Planning Commission

AGENDA Meeting Location: Sloat Room—Atrium Building Phone: 541-682-5481 99 W. 10th Avenue www.eugene-or.gov/pc Eugene, OR 97401 The Eugene Planning Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hour notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hour notice. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at 541-682-5675. MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2014 – REGULAR MEETING (11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.) 11:30 a.m. I. PUBLIC COMMENT The Planning Commission reserves 10 minutes at the beginning of this meeting for public comment. The public may comment on any matter, except for items scheduled for public hearing or public hearing items for which the record has already closed. Generally, the time limit for public comment is three minutes; however, the Planning Commission reserves the option to reduce the time allowed each speaker based on the number of people requesting to speak. 11:40 a.m. II. SCENARIO PLANNING Staff: Carolyn Burke and Steve Nystrom 12:30 a.m. III. LANE LIVABILITY UPDATE Staff: Stephanie Jennings 1:15 p.m. IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF A. Other Items from Staff B. Other Items from Commission C. Learning: How are we doing? Commissioners: Steven Baker; John Barofsky; Jonathan Belcher; Rick Duncan; John Jaworski (Vice- Chair); Jeffery Mills; William Randall (Chair)  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 24, 2014 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: City of Eugene Planning Division Subject: Scenario Planning Update ISSUE STATEMENT This item will provide the planning commission with an update and opportunity for discussion on the Central Lane Scenario Planning project. BACKGROUND In 2009, The Oregon Legislature passed the Jobs and Transportation Act which included a provision requiring the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to undertake a scenario planning process for the region. Specifically, this bill requires the MPO to evaluate alternative transportation and land use scenarios to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from light vehicles. The state has established a greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target of 20% for the Eugene-Springfield region, though the region is not required to meet that target through the scenario planning process. Ultimately, the MPO must cooperatively select a preferred scenario. However, the bill does not require implementation of this scenario. The MPO is required to report its findings to the legislature by February 2015. Given the fact that this project does not require implementation, this scenario planning process serves as a tool to explore how specific land use and transportation choices potentially affect GHG levels. Such information will help the State to better understand the practical and financial challenges facing local jurisdictions in reducing GHG emissions. Similarly, the results of the scenario planning effort may help inform local governments in future policy choices. To assist in this effort, Kristin Hull with CH2M Hill is serving as the project manager. She and representatives of all the partner agencies (Eugene, Springfield, Lane County, Coburg, LCOG, Lane Transit, and ODOT) comprise the staff team. This work is being funded by ODOT. Staff has included a fact sheet and memo (Attachments A and B) which provides a more detailed explanation of the scenario planning process as well as the key steps involved in this project. The scenario planning project is laid out with three key steps: 1. Understanding existing policies: Collecting and evaluating existing data and policies 2. Test and Learn: Developing, evaluating and comparing alternative scenarios 3. Refine and Select: Refining scenarios for each jurisdiction and cooperatively selecting a preferred scenario The staff team has completed the first step of this work which provides a good opportunity to update the planning commission and discuss upcoming steps. PC Agenda - Page 1 Understanding existing policies One of the key components of Step 1 is to estimate the effect of continuing our current planning assumptions for the region. For Eugene, the strategies and assumptions of Envision Eugene have been evaluated to determine how well this policy direction moves us toward achieving the GHG reduction target set by the State. Similarly, the comprehensive planning policies of Springfield, Lane County, Coburg, and LTD have been incorporated. Collectively, this policy direction comprises the reference case that will serve as the baseline for further scenario planning efforts. Staff has provided a summary of the reference case results and assumptions (Attachment C). The summary indicates that the region’s current policy direction will help reduce GHG emissions by 3% (from 2005 levels), however these policies alone will not achieve the 20% reduction target. The next step in the process will be to develop scenarios that further reduce GHG levels. In addition to meeting the State’s requirement to evaluate GHG reductions, the MPO also agreed that it was important to assess how such transportation and land use choices affect other important goals such as economic vitality, public health, and equity considerations. These factors will be evaluated as part of the upcoming scenario alternatives analysis. Attachment D provides a synopsis of the evaluation measures that will be used to assess such impacts. Public Involvement With the background work (Step 1) completed, the project team will now begin the work of developing alternative scenarios. This work will also kick off the public and stakeholder involvement program. A variety of public outreach efforts are anticipated, including public workshops, surveys, targeted outreach and the project website (www.clscenarioplanning.org) which will provide regular updates and opportunity for feedback. The first of these workshops will be held in April to introduce the project and help inform the work around scenario development. A more detailed description of the public involvement program and decision making process is included in Attachment E. NEXT STEPS Following the first public workshop, staff anticipates returning to the planning commission and city council to discuss the draft scenario alternatives. Once the alternative scenarios have been determined, the project team will evaluate and compare the results of these scenarios. It is expected that this work will be completed this summer. The second half of 2014 will be devoted to refining the scenarios, followed by the process of selecting the preferred scenario. ATTACHMENTS A. Central Lane Scenario Planning Fact Sheet (December 2013) B. Scenario Planning Process memo C. Reference Case Results and Assumptions memo D. Evaluation Measures E. Stakeholder and Public Involvement Plan memo FOR MORE INFORMATION Carolyn Burke at 541-682-8816 or Carolyn.J.Burke@ci.eugene.or.us Steve Nystrom at 541-682-8385 or steven.a.nystrom@ci.eugene.or.us Scenario Planning webpage: www.clscenarioplanning.org PC Agenda - Page 2  Attachment A Central Lane December 2013 Scenario Planning Examining choices for how we grow Over the past three decades, central Lane County has made What is important choices about how to grow. This thoughtful approach to managing growth has resulted in vibrant, livable “Scenario communities that offer choices about where and how we live. Over the next twenty years, our communities are likely Planning”? to welcome more than 70,000 new residents. Plans like Scenario planning is a process for those currently being developed in the region – Envision considering a range of plausible Eugene, Springfield 2030 and Coburg Crossroads – establish futures, allowing for examination a local vision for how our communities will accommodate new residents and jobs. of how different transportation choices would affect the region in Scenario planning – a process for considering a range of terms of land use, equity, public plausible futures – allows us to examine how different health, and other factors. choices would affect our region. This means that we can compare what happens to our region if we grow as planned to what happens if we change our plans. Scenario planning also lets us compare these various futures based on a wide range of community goals, from how much each of us will drive, walk, bike and take transit, to how clean our air will be, to how much our households will spend on housing and transportation. In 2009, the Oregon Legislature passed the Jobs and Transportation Act (House Bill 2001). The Jobs and Transportation Act requires the local governments in central Lane County to conduct scenario planning and cooperatively select a preferred scenario that accommodates planned population and employment growth while achieving a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles. To comply with this legislative requirement, Lane County, the cities of Eugene, Springfield and Coburg, the Lane Transit District, and the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization have begun the scenario planning process. The selected scenario will not bind our local governments or change existing plans or policy direction, but, through this process, we may learn important lessons that inform future land use and transportation planning. Scenario planning process The process is divided into three major steps. The first step is focused on understanding what would happen if existing plans and policy directions are implemented over the next 20 years. The second step is focused on developing and comparing different futures (alternative scenarios). The third step will Photos courtesy Don Hankins PC Agenda - Page 3 focus on refining the scenarios that best meet local goals and working toward cooperatively selecting a preferred scenario. While the greenhouse gas reduction goal set by the state must be considered during the process, the selected scenario is not required to meet the goal. Additionally, each jursidiction can choose those actions that are most appropriate for their communities and that best match local plans and policies. The local governments of central Lane County will report back to the legislature in 2015 about what they learned from the process. A basis for comparison Before we begin developing alternative scenarios, we need to first understand how well our current plans and policy directions meet local goals. To accomplish this, we are considering how central Lane County will look in 2035 if existing plans are put into place. Though Eugene and Springfield are in the process of creating new land use and transportation plans (Envision Eugene and Springfield 2030), we used the draft results from both, in addition to results of Coburg Crossroads, as our best guess of existing plans and policies. Figure 1. Scenario planning process Since the Envision Eugene and Springfield 2030 plans are still works in progress, the technical team will make assumptions about pieces of these plans that are not yet completed. Because scenario planning is an exercise to consider alternate futures, this approach provides the best comparison for future policy changes. The details still being worked out in Envision Eugene and Springfield 2030 will likely not affect the themes that emerge from the scenario planning process. Get involved Watch our website (www.CLscenarioplanning.org) for information about public workshops and other ways to participate. If you would like to receive updates about the scenario planning process, send an email to questions@CLscenarioplanning.org and we will add you to our mailing list. The Central Lane Scenario Planning project is funded by the Oregon Jobs & Transportation Act of 2009 and a grant from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Visit www.CLscenarioplanning.org for more information PC Agenda - Page 4  Attachment B March 5, 2014 CENTRAL LANE SCENARIO PLANNING Scenario planning process Overview In 2009, the Oregon Legislature passed the Jobs and Transportation Act. This legislation directs the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to undertake scenario planning and for the local governments in central Lane County to cooperatively select a preferred land use and transportation scenario. The state set a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction target of 20% for the MPO; while this target must be considered in the scenario planning process, the final selected scenario is not required to meet this target. A project management team (PMT) consisting of representatives of all the partner governments is providing oversight for the process. LCOG and consultant staff are providing technical support for the project. What is scenario planning? Over the next twenty years, our communities are likely to welcome more than 64,000 new residents. Plans like those currently being developed in the region – Envision Eugene, Springfield 2030, and Coburg Crossroads – establish a local vision for how our communities will accommodate new residents and jobs. Scenario planning is a process for considering a range of plausible futures and allows us to examine how different choices would affect our region. Scenario planning also lets us compare these various futures based on a wide range of community goals, from how much each of us will drive, walk, bike, and take transit, to how clean our air will be, to how much our households will spend on housing and transportation. Participants The cities of Coburg, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County, the Lane Council of Governments, and the Lane Transit District are all participating in the process. PC Agenda - Page 5 Schedule Phase 1 of the process will be complete in February 2014. Phase 2, which includes scenario development, evaluation, and selection, will be complete by spring 2015. Fall 2013 Winter/spring 2014 Summer/fall 2014 Scenario planning outcomes At the end of the process, the local government partners will cooperatively select a preferred transportation and land use scenario. The preferred scenario will likely contain a range of policies and strategies that reduce GHG emissions and also produce a range of “co-benefits” – benefits like improved public health and greater economic prosperity – that would result from the preferred scenario policies. The local government partners are not required to implement the preferred scenario. Work accomplished to date (phase 1) - Reference scenario – a baseline for comparison: the project team developed and tested a “reference scenario” which provides a baseline against which alternative scenarios can be compared. The reference scenario approximates the future if current plans and policies are carried out. 2 PC Agenda - Page 6  - Evaluation criteria: the project team developed a set of criteria that will be used to evaluate alternative scenarios. Evaluation criteria categories include Economy and Prosperity, Air Quality, Feasibility, and others. - Scenario development methodology: the team prepared a method, described below, for developing and evaluating scenarios that will be used in the next phase of work. - Equity framework: an important project goal is to ensure that communities of concern – people who are elderly, disabled, low-income or are members of a minority community – are engaged in the development, evaluation and refinement of scenarios. An Equity Technical Advisory Committee spent two sessions defining how equity considerations can be incorporated into the scenario planning process. - Model testing: staff at LCOG used the state’s Metropolitan GreenSTEP, a strategic analysis model, to quickly test the effects of transportation and land use scenarios on greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond greenhouse gas emissions, the GreenSTEP model produces more than 70 indicators that can be used to evaluate other benefits and impacts associated with scenarios including vehicle miles traveled by bike, household fuel costs, and local gas tax revenues. This work sets the stage for developing, evaluating, and selecting a preferred scenario in phase 2 of the project. Scenario development, evaluation and selection (phase 2) The scenario planning process will include three more major steps: develop and evaluate scenarios, refine a single scenario and select a preferred scenario. The final step of the scenario planning process will be for the local governments in the Eugene-Springfield area to cooperatively select a preferred scenario. While the local governments are required to cooperatively select a preferred scenario, they are not required to implement it. At each step, the Project Management Team (PMT) will make decisions about how to move forward. The PMT will consult with elected officials and the public in making interim decisions to direct the scenario planning process. The Eugene City Council, Springfield City Council, Coburg City Council, and Lane County Board of Commissioners will be ultimately responsible for selecting the preferred scenario. The public will be invited to participate at each step of the process. The project team will host four public workshops at key milestones, regularly update a project website (www.clscenarioplanning.org), and create factsheets to inform and engage the community in the development and evaluation of scenarios. 3 PC Agenda - Page 7 Develop and evaluate scenarios To develop scenarios, the team will first agree on distinct scenario themes. Next, the team will populate those themes with specific policies that are likely to meet the greenhouse gas reduction target as well as meeting health, equity and economic development goals. The PMT will choose a single scenario to advance to the next step using information from GreenSTEP and other evaluation tools. Refine single scenario PMT will define realistic implementing actions, refine policies where necessary, and adjust the scenario as needed. Using additional evaluation, the PMT will move toward recommendation of a preferred scenario. Select a preferred scenario Once the PMT identifies a recommended preferred scenario the technical team will complete a final evaluation of that scenario to support documentation of the expected impacts and benefits associated with the preferred scenario. This scenario will be presented to the Springfield City Council, Eugene City Council, Coburg City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners to meet the legislative mandate to cooperatively select a preferred scenario. The local governments are only required to select a preferred scenario; they are not required to implement it. 4 PC Agenda - Page 8  Attachment C March 5, 2014 (updated) CENTRAL LANE SCENARIO PLANNING Reference Case Results and Assumptions Kristin Hull, CH2M HILL Josh Roll, Central Lane MPO Introduction In 2009, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 2001, the Jobs and Transportation Act (JTA). Section 38a of the JTA directs the Central Lane MPO to undertake scenario planning, and for the local governments in Central Lane MPO boundary to cooperatively select a preferred land use and transportation scenario. The local governments – the cities of Springfield, Eugene and Coburg, Lane County and the Lane Transit District – are working together to develop and evaluate scenarios to fulfill this requirement while testing strategies to address local economic development, public health and equity goals. As an early step in the scenario planning process, the local governments have established a 2035 reference scenario. The reference scenario is the baseline to which alternative scenarios are compared; it approximates the future if current policy direction is carried out without significant changes. The reference case represents our best assumptions about how current policy direction could be implemented over the next 25 years. This memo outlines the assumptions that underlie the reference scenario and document the Metropolitan GreenSTEP outputs for the reference scenario. This work forms the baseline against which alternative future scenarios will be compared. 2035 reference scenario assumptions Land use assumptions • Envision Eugene and Springfield 2030 are adopted and implemented without major changes. • 2010 Coburg Urbanization Study is implemented without major changes. The reference scenario generally reflects current policy direction. Since Eugene, Springfield and Coburg are in the process of developing new land use plans, the reference scenario reflects current policy direction contained in those emerging plans. Population and household assumptions PC Agenda - Page 9  • Between 2010 and 2035, the population within the Central Lane MPO boundary is forecast to increase by nearly 64,000 residents. This assumption is based on state population forecasts and is provided to the region by state officials. • Housing and land area supply is based on current policy direction. For 2035, households are matched to dwelling unit types based on reasonable assumptions about socio- demographic characteristics. • Metropolitan GreenSTEP travel behavior estimates do not rely explicitly on the location of new employment areas, but the location of employment does affect population density and land uses. Land use assumptions are based on current policy direction. • Household size is assumed to be the same as in 2010. Pricing assumptions • Federal gas tax is 18 cents per gallon – the same as today. • State gas tax per gallon is 24 cents in 2005 and 2010, and 30 cents in 2035. • Local gas tax is 4 cents per gallon. • The average daily cost of parking is approximately $3.00 in 2035, slightly lower than in 2005. • Locations with paid parking are limited to downtown Eugene and the University of Oregon in 2005 but expand to Springfield in 2035. The cost for parking in downtown Springfield is assumed to be half the cost to park in downtown Eugene. • Zero households participate in pay-as-you-drive insurance, and the state does not have a vehicle miles traveled tax or carbon tax. Marketing and incentive assumptions • Participation in employer-based commute options programs stays the same as it is in 2005 • Participation in individualized trip reduction marketing increases slightly in Eugene, Springfield, and Coburg. • Participation in individualized car sharing stays the same as it is today. Fleet and technology assumptions1 • The region’s auto and light truck fleet mix changes, with more people driving passenger cars and fewer driving light trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) than today. 1 Reference case is consistent with assumptions included in OAR 660-044. 2 PC Agenda - Page 10  • The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (as proposed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality) is adopted; carbon intensity of fuels will decline by 20 percent below today’s average. • For model year 2035, autos with internal combustion engines (ICE) reach fuel efficiency of 68 mpg while light trucks and SUVs reach 48 mpg. • For model year 2035, plug in hybrid electric (PHEV) or electric vehicles (EV) comprise 8% of all autos and 2% of light trucks and SUVs. Of those vehicles, 26% of autos and 26% of light trucks and SUVs are electric vehicles (EV). Transportation system assumptions • The roadway system is relatively similar to today with minor increases in lane miles for freeways and arterials in Coburg and Springfield. Because the Eugene TSP is still in progress, the results do not reflect any changes in lane miles in Eugene. The Metropolitan GreenSTEP model is not detailed enough to capture changes to intersections, collector streets or pedestrian and bicycle network improvements. • The transit system expands to include 5 bus rapid transit lines as detailed in the Regionally Adopted Transportation Plan. These lines include the West Eugene, River Road, Highway 99W, Main Street/McVay, and Lane Community College lines. In total, transit service grows from 12 revenue miles per capita to 18 revenue miles per capita with a total of more than 5.4 million revenue miles in the region in 2035. • Twice as many miles travel by bike in the region as compared to today. 2035 reference scenario outputs The Central Lane MPO analyzed the changes expected between 2010 and the 2035 reference scenario using Metropolitan GreenSTEP. The results are presented below. 2035 Category Measure 2010 2035 (% change compared to 2010) Per capita greenhouse gas emissions from light vehicles Greenhouse including reductions from fleet Gas Emissions changes (metric tons) 3.47 1.32 -62% Fuel Annual per capita fuel Consumption consumption (gallons) 339 150 -56% Daily vehicles miles traveled per capita 21.7 22.2 3% Travel and Annual vehicle delay per capita System (hours) 30 37 23% Performance Transit revenue miles per capita 12.8 17.9 40% Per capita annual walk trips 120 123 3% Daily miles traveled by bicycle Active Travel per capita 0.27 0.53 153% 3 PC Agenda - Page 11  2035 Category Measure 2010 2035 (% change compared to 2010) Land Use and UGB area (acres) 49,737 52,858 6% Natural Households living in mixed use Resources areas (%) 12.9% 14.4% 12% Per capita water use (gallons) 256 219 -14% Annual household fuel costs (per capita) $1,863 $1,866 0% Annual household vehicle operating costs (fuel, taxes, Taxes, Fees and parking) $2,383 $2,208 -7% Expenses Annual vehicle ownership and maintenance expenses $5,521 $6,485 17% $2.38 Annual local gas tax revenue $4.18 million million -43% Clean Air Act criteria pollutants Public Health (Metric Tons) 61 25 -59% See active travel for additional public health indicators. 2 Other External social costs per capita $446 $327 -27% Note: All dollar values use $2005 dollars. Because of uncertainties about future land use plans in the region, several minor variations in land use were tested to confirm that outputs were consistent. Through this work, it has been confirmed that using Metropolitan GreenSTEP, a strategic analysis model, these minor variations in UGB expansion or local development patterns do not significantly change overall light vehicle travel or derived emissions at the regional level. Greenhouse gas reduction targets In May 2011, The Land Conservation and Development Commission (DLCD) adopted a per capita roadway greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for light-duty vehicles for all six metropolitan areas3. The target for the Central Lane MPO area is 20% reduction over 2005 levels. This 20% target should be considered without accounting for fleet and technology changes. The region is not required to meet this target through scenario planning, but is required to consider it. When fleet and vehicle changes are excluded, the reference scenario shows a 3% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions as compared to 2005. This forecast of greenhouse gas emissions includes both commercial and household light duty vehicles. Because of the method of 2 External costs include, air pollution, other environmental resources, safety, noise, climate change, energy security. Source: White paper: Costs of Motor vehicle Travel – Cambridge Systematics. 3 http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/rulemaking/trac/660_044.pdf 4 PC Agenda - Page 12 calculation, this scenario cannot be directly compared to the reference scenario described above. Lessons learned The Metropolitan GreenSTEP outputs show that the region is making progress in many areas based on current policy direction. Under current policy direction, the region’s greenhouse gas emissions from light vehicles decreases by 3% from 2005 levels when fleet and technology changes are not included. If fleet and technology changes are included, the reduction is more than 60%. Under the reference case, biking and walking increase, and air pollution and fuel consumption decrease. While vehicle ownership and maintenance costs increase, vehicle operations costs for households decrease. Per capita vehicle miles traveled and delay increase on the transportation system. Based on input from the TAC and PMT, the project team will test variations of the reference case to better understand how different inputs affect the Metropolitan GreenSTEP indicators. This sensitivity testing will answer questions about how changing individual and bundled inputs affects key indicators and will influence the development of alternative scenarios. During this sensitivity testing step, the project team will explore what inputs are contributing to the performance on individual indicators like greenhouse gas emission reduction. 5 PC Agenda - Page 13  Attachment D Evaluation Category Questions to answer Evaluation measures Unit of measure Tool Land use & housing UGB expansion Rural (non-urban) land consumption Acres assumptions How will our choices affect where we live, Housing mix (single family, multi- work, and play? family) % of units GreenSTEP How much rural land will be consumed by development? Population density Persons per acre GreenSTEP Mixed-use development Acres GreenSTEP Economy & prosperity Driving costs as percentage of household income % of average HH income GreenSTEP How will household and business budgets Average household income, by be impacted? income quintiles $ GreenSTEP Average regional daily How will regional livability be affected? Parking costs parking cost GreenSTEP Value of time lost to congestion $ GreenSTEP Households within walking distance of amenities (parks, schools, medical services, etc.) # and % of total GIS Energy consumption and How will our choices affect energy GHG emissions GHG emissions per capita Tons CO2/year GreenSTEP consumption and climate change? Petroleum fuel consumption Gallons/capita GreenSTEP Transportation outcomes Vehicles miles travelled VMT/capita GreenSTEP Transit service Revenue miles/capita GreenSTEP Bicycle miles travelled Bicycle travel per capita GreenSTEP How will our choices affect how we get Walk miles travelled per around the region? Pedestrian travel capita GreenSTEP Transit ridership Total annual ridership Travel demand model Average no. of vehicles Vehicle ownership per HH GreenSTEP Hours per capita per Hours of congestion year GreenSTEP Air Quality How will our choices affect air quality? % reduction or increase Criteria air pollutant emissions in pollutants GreenSTEP Feasibility Legal, legislative, or regulatory What can we afford? barriers to implementation Qualitative assessment Qualitative assessment Public/private infrastructure costs Qualitative assessment Qualitative assessment Are our choices implementable, given Local gas tax revenue $ GreenSTEP legal, legislative, policy, or other constraints? Political or public acceptability Qualitative assessment Qualitative assessment Health Average minutes per Physical activity per capita capita per week GreenSTEP Chronic illness incidence % reduction or increase I-THIM public health model How will our transportation and land use choices affect public health? Cost savings due to reduced disease I-THIM public health model, burden $ sketch planning model % reduction or increase in pedestrian/bicyclist Change in fatal or injury accidents injuries and fatalities I-THIM public health model Equity Those evaluation measures, highlighted above, where impacts can be measured across Will our choices disproportionately population groups (age, income) will be assessed qualitatively to determine if benefit or impact certain groups? disproportionately negative impacts will occur to certain groups. PC Agenda - Page 14  Attachment E December 10, 2013 CENTRAL LANE SCENARIO PLANNING Stakeholder and Public Involvement Plan Prepared by: CH2M HILL Overview The Central Lane Scenario Planning (CLSP) process will support the exploration of how different land use and transportation policies could change the future of central Lane County. Through development of land use and transportation scenarios, community members, business leaders, elected officials and planners will be able to consider different ways the region could develop and how those different policies might affect public health, equity, and economic vitality, as well as the region’s contributions to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Oregon Legislature, in 2009, passed the Jobs and Transportation Act (House Bill 2001). Part of this Act requires the local governments in central Lane County to develop different ways of accommodating forecasted population and job growth while reducing GHG emissions and to cooperatively select a preferred land use and transportation scenario at the end of the process. Because the local governments are not required to implement this preferred scenario, they are focused examining alternate futures to inform future planning efforts and local transportation and land use decisions. This public involvement plan establishes goals for the public involvement program, a schedule and a range of engagement tactics. This plan will be revised as needed throughout the process. Public involvement goals For any public outreach process to be successful, it is important to consider the goals of the process. For the CLSP, the public engagement process should:  Provide opportunities for the proactive engagement of interested people  Provide access for all community members regardless of ability, age, income or race/ethnicity  Demonstrate how public input shapes decisions  Build on information gathered through past or related planning processes The International Association of Public Participation (IAP2)’s spectrum of public participation, Figure 1, shows varying levels of engagement based on the level of public impact. Because the PC Agenda - Page 15 level of public impact for scenarios is relatively low (particularly because the region is required to select a scenario but not to implement it), the public and stakeholders will be engaged at the “inform” and “consult” levels. Figure 1. IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation (source: www.iap2.org) Decision making structure At the conclusion of the process, the Lane County Board of Commissioners, Eugene City Council, Springfield City Council and Coburg City Council are required to cooperatively select a preferred land use and transportation scenario. They are not required to make changes to their transportation and land use plans to implement this scenario. Their ultimate decision will be informed by the Project Management Team, a Technical Advisory Committee and public input. Figure 2 illustrates decision making responsibilities. 2 PC Agenda - Page 16  Figure 2. Decision making responsibilities Lane County Eugene City Springfield Coburg City Decide Board of Council City Council Council Commissioners Public and stakeholder input Project Management Team Lane Transit Advise District Board Lane County, Eugene, Springfield, Coburg, LTD, and MPO of Directors Technical Advisory Committee Provide input Lane County, Eugene, Springfield, Coburg, LTD, and MPO Health Sub‐TAC Equity Sub‐TAC Economic Development Sub‐TAC Decide: City Councils and County Board of Commissioners The Lane County Board of Commissioners, and Eugene, Springfield and Coburg City Councils will ultimately approve the selection of a preferred land use and transportation scenario. Each jurisdiction will determine how to engage their planning commissions or other advisory bodies. Advise: Project Management Team (PMT) The PMT will provide day‐to‐day guidance to CLSP staff. The PMT will provide a recommendation to the City Councils and County Board of Commissioners regarding the preferred land use and transportation scenario. The PMT will consider public input in their deliberations. Provide input: Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Sub‐TACs The TAC will provide input to the PMT on technical issues. In some cases, the Sub‐TACs will provide input for the TAC’s consideration. The TAC and Sub‐TACs will consider public input in their deliberations. Audiences The audience for scenario planning will largely be community leaders, business leaders, social service representations, and civic group leaders who are already engaged in planning activities in 3 PC Agenda - Page 17 the region. These groups will be consulted at each step of the process. Hearing from the general public is important as well. The general public will be informed throughout the process with input specifically sought at the beginning of the process and as a preferred scenario is developed. Title VI and Environmental Justice communities, those who are traditionally under‐ represented in planning processes, will be invited to participate throughout the process. Equity approach One goal of this outreach plan is to ensure that communities of concern – people who are elderly, disabled, low‐income or are members of a minority community – are engaged in the development, evaluation and refinement of scenarios. A group of service providers and planners with a focus on equity issues met twice to discuss how to incorporate equity into the scenario planning process. They provided the following recommendations related to public involvement:  Draw from public input gathered for related processes (e.g. affordable housing resident survey) to understand issues and concerns.  Conduct outreach via service providers and encourage service providers to participate in the scenario planning process to represent the interests of communities of concern.  Consider how to engage low‐income, elderly and disabled communities separately.  Go to existing groups to gather input.  Use existing groups and networks to share information about participation opportunities. Public involvement tactics and schedule The public and stakeholder involvement program will begin in spring 2014. Figure 3 presents a general schedule. Each tactic is described in detail below. 2013 Winter 2014‐ Spring 2014 Summer 2014 Fall 2014 Select a Process step Process step Frame Develop and evaluate Refine preferred choices scenarios scenarios scenario Website and public information Public involvement activity WS #1 WS #2 WS #3 WS #4 Online tool Service provider meetings Survey Survey 4 Information at events hosted by others PC Agenda - Page 18 Figure 3. Public Involvement Schedule Website and public information The CLSP team will develop a website and public information that describes the scenario planning process and progress at each milestone. The website and public information will use easily understandable language to describe the scenario planning process and findings. At key milestones, the project team will prepare news releases and fact sheets. A specific Facebook page or Twitter feed will not be launched for CLSP. The project team will translate this information on request. Workshops (WS) The CLSP partners will host workshops at four milestones. A full mailing list that includes people who have participated in recent land use or transportation planning processes, planning commissioners, members of other standing committees, chambers of commerce, neighborhood leaders and representatives of public health and equity organizations will be developed. At each workshop, participants will be asked to review information and provide input structured around particular questions or activities. The group will not be asked to develop a recommendation or reach consensus. This plan anticipates holding four workshops: 1. Scenario elements/policy levers 2. Scenarios 3. Scenario evaluation 4. Refined/hybrid scenarios Information at events hosted by others Throughout the process, the CLSP partners may host tables or provide information at events hosted for other projects. This might mean hosting a table at a public open house for another city project or staffing a booth at a farmers’ market or community event. Current fact sheets and project information will be available to support these events. Online tool As the scenario choices are being narrowed, the team may develop an online tool that allows community members to test the impact of implementing different policy choices on key indicators that are part of the CLSP evaluation framework. This tool would be used to gather input on the acceptability of policy choices. The PMT will determine if this is a useful and appropriate mechanism for gathering input before it is developed. Public opinion research (survey) 5 PC Agenda - Page 19 Public opinion research is an effective way of finding out what people who do not typically participate in public meeting think or how they might react to policy changes. For this process, it may be difficult to engage the general public through more traditional means, so a survey may be the best way to test the acceptability of policy choices. Public opinion research should be conducted at two points: 1) as policy choices are developed; 2) as a preferred scenario is developed. Public opinion research could take the form of a telephone survey or a series of focus groups. The PMT will determine how and when to use public opinion research. Outreach to service providers and advocacy groups Through the Equity Sub‐TAC we learned that outreach to existing groups is the best way to ensure that the needs of communities of concern are met through the scenario planning process. As the preferred scenario is refined, the project team will meet with 4‐5 existing groups to vet the scenario and learn about the implications for communities of concern. Roles and responsibilities CH2M HILL will develop the website and initial public information. Other roles and responsibilities will be assigned as a phase 2 work plan is developed. 6 PC Agenda - Page 20  DATE: March 18, 2014 TO: City of Eugene Planning Commission CC: Carolyn Burke Sarah Medary FROM: Stephanie Jennings, Project Manager, Lane Livability Consortium RE: Lane Livability Consortium Activities and Outcomes The Lane Livability Consortium is a collaborative effort of a dozen agencies serving the Eugene- Springfield metropolitan area to advance community growth and prosperity. The primary focus of the Consortium is to identify opportunities for greater impacts and linkages among our region’s core plans including land use, transportation, housing, and economic development plans and investment strategies. Other elements include work on public engagement, regional investments, organizational capacity building, and identification of catalytic projects. The Consortium’s efforts are funded through a $1,450,000 HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant and through leveraged resources contributed by local partner agencies. The first phase of the Lane Livability Consortium’s work under the Sustainable Communities grant commenced in 2011 and will be completed in April 2014. To help connect this project to the work of the Planning Commission, this memo outlines various project components as it relates to Envision Eugene goals. The work of the Lane Livability Consortium has benefitted the City of Eugene’s efforts to advance Envision Eugene in multiple ways. A summary of specific examples organized by the Envision Eugene Pillars is provided below. The reports for specific projects referenced are in the final editing stage and will be available by early April. Commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss and comment on Consortium activities following a staff presentation. Provide Ample Economic Opportunities for all Community Members • Development of three industry cluster analyses that have brought together public, private and nonprofit partners around Education and Technology, Food Systems, and Manufacturing. Each report has identified next steps and recommendations for advancing these local industry clusters. • Creation of a Brownfields Coalition with Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County and PC Agenda - Page 21  successful application for a $680,000 Brownfields Assessment Grant from the EPA. This effort has jumpstarted the identification of brownfields suitable for redevelopment. Provide Housing Affordable to All Income Levels • The Equity and Opportunity Assessment offers a comprehensive analysis of geospatial indicators through 70 maps and trend analysis. This set of indicators and analysis was developed through broad engagement with multiple agencies and will support Envision Eugene efforts to identify appropriate places for various housing types and affordability targets. • The Latino Public Participation and Indicators Project and the Equity and Opportunity Assessment of Affordable Housing Residents provide significant insights into the challenges faced by many community residents. The results of these reports will help guide Eugene’s affordable housing development and investment strategies. Plan for Climate Change and Energy Resiliency • Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County have partnered with the Oregon Partnership for Disaster Resilience to conduct a comprehensive systems vulnerability assessment. The results of this assessment will identify actions necessary to protect our major community systems from natural hazards, climate change, and unstable fuel prices. • Through the grant, our region has enhanced the Regional Scenario Planning to reduce light vehicle greenhouse gas emissions process to also consider economic, equity, and health impacts. Promote Compact Urban Development and Efficient Transportation Options • Grant funds have supported efforts by Transportation Planning staff to implement a triple bottom line approach for Eugene’s Transportation System Plan. • The Franklin Corridor Catalytic Project created an opportunity for multiple agencies to come together and develop an overarching vision for the entire corridor and specific next steps for achieving this vision. Protect, Repair & Enhance Neighborhood Livability • The Equity and Opportunity Assessment provides a critical resource for understanding the relative conditions experienced by different neighborhoods across Eugene. • The efforts to address brownfields will help identify suitable opportunity sites for residential and commercial development particularly along corridors. Protect, Restore and Enhance Natural Areas • Collectively, the work advanced through the Lane Livability Consortium supports the development of compact communities which in turn reduces pressure on natural areas. Provide for Adaptable, Flexible and Collaborative Implementation • The Baseline Assessment of Plans has identified critical linkages between Envision Eugene and a multitude of plans for affordable housing and community development, PC Agenda - Page 22  economic prosperity, public health, and transportation. Lastly, the Lane Livability Consortium has provided a critical forum to identify ways to work together regionally. Multiple products are in the final stages of development but several are complete and available on the Lane Livability Consortium website (www.livabilitylane.org). The Baseline Assessment of Plans, Latino Public Participation and Community Indicators, and Franklin Corridor Catalytic Project are provided as attachments to this memo as examples. Attachments • Baseline Assessment of Plans http://www.livabilitylane.org/toolkit/regional_planning_documents.htm • Latino Public Participation and Indicators Project http://www.livabilitylane.org/toolkit/latino_outreach.htm • Franklin Corridor Catalytic Project https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75945840/LLC%20River%20Districts%20Report% 20v.5.pdf PC Agenda - Page 23