The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 02 Scenario Planning Update AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/7/2012 Meeting Type:Work Session Staff Contact/Dept.: Greg Mott, Tom Boyatt/DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-3774/744-3373 Estimated Time: 15 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Mandate ITEM TITLE: SCENARIO PLANNING UPDATE ACTION REQUESTED: Review the Draft Scenario Planning Scope of Work in preparation for its presentation to MPC on May 10. The MPC will not be asked to take action (approval) until the June 14 meeting. Following that action, each of the participating governing bodies will be asked to approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with ODOT and LCOG that will replicate the provisions, timelines and tasks in the Scope of Work, and will include a budget to reimburse City staff costs related to scenario planning activities. ISSUE STATEMENT: On May 10 the MPC will review the major elements for a scenario planning scope of work. The draft of that Scope of Work will be reviewed by Council on May 7 so that any elements of the Scope that may raise issue or concerns with the Council may be communicated to the MPC by Springfield’s MPC representatives. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Draft Scenario Planning Process Framework Attachment 2: Central Lane Scenario Planning Scope of Work (Partial Draft 4/25/12) Attachment 3: Fregonese Associates Scenario Planning Presentation, MPC 4-12-2012 DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: House Bill 2001 (2009) and Senate Bill 1059 (2010) collectively require the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to undertake a scenario planning process to investigate how to accommodate planned population and employment while reducing green house gas emissions (GHG) from vehicles under 10,000 pounds by 20% below 2005 levels (per capita) by 2035. These actions would supplement statewide actions to address this goal. The outcome of the scenario planning process described in the statute is for Eugene, Springfield, Coburg, and Lane County to cooperatively select a preferred scenario which demonstrates the target GHG reduction. A cooperatively selected preferred scenario is at this point not required to be adopted or implemented. In order for ODOT to honor the legislative mandate to cover MPO and local jurisdiction staff costs, a scope of work for scenario planning activity is being developed by representatives from each of the participating agencies. Once the scope of work has been agreed to by all project participants, the scope forms the basis for an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to allow for cost reimbursement for this activity. MPC expects to see a Draft Scope of Work at the May 10 meeting, and will likely be asked to adopt a final Scope at the June 14 meeting. This work session is an opportunity for staff to provide Council with a scenario planning update. Staff from participating governing bodies is meeting the week of April 23 to complete the draft Scope of Work for presentation to MPC in May and decision in June. Staff is available to answer questions about the scenario planning process and any of the requirements of HB 2001 and SB 1059. MPC 5.e – Attachment 1 Page 1 of 1 Draft SCENARIO PLANNING PROCESS FRAMEWORK  A. Organizational Structure The MPO provides the foundation of the technical, logistical, and political framework. Because MPC does not have land use authority will need to interface MPC decisions with local government policy bodies. Clear communications with city councils and County Board needed.  B. Funding Sources State funding is available through ODOT, and has been committed. Funding for MPO planning activities is eligible for many Scenario Planning tasks. Federal funds obtained through the HUD Grant are also eligible for a portion of Scenario Planning work. Transit participation may be eligible to fund with FTA dollars.  C. Planning Area Defined by the MPO boundary; includes Eugene, Springfield, Coburg and Lane County.  D. Key Planning Issues Dimension/Policy Lever Evaluation Criteria Transportation X Land Use: Employment and Housing X GHG Emissions X Economic Development X X Public Health X Infrastructure (Sewer, Water, Energy) X Equity X Environment Air and Water X E. Technical/Logistical Leadership  Core Team Transportation and Land Use Planners, plus Experts Based on “Levers” Chosen Above  Technical Team Transportation Planners plus Planning Directors/Land Use Planners, Public Health interests, and Economic Development; DLCD  F. Political Leadership Lane County Board Eugene City Council Springfield City Council Coburg City Council LTD Board of Directors Policy Decision‐makers. Agencies required to cooperatively select Preferred Scenario (package of preferred strategies) G. Advisory Committee Discussions on Makeup Continuing. Policy discussions; Ongoing communications and coordination of work elements; Management of MPO staff work program. H. Public Involvement Details to be developed in next steps. Budget will assume utilization of existing public involvement infrastructure to the extent possible. Attachment 1-1 CLSP Scope of Work, 4/25/2012 Page 1 of 5 “Central Lane Scenario Planning (CLSP)” Scope of Work Partial Draft 4/25/2012 INTRODUCTION This Statement of Work (SOW) defines the major work program activities to be completed by the Central Lane MPO and local governments within the boundary of the Central Lane in the time period between July of 2012 and June of 2015 to conduct scenario planning in fulfillment of the requirements of Section 38a of House Bill 2001 adopted by the Oregon Legislature in 2009. This SOW also defines the major work program activities to be completed by the Lane Livability Consortium as part of Task 4 (“Climate Change Planning”) of its SMART Communities Project to meet its obligations under the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). GOALS [to be determined] OBJECTIVES [to be determined] REG ATION, COORDINATION AND DECISION‐MAKING STRUC The locts, who will ultimately cooperatively select a preferred scenario, are: IONAL CONSULT TURE al governmen • City of Eugene fi • • eld City of Spring • City of Coburg Lane County • Lane Transit District Organizded by: ational, technical and fiscal support will be provi • Central Lane MPO / Lane Council of Governments Fundinbe provided by: g will • ODOT Attachment 2-1 • HUD Leadership Team, with empA owered representatives from each of the involved local governments, will collaboratively oversee the process. A Project Management Team, with empowered representatives from each of the involved local governments, the Central Lane MPO, and ODOT will collaboratively manage the process, with the assistance of a project manager. The process will be closely coordinated with the Lane Livability Consortium’s SMART Communities Project. Indeed, the organizational structure for the two efforts are so similar that it will likely make sense to adjust the Lane Livability Consortium’s Leadership Team and Project Management Team to serve the scenario planning process. But the two efforts will have two different project managers. Periodic briefings of the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC), the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and the Oregon Global Warming Commission (OGWC) will occur to provide status reports, gather input at key milestones in the process, and ensure consistency among work programs and products. Eugene City Council Springfield City CouncilCoburg City Council MPO CLSP Scope of Work, 4/25/2012 Page 2 of 5 Figure 1. Organizational Structure. STAGING The process will be divided into stages, with a significant decision or milestone at the end of each stage. (Note that it might be advantageous for one stage to begin before the previous ends.) Lane County Board of Commissioners Lane Transit District Board of Directors Leadership Team Project Management Team Staff & Consultants Attachment 2-2 CLSP Scope of Work, 4/25/2012 Page 3 of 5 Stage 0: Getting Started (through June 2012) This preliminary stage will focus on learning about scenario planning, identifying regional opportunities and challenges, understanding state requirements, developing a scope of work, and securing funding. This stage will result in a scope of work, an organizational structure, initial funding, and the formal start of the process. Stage 1: Understanding Choices (July to December 2012) This stage will focus on understanding the range of choices to be explored, both “inputs” (choices / policies / strategies / actions) and “outputs” (evaluation measures), and the methods to do so. This stage will result in a set of choices to explore and a better sense of the desired outcomes of the process. This stage will also result in a better (but not necessarily complete) understanding of existing conditions, trends and the possible outcomes of current plans. State 2: Shaping Choices (January to December 2013) This stage will focus on designing and evaluating a small number of alternative scenarios (in addition to one or more reference scenarios), applying the findings from Stage 1 and incorporating strategies identified in local and regional planning efforts that are completed or underway. This stage will also evaluate the benefits, impacts, costs and savings associated with different strategies across environmental, economic and equity goals. Case studies will be developed to illustrate potential community effects. This stage will result in development of alternative scenarios that will be subject to further analysis and review in Stage 3. This stage will also result in a report to the “House and Senate interim committees related to transportation [with] recommendations for a cooperative process of rulemaking and enforcement of the rules.” Stage 3: Testing Choices (January to December 2014) This stage will focus on collaboratively building and selecting a preferred scenario, applying the lessons on Stage 2. This phase will explore policies, investments, and actions that would be needed to implement the preferred scenario—should that be desired. This stage will also result in a report to the “Legislative Assembly … on the implications of implementing the [preferred] land use and transportation scenario … by amendments to the local governments’ comprehensive plans and land use regulations.” And this stage will result in a decision to pursue future stages, if any. TASKS [subtasks, deliverables, participants and schedule to be determined] Task 1: Project Management, Administration and Coordination Objective: Develop the final work program, and manage the project organization and delivery of products called for in this Statement of Work, in coordination with other state, regional and local planning efforts, in particular, the Lane Livability Consortium’s SMART Communities Project. Task 2: Public Education and Engagement Objective: Develop and conduct a public and stakeholder engagement program to improve community awareness and understanding of choices for the future—including climate change and emissions reduction contributions from land use and transportation. This task shall be coordinated with the Attachment 2-3 CLSP Scope of Work, 4/25/2012 Page 4 of 5 Statewide Transportation Strategy, Toolkit and public education campaign being developed by ODOT and DLCD in response to SB 1059 requirements. [Satisfies HB 2001 §38a(4) re “public review and comment.”] Cf. LLC Task 4.6: Climate Change/GHG Reduction Public Outreach Task 3: Scenario Framing and Research Objective: Conduct research to understand the appropriate range of choices to be explored, both “inputs” (choices / policies / strategies / actions) and “outputs” (evaluation measures), and to identify and define appropriate strategy options for later testing. Cf. LLC Task 4.2: Equity Considerations Cf. LLC Task 4.3: Land Use/Transportation Cf. LLC Task 4.3: Scenario Planning Methodology Cf. LLC Task 4.8: Toolkit Chapter 3 Task 4: Select and Develop Tools Objective: Select and develop models and other tools to establish appropriate baseline data, allow for comparison of key scenario assumptions, and provide adequate detail to develop findings necessary to select a preferred scenario. The tools developed should enhance regional and local land use and transportation models to evaluate the costs, benefits, and impacts of land use and transportation choices, including an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. [Satisfies HB 2001 §38a(2) re “modeling and other capabilities.”] Cf. LLC Task 4.1: Data & Modeling Task 5: Existing Conditions and Trends Objective: Summarize existing conditions and identify relevant trends in preparation for developing and evaluating scenarios. Task 6: Land Use and Transportation Scenario Development and Evaluation Objective: Use policy-level and sketch-level planning tool(s) developed in Task 4 to develop and evaluate a reference (baseline) scenario and at least two alternative land use and transportation scenarios that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks. [Satisfies HB 2001 §38a(3),(4) re developing scenarios and selecting a preferred scenario.] Task 7: Rulemaking Report Objective: Prepare a report to the House and Senate interim committees related to transportation with recommendations for a cooperative process of rulemaking and enforcement of the rules. [Satisfies HB 2001 §38a(7)(a).] Task 8: Preferred Scenario Report Objective: Prepare a report to the Legislative Assembly on the implications of implementing the preferred land use and transportation scenario by amendments to the local governments’ comprehensive plans and land use regulations. [Satisfies HB 2001 §38a(7)(b).] Attachment 2-4 CLSP Scope of Work, 4/25/2012 Page 5 of 5 BUDGET [to be determined] Attachment 2-5 Scenario Planning DiscussionCentral Lane Scenario PlanningApril 12, 2012 Attachment 3-1 Today’s Discussion• What is scenario planning? • The 7 Steps of Scenario Planning • Discussion: Question & Answer Session Attachment 3-2 Scenario Planning –Popularity Growing It allows us to:• Learn more about our plans • Weigh choices against consequences • Test policy options quickly • Develop strategies to optimize outcomes Map: HUD RegionalPlanning Projects in 2010 Attachment 3-3 What is scenario planning in Oregon?• The Process– Test our current plans – Develop plausible options – Objective comparisons – Examine successful strategies – Enhance plans with package of successful strategies • Possible Co-benefits– Public health – More robust economy – Access to amenities – Preservation of natural areas – Decreased travel time – Money saved on fuel Attachment 3-4 Planning: traditional approachThe Future The Present Attachment 3-5 Our scenario approachPlausible stories about the future Attachment 3-6 A B C D Develop a range of scenarios Attachment 3-7 What is New About Scenario Planning?• Sketch Planning Tools • Metropolitan Greenstep Attachment 3-8 Sketch PlanningBuilding Prototypes Building Blocks Scenario Development Evaluation Attachment 3-9 Prototype BuildingsWhy start with buildings?Easily modeled & lots of existing dataDensity and Design Rents and Sales PricesCosts and Affordability Energy and Water UseFiscal Impacts …to Create a Range of BuildingsUse ROI Model… Attachment 3-10 Building BlocksA Variety of Buildings, Streets and Amenities Create a “Place”Town Center Medium-Density Residential Single-Family Residential Attachment 3-11 San Bern: Baseline (General Plan) Attachment 3-12 San Bern: Mixed-Use District Focused Attachment 3-13 San Bern: Transit Priority Area Focused Attachment 3-14 San Bern: Transit Priority Area Focused(Infill Emphasis) Attachment 3-15 …to understand how different futures might shape our lives, economy, and environment Attachment 3-16 1234 BAU ScenarioSnapshotAttachment 3-17 Development ProportionsNew Growth 2008-2035 1 2 3 4 BAU Standard Lower Density Auto- Oriented Suburban Mid- Density Walkable and/or Transit OrientedHigher- Density Transit- Oriented Infill CompactUrban Attachment 3-18 Greenhouse Gas EmissionsAnnual Emissions from Buildings and Auto Transportation, 20351 2 3 4 Autos Buildings MMT CO2e Yearly Reduction Compared to Business As Usual 13.5 MMT 22.0 MMT 23.5 MMT 25.0 MMT Attachment 3-19 Scenario Planning Guidelines7 Steps Attachment 3-20 Outcomes:• An established framework for the scenario planning process • An understanding of the benefits of scenario planning for the metropolitan area Attachment 3-21 Outcomes:• Selection of guiding principles • Selection of evaluation criteria Attachment 3-22 Outcomes:• Tools are selected and set up • Set of building blocks Attachment 3-23 Outcomes:• Base conditions • Reference case scenario • A report to policy makers and the public of what current plans are likely to achieve Attachment 3-24 Research: Where are we now and where are we heading?• Forecast : housing units and jobs • Buildable lands inventory • Existing & Planned Land Use • Environmental constraints • Existing and Planned Roads and Transit Attachment 3-25 March 30th, 2011 Regional Scenario ModelingBuildings ScenariosIndicators How have you been growing?What is the region’s forecast?What are the plans for growth?What land is available for future growth?Other ways of achieving goals? Attachment 3-26 Understand what the future may holdMultifamily69% Townhome13%Single Family18% Housing Growth (2010-2050) Multifamily27% Townhome16% Single Family57% 2010 Housing Mix Multifamily39%Townhome15% Single Family46% 2050 Housing Mix To get from 2010 to 2050… …requires this housing mix for new housing. Attachment 3-27 Implications of SANDAG Forecast• Over 80% of all new units would be attached or multifamily • City of San Diego would lose over 6,500 existing single family homes through redevelopmentCity Multi-family Forecast Increment Average Annual Production (5+ Units) 2000-2009 Annual Production Needed for 2050 Forecast Chula Vista 25,066 411 597 El Cajon 14,057 - 335 National City 9,743 44 232 San Diego 225,016 2,717 5,358 Vista 11,951 37 285 How Many Multifamily Units are Needed to Achieve Forecast? Attachment 3-28 Outcomes:• Alternative scenarios to present to the public Attachment 3-29 Portland Metro’s 2035 GHG Reduction Target (in per capita terms) Quick testing of policy options 30 Attachment 3-30 31 Attachment 3-31 32Metro’s Preliminary Findings• Current local and regional plans and policies provide a strong foundation • Targets are achievable but will take more effort and action • No single strategy meets the target; there is no “silver bullet” • Partnerships and collaboration are key Attachment 3-32 Attachment 3-33 100,000 PopulationNo Regional MPOOne city, several villages, and lots of farm and forest landConcern about impacts of growthStrong champions and excellent partnership building TRAVERSE CITY, MICHIGAN Attachment 3-34 Traverse City, MIAttachment 3-35 Great Workshop Participation1,200 Participants! Attachment 3-36 Four Scenarios EmergedScenario A Trend Scenario B Rural by Design Scenario C Village FocusedScenario D City Focused Attachment 3-37 Outcomes:• A selected preferred scenario • Community vision document • Final report describing selected strategies and goals to guide implementation Attachment 3-38 Scorecard Survey12,141 Responses! Attachment 3-39 Attachment 3-40 Outcomes:• Implementation plan or strategy • Update and modify plans • Monitoring program for implementation Attachment 3-41 SALT LAKE CITY DEPOT DISTRICTContext: Urban redevelopment Scale: Site of regional transportation hub Issue: Maximize land assets where the region’s transportation networks converge (commuter rail, light rail, bus) Attachment 3-42 Salt Lake City: Depot District Scenarios Scenario C:Live| Play| Work Scenario B:Play| Live | Work Scenario A:Work | Live | Play Attachment 3-43 Scenario A:Work | Live | Play Attachment 3-44 Scenario A:Work | Live | Play Attachment 3-45 Scenario B:Play| Live | Work Attachment 3-46 Scenario B:Play| Live | Work Attachment 3-47 Scenario C:Live| Play| Work Attachment 3-48 Scenario C:Live| Play| Work Attachment 3-49 Annual Property Tax Revenue*Additional revenue per resident in Salt Lake City…+ $13* + $9* + $11* Public health, safety and welfare$2.8 M $1.9 M $2.4 M $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 Attachment 3-50 2,544 9,341 9,310 11,953 0 2,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,000 Depot District Walk TripsHealth, more time for friends and family Attachment 3-51 $3,167 $1,674 $2,388 $1,902 $- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 Annual Cost of Gasoline per Resident + EmployeeMore money for what matters Attachment 3-52 ENVISION CACHE VALLEYContext: Rural/urban interface Scale: Region (20+ municipalities, 2 counties, 2 states)Issue: Rapid population growth, concern about the impacts of growth (If we double our population and don’t change our growth patterns, we will lose the character and quality of life in our valley.) Attachment 3-53 Visualization: A Tidal Wave of Growth Attachment 3-54 Visualization: A Tidal Wave of Growth Attachment 3-55 Visualization: A Tidal Wave of Growth Attachment 3-56 Visualization: A Tidal Wave of Growth Attachment 3-57 Visualization: A Tidal Wave of Growth Attachment 3-58 Visualization: A Tidal Wave of Growth Attachment 3-59 Collective Concerns Emerge• Land Conservation– Which lands should be conserved for future generations? • Growth and Place-Making – What kinds of places should be created? – Where should people live and work? • Transportation– How will people get around? Attachment 3-60 Scenarios Created from Public Ideas Attachment 3-61 Exploring the Impacts: New Housing Attachment 3-62 How the vision measures up…To keep Cache Valley beautiful, neighborly, healthy and prosperous for the next generation Water Quality / New Water ConsumptionRelative to the 2040 Baseline Scenario: • 40% reduction of developed land between now and 2040 (21square miles) • 61% reduction in the conversion of prime farmland to urbanized land use (26,091 acres to 10,137 acres) • 10% reduction in vehicle miles traveled • 18% reduction in vehicular emissions (improves air quality) • 25% reduction of the annual local infrastructure costs of new housing (reduces tax burden and cost to buy a home) • 32% reduction of average housing costs (housing choices) 2040 Baseline Scenario 2040 Vision Scenario Attachment 3-63 Live close to where wework, shop and playWhy? …more time for friends and familyMontage by: Steve Price, Urban Advantage, http://www.urban ‐ advantage.com/ invest in existing townsAttachment 3-64 Develop efficient infrastructureWhy? …For high quality services and lower taxes+Make the most of existing systems +Build fewer miles of roads and water, sewer, and power lines =Lower taxes Attachment 3-65 Air qualityWater qualityWildlife habitat Agricultural landScenic viewsWhy? …For our health, safety and way of life Protect, preserve, improve Attachment 3-66