One of Lane County government’s most important projects in years — building a large mental health campus in the Gateway area, in partnership with PeaceHealth — faces a crucial test in coming weeks: will the Springfield City Council approve it?
The hurdle is a vital land-use step. The county is asking the City Council to annex the vacant International Way land into the city limits. Until the council does that, the county and PeaceHealth can’t seek building permits and begin construction.
But it seems possible that whatever the council does, it may face legal action. Two neighbors of the proposed site are already suing the county and PeaceHealth to try to torpedo the mental-health project on the chosen site. If the Springfield council approves annexation, those neighbors — Dan Giustina and Kelly Richardson — may also hit the city with a lawsuit. Their lawyers have already sent letters to the council opposing annexation. Yet if the council rejects annexation, it may find itself sued by the county and PeaceHealth, which have already bought the International Way land for $7.8 million and are busy planning the construction.
The public can weigh in on May 18 at a Springfield City Council public hearing on the annexation request. The council hasn’t set a date to vote on the issue.
At stake is an 18-acre campus with a county crisis stabilization center equipped with 28 beds and 14 recliners, providing 24/7 care, and a secure PeaceHealth psychiatric hospital with 96 beds. The county center would cost $37 million. The PeaceHealth facility, $82 million.
No one argues this isn’t needed. It would be an impressive boost for the region’s mental-health safety net.
But Giustina and Richardson’s lawyers note that the city’s land-use rules for the proposed site, in the middle of a corporate industrial area, explicitly prohibit overnight medical stays there. No one disputes that. Vacant PeaceHealth-owned land next to the nearby PeaceHealth RiverBend hospital is a far better spot for the complex, they argue.
The county, meanwhile, argues that a new and untested state “supersiting” law passed by the Oregon Legislature in 2025 specifically for the Gateway site, overrides the city’s land-use restrictions, and the city has no choice but to approve the project. Guistina and Richardson’s ongoing lawsuit seeks to invalidate the supersiting law.
It’s up to the council to decide which has more weight — the city’s land-use restrictions or the state law — city planning staff told the council in a memo preparing for the public hearing.
Giustina “does not oppose the concept of the [Lane County/PeaceHealth] center,” his lawyer wrote to the council. It just opposes the chosen location, he wrote.
The council “should deny this application or delay further proceedings until the legal issues with [the supersiting law] are resolved,” Richardson’s lawyer writes.
The county hopes for quick council approval, but “we recognize the possibility of appeal,” says county spokesperson Devon Ashbridge. As for public comment, “We expect there will be plenty of people to speak about all aspects of the annexation,” she says.
The hearing is set for 7 p.m. May 18 in the City Council chambers and via Zoom. The council can’t vote on the project at that meeting, says Springfield city spokesperson Elyse Ditzel. It has the option to hold the record open for more public comment before it debates and votes.
State v. local
The fine print of the city’s annexation rules and the supersiting law’s language are key to the fate of the project. Which is dominant is a matter of dispute.
The annexation rules say the council shall decide on an annexation based in part on whether the planned development “is consistent” with the city’s land-use plans. Those local rules plainly state that overnight medical stays are not allowed in the International Way campus-industrial area where the county and PeaceHealth want to build their campus, with its 126 overnight-stay beds. But the annexation rules don’t appear to require the council to deny annexation if it conflicts with land-use plans.
Meanwhile, the supersiting law, which lawmakers wrote specifically to apply only to the International Way parcel the county and PeaceHealth have chosen, says the city can’t use its land-use plan documents to deny the proposal for the mental-health campus. But the law is silent about the annexation process. The supersiting law does not nullify the annexation process, city planning staff told the council in their memo. So, the council should consider the fact that the proposed use violates the city’s land-use restrictions for the parcel, the staff said.
Will residents show up on May 18 to comment? PeaceHealth is “encouraging folks to show their support in whatever way they feel most comfortable. We will have some members of our leadership team there to testify,” says PeaceHealth spokesperson Jim Murez.
Ahead of the May 18 meeting, the council packet on the annexation request will be on the city’s website, Springfield-or.gov/city/city-council-meetings. Comments can be sent to Andy Limbird, city planner, at ALimbird@Springfield-or.gov, with the subject line File No. 811-26-000004-TYP4.
The county and PeaceHealth have worked on the project for years. PeaceHealth says it opted not to put the campus on its vacant land next to RiverBend because it has other plans for that property.
Bricks $ Mortar is a column anchored by Christian Wihtol, who worked as an editor and writer at The Register-Guard in Eugene 1990-2018, much of the time focused on real estate, economic development and business. Reach him at Christian@EugeneWeekly.com.
Related