CC Minutes - 01/13/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

potential users for the facility would turn to the new facilities at Eugene high schools, creating a greater system impact. Mr. Torrey believed the best transportation system in the area was the I-5 system, and the Beltline/l-5 interchange was a continuing high priority for State and federal funding for both Springfield and Eugene. Mr. Torrey asked the council to consider the home rule issue involved. He said that Eugene should have a "pretty darn good reason" to opt into the amendment process. Regarding Mr. Rayor's concerns about the natural resource area, Mr. Torrey suggested that given Springfield's expressed willingness to protect the area, it was better included in Springfield's jurisdiction rather than Lane County's. Mr. Torrey said that the rationale for the location of the UGB was often property ownership rather than any particular logic. He reminded the council of the prison siting issue and the council's resistence to extending Eugene's boundary, with the result that the prison would be sited less than a mile away inside a much expanded Junction City UGB. Mr. Torrey said that Eugene would be negatively impacted by that decision, and the council needed to be smart about the decisions it made about the boundary and not assume it was "motherhood and apple pie." He thought the sports center proposal was a great plan, and Eugene would be negatively impacted by a failure to allow the proposal to go forward. Mr. Pap~ asked if the sports center could be developed outside the UGB. Ms. Childs said yes, if public facilities were not to be extended to the site. Springfield was able to develop the soccer fields on the site under a conditional use permit with Lane County. The fields were not served with public facilities. Responding to questions from Mr. PapS, Mr. Branch clarified that his firm had been retained by Roy Gray of the Broadbased Boards, a nonprofit organization with a preliminary lease agreement with Springfield for the sports center. He said that the firm had followed industry standards in conducting the traffic analysis. Regarding Mr. Kelly's questions regarding the figures used for trip generation, Mr. Branch said that the figures used were correct for the peak hour of the adjacent street in the area. The higher figure would be used for the peak hour of the generator, but at a time when traffic volumes on the street were not as high; his firm had examined the time periods when traffic volumes were highest. Responding to Ms. Nathanson's question regarding project funding, Mr. Torrey said a committee that included representatives from the Springfield and Eugene councils and the County board was being formed to examine ways projects in areas where jurisdictional boundaries met were funded. Mr. Meisner suggested that not all of the impact from the development would be on the contiguous area, and a way should be found to recover the costs of more distant impacts. He noted that the council had to make a finding of regional impact to opt in to the process, and said the council should be careful if it choose to opt out, and do so without retracting that finding. Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Daluddung if the Glenwood area was considered in the search for alternative sites. Greg Mort, Springfield staff, indicated 35 to 40 sites throughout the entire metropolitan area that met the threshold standards were evaluated. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 13, 1999 Page 11 11:30 a.m.