HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/2012 Work SessionCity of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
TUESDAY. NOVEMBER 13. 2012
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday; November 13; 2012 at 530 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri (6:10 pm), VanGordon, Wylie, Moore,
Ralston and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy,
Citv Recorder Amv Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Historic Commission Interviews.
City Planner and Historic Commission staff liaison Molly Markarian presented the staff report on this
item. There was one vacancy on the seven- member Historic Commission. The recruitment for this
vacancy opened on September 11, 2012 and closed on October 15, 2012. Two candidates applied:
Kerry Barbero and Steve Morgan.
Municipal Code Section 2.502 stated that the qualifications for membership on the Historic
Commission include being appointees of Willamalane Park & Recreation District or Springfield
School District 919; or specialists with expertise in the fields of architecture, history, architectural
history, planning, or archeology who live within the Metropolitan Area General Plan boundaries; or
residents, electors, or property owners within Springfield. The School District and Willamalane
declined to appoint representatives to fill this vacancy.
State and Federal funding of the City's historic preservation activities stipulated that a majority of the
Commissioners have professional qualifications in a field related to historic preservation. Five
existing members possessed these qualifications. The applicants also met the qualifications and
standards set forth by the National Park Service regarding commissions.
The vacancy on the Commission was the result of the expiration of Commissioner Kerry Barbero's
first term. Springfield City Council Operating Procedures Section DC Subsection 3.7 stated that
vacancies on commissions shall be filled as needed throughout the year as vacancies occur.
Springfield Municipal Code Section 2.504 stated that appointed members shall hold office for four
years with the terms staggered to provide overlapping and continuity. The appointed candidate would
serve a four -year term beginning on the date of appointment by City Council, currently scheduled for
November 19, 2012.
Council chose the questions they would ask of each of the applicants. The following questions were
asked of Ms. Barbero:
1. Why are you interested in continuing to serve on the Commission? (Mayor Lundberg)
2. What are some examples of Historic Commission success that have occurred during your
tenure as a Commissioner? (Councilor Woodrow)
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 13, 2012
Page 2
3. What contributions have you made to the Commission during your tenure? (Councilor
V anGordon)
4. What specialty or skill do you possess that has especially benefitted the Commission?
(Councilor Moore)
5. What do you think the role of the Commission is? (Councilor Ralston)
6. What vision do you have for the future of the Commission? (Councilor Wylie)
Mayor Lundberg asked if Ms. Barbero had any questions of the Council.
Ms. Barbero said one priority of the Historic Commission was to update current Code to make it easier
for people to use and understand. She asked if there was different direction from the Council.
Mayor Lundberg said that was a lot of what the Council did and she thought it sounded like a great
idea.
The following questions were asked of Mr. Morgan:
1. Why are you interested in serving on the Historic Commission? (Mayor Lundberg)
2. Describe your professional and personal experience as it relates to your desire to become a
Historic Commissioner? (Councilor Woodrow)
3. What initiatives are you interested in working on if you are appointed as a Commissioner?
(Councilor VanGordon)
4. Describe your familiarity with the City's historic resources. (Councilor Moore)
5. What is it about Springfield's history that interests you most? (Councilor Ralston)
6. Have you attended a Historic Commission meeting? If so; what were your impressions?
(Councilor Wylie)
Mr. Morgan asked if the Commission did more than architectural work.
Mayor Lundberg said the primary purpose was to review historical structures.
The Council discussed the two applicants and their qualifications.
Council consensus was to re- appoint Ms. Barbero. They asked staff to encourage Mr. Morgan to look
at becoming involved in some other way, where his skills and energy could be utilized; perhaps the
Museum.
2. Springfield Transportation System Plan Update — Draft Goals. Policies and Action Items Review.
Transportation Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. The Transportation
System Plan (TSP) update would address long -ranee (20 -year) transportation needs for the City of
Springfield in part by implementing goals and policies. Existing goals, objectives and policies found in
TransPlan were used as a basis to begin the update. Staff also used Council and Planning Commission
input from previous work sessions; as well as input from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee,
Technical Advisory Committee, Project Core Team and the public to develop draft goals, policies and
action items.
The TSP update was intended to serve as a blueprint to guide future multi -modal transportation system
improvements and investment decisions for the City of Springfield. Mr. Reesor said he would be
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 13. 2012
Page 3
presenting the public comments received on this topic and responses from the Project Core Team.
Members of the Core Team included Len Goodwin, Tom Boyatt, Brian Barnett, Brian Conlon, Ron
Bittler, Greg Mott and himself. Responses from the Planning Commission were included in the agenda
packet, along with some proposed edits.
The attached draft goals and policies were formed and refined with the following input:
• Staff review and evaluation of existing TransPlan goals and policies
• September 21 ", 2010, Planning Commission Work Session — TransPlan goal and policy
prioritization exercise
• October 4th. 2010, Council Work Session - presented results of Planning Commission
prioritization exercise; discussed overview of goal and policy context and regional issues
• October 18'h. 2010, Council Work Session - discussed local values and issues
• December 1 ', 2010, Technical Advisory Committee meeting - presented and discussed draft
goals and policies
• January 27th, 2011, Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting - presented and discussed draft
goals and policies
• February 7°', 2011. Community Workshop - presented and discussed draft goals
• March 2nd; 2011, Project Core Team meeting - reviewed and commented on draft goals and
policies
• March 15th, 2011. Planning Commission — reviewed and commented on draft goals and
policies
• March 2011 —present — Draft goals and policies posted on project website
• April 4`h. 2012 —Public Open House— draft policies available for public comment
• April 16th. 2012 — Project Core Team meeting — reviewed comments to -date and discussed
staff responses
• May 1 st, 2012. Planning Commission — comments to -date and discussed staff responses
Mr. Reesor distributed copies of the policy showing the track changes. He noted the comments
provided by Lam' Reed from JRH Consulting and Philip Farrington from PeaceHealth. He reviewed
some of those comments. Some of the comments provided were addressed with changes in the policy,
while others were code revisions that would not be addressed in the TSP. He noted the proposed
changes from PeaceHealth under Policy 3.10 regarding intersection controls. The proposed language
was modified and included in the revisions made by staff to the policy. Another proposed change from
PeaceHealth was in regards to the Conceptual Street Map under Policy 3.1. Staff s hope was to adopt
the Conceptual Street Plan showing collector and arterial streets in the TSP. The local street network
would not be adopted in the TSP but would be shown on the map for general reference. It was
important to provide flexibility for local streets in each master plan and development.
Mr. Reeser asked if there were areas the Council wished to address.
Councilor Woodrow said she was pleased to see the responses from staff regarding Section 3.10 and
felt it put everyone on an equal footing.
Mayor Lundberg referred to Policy 2.6 "Develop a maximum parking requirement based on land uses.
The purpose of this action is to avoid the unnecessary use of lands for off - street parkinga for new
developments." The action suggested was not to delete but to "Consider adding an 'off - street policy
and /or revising this Action. Action item should include language to 'reduce parking to utilize land for
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 13, 2012
Page 4
economic development ... ". She asked if that would be changed. She didn't want to get to where they
only put in parking garages.
Mr. Reesor said staff was looking at revising what was in the policy by adding an off - street
component, as well as an on- street component, for parking requirements. There were different needs
for different types of parking. Generally, off - street parking couldn't accommodate every parking space
needed for land use, so their standards would be different. They would be separating out the two types
of parking.
Mayor Lundberg said she wanted to make sure it didn't make the policy limiting in regards to parking.
She noted the Glenwood Refinement Plan and discussions held regarding parking in that plan. She
didn't want to restrict, but to keep the policy broad enough to accommodate.
Mr. Reesor said as it was written now; it provided that flexibility. Development would have different
parking standards. Staff could look at that further.
Councilor Ralston said it sounded like if a major activity came that required a lot of parking, they
would need to make parking available.
Mayor Lundberg said she was mainly concerned that the policy would limit parking.
Mr. Reesor said the intent was to allow a development to look at other parking options such as shared,
leased or new off -street parking facilities and TDM (transportation demand management) programs.
TDM programs included things such as providing bus passes or bike parking. This policy was to help
supplement parking options. not be restrictive.
Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt said the policies and actions would be implemented by amending
the Springfield Development Code. The specifics would come back to Council for those types of
amendments.
Mayor Lundberg said there was a pattern of how much they wanted to limit transportation to auto -
oriented businesses. That was a policy choice, which was fine as long as they were clear about that.
She understood there were State policies that needed to be followed and she wanted to be clear that
was what they were doing. She noted Policy 3.2, action 2 which was to "provide bike lanes on
collector or arterials streets; provide parallel routes and bike boulevards on adjacent streets". That
sounded like what was done on Alder Street in Eugene.
Mr. Reesor said Alder Street was a cycle track. Generally, a bike boulevard was a regular street with
treatments making it more convenient for bicyclists. He described Alder Street and how it was set up.
It didn't prohibit vehicles, but was set up to make cyclists feel more comfortable.
Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett said bicycle boulevards were low- speed, low - vehicle roads intended to
be parallel to main busy streets. They tried to provide a safe and comfortable option for bicyclists.
Mayor Lundberg said she didn't mind the ideas related to that type of street, but wanted to get people
to use them. People would need to be educated in order to change their behavior.
Mr. Barnett said there were some people that weren't comfortable riding their bikes on Main Street
and this would provide a safer route.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 13, 2012
Page 5
Councilor Pishioneri said he felt this was a solution looking for a problem. There weren't a lot of
bicyclists on the road.
Mr. Reesor said he received comments and heard from members of the Bike and Ped Committee that
Main Street was viewed as an obstacle for cyclists and pedestrians. There was a lot of interest from
people wanting a safe route going east to west. There was a balance of providing facilities and having
people use them or waiting for the demand. Currently, Springfield didn't have any bike boulevards.
This was one example, but was not prescriptive in how they were built.
Councilor Moore asked about Policy 2.2 and through truck traffic and the recommendation from the
Planning Commission to better define residential streets. She noted that Marcola Road was identified
as a residential area yet she saw a lot of through truck traffic. She asked what could be done about the
through truck traffic.
Mr. Reesor said they felt they, needed to better define residential streets to provide clarity. Through
truck traffic was an issue and they tried to put in some policies and action items that addressed that
concern. There were some ways to encourage trucks to take different routes.
Mr. Barnett said Oregon law prohibited trucks using streets that were not a truck route unless they
were going directly to a destination to unload.
Councilor Moore said she understood the need of the truckers, but also of the residents. This was
another example of balancing the needs of different users. She appreciated that they would be better
defining residential streets.
Councilor Wylie said when her son moved in, he wanted to ride his bike to the University of Oregon
and bike for recreation, but found there were no suitable paths on most of the routes he would need to
take. if we had well laid out paths, there would probably be more people riding their bikes.
Mayor Lundberg said she agreed. Having connectivity was the key.
Councilor VanGordon referred to Policy 2 and compared it to Policy 1.1. Both talked about managing
the systems. one for efficiency and one for economics, but to him those were one in the same. When
talking about an economically efficient system; the action item should be driven to reduction of
mileage, reduction of congestion, and ability to move goods effectively through the system of the City.
From a policy direction, that needed to be balanced with the residential and bike needs. He would like
to see Policy 1.1 and Policy 2.2 moved into the same policy. Efficient operation of the system was part
of the freight and transit movement, and he would like to see additional actions related to that. An
efficient system addressed both economics and environmental needs. They needed to find a balance
between what needed to be done environmentally and economically.
Mr. Reesor explained how the policies were structured. There were four goals. Policy 1.2 was under
the goal of Community Development; which was fairly broad. Policy 2.2 was under the goal of
System Management. Staff struggled when shaping the policies because they did find some that
overlapped. They tried to organize them in a way that addressed the specific goals. Those could be
combined if Councilor VanGordon felt that would be more efficient.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 13, 2012
Page 6
Councilor VanGordon said that would lead into a policy direction that when they talked about
pedestrian and mass transit, they included truck traffic. Another section he wanted to address was the
second action item under Policy 3.9. The language in that action item felt awkward and difficult to
understand. The topic of high speed rail and working with partners was important, but it didn't seem
as action driven as other items.
Mr. Reesor asked if Councilor VanGordon was comfortable with staff trying to reword that to make it
more action driven.
Councilor VanGordon said they could possibly combine it with the first action item under that Policy.
He asked if the City was limiting ourselves to a downtown station with the wording.
Mr. Reesor said it referenced the Downtown District Urban Design Plan as that was recently put into
place and was possibly the most realistic location. He asked if he would be more comfortable with it
being broader.
Councilor Wylie said the Governors High Speed Rail Task Force, which she was part of, was
discussing that issue now. There were thoughts about high speed rail coming down the freeway,
possibly at Gateway, possibly in Eugene, possibly in Springfield downtown, or possibly at the
University of Oregon. It was all very open. We needed to make sure that broad concept was in the
policy and we had flexibility as planning went forward.
Mr. Reesor said staff would look at combining the action and making it broader.
Mayor Lundberg referred to Policy 3.8, Action 2 to coordinate with Springfield Public Schools to
provide key bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities, etc. Off to the side was a comment to consider an
action item for access to open space and parks. This went back to connectivity and the need to
emphasize connecting new and old amenities. She didn't want to have those areas isolated. We needed
to get those connected and include wayfinding.
Mayor Lundberg referred to the third action under that same Policy (3.8) regarding partnering with
Lane Transit District (LTD) to provide Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) connection. She would prefer the
wording was more generic such as `high efficiency mass transit'. As currently written, it was very
specific, but things could change.
Mayor Lundberg referred to Policy 4. 1, Action 4, "Provide financing incentives to new and existing
local businesses that discourage single occupancy auto trips'. She was not comfortable with that
action and did not understand how it could be done.
Mr. Reesor said this was not trying to be regulatory; but could offer some incentives such as a
reduction in SDCs. If a business discouraged single occupancy auto trips, it would be reducing the
amount of land needed for parking which allowed more developable land. This was more employee
based such as offices, not retail. That action item could be pulled if needed.
Mayor Lundberg said it was not worded in a way that was understandable.
Councilor Ralston said he would not support SDC incentives for that purpose
City, of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 13, 2012
Page 7
Councilor Pishioneri noted a study done by a State stakeholders group at the direction of Governor
Kitzhaber in 2001 about design guidelines for residential streets. He asked if staff was referring to that
study.
Mr. Reesor said he was not aware of that study.
Councilor Pishioneri said he would send the link to the study to Mr. Grimaldi. There was good
information about street design in that study that could be applicable. The study incorporated cities
such as Eugene and Bend and could be a good reference.
Mr. Reesor said he would like to review that study. He noted that he would be setting up another work
session after the first of the year. He was working with engineering and management staff on some
level of service or standards for the transportation system, and also on some transit policies.
3. Main and McVay Transit Feasibility Project Governance.
Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt presented the staff report on this item. Lane Transit District
(LTD) was awarded federal funds to prepare a transit services feasibility study for the Main Street and
McVay Highway corridors; the City was awarded state Transportation Growth Management (TGM)
funds to investigate a land use vision for the Main Street Corridor; Point2Point Solutions had `Smart
Trips Program' outreach to Main Street corridor businesses and residents funded for calendar year
2013; and, the Main Street Pedestrian Crossing Project funded by ODOT was currently underway.
Staff proposed a project oversight model to coordinate these projects so they were managed in a way
that was complimentary; consistent, and understandable to the community.
The City and LTD were committed to a fair and transparent process to analyze transit service options
in the McVay and Main Street corridors. Further, there were three related projects occurring in the
Main Street corridor (Smart Trips, Main Street Vision; Pedestrian Crossings). It was critical that all
four of these projects were coordinated and managed in a way that was understandable to the
community in terms of consistency and interrelationships.
Staff was proposing that project oversight occur through a three tiered system. First was a Project
Team made up of the project managers of the four Projects; and included the public involvement lead
for both the TGM and LTD projects, and a representative from the City's Economic Development
program. The Project Team's job was to coordinate and collaborate in pursuing the four identified
projects. Second was an Oversight Team made up of managers from the City, LTD and ODOT. The
Oversight Team provided a sounding board for project issues, either within one project or among one
or more of the projects, and may provide issues resolution and task direction. Third was the
Governance Team, made up of the Mayor, a City Councilor, the LTD Board Chair, and the LTD
Board member representing the Springfield area. The Governance Team would set overall project
direction, receive regular project updates, resolve issues as they may arise, and communicate project
activities back to the respective governing bodies. The Governance Team also included the LTD
general manager and City Manager as ea- officio members.
This project management proposal was intended to create a management and decision structure to
enhance the ability of several partner agencies to move related projects forward together in a
consistent and meaningful way.
Mayor Lundberg asked if there would be one or four stakeholder groups
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
November 13. 2012
PaQe 8
Mr. Boyatt said that had not been determined yet. They were getting closer to trying to have the same
public involvement firm working on all four projects. The public involvement people that were
helping City staff with the Transportation Growth Management Plan were the same people that were
on staff as consultants to Lane Transit District. They were hoping to use the same firm on the Franklin
NEPA process. They hadn't determined how many committees and who would serve on the
committees, but would like to have the same professionals working on all of the projects.
Councilor Wvlie said this was good idea in order to not duplicate and go at cross - purposes. Sometimes
it was easy, to get cross - purposes with multiple, exciting projects. She was only concerned that they
didn't gloss over one or more projects and lose the detail of each. To keep things straight, the
coordination was a good idea.
Mayor Lundberg said it was similar to the process used on the Beltline /1 -5 Project with a large
stakeholder committee and a decision making team with representatives from Springfield; Eugene,
Lane County, Federal Highways and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). That worked
well and thev had constant check -in points so Council was well aware of what was going on and could
provide feedback. It was difficult at times, but had a good result.
Council directed staff to go forward with the proposed project oversight and governance model
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m
Minutes Recorder —Amy Sowa
Js��[[[[
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
Amy Sow
City Recor er