HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/2013 Work SessionCity of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY; APRIL 15, 2013
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 15, 2013 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and
Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney Matthew Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Franklin NEPA (Project) Update.
Community Development Manager Toro Boyatt presented the staff report on this item. The City's
consultant, URS Corp., had completed Phase 1 work assessing the Franklin Blvd. concept in the
Glenwood Refinement Plan. URS recommended, and staff concurred, that Phase 2 work include
refined intersection design, realignment of the facility to match existing center line, and a detailed
environmental scan based on updated design and alignment. This information would be used to
prepare the Federal Prospectus seeking National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) classification
from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and FHWA (Federal Highway
Administration).
Council was provided with a Memorandum in last week's Communication Packet describing the
current status of the Franklin NEPA project. The Communication Packet Memo included a graphic of
the existing Franklin Corridor Envelope, and a white paper summarizing NEPA requirements and how
the project might best prepare for NEPA Classification. Included in the agenda packet for this work
session was a schematic of 175 feet of Right of way centered on the existing right of way (Attachment
4 of the agenda packet) for comparison purposes with the current Franklin Corridor Envelope,
recognizing that the final project footprint had not been set.
Staff proposed to work with URS to address the identified key issues in a Phase 2 work effort that
would result in a draft Federal Prospectus ready to be submitted to ODOT and FHWA. ODOT and
FHWA would review, the Prospectus and use this document to classify the project for NEPA purposes.
While it was likely the project would be classified as an Environmental Assessment (EA), staff
believed it made sense to work with URS to refine level of design, alignment and EmX treatment to
determine if it was possible to seek a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under NEPA. The work being
contemplated in Phase 2 would be used in either an EA or CE process.
The NEPA project was funded by a total of $1.2 million in federal Surface Transportation Program —
Urban (STP -U), Urban Renewal District. City Transportation SDC, and LTD funds.
Tonight's discussion would be regarding status with the NEPA process and next steps. This was an
important point in the project. This was a very complicated subject so Council asking questions
throughout the presentation could be beneficial. Although this was a decision point for NEPA
purposes, staff was not asking for approval the formal design. When the NEPA analysis was done,
some level of design would be needed to analyze. Staff was recommending analyzing a larger area
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 15, 2013
Page 2
than was needed in order to ensure full analysis was done as they went through the project. The City
was working towards getting a Federal Prospectus approved by the FHWA that identified the NEPA
classification. This included getting a level of design and locating the alignment in the correct place.
Public involvement would still be included in this process whether the City received a CE or an EA.
Staff would continue to work on the project footprint and the impacts, although they understood this
was not the final design. This was a visionary project that would impact Springfield and Glenwood
and its relationship with downtown for years to come. When looking at the right -of -way that may be
needed, developers currently interested in redevelopment in Glenwood were open to adjustments.
Staff was also aware and sensitive to current businesses and was looking at a phased process to allow
development of the boulevard in tandem with land redevelopment which would allow access to remain
for existing businesses.
Mayor Lundberg said the lines were pretty significant in terms of impact. She asked about the
centerline.
Mr. Boyatt said there were two maps in the agenda packet — one showed the centered line and one was
from the Glenwood Refinement Plan, which showed more of the alignment moved to the south side.
The mid -point of the future project was aligned to the center line today, but that was not how it was
approached in the Glenwood Refinement Plan. Staff had recently learned from the NEPA experts that
if the City put all of the impacts on one side of the street, it could set up the possibility for a
disproportional impact claim under NEPA. Based on that information, staff centered the line which
could actually lead to fewer impacts to buildings overall. The centerline was one piece. The other two
pieces were corridor -wide mobility and the treatment of EmX between the two sides of the corridor.
Mayor Lundberg said they wanted to preserve as much land on the north side as possible. She asked if
the reason staff had centered the line was in an attempt not to fail a NEPA, rather than how we actually
wanted to plan the area.
Mr. Boyatt said in the risk analysis, the disproportional impacts case that could be made was risky
enough to center the future project on the center of the existing facility. One key reason NEPA came
into being was to keep large public projects from disproportionately impacting one particular group.
Staffs recommendation was to avoid that issue.
Councilor Ralston said in looking at the maps, centering the line would now impact both sides. There
was no partial impact, it was all total impact. It didn't make sense to even it up on both sides.
Mr. Boyatt said the width shown was 175 feet for NEPA analysis, but some areas would be as much as
25 feet less. The buildings were highlighted to show every possible affect.
Councilor Ralston asked if they were talking about two different plans, one east of Henderson and one
west of Henderson.
Mr. Bovatt said there were actually three different widths from the concept project in 2008. The 2008
study recommended deploying the access lanes over two to three blocks rather than throughout the
corridor. The parking could be different on both sides of the street. There were no access lanes
proposed west of Henderson. In the original concept, there were access lanes on both sides of the street
between Henderson and Mississippi Streets: and access lanes on the north with arterial lanes on the
south between Glenwood Boulevard and Mississippi Street. Providing too much of an access lane
environment would be difficult to market development. They tried to be mindful about having most of
the access on the north side of the street. There would potentially be a different type of development
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 15, 2013
Page 3
on the north side. As they went through design, they would look at how to avoid as much impact as
possible. Staff felt they could time access lane construction with land redevelopment so the viable
businesses currently in place could continue to exist until the landowner assembled property to start
fresh with redevelopment.
Councilor Brew asked if they had done a cost comparison of purchasing right -of -way on one side;
compared to both sides.
Mr. Boyatt said they had not gotten to that point in the process. The key design approach was to miss
as much as possible without sacrificing the value of the project.
Community Development Manager John Tamulonis said there wasn't a higher or lower value on either
side at this point_ Staff had been talking with property owners in the area and some had made
adjustments to their property now in order to lessen the impacts in the future. He provided several
examples. The businesses understood the possible changes. There would be impacts on both sides
considering the width of the road now and the width of any future design.
Councilor Brew said it would seem the north side had a higher value due to the plans for
redevelopment on that side.
Mr. Tamulonis noted the value of properties and how owners viewed the value of their properties.
Currently, many of the properties were not annexed and did not have adequate infrastructure ready.
There was a higher value on the riverfront side, but they needed to accommodate development on both
sides to make it a viable place to build.
Mr. Boyatt said both sides of Franklin Boulevard would be valuable as demand grew. It was true that
property closer to the river would be more valuable.
Mr. Tamulonis said staff had more discussions with property owners on the north side regarding
development than the south side.
Mayor Lundberg said one of the goals was to avoid a full NEPA study. She asked how that could be
when all properties were impacted. She understood how the process worked and why a larger area
was studied than was needed. There were many options to get what they wanted in the space they had
available.
Mr. Boyatt said staff would like to get the CE. There had been movement on the federal side,
especially in Map 21, the Federal Reauthorization Bill, to try to streamline NEPA and get projects
going that weren't having a significant impact. Staff would like to give it a try. The purpose of Phase 2
was to do enough design to talk to them about the CE. Staff felt it was a good idea to invest on the
front end and see if the FHWA and ODOT could be convinced to give the City a CE. According to
Map 21, when redeveloping within existing right -of -way, it shall be a CE regardless of noise or traffic
impacts. They were balancing doing an easier NEPA process with making sure we had the right
facilities to leverage Glenwood redevelopment and into Downtown. Staff felt the quality of the facility
was more important to the community than whether we got the easier or more difficult NEPA track.
Ms. Krueger said any work being done was not wasted and could be used with either track.
Mayor Lundberg asked if funds saved by not having to go through a full ATEPA process could be used
elsewhere.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 15, 2013
Page 4
Mr. Boyatt said yes if everyone in the Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC) approved because
most were STIP -U funds through the MPC. In the past the other jurisdictions (of the MPC) hadn't
questioned each other's use of funds.
Councilor Moore referred to page 8 of Attachment 3 and asked about the bus access only lanes going
into the roundabout. It looked like that would create a lot of impact. She asked if those extra lanes
would be on all four roundabouts.
Ms. Krueger said staff was working with Lane Transit District (LTD) on the actual locations of the
stations. There wouldn't be a station at each roundabout, but perhaps two or three. They hadn't yet
identified those locations. The City was looking to have EntX in mixed traffic throughout the corridor
because the roundabouts took care of the capacity similar to Pioneer Parkway. Often, the radius at the
entrance of the roundabout went far to the left.and then came in, leaving quite a bit of unused area.
That would likely be the location for a bus stop. In the drawing, there was a bypass lane so one EmX
vehicle could be stopper] and another EmX vehicle could go around it. They did not need to do it that
way, but that was a possibility. Staff would be working with the roundabout expert, Scott Ritchie. This
type of roundabout was currently being built in Arizona.
Councilor Moore said it sounded like it wouldn't have much more impact than a normal intersection.
That was correct. It was similar to people entering the Pioneer Parkway roundabout from Wayside
Loop.
Councilor Woodrow asked what kind of consideration for pedestrian crossings were included in the
NEPA process.
Ms. Krueger said NEPA didn't analyze roundabouts or signals, but rather the impact of the outside
lines on properties and businesses. Staff was taking this swatch to look at environmentally, but would
not be taking as much as shown in the initial drawing.
Councilor Woodrow said she was concerned about pedestrian crossings and first responders going
through roundabouts. In looking at this corridor, they were looking for ease of traffic, but also an
environment that encouraged bikes and pedestrians. The mix was interesting and she asked if that was
in this process.
Ms. Krueger said the bike and pedestrian element was extremely important to staff. They were
working very closely with the roundabout consultant to make sure the pedestrian crossings, whether
mid -block or at the roundabouts, were a high priority.
Councilor Woodrow said they were balancing attraction on both sides of Franklin and access to
transportation, so they needed to have pedestrian crossing as a high priority.
Mr. Boyatt said standard intersections could have up to 7 lanes to cross. Those were sometimes
divided into two crossing sections. The key with roundabouts was that EmX didn't have to be in a
designated lane for at least twenty years. Staffs recommendation was to preserve the right -of -way for
whatever use was needed in the future.
Ms. Krueger said pedestrians were exposed to traffic less with a roundabout than with a signaled
intersection. With a signaled intersection, there would be numerous lanes of traffic to cross, while in a
roundabout, there would only be two lanes to cross at a time.
City of Springfield '
Council Work Session Minutes
April 15, 2013
Page 5
Councilor Woodrow said two lanes in a roundabout could be as scary as multiple lanes at a signaled
crossing. It was important to consider pedestrian crossing when designing the roundabout, and should
be a major part of the design.
Ms. Krueger said a lot had been learned from the Hayden Bridge/Pioneer Parkway roundabout. There
were things that could be done and ways to slow down traffic even more. Each roundabout had to be
looked at individually as they each would have different solutions.
Councilor Moore noted that the crosswalks were farther back from the roundabout in the proposal
which looked better.
Ms. Krueger said one of the good things about having four roundabouts closer together was that it kept
traffic at a slower speed.
Mr. Boyatt said although the speed was slower, the mobility was higher.
Councilor Moore said while travelling in England they experienced many roundabouts. They found
that they did slow down the traffic, but were also very efficient in moving traffic.
Mr. Boyatt said they were having better driver response with the pedestrian flashing lights at the
Hayden Bridge /Pioneer Parkway roundabout.
Councilor Brew said in Ireland roundabouts outnumbered signaled intersections at least 5 to 1. They
were all shared with vehicles, bikes and pedestrians. He did note that they did not have a lot of
landscaping in the center, providing better visibility for pedestrians to see the cars coming into the
roundabout. He understood that some landscaping did provide site protection for oncoming traffic, but
was a hindrance for pedestrians.
Mayor Lundberg said it was a learning process especially for bike and pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Boyatt said there were high speed facilities on either side of the Hayden Bridge /Pioneer Parkway
roundabout which did make it more difficult. There would be slower speeds on the Franklin Boulevard
corridor which would make a better blend for bikes, pedestrians, cars and trucks. The more vehicles
there were in the roundabout at any given time and the more pedestrians that were crossing, caused
traffic to slow down, making it safer. Behaviors changed over time as facilities changed. It did take
time for people to adjust. The number of vehicles and pedestrians would be increasing, so staff would
look at that in the design process. The City had received a lot of feedback from the Hayden
Bridge/Pioneer Parkway roundabout so it was continually evolving.
Councilor Ralston said as a driver he didn't want to slow down through that area. Slowing it down too
much would cause issues.
Mr. Boyatt said he agreed. The travel speed would be slower, but traffic could get through there faster.
Councilor Moore asked about crossing in other places.
Ms. Krueger said staff had not started that process,, but would bring it to Council when they got to that
point. The Phase 2 scope was currently in the review process. Once that was determined, they would
begin sketching things out such as the roundabout and crossing locations.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 15, 2013
Page 6
Councilor Moore said they had heard from citizens that anything would help regarding crossing
Franklin Boulevard.
Mr. Boyatt said they were scoping Phase 2. The direction they were headed was to look at roundabout
intersections, EmX stationing at roundabouts and shifting the alignment to the center. Assuming they
went forward with Phase 2 and before submitting to the FHWA, staff would come back with what they
had sketched to get Council input.
Mayor Lundberg asked if they would look at the actual widths after the NEPA process.
Ms. Krueger said staff would first sketch the cross section which would show the detail of the widths.
the roundabout impacts and the stations. Then staff would come back to Council before going to the
FHWA asking for the classification.
Mr. Boyatt said following the classification; the public process would be started.
Councilor Brew said it sounded like they would be going to the FHWA with a larger area
understanding the final area would be smaller at some locations.
Ms. Krueger said it was a lot less costly to analyze the larger swatch and then design the preferred area
within that envelope rather than not analyzing enough area and having to go back through the full
NEPA process for those areas.
Mayor Lundberg said Council was fine with them going forward. This would be the corridor that was
the key to the entire urban area and was a model for what they hoped for in this area.
Mr. Boyatt said they were blessed with an environment that wanted to reinvest and remake itself.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m.
Minutes Recorder — Amy Sowa
KZ
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
Amy Sowa
City Recorder