Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Eugene weekly. (Eugene, Oregon) 1993-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 22, 2026)
Bricks $ Mortar BY CHRISTIAN WIHTOL ABOVE FROM LEFT: DAN GIUSTINA, LANE COUNTY COMMISSIONER DAVID LOVEALL AND KELLY RICHARDSON OPPOSE THE COUNTY'S BEHAVIORAL-HEALTH SITE CHOICE; BELOW, FROM LEFT: LANE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PAT FARR, RYAN CENIGA, LAURIE TRIEGER AND HEATHER BUCH SUPPORT IT. Photo illustration by McKenzie Young-Roy Photos courtesy of Lane County, University of Oregon, Oregon Business and Industry zone’s restrictions and appeals processes on that 18-acre parcel. The county’s lobbyists narrowly crafted the law specifically for that site to sidestep NIMBY opponents. Without the super-siting law, the county and Peace- Health would have to persuade the Springfield City Council to rewrite its “campus-industrial” zoning rules, a complex and slow process with no sure outcome. More crucially, if not for super-siting, Giustina and Richardson could contest any rezoning the council passed, tying up the project for years in Oregon’s land-use appeals system. But the businessmen, in their lawsuit, complain that the county never warned them it was quietly working to strip them of those rights. Their long-shot lawsuit aims to nullify the super-siting law. And so, a dramatic mental-health-care expansion, a cause for celebration, has become mired in a sticky land- use dispute. The dispute is also about stealth. Without its new super-siting power, the county might be dead in the water on this vital project. Yet almost all the maneuvering that gave the county that power took place behind the scenes, with virtually no public awareness or discussion. The five-member Board of Commissioners never discussed or voted in public session to pursue super-sit- ing legislation. Commissioner Laurie Trieger, a big advo- cate of the health project, tells Eugene Weekly she cannot recall who in early 2025 came up with the idea of getting a super-siting law for the county project. The concept may have emerged in closed-door meetings of county staff and a couple of commissioners — herself and Commissioner Pat Farr — or in discussions between county staff and legislative staff in Salem, she says. “We have an obligation to do everything we can to accelerate this process to get this facility built. That’s why we did this,” Trieger says. As for the county not alerting Giustina and Richard- son to its intentions, Trieger responds: “I can’t and won’t comment on that,” because of the pending lawsuit. Meanwhile, what does the Springfield City Council think about the new law? Councilors won’t comment. The coun- cil never publicly discussed the issue as the super-siting language was being worked on in the 2025 Legislature — even though the bill would override “campus-industrial” zoning rules the council itself had put in place, and even though the city’s lobbyists and lawyers privately haggled for months with the county about super-siting language. A SPRAWLING FIGHT SUPER-SITING SURPRISE Lane County’s stealth in getting new state law angers neighbors of planned behavioral health center B ehavioral health advocates rejoiced when Lane County and PeaceHealth, 15 months ago, declared they would build a joint 126-bed center on International Way in Springfield’s Gateway area. The facility would sharply expand the metro area’s mental-care safety net, with 24-hour-a-day temporary emergency beds and recliners for youth and adults, and long-term secure inpatient beds for people with severe disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. But two prominent local businessmen, real estate investor Dan Giustina and sports-products executive Kelly Richardson, did not cheer. Richardson’s 400-employee factory sits next to the proposed site and Giustina owns three industrial/commercial buildings plus vacant land 6 January 22, 2026 abutting or near the site. And others were puzzled by the county’s and PeaceHealth’s site choice. Why? Because Springfield’s zoning code clearly does not allow such a facility on the 18 acres that the county and PeaceHealth picked. The code zones the land “campus-in- dustrial.” It’s reserved for manufacturing and other similar facilities that create jobs and boost the city’s economy, the code says. And so began Lane County government’s unprece- dented, tortuous and often secret drive to muscle aside Springfield’s zoning restrictions, and clear the way for the urgently needed facility. At the same time, Giustina and Richardson lobbied the city of Springfield and the county, stressing that the city’s campus-industrial zoning prohibited overnight health care beds, a rule that effectively barred the county/Peace- Health facility. Their opposition to that site peaked three months ago when they filed an unusual lawsuit against the county, PeaceHealth and the state. A key turning point in the long struggle occurred last June. That’s when the county quietly secured a law from the Oregon Legislature — a “super-siting” law — that lets the county override Springfield’s “campus-industrial” What’s clear from interviews and public records is this: The county’s and PeaceHealth’s push for the big behavioral health center on that specific International Way parcel has sparked a complex power struggle. It’s pulled in county commissioners and staff, Spring- field city councilors and staff, PeaceHealth officials and Giustina and Richardson. The two executives argue that the site the county picked should be preserved for industrial development, and that neighbors’ local land-use appeal rights should not be trampled. They’re uneasy about the planned facility’s clientele, saying it might include overnight RV campers. The project has split the county board 4-1, with Commis- sioner David Loveall, who represents Springfield, the “no” vote. In October 2024, he voted for proceeding with the project at the International Way site. But in July 2025 he switched and voted against the county finalizing purchase of the site. The county “overstepped a little bit” in getting the super-siting law, and has antagonized Springfield councilors and residents, he told county staff and other commissioners. He also complained that the county needs to do more to address the facility’s traffic impacts and to prevent camping at the site. Eugene Weekly asked Loveall for an interview on the topic. In a brief reply email, Loveall says he has “angst… towards the county for what they did to my fair city.” “I will never stand by and witness malicious wrongs against anyone. … I was elected to stand up for all citi- zens’ rights EQUALLY,” he wrote, in an apparent allusion to the county’s treatment of Giustina and Richardson. During a July 2025 commissioner board work session, support.eugeneweekly.com
