Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-0604 Documents Submitted at Meeting DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE JUNE 4, 2007 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ,~ ajW,of;~I-. PI~!j~IPr!!!!~~ Observations & Retommendotions ".1_-2001', '" Topics Zucker Report (organizational review) Siegel Report (code issues) Recommended Work Program Long Range Plans/Special Projects 1981 ~wPka" 1988 __ Plan 1990-01 =='~~-~. ECOMft"ic~PopulOtiOfi;'6pCn Space, ~~':.~~"9Y 8 _ T~ Plan (not adopted) T~..._ - _n Noig/1boI hood Plan T~OIl Syst... PIon Buildable Lands Imontory Tol_ CNOI< Plan (not adapted) 5_5_'- I:lOliiitowiiPlOilPliOsC fii...,........) Ilailraad _ Plan (MIy ....;.,Iy ....pt...) AffordobIe Housiflg Action Plan - Housi"9 Needs Anolysis Buildable Lands Imontory Update 00!i Consolidated Plan (CllIl6) 1992 1990 199' 199. 199. 1998 1998 I_ I_ 'Zoot 2001 2002 1 Zucker Recommendations Seftn Priority Areas: 1. Mission 2. Wor-k Pr-ogl'Cllll 3. Staffing and Or-ganization 4. Or-dinance Issues 5. Enfor-cement 6. Development Pr-Oce5Ses 7. Pr-ocess Softwar-e - Eden Priority 2: Work Program Zucker recommended that Planning develop: - Detai led wor-k pr-ogr-am - Decide if 1 or- 2 additional staff QI'e needed to acceler-ate pr-ogr-ess on the wor-k pr-ogr-am Response: - Staff has begun wor-k with the Planning Commission on a wor-k pr-ogr-am - Long r-ange planni!'9 staff QI'e wor-king on a wor-k plan to aadr-ess plein and code updates - Existing vacant planner- position has been cut for- bUdget r-easons and additional r-equests have not been made Priority 3: Staffing and Organization Zucker recommended: - Make the Development Sel"Vices Manager- position per-manent - Reor-gani ze Department - Add 2 planner-s to department - Vacant planning position should be fi lied Response: - Per-mit Centu Manager' position was cr-eated - ~ment r-eor-ganized to allow for- long r-ange plaitnlng offing positions fr-ozen due to budget issues 2 Community Development Organization - Phase I tl Priority 4: Ordinance Issues Zucker recommended: - Processes between the CDD and City Attorney should be improved - Land Use Ordinance amendments should proceed on an accelerated basis and include some interpretation flexibility Response: - The communication between CDD and City Attorney has been worked on. - The Ordinance amendments have been prioritized by the Planni'!9 Commission and aff is developing a worK plan to implement Priority 6: Development Processes Zucker recommended: - Improve the pre-application process - Develop comprehensive submittal lists - Determine if applications ore complete within 14 days - Assign new cases to 0 planner within three days of receIpt - Improve monthly stoff reYi_ meeting - Process building permit plan checks concurrently - Active use of Eden to monitor timeliteS - Set application timeline performance standards for 011 applications Response: - The Permit Center M....... and current planning group ore working on these standards. Significant impro_ts hove already took Dloce and new impro_ts will be brought on line os they ore ready for implementation ~ ~ 3 Siegel Report First phase consists of "housekeeping" revisions that address internal and external consistency, clarifications, corrections, and updates The second and third phases are intended to resolve key policy issues The fourth phase is to reorganize the LUO document, in particular, the Site Design and Use Standards and Street Design Standards Siegel Response Subcommittee met on house keeping measures; discussion progressed info key policy issues Staff is preparing house keeping measure changes Planning Commission prioritized key policy issues (mud bucket) Reorganization of ALVO would be put on hold until update of comprehensive plan Short-term "mud bucket" The Planning Commission prioritized short-term plan and code QI1Iendments in their February meeting as follows: J. t:alflDmic deoelopmcnt updote 2. 20 foot on.riaI _tbtJck 3. V............ and perf_ strmdttrds criteria 4. Wetland and riptrion ordiflt1ll<< 5. Duign reltned house cletJning (MPFA, vision cleirttnce, IIDn-conforming stondtrtIs) 6. l4rge SCtIIe deoelopmcnt strtndttrds in downfr1wn 4 Director Observations Planning Focus is on Develo ment The ~ at the Planni!19 Commission and City Council has been prllllClrily on t/e..,lo_nt DrD.iects The connection between the Com~hensiw Plan ~ and policies and current de""oDIMnf/il1/lJle"",ntifl1llirdi1ltlnees oppears to be lost The way to lOR the IlUblicin "planning" the community is to proVIde 0 , net forum for discussion obout the future. and lICIt just JII'C!C'lf opplicotion (dewlopment project) before the PlannIng CommIssion The ~nads to be shifted from Pl"Dcessto the !!is picture What policy conversations should we be undertaking? Housing - Affordable (rental and ownership) - Workforce Housing - How land SUPPlY. affects price of land Tl'D/ISpDrfotkm - Transit - Roil - Non-motorized (bike and pcdcstriGII) - Parking Form of City - Urban Growth Area Infill - Downtown - Measure 37 Claims EcDlHHnic t>ellf!lDpment - Living Wage jobs - Recruitment Focus Conservotion/Sustoinobility - Energy - Solar - Natural features (riporian and wctlands) Other 5 Key Recommendations We need to ....view. update ond OIIer'h<lUl. if necusory. the ComDrehenS/~ Pion. We need to make sure. the DeveloDment Reou/otlOns are consistent with our vision and plan. ~:c:='O:~o~~ =~n~~~z':?Zs~nd businesses in this ~;e'1:~ :~ C~~~.Q~~~~~ff;~~~~~~:a~::~~; t:.:r :r:f1~~S OCfcfress the major policy issues facing the community. We need to deal with Immediate ISSueS of regulations that are not consistent with existIng VISion for the community. Recommended Work Program Initiate the review and revision. as necessary. of the Comprehensive Plan. Review ...d amend the Ashland Land Use Ordin...ce to address inconsistencies and priority policy issues. Review I...d use plans and standcrds for Crom... Ali II Site and Railroad property. Comprehensive Plan Update Work Plan Approach Phase 1 Phase 2 Develop Planning Framework Phase 3 Define Scope of Comprehensive Plan Revisions Phase 4 Assemble Community Atlas Phase 5 Draft/Revise Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies DraftlRevise Implementation Plans Draft/Revise Subarea Plans 6 Process - Driven by Public Involvem 1 R_orch -,_ __ ""'-I r.qulAments R_arch _ Idenllfy best practlce. Develop process eltem_e. I I I , I ' ~ I Review process alternatives Reline best ellem_. Review best alternative 2 Develop Planning F~ Identify core values of community Develop building block alternatives Review core values and building blocks p..... Planning Fl'8IMWork document Review Planning Framework document Iaooing F~ nt ~ , I I. i : I~ I i I~ 7 Work Plan Approach Com hensive Plan U 3 Deline Scope cI P.... Revisions Reseerch bea pIIIn documents Develop dern8lIve revision appl'CHlC'- - edit, lobIl .... write, something in-bMween Review alternative revision approaches : ! OJ i ! I i I - Work Plan Approach Com rehensive Plan U date 4 Assemble Community Atlas Identify state requirements identify coordination needs with county and regional plans Determine axtent cI needed ravlslons Conduct analysis and studies Draft Indlvlclual atlas hapters I ! ~ draft atlas chapters Work Plan Approach Com rehensive Plan U date 4 Anamble Community Atlas conI. Refine dl'llft atlas chapters Review draft atlas Chapters Compile dl'llft Community Atlas Review draft Community Atlas Refine dl'llft Community Atlas 8 Land Use Ordinance A.ddress inconsistencies in the: Land USe: Or-dinance as identified in the~~. - Review 'e ~durefto identify ~ to i,.-ow; stoff and ~Z ,,:;"p~~ will enable more attention ~~Dcr~:'~~inonce to include protections for wetf.ILnds Re..... and amend. as _fry. the lAnd Use Ord;...,," rogard;ng setbacks QIona arterials. Review and amend. as necessary, ypriDnceand ~e $tondcJrds criterio. Review and amend. as nec:asory. desion-reloted land use IssueJ. Other items rnarhoned: Large scale: development standcrds in downtown. Accessory residential units ~/or Dca!'SSplarlning fOt' new subdiVfsion~ F/. IDts Questions? Comments? 9 Rogue Valley Transportation District From the Desk of Paige West, Senior Planner 3200 Crater Lake Avenue. Medford, Oregon 97504-9075 Phone (541) 608-2429. Fax (541) 773-2877 Visit our website at: www.rvtd.org TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Rogue Valley Transit stakeholders Paige West May 3, 2007 RVTD Long Range Plan Rogue Valley Transportation District is drafting its 10-year Long Range Plan (LRP) and a draft document is expected to be ready for public review by the end of the fiscal year. At this time, RVTD is meeting with each jurisdiction to review adopted transit service plans and obtain local input on the Long Range Plan. It is up to each city to choose who should attend these meetings, although RVTD recommends staff persons and policy makers who are familiar with transit. These meetings are meant to provide RVTD with the technical and policy coordination needed for the Long Range Plan to be a useful document. At this point, RVTD has conducted meetings with officials from Ashland and Medford on April 2nd and May 2nd, respectively. A combined meeting for all stakeholder jurisdictions is planned for early June. RVMPO has secured FTA funding to help RVTD prepare the Long Range Plan, and a number of documents, analyses, maps, etc. have been created and are available to the public. Much of this material maybe downloaded from the RVMPO website: \vww.rvmpo.org. A link to the "RVTD Long-Range Plan" pages can be accessed from the Projects pull-down menu at the top of the MPO home page. The Long- Ral1Qc Plan proiect pallC contains links to several interim products of the planning process. In addition, links in the left margin access a number of analyses conducted for the project, including more than a dozen thematic mailli relating transit to various regional characteristics (keep checking the left margin as you navigate the map pages). In addition to a detailed background report on the status and trends for transit in the Rogue Valley, the Background Report pages offer a large number of charts and tables that make this information more quickly accessible. The Long Range Plan ties in with several other transit planning initiatives currently under way, or slated or proposed for next fiscal year. These include very long range transit planning as part of a transit-friendly development scenario for the transportation analysis that the MPO is conducting for Regional Problem Solving. RVTD, will be implementing several Passenger Implementation Systems projects over the next three years, which will enable RVTD to provide better service and greatly improve its planning function. RVTD will be performing a transit risk assessment and assisting with a TDM Refinement Plan as part of the MPO's work plan for the next fiscal year. The MPO is close to completion on a new commuter rail feasibility study that when in service will complement the current public transportation network. The MPO has also proposed a major new planning project for 2007-2008: an Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan (lLUTP) for the region, in which transit would naturally be an important focus. With regard to the LRP, RVTD welcomes any interest and all input from its partner jurisdictions. Attached is a draft outline of the Plan, with indications of the status of the various components. Any questions about the work done so far or the future scope of work should be directed to my office at 608-2429. Work Status as of: Thursday, May 03, 2007 Rogue Valley Transportation District Long Range Plan OUTLINE Team Task Status Member I. Executive Summary 1. Recent History SR 2. Adopted Vision COMPLETE 3. Adopted Goals COMPLETE 4. Service/Revenue Alternatives (Adopted service plan for each revenue alternative) II. Introduction 1. Purpose of Plan COMPLETE SR 2. Review of 1996 Ten-Year Community Transportation Plan P.-'\RTJAL RVTD 3. Summary of current RVTD Services and COMPLETE accomplishments SR 4. Summary of key elements of the new Plan III. System Governance and Organization: 1. Legal Name and Special District status ORS. COMPLETE 2. Mission and Objectives COMPLETE 3. Board Governance COMPLETE 4. Organizational chart COMPLETE RVTD 5. Strengths and Weaknesses (internal and external). 6. Summary of Federal and state rule P\RTL\1 conformity requirements 1 of 1 H:\Planning\LRP\Outline\LRP Outline and task assignments.doc RVTD Long-Range Plan IV. Public Transportation Demand 1. Demographics of service area CCI a. Current and potential transit-user RVTD demographics b. Regional culture RVTD 2. Barriers to transit! competition SR,CC 3. Transit ridership, mode share. Trends. Calculations complete for base year 4. Expanded service ridership potential: SR a. choice vs dependent V. Regional Expectations for transit SR 1. Public workshop input COMPLETE SR 2. Special Transportation Coordinating Comm. COMPLETE SRI 3. Agency Workshops COMPLETE RVTD CCI 4. Transit planning in the region, its cities and RVTD counties RVTD/CC a. RTP RVTD/CC b. Local TSPs RVTD c. Other official input PAR TL'\L 5. Zero transit forecast: impact of loss of transit servIce a. Local and regional plan conformity SR b. Economic impact c. Social impact SR VI. Land Use and Transit 1. District extent: area, route miles, Valley Lift COMPLETE servIce area, ... 2. Density: Population and jobs Analysis complete 20f2 RVTD Long-Range Plan 3. Transit-dependent development I transit- efficient development VII. Long Range Planning 1. Visioning and Values Development SR a. 2007 Mission statement COMPLETE b. 2007 District goals COMPLETE 2. Statutory context a. ORS & OAR relevant to transit SR district structures, authority, etc. P.\RTL\L Alternatives. RVTD b. FTA rules, ADA requirements, etc. COMPLETE c. Funding strategies, grant programs, SR comparative financial structures at }J.\R!'l.\L different transit agencies 3. Transit theory a. Target patrons ("choice" passengers, transportation disadvantaged; transit P.\RT! \! & economic vitality; transit & sprawl; Triple Convergence, ...) b. Operational efficiency strategies, ridership strategies c. Who does transit benefit? How SR much? Opportunity costs & parking, d. Levels of transit service, and effects on ridership & urban form: intra- regional vs local; trip time, headways & ridership; hours of service & ridership; e. Types of public transit: qualified patron, on-demand, local bus, express bus, BRT, light rail, heavy rail 4. Transit Access Standards development RVTDI a. Local coordination: land CC development, architectural review, public works 30f3 , I RVTD Long-Range Plan RVTD 5. TDM PARI L\L 6. Transit Industry Variables a. Economic factors (internal and external) RVTD b. Seasonal factors c. Technological factors d. Regulatory issues e. Safety and Security VIII. Special Needs Populations SR 1. Coordinated Human Services Transportation COMPLETE Plan SR 2. Coordinating Committee for specialized COMPLETE transportation services IX. Revenue Scenarios 1. Description and Analysis of Funding P.\R fr \L Sources 2. Four Future Funding Scenarios: SRI a. Existing Revenue Structure RVTD b. Property Tax Assessment Increase One-time Local Payroll Tax COMPLETE c. Assessment d. Full Implementation of Local Payroll Tax Assessment X. Service Expansion Scenarios 1. Review of Board Goals, Public and Jurisdiction Priorities SRI 2. Service Expansion Methodology P'\RTL\L RVTD a. Cost per mile P-\RTL\L b. Cost per hour P. \R fL\L c. Cost per vehicle P.\RTJ.\I. d. Cost of Overhead P-\RrI'.d 40f4 RVTD Long-Range Plan 3. Four Future Expansion Scenarios - one service scenario cost-balanced with each revenue scenarIO: a. Existing or decreased service SR& RVTD b. Existing with expanded hours and decreased headways c. Scenario A, B with additional miles d. Scenario C with initiation of Grid! Circular system 4. Ranking and Evaluation of Expansion Scenarios (chart) RVTD a. Meet the Board Goals b. Meet the Public Priorities c. Meet the Jurisdiction Priorities 5. Criteria to Determine Service Expansion Scenario Feasibility a. Based on Revenue Scenarios SR& RVTD b. Facility and Asset Capability c. Labor and Overhead Capability d. External Facility and Access Capability (sidewalks, densities) XI. Performance Measures and Benchmarks for transit goals and service. RVTD XII. Departmental Long Range Planning 1. Administration Development Plan 2. Facility Development Plan P,-\R"1 L\L 3. Maintenance Development Plan P.\RTL'J 4. Operations Development Plan F.\RJ L\L 5. Safety and Security Development Plan 6. TDM Development Plan P\RiL\l 50f5 RVTD Long-Range Plan 7. Valley Lift Development Plan P.\RTI\L 8. Marketing Development Plan PARTJAL 9. ITS Development Plan Pi"R rI.U XIII. Operational Efficiency Planning 1. Facilities a. Energy Conservation and Efficiency P.\R 11;L b. Water Conservation and Efficiency c. Adopt-a-Shelter Program P:\RT).\L d. Leased space opportunity P.\RTI \1. 2. Vehicle Improvements RVTD a. Automatic Vehicle Locator P \RT]\L b. Automatic Fare Collection P. \RTL\L c. Automatic Passenger Counting PARTI.'\] d. Real Time Trip Planning P.-\R TlAL 3. Valley Lift a. Travel Trainers b. Eligibility Process P.\R TI\1. c. Sidewalk Accessibility d. Vehicle Capacity and Scheduling SR XIII. Conclusion APPENDICES A. ORS & OAR relevant to transit district COMPLETE structures. Authority comparisons. B. FTA rules, ADA requirements, etc. COMPLETE C. Public Transit Funding Mechanisms 1. Federal Funding 60f6 RVTD Long-Range Plan 2. State Funding 3. Local Funding 4. Special funding and grants SR D. Workshop descriptions and results P.\R llAl E. Revenue Scenarios additional information F. Service Scenarios additional information 1. Capital Assets 1. Facilities P.\RTI\L RVTD 11. Shelters/ stops COMPLETE ... Service Vehicles COMPLETE 111. IV. Other vehicles COMPLETE v. Equipment p\ RTL\L G. Special Transportation Coordinating COMPLETE Committee Bylaws 70f7 [ I