Minutes of January 4th, 2010 Bd Mtg

Board Members in Attendance: Julie Ratcliff, Pete Jacobsen, Marianne Colgrove, MJ Coe, Bryan Agee, Roy Hartley, Moshe Lenske, Kevin Moore

Others in Attendance: Anne Dufay, Lee Perlman, Lauren McCartney, Jeri Williams, Shoshana Cohen, Linda Nettekoven, Leah Hyman, Kristen Wiener, Scott Vala, Hannah Kapell, Don MacGillivray, Mary Louise Ott, Joanna Beatty, Mary Ann Schwab, Blythe Pavlik.

Called to order at 7:10pm by Marianne
Declaration read by Kristen

New Directors: Mary Louise Ott & Joanna Beatty. Moved: Moshe/Moshe to seat the new directors. Seconded: bryan/bryan Result: Acclamation/Acclamation

Approve Minutes Revisions suggested were:
•    Treasurer's report - NOT Real Income 150% of budget, Admin fees 150% of budget
•    Joesph Santos Lyons - IRCO

Moved by Moshe to approve minutes as revised. Seconded by Julie, Passed Unanimously
Small Grants - Kristen
This is 4th year of small grants. There was $40,513 to grant, but over $130K requested. Board Packet included memo with 27 projects recommended for funding. A diverse group of 5 plus Kristen selected the projects. Moved by Pete to approve the grants as presented. Seconded Moshe. Discussion: MJ asked how the amounts compare with last year. Kristen answered that they are very close. Moshe asked where amount is smaller, is it enough. Kristen responded that the committee thought it through carefully, looked for projects where they could raise money, etc. The groups know they will be getting less than requested. Passed unanimous. Kristen says letters will go out tomorrow, so hold the info for a day or so.

Columbia River Crossing (CRC) - Lauren McCartney (NE Coalition)
NE Coalition of Neighborhoods (NECN) recently hosted a half-day workshop to discuss the impacts of the CRC. Shoshana is contractor who organized forum, Jeri is advisor (worked on issue for 10 years). Four documents were passed out. Started w/ July LUTC meeting, where they realized they didn't really know what was happening with CRC. Had a hard time getting details on local impacts, because it was such a big project. Project/Forum was intended to be neutral at first, but moved to "alternative view". They did not invite CRC committee to forum, reasoning that the committee had many opportunities to get out their message.
The group met with a professor from Willamette University Law School. His students were already working on Hayden Island. A powerpoint presentation is available at their website. Students researched impacts on the neighborhoods and presented at the forum, Jeri described her experiences at forum. Outreach to NAs, and other local organizations. The forum was held on a Saturday morning, 2 1/2 hours, 50+ people attended.
Shoshana: learned they needed it to be even longer - more info, more discussion. Gave some highlights of forum presentations. Major alternatives eliminated early, w/o much study. CRC Committee (aka sponsor's committee) compares things with no build, not with other alternatives. At Moshe's request, she went back to explain the basic plan of CRC Committee.
Jeri (taking off ONI hat) - commented on the recent refinement package - same size bridge with less strips! Serious impacts to Hayden Island folks. "Bargaining chips" agreed to for the main package were stripped out. CRC Committee also defined "influence area" very narrowly. Community Enhancement funds (1% of projects, started w/ I-405) is being omitted.
Shoshana: impacts are not being studied in enough depth.
Mary Ann Schwab (LWV hat) enhancement funds important. She made side pitch for 66/67.
Lauren: met w/ LUTC managers including Leah before things started. Pointed out that they have max'd out their own internal capacity. Others need to step up. They are still thinking about inter-coalition event according to Leah.
Shoshana: it was about getting information out at the beginning. At the forum, the response was "I didn't realize what was happening. What can we do?" Coalition for a Liveable Future (CLF) has "climate smart" proposal (in board packet). Wants to find ways to collaborate with us and others. Moshe led conversation back to well known stuff (congestion unless all roads widened). Mentioned Vancouver objection to light rail and tolls.
Mary Louise Ott asked if there a plan to widen other freeways to match new bridge? Answer: more roads are unhealthy for people who live there - this battle was fought and won in 2002. Roy pointed out that traffic studies say volume is going down, but rational for bridge is that volume is going up. Jeri: we need our neighbors to the north to get across the bridge some other way, or work in Washington.
Don asked where we were on the crucial points in the process. Answer: Sponsor's council (stake holders) will eventually vote on proposals.
Lauren: unclear on when sponsor's council will meet. NECN has not decided what their next step is as well. Probably will take position requesting sponsor's council rethink things significantly!
Marianne: summed things up. She mentioned the backgrounders being developed by SE Uplift. Pete requested more writers.
--------------------
Break time!
--------------------
Portland Plan - Linda (Citizen Involvement commission for Portland Plan)
The plan is still in flux. CIC unsure what will next round of contacts look like. Linda also works on BAC for Bureau of Transportation. No way to connect with public as she sits on BAC for PBOT. She wants ideas on how to get public involved earlier.
Portland Plan's latest information is at Pdxplan.com website. Portland Plan Advisory Group (technical reps and community reps - Linda on it, too). They look at how to "frame" information, but so does CIC. They have only met once.
She asked: Where are you (SE Uplift) on the Portland Plan? What do you want to know? Lee noted "On the 26th there will be hearing on the various white papers. No hardcopy available, and trouble downloading, so few advance readers." Many multiple guess questions, which aren't great way to get real input. No two way conversations. A: hardcopies are at coalitions and libraries. Download is better.
Phase II - setting directions (yet to come?) Phase I gave us basic information - read the exec. summaries at least. She read off lots of nine topics for which there are background papers? Linda thinks they are scratching their heads about what second round will look like. They want folks to set priorities within 9 topics. If city can't afford things, how else could we do it?
Marianne: 9 categories are fuzzy and overlap. Where did they come from. A: 1st round several years ago had 7. Just trying to get everything into boxes, so names change to "cover" yet another thing. Mary Ott: surveys didn't facilitate input other than multiple guess. Feels results will not be useful (in reality). Linda: they are willing to send staff to have meetings and explain things. Probably not input very much. Survey: graphs hard to read, legends impossible.
Roy: is CRC included in PP? Linda: Mayor says PP is strategic, should include CRC. The Plan must be usable immediately.
Linda: PP is suppose to go to council early 2011.
Linda: public comments from CRC are included in PP, but not sure how (technical committee). Major efforts to build PP on other plans (bicycle, river, transportation, etc.) and make all info available to public.
Bryan: feeling before last meetings was that they were about a new way to dessiminate info, rather than accepting input. Linda: Other line on survey. Original technical reports were held back because they were thought to be too complex, but that inflamed public. We suffer in part from a bad handoff from mayor to mayor. New people because cuts hit old planners. All trying hard, but...
Hearing for testimony on background reports: get dates from Leah's handout.
Don: neighborhood perspective on citywide issues. Just having meetings in a neighborhood isn't enough. Consider the estimated increase in population. Linda: meetings have been held, others are planned separate from PP officials. Don: Comprehensive plan has been put off, and it is most important. Linda: outreach strategy has been to minimize that to avoid confusion.
MJ thanked Marianne and Linda. Jaded viewpoint because he invested in 1st plan effort, and feels let down.
Scott: Neighborhood plan very relevant - should he mail it to them? Linda: Yes! Someone is looking at existing plans, and it would be good to make sure she has yours.
Don: no backgrounder on neighborhoods or NAs. Linda: folks are going through Vision statements to extract relevant info.
City club, pre-portland plan meetings. How to get everyone using the same datasets.
Get your handouts (coming around).

Executive Director's Report - Anne
Welcome to Blythe, our new Communications person! Louisa starts tomorrow, part-time for a few weeks.

PIC grant received! $9400 for stormwater treatment, raingarden, demo gardens. This is phase one, planning Metro grant in spring for phase 2. MJ will be part of project. There is a masterplan developed with help from BES.

Hands on portland will paint fireside room this Friday.
$1000 anonymous matching grant.

Mary Ann Schwab will be talking to LUTC about Powell Median issue to consider additional response.
Adjourned 9:15pm