Item A: Planning Commission Work Plan

Home Browse Search

Community Involvement Committee Since the City Council eliminated funding for the Community Involvement Committee in 2004, oversight for public involvement programs has been divided among several bodies within the city structure. An interdepartmental peer review committee was created to review major City issues that culminate in a public hearing or work session by the City Council, the Executive Management Team provides oversight for Department Advisory Committees (DACs), and the Planning Commission reviews public involvement plans for projects affecting land use regulations. In the planning/land use arena, recent efforts to engage and empower residents in the planning process are evolving beyond the DAC model favored by the Community Involvement Committee. Planning projects utilize many techniques for involvement, depending on the complexity of issues, such as self-selected “context sensitive” community committees, neighborhood-led planning, charrettes, facilitated workshops, and focus groups, as well as the use of the internet for two-way project information and input communications. Community involvement efforts are increasing flexible to be responsive to community input as projects develop and evolve. Coordination of projects with other departments The Planning Division provides staffing support and inter-departmental coordination on many projects falling within other departmental or division work programs, or following specific council th direction. Examples of projects include participation in the airport masterplan process, West 11 transportation study, green infrastructure, I-5 Bridge replacement, and EWEB masterplanning. While planning staff do not have lead roles in project management, planning staff involvement on these projects can be significant, and the cumulative involvement of all planning staff on coordinating projects merits inclusion and consideration in the work program development. What other major projects are covered under "Economic Development"? This category represents major projects for which the Planning Division is not the lead staff, but may need to be involved. While some of these projects may be unforeseen, they can also be council-generated or part of another department work program. Examples could include the hospital (alternative siting options), the West 11th Corridor Study, the EWEB master plan, the railyard, or the arena project. Clarification of how resource allocation is reflected in the work program Resources allocation indicators in the work program reflect an assessment of resources to accomplish identified tasks in the FY08 work program. One column in the work program indicates whether projects have a duration that extends beyond a single work program timeframe. Examples of projects that have multi-year phasing are Mixed Use Centers, Natural Resources Conservation Planning, Infill Standards, and Opportunity Siting. These projects have identified/allocated funding sources and have been prioritized in a previous planning division work program. As reflected in the FY08 work program, all but one of these projects has identified required resource indicators reflecting that no additional resources will be identified, given previously allocated funding. Natural Resources is an exception, and has been coded with an indicator suggesting that additional resources may be required. While the South Ridgeline study is a multi-year project that is fully funded, other projects in this category, including the Water Quality protection ordinance and adjustments/enhancements to the water resources conservation overlay zone would require reprioritization of existing resources, or identification of additional resources to maintain a high priority implementation status. In the case of a project with a multi- year timeline that does not have identified resources allocated (for example neighborhood refinement plan update) the resource indicator reflects only the work that is anticipated to be completed within the FY08 timeframe. Subsequent phasing tasks and resource requirements would be reflected in the FY09 and future work programs. The level of detail in the FY 08 proposed work plan around resources exceeds the level of detail than in other previous approved work plans.