Community Involvement Committee
Meeting Date: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Time: 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
Committee Members present: Judy BlueHorse Skelton, Linda Nettekoven, Stan Penkin, Peter Stark, Alison Stoll
Absent: Paula Amato, Jason Barnstead-Long, Lois Cohen, Liz Gatti, Judith Gonzalez Plascencia, Anyeley Hallova, Shirley Nacoste, Lai-Lani Ovalles, Ryan Schera, Howard Shapiro
Staff: Eden Dabbs, Joan Frederiksen, Deborah Stein, Marty Stockton
Visitors: James Lopez from PSU, Malika Elizabeth from PSU and Zoe Brady applicant for the Murp program at PSU
Stan Penkin led the meeting in place of Howard Shapiro, Chair.
Marty Stockton announced the upcoming workshops and PEG meetings, which are listed at the end of this summary. The next CIC meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 27, 2013 from 11:30 a.m. -1:30 p.m., which is during Spring Break. Therefore, CIC agreed to cancel this meeting due to both members and staff being out-of-town that week.
Peter said that the Central Eastside Quadrant Plan has been sped up, so that coordinating plans are now on the same time line.
CIC decisions and follow up actions
With no further announcement, the CIC moved on to new business.
Stan Penkin started a discussion related to the Mayor attending the CIC by asking. “How can we get more City and Mayoral engagement? We should revisit this issue so that he becomes a champion of the 2nd phase of the Comp Plan. Marty shared that City staff has submitted a request to the Mayor’s office for the Mayor to attend.
The discussion led to the PEG still needing to be more scripted, with some groups putting together a delegation to visit the Mayor vs. extending an invitation. Judy suggested that meeting as a delegation in a small group works well with City Hall. Eden Dabbs said the closer that we get to implemantation the more likely the Mayor could be more involved. Alison Stoll added that it would be great to have a staff member from his staff attending the CIC meetings, so that the Mayor could recognize the work that has been done.
Deborah Stein recommended that this occur after May. The group decided to get an appointment for a delegation to go see the Mayor. Stan proposed the request for the CIC to send a meeting request to the Mayor’s Office and he will set the stage for the meeting.Edenproposed that we could pitch the phase 2 to the Mayor related to what “real” Portlanders are about.
Debrief SW and N Comprehensive Plan Workshops
Deborah shared what went well and what we might want to alter in each of the following areas during the Workshops-overall format, individual stations, break out sessions, set up, clean up or other logistics and other issues.
Stan was disappointed by last nights Workshop because it felt like a lot of work for little return and asked, “What do we think would be a good number of attendees at the Workshops?” Marty replied, “City Staff are hoping for 60-80 people and that during the Portland Plan they had 40-200. However, the Comp Plan is more of an academic and staff perspective, and that this phase is a repackaging for the last 8 years, instead of original content.”
Stan questioned if fatigue had set in and how do we change the dynamic? He added that we need to market this to Portlanders- THIS IS YOUR STREET, your backyard!
It was shared that Barry Manning’s Map Session was a good interactive piece, as well as the Growth Scenarios. Many of the PEG members asked how can we do something that is more interactive, we as the public, how can we be more interactive. Going forward members want the Workshops to be more interactive.
Someone asked if there was a budget for advertisement of the 2nd Phase? Staff shared that the Portland Plan was more backed by the Mayor, including budget, social media, additional staff, etc.Edenalso added that the subject matter helped drive the public involvement process. Deborah questioned then if the accomplishment is about outreach or the actual product being discussed?
Marty said, just as in the past, the Workshops conflict with other meetings, which lead to people having to make choices. So, is the question then becomes, is the Comp Plan resonating with people?
Linda said she sat in on a session, Healthy andProsperousCity, which was mostly full and relevant to folks. In addition, Networks and Transportation led by Courtney Duke provided a WHAT’S CHANGED poster letting folks know what updates were going to occur. Staff replied that there was a one-pager available and has been talked through, but a visual poster would be good addition as well.
Stan questioned the Urban Design Framework title. What does that mean to people, could there be different naming?
Alison said that the 42nd Avenue and Sumner group was dedicating a community garden, so this was competing with the workshops. Linda added that three large meetings were conflicting with the workshop at Franklin High School.
Deborah continued with the feedback discussion by asking if we want to be adaptable to the crowd for a bigger crowd, any ideas on how to tailor a topic to a group size, so that the rooms don’t look so empty and the experience will be a more successful event for the folks that do come? Stan commented that at the discussion last night the session should have started out with more presentations, so that you get the people together vs. having them dispersed across the breakout sessions, and then have the breakouts occur afterwards.
Peter reiteratered the question, “Are the presentations being tailored to the areas? The Business workshop is only the full-nitch for the area. The idea would be to get individuals in-touch and interested in the Workshops by presenting the Hot Button Issues for their area and how the Draft will address those topics.
Marty brought up the issue of email messages to residents, but the always contentious issue of the City becoming a Spammer. She said that City Staff were still questioning, “What is the respectful balance?” Eden added that the District Liaisons have been doing marketing per their area and their contacts which helps make the messaging more individualized and less Spam. Perhaps they should try to propose the Hot Topics?
Marty implied that there needs to be a gathering of a critical mass centered on the 1980 plan and what is different with this Comp Plan Update. “Why can’t we make this clearer?” Stan said perhaps there needs to be a display to be one of the first things that they see when they walk into the Workshop, with the focus on explaining in graphics that this is NOT the same old, same old. Alison cautioned that some community members might feel overwhelmed with numbers of “experts” vs. staffers and perhaps thought should be given to combining groups on the move.
Peter added that the Business Workshop will be heavily attended because “business” is the most controversial.
Stan asked, “What are we going to do to get people there? Are we focusing on the sticky situation topics to help bring in people?Edensaid, “The survey addresses the sticky issues, and provides people with the chance to chime in on these challenges.” Marty said that the survey had received 12 online responses. In contrast there are 120 PEG members and 90 community members who would have attended the workshops, but they are getting there info through the PEGs, so they aren’t all showing up at the Workshops.
Stan asked if the PEG leads been asked or encourage PEG members to attend the workshops. Marty replied, “Yes.” Alison chimed in that there were probably too many sessions for the PEG members to think about attending the Workshops, and perhaps we should perform a cost benefit analysis with a thought given to cancelling one of the next three. Stan felt it would not be good to cancel meetings. Deborah added that when we get to the mapping activities in the 2nd phase, it will be harder to cut workshops.
It was proposed to reduce the number of staff members at the Workshop. Marty said we were having 20 staff at each session and that we are trying to drop the numbers down to 14. Deborah Stein proposed putting Transportation and Urban Design in the same room?
All agreed to be ready to reduce the number of staff at the Workshops. It was felt that last night’s workshop had great conversations because those that attended got more staff time - these were high value contacts. Stan said that De La Salle was a great location and Peter added that a selling point was that there was enough staff for everyone to meet with personally.
Edenshared that despite the low turn outs the events were productive. Susan Anderson was thinking that 50 people would be a good turnout for the Workshops given the natural challenges with the meeting conflicts and everyday life.
Community District Discussion Series
Joan Frederiksen provided an update on the community district discussion series and gathered feedback from PEG members. She said that Staff had rekindled the idea of the District series as community conversations as the Comp Plan Update moves into the mapping phase. The proposal was introduced in January and that Staff is now fine tuning thinking around the concept and the logistics involved in producing the series.
Joan turned to the Comp Plan Process Diagram, which is the timeline for the entire project, to highlight the vacant area between April and June where the District Series could fill-in and provide policy discussions on they will help shape the City’s growth. She said, “We have to put this information together in map form. Information such as what comes out of the Urban Design Framework-conceptual mapping based on geography and the distribution of resources and projects around the City. We have to ask ourselves what specifics do we want drawn on maps? Do want feedback on a 60% completed map?”
Joan said that the “products” that will come out of the Workshops will be City-wide and that the idea behind the Discussion Series would be for the individuals and their information to zoom down into their distinct and different areas of the City. Stan added that it would be great to have to a before and after map to generate more dialogue.
Marty questioned how much of the Metro 2040 Plan and maps will feed into the Comp Plan. Joan said that other information, such as the Citywide System Plan, the Transportation Plan, and the project list based on the system plans, will feed into the Comp Plan, so how do we present these maps? She suggested that we need to build from what we have today or come out with a proposal on what to pull-in and keep-out? Then have the public react to this information? She shared that she is still quite unsure on where to go with the District Sessions?
Joan went on to add that each D.L. would lead the Session for there district during the timeframe of April-June, perhaps July. She encouraged others to comment because she is open to the process to raise the awareness of current issues, what to include in the Sessions as educational in order to being a continuous process and that she would like to see the mapping and the questioning from the survey and Workshops blend together.
Deborah said she could envision the Discussion Series as a three month process; 1st session would be building blocks, 2nd session would be more hands on and the 3rd session would be a presentation of here is what we have for a broader review with more discussion. This would be a good way to figure out through vetting what needs to be addressed in the district.
Stan was encouraged at the prospect of an exercise that would work from vague to more specified ideas, and then seek feedback. Or is this too controversial? This could help everyone keep am eye on the bigger city but also allow a focus on the district level. Linda challenged that keeping some unresolved thoughts would encourage people to keep coming back and stay engaged in the project.
Peter was encouraged by the process of having a blank map which allows for everyone to share their ideas because there is no hard map. He would love to see how the maps could leverage the Internet to show a before and after, a comparison through layering of roads, sewer, etc. with people’s new feedback. It was proposed that perhaps this could happen at the tail end of the 2nd phase.
Linda felt that doing a mapping of the district would allow individuals to capture neighborhood values- “What do you value, what do you want to preserve, what’s important?”
Debbie shared that the Urban Design work is denoted for identifying significant areas on the district-level maps, including addressing ideas for parking lots. In the NE and potentially other areas, topics include what to do with golf courses and industrial land shortfalls?
It was asked if the intention is to force the community into a discussion on these topics or to just point people to a potential discussion.
In addition, this area includes people discussing designating neighborhood centers, Peter wants some sort of identification of future aspirations for a district, and Stan wants these discussions to address Brownfields - how do we resolve them if they are in your neighborhood, what do you want to see done with them?
Joan appreciated the feedback and reiterated the Staff is still considering how to morph Phase 1 and it’s feedback into how the Discussion Series would take shape. First, they need to refine the invite lists for these areas with the question of who is vested into these specific areas. Second, recap what has brought us to this point. And third, be able to lead a group to zooming into a specific location and for the staff to blend broad information into a discussion of this specific area.
The process needs to go from more general to more refined in its scope. Stan said yes, broad in nature to more specific otherwise it will be the same old, same old, where we go for it all at once and then try to drill down at a later time. Peter suggested that we don’t try and break them down.
Debbie commented that the NE district people needed to understand the concepts first, and this made her unsure about the quick timeline.
Stan said part of the success will be in not reaching the same group of people as in previous planning efforts, but to engage new people.
Discussion turned to the potential structure of the sessions. What if we start with the District Design concepts and language first, in order to get people thinking more broadly about planning? Peter then added, these attendees of the first meeting would wear a colored badge to show that they attended the first meeting so that they could lead attendees at the second meeting and their comments could carry more weight. Then in a third meeting the discussions can be very specific. Perhaps a fourth meeting could return the focus back to a City-wide scope to tie the individual feedback together. Global, more specific, and then back to a more global perspective?
Deborah suggested perhaps between now and the first meeting individuals could be encouraged to take part in a self-guided tutorial on the planning process. Perhaps the focus of the meetings in April become about doing some homework on how to make the exercises more accessible?
Linda questioned where do the growth scenarios tie into this 2nd Part? How do residents come to understand their home territory into a full City view? What are the necessities, the key things that we are thinking of or that our communities will we need in 20 years, for issues such as aging populations, etc.?
The discussion turned to using the April-July period as a lead up to the 2nd Part, instead of being the start of this phase. Perhaps the some of the urban Senior Centers could be used as points of broader public and early involvement to hear from key on-going stakeholders?
Peter suggested that a 15-miunte introduction could cover the basics. Linda added that a quiz could be a fun way to capture demographics. Debbie offered that key facts and concepts could be communicated in visual boards.
Joan asked how many meetings are now being talking about for the District Sessions. Stan emoted that 3 hours is too long, even with good visuals, and can be a bit overwhelming. He suggested putting the visuals up when the discussion is going on. Peter suggested reducing the sessions to two meetings at 3 hours each with an RSVP for dinner or lunch to save money on hosting a third meeting. Judy said that there should be a 15-minute intro with a pop quiz, but that having an RSVP sets up the expectation that this is a work session. Joan said that there would be more flexibility with two meetings versus three meetings. Her hope is that regardless of the number of meetings the Staff will bring in emerging information from the Workshop feedback and Staff revisions of the Comp Plan, and weave it into the process of the Discussion Series.
Joan said that the D.L. team will have a proposed to the CIC in 2 weeks. The proposal would include a list of central locations for the Discussion Series, but that she was also looking for ideas for locations? The proposal will also attempt to lay out the organization and format of the Series including how station for mapping will work, highlight works in progress, how individuals can leave sticky notes if they are unable to stay for the whole session. In addition, she was considering leaving a map at PSU as an information gathering tool.
Judy BlueHorse Skelton commented that when looking for partnerships on where you put the maps throughout the City, to look for those organizations that could also provide potential on-site assistance, instead of just leaving a map out. For PSU, Linda suggested that having the PSU team currently working on aLombard streetproject could serve as volunteers.
Peter said that perhaps the staff could lead a half hour or 45-minute discussion at the various Neighborhood Coalition meetings to encourage those folks to form teams to identify specific areas and capture this is what we are thinking for these problem or highest potential areas within our districts. It could serve as a preview of what residents are thinking and cause the members to go to their boards to attract more participation? Joan said that the coalitions have been contacted are very interested in co-hosting and/or participating in the Discussion Series.
Peter commented that perhaps the coalitions can spread the work and give a highlight in that district of the Hot Button Issues that have identified and will be discussed on this day.
Members stated that they want the public to feel satisfied with these Discussion Series. Stan suggested follow-up emails after the meetings. Peter commented, also post the meeting comments on the web site as well as the blogs.
A comment was made that is has been noted how respectful the CIC is towards each other.
It was commented that it is curious how to keep folks engaged for a 3 hour meeting, perhaps small groups, food, detailed learning objectives. It is challenging task.
Staff commented that they had moved the next CIC meeting to the 4th week of each month- falls on Spring Break and lots of CIC members were going out of town.
Peter added that perhaps they could procure a video clip from the Mayor, “Thank you community for attending Phase 1 and encouraging them to get involved in the 2nd phase. Stan added that he could invite the public to attend the Workshops and Peter said he could asked the public to assist us.
Stan asked it we could communicate more with PSU and engage with the professors? Peter added we need the connection from PSU, perhaps even a PSU member on the CIC. Should we call for applications from a student or the Young Leaders Group at City Club? Someone commented, “It is really important to reach the non-planning students in these kinds of efforts.”
The next CIC meeting will be Wednesday, April 24, 2013 from 11:30 a.m. -1:30 p.m.
For more information, please contact Marty Stockton, Bureau of Planning and Sustainability at 503-823-2041 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Workshop Dates and Locations
- North: Tuesday, February 26 from 5:30-8:30p.m. at De La Salle North Catholic High School,7528 N. Fenwick Avenue
- Southeast: Thursday, February 28 from 5:30-8:30p.m. at Franklin High School, 5405 SE Woodward Street
- East: Saturday, March 2 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. at David DouglasHigh School,1001 SE 135th Avenue
- Central: Tuesday, March 5 from 5 to 8 p.m. at Smith Memorial Student Union,Portland State University, 1825 SW Broadway
- Northeast: Saturday, March 9 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. at Beaumont Middle School,4043 NE Fremont Street
- Business: Thursday, March 14 from 7:30-9:30 a.m. at Mercy Corps – Aceh Community Room,45 SW Ankeny Street
Policy Expert Groups and Working Groups – February/March Meetings
- Community Involvement PEG meeting, Thursday, February 21, 6:00-8:00p.m.; City Hall,1221 SW 4th Avenue, Pettygrove Conference Room
- Watershed Health and Environment PEG meeting, Wednesday, February 27, 4:00-6:00p.m.; 1900 SW 4th Avenue, 2nd Floor, Conference Room 2500A
- Networks PEG meeting, Tuesday, March 5,12300-3:30p.m.;1900 SW 4th Avenue, 7th Floor, Conference Room 7A
- Infrastructure Equity PEG meeting, Wednesday, March 6, 10:00a.m-12:00p.m.;1900 SW 4th Avenue, 2nd Floor, Conference Room 2500A
- Residential Development and Compatibility PEG meeting, Thursday, March 14, 4:00-6:00p.m., Conference Room 7A
- Education and Youth Success PEG meeting, Monday, March 18, 4:00-6:00p.m., Conference Room 7A
- Economic Development PEG meeting, Wednesday, March 20, 11:30a.m. to 1:30p.m.;1900 SW 4th Avenue, 7th Floor, Conference Room 7A
- Neighborhood Centers PEG meeting, Thursday, March 21, 8:00-10:00a.m., Conference Room 7A