Planning Commission

SUMMARY MINUTES Regular Meeting Eugene Planning Commission Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue July 12, 2010 11:30 a.m. PRESENT: Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair; Jonathan Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, William Randall, Lisa Warnes, members; Kayre Axe, Rob Inerfeld, Matt McRae, Carolyn Weiss, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Petra Schuetz, Lane Council of Governments; Chris Watchie, Trans Watch. ABSENT: Heidi Beierle, Chair Mr. Mills convened the Eugene Planning Commission at 11:30 a.m. I. PUBLIC COMMENT No one present wished to offer public comment. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Corrected December 8, 2009 minutes, resubmitted for approval Minutes of February 9, March 8, April 12 and April 20, May 17, June 1, 2010 Mr. Belcher said the summary page of the December 8, 2009, minutes noted him as absent but he had been present. He said that the last page of the minutes did not seem related and suggested it was a collation error. Commissioners removed the page from their meeting packets. No changes were offered to the February 9, 2010, minutes. No changes were offered to the March 8, 2010, minutes. Mr. Randall, referring to page 5, final paragraph of the April 12, 2010, minutes, offered the following correction (struck text deleted, italicized text added): “Mr. Randall says said he participated in the AIA vetting process for Walnut Station proposals.” Mr. Belcher, referring to page 3, paragraph 4 of the April 12, 2010, minutes, noted that he did not understand the following sentence: “Some committee members were concerned about the top-end variation and interpretation of the policy change would not be needed.” He could not offer a change because he did not understand the meaning of the sentence and asked that there be staff follow-up. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 12, 2010 Page 1 Mr. Belcher, referring to page 4 of the April 12 minutes, offered the following correction (struck text deleted, italicized text added): “Mr. Rumstead echoed the beginning of community planning work will include the Housing Needs Analysis.” Mr. Hledik arrived at 11:38 a.m. Mr. Belcher, referring to paragraph 4 on page 1 of the April 20, 2010 minutes, offered the following correction (struck text deleted, italicized text added): “Since that meeting, staff received additional input from the stakeholders group and learned that the Fairmount Neighborhood Association stakeholder group supported that recommendation, but the University of Oregon and at the Chamber of Commerce did not.” He also referred to paragraph 8 on page 5 of the same set of minutes and corrected the first statement to read “Mr. Belcher questioned if the University would be allowed to build another athletic facility in the area and asked about what types of facilities were allowed outright, including athletic facilities.” No changes were offered to the May 17, 2010, minutes. Mr. Belcher, referring to paragraph 9 on page 8 of the June 1, 2010 minutes of the Joint Planning Commissions meeting, offered the following correction (italicized text added): “Mr. Belcher said he lived in Eugene and never parked long-term at the airport, and it had no value to him.” Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. Randall, moved to approve the minutes of February 9, March 8 and May 17, 2010, as submitted; and to approve the minutes of December 8, 2009, April 12, April 20 and June 1, 2010, as amended. The motion passed unanimously. III. CLIMATE & ENERGY ACTION PLAN UPDATE Staff: Matt McRae, 541-682-5864 Ms. Weiss reminded Planning Commission members to speak into their microphones, as their meetings were being televised. Mr. McRae presented the Community Climate and Energy Action Plan (CEAP). He reminded the Planning Commission that he was presenting a draft plant, which still needed to be approved by City Council. Mr. Randall complimented Mr. McRae for his work on the CEAP. He noted the interconnectivity of the various entities addressed in the CEAP. Mr. Duncan stated that he enjoyed reading the CEAP, and indicated that he was happy to live in a community that was doing this work. He noted his concern that sometimes plans were developed and not used. He noted that, in relation to the section on stormwater, the Planning Commission had learned that in the downtown area, the City would never have enough redevelopment at any one time. Taking care of the stormwater in those two areas would have an impact on rivers. He wondered why a community solution to the stormwater issue was not embraced. He suggested pooling stormwater system monies from several sites to develop a facility to deal with the outflow of the City's stormwater systems. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 12, 2010 Page 2 Mr. Hledik, referring to the land use and transportation element of the CEAP, noted that for decades, the City of Eugene's planning efforts had been geared toward compact urban growth, walkable neighborhoods and alternative modes of transportation. He explained that as he read through the CEAP, it appeared as though suggested future planning was directed in the same manner. He asked if there were any significant departures from previous land use and planning efforts. Mr. McRae answered no. He explained that the CEAP mentioned efforts being made over the last 30 years, and that climate and energy issues were other reasons these practices continued to make sense. Mr. Belcher explained that one of the outputs of ECHO was the Housing Affordability Study, which indicated that people were finding it less affordable to live in Eugene. He said he did not see any goals in the CEAP that addressed this issue. Mr. McRae said that Mr. Belcher was correct. There were, however, items that addressed the affordability of home heating and home energy use. Mr. Belcher explained that less affordability affected 4J, for example. There were fewer students enrolled because young families could not afford to live in Eugene. He wondered if it was too late to go back and reconsider addressing these issues in the CEAP. He noted that there were about 18 elements addressed in the CEAP that aligned with the Envision Eugene process. Mr. Belcher asked how the CEAP would flow into the Envision Eugene process. Mr. McRae noted that while City Council had not yet approved the CEAP, they seemed very supportive of it. The Planning Department was collaborating with the Envision Eugene group to make sure relevant issues were addressed in the CEAP. Mr. Belcher asked how the Planning Department would use the CEAP as a tool to analyze specific policies. Mr. McRae explained that the CEAP would be used in the Planning process. Mr. Belcher stated that it would be useful to have a tool similar to the Triple Bottom Line that would come out of the CEAP. Mr. McRae noted that he suspected that the Triple Bottom Line would be used in the process at some point. Ms. Weiss noted that Planning staff felt that CEAP recommendations were aligning well with Envision Eugene. She explained that the Planning Department had a goal in their work plan to do a Triple Bottom Line analysis throughout the Envision Eugene process. Ms. Warnes asked if the CEAP team had done any research on biomass energy's effect on global warming. Mr. McRae noted that the plan recommended doing further research with biomass energy. He explained that there were no specific recommendations to use biomass or biofuel for transportation or energy use because the CEAP team's understanding of them was still evolving. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 12, 2010 Page 3 Ms. Warnes asked if there was a timeline for the research. She noted that the clock was ticking on global warming. Mr. McRae explained that the CEAP would be revisited and updated in the next three to five years, and that the research on biomass and biofuel would be finished by then. Mr. Duncan, referring to the CEAP section on land use and transportation, noted that there was a book truck drivers referred to when planning their routes. Right now, the book suggested truckers, when they come off I-5 on their way to the coast, take 6th and 7th Avenues, Garfield and W. 11th instead of using the Beltline. Mr. Inerfeld asked which route used the least amount of fuel. Mr. Duncan doubted the 6th/7th Avenues route used less fuel. Mr. McRae thought it was a good point, and said he would follow up on it. He asked Planning Commission members to contact him if they had more comments on the CEAP. He noted that their perspectives were very important. He also encouraged them to share the CEAP with other people to get more perspectives. He expressed his belief that the more people who looked at the CEAP, the better it would be. He also asked them to let him know about other opportunities for dialog or action they saw. Mr. Belcher asked if the Human Rights Commission (HRC) would see the CEAP. Mr. McRae explained that he had met with the HRC and presented the CEAP to them. IV. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UPDATE Staff: Kurt Yeiter, 541-682-8379 Mr. Yeiter introduced himself and explained that he was a planner in the Public Works Engineering Division with the Transportation Planning team. He explained that he was before the Planning Commission to discuss the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan, and to focus the discussion on the Community Involvement Plan and the Planning Commission's role in it. He reviewed the agenda item summary titled Eugene Transportation System Plan Community Involvement. Mr. Belcher asked if the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan would replace the TransPlan. Mr. Yeiter answered “yes and no.” He explained that when TransPlan was adopted, it satisfied the function of local transportation system plans and the regional transportation system plan required by the state. For the federal requirement, it was changed in very minor ways and re-adopted. What was now being developed was two community-wide refinement or functional plans for Eugene and Springfield. There would still be a regional transportation system plan, which may be very similar to TransPlan. There would also be a federal plan that would cover an increasingly larger geographic area. The Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) has been consistent in saying they wanted all plans pulled into one document. Therefore, ways to repackage different plans into one were always being explored. Mr. Belcher asked if different jurisdictions were coordinating their planning. Mr. Yeiter said that they were. As each city was doing local planning and updating, their land use planning was all being funneled into a shared transportation model. Mr. Belcher noted that he was impressed with some of the new ways MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 12, 2010 Page 4 Mr. Yeiter was receiving feedback from the public. He noted that when providing a new method of feedback, assumptions were made about how that feedback would be used. He distributed copies of the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation. He strongly encouraged those present to make sure the public knew at what level they were providing input and how their input would be used. Mr. Hledik asked what the acronym PMT stood for, on page 5 of Mr. Yeiter's memo. Mr. Yeiter explained that PMT stood for Project Management Team, which consisted of the core staff from Public Works and the consultant team. Mr. Hledik noted that Lane County was considering the formation of something beyond the Roads Advisory Committee, or an Area Commission on Transportation (ACT). He asked what this was and how it fit with the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan. Mr. Yeiter explained that Eugene was involved in the ACT, which had not been formed yet. He explained that most other counties or regions in Oregon had advisory bodies to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). The intention of these was to advise on transportation issues on a countywide basis. Currently, MPC and the County Board of Commissioners filled these roles. The MPC and the County Board of Commissioners advised the OTC on grants, funding and project priorities. While the MPC was more metropolitan focused, the ACT was focused more on an entire county, and reported directly to the OTC. Mr. Hledik asked if ACT members were elected officials or lay people. Mr. Yeiter explained that the ACT was made up of elected officials and lay people. He noted that the number of members from metropolitan areas was smaller than the number from the county as a whole. He explained that as the ACT formed, Eugene, Springfield and Lane County (as a local transportation planning entity) needed to communicate with them about their planning projects. Mr. Hledik noted the Beginning Interested Parties Notification List at the end of the memo, and asked if the Eugene Sustainability Commission would be involved in reviewing the plan. Mr. Yeiter said that the Sustainability Commission would be involved. Mr. Hledik stated that in the TransPlan, when both Eugene and Springfield were part of the Metro Plan, there was an opportunity to communicate about how interlinking projects worked (for example, Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway ran through both Eugene and Springfield). He asked if the the new plan would allow the same opportunities for communication. Mr. Yeiter explained that Transportation Planners from each municipality met every week for three or four hours at a time to discuss such matters. He explained that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) was included in these meetings, since certain facilities that were shared between municipalities, such as I-105, Beltline, and Franklin Blvd. were governed by ODOT. He explained that Eugene, Springfield and ODOT were working together on applying for grants to allow the multi-way boulevard concept on Franklin Blvd. Mr. Hledik asked if there was cooperation and mutual support on these projects. Mr. Yeiter said that there was. His observation was that the conversations and collaborations were surprisingly cooperative, since the entities involved were usually competing for the same funds. He said MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 12, 2010 Page 5 that regional priorities were discussed, and the entities considered where funding was most needed, and when. Mr. Hledik asked if the United Front still existed. Mr. Yeiter said that it did. He stated that on the transportation end, those projects were worked out cooperatively at the staff and MPC level. Mr. Belcher, referring to Attachment B of the memo, titled Regional Transportation Work Plan, noted that performance measures were discussed. He asked if the performance measures would drive the plans. Mr. Yeiter stated that this issue was being discussed. He explained that the region had been reporting back to the Lane Conservation and Development Commission about how it was performing against TransPlan adopted performance measures. He said that the region was performing well against the 2005 measures. He noted that returns might not measure as well for 2010 and further into the future. He stated that an update to the report would be going to the Lane Conservation and Development Commission on July 22. He explained that performance measures would evolve to better reflect good things that were happening and market realities, including accommodating mixed use development along transit corridors. Mr. Belcher asked if there were performance measures that this process was designed to try to meet, and whether they were the same as the existing performance measures. Mr. Yeiter repeated that the measures had not yet been designed. He noted that the state was requiring that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita needed to be reduced by 5 percent. If this was met, performance measures would not be needed. However, the plans need to show how Eugene, Springfield and Lane County (as a local transportation planning entity) would meet that goal. If the plan did not show this, Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County need an alternative way to obtain state approval. This was what happened with TransPlan. The performance measures were a way of showing how Eugene, Springfield and Lane County would make progress toward meeting state rules. Mr. Belcher explained that when he was on the Citizen Involvement Committee, it had determined that its biggest concerns were issues in which the public was highly interested, and which were highly controversial. He stated that this issue met these requirements. As such, it was important to find an effective way to obtain public feedback. Mr. Duncan noted that TransPlan's performance measures seemed to be aspirational. He noted that many of the goals were not met, and therefore Eugene, Springfield and Lane County had huge reporting requirements for the state. He suggested examining performance measures realistically, and closely examining how measures would be met. In terms of public feedback, he noted that the majority of community members were never heard from. He cautioned the use of web feedback and surveys, noting that many community members did not have this tool at their disposal. He encouraged finding a way to get feedback from a larger percentage of the population, since transportation affected all people. Ms. Warnes agreed with Mr. Duncan. She asked if the 5 percent VMT reduction was in line with the Climate and Energy Action Plan (CEAP). She asked if the required reduction could meet the CEAP goal of a 50 percent reduction in fossil fuels used by 2030. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 12, 2010 Page 6 Mr. Yeiter did not think so. He explained that the state goal of 5 percent VMT reduction and local fossil fuel reduction goals were related, but were not calibrated. Therefore, there was not a one-to-one match. He noted his belief that local goals outlined in the CEAP were more stringent than state goals or requirements. He noted that state requirements were due to air pollution and climate change, but mostly had to do with population growth and resultant increased car use. The state could not accommodate this driving with increased road construction. If all cars were converted to clean electric cars, local CEAP goals might be met. This, however, would not meet the state VMT goal. He explained that performance measures needed to be reviewed because when TransPlan was written, one of the methods proposed to reduce VMT was increasing the cost of fuel. At that time, this method was not politically feasible, but was now. A dip in VMT had been recently measured nationally with the increasing cost of fuel. Because of this, VMT goals might be met. Mr. Belcher noted that the Human Rights Commission (HRC) Committee on Accessibility, noted in the Beginning Interested Parties Notification List in Mr. Yeiter's memo, was only one component of the HRC. He suggested going to the HRC to ask if they wanted to put a person forward to represent under-represented groups. Mr. Yeiter asked Planning Commission members to send him ideas about entities to include the Interested Parties Notification List. V. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS PLAN Staff: Petra Schuetz, LCOG, 541-682-3639 Petra Schuetz introduced herself, saying she worked for Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). She noted that she was also Coburg's Planning Director, so she had both land use and transportation experience. Chris Watchie introduced herself, saying she worked for Trans Watch and had been examining transportation options in the region for 11 years. She explained that she was working with Ms. Schuetz on the Regional Transportation Options Plan (RTOP). Ms. Schuetz and Ms. Watchie reviewed a memo and accompanying presentation titled Regional Transportation Options Plan Overview. Ms. Watchie noted that a study had shown that up to 70 percent of VMTs were not part of the school or work commute, but that many programs examined these commutes to find ways to reduce VMTs. She asked the Planning Commission for suggestions of alternative mode advocate organizations. Ms. Warnes suggested identifying acronyms, since the meeting was being televised. She asked what trips research was finding, other than school and work commutes. Ms. Watchie explained that a lot of VMTs were recreational. She mentioned the example of kids' sports events. Ms. Warnes mentioned that she volunteered for Save the Pets, and a lot of VMTs were spent transporting animals to foster homes, etc. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 12, 2010 Page 7 Mr. Duncan stated that he understood that there was an MPO boundary. He noted that a large number of trips occurred between the Eugene metropolitan area and surrounding smaller communities. He said that a significant impact could be made if a way to control that level of travel was discovered. Mr. Duncan asked about the upcoming household survey mentioned in the presentation. He asked if it would show the effect the economic situation has had on VMTs. He wondered if people were truly trying to reduce their VMTs for environmental reasons, or if they were being forced to because of the cost of gas and other economic factors. Mr. Duncan stated that Ms. Schuetz and Ms. Watchie had asked for suggestions about organizations that advocated for alternate methods of transportation. He noted that several organizations, including the Rotary, were always looking for speakers. He noted that he had been a Rotarian for thirty years, and he knew the group had a diverse group of members, some of whom had never heard anything about reducing VMTs or other environmental issues. Ms. Schuetz thought working with civic groups was a good idea. She noted that the household survey captured data from a moment in time. At the moment, it was raw data, but when it was analyzed, it would be normalized and potential long term trends and impacts, such as fuel cost, were taken into account. She believed the processed or normalized data would be available in September or October. She noted that it was difficult to capture data on non-commute trips. She explained that 30 percent of people would not change their behavior no matter what incentives were provided. Another 30 percent might change their behaviors if the right incentives and infrastructure were put in place, or if changes were mandatory. The other 30 percent of people were already using alternatives to single occupancy vehicle travel for environmental, social, or mobility reasons. She noted that the target population for their efforts should be the third who might change their behavior. Mr. Hledik explained that in the 1990s, he had been on the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) advisory group. What came out of that was an education and marketing effort. She asked if Ms. Schuetz anticipated that there would be mandates that came out of this effort, and if so if she could give some examples of best management practices that were being considered. Ms. Schuetz stated that there was nothing specific being considered right now. She explained that one of the TDM policies from the 1990s was to look at a mandatory environment. She stated that such an environment had been examined but had not been implemented. She explained that one of the obligations of the RTOP was to take another look at some of the options and analyze their potential. Mr. Hledik asked if toll roads were to be implemented. Ms. Watchie stated that toll roads were part of a spectrum of options up for discussion. Mr. Hledik stated that Ms. Schuetz and Ms. Watchie had mentioned worldwide practices. He asked if these had been identified yet. Ms. Schuetz explained that their purpose in coming before the Planning Commission was only to introduce the project. She noted that they were still asking questions, and that their timeline was in line with the local Transportation System Plans (TSPs) and the regional transportation plan timelines. Mr. Randall appreciated that Ms. Schuetz and Ms. Watchie were discussing options, since these were essential to TSPs. He noted that education around alternative modes of transportation was essential. He MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 12, 2010 Page 8 noted that he had had the perception that riding the bus to and from work would be inconvenient, when in fact it was not. He encouraged higher density neighborhoods and 20-minute walkable neighborhoods. Ms. Watchie explained that the Eugene SmartTrips program educated people on these issues. Mr. Belcher asked if there were more specific dates associated with the work plan. Ms. Schuetz iterated that the project was still in its beginning stages. She noted that the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update was due about 1.5 years from July 2010, in November 2011. Mr. Belcher suggested the RTOP team use the services of MetroTV. He also suggested LCOG Geographic Information System (GIS) services to help coordinate kids' sports games and transportation to them. He mentioned federal tax benefits for people who used bicycles. He suggested educating the public about this. Ms. Watchie asked again for suggestions of nontraditional stakeholder groups. Mr. Belcher suggested the Human Rights Commission (HRC). Mr. Hledik asked who Ms. Watchie worked for. She explained that she worked with TransWatch, a transportation planning firm that provided consulting to LCOG and point2point Solutions, formerly Commuter Solutions, housed and run by LTD, which was a regional transportation options program and was advised by the Transportation Options Advisor Committee, part of the MPC. VI. EUGENE’S PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Staff: David Roth, 541-682-5727 Mr. Roth introduced himself and noted that he was a Transportation Planner with the City of Eugene. He thanked the Planning Commission for having him at their meeting. He reviewed a memo titled Eugene Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Update. Mr. Duncan asked which local businesses were included in the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) list. Mr. Roth explained that retired local developer, Hugh Prichard was filling that role. Mr. Duncan noted that there were bike-oriented people in the building development community who dealt with the Eugene City Code on a day-to-day basis. He suggested some of these people be included on the PAC. Mr. Belcher mentioned Eugene bicycle advocacy group Greater Eugene Area Riders (GEARS), which was not listed in the memo. Mr. Roth explained that they were represented. Mr. Belcher encouraged including Neighborhood Associations in the process as soon as possible. Mr. Hledik noted that the Eugene community had been serious about its pedestrian and bikeways for many years. He asked if there were any significant gaps in the pedestrian bicycle system in the city. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 12, 2010 Page 9 Mr. Roth explained that generally, the system was well-developed. That said, there are still significant opportunities to increase the numbers of pedestrian and bicycle trips by focusing efforts on the segment of the population that is currently not walking or bicycling, yet are willing and interested (about 60%). Research shows that while roughly 30% of the population are uninterested or unable to walk or bike regularly, there are many more who would, given the right facilities, tools and information. That is the focus of Eugene’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. In fact, Eugene had one of the highest percentages of its population that used these types of transportation in the country. However, if fuel reduction and climate change goals were to be met, this number had to increase. For the numbers to increase, a system needed to be developed that would meet the needs of the roughly 60 percent who need more information or a different facility type to bicycle or to walk. He gave the example of getting from the bicycle path that ended at 19th Avenue to the Willamette River, or to the Fern Ridge Path, for people who were not comfortable riding bicycles on the street. These types of facility gaps would be examined. Systems in New York City, Minneapolis and Portland that met the needs of a broader range of community members were being examined. Mr. Belcher mentioned his commute from Springfield, saying that the area from Walnut across the Willamette River was challenging, and that he knew some people who were not willing to take that route by bicycle. Mr. Roth agreed that work needed to be done, and explained that the area Mr. Belcher mentioned would be examined. Mr. Hledik suggested signs that directed people to walk on the right, and people on bicycles to pass on the left. Mr. Duncan suggested educating people about bicycle rights, specifically drivers, to ensure safe bicycle commutes. Mr. Roth said they would. VII. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF Ms. Weiss mentioned that the City Council had held a public hearing on Walnut Station, and that testimony was mostly positive. The recommendations forwarded by the Planning Commission had been bolstered, particularly around some of the policy items it wanted added, including timelines for when particular studies would be done. Additional testimony was heard from the University of Oregon and the Chamber of Commerce, as well as the Neighborhood Councils, which were neutral. She said that staff would keep the Planning Commission updated. Mr. Belcher noted that it had been decided at the February 9th meeting to form a subcommittee on EmX issues, consisting of Planning Commission and Sustainability Commission members. He asked for an update. Mr. Mills explained that the Planning Commission and Sustainability Commission Chairs and Vice- Chairs had met twice. He stated that he had attended only the first meeting, and he was not sure what the outcome of the second meeting had been. Mr. Belcher requested a report back at the next Planning Commission meeting. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 12, 2010 Page 10 Ms. Weiss said that she would check in with Sustainability Commission Chair Josh Skov. Mr. Mills had an update on the Historic Review Board (HRB). He said that they would meet on Thursday, July 29th, and that the meeting was expected to be contentious. He noted that some members had valid concerns about the City's ability to support what was going on, and how and when it would continue. Ms. Weiss hoped to have more conversations with HRB members soon, because the goal of the July 29 meeting was to be productive. She noted that staff would be laying out different options for the HRB based on the City's budget situation, and would receive feedback from the HRB on the 29th to decide what the best future will be for the HRB. Mr. Duncan left at 1:36 p.m. Mr. Mills, seconded by Mr. Belcher, moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 1:37 p.m. (Recorded by Katie Dettman) MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission July 12, 2010 Page 11