Planning Commission

AGENDA Meeting Location: Sloat Room—Atrium Building Phone: 541-682-5481 99 W. 10th Avenue www.eugene-or.gov/pc Eugene, Oregon 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, DECEMBER 12, 2016 – REGULAR MEETING (11:30 a.m.) I. PUBLIC COMMENT 11:30 AM 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. II. DELIBERATIONS/ACTION: EUGENE 2035 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 11:40 AM Lead Staff: Rob Inerfeld, 541-682-5343 rob.inerfeld@ci.eugene.or.us III. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEE 12:30 PM Lead Staff: Heather O’Donnell, 541-682-5488 heather.m.odonnell@ci.eugene.or.us IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF 1:15 PM A. Other Items from Commission B. Other Items from Staff C. Learning: How are we doing? Commissioners: Steven Baker; John Barofsky (Vice Chair); John Jaworski; Jeffrey Mills; Brianna Nicolello; William Randall; Kristen Taylor (Chair)  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Memorandum Date: December 7, 2016 Meeting Date: December 12, 2016 TO: Eugene Planning Commission FROM: Rob Inerfeld, Transportation Planning Manager SUBJECT: Deliberation and Recommendation on the Eugene 2035 Transportation System, Corresponding Metro Plan, TransPlan and Chapter 9 amendments, Street Classification Map amendments, Ordinance No. 20528 amendment, and repeal of the Central Area Transportation Study. City of Eugene (City File No. s CA 16‐2 and MA 16‐1) ACTION REQUESTED: To deliberate and make a recommendation to the City Council on the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan (2035 TSP) and corresponding amendments to the Eugene‐Springfield Area Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and the Eugene‐Springfield Transportation Plan (TransPlan), concurrent amendments to the Eugene Code, amendments to Eugene’s Street Classification Map, an amendment to Ordinance No. 20528 and repeal of Eugene’s Central Area Transportation Study. BRIEFING STATEMENT: For Eugene’s transportation planning area, the 2035 TSP updates and replaces TransPlan’s (2002) goals, policies, and list of projects that describe how local transportation networks should change to accommodate growth, improve livability, and support economic vitality within the Eugene urban and airport areas. The 2035 TSP is coordinated and consistent with the Eugene Airport Master Plan, Lane Transit District’s Long Range Transit Plan, the Regional Transportation Options Plan, Springfield’s TSP, Lane County’s TSP update, the Oregon Highway Plan, the Central Lane MPO Regional Transportation Plan and other plans. For the December 5, 2016, meeting, staff compiled a list of 34 recommended revisions to the 2035 TSP; those revisions based on the Planning Commission’s prior discussions and public input, including the input from neighborhood associations. The list of 34 recommended revisions was organized into six categories. At the December 5, 2016, meeting, the Planning Commission discussed, revised and took straw‐votes on five of the six categories of revisions. Attachment A to this AIS (list of recommended revisions to the 2035 TSP) incorporates the results of the straw‐votes taken by the Planning Commission at the December 5, 2016, meeting. (Attachment A’s numbered revisions 19, 22, 23, 24, 28, 31, and Appendix F have been updated to reflect the Planning Commission’s December 5 meeting.) APPLICABLE CRITERIA: The Eugene Planning Commission shall address the relevant approval criteria in making its recommendation to the Eugene City Council on the proposed amendments. Adoption of the 2035 TSP and the corresponding amendments to the Metro Plan and TransPlan are all governed by the Metro Plan amendments approval criteria. Eugene Code 9.7735 provides: Metro Plan Amendments – Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall be applied by the city council in approving or denying a Metro Plan amendment application: City of Eugene Transportation System Plan Memorandum Date: December 6, 2016 City File (CA 16-2 and MA 16-1) Meeting Date: December 12, 2016 1 of 12  (1) The proposed amendment is consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals; and (2) The proposed amendment does not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. (3) When the city‐specific local comprehensive plan also applies, the proposed amendment is consistent with the city‐specific local comprehensive plan. Eugene’s approval criteria for Refinement Plan amendments is set forth in Eugene Code 9.8424: 9.8424 Refinement Plan Amendment Approval Criteria. The planning commission shall evaluate proposed refinement plan amendments based on the criteria set forth below, and forward a recommendation to the city council. The city council shall decide whether to act on the application. If the city council decides to act, it shall approve, approve with modifications or deny a proposed refinement plan amendment. Approval, or approval with modifications shall be based on compliance with the following criteria: (1) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with all of the following: (a) Statewide planning goals. (b) Applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. (c) Remaining portions of the refinement plan. (2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following: (a) An error in the publication of the refinement plan. (b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal. (c) New or amended community policies. (d) New or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state regulation, statewide planning goal, or state agency land use plan. (e) A change of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time the refinement plan was adopted. Eugene’s approval criteria for code amendment is set forth in EC 9.8065. 9.8065 Code Amendment Approval Criteria. If the city council elects to act, it may, by ordinance, adopt an amendment to this land use code that: (1) Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals as adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. (2) Is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. (3) In the case of establishment of a special area zone, is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria for Establishment of an S Special Area Zone. Preliminary findings addressing the above approval criteria have been prepared and were provided as an attachment to the AIS for the June 21, 2016, public hearing. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: Move to direct staff to revise the 2035 TSP in a manner that substantially conforms to Attachment A and recommend that the City Council adopt the revised 2035 TSP and the corresponding amendments to the Eugene‐Springfield Area Metropolitan Area General Plan and the Eugene‐Springfield Transportation Plan, concurrent amendments to the Eugene Code, amendments to Eugene’s Street Classification Map, an amendment to Ordinance No. 20528 and repeal of Eugene’s Central Area Transportation Study. ATTACHMENTS: City of Eugene Transportation System Plan Memorandum Date: December 6, 2016 City File (CA 16-2 and MA 16-1) Meeting Date: December 12, 2016 2 of 12  A. Proposed revisions to the 2035 TSP (updated to reflect PC’s 12/5/16 mtg.) City of Eugene Transportation System Plan Memorandum Date: December 6, 2016 City File (CA 16-2 and MA 16-1) Meeting Date: December 12, 2016 3 of 12  Attachment A Attachment A Revisions to the 2035 TSP Changes to Projects Lists, Street Classifications and Maps: 1. Remove from the Street Classification Map the reclassification of Arcadia Drive, Kingston Way, and King Edwards Court. 2. Delete the following projects:  Two Lorane Highway projects identified on Table 5.5: Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects to be Completed Beyond 20 Years as Project Nos. PB‐29 and PB‐323.  Sidewalk project PB‐304 (Goodpasture Island Road) from Table 5.2 (Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects to be Completed Within 20 Years). [It has been constructed.]  Sidewalk project PB‐312 (Highway 99) from Table 5.2 (Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects to be Completed Within 20 Years). [It has been constructed.] 3. Add the following new projects to Table 5.2 (Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects to be Completed within 20 Years):  W. 1st Avenue sidewalk, north side, Seneca to Bertelsen, cost estimate of $311,000.  Amazon Park East‐West Path, a Shared Use Path, cost estimate of $816,000.  W. 5th Avenue Sidewalk Path, Highway 99 to McKinley Street, $74,000. 4. All Complete Street Upgrades of Existing Streets in Table 5.1 (Roadway, Multimodal, Transit, and Rail Projects to be Completed within 20 Years) and Table 5.3 (Projects to be Completed Upon Development) will also be represented on the list of sidewalk projects in Table 5.2 (Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects to be Completed within 20 Years). [Currently only some of them are in Table 5.2.] 5. Add “Traffic Calming” as a new project to Table 5.1 (Roadway, Multimodal, Transit, and Rail Projects to be Completed within 20 Years), located in “Various Locations,” described as “Neighborhood traffic calming to address speeding problems on residential streets, including collectors,” with a cost estimate of $2M ($100,000 per year). 6. Move Upon Development Project No. UD‐4 (Spectrum Avenue) from Table 5.3 (Projects to be Completed Upon Development) to Table 5.1 (Roadway, Multimodal, Transit, and Rail Projects to be Completed within 20 Years). Revise project description to indicate that the project might extend west across Coburg and County Farm Roads to connect to Park View Drive. 7. Move Upon Development Project No. UD‐18 (North Gilham Road) from Table 5.3 (Projects to be Completed Upon Development) to Table 5.1 (Roadway, Multimodal, Transit, and Rail Projects to be Completed within 20 Years). Proposed Revisions to 2035 TSP Page 1 of 6  Attachment A 8. Move the following projects from Table 5.5 (Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects to be Completed Beyond 20 Years) to Table 5.2 (Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects to be Completed within 20 Years):  PB‐280: Gilham Road, west side sidewalk from Ashbury Drive to Mirror Pond Way ($272,000).  PB‐532: Acorn Park Street/W. 17th Ave. sidewalk from Acorn Park to Buck Street ($81,000)  PB‐580: Hilyard Street protected bicycle lane from E. 8th Ave. to Broadway ($330,000)  PB‐582: E. Broadway protected bicycle lane from Hilyard Street to Alder Street ($265,000) 9. Move the Alder Street Rail Crossing (PB‐8) from Table 5.2 (Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects to be Completed within 20 Years) to Table 5.5 (Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects to be Completed Beyond 20 Years). 10. Revise the wording of the following projects:  B‐2, Northwest Expressway, replace the word “freight” with the word “vehicle.”  PB‐231, change “Wilson Street Path” to “Berkeley Park Path.”  PB 272, change “Hunsaker Lane” to “Hunsaker Lane/Beaver Street.”  PB‐229, add “north‐south section” to County Farm Road.  PB‐575, add “east‐west section” to County Farm Road.  PB‐610, Roosevelt Boulevard Path, change estimated cost to $805,000.  PB‐556, 13th Avenue Cycle Track, change estimated cost to $3.28 million.  MM‐3, change “Construct local arterial bridge….” To “Construct multimodal local arterial bridge….”  PB‐305, Goodpasture Island Road sidewalk, change “west side” to “east side” and change estimated cost to $300,000.  PB‐74, change “Golden Garden Street” to “Devos Street.” 11. Revise Study Project No. S‐9 (NE Expressway) to state: Study opportunities to improve the safety and functionality of Northwest Expressway as a major arterial street including by making intersection improvements at the Randy Pape Beltline Highway ramp termini and other locations, by improving signage, and by making other changes to the street. 12. Delete the descriptions of the street design cross sections for individual projects identified as Projects to be Completed Upon Development. 13. Add the following text to the Upon Development section before Table 5.3: The Complete Street Upgrades of Existing Streets section of Table 5.3 (Projects to be Completed Upon Development) also includes streets that are primarily lined with single family residential development. In the absence of redevelopment, Complete Street projects on these streets could be implemented as capital projects and are considered secondary in priority to the Complete Street Upgrade projects in Table 5.1 (Roadway, Multimodal, Transit and Rail Projects to be Completed Within 20 Years). 14. Remove Study Project S‐11. [It is being replaced by a capital project.] 15. Add a new project to Table 5.5 (Study Project) to analyze options to address congestion and local connectivity needs in the vicinity of the Coburg Road/Beltline Highway interchange. 16. Replace Appendix F with the map of key corridors that is being used in other planning efforts (attached hereto as Attachment 1). Proposed Revisions to 2035 TSP Page 2 of 6  Attachment A 17. Correct project map ambiguities and update the project maps to reflect the project revisions. Revisions Regarding Vision Zero: 18. Add the text shown underlined: In November, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5143 setting as official policy for the City the Vision Zero goal that no loss of life or serious injury on our transportation system is acceptable. In its resolution, the City Council explicitly gave its support to “efforts by the City of Eugene and our regional partner agencies to prioritize safety improvements for people walking, bicycling, and using mobility devices” and to “efforts by the City of Eugene and our regional partners to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on our transportation system, with an emphasis on the most vulnerable users.” Each of the planned projects advance, in some way, the Vision Zero goal by improving the safety of the subject transportation facility for the users. . . . . 19. Add the following potential action: Complete a Vision Zero Action Plan to achieve the goal of zero transportation‐related fatalities and severe injuries by a target date to be recommended by the Vision Zero Task Force. 20. Revise System‐Wide Policy#2 as shown underlined: Consider safety first when making transportation decisions. Strive for zero transportation‐related fatalities by reducing the number and severity of crashes through design, operations, maintenance, education, and enforcement. In furtherance of the City Council’s adopted Vision Zero goal (Resolution No. 5143), prioritize safety improvements for people who walk, bike and use mobility devices because no loss of life or serious injury on our streets is acceptable. Revisions Regarding Level of Service (LOS): 21. Revise Chapter 4 (section titled “Vehicular Performance Measurement”) to include the following information: The use of mobility standards for roadways identifies the maximum amount of congestion that an agency has deemed to be acceptable. Such standards are commonly used to assess the impacts of proposed land use actions on vehicular operating conditions and are one measure staff uses to determine transportation improvement needs for project planning. Mobility standards are typically expressed as Volume‐to‐Capacity (V/C) Ratios and/or Level of Service (LOS), which are defined below.  V/C represents a facility’s level of saturation (i.e., what proportion of capacity is being used), with values ranging from 0.00 to 1.00. A lower ratio indicates smooth vehicular operations and minimal delays. As the ratio approaches 1.00, congestion and vehicular delays increase. At a ratio of 1.00, the intersection, travel lane, or automotive movement is saturated resulting in longer queues and delays. Proposed Revisions to 2035 TSP Page 3 of 6  Attachment A  LOS is a performance measure that is similar to a “report card” rating based on average vehicle delay. LOS A, B, and C indicate conditions where traffic moves without significant delays. LOS D and E indicate progressively worse operating conditions and more delay. LOS F represents conditions where average vehicle delay has become excessive and demand is near capacity. This condition is typically evident by long queues and delays, with intersection delays that may be difficult to measure because congestion may extend into and be affected by adjacent intersections. The table shows the average delay value (in seconds) corresponding to each LOS designation. Signalized Unsignalized LOS Intersections Intersections A ≤10 sec ≤10 sec B 10–20 sec 10–15 sec C 20–35 sec 15–25 sec D 35–55 sec 25–35 sec E 55–80 sec 35–50 sec F >80 sec >50 sec 22. Create a new category in Chapter 2 entitled “Actions for Roadway Policies” (to come after “Roadway and Parking Policies” and before “Potential Actions for Roadway and Parking Policies”) and add the following action item to the new category: Amend the City’s adopted Traffic Impact Analysis code and administrative rule provisions to expand the measurement of a proposed development’s traffic impacts beyond the level of service measurement and, correspondingly, expand potential mitigation measures beyond measures that address only vehicular delay. 23. Add the following action item to Actions for Roadway Policies: Amend the Traffic Impact Analysis provisions to require a review of safety at intersections through a comparison of the actual crash rate experienced during the past 3 – 5 years versus the expected crash rate for similar facilities to determine whether improvements may be needed. 24. Add the following action item to Actions for Roadway Policies: Require all developments and employers of a certain size and type to prepare, implement and monitor Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans. 25. Add the following potential action: Expand the definition of LOS to include volume‐to‐capacity ratio, queuing, and traffic control changes. Proposed Revisions to 2035 TSP Page 4 of 6  Attachment A Revisions that Respond to DLCD Comments: 26. Revise the adopting ordinance and the introductory language in the 2035 TSP to specifically adopt Appendices B through E in Volume 2 as part of the 2035 TSP. As revised, Chapter 1, section “TSP Organization” shall state: The City of Eugene’s 2035 TSP is comprised of two Volumes: Volume 1, the main document with attachments; and, Volume 2, technical reports, data, and related transportation plans that enhance and support Volume 1. Volume 1 (this document) includes the items that will be of interest to the broadest audience. Volume 1 includes:  Chapter 1: A brief overview of the planning context for the 2035 TSP.  Chapter 2: Goals, policies and actions that express the City’s long‐range vision for the transportation system.  Chapter 3: Description of the transportation system deficiencies and needs and the process to develop the TSP’s list of planned capital improvements and transportation programs.  Chapter 4: An overview of the recommended projects for the multimodal system.  Chapter 5: A list of the multimodal projects and the costs estimated for their construction.  Chapter 6: A summary of transportation funding and implementation, including estimated revenue stream, cost of 20 year needs, and potential funding sources.  Attachment A: Street Classification Map (amended)  Attachment B: Beltline Highway: Coburg Road to River Road Facility Plan  Attachment C: Alternative Performance Measure Benchmarks Volume 2 includes:  Appendix A: Glossary  Appendix B: Existing conditions inventory and analysis  Appendix C: No Build analysis  Appendix D: 20‐year Needs Analysis  Appendix E: Alternatives Evaluation Process  Appendix F: Key Corridors map  Appendix G: Eugene Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2012)  Appendix H: On the Move: Regional Transportation Options Plan (2014)  Appendix I: Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalks, Bikeways and Accessways (1999)  Appendix J: Eugene Transportation System Plan: Public Involvement Plan  Appendix K: Lane Transit District Long Range Transportation Plan (2014)  Appendix L: Strategies for Transportation System Management and Operations (TSMO)  Appendix M: Eugene Airport Master Plan Update (2010) While not all of Volume 2 is adopted as part of the 2035 TSP, all of the documents provide useful information regarding the basis for the decisions represented in Volume 1. 27. Revise Attachment C to the 2035 TSP to address potential inconsistencies between the performance measures and benchmarks approved by LCDC in 2001 and the benchmarks proposed as part of the 2035 TSP. Revised document is attached hereto as Attachment 2. Proposed Revisions to 2035 TSP Page 5 of 6  Attachment A Revisions Addressing Neighborhood Livability: 28. Add a policy to reflect that, prior to moving forward with a capital project including Complete Street Upgrades of Existing Streets and in addition to conducting public engagement activities, staff will also consider a neighborhood’s character (the built and natural environment) and other elements of community context when designing the project. 29. Add a potential action item regarding the Railroad Quiet Zone that states: “Work with Lane County to investigate creating a railroad quiet zone that addresses the rail crossings of Irving Road and Irvington Drive.” 30. Revise Potential Action L in System Wide Policies to state: Strengthen the City’s traffic calming program by increasing the annual funding amount. Continue to consider input from the Fire Department regarding acceptable traffic calming treatments. 31. Add the following statement to Chapter 5: “Prior to commencing a capital transportation project, the City staff does their best to reach out to and engage the community. In determining the appropriate amount of public involvement for a particular project, the City considers the scale, scope and potential impacts of the project.” Additional Revisions 32. Add to Chapter 6 a new section entitled “Monitoring and Reporting” that states: Through its goals, policies, potential action items and projects, the 2035 TSP is designed to increase transportation choices and reduce reliance on the automobile. While the benchmarks set out in Attachment C will assure the City is making satisfactory progress toward meeting the standards approved by LCDC in 2001 for the entire Eugene‐Springfield metro area, the City will also undertake Eugene‐specific monitoring and reporting. Specifically, the City will periodically compile information that will be analyzed to measure the performance of the City’s transportation system and to evaluate the effectiveness of the 2035 TSP’s goals, policies and programs. Further, transportation‐specific monitoring is included in the policies for growth management monitoring that are being prepared as part of the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan. The transportation trends proposed to be monitored include vehicle miles traveled, mode split, LTD ridership and commuting trends. Lastly, to monitor the City’s progress toward achieving its adopted goal of reducing fossil fuel consumption by 50% by 2030 from 2010 levels, the City will monitor and report on the total gallons of fuel sold in Eugene in 2020, 2025 and 2030. 33. Move the Glossary, currently identified as Appendix A of Volume 2, to the preamble of the main document (Volume 2), paginating it as pages iv – vii. 34. Correct typos, grammatical errors and reference errors. Proposed Revisions to 2035 TSP Page 6 of 6  Appendix F This map is illustrative for the 2035 TSP; depicting approximate locations of the 2035 TSP's Key Corridors. The map does not reflect precise boundaries of the Key Corridors or the associated planning efforts, which will be determined through a collaborative, community process.  LCDC‐Approved Performance Benchmarks How Measured Measures 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 (from TransPlan) % Non‐Auto Trips 17% 24% 33% 40% 45% % walking and biking trips “Active Mode Share” ACS commute statistics and (7% additional pedestrian and bike walk data as they becomes 8% available from City & LCOG bike) counts. % Transit Mode Share on 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% LCOG data, Congested Corridors LTD data (boardings) or ACS commute statistics (ACS=4.1% transit now) Priority Bikeway Miles 10 20 30 40 Number of new projects Definition of a “priority bikeway” constructed that meet project from TransPlan = Bike TransPlan’s definition of projects located along an essential Priority Bikeway Miles. core route on which the overall bicycle system depends; and (one of the following): 1. Fills in a critical gap in the existing bicycle system; or 2. Overcomes a barrier where no other nearby existing or programmed bikeway alternatives exist; or, 3. Significantly improves bicycle users’ safety in a given corridor. Acres of zoned nodal 1240 1530 1700 1870 2040 Number of acres that meet development TransPlan’s definition of nodal Definition of “nodal development” development, i.e., mixed use from TransPlan = a mixed‐used, centers, Key Transit Corridors, pedestrian friendly land use and 20‐minute pattern that seeks to increase neighborhoods. concentrations of population and employment in well‐defined areas GIS, U.S. Census with good transit service, a mix of {00222024;1 } diverse and compatible land uses, and public and private improvements designed to be pedestrian and transit oriented. % of dwelling units built in 23.3% 26% 29% 32% 35% % of new dwelling units built nodes in areas that meet TransPlan’s definition of nodal development, i.e., % of new dwelling units built in mixed use centers, 20‐Minute Neighborhoods, and along Key Transit Corridors. LCOG, Census % of New “Total” 45% 48% 51% 54% 57% % of new employment located Employment in Nodes within areas that meet (Per TransPlan, the calculation of TransPlan’s definition of nodal the measure excludes development, i.e., % of new employment that would not likely employment in mixed use located in a nodal area, such as centers, 20 Minute industrial employment.) Neighborhoods, and along Key Transit Corridors. LCOG data {00222024;1 }  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 12, 2016 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Heather O’Donnell, City of Eugene Planning Division Subject: Public Involvement Subcommittee: DRAFT Guidelines and Work Plan ISSUE STATEMENT This work session is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to hear an update on the work of the Public Involvement Subcommittee, including finalizing the subcommittee’s draft guidelines and work plan. BACKGROUND At the November 2015 Planning Commission retreat, commissioners discussed areas of focus for the coming year. Two key areas related to communication emerged, including improving collaboration and communication with the Eugene City Council, and working on process improvements for public engagement. To make progress on the latter of these goals, in early 2016 the Planning Commission formed a Public Involvement Subcommittee (PIC). Since then, the subcommittee has met a number of times and, at the request of the broader Commission, developed a set of draft guidelines to clarify the operating agreements of the subcommittee. They also worked with staff to produce a subcommittee work plan. Article II, Section (g) of the Planning Commission bylaws states the purpose and objectives of the Planning Commission shall be: “To serve as the committee for citizen involvement as described in Statewide Planning Goal 1, responsible for assisting the city council with the development of a program that promotes and enhances citizen involvement in land use planning, assisting in the implementation of the citizen involvement program, and evaluating the process being used for citizen involvement.” The subcommittee is not replacing the full Planning Commission’s role in meeting the above purpose. Rather the work of the PIC supports the full Planning Commission in this effort and will be bringing recommendations back to the full Planning Commission on how to improve the public’s involvement in our planning work. To this end, the goal of this agenda item is to provide the Planning Commission an opportunity to review and approve the guidelines and work plan. Guidelines Proposed operating guidelines for the PIC are provided in Attachment A. The guidelines have been revised based on feedback received at the October 10th meeting and further discussions at the subcommittee. A vote on approval of the guidelines is requested. Work Plan A proposed PIC work plan is provided for your approval in Attachment B. On June 20th the Planning Commission reviewed a draft subcommittee work plan which was developed from the public involvement discussions at the 2015 Planning Commission retreat. In order to make progress on these items and identify who to involve in the work, the PIC has reformatted the work plan and fleshed out some of the work plan items to include the following:  Overarching goals derived from the objectives  Identification of the 2015 retreat work plan items as objectives and placing them in order of completion (short term, mid-term or to be determined)  Identification of preliminary deliverables, next steps, key stakeholders, and notes for each objective The PIC has taken the work plan as far as possible at the subcommittee level and would like the Planning Commission’s feedback to finalize the document. Particularly, feedback is needed on:  The order of completion of the work tasks, including those where the completion timeframe is to be determined;  The deliverables;  The key stakeholders; and  Clarification of objectives 9 and 11 Planning Commission will have the opportunity to discuss the items listed above at the meeting. A vote on approval of the work plan is requested to enable the subcommittee to begin implementing it. NEXT STEPS Based on feedback from the broader Commission, the PIC will refine the work plan and begin work on the short term objectives and then bring recommendations on these objectives back to the full Planning Commission for your consideration. The Commission may then choose to review those recommendations and, in conjunction with staff, activate those recommendations in the context of ongoing work and processes as needed. ATTACHMENTS A. DRAFT PC-PIC Guidelines, November 29, 2016 B. DRAFT PC-PIC Work Plan, December 5, 2016 FOR MORE INFORMATION Contact Heather O’Donnell at 541-682-5488, heather.m.odonnell@ci.eugene.or.us  Attachment A GUIDELINES OF THE EUGENE THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE (Drafted August 12, 2016; edited October 18, 2016) Mission The mission of the Public Involvement Subcommittee of the Planning Commission (PC-PIC) is to create a more welcoming and accessible public process for those interested in land use issues and the work of the Planning Commission. Role and Duties In accordance with the City of Eugene Planning Commission bylaws, the PC-PIC will:  Produce a work plan to improve public involvement for the approval of the Planning Commission.  At the discretion of the Planning Commission, evaluate specific public engagement efforts.  Bring forward recommendations to improve public engagement to the larger Planning Commission. The PC-PIC will bring recommendations to the Planning Commission, where a decision will be made by the full the Planning Commission. When the Planning Commission is ready to move forward with recommending action to Planning staff, other City agency staff, or the City Council, a vote will be taken to approve the action. Members of the PC-PIC shall not speak on behalf of the Planning Commission without approval of the Planning Commission. The representative shall support the Commission’s majority view. This extends to all public meetings and events. Membership and Voting The PC-PIC will consist of three members appointed by the Planning Commission. PC-PIC Chair The Chair is selected to a one-year term by the PIC-PC and shall serve at the pleasure of the PC-PIC. Meetings The PC-PIC will meet on a regular basis. Meeting agendas and notes, after approval by the PC-PIC, shall be placed under the Planning Commission webpage. The PC-PIC shall provide verbal updates to the Planning Commission. Changes to Guidelines These guidelines must be approved by the Planning Commission. They may be amended by a majority vote at any regular meeting. Notice shall be provided to the Planning Commission at least one meeting prior. The above guidelines were approved by a majority vote of the Eugene Planning Commission on _____________________, 2016, to become effective ___________________, 2016.  Attachment A Eugene Planning Commission ________________________ Chair ________________________ Vice – Chair  Attachment B December 5, 2016 Planning Commission Public Involvement Team Workplan Goals: Overarching aims of the PC PIC Objectives: Actions in support of goals Deliverables: Tangible work products Lead/Support: Individual responsible for deliverable/individual or body supporting deliverable Status/Next Steps: Status of deliverable/planned action to achieve deliverable Stakeholders: Individuals and groups to be consulted Goal 1: Make planning information and processes more accessible to the public. Goal 2: Improve public understanding of planning processes, the role of Planning and the PC, and how the public can engage. Goal 3: Ensure PC, PC PIC and Planning staff benefit from and employ best practices related to public involvement Objectives Deliverables Lead/Support Status/Next Steps Stakeholders Notes/Research 1. Create a sub‐committee  Subcommittee  PC/Heather  √ Done. PC, Planning Staff, Finalize PC PIC responsible for making membership O’Donnell  Final draft. To be public guidelines at 12/12/16 planning processes more  Subcommittee  PC PIC/ reviewed and PC mtg. Short Term / Current accessible and Guidelines Heather approved by PC welcoming to the public O’Donnell 2. Develop and refine  Workplan  Eric Brown/PC  Work with PC to PC, PC PIC, workplan with input from and PC PIC further develop this Planning Staff the full PC workplan 3. Develop a set of public  Set of principles  Eric Brown/  Agree on approach PC, Planning Staff, South Willamette involvement principles PC PIC to develop public Oregon Consensus that will inform planning principles Assessment, other processes and initiatives City examples, non‐ profit guidance Commented [OHM1]: Moved to resource instead of objective. Ok?  Attachment B Objectives Deliverables Lead/Support Status/Next Steps Stakeholders Notes/Research 4. Revamp the Land Use  New web pages  Alissa Hansen/  Land Use Developers, Look at best practice Application and Planning others as Application Builders, Planning examples from other Commission webpages needed Information page Staff, PC, public cities. added. Other pages (including to be revamped. nonusers),  Planning neighborhoods Commission Resource page added. 5. Develop charts and  Charts and diagrams  TBD/ Jen  TBD PC, public Look at examples from diagrams to explain Knapp other cities. decision‐making processes to the PC and Commented [s2]: I’m not sure what is meant by the Short Term / Current public current wording. Are these charts for the PC or to make decision‐making by the PC and the Planning Dept more 6. PC, PC PIC, and Planning  Attendance at  All 2016 Events Attended: PC, Planning Staff understandable to the public? staff attend training and events  2 Staff and 1 PC professional  Debriefing at PC attended IAP2 (The development events International Association for Public Participation)  All staff and 2 PC attended IPMP (The Institute for Participatory Management & Planning)  Staff attended Indivisible.us presentation  Staff attended OR/WA APA Conference PC PIC Worplan pg. 2  Attachment B Objectives Deliverables Lead/Support Status/Next Steps Stakeholders Notes/Research 7. Work with HRNI  Guide  TBD  Determine PD and Neighborhoods,  Review existing City to create a HNRI leads Planning Staff, resources (public guide for how  Develop scope and HNRI Staff, PC outreach guide) neighborhood timeline  Look at best groups and the practice examples publiccan from other cities. participate in development Medium Term projects 8. Explore how to  Planning & BPS staff TBD  TBD Public, Planning Overlap with get residents Staff, PC Objective 6 above? better information about how to participate effectively in the (1) land use application process and (2) the building permit process PC PIC Worplan pg. 3  Attachment B Objectives Deliverables Lead/Support Status/Next Steps Stakeholders Notes/Research 9. Do more   Review current and Neighborhoods, *Need to raise outreach historical activities PC, public, awareness that PC is regarding what  Brainstorm list of developers and public involvement PC does and who deliverables the builders, CBOs, arm as delegated by they are to with PC UO, LCC CC. increase  transparency and trust (web, neighborhood Timeline TBD meetings) Commented [BEG3]: This needs to be fleshed out. At this point it is very highlevel. What do we mean by 10. Bolster and adjust   TBD Public, Council, outreach? Education or encouraging involvement? What outreach to Neighborhoods, would deliverables look like here? community and Planning Staff, Council public throughout land use processes 11. Do more to   TBD PC, Neighborhood *Should connect PC with groups neighborhood leaders neighborhood also get leaders announcements Commented [BEG4]: Same issue as above for Obj. 9 emailed to PC? +10. Also, how are Obj. 8, 9 and 10 related? PC PIC Worplan pg. 4