Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/22/2013 Work SessionCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JULY 22, 2013 The City of Springfield Council met in ajoint work session with the Lane County Board of Commissioners in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 5:36 p.m., with Mayor Lindberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present from the Springfield City Council were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Present from the Lane County Board of Commissioners were Board Chair Leiken and Board Members Stewart, Sorenson, Bozievich and Farr. Staff present from the City of Springfield were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, Principal Planner Linda Pauly, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith and City Recorder Amy Sowa. Staff present from Lane County were Planning Director Matt Laird and Associate Planner Mark Rust. 1. Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan (SRP) Update and Proposed Expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to Address a Portion of Springfield's 20 -Year Employment Land Needs, and to Add Publicly -Owned Land for Parks, Open Space and Public Facilities. (Metro Plan Amendment File No. LRP 2009 - 00014) Mayor Lundberg welcomed the Lane County Board of Commissioners and thanked them for taking the time to attend. She said Ms. Pauly would be presenting in segments with breaks for questions. Principal Planner Linda Pauly presented this item. Ms. Pauly said this was a look 20 years into the future. She asked the elected officials to project themselves to the year 2030 and to imagine how and where Springfield would be growing and changing over the next twenty years. She noted some of the possibilities for job growth in Springfield over the next 20 years. To determine the types ofjobs Springfield could have in the next 20 years, Oregon Administrative Rules required the City do an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) with specific criteria. During the EOA, they looked at local, regional and national economic trends. She referred to the Springfield 2030 Growth Concept map staff had created showing areas of the City they felt would see the most job additions within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and in potential growth areas outside the UGB. In 2008/2009 ECONorthwest worked for the City and went through a public process with citizens and a Coinmercial /Industrial Buildable Lands (CIBL) stakeholder group. The assumptions that went into the analysis were thoroughly vetted through many different people, including the Planning Commission and City Council. Currently, the City had about 1.6 people perjob. Using the projection of 1.4% growth rate, the outcome would be 1.5 people perjob which meant 13,440 new jobs. The City's current UGB was 14,603 acres of land, less than 28% of which was designated for jobs (3,415 acres) in the Metro Plan. Of that 28 %, uses included industrial, commercial and mixed use. Not all of mixed -use designated areas would become commercial and industrial development because residential City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 2 was allowed. The EOA assumed Springfield's employment would increase in all sectors, but projected a slightly different mix of growth. The highest increase projected was in `other services' which included medical services. They were also expecting an uptake in office employment. Each type of use had typical amounts of space and buildings needed for those uses. Ms. Pauly referred to a chart showing land that was already developed, built and committed, vacant land and potentially redevelopable land. Of that land, they looked at how much was unconstrained. For the study, they assumed wetlands, slopes greater than 15 %, and riparian resource areas were absolute constraints and not included as developable. She referred to a list of targeted industries and noted that the Council and Commissioners would receive this and all other information well before the November public hearing. Springfield was lacking in large industrial sites and in order to diversify our economy, it would be beneficial to have some large sites available. Additional information would be added to the record about the need for large sites. The City's assumptions and employment projections did not take into account a major employer coming into our area. Currently, the City had few tax lots 20 acres or larger with redevelopment potential in the UGB. She noted that some redevelopment added jobs while others did not. Those that did not addjobs were not considered redevelopment for the purpose of this study. Staff also assumed many jobs would be accommodated in land not designated for employment purposes such as home -based businesses, so this type of employment was deducted from the land need. She noted the number of industrial sites and commercial /mixed -use sites within the existing UGB that were considered redevelopable. All of our site needs under 5 acres would be met through land already in the UGB. More than half of new employment would not need new vacant land, but Springfield would need employment land with characteristics. i.e. large sites not currently within the UGB. Review was also made on how the jobs would be distributed throughout our land supply, how many tax lots were available in different sizes, and other detailed information included in the EOA. There was a need for some sites so they looked at ways to bring those sites into the UGB. Today they were making a staff recommendation. The bottom line was that Springfield needed a diversity of suitable employment sites. Councilor Moore asked about how many 20 acre sites were currently within the UGB. Ms. Pauly said she didn't have the exact figure, but probablyjust a couple. Commissioner Stewart asked about how many people were working from home. Ms. Pauly said staff was projecting about 1918 in new employment that would be at sites not zoned commercial /industrial. Commissioner Leiken said the median income for Lane County and Springfield was about $36,000 /year. The median income in Washington County was about $54,000 and Hillsboro over $100,000. Hillsboro had quite a few sites available for companies to come in to develop. Ms. Pauly said that was correct. Hillsboro was designated as the metro employment center Commissioner Leiken said he believed Envision Eugene also had a component that looked for the employment expansion. Our area was the second largest metropolitan service area (MSA) in Oregon and we didn't have a lot to show for it in terms of marketing of sites. 20 acre sites were nice, but many manufacturing companies were looking for even larger sites. When people thought of manufacturing, they thought of manufacturing like it used to be done. Today's manufacturing was very high tech, clean and paid well. He wanted to look not only at the sites, but how we could put City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 3 ourselves in a good position to market to those companies. We had a good research university here and also 45 minutes up the highway, plus a good community college system. Councilor Brew said manufacturing years ago employed more people per acre than it did today because of the technology. He asked if ECONorthwest had taken that into account in their study. Ms. Pauly said that had been factored into the study. In looking at the growth percentage, they saw that growth in warehouse and distribution, as well as manufacturing, would be a lesser percentage. Mayor Lundberg asked if they could get a breakdown of that information from the report. Commissioner Farr said Envision Eugene was a very public process and came under specific needs. He asked what public process had been used to this point. Ms. Pauly said the City had conducted a multi -year public involvement process, including the CIBL stakeholder committee which met often and worked with the consultant. There were two public workshops, an online survey, numerous open houses and public meetings discussing growth and potential land use efficiency measures. Commissioner Farr asked if they felt they had included diverse opinions. Ms. Pauly discussed some of the different participants from different interest groups. There was also a technical advisory committee that included service providers. Public hearings had been held before the Planning Commission and City Council on the EOA in late 2009 and early 2010. A lot of testimony came from those public hearings. Councilor Moore said the City also did a residential lands study prior to the Commercial Industrial Buildable Land study and determined more land was not needed for residential. This process had been going on for years and had included many people. It was very good. Ms. Pauly said in looking at where to grow the City, it was important to think about why people were here in the first place. People loved our parks, natural resources, rivers, recreation facilities, culture and arts and events. She mentioned studies that showed a significant connection between city residents' levels of emotional attachment to their community and economic growth. When looking at that for employment, they looked at which potential UGB expansion sites would grow the community in ways that would take advantage of our assets and advantages. The proposal was to add 634 acres of suitable employment land. Staff put together a proposal to expand the UGB north in the North Gateway Area (just the southern portion of the study area), the South 28 °i Mill Race area, and the Mahogany /South Jasper area. The other two sites that were studied, but staff recommended setting aside for now, were the Seavey Loop and the North Springfield Hwy 126 area. The acreage in the three recommended sites was about 634 suitable acres. The total number of acres needed to get 634 suitable acres was 704 acres. The proposal from staff would include designating the new areas in the Metro Plan as Urban Holding Area — Employment. That meant those lands would not be immediately available for development or annexation, but would have to go through more planning activities before they could be designated for employment. Staff was also proposing adding approximately 379 acres of public land and open space, most of which was located along the Middle Fork River which was currently in public ownership. Willamalane had requested that their parks be added to the UGB. Ms. Pauly explained the process in looking at the study areas. Staff first looked at everything three miles outside Springfield's current UGB. Goal 14 required the City to look at areas that were already City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 4 zoned for development first to determine if they met our needs and had suitable lands for employment. She described the properties in those areas. None of them met the City's needs or were suitable lands. Many were out too far from the City limits to make them feasible for future annexation. Staff then went through soil classifications to determine lands with the best soil that should remain for agricultural purposes. She discussed the definition of suitable land. It meant the land was serviceable, meaning engineering feasibility, and that the site had appropriate site characteristics for the proposed use. It also meant land without development constraints which included wetlands, floodway, slopes over 15% and riparian resource area. She did note that flood plain was not assumed utbuildable. Springfield currently had quite a bit of land in the floodplain that was developed and if that constraint was applied, the City would have a much larger land need. Staff reviewed all levels of constraints to determine where the best sites might be located. The other site characteristics being looked for were sites 20 acres or larger and lands that were not committed to public uses and facilities. They took into consideration that lands zoned for rural residential use with existing dwellings could not be combined to create 20 acre sites and would not be suitable. Similarly lots with pre- existing commercial or industrial uses could not be combined and would not be suitable. She referred to maps showing parcel size and lands that could possibly be suitable for the needs based on the OEA. Ms. Pauly reviewed the process and the meetings with the Lane County and City of Springfield Planning Commissions. The Planning Commissions looked at several concepts for expanding the UGB and conducted hearings. Quite a bit of testimony was received and certain themes were repeated, such as; avoid flood plains when possible, avoid farmland and protect water resource areas. Unfortunately, they were unable to avoid all of those concerns when looking at bringing large sites into Springfield. Other comments included expanding to the rivers and reserving large sites. After receiving the comments and information, staff took another look to see if there were things they might have missed. They did another layer of the alternatives analysis and applied the goal and rules step by step. From all of that, staff came up with five study areas. A second look was taken of the flood plain because of the number of comments during the public hearing, and because of new regulations that may be coming regarding flood plain development. Staff went to Salem and participated in meetings with the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to learn more about how new regulations could affect development in Springfield. After looking at those things, staff came up with a more balanced approach for expanding the UGB that would provide less risk and equal opportunity. The Mahogany Lane area was found to have the least amount of flood plain within that site. Staff also considered industrial readiness factors. Staff met with the Economic Development Specialist with the DLCD and someone from the Division of State Lands to discuss development in flood plains. They were told that flood plain sites were a higher risk for developers and there were some industries that would not develop in the flood plain, while others might. All of those factors were considered in staffs decision to recommend which sites to include in the proposed expansion. Other outreach for these study areas included a focus stakeholder outreach with letters sent to all property owners within the lands identified as suitable and several neighborhood meetings. Staff had also received emails and phone calls from the public about the properties. Through this process, staff had learned a lot and hoped to learn much more as they moved into the next phase. After studying all five study areas, staff reduced the study areas to three in order to keep the amount of acreage within 640 acres. She noted the reasons and constraints of the two sites staff was recommending be set aside. Seavey Loop was parcelized and already developed. Staff felt there were not enough suitable sites to justify the cost of extending infrastructure to that area. This area also had the highest cost per suitable acre to develop. She referred to a chart showing the lots in that area and how they were zoned and being used. Whatever land was brought into the UGB would need to be planned and zoned, so that was another consideration. Another consideration was the large number of City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 5 acres that had hydric soils which indicated presence of wetlands and may reduce suitable developable areas. There was only one site over 20 acres in this study area. it could be combined with two other single owner parcels to create one 50 acre site, but of those 50 acres 29 acres had hydric soils. The area was a thriving agricultural community, with some existing businesses and rural residential. An advantage of this site was the proximity to 1 -5. The other area staff was recommending be set aside was the North Springfield Highway 126 study area. This area had viable agricultural uses currently in place and there were plans to continue with that use. The entire area was under water during the 1996 flood, which was assumed to be a 30 year flood event. This area had large parcels and easy access to Highway 126. Another factor considered was the McKenzie River /Cedar Creek habitat. She showed restoration and flood control proposals from the Metro Waterways. A lot of study had been done regarding restoration of Cedar Creek in that area. She referred to the Blue Water ponds area within this site currently within the UGB. Another parcel was owned by Weyerhaeuser, who had not contacted staff about this study. Ms. Pauly spoke regarding the three sites staff was recommending: North Gateway, South Millrace; and Mahogany /South Jasper. She noted the number of acres in each and that these three sites could add 8 large sites (20+ suitable acres) to Springfield's long term land supply. Staff felt it was important to balance growth geographically throughout Springfield. The North Gateway site had good 1 -5 visibility, expanded an existing employment center and had the EmX system nearby. The reason staff proposed only bringing in half of this area was to reduce the amount of land in the flood plain and retain the higher value agricultural soils. This area also had some access issues and would need a creative transportation solution and interconnected street network. It would also need a flood plain analysis. The Mahogany /South Jasper area included large, flat sites under single ownership, included sites not in the flood plain, was close to city limits and existing development, had natural beauty, infrastructure was available, and limited urbanization in the flood plain. Two Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) lines bisected this area. The Jasper Natron area currently in the City's UGB had planning in the works, which could be continued into this area. The South Mill Race /South 28`x' area provided the potential to improve an existing industrial area and offered an opportunity to improve access connecting parks and open space. It was an existing industrial area with the railroad nearby and included drinking water source sites. All three areas had drinking water source areas so any new development would need to be very clean and green to meet the requirements in those areas. Ms. Pauly said the elected officials would receive draft plan policies prior to the public hearing. These policies would include more detail about Springfield's growth and how our goals and policies were linked to the Regional Economic Prosperity Plan. Next steps included public notice, an open house and a public hearing in the Fall. Councilor Woodrow asked the Lane County Commissioners if they felt there was a benefit in having continuity of Goshen if Seavey Loop were included in Springfield's UGB expansion. Mark Rust, Associate Planner Lane County Land Management, referred to a chart in the presentation about cost to provide sewer to each site. It could be less costly for Springfield to extend sewer to that area on their own if the County was already looking at opportunities and exploring ideas about how to serve Goshen. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 6 Commissioner Stewart felt it might deter the work in Goshen from a transportation standpoint. 30`h Avenue currently exceeded acceptable traffic patterns and addition of this property would create competing transportation needs. The County hoped to provide assurance to the industrial businesses that might develop in Goshen that properties surrounding them would not change because it was currently surrounded by a lot of resource land. If development moved in that direction over time, there could be conflicts with development and other types of uses. He didn't feel it would be beneficial to Goshen to add Seavey Loop to Springfield's UGB. Commissioner Leiken confirmed that expanding Springfield's UGB was legal. He asked if the State of Washington, Utah, Nevada and other states had the same kind of land use system Oregon had. No. He noted that could affect us in terms of competition in marketing. Commissioner Stewart referred to the lawsuit regarding floodplain and endangered species in Washington that staff had been working with DLCD to understand and discuss impacts to Oregon. It was his understanding that something would be proposed for much further setbacks. He asked how that could impact the study sites. City Engineer Ken Vogeney said he had been participating in the working group at DLCD that had been looking at how the changes in regulations could be implemented. Everything was speculation at this time. Currently the National Flood Insurance Program was challenged in Oregon for not being adequately protective of some species. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had made a proposal to the National Marine and Fishery Service (NMFS) on how to change the program in Oregon, but a response from NMFS had not yet been received. That response would let the federal government know how to direct the State who would in turn direct local jurisdictions how to implement the Flood Insurance Program. Part of the proposal would include things like prohibiting development in floodways, establishing larger riparian setbacks, restricting or limiting development in flood plains that could have an impact on habitat. The regulation changes would occur statewide. They were continuing to monitor the situation. Commissioner Stewart said it was his understanding there would be changes. The question was whether or not we wanted to accept the changes that came from the State or look at things in the processes we would like to change now to lessen the impacts. It could be beneficial to see if there were thing that could be incorporated in our processes in our own plan that would meet the needs. Mr. Vogeney said the proposal FEMA made to the State of Oregon started with the changes that were approved in the State of Washington, with some minor changes to fit Oregon's legal structure. There had also been conversations in Washington that cities and counties not adopting those rules fast enough could result in additional lawsuits. This would be a multi -year shift in the National Flood Insurance Program. Commissioner Leiken asked if it could be appealed if a property owner didn't want to continue farming land that was identified as prime farmland. Ms. Pauly said she couldn't answer that question. Staff was requesting property owner input to gauge the likelihood of the suitable sites becoming available for development within 20 years. If the use and zoning was to be changed, staff would need to make findings taking everything into consideration. Councilor Brew said he was big proponent of the North Highway 126 site because it had freeway access, sewer and infrastructure in place. He referred to page 7 of Attachment 3 which listed nearly City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 7 100 suitable acres outside the flood plain. He didn't understand how it could have been under water, but was not considered in the flood plain. Ms. Pauly said although the area was not listed in the flood plain, it had been under water. This showed how out of date the flood maps were. Councilor Brew asked if there were similar photos of the other study sites. Ms. Pauly said they had not received similar photos at this time. Her understanding was that the McKenzie River had more flooding issues than the Willamette River. Commissioner Bozievich said the 1996 flood stopped where the 100 year line was located. It may have been a 30 year rainfall event, but other factors contributed to the flood. He referred to the question regarding Seavey Loop and Goshen. Goshen as a significant regional industrial site stood on its own because of its access to rail, highways, high pressure gas pipes and electrical facilities, independent of whether Seavey Loop was added to Springfield's UGB or not. A better question might be to find out what Eugene was going to do with the Lane Community College (LCC) basin and if it made sense to develop that and Seavey Loop together versus with Goshen. The extension for the LCC basin would be to Seavey Loop, as well as transportation solutions. He noted that a manufacturing firm recently chose not to expand in Springfield because they couldn't find a parcel that was out of the flood plain so moved to Coburg. One of the sites they were considering in Springfield was impacted by flood plain. It was a concern that a significant amount of the land in the study areas was impacted by flood plains making it difficult to recruit developers. He asked why North Gateway was not listed as having drinking water impacts and the property on South 28 °i was shown as having those impacts. All of the sites had drinking water impacts, with the possible exception of Seavey Loop. Commissioner Stewart said it had been a couple of years since the studies were done on the interchange at Highway 126. He asked if that was part of the transportation costs in looking at the Jasper Natron area. Ms. Pauly said comments from ODOT were included in the packet. There were concepts that were drawn up for those areas. ODOT staff said the City would need to determine how those trips would be distributed if that area were to develop. The costs included in the table were to extend infrastructure to the edge of that area. Tom Boyatt, Community Development Manager in Transportation, said the project on Main Street was considered a plan project in land use law since it was in the Federal Regional Transportation Plan. Whether or not Mahogany Lane /Jasper was included in the UGB and developed, that improvement was needed in the future. Whatever improvement was made at Highway 126 and Main Street would have to carry traffic for a very long time. An interchange at that location for ODOT mobility standards was challenged. Adding Mahogany /Jasper would add more pressure, but the need was already there. Commissioner Stewart said he thought the discussion was talking only about land currently in the UGB. If the Mahogany /Jasper area became a major industrial area, it could significantly increase the use of that interchange and would require the higher cost options. Mr. Boyatt said another option Would be to rethink the standards. The traffic movement that used up all of the capacity at that intersection was the movement going east. There was capacity for movement to and from the south. They would be back looking at that intersection no matter what changed. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 8 Commissioner Leiken asked if Highway 126 east was a designated freight route. Yes. The Highway 126 /Main and Highway 126/52 "d Street had been in the Transportation Plan since 1986. At one point, he thought Highway 126 /Main and Highway 126/52 "d Street were scheduled to move forward together. He asked if they had been separated into two projects with Highway 126 /Main being done first. Mr. Boyatt said potentially they could do it that way, but the State wanted to look at it the other way. He explained why. He noted that Highway 126 east towards Bend actually was not a Freight Route, but only on the freeway and expressway. Mayor Lundberg said Springfield had rivers, which we loved but they also caused issues. At one point the Gateway area was all agricultural and served as a food source. She was not completely set on just the three recommended areas because there were so many factors for all of the expansion areas that could be impactful. They needed to look at agricultural practices into the future. The City only had so many places to expand. She would like to keep all five study areas open for discussion and the public process as there could be some creative solutions that came out of the rest of the process. Considering expansion of the UGB was a rare opportunity and she wanted to keep all options open. Mayor Lundberg thanked the Board of Commissioners forjoining them for tonight's discussion. Commissioner Sorenson asked about the next steps. Ms. Pauly said the first reading before the Lane County Board of Commissioners was scheduled for October, followed by a public hearing before the City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners on November 4. 6:52 p.m. The County Board of Commissioners adjourned their meeting and the City Council took a short break. 6:55 p.m. The Springfield City Council continued their work session. 2. Proposed Amendments to the Springfield Municipal Code to Create a Downtown Food Cart Program, Modifying the Transient Merchant Program to Include Food Carts and Expand Coverage in Certain Commercial and Industrial Zones. Housing Manager Kevin Ko presented the staff report on this item. On April 16, 2012 the City Council approved a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) award of $23,033 to NEDCO to develop and manage a Food Cart Program and to provide micro - business incubation services. NEDCO was prepared to initiate implementation of a food cart program on City-owned streets, sidewalks, rights -of -way and open spaces throughout the downtown core upon adoption of municipal code amendments authorizing the program. At the same time Council had asked for an exploration of a broadened program for permitting food carts on commercial and industrial property in the City. The City of Springfield had been asked to consider allowing mobile food carts in the downtown area by a variety of interested parties seeking to increase pedestrian traffic in the downtown area and enhance the atmosphere of downtown. Staff prepared code amendments authorizing 1) a program consistent with Council's authorization of funding and direction in April 2012 and, 2) the addition of food carts to the list of permitted transient merchants in other limited areas of the city on a trial basis to assess the impacts on other commercial and employment areas. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 9 Mr. Ko referred to the memo in the agenda packet which showed the different vendors and how they were currently treated under separate programs. He also spoke about how they would be treated under the new program. They tried to separate the distinction between food cart and other transient merchants. The proposed changes would treat food carts slightly different from normal transient merchants by allowing them on commercial and industrial sites. The City didn't want downtown merchants to feel threatened by the program, so wanted to keep it well managed and structured. Councilor Ralston asked for an example of city owned space. Mr. Ko said the fountain plaza in front of the Library, parking spaces, etc. Currently, vending on city streets had been controlled. This would allow them to still do that, but would have more stricture so they were not vending in front of another restaurant. Councilor Ralston said he wouldn't support allowing them on city or public spaces without a special permit. He felt it was an unfair advantage and was taking advantage of city owned property to generate business. Councilor Woodrow said if the City was looking at having a plaza and an opportunity for food carts to be set up for lunch, it could offer the possibility in the future to place food carts on City property. She asked for the difference in mobility and frequency between food carts and food trucks. Mr. Ko said mobility was a key part of what defined a food cart vendor. They moved at night Councilor Woodrow asked if that was both food cart and food trucks. Mr. Ko said yes, both had the same mobility rules. Councilor Woodrow asked if that would be defined in the program Mr. Do said in the Food Cart Program, that was one of the parameters including where they could be located for the benefit of the food cart and the commercial vendor, how soon they would need to set up and when they would have to move. That was all in the guidelines. Councilor Moore asked if there were regulations for food handling for food carts. Mr. Ko said NEDCO, as the proposed manager of the Food Cart Program in downtown, would make sure the vendor had their food handler's permit and would also provide technical assistance to help them grow their business as part of NEDCO's charge to grow small businesses. Councilor Moore asked if there would be a bidding process for the best locations Mr. Ko said those details had not been finalized with NEDCO yet, although had been part of the discussions. It would all be written into the regulations of the program. He referred to page 2 of Attachment 3 (draft ordinance) Section #12 which gave the City the authority to require the food carts to follow specific regulations and provide consistency. Councilor Moore said it would be fun to have a coffee cart in the lobby area of City Hall. She asked if that would be allowed under this Code. Mr. Grimaldi said it would not be part of this program, but could be done separately City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 10 Councilor Wylie said many food carts grew into permanent businesses. We were trying to make downtown more interesting and draw positive people downtown, and this was a way to do it. This could always be tweaked if things were not working. Councilor VanGordon referred to the food cart program and that vendors would be allowed in City owned spaces. He asked if the location would be determined by the Food Cart Program guidelines. Yes. When the Program was complete, there would be parking spaces where it was appropriate to have a food cart and others it would not. Mr. Ko said the intention of the program was to determine how to manage those types of questions and concerns. He wasn't sure if exact parking spaces would be designated, or just on certain streets. Main Street would be a tough place to vend, so it may be more of the side streets. NEDCO was still studying those things and it could change as the program evolved. Councilor VanGordon said that would give them the opportunity to take into account considerations from existing businesses to find the appropriate spots. He asked if the parking spaces used for the Food Cart Program would be regulated under the parking program that was to be implemented in the future. Mr. Ko said parking staff, Courtney Griesel, recommended that as long as someone was actively vending, they could remain beyond the two -hour limit. On the other hand, they would not be allowed to pull into a parking spot at 8:OOam and sit there until Noon when they began vending. Councilor VanGordon said that was a consideration and we wanted to make sure they remained mobile. Councilor Brew said he liked this idea and looked forward to seeing this downtown.,NEDCO was a great organization and would figure out a good program. He didn't want to be in a position of showing favoritism to certain vendors, but also didn't want too many that couldn't be supported by the traffic downtown. He appreciated Councilor Ralston's concern about allowing them on City streets, but also realized that there were not many private parking lots in downtown Springfield and most parking was city property. If we wanted to have this, we needed to be flexible on that issue. He agreed that if needed down the road, it could be tweaked. He would like to revisit it in a year to see how it worked. Councilor Woodrow said another concern was that she didn't want to be overbearing about requiring consistent pricing. She felt they would self - regulate themselves through competition. She felt it should be more about free enterprise than setting regulations. She asked if there would be restrictions on how many vendors in one space. She was concerned about multiple vendors in one businesses parking lot taking away parking spaces. Mr. Ko said the transient merchant permit may limit it to one vendor per private property. Planning Supervisor Jim Donovan said that would be more of a food cart pod and we were not there yet. That would be something that would need to be addressed through a zoning change. Councilor Brew said he also didn't like the idea of fixing prices. He would not have a problem with multiple carts in a parking lot and felt it was the property owners' prerogative. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 1 I Mayor Lundberg said certain businesses often located together in certain areas. She hoped this program would put downtown on the map for a location with a variety of good food places. She hoped this would entice people to come downtown to eat, and then stay to do business. Kids didn't go to a sit -down restaurant for lunch, so this could offer more healthy choices at a lower cost. She was fine charging a set fee and.felt it would work best. Mr. Ko asked if the fee should be daily, weekly or monthly. Currently, NEDCO charged a daily fee primarily because they were only vending a one -day event. Mayor Lundberg asked him to bring back some options. Mr. Grimaldi said carts in areas outside of downtown were charged an annual fee. Councilor Woodrow referred to the food pod. She said she wouldn't mind a collection of them in one place, but didn't want every lot in downtown to have five or six food carts. They needed a balance. Mayor Lundberg said this would start small and hopefully build. Councilor Ralston said if they were going to do this, they needed to look at enforcement so people didn't take advantage. Councilor Moore asked about the food carts at Jerry's Home Improvement. Mr. Grimaldi said they were permanent units and not mobile. Mr. Donovan said they were considered accessory uses to the business and were hard piped for utilities. It was similar to the drive through coffee shops. 3. 5 Great Things to do in Springfield — Promotional Video. Community Relations Manager Niel Laudati presented the staff report on this item. The City Manager's Office developed this video to promote Springfield to visitors from out of the area and those living in the surrounding area with limited knowledge of our community. This was an opportunity to preview the video before it was released. The video would be shown online through various social media outlets, on the City's webpage and through partnerships with the Springfield Chamber of Commerce and Travel Lane County and local cable access. Other potential outlets included: local hotels, the Gateway Mall and the Eugene Airport. Cost: Production of the video: $1,205 from FY 2012/13 Room Tax $1,275 from FY 2013/14 Total: $2,480 Mr. Laudati played the video. Councilor Woodrow asked if there would be City brochures at the locations where this would be playing. Mr. Laudati said some things would be put together to have at those sites. The Chamber may offer some assistance as well. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 22, 2013 Page 12 Councilor Wylie said it was wonderful. She would like the reference to the Chamber of Commerce to include a slide of the Depot Building. Council approved this video going public. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:33 p.m. Minutes Recorder —Amy Sowa Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: Amy Sowa City RecordeV