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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Daluddung showed the council aerial photographs of the site in question and provided background on Springfield's proposed sports center. She described the scope of the sports center project and the activities that would occur there. Ms. Daluddung noted the unsuccessful search for an alternative site. Ms. Daluddung introduced Brian Barnett of Springfield's Transportation Division, Springfield Planning Director Greg Mott, Springfield Economic Development Director John Tamulonis, and consultant Jim Branch of Branch Engineering, whose firm prepared the traffic impact analysis. Mr. Meisner said that cumulatively, the effect of individual developments in the Gateway area was significant. Those developments have created the need for improvements to the intersection of Beltline/I-5. He was troubled by the conclusion there was no regional impact. Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Maine why Springfield wanted Eugene to opt out of the process and what advantage there was to Springfield. Ms. Maine responded that from a philosophical standpoint it was a home rule issue. She said it was important that communities should be able to chart their progress and identify a vision, acknowledging that there was overlap between jurisdictions and a need to work together on regional issues. Ms. Maine said that there was a fundamental feeling that within the city's boundaries, Springfield should be able to do what was good for its citizens and their future. She suggested that the tendency amongst communities was to opt in to such processes "just in case," slowing the process, which was not always the best government. She said that Springfield would not want to impede Eugene in such a way, and suggested it should be reciprocal that each city could make decisions about its own future. Ms. Maine added that opting out did not mean Eugene could not be involved, or that Springfield would not take regional concerns into consideration. Mr. Lee requested comment from Mr. Branch. Mr. Branch said the site would generate about 400 trips during the peak hour, and about 4,000 to 5,000 trips per day; he estimated about 60 percent of the traffic from the project would be destined for the freeway, while 40 percent of the traffic would use local streets. He suggested that approximately 10 percent of trips generated by the facility would be going to Eugene. Mr. Farr asked if the trees on the north of the site would remain. Ms. Daluddung responded that the area in question was a inventoried natural resource; it was a riparian area with high wildlife values. She said that Springfield intended to protect the area. Mr. Kelly said he understood Ms. Maine's remarks about home rule, and agreed that without demonstrable regional impact the decision to expand the UGB should be Springfield's alone. He was, however, inclined to be concerned about all but the "most trivial" of UGB expansions, and was also concerned about the impact of further traffic at the Beltline/I-5 Interchange. Mr. Kelly referred to the memorandum from Eugene Transportation staff Gary McNeel and Gary Ludke regarding the impact analysis, which suggested a higher peak trip rate might result from the development and indicated concerns about the conclusion the project had no regional impact. He said it was not clear to him questions about the technical criteria were addressed. Mr. Kelly referred to Eugene Code 9.015(b), which stated an amendment was of regional impact if it had a demonstrable impact on the non-home city's transportation facilities, and asked 1) which city was I-5 in, and did the fact the project had an impact MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 13, 1999 Page 9 11:30 a.m.