Scoring Moscow's Walkability

I just found Walkscore, a tool that uses Google maps and data to calculate a walkability score for a street address. You need to put in a complete address, eg, 900 Travois Way, Moscow, Idaho and then it looks at the kinds of services around you and the distances and calculates a score.

Imagine if this were part of the process included in the SmartGrowth scorecard. Take a measurement from the center of the proposed development and score the walkability. (I went Googling for Idaho Smart Growth because I know their scorecard and found that the US EPA has a more extensive Smart Growth Scorecard site.)

The other day I pointed to Green Chain Stores and highlighted a quote about the problem driving to a green store and suggested a vision for greening Moscow. Add this tool to the list of thinking for that greener city. Probably need to fold in a more complex analysis for bike-ability -- distance is a little less important, but gradients matter and amenities along the way and at the destination (eg good paths and parking) matter.

Green Chain Stores -- and a need to do more

I recall seeing that Pullman WalMart was saying they were delayed while re-designing for a more green building. This item from NYTimes gives more perspective on the green chain store trend.

" Wal-Mart, meanwhile, has taken the most successful techniques from prototype stores and incorporated them into all new stores, and it continues to experiment with “high-efficiency” stores that save 20 to 45 percent in energy costs when compared with more traditional stores."

While I'd like to see P&Z grab onto this trend and institutionalize it. I note that we need to do more structurally to green Moscow, see for example, my comments on a broader vision of how we classify thoroughfares in the new Comp Plan to capture bike and pedestrian ways.

' “There’s no such thing as a green building with a full parking lot,” said Seth Kaplan, vice president for climate advocacy at the Conservation Law Foundation. “That’s just an unavoidable truth.” ' Hear, hear!

(Added Nov 18.) President-elect Obama speaks to delegates at Global Climate Summit, a 2-day event arranged by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to break gridlock on the issue ahead of next month's United Nations Climate Change Conference:



(end addition)


I'd like to see the Mayor latch onto the Obama win and our pressing need to address energy security and the environment in a new way. Less (foreign and non-renewable) energy dependence would help our foreign policy. Less carbon-based energy dependence would help our climate. I'd like to see her require all City departments and Commissions to develop short- and long-term changes to reduce the City's (and its residents') energy consumption.

We have a little bit of this thinking in the Legacy Crossing overlay zone where we require that if there is covered car parking there is also covered bike parking. (And Legacy is also part of the strategy in that it stipulates 3-story buildings, inherently boosting density and thereby reducing trip distances.)

A direction that the Mayor and the Transportation Commission could consider is that the Palouse region needs a region-wide mass transportation system with a common vision and shared goals. Presently the region has some services, offered by three companies and funded by a combination of grants, university contributions, governmental contributions and fare-box collections. This funding mix, combined with the multiple operators isn't very stable or
coordinated, and it fails to serve a number of populations.

A new solution could be built on ideas from the current offerings, but needs a regional vision.

A new vision for the system could be to create a sustainable transportation network that provides practical alternatives to use of the personal automobile for residents of the Palouse Region.

It might be implemented with a series of goal, such as:
* within in Pullman and Moscow, all residents would be within walking distance of a bus stop

* the system would serve communities that have significance commerce/work relations within Pullman and Moscow

* The system would offer to-work transportation for employees/ customers/ students of the 10 biggest destinations in the Palouse region

* the system would offer services to people with disabilities who may otherwise be place-bound

* the system would increase the economic welfare of lower income residents

* the system would connect to other transportation networks, including regional airports

Farigrounds in Moscow a Bonus

Letter to editor of Daily News, submitted 9/8/08

Its Fair time again. Reading about the Palouse Empire Fair last weekend got me thinking about the differences between our two area events. Whitman County's fairgrounds is five miles west of Colfax, and twenty-plus miles from the major population center. No child walked to that fair after school. No parent dropped their teenager at that fair with $20 and instructions to walk home before dark. And most likely, no families wandered over for dinner and an hour of music.

I grew up in St Paul, Minnesota, walking distance from the State fairgrounds. The major bus routes ran along the edge of the site. Salem, Oregon has the state fairgrounds in the city, served by transit, and used for a variety of community functions.

From time to time the idea surfaces to move the Latah fair a few miles out of town. Most recently a site near Mill Road was suggested. At that location, Latah could join Whitman county in having little walk-in traffic, few kids dropped off to make their way home. And no public transit to the Fair.

If Latah County’s Fair moves out of town, will the many groups that use the facility throughout the year move out too- Elections, Parent-Toddlers, auctions, and a variety of meetings? Most likely they will need to find new venues within the city.
The Fair is an intense use, with traffic and noise. Thanks to Eastside Marketplace and NRS (old Tidymans) for helping with parking. I live close enough to experience it.

Three days is a small price to pay for having such a resource in town. In an era of high gas prices, a walkable fairgrounds, with no entrance fees, is a wonderful recreation option. I hope everyone got a to the fair and enjoyed the enjoyed the richness of having it in town.

Mithun - ideas for Legacy Crossing

I attended a good lecture yesterday by Bert Gregory from Mithun of Seattle. It was interesting to see the work they have done (conceptual and planning) for revitalizing urban areas in Portland and Seattle and at the same time making them resource efficient. On their website (which does not make it easy to link in) look at the expertise section/ urban planning and the Lloyd center project. I also found a south Lake Union/ Seattle Center project that he talked about, but can't find it again.

It would be worth looking at this more closely as an inspiration for our Legacy Crossing area.

The WSU blurb on the talk read

As President and CEO of Mithun, Bert Gregory has led the 220-person firm to national recognition for concept-based, environmentally intelligent design. He is renowned as an expert in the development of resource-efficient structures and communities, and serves as a national leader, speaker and advocate for sustainable building and urbanism. His perspective reaches beyond traditional architecture to merge science and design – an interdisciplinary approach that creates lasting places for people. With Mithun’s expansion in 2008 to a second office in San Francisco, Gregory strives to expand the reach of the firm to inspire a sustainable world through integrated design. Awards include four AIA COTE Top Ten Green Projects, two ASLA national honor awards, and the AIA national honor award for regional and urban design. Gregory serves as Vice-Chair of the USGBC LEED® Neighborhood Development core committee, and the Washington Clean Technology Alliance steering committee.

This presentation is co-sponsored by the Institute for Sustainable Design, the Office of Research, and the Center for Environmental Research, Education and Outreach.

DATE: Friday, September 5, 2008
TIME: 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
PLACE: Compton Union Building, Butch’s Den

You make your own judgement

Here is an email dialog -- I put it in chronological order so you can read down the page. While the Commute Trip Reduction policy seems like a useful tool, the implementation leaves something to be desired in my judgement:

From: "Dain"
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:44:44 -0700
To: "Peterson, Nils"
Subject: here's an odd one...

Hi Nils,

I just noticed a policy in the BPPM (http://www.wsu.edu/~forms/HTML/BPPM/80_Services/80.86_Commute_Trip_Reduction.htm) that states:

“Prepaid, subsidized transit for employees and students. Under this program element, all employees and students are allowed to use local transit systems by simply showing their CougarCard. This element is considered a de minimus nontaxable benefit under IRS, Section a32(f)(2)(A).” (emphasis added)

From: Peterson, Nils
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 14:50
To: Shaheen, John Anthony
Subject: BPPM 80.86 Commute trip reduction

John,
This policy is an interesting one. The rider points at one question — is Wheatland one of the “local transit systems?” If not, what distinguishes a local transit system for purposes of this policy, given the stated aims of the policy?

And, how are bus riding employees represented on the University Parking and Transportation Task Force (UPTTF) which serves as the WSU Pullman CTR Committee?

Thanks

On 9/2/08 10:48 AM, "Shaheen, John Anthony" wrote:

Nils,

Good question. We did not have Wheatland Express in mind when we refer to local. The distinction is the purpose of that service and the joint partnership with UI which prevents any commitments we could make in a WSU policy. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We should clarify this in our BPPM.

John


John A. Shaheen, CAPP
Director of WSU Parking, Transportation & Visitor Center
Washington State University
Email: shaheen@wsu.edu
Phone: 509.335.4911
FAX: 509.335.1316

WSU is a proud member of the following organizations:
Northwest Parking Association
http://www.nwparking.org/
International Parking Institute
http://www.parking.org/
Collegiate Information and Visitor Services Association: http://civsa.org/

Bike Boluvards and New Moscow Comp Plan

I was describing my disappointment with the Mobility chapter of the new Comp Plan to a bicycle enthusiast this AM. It turns out that, based on 2000 Census, Moscow is in the top 1% of cities in terms of bike/walk to work.

I was saying that we have this elaborate scheme for classifying arterials, collectors and local streets, which is all about auto use, and we need some 21st century language rather than bringing assumptions from the past. (See previous Bicycle City post for more vision.)

He mentioned Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/newsletter/99-4/bicycles.php concept.

Very cool idea and fairly simple set of requirements. P&Z had a good conversation last night about shifting the focus of the Mobility chapter to put the ‘alternative’ modes more on par with the vehicular mode and reduce the implicit bias of the document. Its going to Transportation now with P&Z comments.

Phillip Cook supplied these additional links.
From the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (Oregon’s large bike advocacy organization):
http://www.bta4bikes.org/at_work/bikeboulevards.php

From Portland Department of Transportation:
Clinton Street Bike Boulevard project
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=46371
Portland Bicycle Master Plan
http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?a=71843&c=34812

From Berkeley CA Office of Transportation
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/transportation/bicycling/bb/BicycleBoulevard.html

From Streetfilms (out of NY) about bike boulevards in Berkeley CA:
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/berkeley-bike-boulevards/

Safe Routes to Indian Hills

This post was delayed at request of Moscow Attorney Randy Fife and Community Development Director Bill Belknap until the rezone and PUD process had run their course. The development passed P&Z and Council.

I went to two meetings on April 23, a presentation by Safe Routes to School, a joint UI/Moscow grant that is working on education and programming for school children and opinion gathering among parents regarding non-motorized ways of getting to school. The lion's portion of the grant is being used to build sidewalks in several areas near the JrHi that will make travel to the school, Eagan, and the pool safer. We got here because of a series of, probably small, choices years ago that let developments take place that didn't provide sidewalks. Now Safe Routes is looking at how development has unfolded, where public facilities have located, and seeing routes that seem unsafe or undesirable for walking. And that has become more important as we've come to recognize child obesity and diabetes might be linked, in part, to changes in exercise. Not only is walking probably good for kids, at $4/gallon for diesel it could be good for the District bus budget if we could reduce the number of bus routes, and could be good for our collective carbon footprint if we quite driving kids to school. From many angles, Safe Routes seems like a good thing.

Then I went to the P&Z hearing on Indian Hills 8th addition, a proposal to create a 20 acre R4 zone on Palouse River Drive behind Columbia Tractor. I voted against both the rezone and the preliminary plat for reasons I'll outline.

The Comp Plan sets out the area as Medium Density Residential, which suggests a zoning up to R3. R4 allows higher densities , but the topography of the site was said to preclude achieving those densities. For reasons I still don't understand, staff recommended the R4 classification as the developer requested. R4 is stated in the zoning code to be appropriate for areas near the University and central to the city. Given the site is just over a mile from the UI admin building, and a mile (as you could walk along the abandoned part of Main) from 6th & Main, it does not seem to meet either criteria.

In addition to the items above, which seem to belie the intent of the R-4 zone, the zoning of adjacent parcels is a key consideration in zoning a new parcel -- so one could expect to see requests for more R-4 going east on Palouse River Drive, an action that, I think, would be less likely by having zoned Indian Hills 8th to R-3.

Finally, the safe routes issue. I foresee the same problem that arose at Peterson Dr and Hwy 8 near TriState happening at Styner and Hwy 95. A poor intersection with increasing pressure from pedestrians attempting to walk to the University. That is a second reason I find high density zoning in Indian Hills 8th unwarranted.

As for my vote against the preliminary plat. The proposal created a single 14 acre block, and another large block. Large blocks without pedestrian rights of way across them are antithetical to pedestrian uses, which therefore promotes automobile use. I regret that I missed seeing, and arguing for, a pedestrian ROW from Indian Hills at its extreme western turn around down to the Myrtle St ROW. That could have offered a pedestrian route where the alternative is presently very long.

Moscow Climate Change

Back in Feb 2007, as part of the Moscow Cool Cities series of events, I was asked to serve on a panel addressing community design issues impacting climate change. Here is the PowerPoint I developed for that presentation. The key point is that we are making structural design decisions, like giant parking lots and roads that are pedestrian unfriendly and will get in the way of moving to a less auto-intensive society. The piece is dated with references to events in local politics. (I need to learn to make these into voice overs because there is often quite a bit of the message only in the audio track.)

Bicycle City

Bicycle City describes itself as "a planned community where people live, work and play. Its eco-friendly, car-free design is healthy, sustainable and animal-friendly." So far, Bicycle City does not exist, its a vision shopping for a location. The site lists places in Idaho as potential existing cities to host this innovation, alas, the descriptions of Moscow seem to have been done by somebody at their dining room table in Manhattan -- there is no sense the person knew the local area or even worked very hard with the Moscow website.

Nonetheless, I filled out the form and suggested that Moscow was an interesting site to consider because of the Legacy Crossing redevelopment downtown and the already developing bicycle culture and path system.

Water and the Urban Forest

Nichole Baker, the City's water conservation staffer, pointed me to this item (short PDF) from the Panhandle Lakes Resource Conservation and Development Council:

In the first attempt of its kind in Idaho, IDL (in cooperation with local governments) has applied for a grant from the US Forest Service to develop and implement a GIS analysis, using CityGreen software and high-resolution satellite imagery of tree canopy to address stormwater mitigation and water conservation and quality in both developed and rapidly developing areas of Kootenai County, Idaho, an area of approximately 100 square miles.

And Bill Belknap reports that Moscow's Tree Commission is "working on a similar study and model for the City of Moscow. The have a group of Americorps volunteers that will be working on updating the City’s TreeWorks GIS public tree inventory system and then integrating it with the CityGreen to model and quantify the environmental and economic benefits of the urban/community forest. It appears that they may have their findings back in time to incorporate within the Comprehensive Plan revision."

Being a fan of the urban forest for its beautiful lumber and the trees for their carbon sequestration value, I'm interested to hear that serious effort is going into understanding their role in watershed management. I hope this information moves forward fast enough to provide guidance to the new comprehensive planning effort.

Water and Legacy Crossing URA Project

Wed (4-9) saw a presentation by the Moscow Urban Renewal Agency of the Legacy Crossing Project at P&Z. Gary Reidner laid out the ways in which the Project was generally consistent with the 1999 Comprehensive Plan. You can see the URA materials here.

What troubled me about the document was there was no mention of water conservation as a infrastructure or utility issue that the URA would include in its goals. This post puts my concern in context.

Consequently, here are my notes on the motion passed unanimously relative to the URA request:

We find the URA proposal generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, contingent on the URA bringing back to P&Z for approval the following modifications to the URA plan:
1. addition of a new section that addresses the URA’s infrastructural strategies to conserve municipal potable water.
2. inclusion of Hogg Creek as a waterway to be preserved/ enhanced
3. inclusion of enhanced emphasis on multi-modal transportation infrastructure (rights of way, facilities, etc) as a goal of the URA

And we request that Staff draft the appropriate reasoned statement for our review.

My Rationale: A project of this scale cannot fit under the PBAC cap. Given that the URA mechanism funds infrastructure related activities that are for municipal benefit I would like to see in their proposal for infrastructure development by the project structural approaches to water conservation (this would give project activities a municipal benefit in addition to econonmic development).

I don’t want to suggest either a mechanism the URA would choose or an amount of conservation the URA would target, I’d rather they come back with a proposal and convince P&Z of the merits and feasibility of their idea.

I was instructed at the last P&Z meeting by my fellow Commissioners that water conservation could not be taken out on the back of a single developer. I understand that, but if we do not plan for, and make, infrastructural changes impacting water use, the difficulty of conserving is greater. The URA is a great opportunity to make a public-private partnership to steward our resources.

I think P&Z's planning responsibility is to look at these infrastructural issues and plan for long term strategies to impact the city’s efficiency (water, energy, garbage). I'm looking for suggestions.

Council can look at policy mechanisms like price or rationing irrigation to meet specific goals within the constraints that the infrastructure imposes.

Legacy Crossing and PBAC Cap

Back in March I posted about a small annexation going through P&Z and the water budget questions it raised. Joel Hamilton commented with a resource from the Army Corps looking at ways to divert surface water for municipal needs of Moscow and Pullman.

At the Feb 27 P&Z meeting, Nels Reece and students showed this Legacy Crossing Conceptual Model. (See the model at City Hall, very cool.) April 12 the Legacy Crossing URA redevelopment plan will be the subject of a public hearing at P&Z. (Public notice as PDF). Nels' students' project addressed only the southern portion of the URL, south of 6th, and going SW to Hwy 95. They were assigned to see how much housing density the could create as part of a mixed use development in the area. The handout they had is part of the Feb 27 P&Z Minutes. It describes fitting 650 dwellings (6.5million sqft) on the ~20 acre site.

I've been reading the PBAC 2006 annual report (PDF) (PBAC home) which has these two graphs on the historic water pumping by Moscow. (Graphs for other entities are in the report as well).


This is the pumping rate (blue) compared to the agreed PBAC rising cap. Only recently have we gotten our conservation efforts in line with our pledge.

In addition to the 1% rate of increase pledge, we have also pledged to stay below an absolute cap of 875 million gallons.


This graph shows our actual pumping (bars) compared to the 875 ceiling (line). This difference is the 30-50 million gallon "headroom" that Bill Belknap described in the March 26 P&Z minutes. The available headroom in Moscow's pledge for 2006 was 875-856 = 19 million gallons.

Here is the problem. The Council committed 2% of our total pumping allowance to Hawkins (and 111% of the available headroom). There was a furor (for multiple reasons). Nels Reece's students' ideas for just part of Legacy Crossing would commit 8% of our pumping allowance, see table below and 363% of the headroom.

Project	use	gal/yr	acre ft	% headroom	% of ceiling
Moscow Ceiling (125% baseline)	all uses	875,000,000	2685	-	-
Moscow 2006 pumping	all uses	856,000,000	2627	-	-
Moscow Headroom	all uses	19,000,000	58	-	-
Hawkins	Potable	14,663,295	45	77%	2%
Hawkins	Irrigation	6,517,020	20	34%	1%
Hawkins	all uses	21,180,315	65	111%	2%
Macrch 27 1 ac rezone	all uses (1 dwelling estimated)	106,000	0.3	1%	0%
Legacy Crossing	all uses (650 units estimated)	68,900,000	211	363%	8%

Legacy Crossing Conceptual Model

There is a beautiful model under the stairs on 1st floor of City Hall. It was done by students in Nels Reece's class.

These are the notes from the draft 2-27-08 P&Z meeting minutes on the model:

Nels Reece distributed flyers to the attendees and introduced Christa Shell, one of his students assisting in the project. He made the presentation of the model of the Urban Renewal District model. The railroad was a divider in the past but the land is now being considered in a different manner. Nels Reece’s U of I class evaluated the land to determine if a purpose could be developed. Landscape architecture and architecture students built the model at about 1/16 scale.

Christa stated that the students that built the model were fourth year students and the design intent was to maintain and bolster the unique character of Moscow and yet reflect the sustainable nature of the City and the University. They also wished to encourage the use of pedestrian and bike ways here in this presentation. Reece oriented those in attendance by pointing out the different landscaped models.

The extension of Main Street is strong, remembering that it is important to exploit those elements that are current.

The red ribbons represent the extension from the Hello Walk, which could be a 40 or 50 foot wide public right of way. The street could become a 60 feet wide public right of way, as well.

Its worth looking at the model and seeing which of its ideas resonate with your visions for how central Moscow might develop. Its also worth looking at the model for the kind of opportunity it represents for Moscow as compared to the lack of a similar opportunity in downtown Pullman. It is an example of the kind of significant difference between the two communities which are so similar in many other ways.

Latah County Comp Plan Revision

I attended (briefly) a meeting gathering input on aspects of Latah County that were valued by the community. This is part of a process to revise the county Comp Plan.

Two points struck me:
1. Several people spoke to the idea of valuing the unique character and qualities of the various communities in the county -- Moscow being just one of those communities. As part of that, they sought to preserve the community schools, business core, history and other attributes that make the towns unique. I think there is something in this idea that connects to my recent post on cultural sustainability.

2. There were also several mentions of the desire for urban densities (including housing (Legacy Crossing was mentioned by location)) without causing sprawl. Virtues that were listed in support of this (in addition to urban amenities) were preserving farming, open space, avoiding McMansions on hilltops, and concentrating commercial/industrial activities (another way to avoid sprawl). A virtue not mentioned might be that urban densities make the provision of utilities relatively cheaper and lower the multiple costs associated with transportation in low-density communities.

Moscow Water Budget Questions

The issue on the table tonight at P&Z was a request to annex a 1.04 acre parcel and to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone the parcel to R4.

The current (1999) Comprehensive plan says this about water:

"Future planning decisions concerning any new development in the Moscow area should consider the amount of water to be used by the development, the nature of the water use, and the source of the water supply. The city should establish guidelines for water usage based upon the nature of the new development."

I asked, Does the city have a water budget that would help P&Z think about these "guidelines for water usage?"

Mr Belknap indicated that the 1992 PBAC agreement is the closest thing we have to a water policy, its the only action the city has taken relative to the issue.

I asked how much water will be used by this new parcel in either the SR or R4 zoning

Mr Belknap indicated that in SR zoning (which staff recommended), one dwelling/acre would amount to 106,000 gallons/year and R4, guestimating 15 dwellings/acre wold be 1.6 million gallons/year. This is rule-of-thumb data, not based on observed water consumption patterns in Moscow.

The Comprehensive Plan goes on to say this about water: "Finally, the city should develop mechanisms to insure that new developments continue to meet the established guidelines as set forth in the management plan."

Mr Belknap had previously indicated to me that the only "Management Plan" as referenced in the Comprehensive Plan is the Ground Water Management Plan September 1992, the so called, PBAC agreement. In that plan the City agrees that it will "require developers to project water use."

I asked Mr Belknap when this water use projection should happen: annexation time, rezone time, or plat time? and he indicated at the time of rezone. He also indicated that while this is effectively City policy, it is not adhered to in practice.

Which brings me to the real focus for this post. If the PBAC pumping limit is the closest thing we have to a water policy and we have a 30-50 million gallon headroom (in recent years) between consumption and the cap (and the margin of variation year to year is large enough to drive the City over the cap) how do we proceed to manage our water budget?

My good colleagues on the Commission could see the direction this questioning was headed and argued that we could not take this issue out on any one land owner, that it was a policy question, and that as a community we needed a solution to the problem. To which I agree -- but there is no policy-making action and the PBAC agreement, which is the closest thing we have to a water policy, is not adhered to.

Which begs the question -- if we don't like implications of the line of reasoning above, how do we develop a water budget that spreads the burden around the community and yet not abdicate actually addressing the issue of a scarce resource?

Here are two ideas that come to mind:
1. Approach it like carbon credits, allow a would-be new developer to buy water capacity for their project by implementing structural changes that lead to conservation in other areas of town, for example, buying low flush toilets to replace existing, installing xeriscape to replace water intensive landscape, etc.

2. Adjust water rates based on the previous year's pumping experience. If pumping exceeded the PBAC cap, prices would rise the following year by an amount calculated to reduce water demand to the cap level. (There should be some life-line usage level that is exempted from this.) This would lead water users to develop more conservative practices to the extent that they feel market pressure. It might also raise additional revenue to be used to augment the supply.

The former approach hits the developer, and requires organizations and mechanisms that presently do not exist. The latter will hit the resident and create a new inflationary pressure on the cost of living. Is there another mechanism I'm not thinking of?

If the PBAC cap is not really the carrying capacity of our aquifer, is there a plan that would help us gracefully transition to the level of usage and types of sources that would be sustainable?

---
Note. Per suggestion of Commissioner Shilberg, I have replaced my term "de facto" in the first version of this post with the phrase "the closest thing we have to a water policy is" which is closer to the language used by Mr Belknap.

Moscow Comp Plan rewrite process

This came out by email following a recent open house

In my mind, a flaw with the Comp Plan feedback process is that the community can't see the feedback being collected, nor is there any evidence of how the feedback is being responded to.

Hello Community Members:

Thank you for attending our Comprehensive Plan Open House last Thursday, March 20, 2008. If you would like to review the draft of the Comprehensive Plan in more detail, it is located online at www.visionmoscow.org. The site also contains an electronic comment form so that you may provide us with your thoughts and ideas on the draft Plan. We would appreciate hearing from you.

To benefit your understanding, we’d like to quickly review the public process for you:

The Steering Committee was selected especially for the review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan, and they have spent many hours reviewing it as it has been received from our Plan Consultant, Kendig Keast Collaborative. This Committee will continue to provide comment review and document revision, completing the Draft preparation by early Summer 2008.

The Planning & Zoning Commission will review and fine tune the Draft Plan during the summer months to develop the final Draft. They will conduct Public Meetings and Hearings in late Fall 2008 to receive additional public comment and testimony, and will provide a recommendation for adoption to City Council.

The Moscow City Council, along with the Mayor, will receive Planning & Zoning’s recommendation and will review the final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan Update before its adoption. Their consideration will consist of public meetings and hearings to receive final public testimony in late Fall of 2008 and early Winter of 2008 and 2009.

We appreciate your being a part of this important living document and its revision process.

Thank you.

Merrilie Larsen
Community Development Secretary
221 East 2nd Street
Moscow ID 83843
208 883-7035 phone
208 883-7033 fax
mlarsen@ci.moscow.id.us

Paradise Path Spring Planting Day 3/29/08

an email from Roger Blanchard

Saturday, March 29th
8:00 – 11:00 a.m.

Volunteers will be planting 33 hackberry trees along the path between Blaine Street and the east city limits

Parking is available at the east city limits just west of Carmichael Road
or walk or bike

There will be shovels available, but feel free to bring your own tools if you like

Refreshments will be provided


Roger Blanchard

Parks & Facilities Manager

City of Moscow

Creating Community Character

I'm reading the minutes of P&Z for Feb 27 where Bret Keast was holding forth on ideas in the new Comprehensive Plan. The term he was using is "community character" and it strikes me now that creating/maintaining community character is an element in boyd's "cultural sustainability" that I noted previously.

What Keast was driving at was to move away from the Euclidean approach to zoning and toward a more forms-based model where the desired character is specified and the specific use(s) are allowed to range more widely. We get a first chance to look at these ideas in the Legacy Crossing URA (final plan in huge PDF) and the overlay zone currently making its way through P&Z. What we saw at the previous P&Z meeting was ideas about setting the form for the development but being more open to the use(s). In fact, mixed use is the expectation for the area, with rentals, condos, and commercial (and structured parking) all expected on th site.

Cultural Sustainability

danah boyd goes beyond the environmentally sustainable theme I've advertised for this blog to look at "cultural sustainability." What is interesting about her thought is that it gives voice to another dimension in the conversation about big box stores in Moscow. Its the kind of words I was looking for in the Yes Moscow No Superwalmart days. She is talking about ideas that get outside the current economic models and look at the cultural heart of the community.

Tree Moscow

Last April (2007) Tom Lamar, Amy Grey and I talked about an effort to increase tree planting in Moscow.

We had three different, but potentially overlapping interests in this activity. Tom through PCEI along the lines of habitat restoration, esp along creeks and wetlands, Amy, through Backyard Harvest for planting of fruit trees. My goal was driven by my response to Inconvenient Truth, a desire to contribute to carbon sequestration by planting large growing, long lived, and self-propagating trees in places where they have a chance of spreading.

Amy designed a logo but we never got the project launched. Working with Roger Blanchard and the PPTF, Karina and I planted planted and tended trees east of Blaine last spring and again this year. This year, I'm putting out an oak that is reproducing itself in the Travois linear park, seedlings from a sycamore maple that has grown in my yard since before 1926 (and spreads well where I don't want it), and a delicious pie cherry that sends up suckers in the yard if I don't mow it. All these are going along the path east of Blaine.

Purpose of this blog

I'm starting this as a forum and workspace for Moscow ID residents (and friends) interested in the intertwined issues of water supply/conservation, Cool Cities, Comprehensive Plan revision, Smart Growth, and Urban Renewal Agency/ Legacy Crossing and probably more.

The problem we are addressing here is making Moscow more sustainable: environmentally and economically, both as a local concern and as our way of thinking globally and acting locally.

I intend to recruit co-authors to the blog on these topics and we invite your comments and trackbacks.

The rationale for a blog comes from the work I'm doing at Washington State University on the use of electronic portfolios for learning. We are exploring what we've come to call "learning portfolios" which are problem-solving workspaces that invite a community to join with the learner in working on a problem. Unlike a showcase portfolio, which might be more like a resume, a learning portfolio is really the portfolio of the solution of a problem rather than the portfolio of a person. This blog will attempt to learn from that work and apply it to this problem in Moscow.