council was cautious about a levy for operations of the jail so construction of the jail was delayed
until the City had funding for the first three years of operation. The levy that went forward in 2006
increased the amount to $1.09 to pay the increased cost of the existing police levy and operation of the
jail. That was a five year levy that spanned six years as they did not collect during the first year of the
levy. That period would be up June 30, 2013.
Mr. Duey said the figures in the agenda packet were an attempt to renew the current level of service.
The first figure was $1.34, but after using other factors they were able to bring that amount down to
$1.22. This was still an increase over the current rate by $0.13. A community survey would be
conducted by an outside firm to determine the tolerance for support for the different rates. Information
from that survey would be available by June 4 for the Council’s next work session.
Chief Smith said the jail was accomplishing the goals intended and making people accountable for
misdemeanor offenses. People were posting bail. He noted the figures of bail funds that had come in
since the jail opened. Failure to appear which had been costing the department had been reduced
substantially. He noted four members of the Police Planning Task Force (PPTF) who were in the
audience and thanked them for attending. A letter from the PPTF had been distributed to the Mayor
and Council, which stated the PPTF was comfortable with the $1.22 level and supported going
forward with the levy.
Mr. Duey said the jail budget was set in 2005 before the jail was fully designed. The jail had come in
fairly close to those projections regarding revenues. Staffing levels had decreased by one FTE and
overall operational costs for the jail were in line with projections. The jail was a large operation and
was fully operational.
Councilor Moore asked if there was a Fire and Life Safety (F&LS) levy.
Mr. Duey said there was a F&LS levy that was $0.36/thousand. That levy was first passed in 2006 at
the rate of $0.36, increased to $0.40 in 2006, and then went back to $0.36 in 2010. That levy would
expire in June 30, 2016.
Councilor Moore asked what we might expect to see if the County put a levy on the November ballot.
Mr. Grimaldi said the Sheriff and District Attorney would likely do all they could to try to get
something before the voters in November. It would, however, be up to the Board of Commissioners
who had expressed some reluctance to put a measure on the ballot.
Councilor Moore said that would have an impact on Springfield.
Mr. Grimaldi said in the past, voters had voted independently. Last time the County and City had
measures on the ballot at the same time, both passed in Springfield.
Councilor Moore asked what other funding sources could be used so the levy would no longer be
needed. She asked if it would be an increase from the General Fund to the Police Department.
Chief Smith said it would most likely come from the General Fund, or less likely from a law
enforcement district.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 7, 2012
Page 7
Councilor Moore asked how much General Fund money it would take to replace the levy.
Mr. Duey said it would take about $6M per year, which was a very high percentage of the General
Fund. There could be options to find funding for other non General Fund purposes, but those had been
difficult to find in the past. When the committee looked at this before the Jail was built, they prepared
a report on about a half dozen different types of funding sources. At that time, the committee
recommended an income tax, but that did not have community support. If Council wanted to try
something besides the levy, they would need to start looking at options now in order to have
something in place by the time the next levy expired.
Councilor Moore spoke regarding street funds and asked how staff was progressing with the
community outreach.
Mr. Grimaldi said Development and Public Works staff were starting conversations with a committee
about the condition of our streets to look at possible solutions. They would bring those results back to
the Council in the early or late fall for further direction.
Councilor Moore asked if one of the options could include a tax levy. Yes.
Councilor Woodrow summarized the discussion from the PPTF meeting. The group discussed various
levy amounts between $1.09 and $1.34. The basic amount of providing the current levels of service
resulted in the $1.22 figure which was the recommendation of the PPTF. The community had been
very responsive to the success of the Police levies and had seen the results. That positive outlook and
sense in the community would help the levy be marketable at $1.22. At $1.09, the department would
need to cut what was being provided. The PPTF felt citizenry would understand costs had risen over
the last five years.
Mayor Lundberg asked staff what they were looking for tonight from the Council.
Mr. Duey said if staff knew which figures Council wanted staff to look at further, they could address
those figures when doing the community survey. If Council wanted staff to look at the $1.09 figure,
more discussion would be needed on the impacts on other services in the City. Staff wanted to make
sure that they brought back information on June 4 that responded to Council concerns.
Councilor Pishioneri said the increase in assessed valuation in FY11 was .95% and 3.6% in FY12. The
increase from the 2006 levy of $1.09 to the proposed figure of $1.22 was about a 12% increase. He
asked what type of positive impact would occur on the levy.
Mr. Duey said when he started with the FY12 valuation, he increased it by 3% over the next 6 years.
Councilor Pishioneri said those were low figures.
Mr. Duey said there should be some increase, but if we didn’t receive the assessed value (AV)
expected, services could be adjusted during some of the years. Assuming no growth for five years, the
dollar rate became so high it would not have been worth pursuing. He tried to find middle ground to
propose a rate that was reasonable for growth, but was still manageable.
Councilor Pishioneri asked how much of the funds from the levy went to court and prosecutor
services.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 7, 2012
Page 8
Mr. Duey said in the proposed budget for the next year, the prosecutor would receive about $69,000
and the court would receive about $334,000.
Councilor Pishioneri said he was comfortable with $1.22, but they would need to explain to citizens
why it was being increased by 12%. He asked if there was a plan if the funds weren’t adequate.
Mr. Grimaldi said they would try to make up for any shortfall with the General Fund if needed. A
shortage during the first year could likely be absorbed.
Councilor Pishioneri said he appreciated the work.
Councilor Moore asked if the City could make up for the loss of services we received from Lane
County, such as the medical examiner and prosecution services, with this levy.
Mr. Grimaldi said Lane County was still exploring some options regarding the medical examiner and
were making some progress.
Councilor Moore asked if it would be worth looking at increasing the $1.22 rate another $0.03 to have
some funding available to provide some of those services if needed.
Mr. Grimaldi said staff would bring that back to the June meeting for more discussion.
Councilor Woodrow said it was important to have this ready before recess to allow time to get
information out to the citizens.
Councilor Wylie said she would like to have talking points if they moved ahead with the levy to
address questions when talking with citizens and community groups. She would like information
regarding the increase and how much it would cost for an average house.
Councilor Ralston said it was fair to say it was a 12% increase over six years.
Mr. Duey said the rate was going up 12%, but there had been some revenue decreases and expense
increases.
Councilor Ralston said that was only an increase of 2% per year. The City’s budget had gone up more
than that.
Mr. Duey said he felt they had managed the cost on the levy well. It wasn’t that the costs were out of
line, but that costs were going up and the AV hadn’t gone up as much as anticipated six years ago.
Discussion was held regarding the 12% increase being effective the first year. It was noted that it had
taken 6 years to build to the 12%.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about other measures that might go forward in the November election.
Willamalane Superintendent Bob Keefer said Willamalane may have a 20 year bond that would be on
the ballot. It could cost the average home about $48.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about compression.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 7, 2012
Page 9
Mr. Duey said the Willamalane bond measure would be outside of compression. Our additional $0.13
would get us closer to compression, but still below. If the County went forward with a levy for public
safety, it would affect compression. The County had the compression figure, but it was around the $9
mark.
Councilor Pishioneri said if we reached compression, the City would get less than our levy amount.
Mr. Duey said each levy that was in place would receive less equally.
Mayor Lundberg said Councilor Moore had a good point about the County and the loss of services.
People would want to know if the City was trying to make up for the loss of County services through
our levy. How that would be addressed with the public needed to be discussed.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, MAY 7, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 7, 2012 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, Wylie, Moore, Ralston and Woodrow. Also
present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney
Matthew Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor VanGordon was absent (excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
1. 2012 Earth Day Poster Contest Winners.
Environmental Services Public Information Specialist Rachael Chilton presented this item. Ms.
Chilton said this year’s theme for the Earth Day Poster Contest was “Small Hands Change the World”.
A record number of entries were submitted this year, about 300, from 5th graders around Springfield,
so seven were awarded rather than five.
Mayor Lundberg presented award certificates to the seven winners:
• 1st Place: Carlos Lopez
• 2nd Place: Mary Jane Westover
• 3rd Place: Dani Shive
• 4th Place: Destiny Keith
• 5th Place: Dawn Harrison
• 6th Place: Maykayla Collins
• 7th Place: Jose Sanchez
2. Groundwater Guardians Presentation.
Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly said this was an important time to acknowledge the work Springfield
did to keep our drinking water clean. This was done through the implementation of our drinking water
protection overlay district, which was part of the Springfield Development Code. When development
came in with their application and they were within a ‘time of travel’ zone for our drinking water
protection wellheads, they went through an additional layer of review to make sure their development
would comply. She provided the example of the new fueling facility at Fred Meyer on 5th and Q
Streets. Fred Meyer went above and beyond and should be commended for making sure everything at
the fuel facility and in their store was in compliance. She introduced Amy Chinitz, Water Quality
Protection Coordinator at Springfield Utility Board.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2012
Page 2
Ms. Chinitz thanked the Mayor and City Council for their continued support of Springfield
Groundwater Guardians. Approximately 90% of the drinking water in Springfield came from ground
water. This source was not seen, but was susceptible to contamination of human activity that took
place above ground. The job of the Springfield Groundwater Guardian team was to help the
community ‘see’ groundwater by building awareness of this precious resource and creating
opportunities to protect it. Springfield had been a Groundwater Guardian community for 15 years.
To earn the Groundwater Guardian designation, a number of things had been done. Young chemists
from Thurston High School’s community water testing lab continued to test private well water
samples for over 100 households, while their counterparts in the field conducted water quality
monitoring in our local streams. With funds from a Drinking Water Protection Grant, more public
water systems teamed up with Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) to develop an informative,
interactive website about protecting drinking water. Staff from the City of Springfield continued to
work with local businesses to ensure that stormwater facilities such as bioswales were kept in good
condition so they could do their job of filtering stormwater runoff which was a direct benefit to
groundwater. They also partnered with Lane County Waste Management and other agencies to
sponsor their Annual One-Day Household Hazardous Waste Roundup in the Middle Fork Willamette
watershed where 65 participants properly disposed of over 5000 pounds of hazardous waste. These
highlights illustrated that taking action to protect groundwater could mean a lot of different things and
everybody could play a role. On behalf of the Groundwater Guardian team, she presented a plaque
which represented national recognition of Springfield’s accomplishments during 2011. She thanked
the City for helping to keep Springfield a Groundwater Guardian community.
Mayor Lundberg received the plaque on behalf of the City.
3. DUII Officer of the Year Award, Officer Tom Speldrich.
Police Chief Jerry Smith presented this item. One of the goals of the Police Department was to make
the streets as safe as possible for the public, and drunk drivers killed more people than those involved
in homicides.
Officer Tom Speldrich, a 4 year veteran of the Springfield Police Department had been recognized by
the Oregon DUII Multi-Disciplinary Task Force as the DUII Officer of the Year for 2011. He
received the Award April 20th at the annual conference. Officer Speldrich arrested 202 impaired
drivers during 2011. The skill and commitment to engage in that volume of activity demonstrated
extremely exceptional dedication. Officer Speldrich was also certified as a Drug Recognition Expert
to identify those who drove under the influence of Drugs.
Chief Smith noted that there was a lot of additional time involved when arresting a drunk driver,
including paperwork, attendance at hearings and training. Chief Smith said he was very proud of
Officer Speldrich.
Officer Speldrich introduced his family who were in the audience. He said they were the ones that
supported him the most.
Mayor Lundberg thanked him for his work. He had taken people off the road that were a danger to the
citizens. She also thanked his family for their support.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2012
Page 3
4. McKenzie/Willamette Award Recognition.
Community Relations Manager Niel Laudati presented this item. The Cardiovascular Unit (CVU) at
McKenzie Willamette Medical Center (MWMC) had received the Silver Beacon Award for Critical
Care Excellence. This award, given by the American Association of Critical Care Nurses (AACN)
recognized the nation’s top hospital units that cared for acutely and critically ill patients.
MWMC’s CVU was one of 315 out of 6,000 critical care units’ nationwide, one of seven units in the
State of Oregon, and the first CHS Critical Care Unit honored with this award.
Mr. Laudati introduced Nurse Manager Becky Bellingham from McKenzie Willamette Medical
Center.
Ms. Bellingham introduced Monica Gibbs, one of the units charge nurses. This award was given by
the American Association of Critical Care Nurses (AACN). Certain criteria had to be met in order to
receive this award. The criteria identified included leadership and organizational ethics, retention,
education, training and mentoring, research and evidence based practice, healing environment and
patient outcomes. The section that received the most weight was patient outcome where they had to
prove they had done all the right things to provide patients with the best care and best outcomes.
Ms. Bellingham said the CVU opened in December of 2006 and was a specialty unit for
cardiovascular patients. Their nurses were trained specifically in cardiovascular patients, physicians
were specialty physicians and there was great collaboration between the two groups. When they
opened, they researched the best way to care for the patients and give them the best outcomes. The
model they used was the One-Stop Model. With this model patients came to the unit from the
beginning to the end. They had their own patient educator who met with the patients and did all of the
patient education. The patients were admitted to their unit, had their surgeries in the unit and stayed
with them until they left the hospital. That gave the patients continuity and they were not moved to
other areas of the hospital. The physicians all worked together for the benefit of the patients. Both
patients and their families appreciated this approach. The staff in the CVU chose to work towards the
Beacon. Their inter-practice committee, many of whom were in the audience, worked for about a year
on this process. Ms. Gibbs was the coordinator to get them to this point. Ms. Bellingham recognized
all of the members of this group who were in the audience.
Ms. Bellingham said with this award they joined Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU), St.
Vincent’s and Salem Hospital, as recipients of this award. McKenzie Willamette Medical Center was
the first in Lane County to receive this award and the first unit in Community Health Systems, their
parent company. They were very proud of their achievements and thanked the administration for the
support they provided. They appreciated being recognized by the community leaders.
Mayor Lundberg presented Ms. Bellingham with a letter of congratulations. The City enjoyed taking
the opportunity to celebrate our community’s great successes. She thanked them all for their hard
work.
5. ALS Awareness Month Proclamation.
Mayor Lundberg proclaimed May 2012 as ALS Awareness Month. She read from the proclamation.
ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s Disease was a disorder of the motor neurons causing death of nerve cells in the
brain and spinal cord that control the action of voluntary muscles. ALS currently affected an estimated
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2012
Page 4
35,000 Americans with over 5000 new ALS cases diagnosed annually with a life expectancy between
three and five years. MDA leads the search for treatments and care for ALS through its aggressive
worldwide research and MDA/ALS clinical programs including those in Eugene, Medford and
Portland. It was the responsibility of all Oregon citizens to value the worth, dignity, rights and hopes
of families affected by ALS.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims
2. Minutes
a. April 9, 2012 – Council Annual Planning Meeting
b. April 16, 2012 – Work Session
c. April 16, 2012 – Regular Meeting
d. April 23, 2012 – Work Session
3. Resolutions
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Authorize and Direct the City Manager to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with
Springfield Utility Board for the 10th and N Sewer Upgrade – Phase 1 Project.
b. Approve Purchase of Oracle Database Appliance Hardware for the Asset Management System
Replacement Project from Six Degrees Consulting for $48,136.58 and Authorize and Direct
the City Manager to Execute all Documents Required to Effect the Transaction.
c. Approve Purchase of Autodesk Data Migration and System Integration Services for the Asset
Management System Replacement Project from Autodesk, Inc. for $125,000 and Authorize
and Direct the City Manager to Execute all Documents Required to Effect the Transaction.
d. Approve the Purchase of 110 Personal Computers, 10 Laptops, and 105 Monitors for the
Enterprise-wide Microsoft Windows 7 Upgrade Project from Dell Marketing L.P. for
$136,158.00 Utilizing Dell Premier Cooperative Purchasing Pricing and Authorize and Direct
the City Manager to Execute All Documents Required to Effect the Transaction.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
RALSTON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. (1 ABSENT – VANGORDON)
ITEMS REMOVED
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. Proposed Resolution Setting Local and Regional Wastewater and Stormwater User Fees.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2012
Page 5
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-05 – A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD COMMON
COUNCIL SETTING LOCAL AND REGIONAL SEWER USER FEES AND LOCAL
STORMWATER USER FEES AS SET FORTH IN THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE.
Environmental Services Manager Ron Bittler presented the staff report on this item. At current rates,
the local and regional wastewater and local stormwater user fees would not produce sufficient revenue to
fully fund the proposed fiscal year (FY) 12-13 budgets for these funds. Council action was needed to
establish new rates for FY 12-13.
Each year, the City Council reviewed and established the rates for local wastewater and stormwater user
fees. These rates were established to provide adequate revenue to fund operation and maintenance
(O&M) of Springfield’s sanitary sewer and stormwater systems, and a portion of the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) for each program. The Council also adopted the user fees set by the
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) for the Regional Wastewater Program.
The City Council reviewed and discussed the proposed local wastewater and stormwater user fee
increase at its April 23, 2012 work session. Staff had prepared a schedule of user charges for a public
hearing, based on a 4% increase in both the local wastewater and local stormwater user fees. In addition,
the Council was informed that the MWMC adopted a 4% increase in the regional wastewater user fees
that also needed to be incorporated into the schedule of user charges for FY 12-13.
Given the Council’s input during the work session on future rate increases, staff had begun exploring
options for a long-term strategy for reducing pressure on user fees. It was expected that any successful
strategy would take several years to implement and would depend, at least in part, on the City’s ability to
significantly reduce reliance on user rates as a source of capital, by improving the ability of SDC
revenues to take up the burden of capital investment. This could reduce the need to rely on future debt
financing and reduce the importance of providing coverage for debt service as an operating budget
constraint.
Attachment 1 of the agenda packet, a resolution establishing the local and regional wastewater and local
stormwater user fees for FY 12-13, was provided for Council consideration. It was requested that the
Council consider acting on the resolution following the public hearing. Rates would go into effect on
July 1, 2012.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
RALSTON TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2012-05. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – VANGORDON).
2. Fiscal Year 2012-2013 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. One-Year Action Plans must be
submitted to HUD prior to the beginning of each fiscal year as amendments to the five-year Eugene-
Springfield Consolidated Plan. The purpose of the annual action plan was to indicate how the cities
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2012
Page 6
intended to use federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment
Partnerships Program (HOME) funds to fulfill the priorities established in the Consolidated Plan. This
was the third One-Year Action Plan under the 2010 Consolidated Plan.
The City of Springfield received CDBG funds as an entitlement community and HOME funds as a
participant in a HOME consortium agreement with the City of Eugene. CDBG funds were awarded to
communities who carried out community development activities directed towards neighborhood
revitalization, economic development, and the provision of improved community facilities and
services. HOME funding was 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, 2012, to review and consider applications for CDBG or HOME
funding. Council approved nine projects for CDBG funding and two projects for HOME funding.
The FY2012-2013 One Year Action Plan included the CDBG and HOME funding allocations for
projects and activities, and was consistent with the Council’s April 16 actions. The Plan must be
approved by both the City of Springfield and City of Eugene prior to submission to HUD. In addition
to the approved projects, a description of other activities that may be initiated was included in both the
CDBG and HOME sections of the Action Plan. The public comment period for the City of Springfield
section of the document concluded with the public hearing on May 7, 2012. The City of Eugene
section of the Action Plan was being adopted separately by the Eugene City Council. The combined
Eugene-Springfield One-Year Action Plan would be submitted to HUD on or before May 15, 2012 for
review and acceptance.
Mayor Lundberg said in the past they had a set-aside in CDBG for the downtown area. This year there
were downtown projects, but no set-aside. Downtown was still a focus for redevelopment and
revitalization. She would like to propose that a downtown set-aside would be put under consideration
for the future.
Mr. Ko said they couldn’t add a set-aside next year as it was the third year of a three-year aggregate.
All of the funds under the cap to spend would be accessible for downtown projects. They couldn’t
carry over any CDBG funds to the following year.
Mayor Lundberg suggested that Council keep in mind to continue the set-aside when the time was
appropriate.
Mr. Ko said he would be happy to remind the Council as they approached that time.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
RALSTON TO ADOPT THE SPRINGFIELD SECTION OF THE FY2012-2013 ONE-YEAR
ACTION PLAN. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1
ABSENT – VANGORDON).
3. Liquor License Endorsements for the Renewal Period of 2012-2013.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2012
Page 7
Assistant Community Services Manager Jackie Murdoch presented the staff report on this item. The
attached list of 159 businesses would likely be applying to the Development Services Department for
their 2012-2013 liquor license endorsements prior to June 30, 2012.
On December 19, 1994, Council approved Ordinance No. 5768 that established specific criteria to be
used when reviewing an application for a liquor license endorsement. Council may recommend denial
based upon reliable, factual information as it related to any of the criteria listed in Section 7.302 of the
Springfield Municipal Code.
Some of the required information for liquor license renewal, i.e., ownership of the establishment,
could not be determined until staff received the actual application. However, some determination
about meeting the listed criteria could be made now since the criteria related to the level of police
activity associated with the establishment.
The public hearing this evening was scheduled for Council to receive community testimony relative to
the liquor license renewal endorsement. At the conclusion of the public hearing, Council was
requested to provide one of the following recommendations to the Oregon Liquor License
Commission for the license renewal of the listed establishments: 1. Grant; 2. No Recommendations;
3. Do Not Grant Unless (applicant demonstrates commitment to overcome listed concerns); or 4.
Deny. At this time, staff has no information that would tend to support negative recommendations on
these renewals. Accordingly, subject to any public input received at the hearing, staff recommended
that the Council provide a positive recommendation for renewal to the Oregon Liquor Control
Commission.
Councilor Pishioneri said one of the downtown establishments had four DUII arrests noted. That
caused him concern so he asked how that compared with other establishments citywide.
Chief Smith said he didn’t have that data with him tonight. When Police looked at the data, there was
nothing that appeared to be a concern. The establishment referred to by Councilor Pishioneri had a
high number of patrons and it was difficult to determine if it was much better or worse than other
establishments.
Councilor Pishioneri felt that data might be helpful in the future.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
RALSTON TO GRANT. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0
AGAINST (1 ABSENT – VANGORDON).
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
1. Mia Nelson, 1000 Friends of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. Ms. Nelson said she last spoke on
March 13 during the joint public hearing with Lane County Board of Commissioners on the
Metro Plan Boundary Amendment. After the public comments, some things were said by
County Commissioners and staff that she felt were confusing. Following additional research
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2012
Page 8
on those issues, Ms. Nelson submitted a letter while the record was still open. She provided
copies for those that did not receive the letter. One of the things that concerned her most was
the County’s response to the question, “What’s in it for Springfield?”. The answer given was
that it would help disenfranchise property owners. The concept was that people that lived
outside the UGB couldn’t vote for the Springfield elected officials, so Springfield should not
have a right to vote on their proposals. In her research she found that this happened only once
to a corporation. Beyond that, it was common for someone to own property in one jurisdiction
and live in another. Those property owners did not expect to be able to vote on issues as a
property owner if they did not live in that jurisdiction. That had been the case for properties
outside the UGB for decades. She discussed one example that was actually the County’s fault.
Springfield should not be giving up their rights for that reason. The other situation was when
someone wanted to redesignate their land, which was very rare. She would hate to see the City
forfeit their right to weigh in on those types of situations. She hoped the Council would think
about City residents who could be disenfranchised if the City gave up their power to weigh in
on the area outside the UGB but within the Metro Plan Boundary.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
BIDS
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
1. Councilor Pishioneri referred to a letter addressed to the Lane County Board of
Commissioners that had been provided to the Council regarding Transient Room Tax
(TRT) funds and the amount going to Travel Lane County (TLC). Councilor Pishioneri
served on the TLC Board. A percentage of TRT had been going to TLC for many years
under an agreement with Lane County. That funding was being scrutinized by Lane
County. The letter quantified the importance of the funds to TLC and asked Lane County
to honor their agreement. He was asking Council to consent that a copy of the letter be
sent to the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Councilor Ralston said he supported sending the letter, but knew Lane County was having
severe budget issues.
Councilor Pishioneri agreed that the outcome was uncertain.
Councilor Woodrow said it was important to let Lane County know where the Council
stood on the subject.
Council concurred. The letter would be prepared for the Mayor’s signature and mailed.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2012
Page 9
2. Councilor Wylie spoke regarding the Sustainable Communities Conference she was able
to attend in Sonoma County California. In the past, the word ‘sustainability’ came on fast
and started as a buzz word without much explanation of what it meant. She made a point
at the conference to open up, listen and learn. Four tracts were offered and she chose
Transportation and she was able to bring back a lot of information for the Public Works
staff. Sustainability was to maintain and preserve. Maintaining clean water and clean air in
adequate resources to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness today and in the
future equaled sustainability. It was to make life livable today and in the future.
During the transportation workshops, she studied saving energy. Some of the ways to save
energy included electric or hybrid vehicles, waste management to utilize methane gas, and
alternative forms of energy through wind, water and solar. She spoke regarding alternative
vehicles. California had a lot of alternative types of cars. The speaker in the class said
there were six types of alternative vehicles. The first three were: ethanol (corn or
cellulosic); natural gas (in 2013 V8 trucks could be powered by natural gas); and hybrid
(reduced mileage 33% and was part electric charge with a gas engine). Sonoma County
had an all-electric and hybrid fleet, including some of their larger vehicles such as bucket
trucks. The fleet for the County also had regenerative braking cycles which also saved a
lot of money. Other alternative vehicles included electric cars and fuel cells (still in
development).
Councilor Wylie also learned about preserving resources such as water, air, soil, energy
and food. There was a big movement in getting the community involved, growing foods,
converting lawns to food, creating herb gardens, starting worm beds, installing low-flow,
switching to hanging clothes lines, harvesting rain water, sharing resources and helping
each other meet the challenges. Some of the terms she learned were: permiculture, which
was similar to sustainable living; range anxiety, which was the fear of running out of an
electric charge before getting to a charge station; and garage orphans, which were cars that
didn’t have charging stations at home.
Councilor Wylie said legislature in California had required communities to build charging
networks in public places. There were grants and other payment sources.
Councilor Ralston said the cost was coming from taxpayers.
Councilor Wylie said if someone bought an electric vehicle, they would also buy a
charging system for their home so there was less demand for public stations. There were
two kinds of charges: 40kw which lasted 4-8 hours and the level 3 DC fast charging which
lasted 20 minutes. She had a lot of information on funding and grant connections. The
conference was extremely interesting and she would be happy to talk more with any of the
councilors about what she learned. It was a coming technology. In their California
community they were generating a lot of excitement of the changes. Some of the
presenters were from Washington and there was some growth there for these sustainable
practices. We would all be moving in this direction as we looked for ways to preserve our
resources.
Mayor Lundberg said there was always the opportunity for new industries that could
create jobs as we moved in that direction. It would be important to find ways to figure this
out, capitalize on it and bring jobs to our community.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2012
Page 10
Councilor Wylie said that was the sentiment at the conference.
b. Other Business
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Approval to Purchase One (1) Aerial Fire Apparatus.
Fire Chief Randall Groves presented the staff report on this item. The aerial apparatus that Fire & Life
Safety currently had was a 2002 Pierce aerial that had exceeded its’ reliable lifespan and was in need
of replacement. This apparatus was currently housed at fire station #3 (28th Street station), and
operated as a first-out engine from that location in central Springfield. This was the only aerial
apparatus in the Springfield fleet, with a 100’ ladder and additional equipment typical of a ‘truck
company’.
This apparatus currently had approximately 75,000 miles on it and had undergone three transmission
rebuilds in the past few years. This apparatus was no longer reliable, and the maintenance costs were
increasing each year.
Cooperative purchasing language in an existing City of Eugene contract with Pierce Manufacturing
was available to procure this new Pierce Velocity Aerial Fire Apparatus. The City was using a five
year lease purchase option, based on the significant cost of the apparatus. The first two payments on
the lease would come from the Vehicle & Equipment Replacement Fund (fund 713). In years 3-5
funds currently dedicated to fire engine/pumper leases could be used to make the estimated $214,000
per year payments.
Pierce Manufacturing had a 10-year contract to provide all fire apparatus to the City of Eugene.
Pierce’s price represented a good value for the investment, and would maintain interoperability with
Eugene Fire’s current/future apparatus plans. Eugene paid $916,342 for their newest aerial platform
purchased off the Pierce contract. The Eugene contract stated a built in inflation factor of 4% per year,
but our total price of $977,780 was only about 8% above the 2007 base. Additionally, if we were able
to execute the contract by May 31, 2012, the City would save approximately $31,000, due to a
scheduled price increase June 1, 2012.
Councilor Moore asked what would happen with the old ladder truck.
Chief Groves said that would be put up for sale, either through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process
or through a broker. The truck would likely work for an organization that had less call volume than
Springfield. The funds would be put back into equipment reserve.
Councilor Moore said she appreciated their creativeness in this purchase.
Chief Groves said by using this spec, it promoted standardization within the Three Battalion System.
Many of the miles incurred on this apparatus were from a much busier station than where it was
currently positioned. It had been moved from the Gateway Station to the 28th Street Station. They felt
they could move the apparatus to this location because the Three Battalion System was in place. The
call volume at that location was about half of what it was at the Gateway Station. They anticipated a
long life cycle from this new engine. He noted that they had used a better spec on the engine,
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2012
Page 11
transmission, drive trains and running gears. Those were the areas that saw the most degradation
during the life cycle of the vehicle. They believed they had a good spec going forward.
Councilor Pishioneri asked what the expectant mileage was for that type of vehicle. He noted the type
of engine used.
Chief Groves said it was not typically the engine that failed, but rather the wear and tear on the
transmission. The apparatus they were replacing had gone through 3 transmissions, which was
unusual. They were now specing out to get the heaviest transmissions available for future purchases.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about the average number of apparatus per city
Chief Groves said there wasn’t an average. Based on Eugene’s history, they normally got about 12
years from their apparatus trucks, with five years as a reserve. The one being replaced here was ten
years old. As they merged the two departments, there was not a need for a reserve aerial apparatus.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
RALSTON TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A CONTRACT TO LEASE
PURCHASE ONE (1) AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS FROM PIERCE MANUFACTURING,
INC. FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $977,780.00. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – VANGORDON).
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
RALSTON TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A 5-YEAR, TAX
EXEMPT, LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH OSHKOSH CAPITAL TO FINANCE
THE APPARATUS. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1
ABSENT – VANGORDON).
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 7:57 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 14, 2012 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present 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 Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Discuss Public Involvement Procedures for the Development Community to Participate in Review
of Planning and Development Regulations.
Planning Supervisor Jim Donovan and Civil Engineer Matt Stouder presented the staff report on this
item. Staff recently completed a Developer Input Process (DIP) with members of the development
community, where work products were focused on customer service, efficiency improvements and
changes to ministerial code provisions. Some DIP members expressed a desire to work on other larger
development related issues and staff has prepared a Developer Advisory Committee (DAC) concept for
Council’s consideration.
The recent DIP was a successful collaboration between the development community and City staff on
continuous process improvement of issues prioritized by the development community. It was, however,
limited in scope and lacked the broader public involvement process necessary for larger land use
initiatives requested by some DIP members.
In order to provide the flexibility to accomplish those requests, the structure would best be similar to a
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), where Council would appoint a committee with specific goals and
the resources necessary to provide broad public involvement. The Council would then review the
committee’s work and provide direction to staff if some proposals were to be implemented. Attachment
1 of the agenda packet described staff’s proposal in more detail.
The strengths of forming a DAC were in Council’s participation in goal setting and committee selection,
broader committee involvement and input, and streamlined review of work products. These features
included the strengths of the former DIP process and allowed for a broader range of issues to be
reviewed.
If Council was amenable to forming a DAC, staff would move forward with solicitation of DAC
appointments for Council’s consideration prior to summer recess, and initiate committee work over the
summer, before reporting back to Council in the fall on DAC priorities and issues.
Mr. Donovan said a concern was to streamline the process while tackling some of the larger issues.
Council involvement would be at two important junctures. The first was in the formation of the
committee. Staff proposed following the standard notification process and putting public notice out for
participation. The categories would be identified and submitted for Council to review and appoint
members. Staff would then work with the committee by providing resources and expertise, and assist
with the presentation to be brought to Council. Recommendations would come to Council from the
committee with staff assisting. Council could then have work sessions and regular meetings to review
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 2
the recommendation and consider resources necessary to take on the range of recommendations. At that
point, Council could direct staff to move forward and prepare ordinances for amendments that could be
desired.
Mr. Donovan said a list of the recommended categories was included in the agenda packet for Council’s
review and approval. If Council approved of those categories, staff would proceed with public notice for
applicants. The Developer Input Process Committee provided a list of things they wanted to follow-up
on from their meetings. Those items would be first to be reviewed by the new committee. They were
trying to capture a range of topics. Staff hoped to return to Council in the Fall after working with the
committee and prioritizing the issues. The Council would then confirm which issues staff would work
on with the committee considering resources and timelines.
Mr. Donovan said there was a range of members listed in the core categories from the building
community, consultant community, business owners, environmental protection interests, citizens at
large, and women in minority owned businesses. Staff was recommending 10-12 people on the
committee to balance representation with the work of the committee.
Councilor Woodrow asked if this would be an established committee that would be addressing certain
tasks. She would like to see a Council liaison to this committee.
Mr. Grimaldi said there were two types of committees: one that had a sunset date and one that was
ongoing that never sunsetted.
Councilor Woodrow said she understood that once this was established, it would be an ongoing
committee.
Mr. Donovan said the committee could address a set of issues and at that time Council could either
continue it or sunset it. At this time, they were approving a structure for something that could be
repeated and building a model that didn’t fit the standard approach. It would be at Council’s discretion
whether or not it would be continued.
Councilor Woodrow asked if members would be selected in light of the particular issues it was set up to
address, or if the members would remain on the committee as new issues arose.
Mr. Donovan said the work would be starting out general. Presumably the issues would be development
related, but the population of the committee would be affecting the community as a whole. He felt they
would want to select a broad range of committee members.
Councilor Ralston said he looked at this as a temporary committee. Once the items had been addressed,
they could sunset. He noted that the core category included 10 members, plus all of those listed in the
discretion category. He felt a Planning Commission member needed to be there and wasn’t sure if a
Councilor needed to be included. He was comfortable with the way it was presented.
Councilor Pishioneri said he had heard positive feedback from local developers about this committee. It
may sunset at some point, but he would like to see it as something that continued until such a time the
Council felt it no longer produced outcomes. He felt a Councilor should be on this committee to get
their input when the issues were brought to the full Council. He was also fine with having a Planning
Commission member.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 3
Councilor Moore asked about the time involvement with so many issues. The goals sounded admirable,
but she was concerned about staff time needed. She wanted to know if now was a good time to add
more to staff’s work load with so many tasks currently underway.
Mr. Grimaldi suggested looking more into that later after the committee had met. The Council would
then review what the committee had come up with, the amount of staff time needed and the expected
result.
Councilor Moore said she encouraged public input, but with the Glenwood Refinement Plan, street
maintenance issues, staff was dealing with a lot.
Mr. Grimaldi said that was appreciated. They had also experienced staff reductions.
Councilor Wylie said sometimes committees were a good thing and sometime they were not. She was
concerned that it could bring up new issues making more work and a longer process. She liked
Councilor Pishioneri’s suggestion that the committee could continue as long as it was something that
staff found was helpful. She would like to see it evaluated in about a year.
Mr. Grimaldi said the original committee noted that some of the processes, like site review, were done
differently in other jurisdictions. It might be good to evaluate what other communities were doing to
find efficiencies. There could be other issues similar to that to evaluate.
Councilor VanGordon asked if they would go to the original committee first for potential recruits to fill
the membership of the new committee.
Mr. Donovan said the public posting with identified positions would occur, but they would be notifying
the original members of the openings.
Mr. Stouder noted that some of those people could fit into multiple categories.
Councilor VanGordon asked how staff would keep contact with those members that were not selected to
serve on the new committee about the progress.
Mr. Donovan said they had established relationships with those people and would continue to provide
them with information.
Councilor VanGordon said that was a positive that had come from this process. He agreed they needed
to have a check-in point to make sure this was a good use of time and resources. That check-in could be
in one year or after the first set of proposals was identified.
Councilor Pishioneri said if there was a Council liaison, they could provide information to the rest of the
Council on how things were going.
Mayor Lundberg said this process did initiate some developer concerns that the City had gotten off-
track. The City had been very good at working with the development community and that edge had been
lost. The City was in an economic environment that required us to be competitive with other
communities. She agreed with Mr. Grimaldi that we should look at what other jurisdictions were doing
that was more efficient and better received. It was legitimate to look at all of those issues. She also
supported having a Council liaison. It was helpful to have the Council liaison provide input when the
recommendations came forward as they would have been in on all of the conversations. They would be
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 4
a good sounding board. She would like the category for builders separated into residential and
commercial, as they were two different types of builders.
Councilor Ralston said he was not sure he wanted to look at what Eugene was doing, but was willing to
do what made sense. He asked about the category ‘environmental protection x2’.
Mr. Donovan said that would include people who would look at the quality of life, concern for the
environment and livability of the community. Staff felt having two members from that category was
proportional to the rest of the committee.
Councilor Ralston said he wasn’t sure about having 2 people in that category. Sometimes
environmentalists and developers clashed.
Mr. Donovan said he felt having 2 was beneficial to get a better opinion.
Councilor Ralston said he didn’t want them to be counterproductive. There were federal guidelines in
place that the City had to follow regarding environmental concerns.
Mr. Stouder said the term environmental was for someone interested in development, but not profiting
from the developer.
Councilor Ralston said the category of minorities that owned a business didn’t need to be targeted, but
rather business owners in general. He didn’t feel that category needed to be x2.
Councilor Wylie said she had discovered that now that we were involved in sustainability, there were
people that were experts in development and sustainability. Those experts could help to make people
aware of how to do things differently. She suggested changing the category of ‘environmental’ to
‘sustainability’.
Councilor Ralston said he would prefer calling it sustainability.
Councilor Wylie said ‘Women in Minority’ was included in the federal regulations for bids, so she felt
that was an important category to keep. It could be one or two, but should be included.
The question about non-profits in the housing industry was raised. They were listed in the discretionary
category.
Councilor Pishioneri suggested adding x2 to the ‘business owner’ category, with preference given to
specific types of businesses, such as those owned by minorities or women. That could also be addressed
under the discretionary category of ‘business owner – additional’.
Mayor Lundberg said it was always beneficial to bring detractors to the table. Having everyone that had
a vested interested involved was the best way to get cooperation. She was comfortable with the
categories as noted and said they may not get more than one in each position. She didn’t want to be held
back if they didn’t fill a category. She was comfortable with the committee categories, but would like to
separate the builders into residential and commercial builders.
Mr. Donovan said staff hoped to have 12-14 people on the committee including a Planning
Commissioner and City Councilor. Council would set the priorities and agenda. Staff would work with
the committee, come back to Council with a report of the recommendations and the type of research that
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 5
needed to be done. They could then debrief and determine how soon the committee should meet again,
or if changes needed to be made.
2. Glenwood Refinement Plan Update Project, Phase I (Springfield File Nos. TYP411-00006,
TYP411-00005, TYP311-00001, TYP411-00007, Lane County File No. PA 11-5489).
Planners Gary Karp and Molly Markarian presented the staff report on this item. The Springfield and
Lane County Planning Commissions conducted a public hearing on October 18, 2011 and continued the
hearing on December 20, 2011. Based on the record and the public testimony received, the Springfield
and Lane County Planning Commissions voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the project
proposal with 30 text modifications.
On January 23, 2012, the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners
conducted a work session on the proposed amendments. Issues raised by Councilors and
Commissioners at that work session were addressed during the staff presentation at the April 2, 2012
joint public hearing.
The Lane County Board of Commissioners had a first reading on the amendments on March 14, 2012.
Following the April 2, 2012 joint public hearing and Council-Board deliberations, the Council elected to
close the record and requested a work session to discuss the few remaining unresolved issues prior to
their second reading, scheduled for June 4, 2012. The Commission chose to delay their decision until
the Council action and moved to leave their record open until a third reading, scheduled for June 20,
2012.
Distinct place, identity, a gem, preserve the magic of the river, Glenwood as a bridge, Glenwood as a
diamond in the rough – these were some excerpts from the Glenwood Citizen Advisory Committee
(CAC) initial meeting and visioning session with staff when asked what about Glenwood should be
preserved. Among many other attributes, words describing a rare, special and irreplaceable nugget of
Springfield were mentioned a number of times. The Council and others had expressed similar
sentiments over the years and this vision helped shape the policy proposals for Glenwood Phase I.
Glenwood as a whole represented less than .02% of Springfield’s urban growth boundary (UGB), and
Glenwood Phase I was an even smaller treasure.
Ms. Markarian discussed the issues raised during the April 2 Council meeting. The issues were also
noted in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet.
The first issue was Prohibition of Drive-Throughs. Ms. Markarian said information on this issue was on
pages 2 and 3 of Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. In that section, nodes were explained. In the past
Glenwood was designated as a node and Council had directed staff to expand that node through the
2030 process. The subarea D south was a potential future node with Lane Transit District’s (LTD)
proposed expansion of the EmX facilities in the future. The Regional Transportation Plan also identified
that area as a potential future node. Through the process, staff felt the nodal characteristics would be an
attractor to significant development in that area of Glenwood and that auto-dependent and auto-oriented
uses could possibly detract from that concept. On page 3 of Attachment 1, the discussion moved into the
Transportation Planning Rule and that auto-related uses were counter to the nodal concept. Staff’s
proposal for zoning and development standards supported the City’s request for a trip reduction
calculation. That reduction was needed in order for development to occur concurrently with the phased
improvements of Franklin Boulevard. Springfield would only be eligible for that reduction if drive-
throughs were prohibited in the node. If drive-throughs were permitted outside of the node in Subarea D
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 6
south, it would make designating that area as a node less feasible in the future. Staff recommended
maintaining the proposed prohibition of drive-through facilities in Subareas A, B, C and D.
Alternatively, Council could direct staff to maintain the prohibited use list as proposed within existing
and proposed nodal development areas which included Subareas A, B, C and north of the railroad of
Subarea D, and provide for an exception to the prohibition of drive-throughs in Subarea D south of the
railroad tracks under the circumstances highlighted in Exhibit A of the agenda packet. The restrictions
of Exhibit A allowed drive-throughs in Subareas D south, while trying to foster as much of a pedestrian
and bicycle friendly environment.
Councilor Ralston said he would have liked to have a map to remind him where the subareas were
located.
Ms. Markarian referred to a map on Attachment page 11. She noted where Subarea D was located on
that map.
Councilor Pishioneri asked for an example of a nodal development.
Ms. Markarian said some of the development Council saw on their tour of Hillsboro included nodes.
Councilor Pishioneri said drive-up coffee places and kiosks were very popular with residents. Based on
this Plan, they would only be allowed south of the tracks in Subarea D.
Mr. Grimaldi said it was not currently allowed in the Plan, but could be if Council chose to include the
alternative outlined in the agenda packet.
Ms. Markarian said this area was a potential node with a future EmX line planned for this area. They
were trying to prime it for transit oriented, pedestrian friendly development. She explained how having
drive-throughs could inhibit safe and pleasant pedestrian travel and could encourage more vehicle
traffic.
Councilor Wylie referred to the map. She was concerned that prohibited services were on businesses
that were currently in Glenwood.
Mr. Karp said all of those uses would stay until someone approached the property owner to redevelop
the property. At that time, the property would be redeveloped according to the approved Plan.
Ms. Markarian said a drive-through use was not the highest and best use of land. If a developer wanted
to put in a nice hotel or attractive apartment complex and they wanted to maintain the value of their
land, a drive-through could detract from the value of the land and they may choose not to develop.
Mayor Lundberg said the City first addressed nodes in the TransPlan process. Nodes referred to
employment centers where people lived, worked and played. The City designated the Franklin node, so
we were working within regulations already in place. That had already been done and high density
residential had been placed in that area. Subarea D was a potential node within a 20 year time frame, so
that was a different type of area. She would like to separate Subarea D out to look at possible drive-
through exceptions. She said there was a coffee shop near the EmX Station in Springfield and she didn’t
think that devalued the property.
Ms. Markarian said staff had proposed drive-throughs in Subarea D while remaining as pedestrian and
bicycle friendly as possible.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 7
Mayor Lundberg said there were ways Council could get to where they wanted to be without having to
backtrack through State law and the other approved Plans.
Councilor Pishioneri said if they claimed the Plan was flexible, it needed to be. He didn’t want
restrictions to prohibit developers from coming into Glenwood. He asked if the restrictions were
something the City was bound by per Administrative Rule or if they were someone’s idea. He
specifically noted the restriction of drive-throughs at 400 feet.
Mr. Grimaldi said the number of feet was discretionary.
Councilor Pishioneri asked how hard it would be to allow a shorter distance once they had approved 400
feet.
Mr. Grimaldi said it would be better to choose what they wanted now rather than later.
Councilor Pishioneri said he wanted to know if there was a reason for 400 feet such as a conflict
regarding traffic issues.
Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett said drive-throughs would attract trips off the roadway that were not
normally in that site. Those vehicles would circulate through the parking lot across pedestrian way,
impacting the site by the trips pulled from the roadway. If the drive-through didn’t exist, people would
come into the site for different purposes. The generation trips onto the site across the driveway would
be significantly lower. That needed to be contemplated when looking at types of uses. Each intersection
had an influence area where traffic was either slowing down or accelerating, and there were decision
points regarding lane changes. Driveways should not be in the influence area because there were
already enough decisions to make in that area. He provided the example of Highway 126 and 58th Street.
There were a number of factors that affected the influence area. That could be used as a technique to
give a specific number of feet for no drive-through facilities within the influence area of the
intersection.
Councilor Pishioneri said he just wanted to have a reason why there were prohibitions when a developer
or builder asked.
Mr. Barnett said if Council chose, influence could be used as a method.
Councilor Pishioneri said he wanted reasons for all of the restrictions so he could defend the Plan.
Ms. Markarian said part of the 400 feet was based on the influence area, and the other part was to create
a pedestrian friendly feeling. They looked at other jurisdictions that had addressed this issue and found
they had used 400 feet from intersections.
Councilor Woodrow said the exception noted under the drive-throughs allowed in Subarea D south,
(2)(b) would prohibit coffee kiosks.
Ms. Markarian said it enabled a drive-through as a secondary use.
Mr. Grimaldi asked if Council would prefer a different distance other than 400 feet.
Councilor Pishioneri said he didn’t want to limit certain types of businesses.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 8
Councilor Moore said in looking at nodal development, they were looking at something new and
different, yet were stuck in something old and the same. She understood the proposal. She felt Council
needed to choose to do a nodal development which was a new way of looking at things, or not choosing
a nodal. She would be happier to base the restriction on influence of intersection as she felt it would
give more flexibility.
Councilor Ralston said nodal development had been discussed for many years, but he agreed they
needed to decide what they wanted. The more restrictions, the less likely development would occur.
Business determined if they could make it or not.
Councilor VanGordon asked what the current standard was in the City regarding drive-throughs.
Mr. Barnett said there was none. A traffic analysis would need to be done in order to make sure the
queuing distance from the drive-through back to the circulation on the site was adequate.
Councilor VanGordon asked about an example of a challenging drive-through.
Mr. Barnett said the Mohawk Taco Time had challenges.
Mr. Grimaldi said he was sensing Council wanted to allow drive-throughs in Subareas D. He asked if
setting criteria rather than a set number of feet would be more acceptable to the Council.
Councilor Pishioneri said he just wanted to be able to explain to people why there was a restriction. The
reason needed to be defensible and make sense.
Mr. Grimaldi said he believed criteria would get them there and provide predictability for development.
Councilor Wylie said for years she had been in transportation planning. She believed the future lay in
multi-modal transportation and that the automobile would transition into non-harmful emissions, but
there would still be vehicles. She felt that some of this Plan was a direct attack on the automobile and
she didn’t feel that was the future. If the senior citizen wanted to go out and do their errands, they
needed to be able to do them in a short distance. Taking away drive-throughs might force them to drive
farther around the community. She believed in reducing greenhouse gasses and in reducing vehicle
miles travelled, but they were transitioning into another era and this Plan was already technologically
dated. They needed to think about the real future before putting on all of the restrictions. She felt they
needed to go further than Mr. Grimaldi’s suggestion and be careful how this Plan was designed. She
was concerned about how the restrictions were set up. We wanted to encourage modern development in
Glenwood.
Mayor Lundberg said if they changed things in this plan, they would have to change the other plans it
affected. Subarea D could include drive-throughs, but allowing them in other areas was very significant.
She agreed they needed reasoning for restrictions.
Mr. Grimaldi said they may need another work session. It was important that what was presented to the
Council on June 4 was acceptable to them. People were anxious to move forward with their projects.
The second issue was Peer Review. Ms. Markarian referred to Attachment 1 which outlined what was
intended and what was not intended. Peer review was not new to Springfield and had been used in the
past. Staff took the concerns from the Council and Planning Commissioners and recommended
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 9
additional clarifying language in the major modification section of the proposed plan district as shown
in Exhibit B of the agenda packet, to more clearly articulate the intent of peer review and that it was
limited to circumstances where a proposal sought a major modification. Because the decision to make a
major modification was voluntary, staff recommended that the code maintain the requirement that peer
review was at the applicant’s expense.
Councilor Ralston asked a question about the new language. Highlighted areas were changes. He said in
the future he would prefer to have it in track changes to see what was added and what was removed.
Councilor Pishioneri said with this recommendation peer review was still going to be at the director’s
discretion. There needed to be a lot of trust involved between the developers and the director. He asked
if there was a mechanism for developer to appeal the director’s peer review recommendation.
Mr. Goodwin said any decision made by the Director was subject to City Manager approval. The City
Manager could change that decision.
Councilor Pishioneri said he would like that written in the language.
Mr. Goodwin gave an example of where peer review could have been used for review of a flood plain.
If a national specialist had already reviewed an area, there would be no need for peer review. If the site
was reviewed by someone not qualified, peer review would be required.
Councilor Pishioneri understood that and was comfortable with their process, but he would like to have
it written in the Plan.
Mr. Karp said that term was used throughout the code regarding Director discretion. Staff would talk
with legal staff about how it could be added.
Councilor Moore asked if flood plan review came under the definition of a major modification.
Mr. Goodwin said it could. He provided an example.
Councilor Moore spoke regarding the cost and asked if there were any situations where the City would
pay for all or part of the review. She asked if that had been done in the past.
Mr. Goodwin said there had been cases where the City had participated in peer review. He was reluctant
to put that in a codified form as it made it less flexible.
Mayor Lundberg said if the developer was truly unhappy with the decision by the Director, they could
contact their elected officials. There were recourses to how things got done.
Councilor Ralston said the language under peer review said it ‘shall’ be at the expense of the developer.
He asked if that was too inflexible.
Mr. Goodwin said trying to address that was a delicate balance. He explained.
The third issue was Locating Parking in Subarea D. Ms. Markarian said a revised Exhibit D had been
sent out to the Council and was also distributed during the meeting. The information in the agenda
packet outlined the pros and cons of parking in the front of the building. There was a correlation
between transit ridership and the experience of walking from a transit station to a destination. Based on
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 10
conversations with the property owner earlier on this date, staff recommended Council direct staff to
allow parking on the front and side of buildings under the circumstances highlighted in the revised
Exhibit D. Previously, there had been a prohibition on parking in the front of buildings within 400 feet
of an intersection. That section was eliminated in the revision. On page 15 of Attachment 1 of the
agenda packet, Section 5.b.i. stated “if one row of visitor parking including a travel lane . . . “. That
section had been amended to “two rows”.
Mayor Lundberg said staff had addressed the major concerns. She noted safety for employees of
businesses getting to and from their vehicles in the dark. This revision helped make it safer.
The fourth issue was Park Block Width. Ms. Markarian noted that Council had expressed support for the
park block concept to achieve objectives outlined on page 6 of Attachment 1: help meet the park and
recreation needs for adjacent high density residential mixed-use development; attract visitors and offer
usable recreational spaces for the general public that relieved user pressure from more sensitive natural
areas along the river; enable implementation of low-impact development approaches for the treatment of
runoff from adjacent streets and conveyance of treated stormwater from adjacent development to
management and/or water quality treatment areas; provide opportunities to raise public awareness about
the relationship between stormwater management and natural resource protection; and establish a
continuous view corridor from Franklin Boulevard towards the Willamette River. Council concerns
regarding width of the park block and what determined the width of the park block were also noted in
the agenda materials. Some of the factors for determining width included design factors in achieving
the stormwater objective and the recreation objectives. The width also had an impact on safe
intersections basing turn radii and the viability of queuing lengths. It was also determined by the
massive scale of surrounding buildings and providing a space to break up that mass. It was comparable
in total acreage to the minimum open space required in other areas in Springfield. The intent of the
policy was to see Willamalane, the City and the property owner collaborate together in developing the
park blocks. The implementation strategies about the size, user safety, and spacing configuration needs
were intended to provide certainty and specificity to the developers and the community. The minimum
of 150 feet provided certainty to the community that the park would meet the targets for all of the
objectives and would provide certainty to the development community regarding the expected scale of
the park blocks. It also established a benchmark the City could use to negotiate with developers. Exhibit
E clarified that final park block width was dependent upon the definitive stormwater management needs
of adjacent development and final park design needs. Staff recommended adding language to the Plan
district text as highlighted in Exhibit E.
Mayor Lundberg said one of the incarnations of the Glenwood Refinement Plan included dealing with
stormwater runoff in a way that was more of a feature rather than a culvert. This section of the Plan
accomplished this same thing, with a more natural way of handling stormwater.
Councilor Pishioneri recalled seeing something about a water inlet with a bridge over it.
Ms. Markarian said that was a design that could be incorporated by a developer. This section just added
language about the width.
The fifth issue was Access to the River. Ms Markarian said improving public connections to the river
was a key goal that guided staff throughout this process. They felt the proposed street grid, riverfront
linear park and riverfront multi-use path would enable public access to the riverfront for a wide range of
people of differing ages, abilities and income levels. That included vehicular access to the riverfront.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 11
Councilor Ralston said Roaring Rapids property went right up to the river. He asked what would happen
if another business wanted to have outdoor seating up to the river.
Ms. Markarian said there was a segment in the Plan that included an exception that grandfathered the
uses of Roaring Rapids and existing businesses.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if there would be more issues for discussion.
Mr. Grimaldi said once Council agreed on these issues, they could bring up any others.
Councilor Moore asked about the path being continuous if existing businesses were grandfathered.
Ms. Markarian said the Plan addressed that in the language. The developer could provide the footprint
of their business north of the riverfront street provided that the development complied with all the
riparian regulations and multi-use path.
Mayor Lundberg opened up the discussion for additional issues.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about Subarea D and C and educational facilities. Subarea D was strictly
commercial.
Ms. Markarian said the citizen advisory committee had discussed educational related facilities in
Subarea C, but did not discuss housing as that was provided for in Subarea A and B. They did talk about
housing south of Franklin Boulevard and that it would not be appropriate because of the proximity to
the transfer station. They didn’t discuss whether or not it was appropriate north of Franklin Boulevard.
She asked City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith to discuss this further.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if student housing could be allowed in Subarea C.
Ms. Smith said it was their understanding that this issue may come forward during this work session.
Staff had been coordinating with legal counsel and Lane County about the best way for Council to
procedurally evaluate that without subjecting them to an appeal or slow down the process. Currently in
Subarea C, residential uses were not allowed except for hotels. To address student housing, they would
be changing a use which was significant to a property owner. It was important to remember that the
Glenwood Refinement Plan was a jointly adopted plan with Lane County so there were additional
procedures that needed to be addressed together. This was an opportunity to evaluate this before they
adopted the Plan. She would recommend after talking with City staff and Lane County legal counsel,
that the Council reopen the record for the limited purpose of looking at residential uses in Subarea C
only. A notice was prepared that could go out tomorrow for a hearing on June 4. During the June 4
hearing, Council could conduct another reading, close the hearing, and close the record. Another reading
would need to take place, which could be done June 18. The City could then get information to the
County in early June. Lane County was scheduled to look at the Plan again on June 20, and were still
deciding whether or not to have another hearing at that time. The County would then need to conduct
another reading of the ordinance which could be in mid-July. Doing this would cause a delay of a few
weeks. She clarified that they would just be reopening the record for this Subarea C issue regarding
housing. Notice would only go to those that appeared at the joint hearing and to property owners in that
area. This process was true to what the City had done to date regarding public participation, would help
them avoid a LUBA appeal and allow them to look at a new option that could work for Subarea C.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 14, 2012
Page 12
Councilor Pishioneri said he felt this was worth the effort and would not halt the process and the work
already done.
Councilor Ralston asked if doing this would be an issue regarding timing.
Mr. Grimaldi said the timing issue was important for people who were ready to develop. With the
proposed schedule, this could be done before Council’s summer break.
Councilor Moore was not able to identify Subarea C on the map.
Mr. Grimaldi said staff could come back with more detail and maps before making a final decision.
Tonight they were looking to see if staff could do some work on this and bring back the details to
Council. The area they would be considering would be student housing only for schools such as the
University of Oregon, Lane Community College or Northwest Christian University.
Councilor Pishioneri said that was correct.
Ms. Markarian said the designation in this area was currently office mixed-use. Up to 50% could be
used for a limited number of other uses such as hotels or fire stations. The Plan didn’t specify student
housing. She explained why the uses were originally chosen. If they added residential, it would fall
under the restriction of 50% similar to where hotels were identified.
Councilor Moore said the location made sense.
Mayor Lundberg said student housing made sense in Glenwood and there could be a need.
Ms. Markarian clarified this would be for student housing, not general housing. Yes.
Mayor Lundberg thanked staff for their work and bringing back alternatives.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder