HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 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