Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/23/1998 Work Session . MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1998 The city of Springfield council met in work session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, November 23, 1998, at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Morrisette presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Councilors Ballew, Beyer, Dahlquist, Leiken, Maine and Shaver. Mayor Morrisette was absent (excused). Also present were City Manager Michael Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Julie Wilson and members of the staff. 1. Jasper Road Extension Project Update. Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett and Management Analyst Eileen Stein presented the staff report on this issue. Council is requested to reaffirm its position on the Jasper Road Extension project, or give consideration to placing berms behind the sidewalk paths in certain areas. If sound mitigation is required by conditions imposed by the funding mechanisms, then staff recommends they be provided. . On September 29, 1998, council discussed the Lane County Roads Advisory Committee (RAC) recommendation for the Jasper Road Extension final design concept, including noise issues. County staff provided a summary of the noise evaluation study for the project, possible mitigation measures and their cost, and a summary of the RACs discussion on this Issue. The council endorsed the RAC's recommendation with one exception: that bicycle facilities be located off street. The County has requested council clarify its position regarding sound mitigation on this project. In response to this request, staff has prepared additional information on sound measurements on other city streets. The acoustical engineering firm of RSW, Inc., has taken sound measurements at ten locations in the city, mainly in residential areas. This dominant noise source ateach location was traffic. Existing noise levels at the ten selected sites ranged between 59 and 77dBA. The federal noise criteria of 65 dBA was met or exceeded in half of these locations. At two locations, existing berms reduced the noise level. . This issue has legal and practical considerations. From a legal standpoint, if it is determined that sound mitigation is required due to conditions imposed by the funding mechanisms, then it must be provided. The county has not informed us that that is required. From a practical standpoint, there are other locations in the city where traffic noise exceeds the federal criteria. A survey of other public agencies shows that most refer to state or federal criteria and do not have local criteria. The council has approved setting the width of the Pioneer Parkway Extension sufficiently wide to include soundwall construction, due to the extremely close proximity of this road project to neighbors' backyards. . Work Session Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 2 Ms. Stein said when ODOT completes a project, typically a noise analysis is conducted. This is standard practice because it isn't always known whether the project funding source will be from federal or state dollars. She said state funds were involved in the Jasper Road Extension project and that staff was fairly certain of this. She also said it is unknown whether federal funds were involved in the purchase of the right of way. The purchase probably occurred prior to reenactment of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) which means there was not a federal requirement for noise reduction at the time, but that's not known yet. She said, not being the project owners, city staff has not undertaken any effort to come to 100% assurance that there is no federal interest on the project. Ms. Stein said the county was asking for the council to reaffirm its position on the project. During the last'council meeting council approved the design concept as it was which did not include sound walls on the project. It could simply be a matter of council stating they approved the design concept and re-communicate that to the county. She said the county was looking for the council to take one more look and clarify that is council's position. Councilor Maine said one of the things they discussed was general noise level policy and who does and does not have them. The county would like reaffirmation of the design. She said there have been comments from the public regarding the perceived level of noise this would generate. In listening to the facts and studying this issue, she was comfortable going forward with the design as presented. . Councilor Shaver referenced the staff report and sound noise levels. Mr. Barnett said 3 dBA is about the threshold in which a human can detect a change in noise level. He said the berms referred to in the staff report were eight feet. Councilor Ballew asked what happened to the sound. Mr. Barnett said there is a lot to it and the issue is complex. He said sound is energy so it is both absorbed and reflected based on construction materials and other factors. Councilor Dahlquist discussed excavation when done to make room for a road. He asked if it would be less expensive to make a berm with the dirt rather than to haul it off. Mr. Barnett said staff could use that approach but also indicated that berms have to be a certain required height to qualify as an official noise mitigation technique. Staff would look into this. Councilor Shaver said one suggest might be to consider the fact that 1) if a project was going to be ten percent louder than the average of its type of street within the city, staff would consider noise mitigation; and 2) if it is twenty percent louder than the average type of street of its class within the city, then the city would be responsible, or at least that the residential property owners are not responsible. . He said this could be something of a general policy that staff could rely on for this and future projects. He said this project could then fall under this established regular policy standard. He liked the idea of looking at what the average is within the city for streets of similar class. He said if this falls within a ten percent range of the existing, maybe it could be stated that there is no extra burden. . Work Session Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 3 Councilor Ballew said many cities rely on state or federal standards. She thought we might be creating a policy that was not needed. She said this project was an unusual project. The only other project she could think of was the Pioneer Parkway Extension. Other than that, these are state highway extensions. Mr. Barnett replied they are, or are a significant arterial \ which are brand new routes. ' Councilor Beyer did not have a problem with reviewing policy down the road if it is really important, but is comfortable with the policy that has been set. She did not want to delay the existing project because of this. Councilor Shaver clarified that if the federal government is an interested party, it does not really matter what council determines. Mr. Barnett replied that was correct. Public Works Director Dan Brown referenced the action requested in the staff report. He clarified that the language included the phrase, if sound mitigation is required by conditions imposed by the funding mechanisms, then staff recommends they be provided. He clarified that if ODOT' s funding is federal funding, then staff recommends that it be provided. He said the unstated part is if the funding turns out not to require sound walls, then staff would recommend we not put sound walls in this project. . Councilor Shaver asked if council concurred with comments stated by Mr. Brown. Council provided consensus that they agreed. Councilor Shaver also indicated thatthe language could include an asterisk with Councilor Dahlquist's idea that if fill dirt is available, and can go into an area where it can help, it should be considered, but not required; Council-Elect Tammy Fitch suggested council strongly urge the county to find funding that is not tied to federal dollars. She said if they have ways of moving money around and we are not strongly encouraging them to find the money that is not tied to that, it is real easy to just put that money there. Once we start doing sound mitigation we will have a lot to do. Council-Elect Fred Simmons said since this isa bowl apparatus, the way the grade is laid out, many of the houses are higher than any of the acoustical measured sides. He asked what action a homeowner could take to say their property is being impacted adversely from increased sound penetration. He asked if there is something that might impact the project down the road because it does not include measurements of like grading and acoustical setup. He said that area is a bowl and the road bed will go through the bowl. The houses are up higher and there will be trucks climbing and decelerating and vehicles doing the same to meet intersections and the grade of the highway. This would result in higher decibel levels than on Pioneer Parkway. He wondered where the problem would be if the property owner said there was an inadequate environmental assessment of impact before doing the project. He wondered if it might be required later. Mr. Barnett replied that the ODOT study took into consideration the physical characteristics of the area and also the traffic characteristics. He thinks their study would be adequate to cover the entire scope of issues. . . Work Session Minutes November 23, 1998 Page 4 Councilor Shaver asked if there was a way to reaffirm their position, carefully worded, while at the same time asking to please work to see there is not a federal interest on the project. Mr. Barnett said that was reasonable and a county representative was in attendance and heard the comments. Lane County Engineer Ollie Snowden said staff received a determination from ODOT that the right of way purchase did not include federal dollars, so there is not an issue with the right of way. The other money is the $1.2 million that would come from ODOT. He said he has proposed a fund exchange with Gary Johnson, ODOT Region II Manager, because Lane County has an intergovernmental agreement with ODOT that says Lane County will pay ODOT $2.1 million for the next phase of Belt line. He said his proposal was that ODOT take $1 million from the Jasper Road project and apply it to the Beltline project and the County takes $1 million of its Beltline money and place it on the IRE project. Then the money on the Jasper Extension is all county funds. The Region Manager said no problem, however, he has been unable to get Mr. Johnson's staff to get that taken care of. He does have a verbal commitment from Gary Johnson to do that. Once that is consummated that should take the ODOT money completely out of Jasper Extension for this particular phase of Jasper Extension. . Councilor Maine said she would not support it if noise levels would ruin the quality oflife for residents. She said this project did not pose an unacceptable noise level and council was not trying to skirt around this by making such request. She stated this was not intended to be a federal road project and that the federal standards are there for good reasons. She added this project is a great project and needs to go through. She felt it would not have that large of an impact. Councilor Shaver agreed with comments made by Councilor Maine. He said they were trying to keep from spending a half million dollars on a project where it is not needed so we can have the money to spend on a worthwhile project that the entire community will benefit from. Council provided consensus on taking the proposed requested action with the addition of suggesting where berming is possible through use of excavation materials to do that. The Council also requested or offered to assist the County in its quest to have a determination that there is no federal interest in this project. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Julie Wilson ~ Mayor Pro Tern / Council President Attest: ./ . ~ City Recorder