Skip to Main Content View Text-Only

Planning and Sustainability

Innovation. Collaboration. Practical Solutions.

Phone: 503-823-7700

Fax: 503-823-7800

1900 SW 4th Ave, Suite 7100, Portland, OR 97201

More Contact Info

Subscribe to RSS feed

Most Recent

View More

Summary Meeting Notes: March 21, 2013 for the Community Involvement PEG

Summary Meeting Notes

Community Involvement Policy Expert Group

Date: March 21, 2013

Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Location: City Hall, 1221 SW 4th   Avenue, Portland, Pettygrove Room

PEG Attendees: Polo Catalani, Greg Greenway, Paul Leistner/ PEG co-lead, Morgan Masterman, Linda Nettekoven, Sara Schooley, Marty Stockton/ PEG co-lead, Robb Wolfson

Guest: No guests.

Facilitator: Deborah Stein

View the original agenda, including materials, for this meeting.

 

Key Points and Outcomes

  • Reviewed and critiqued the Working Draft Community Involvement goals and policies using the state’s Goal One’s Blueprint for a Citizen Involvement Program (CIP).
  • Reviewed and critiqued the Working Draft      Community Involvement goals and policies throught the lense of equity.
  • Assigned homework – a review of a Working      Draft chapter using the equity analysis questions with a report back at      the April meeting.

 

Welcome, Meeting Overview and Introductions

Self-introductions.

Updates and Announcements

Presenters: Paul Leistner, Office of Neighborhood Involvement and Marty Stockton, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability / PEG Co-leads

Summary:

  • At the March meeting, the PIAC Comprehensive Plan Work Group continued work on the analysis and developing themes from the Community Involvement Survey.
  • Marty reported that seven of the eight Comprehensive Plan Workshops have been completed with approximately 350 participants.
  • Polo Catalani shared perspectives from the Budget Community Forum held at IRCO. One concern being that IRCO leadership did not know of the event and therefore were not included in the welcome.
  • Greg Greenway summarized the quantative data from the “basic elements of good public process” within the Community Involvement Survey. Paul commented that the public feedback targets a focus on policy language on transparency. Desiree commented that one positive is that the perceived acheivement on Process Design was high. Paul highlighted key themes from the qualative data within the Community Involvement Survey.

 

DISCUSSION: Discuss and Critique Draft CI Policies against the Oregon Blueprint for a Citizen Involvement Program (6:15 p.m. / 45 minutes)

Presenter: Greg Greenway and Paul Leistner, ONI / PEG Co-lead

Summary: Greg presented his review of the Working Draft goals and policies through the lens of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development’s “Blueprint for a Citizen Involvement Program” a component of the state primer Putting the People in Planning.

The PEG discussed the connection between the Community Involvement Program, the oversight body and the program’s funding needing to be strengthened and a reorganized based guidance from the blueprint. There was some discussion on whether this was more appropriate within Chapter 8 Administration and Implementation or to remain in Chapter 1 Community Involvement. Greg shared that he wouldn’t advocate using the blueprint as an organizing structure, but rather confirm that all components were addressed, noting the only gap being the draft goals/policies are silent on adequate resources for the Community Involvement Program. Desiree identified a community assessment process before launching a planning effort.

Resources:

 

DISCUSSION: Discuss and Critique Draft CI Policies through an Equity Lens 7:00p.m. / 45 minutes

Presenter: Desiree Williams-Rajee, BPS

Summary: Desiree presented key findings from the equity review of the draft goals and policies which lead to a group discussion on recommended improvements to the Working Draft to achieve more equitable outcomes from the Comprehensive Plan projects and processes.

The discussion focused on the first two questions within the Analysis Questions, see link below.

  1. Are there any unintended consequences in these policies that we need to consider?

One unintended consequence identified by Desiree was the need to bridge both early involvement AND meaningful involvement.

Sara reflected on the need to consciously target the skill sets on the community involvement “body” charged with the ongoing review of process and engagement efforts. Greg stated that the blueprint clearly highlights or avocates for a separate body from the Planning Commission or a hybrid approach. Another unintended consequence, was the tendency to over promise. Linda stated that this body shouldn’t be about shame/blame. Others said there should be a link to the body and Title IV or at least familiar with navigating the Title IV process.

  1. Does the current chapter address Anita’s comment “this chapter stops short of recognizing the inequities of community involvement.”? Does this chapter “include a commitment to change the approach of outreach, involvement and engagement to build capacity in the community to do this work themselves to better inform the decision makers about the needs of the community”? If not, what is missing?

Several PEG members noted that the powershift seems to be missing. Desiree noted that the draft refers to a lot of flexibility or customization of engagement efforts, but stated that the community is also needing consistency. The discussion continued around an expectation for the City to standardize but a shared concern arose on limiting flexibility or responsiveness. What should be standardized and not was asked by the group.

Resources:

 

HOMEWORK: Chapter assignment review

Presenter: Marty Stockton, BPS / PEG Co-lead

Summary: Prior to the April PEG meeting, PEG members will review another chapter within the Working Draft. Please use Question #5 in the Analysis Questions (see Resources below) as a lens to do your chapter review:

Introduction – Greg

Chapter 2 Housing – Greg

Chapter 3 Economic Development – Morgan M.

Chapter 4 Watershed Health and the Environment – Desiree

Chapter 5 Urban Design and Development – Linda and Robb

Chapter 6 Public Facilities and Services – Polo

Chapter 7 Transportation – Marty

Chapter 8 Administration and Implementation – Sara

For other PEG members, please either choose a chapter (having multiple reviewers is good) or use the Analysis Questions below to give our own Chapter 1 Community Involvement additional review.

Resources:

 

Public Comment

[No public comments.]

 

PEG Check-in and Follow up

  • The CI PEG will meet four more times, once per month through June.
  • In March and April the PEG will review and discuss Working Draft goals and policies, taking into consideration best practices, PEG-identified elements of good public involvement, equity considerations, and community feedback.
  • On the Community Involvement Survey there is a need to disseminate the results back to the community. Once Paul has the summary report completed and posted, the City and PEG members will send notice to networks that were invited to participate in the survey.  Rob and Greg offered to assist with analyzing the quantitative responses. The PEG requested the PIAC work group assist with pulling out a few key themes from the survey that concisely summarize the results. This summary could be used for getting the word out about the results. Additionally, Marty will draft a story for the BPS e-newsletter and Paul will work through ONI to connect with media outlets.
  • May and June PEG meetings will be used to flesh out the structure of the Community Involvement Manual and review the draft memo summarizing the work of the CI PEG with recommendations about implementation.
  • Before the May meeting, PEG members will read the state primer, Putting the People in Planning, and will review the example public involvement manuals identified by the PIAC work group as good and relevant examples.

 

Meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm.

Heartbleed Security Notice

A serious security vulnerability known as "Heartbleed" was recently discovered in OpenSSL, a popular software library commonly used by many websites on the internet to encrypt communication between a user's computer and a web server.

PortlandOregon.gov is NOT affected by this vulnerability as it does not use the OpenSSL software library. Please rest assured we are dedicated to protecting your security on this website.