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, AUGUST 14, 2017 – REGULAR MEETING (11:30 am to 1:30pm) 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. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF 11:40 AM A. Other Items from Commission B. Other Items from Staff C. Learning: How are we doing? III. PLANNING COMMISSION ELECTIONS 11:50 AM Lead Staff: Robin Hostick, 541‐682‐5507 robin.a.hostick@ci.eugene.or.us IV. PLANNING DIVISION WORK PLAN 12:00 PM Lead Staff: Robin Hostick, 541‐682‐5507 robin.a.hostick@ci.eugene.or.us V. COMMITTEES, LIASONS, AND PROJECT RESOURCES 1:00 PM Lead Staff: Robin Hostick, 541‐682‐5507 robin.a.hostick@ci.eugene.or.us Commissioners: Steven Baker; John Barofsky (Vice Chair); Elliot Becker; John Jaworski; Brianna Nicolello; William Randall; Kristen Taylor (Chair)  AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY August 14, 2017 To: Eugene Planning Commission From: Robin Hostick, Planning Director Subject: Planning Team Work Plan INTRODUCTION This work session is an opportunity for Planning Commission to hear about and discuss the Planning Division’s 2017‐2019 work plan and related Planning Commission roles. BACKGROUND Following local adoption of Eugene’s proposed urban growth boundary (UGB), the City of Eugene Planning Division (the Planning Team) is preparing to re‐focus our attention on a slate of previously‐directed and in‐progress work (see Attachment A). The successful, local UGB adoption resulted from many years of intensive, adaptive planning. During this time, much of our work plan was aimed at reaching this important milestone while managing an increasing load of land use application review and coordination. To meet these challenges, our Planning Team has become adept at sharing resources and responsibility for delivering excellent service. We expect this model of cooperative, team‐based work will continue. The 2017‐2019 work plan reflects a few refinements in our approach. While the format and much of the content will be familiar, our process for defining work and setting priorities will become more transparent. We want every project we start to succeed. During UGB adoption, the list of initiatives and projects has grown along with new program areas carried forward in the policy framework of Envision Eugene, for example growth monitoring. At the same time, due to ongoing efforts to stabilize the City’s budget, our capacity remains about the same for regular staff (at about 70% of 2010 levels)1. New funding is limited to one‐time budgets for individual projects such as the River Road / Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan, establishing a growth monitoring database, and planning for urban reserves. This provides a needed resource while also obligating existing staff time to organize and use these funds effectively to reach project goals. Overall, our to‐do list exceeds our current capacity for the 2017‐2019 horizon. 1 We added one full time employee at the beginning of July (FY18) to assist with land use review. This position is revenue‐backed from the increase in land use application fees, which we expect to continue barring unforeseen economic changes. 1 These and other factors led our Planning Team to develop guidelines for prioritizing Eugene’s planning needs. Attachment B outlines basic criteria we use to set initial priorities. These criteria are drawn from community, Planning Commission, and City Council conversations over many years as we’ve sought guidance on managing priorities. Capturing them in a clear and organized format makes sure we’re thinking through all aspects of drivers, urgency, and public benefit as well as important but often overlooked aspects of risk and readiness. To inform our work planning, our Planning Team has also made a big investment in preparing draft project charters and POPs (Purpose/Outcome/Process statements, or simplified project outlines) for around 20 different projects. This is another important process upgrade. By thinking through each effort up‐front, and ultimately securing the support of partners and leadership, we can better estimate the time, effort and cost involved, keep the work moving through shared commitments, and measure success. We are also working to better define the role of the Planning Commission for each project, as reflected in a draft summary of Planning Commission Committees, Liaisons and Project Resources (Attachment C). Metrics are a logical next step in our process improvements. Last year, we re‐designed our decades‐old time tracking system to match our current needs. With objectives identified through charters and POPs, we can now check in to see if we’re on‐target and report the results. Improving our communication platform, e.g. through our online newsletter, is a related effort that will boost transparency and accountability. It will take time and practice to enable all of these improvements in the context of in‐progress work – as we like to say, to “change the machine while it’s running.” We believe these small process investments are necessary to improve service without growing our footprint, and to deliver the best outcomes possible for our community. NEXT STEPS After discussing the work plan with the Planning Commission, we will schedule a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and the City Council for the fall. At that meeting, we plan to discuss past efforts and the work ahead, as well as the role of the Planning Commission in supporting the City Council. ATTACHMENTS A. Planning Team Work Plan 2017‐2019 B. Prioritization Criteria FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Robin Hostick, Planning Director Telephone: 541‐682‐5507 Staff E‐Mail: Robin.a.hostick@ci.eugene.or.us 2  Eugene Planning Team DRAFT 2017-2019 Work Plan* August 2017 2017 2018 2019 Ongoing Planning Programs and Projects Planning Commission and Hearings Official admin/support Historic Review Board admin/support Land use application review and related legal requirements and coordination Land use project consultation/assistance/facilitation and public inquiries Code maintenance program: corrections, clean-up, and legal updates State and regional coordination (reporting, legistlative review, rule making) Code Update: amend secondary dwelling unit code per SB 1051 Metro, regional and interdepartmental planning and coordination City Council /Manager assignments Communication and Public Involvement system improvements Envision Eugene Implementation Projects UGB adoption package: appeal coordination Urban reserve planning (incl. Metro Plan boundary review) Growth monitoring program and system development (incl. EETAC) Clear Lake Implementation: wetland mitigation, stormwater, public services Code Update: clear & objective (needed housing) standards Area Planning: River Road / Santa Clara neighborhood plan and corridor study Area Planning: Downtown Riverfront (EWEB) plan implementation Area Planning: University neighborhoods plan Area Planning: Bethel neighborhood plan (TBD) Comp Plan Phase II: Complete remaining chapters (e.g. livability, compact devel., etc.) Comp Plan Phase II: Parcel-specific land use diagram Envision Eugene Vision to Action Plan (wrap up city-wide vision and action plan) Corridor Planning: MovingAhead coordination and support Community Design: support for downtown projects, city hall, park blocks, housing Investment Program: systems development charge re-structuring Crow Road Implementation: zone and code amendments Code Improvement: amend cell tower code for R-1 zoned areas Code Improvement: zone transitions (citywide) (TBD) = timing dependencies, e.g. extent of appeals, completion of other work, etc. = capacity building support work with Human Rights / Neighborhood Involvement TBD = to be deterimined EETAC = Envison Eugene Technical Advisory Committee * All timelines are estimated and subject to change Pending and Emerging Projects (TBD) Missing middle housing / housing affordability Corridor planning /code update: fixing setbacks for walkable streets (PWT/PDD) Downtown commercial setbacks for walkable streets Prioritization Criteria – Planning Division Priority Origin Timing/Urgency Public Benefit Risk/Readiness • Legal mandate • Community • Meets a clearly • Appropriateness for • Council direction emergency defined need organization/team • Legal deadline • Consistent with • Funding/cost High • Overdue Council values/policy/vision • Staff capacity obligation • Fixes inconsistency • Community support • Loss of funding w/ values/policy/ /preparation/capacity vision • Sponsorship/ • Planning • Approaching • Supports triple leadership support Commission initiative deadline/commitment bottom line • Neighborhood/Area Med • Operational need • Growing need • Broad application/ planning readiness • Evolving direction • Loss of opportunity city-wide benefit guidelines (in- • Geographic equity progress, TBD) • Discretionary • No timeline, • Creates substantial opportunity/need commitment, or efficiencies substantial • Leverages Low investment dependency (flexible work item) How should the criteria be used? This matrix is simply a tool to help organize potential criteria for setting work priorities. There are no hard and fast rules. Generally, however, for work items that contain one or more of the criteria under the Origin and Timing/Urgency columns, these criteria will help guide where each item lands initially for further discussion. For example, a project that was initiated as an operational need but would result in a serious loss of funding if not completed, would generally begin as a high priority. Or a legal mandate that has no timeline, commitment, or available funding might move down on the list. Priorities can be refined by looking at other criteria, e.g. value, defined here as public benefit, and risk/readiness, or whether or not key factors are in place for the project to succeed. These can be generally evaluated as high, medium, or low. For projects that have not yet been initiated, the second two columns should be considered along with the first two columns to determine if/when a project should be undertaken. Different people with different interests may rank projects differently according to these criteria. It may also be useful to consider other criteria not listed here, especially in the Public Benefit and Risk/Readiness columns.  Attachment C Committees, Liaisons and Project Resources 2017-2018 Current Assignments 2017-2018 Assignments On-going Standing Committees Historic Review Board (HRB) Baker EE Technical Advisory Committee for Growth Interested: Barofsky, Monitoring (name, format, assignments TBD) Jaworski, Nicolello, Taylor UO Community Liaison Barofsky Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Barofsky Liaisons to Other Boards/Commissions Sustainability Commission Taylor Human Rights Commission Randall Housing Policy Board Taylor Project Resources Corridor Planning: MovingAhead Jaworski, Mills, Nicolello Alternate: Randall Interest list: Baker Urban Reserve Planning Barofsky, Nicolello, Randall Alternate: Taylor Interest list: Baker Area Planning: River Rd. / Santa Clara Jaworski, Nicolello neighborhood plan and corridor study Comprehensive Plan Phase II: Remaining Jaworski, Nicolello, Taylor Chapters Comprehensive Plan Phase II: Parcel-specific Baker, Barofsky land use diagram Code Improvement: Clear & Objective (Needed N/A Housing) Standards Future Project Resources Area Planning: University neighborhoods plan Baker, Barofsky, Nicolello Alternate: Taylor Area Planning: Bethel neighborhood plan N/A Talley based on current assignments Baker Barofsky Becker Jaworski Nicolello Randall Taylor 3 (2) 5 3 5 2 (1) 3 (2) Note: tally does not include the EE TAC (assignments are still pending for this group) Updated August 2, 2017