Community Involvement Committee
Meeting Date: Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Time: 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
(Orientation: 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.)
Committee Members present: Alison Stoll, Christina Blaser, Denise Barrett, Howard Shapiro, Jason Barnstead-Long, Jessica Conner, Jovan Young, Judy BlueHorse Skelton, Kenneth Doswell, Laura Stewart, Linda Nettekoven, Lois Cohen, Peter Stark, Stanley Penkin.
Absent: Paula Amato, Anyekey Hallova (excused)
Staff: Deborah Stein, John Cole, Rachael Hoy, Eden Dabbs, Marty Stockton, Madeline Kovacs
Visitors: Four PSU students
Howard Shapiro, Chair, led the meeting.
Marty Stockton and Howard led introductions, congratulating all new CIC members, and welcoming back existing CIC members. Members then each introduced themselves to the group.
Members were sworn in, and certificates were signed and notarized.
New CIC members are Christina Blaser, Denise Barrett, Jessica Conner, Jovan Young, Kenneth Doswell and Laura Stewart. CIC members recommitting to a second term are Alison Stoll,Anyeley Hallova,Howard Shapiro,Jason Barnstead-Long, Judy BlueHorse Skelton,Linda Nettekoven,Lois Cohen,Paula Amato, Peter Stark and Stanley Penkin.
Marty announced the schedule for the upcoming CIC meetings, and other events (see the end of this meeting summary for the full list of meetings and events).
Process Update on Comp Plan Update and Early Implementation
Marty then introduced the Second Term CIC Work Plan, which satisfies responsibilities from the Amended Community Involvement Program adopted by Council Ordinance 184047. The work plan identifies quarterly responsibilities, key meeting dates, and process milestones, and also outlines priority items for CIC review for each milestone.
Marty and Deborah Stein then updated the committee regarding the CPU timeline, including past and upcoming community involvement landmarks, and outlined the CPU process now through the summer. The period for public comments has drawn to a close, and staff are currently incorporating comments into the next plan draft to be presented before the PSC. Staff are also currently drafting public involvement plans for two Early Implementation projects: Campus Institutions and Mixed Use Zones. Marty and Deborah pointed out that CIC input will be incredibly valuable in thinking about how to communicate with the public during a relatively dormant period until the summer and also on how to best educate people to give public testimony before the Planning and Sustainability Commission this fall.
Marty then gave and update on committee process: The CIC’s duties are scheduled to conclude commensurate with the conclusion of Periodic Review (defined as the Portland Plan and the CPU) in the summer of 2015. At that time, outreach responsibilities return to the PSC unless a body much like the CIC is formed/continued to carry out ongoing outreach and engagement review before plans themselves are reviewed. One committee member observed that he thought it made sense to continue the work of the CIC or another independent body that reviews engagement and public involvement.
The question was then posed to the CIC committee for discussion: “How does staff balance the need for transparency/sharing/”no surprises” with the public when there will not be an interim draft prior to the public release of the CPU Proposed Plan until July?” Overall, it was observed that this is a good opportunity to engage the community around process, and that we still need to be thinking critically about how we can also keep people thinking about plan content during the spring/summer lull, and educating them on how to prepare to give feedback during the hearings process during the fall. Additional observations included:
Committee members were largely in agreement that CPU hearings this fall should, whenever possible, be held at various locations throughout the community.
- One member pointed out that these hearings will be a last chance to give input on the CPU, and we should be very cognizant of that.
- Another member pointed out that, last time with the Portland plan, when there was a lull, a lot of momentum was lost, so it would be good to find a way to keep people feeling engaged through the spring and summer. Staff mentioned that the next E-News will include a summary of where we are in the process which may help.
- It was also suggested by multiple committee members that the CPU Part 2 What We Heard report should go back out to the neighborhood associations, community groups, and others that contributed thoughts, giving interested people a sense of the whole spectrum of opinions regarding issues of interest, and to helping to illuminate varying views.
A committee member also mentioned that media attention in general seems lacking in terms of drawing input from the larger public.
- Staff mentioned that neighborhood papers tend to have pretty good reach, and this can be a good tool prior to open houses.
- One committee member pointed out that, especially when communicating about huge issues like equity, we have to think critically about whether we have the capacity and the ability to follow through in a good way: What is truly within our capacity to take on? How can we honestly represent our capacity, while striving to reach very worthwhile goals?
- We need to try and be more engaging with our communications, with pictures of people, mentioning direct connections between people, making sure to include invitations and links to real people.
Public Involvement Plans for the Mixed Use & Campus Institution Zoning Projects
Draft public engagement strategies for the Mixed Use Zones and Institutional Zoning projects were distributed, and committee members were asked to review and send feedback if they had any at this early stage.
Rachael Hoy presented the frameworks for both projects, and Marty reminded everyone that CIC members are free to ask for updates at any time from project managers. Marty and Rachael pointed out that all projects have public meetings, which CIC members are welcome to attend, and provide feedback, etc. Some projects (small ones) will not necessarily have a project advisory committee, but there will always be information made available to the public about these projects, and feedback from CIC members is always appreciated.
Deborah mentioned that whenever committee members are able to provide observations on how staff are communicating, especially when projects overlap, and help reduce confusion wherever possible, staff greatly benefit from their insight.
Staff raised the following more specific question with regard to engagement so far: The Institutional Zoning project focuses on large campus institutions, many of which have agreements with surrounding neighborhoods. This begins to touch on community benefit arrangements that go beyond what many land use planners are used to dealing with. This also raises the question of employment opportunities: Can an institution, for example, commit to focusing on hiring neighborhood residents? Currently these conversations are on the periphery of the project, and these conversations need a place at the table.
- One committee member asked what specific actions are being taken, or specific opportunities are being made available, to ensure that the City is playing an appropriate role to help ameliorate potential conflicts between institutions and neighborhoods as they emerge.
- Can we have one person on each of these groups/ projects tasked with taking a close look at outreach and institutional/neighborhood agreements?
- Another committee member reminded the group to watch out for business input, especially when projects don’t have to undergo conditional use. How are businesses being reached?
- It was also mentioned that there are many projects going on right now (TriMet, for example), and thinking about all project dates side by side, that we will be competing with, will be useful in defining committee priorities.
- Howard mentioned that inter-government agreements have been wanting for a long time. Rachael: At the moment, schools and updates to other inter-jurisdictional agreements is being undertaken, and we should share this with the committee. Howard: yes we should be focused especially on inter-governmental agreements with TriMet and Portland Public Schools.
What We Heard from the Public Report – Part 2
Marty gave the committee an overview of major themes among comments, which included transportation and neighborhood character. Marty also pointed out that staff are still working, and seeking CIC feedback in terms of best practices in gathering commenter demographics. Marty provided an overview of comments received, best practices, and identified some challenges in utilizing new technologies to gather more input and feedback and successfully gather demographic information.
There was broad committee support for seeing the What We Heard report be sent back out to the public, and to neighborhood and community groups who contributed input. Several comments reflected sentiments that the What We Heard report is a really good opportunity for the public to see what they have said, and what others are saying on the same topic.
There was no public comment.
CIC members not currently on it need to be added to the E-News list.
The next CIC meeting will be Wednesday, May 28, 2014 8:00 to 10:00a.m.
For more information, please contact Marty Stockton, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability at 503-823-2041 or email@example.com.
CIC quarterly meetings
- Wednesday, May 28, 2014 8:00 to 10:00a.m.; 1900 SW 4th Avenue, 2nd Floor, Conference Room 2500A
- Wednesday, September 24, 2014
- Wednesday, November 19, 2014
- Wednesday, February 25, 2015
- Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Planning and Sustainability Commission (PSC) Meetings:
- Briefing on the Comprehensive Plan Update – Working Draft Part 2 “What We Heard” Report on Tuesday, March 11, 2014,12:30-3:00pm; 1900 SW 4th Ave, 2nd Floor, Conference Room 2500A.
Deborah Stein and Marty Stockton remained for an additional half hour with new CIC members, providing some information regarding the purpose and background of the CIC, and answering questions. Resource binders were distributed to new members, including schedule, contact information, by-laws, background, current CPU public engagement plans, and background on statewide public engagement strategies and Periodic Review.
It was also decided that new committee members should pair up with a returning committee member who will provide support and guidance over the next few months.