Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/2008 Work Session City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JULY 21, 2008 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 21,2008 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Ballew, Ralston, and Woodrow. Also present were Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Attorney Matt Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor Pishioneri was absent (excused). I, Discussion of Local and Regional Transportation Planning Activities. Planning Manager Greg Mott and Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt presented the staff report on this item. The Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) adopted an update ofthe federal Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in November, 2006. This action requires a collateral update of the Regional Transportation System Plan (R TSP) by the elected officials of Springfield, Eugene, Lane County and Coburg. The proposed work plan for this undertaking was discussed during the July 15,2008 JEO work session and is attached to this AlS. The proposed work program includes a number of specific actions; some of which are proposed to occur in the near-term and others that are scheduled for completion in the next 12-16 months. The elements of this work program that warrant additional council discussion include the timing of amendments to TransPlan that identify OR 126 at Main and OR 126 at 520d as financially constrained projects; the creation of a new format for TransPlan that accommodates the state requirements for RTSPs and which includes the City of Coburg; and the creation of separate local transportation system plans (TSPs) for Springfield and Eugene (Coburg already has one) to. support the new land use inventories and urban growth boundaries resulting from iniplementation ofHB 3337. Another JEO meeting is scheduled for September to endorse what needs to go to OECCD in October. Mr. Boyatt referred to the four bullets listed on the agenda item summary. Springfield staff felt that it was time for the City to have a City-only transportation plan. He referred to the 1967 Eugene-Springfield Area Transportation Study that was undertaken by the regional partners. That plan was not adopted at that time, but was adopted in 1977 as the T2000 Plan. In May of 1986 the TransPlan was adopted. He gave a brief history of the TransPlan. In 2002 the Updated TransPlan was adopted, which still focused on regional policy. He explained how federal rules had changed over the years causing a need for additional plans. In 2004, the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) adopted the Federal Regional Transportation Plan. The 2004 plan was amended by the 2007 Federal Regional Transportation Plan. The adoption of the 2007 plan City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 21, 2008 Page 2 created inconsistency with the plan that was the subject of the work plan Springfield was working through with Eugene, Lane County, Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and ODOT, He noted that the plans had evolved and become quite cumbersome. The egional plan had been adopted as the City's TSP. Mr. Boyatt said staff was now trying to take a step back, looking at the long pattern of State, Federal and Lane Council of Governments developed regional plans and suggesting the City go through a city transportation system planning process to develop a city plan that addressed the City's needs and spoke to our regional priorities. That could be used as a foundation with Coburg' TSP, Lane County's TSP, and possibly Eugene's TSP to form a regional umbrella that was consistent with the Federal TSP. It was a complex issue. He and Mr. Mott committed that while doing this, one of their goals would be to make the process more understandable, the differences between the plans more obvious, and the utility of the plan better understood, Councilor Ralston said it would make a lot of sense to simplify and create our own City transportation plan, He asked how we would get Eugene on board regarding the regional portion. Mr. Boyatt said Eugene staff was recommending it to their council. If they chose not to do that, Springfield and Coburg would have their own plans and Eugene would not when trying to do regional planning, Eugene had done some policy work. Each city would need to process through what each city's regional priorities were. Councilor Ballew said it was a good plan. The hard part would be defining what was in a regional plan, She saw 58th Street and Highway 126 as a regional project, but Eugene may not. We needed to come to accepted definitions on both sides, Mr. Boyatt said the second bullet on the list was to participate with agency partners in developing a regional TSP. The first thing would be to figure out what it looked like and discuss definitions with Eugene, Coburg, Lane County and the DLCD staff. Mr. Mott said our TSPs were land use plans and needed to be consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Most of the projects in the regional plans were ODOT projects, but some intersected with City projects. ODOT projects were regional. It was up to the City to determine which of the other projects would be considered regional. Part of the work program for the RTSP would be to defme what 'regional' was and who participated in the regional discussions. Ninety- five to ninety-nine percent of the time projects in Springfield would be local. Regional discussions would include a different set of principals based on the policies placed in the local TSP. Staff hoped the regional documents were as ideologically neutral as possible. Each of the cities could have their own policies in their TSPs, The goal was to make the policies more simple and streamlined. The RTP scheduled for adoption in 2011 would be the kind of document necessary to comply with Federal law and address local policies in the City's TSP, When Council attended MPC meetings, they brought with them the policies of the City as a basis for decisions. Mr, Boyatt said there wasn't an RTSP in any other regional areas, so there was a great deal of flexibility in developing the RTSP in our area, in collaboration with our local and state partners. Councilor Wylie paraphrased the explanation from staff. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 21,2008 Page 3 Mr. Boyatt said the RTSP would meet State requirements. The federal government would always need a federal RTP. State law says to coordinate the federal plan with the regional TSP. As they went through that process, staff would look at ways to make that coordination to the full extent possible. He explained further and gave an example of how the two could differ. Mr. Mott said they couldn't totally simplify, but could streamline and make it more intelligible. The attempt was to completely ignore that one was a federal document that had to be implemented by the MPC, and was not subject to state land use laws, but was subject to Federal standards. He explained. Councilor Lundberg said she wanted to believe this could be done, but was somewhat skeptical. The City's TSP seemed fairly simple, but the regional plan, which was land use planning, seemed more complicated. To make a regional TSP, the jurisdictions needed to agree on a list and some policy direction to come together. Since it evolved around land use, she wondered if it would go through a metamorphosis of the Metropolitan Policy Plan. Mr. Boyatt said the process would be negotiated and wouldn't be easy. The jurisdictions would need to agree on the order of the top priority of projects and some basic policies, They wouldn't know until the cities had adopted their TSPs. Councilor Lundberg asked about the timeline. Mr. Mott said LCOG needed to prepare their updated RTP by March or April of2009, for adoption in November 2009. He and Mr. Boyatt thought both the TRSP and the local TSP would precede that document so that as the update was being prepared, they could provide a mechanism for subsequent RTSPs. They hoped those two documents could be the basis for discussions, not the local TSP. The local TSP should not need to be updated over the next twenty years other than removal of completed projects. The RTP needed to be updated every four years, so they hoped this process could make it so those were done more easily and less painfully. The four groups could hopefully come to agreement on what was regionally significant and have a process in place. The local TSP would identify the regional projects in the RTSP, which would allow development in Springfield. Councilor Ralston understood the local, regional, and federal transportation plans, but was not sure about TransPlan. It seemed like an unnecessary document. They seemed to be adding layers when we wanted to simplify. It would be easier to call TransPlan our regional TSP. Mr, Boyatt said when TransPlan was adopted in 2002, it was touted as being used for all three purposes, Any time there was a need to work at any of the three levels, they had to work at all three levels to make any changes, The RTSP should be called TransPlan. Mayor Leiken said there was regional significance in this process. It did not make sense for Springfield to have to vote on something like the West Eugene Parkway. Staff needed to define regional significance. As we moved forward and started to adopt our own plans, regional significance would be important and difficult to identify. He asked ifthey could possibly link this to the definition of what was reg~onal that came from the Court of Appeals during the City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 21, 2008 Page 4 PeaceHealth project. Commissioner Fleenor was set on keeping the Metro Plan as it was and that needed to be considered. Commissioner Fleenor was not listening to his staff on that issue. Mr. Boyatt said in order to be flexible, we needed to have a solid local plan, He distributed a fact sheet on the Highway 126 at Main Street intersection project and the Highway 126 at 520d Street project. He asked if Council wanted this project on the constrained list. Council agreed to put that on the constrained list. Mr. Mott said there were two other items for Council consideration. The fIrst was whether or not, on a temporary basis, to extend the time horizon for the TransPlan from 2015 to 2023. To arrive at a discrepancy between 2023 and 2031 was acceptable to the state. He explained further, That coincided with a population growth that would arrive at the anticipated population for 2015. That would be a plan amendment that all three jurisdictions needed to approve. The second was the proposed language in TransPlan regarding the West Eugene Parkway (WEP). Springfield didn't need to participate, so Eugene or Lane County would need to initiate that. Those would be the three amendments that occurred as soon as possible rather than waiting for the longer work program update on TransPlan, Staff needed Council to initiate by resolution. That would be brought to Council in early September. Councilor Ballew thought the basis for all the projects was our Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Mr. Boyatt said it was slightly different. These were our long-range planning documents and the place the City would go to make project selections for the CIP. Mr, Mott explained further. Discussion was held on the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). Councilor Ralston referred to the issue that would be discussed later in the evening regarding ODOT decommissioning the 1-5 Bridge, He asked if an interchange should be part of the regional plan. Mr. Boyatt said ODOT was saying that the proposed new bridge could be adapted to ramps, Staff was in a process called the 1-5 Glenwood study, to look at access from 1-5 to the metro area in the vicinity of Glenwood. Eugene stopped that process several years ago because they did not want any new structures going over the river. Councilor Ballew confirmed the direction staff needed on regarding mid-term and long-term planning. Mr. Boyatt explained. Councilor Ballew asked what would happen with the other outlying cities besides Coburg. At this time, Coburg was the only one included. Mr. Mott said it was likely Junction City would be included after the 2010 census. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 21, 2008 Page 5 Councilor Lundberg confirmed with Council that they approved of staff moving forward on the four bulleted items on the AIS cover sheet. Yes. Mr. Boyatt said staff would bring back the appropriate documents and resolutions. Staff would relay to the partnering jurisdictions that Springfield did not want anything to do with the WEP. 2. Bob Straub Parkway Intersection Discussion. Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett presented the staff report on this item. At the June 9, 2008 Council Meeting the Council asked for additional information in response to the staff presentation. Council questions and staff response follows. Please bear in mind that at present the Parkway is a county road and accordingly Lane County has sole legal authority to make decisions concerning operation of the road. . Will the Bob Straub Parkway (BSP) be turned over to the State from the County for the continuation of the expressway? If so, that could have an effect on whether or not a signal would be allowed through the expressway management policy. Response: ODOT has determined that it is inconsistent with their policy to accept BSP as a state highway. Lane County has acquired Jasper Roadfrom South 42nd Street to Jasper Bridge and ODOTwants to divest the remaining link southward to Creswell. . If the City put in a stop sign now and waited a year to see if this intersection warranted a traffic signal, it would then be the County's responsibility to pay for and put in a signal. Response: All operations including traffic control on BSP are Lane County's decisions, Lane County opposes installation of a traffic signal on technical merits, While it would be a County responsibility to construct a traffic signal, Lane County staff believes that other intersections would be higher priority for limited County funds. If the City accepted the transfer of road jurisdiction the decision would become the City's, . More detail and definition on the projects that the funds for a traffic signal would be coming from. Response: The signal will cost from $210,000 to $260,000, City Participation in Private Projects -- $200,000 in City Participation funds pay the City's share of collector and arterial street improvements done by developers that are beyond the developer needs, These funds are committed to development projects through FY09 to avoid denying a Land Use Approval. Gray Jaqua Agreement -- $100,000 The City has an obligation due in 2010 for transportation improvements on the Gray property, Slurry Seal and overlay -- $300,000 preserves J 2 to 17 miles of streets and prevents their deterioration, Pioneer Parkway Lighting -- $250,000 fulfills our obligation to LTD for illuminating the Parkway from Hayden Bridge Rd. to Q Street in concert with LTD 's illumination of the EmX lanes and Rosa Parks Path. . Information on the trip counts and triggers. Response: Lane County did the warrant study based upon City supplied projections for land development that were extracted from the Jasper Meadows Master Plan, The warrant study is a complete view of the foreseeable conditions, . Possibility to extend South 59th down to 57th to provide another egress for those residents. Response: The north end of South 5(jh could be connected to the Weyerhaeuser road providing a link to the traffic signal at South 57hlBSPIWeyhaeuser intersection, The Weyerhaeuser road is not, at present, public right of way, in addition, a significant elevation difference must be addressed, City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 21, 2008 Page 6 Broader options to alleviate this intersection. Response: Mount Vernon Rd, could be connected to the Weyerhaeuser road providing a link to the traffic signal at South 57hlBSPIWeyhaeuser intersection. As noted above the Weyerhaeuser road is not public right of way and a significant elevation difference must be addressed, Mr. Barnett said the attachments were the same as the last time this was brought to Council with the addition of different choices and discussions on manual and electronic traffic signals. He highlighted some of the bullets as noted above. He explained the responses to the questions and noted that he had talked with Sonny Chickering, District Manager of ODOT, and Bill Morgan, County Engineer for information on some of the responses. Councilor Woodrow said there were 220 houses on the east side of the Bob Straub Parkway that only had an exit to Mt. Vernon. Generally there were two vehicles per household, meaning about 440 vehicles had to exit by going out onto Bob Straub Parkway. He spoke ofthe completion of Bob Straub Parkway and noted that in mid-August Jasper Road would be closed at Bar S, diverting traffic to Bob Straub Parkway, If acceptable to Council, he would like to get a traffic count at that time. He recalled two things that would need to happen if the City or County were to allow a traffic light to go in at that intersection: 1) there would have to be an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the County for the City to take responsibility; and 2) the depth of the traffic light. He asked whose regulation it was that determined the depth of the light pole. Mr, Barnett said it was a federal building code that required that depth for a traffic light. That regulation had changed following hurricane events. There were some agencies that had not adopted that as a standard. Councilor Woodrow asked if every street light that was to be installed in Oregon would be at that depth, Mr. Barnett said 30 feet was illustrative of property with poor soil conditions. Thirty feet was an example from a coastal condition. It used to cost about $150,000 to put up a traffic light, but that cost had been significantly underestimated. Councilor Woodrow said he would like to see what it would take to get an IGA with the County for a traffic light and what the requirements were for the depth of a traffic light and the cost. He asked if that information could be brought back to Council after recess. Councilor Ballew asked Mr. Barnett's opinion on this request. Mr. Barnett said in terms of the IGA, Bill Morgan said the County didn't support the need for a traffic signal at this location, He read from his note from Mr, Morgan, They would expect this was City traffic causing the need for a signal and the County did not want to be involved. Discussion for a jurisdictional transfer was a possibility. Mayor Leiken questioned why Lane County felt a signal at the Weyerhaeuser Haul Road was necessary. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 21, 2008 Page 7 Mr. Grimaldi clarified that Councilor Woodrow's request was for jurisdictional transfer of the intersection orily. That was correct. Discussion was held regarding jurisdiction ofMt. Vernon. Council asked staff to check further into that and determine if it was a City or a County street. Councilor Ralston asked for staff s recommendation, Mr. Barnett said staff recommended advanced signing at the intersection (Option 3), extruding curbs to narrow the pedestrian crossing area (Option 9), and monitoring the situation for one year. Councilor Ralston said he agreed with staff s recommendation. Councilor Woodrow said he understood, but noted that people in his neighborhood did not want to try to cross Bob Straub Parkway with the amount of traffic that would be there. Main Street had more traffic and less stoplights and people still got hit there. Buses had to cross and kids played on both sides ofthe Bob Straub Parkway. Councilor Ralston said he would like a vicinity map and for Council to go out to watch the traffic. Councilor Woodrow felt this was important. The City let everyone move in on South 58th and 59th surrounding where the road was going to go, City residents had to face that safety hazard. It was best to address that safety hazard now, rather than waiting for tragedy. Councilor Wylie respected Councilor Woodrow's concerns. Council needed a field trip to the location. It was clear the County was not interested, and it was up to the Council to make sure we had all the information. Councilor Ralston agreed. Councilor Lundberg said that was a good suggestion. Staff had done an admirable job to put together mechanisms to deal with the situation, Nothing was foolproof. There was an opportunity with this intersection to educate people from the beginning, The options being recommended by staff were reasonable and she was fine looking at traffic counts in the fall after the traffic had been diverted. She felt there was enough information in the staff report. Even with a traffic light, there was no guarantee of safety because people ran red lights. The measures recommended were good, She agreed Council members could drive out there to look at the site. Mayor Leiken said the field trip made sense with the Council going as a group and Mr. Barnett there to explain the options. There was a benefit in going out to South 420d Street. He asked staff to coordinate with Council calendars. . Councilor Lundberg asked for a better map. Councilor Woodrow asked for the distance from Mt. Vernon back to Jasper Road, City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes July 21, 2008 Page 8 Mr. Barnett said he would get that information. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:03 pm. Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa Attest: ~r