South Park Blocks Master Plan - Appendix D (Community Advisory Committee Notes)

D

Community Advisory Committee Notes

South Park Blocks Master Plan - Appendix C

South Park Blocks Master Plan Community Advisory Committee Meeting #1 Tuesday, April 16, 2019, 5:30pm – 8:00pm PSU Smith Memorial Student Union, 1825 SW Broadway, Portland, OR 97201 Committee Members in Attendance: Gaylen Beatty, Julie Bunker, Michelle Comer, Jessica Engelmann, Nicholas Fazio, Lisa Frisch, Randy Gragg, Amber Holland, Keith Jones, Amanda Keasberry, Mack McFarland, Melinda McMillan, David Newman, Stephanie Parrish, Kathy Russo, Judy BlueHorse Skelton, Maya Sykes, Mason Wordell Committee Members Absent: Wendy Rahm, Andrew VanDerZanden PP&R Staff: Adena Long, Tate White, Barbara Hart Facilitators: Kristen Bishop (LCA), Zachary Johnson (LCA)

MEETING SUMMARY

Welcome & Introductions Barbara Hart of Portland Parks and Recreation (PP&R) opened the meeting at 5:35pm by welcoming CAC members. CAC members were asked to introduce themselves and answer the question “what connects you to the South Park Blocks?”.

Director Adena Long welcomed the group and thanked them for their involvement. She shared her commitment to inclusivity and public participation embodied in the CAC’s central role in shaping the future of the South Park Blocks.

Kristen Bishop, facilitator with Lois D. Cohen Associates (LCA), reviewed the meeting agenda.

Public Comment Tim Davis, a community member, commented that parks throughout Portland were often inactive apart from major events, that neighbors are afraid to walk in the South Park Blocks, that people should be prioritized over cars, and that PP&R should turn on fountains.

Goals, Roles, & Group Agreements Barbara reviewed the South Park Blocks Master Plan Goals and the CAC Goals. She explained the use of consensus-based decision making rather than voting, and the use of red, yellow, and green cards to signify people’s support for ideas, proposals, and recommendations.

Barbara then reviewed the PP&R Group Agreements and Ground Rules and invited CAC members to pair off to discuss any modifications or additions they would suggest the group discuss. Kristen opened a group discussion of suggested changes and additions. The following ground rules were reviewed and discussed by the CAC: Initial list: • Speak honestly and respectfully 1

• • • • • •

Listen to understand Respect the views and opinions of others Keep an open mind During discussions, allow everyone the opportunity to speak once before speaking twice Use discussion to clarify information, not advocate for your position Consider the needs and concerns of the local community and the larger city

Additions: • Lead with racial equity • Leave time for people to process and ask questions • Facilitators to lead the group through difficult or uncomfortable situations • Silence is okay • Be aware of personal biases • It’s okay to be raggedy • Focus on ideas rather than people • Add to end of last item on initial list…the larger city, and the city’s place in the world • Focus on challenges as opportunities for problem solving This amended Group Agreements and Ground Rules list was approved in its entirety by the committee.

Committee members asked for more information about PP&R’s Racial Equity Policy. Staff will provide this information at the next CAC meeting.

Project Overview Tate White (PP&R project manager for the master plan) provided a project overview that included information about the site plan and context, master plan goals, governance structure, the consultant team, and the project timeline. She then answered the following questions and comments from CAC members: • Will any work be done on Ankeny or O’Bryant Squares? o The scope for this master plan is limited to the South Park Blocks due to the funding source. The CAC can, however, think about connections between the South Park Blocks and the Mid/North Blocks • Is there a specific development that we are trying to interface with? o We want to consider all adjacent development (existing and planned) in thinking about the park block’s future and how they relate to their surroundings. A Design Commission process led to the developer of the nearby Broadway Tower committing to build an affordable housing complex, provide funds for a master planning process for the South Park Blocks, and provide funds for improvements to the park block closest to the development. However, the master plan itself is not focused on this tower or single park block.

• Can you clarify where the master plan area is? o We are looking at the twelve South Park Blocks from Salmon down to I-405.

2

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Comment: Once the master plan is complete, there is only funding for implementation of improvements to a portion of the area. o We are keeping this in mind throughout the process. This plan provides an opportunity to identify necessary improvements and add them to PP&R’s Capital Improvement list, which will make it easier to act on them in the future when funding options become available. Funding for implementation beyond the contribution by the Broadway Tower developer is currently unidentified.

To clarify, are we planning for just one block? o The master plan is for the entire South Park Blocks. There is identified future funding for implementing improvements on the block between SW Columbia and Clay Streets. Funding and implementation for the rest of the blocks will be a future step.

Are we thinking about design standard implementation? o We’re going to see how we can use the master plan to influence, if not create, design standards. PP&R master plans are not typically codified but are approved

by City Council.

Where does this fit into scope of the City’s master plans? o Most PP&R master plans are for new parks. We have a unique opportunity with this master plan to work with an existing park. Another example of this is the recently completed Washington Park Master Plan. Although the two parks are quite different especially in size, there is a similar level of complexity involved with the South Park Blocks.

Will this master plan pave the way for agreement among bureaus? o We hope this will be a success story of aligning visions of bureaus like the Bureau of Transportation (PBOT), Bureau of Environmental Services (BES), and other bureaus and partnering agencies. The Technical Advisory Committee is made up of representatives from these groups and will help create an aligned plan for coordinated implementation.

What are the components of the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA)? o The developer funding was not technically from a CBA. This was a special public benefit required by the Design Commission. The full public benefit package includes funding for the Master Plan, approximately $200,000 worth of improvements on one park block, and a building with affordable housing units.

Will we learn about PSU’s Master Plan? o The consultant is reviewing PSU’s Master Plan and it is important for context.

This could be discussed at the joint CAC/TAC meeting. PSU is also working on an open space plan, which will also be considered.

What are the typical steps in developing a master plan? o The initial technical investigation is important. Before that, we engage in a scoping process with the bureau and stakeholders to consider what is working, what is not, and what should be looked at. This sets the stage for identifying goals, opportunities, and challenges. A technical review is conducted where we dig deeper into the physical and contextual aspects. We remain focused on 3

engagement throughout the process. A series of design alternatives is developed, usually three, and presented to stakeholders and the community for feedback.

We then pick one of the designs or create a hybrid option for further refinement.

Discussion Zachary Johnson, facilitator with LCA, led the group in an issues/opportunities activity. Group members were asked to write down issues and opportunities on sticky notes. All responses are attached at the end of this summary. Zach then led a group discussion where CAC members stated one of the issues and one of the opportunities they identified.

Next Steps Tate provided information on the next steps in the CAC process. Doodle Polls will be sent out to schedule times for walking tours of the Park Blocks and for the next CAC meeting, which is anticipated to occur in May. Overall, the CAC process will consist of 5 to 6 meetings over the course of a year.

Wrap Up & Evaluation Kristen thanked everyone for participating and asked for feedback on positive aspects of the meeting as well as things that should be changed for future meetings. The following feedback was provided by CAC members: + Δ

• •

Appreciated the ground rules and being able to modify them The packet of background information was useful

• • •

More breaks Better food (more dinner items) Email questions in advance so CAC members can think about them

Kristen closed the meeting at 8:00pm.

4

South Park Blocks Master Plan Community Advisory Committee Thursday, June 20, 2019, 5:30pm – 8:00pm 1900 SW 4th Ave, Room 2500 C, Portland, OR 97201 Committee Members in Attendance: Julie Bunker, Jessica E. Engelmann, Nicholas Fazio, Amber Holland, Keith Jones, Amanda Keasberry, David Newman, Stephanie Parrish, Wendy Rahm, Maya Sykes, Andrew VanDerZanden, Mason Wordell, Savahna Jackson Committee Members Absent: Gaylen Beatty, Michelle Comer, Lisa Frisch, Randy Gragg, Mack McFarland, Melinda McMillan, Kathy Russo, Judy Bluehorse Skelton Special Guest: Sequoia Breck Community: Cara Rothe, Jo Durand, Marion McNamara, Mary Vogle PP&R Staff: Tate White, Barbara Hart Facilitators: Kristen Bishop (LCA), Zachary Johnson (LCA) Planning and Design Consultant Team: Melissa Erikson and Rachel Edmonds (MIG), Shannon Simms and Teresa Chenney (Mayer-Reed), Sharon Daleo (Toole Design Group)

MEETING SUMMARY

Welcome & Introductions Barbara Hart of PP&R opened the meeting at 5:34pm by welcoming CAC members. She acknowledged CAC members Savahna Jackson, Wendy Rahm and Andrew VanDerZanden who were attending their first meeting, and asked them to introduce themselves. She then reviewed the set of meeting materials and invited CAC members to introduce themselves and answer the question “To mark the summer solstice, what is your favorite summertime place or activity?”

Meeting facilitator Kristen Bishop of LCA reviewed the meeting agenda.

Kristen asked CAC members to review the April 16, 2019 meeting summary for approval. The CAC approved the meeting summary as presented with no revisions.

Public Comment No public comments were submitted.

Progress Updates Tate White of PP&R provided progress updates. She thanked CAC members for attending the walking tours that were offered in May. She noted that since the last CAC meeting, the project team had met with the technical advisory committee (TAC) and shared a presentation very similar to what the CAC would see later that evening.

Tate then provided an overview of upcoming project activities: • “Party in the Park” public event, July 17th 1

• •

Concept Development Workshop, August 6th Focus groups, including with the Parks Accessibility Advisory Committee, immigrants and refugees, and students – PSU and high school age.

CAC members asked the following questions, with responses by PP&R in italics: • Are the Technical Advisory Committee meetings open to the public? o TAC meetings are for staff and are not open to the public, but meeting notes are public record. There will be opportunities for further interaction between the CAC and the TAC, including joint meetings. The group was provided with a list of CAC members and TAC members in their meeting materials.

• When will the focus groups happen? o Planning for the focus groups is in progress. Ideally, the Accessibility Advisory Committee focus group will occur before the design workshop. This group will be engaged later in the process as well once design concepts are available. The other focus groups will be engaged later, once preliminary design concepts are ready for review. Information about these focus groups will be provided to the CAC. • Why isn’t a specific representative from Planning and Sustainability on the TAC? o There is a representative from the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability’s Urban Design Group. The staff person asked about was invited but not able to commit to the TAC. He is an available resource that will be involved when his expertise is needed.

Reflections on Walking Tour Barbara opened a discussion about the walking tours led by Tate White for the CAC in May. The following observations were shared by CAC members, with responses to some in italics: • Comment about the significant presence of youth playing throughout the park blocks, outside of the playground block. Many nearby day cares, schools, and residents use the blocks to play on a daily basis. o Barbara noted that PP&R is in contact with the St. James Children’s Center and is reaching out to the other nearby childcare centers.

• Walking from PSU up to Shemanski Park, there is a clear division at Market Street. The speed and volume of traffic is a safety challenge.

• The “orphan blocks” in the middle of South Park Blocks seem underdeveloped and underutilized. Some attention should be paid to these blocks. o Tate explained that “orphan blocks” refer to the middle blocks that are more difficult to program for events due to traffic volumes. It is not possible to close the streets between these blocks for events.

• Comments about tearing out grass were interesting and worth considering, as well as reasons for grass being left in place.

• It is not necessarily a bad thing to have some blocks with less programming.

• Green loop integration will be challenging.

2

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

Integrating the PSU blocks with the other blocks will be challenging. There are gaps in the PSU open space plan.

The blocks surrounding Market Street have quick moving traffic, a streetcar stop, the entrance to PSU, high numbers of people, and some of the worst pedestrian crossings.

There is no sense of arrival to the park; there is not gateway.

The scale of the blocks was notable. It is a long corridor with lots of space.

The blocks were able to accommodate a lot of people during PSU’s graduation weekend.

Urban design at the edge of the park should be considered. There are some poor edge conditions along the whole corridor. The streetscape should be activated.

Shemanski Park is a beautiful space, but there is a parking lot on one side and the back of the Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall on another.

Looking down the entire length of the park from the end highlights the canopy and the pathways.

The park blocks are used in a variety of ways by people of all ages.

The hardscapes on the orphan blocks are sometimes filled with children.

Challenges to potential Green Loop integration include the school buses that park on Park & 9th for the cultural institutions. The Green Loop may not work on the park blocks.

The PSU blocks play an important role as a campus quad. The campus culture is important to sustain.

Leftover flowers from the farmers market were noted. Maybe there is an opportunity to work with PSU and other stakeholders on composting.

There is a movement of students, faculty and staff to disarm campus police officers after the June 2018 shooting that killed Jason Washington. A new report on Public Safety is available and includes a campus survey that found 52% favored disarming police. Efforts to increase the police presence in other areas of the South Park Blocks may be in conflict with efforts underway on the PSU campus.

There is a lot of focus on people, but we need to consider the habitat quality as well.

Animals, including migratory birds, suffer with a lack of landscape diversity.

There is an opportunity for educational growing spaces with native plants.

There is a lack of a coherent plan, particularly along the PSU blocks.

Better signage is needed. Perhaps including signage to let users know that they are on one block of twelve.

It would be great to have different cultural monuments on each block.

There is not a single evergreen conifer. Conifers would be a good replacement for dying trees.

Tree root zones should be protected.

Gravel mulch around the trees encourages people to walk on tree root zones while bark mulch does not.

A lot of the yellow ADA tape is worn down.

Lack of dog waste bag stations.

The PSU blocks are great for commuting on foot.

The direction of the pathways is not always convenient.

Deferred maintenance is an issue.

3

•

There are several Christian churches along the blocks. Can we incorporate things from other religions?

Racial Equity Plan Discussion Barbara reviewed PP&R’s racial equity policy. PP&R is working on structural and cultural change to combat racism. The CAC can help advance these equity goals, particularly goal 3 (engagement of traditionally underserved populations) and goal 5 (investments to increase access to parks and services).

Barbara then opened a discussion of the plan. Questions and comments are noted below with responses in italics: • There is a lack of diversity on the CAC. • Example of public art installation with music from around the world may be a good precedent.

• How are perspectives from other parts of Portland being considered? o Community events are being promoted throughout the park system. We work with community leaders throughout the City.

• Will there be an opportunity to look at models from other parks around the world?

Different cultures use parks differently. Are we implicitly leaving out this element? o MIG and PP&R consider different models and examples of parks from around the world through their work. Our focus group work with immigrants and refugees will contribute to this. We are also working with indigenous groups.

• There was a fantastic presentation during the Park Foundation’s speaker series about this topic. o Tate notes that she attended this presentation and agrees. The Green Dreams programs are available online at https://www.portlandpf.org/green-dreams.

• Will the public event include other cultural models? o Listening is the primary focus of the event. Images and boards about potential design elements/uses will be included.

Opportunities and Challenges The Design Team led by MIG gave a presentation about the issues and challenges associated with the South Park Blocks. Melisa Erikson of MIG introduced the project team members in attendance. Rachel Edmonds of MIG provided a history of the South Park Blocks as well as an overview of the vegetation character. Shannon Simms of Mayer Reed discussed the Green Loop concept. Sharon Daleo of Toole Design Group discussed transportation in and around the park.

The presentation slides are attached to this meeting summary.

Questions and comments from CAC members during and after the presentation are noted below with responses by MIG and PP&R in italics: • There are bike lanes in multiple places around the park.

4

• •

• • • • • • • • •

•

•

o Yes, bike routes are included on the map on slide 32.

Portland5 is in preliminary discussions regarding closing Main permanently. There have been a few accidents in the area when the gates go down for events. There is also bus and truck parking along Salmon during events.

Have you collected data on the number of parking spaces and how it relates to parking demand management? o Tate has gathered some data from PBOT and will be sharing with the consultant team.

Can you discuss the types of plantings in the blocks? o Staff reviewed the vegetation map and noted the turf and beds. Roses were previously a unifying feature of all the blocks.

People who run tours often stop by the rose beds.

The southern-most bed on the Roosevelt block is a mixed bed, not a rose bed.

What is the current succession plan for the tree canopy? o Currently, trees are replaced one-to-one as needed. The project arborist wants to think long-term.

How does the one-one planting process get changed? o The Urban Forester and the Urban Forestry Commission will have a role in this discussion.

Educating the public about the tree succession process can help mitigate sadness about dying trees. This is a public education opportunity.

Houselessness was not mentioned on the usage slide. There are also some illegal activities that occur in the park, like smoking and drug use.

During the Green Loop Pedalpalooza, many people mentioned that they saw the South Park Blocks as a model for the rest of the Loop.

The PSU open space plan talks about the Green Loop being on SW Broadway instead of adjacent to the South Park Blocks. o We are working with PSU throughout this process. There are PSU representatives on the TAC and PSU will be included in the concept development workshop.

There should be a critical look at the City’s historical preservation/registration efforts. It would be helpful to understand the priorities and context for the City of Portland, and how these connect to the South Park Blocks? How can relevant information be shared with the CAC? o The rehabilitation/treatment approach acknowledges current uses and provides flexibility. The park is not a good candidate for a preservation approach because a lot of the functional space is newer.

Historical preservation is now focused primarily on adaptive reuse of old buildings.

Kristen then asked CAC members to review the sorted list of Opportunities and Issues provided and identify their top five priorities by July 15. The CAC responses will be compiled and shared with the Design Team in advance of the August workshop.

Next Steps & Evaluation 5

Kristen and Barbara reviewed the key upcoming dates and encouraged CAC members to help promote the July 17 “Party in the Park” community gathering. Information about the event will be posted to the project website and emailed to CAC members to make it easy to share the news with their groups and members Kristen thanked everyone for participating and asked for feedback on positive aspects of the meeting as well as things that should be changed for future meetings. +

• •

Food was good Thank you to everyone who presented, really great information

Kristen closed the meeting at 8:05pm.

6

South Park Blocks Master Plan Community Advisory Committee Thursday, September 26, 2019, 5:30pm – 8:00pm 1900 SW 4th Ave, Room 2500 C, Portland, OR 97201 Committee Members in Attendance: Jessica E Engelmann, Lisa Frisch, Amber Holland, Keith Jones, Amanda Keasberry, Mack McFarland, Melinda McMillan, Stephanie Parrish, Wendy Rahm, Kathy Russo, Andrew VanDerZanden, Mason Wordell Committee Members Absent: Gaylen Beatty, Julie Bunker, Michelle Comer, Nicholas Fazio, Randy Gragg, David Newman, Judy BlueHorse Skelton, Maya Sykes, Savahna Jackson Community: Tim Davis, KJ Russo, Don Hew, Deanna Mueller-Crispin, Jo Durand, Carolyn Lee Guest Speaker: Ed Washington, Director of Community Outreach & Engagement, Portland State University PP&R Staff: Tate White, Barbara Hart, Kathy Dang Facilitators: Kristen Bishop (LCA), Zachary Johnson (LCA)

MEETING SUMMARY Welcome & Introductions Kristen Bishop opened the meeting at 5:40 and reviewed the agenda. She then asked CAC members to review the June 20, 2019, meeting summary for approval. CAC members made the following comments about the meeting summary: • Request for additional clarification about why technical advisory committee (TAC) meetings are not public meetings. o Tate White: It is our practice that TAC meetings are closed door; this was verified by our legal office. I will follow up on this again.

• Request for clarification around whether the South Park Blocks are a good candidate for historic preservation. The intention is to put in on the National Register. o Tate White: From page five of the meeting summary: “The rehabilitation/treatment approach acknowledges current uses and provides flexibility. The park is not a good candidate for a preservation approach because a lot of the functional space is newer.” The South Park Blocks have evolved over time, so that is what is being referenced. My understanding is that a preservation approach is not recommended, but a rehabilitation approach is.

The CAC approved the meeting summary as presented.

Ed Washington, PSU – Presentation and Discussion Ed Washington, the Director of Community Outreach and Engagement at Portland State University (PSU), presented a history of Vanport and recounted his experiences growing up in the community.

1

• • • • • •

•

Vanport was a community built as housing for workers at the Kaiser Shipyards during World War II. Vanport featured a school, three recreation halls, two shopping centers, a jail, a hospital, and a post office.

Vanport had an excellent school staffed with dedicated teachers. The school was integrated so all students were educated together.

The Vanport flood occurred in 1948 when a railroad berm was breached by rising water.

The flood devastated the community, displacing the residents and destroying infrastructure.

The trees in Vanport were mostly cottonwood trees, which would not be a good fit for the South Park Blocks. Ed suggested an alternative: dedicating certain trees to key figures from Vanport’s history.

Ed explained that PSU began as the Vanport Extension Center in 1946. Following the Vanport flood (1948), the college moved to Grant High School, then to a location in St. Johns, and finally to a building on the South Park Blocks at the site of the current PSU campus A Vanport college plaque outside Lincoln Hall and a “Vanport Room” in the Smith Memorial Student Union are the only markers on campus that reference this history and link the two institutions.

Public Comment • Don Hew, a downtown resident, asked if the project team was considering soil health and utilizing fallen leaves to create healthy planting environments. o Tate: The project team includes landscape architects. The Ecologically Sustainable Landscapes Initiative is looking at “nature patches” throughout the park system.

• Don replies that not all Landscape Architects are educated about permaculture practices of which he is speaking. o Tate acknowledges this and adds that the park system PP&R employees manage is so large that it will be challenging to apply all the labor-intensive methods he speaks of at such a large scale. However, it is something we will explore.

Visioning Comment Survey Report Barbara Hart reviewed the Visioning Comment Survey Report, the themes of public feedback, and the demographics of survey respondents. Barbara noted that the community event feedback and survey are part of community engagement for the project taken together with other feedback, conversations and guidance from the CAC. The survey is a tool that provides a glimpse of the preferences and priorities of people who have participated to date. She explained that it should not be generalized to represent the preferences of all Portlanders. The demographic information is useful to understand who is currently engaged in the project, where the gaps are and focus our future outreach and engagement efforts.

2

Comments and questions from CAC members are listed below, with Barbara’s response in italics.

• This is a great report. Thank you for putting it together. I enjoyed reading it and sharing it around my office.

• The amount of data presented is appreciated. Other bureaus should use this report as model.

• There were only 122 responses to the survey and the demographics of the respondents are skewed. I don’t necessarily have a solution to this, but it is something we should be aware of moving forward.

• Was there a target sample size? How does this rate compare to other City outreach efforts? o It’s difficult to ask people to provide their opinions before they have anything to respond to. Once we have design concepts, it will be much easier to get feedback.

We will be doing this in the next phase of outreach.

• The demographics from the survey match closely with the demographics of Downtown.

• We should look at who is included in this survey data and who is not. For people that are not coming to the park, why not?

• Travelers and visitors are a big user group, but they are difficult to include in a survey.

• It might be worth exploring the possibility of working with Travel Portland to survey visitors.

• The park is a unique feature in Downtown. I don’t think we’re trying to compete with other parks or draw people in from other areas that already have access to other parks.

• The park is not necessarily a destination, but rather a place to linger while attending other events, visiting cultural institutions, and moving through Downtown.

• If we make improvements that benefit the existing user base, it will also benefit new user groups.

• The Farmers Market just did an expansive survey to reach people who are shopping at the market.

• Programming is what brings people and guests into the area.

Barbara also explained the engagement summary document, which highlights recent outreach efforts. In the next phase of outreach, the project team will be using focus groups and targeted outreach to broaden the diversity of participation and will again enlist CAC members to spread the word with their networks and organizations Concept Development Workshop Recap Tate White reviewed the outcomes of the August 6, 2019, Concept Development Workshop.

The day-long workshop began with a large-group brainstorming session before breaking out into small groups focused on three main areas: circulation, vegetation, and programming. The workshop outcomes are currently being used to develop draft design concepts that will go back to the public in another round of community engagement.

3

Comments and questions from CAC members are listed below, with Tate’s response in italics.

• [The Concept Development Workshop] was fun. There were a lot of interesting ideas.

• Where did concerns about safety fall? o Safety is a lens that needs to be applied to all the different areas. The head park ranger and neighborhood task force sergeant have participated in the process. As the design process continues, safety will be considered.

• Evergreen trees are a safety concern. There is a fear factor about people being able to hide under/behind them. o There are different types of evergreens that can be considered.

• [The Concept Development Workshop] was a very good charrette. It was good to get everybody together in the same room.

Next Steps Barbara and Tate explained the next steps for the project.

• October 29: CAC meeting #4. The design team will present and discuss draft concepts for before they are shared with the community.

• November 23: Community Event at the Harvest Market. This community open house will share the design concepts and gather community feedback as part of the Saturday Farmers Market at PSU. PP&R will send out final information about the event as plans are finalized. o CAC comment: There is a scheduling conflict with the Downtown Neighborhood Association’s forum on understanding homeless issues.

• December or January (pending): Historical Landmarks Commission and Design Commission.

Evaluation Kristen asked the group for their feedback on the meeting. + • • •

I really appreciated Ed’s presentation.

I appreciated the food.

It was great to get these documents in advance of the meeting.

Close Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 PM.

4

South Park Blocks Master Plan Community Advisory Committee Tuesday, October 29, 2019, 5:30pm – 8:00pm 1900 SW 4th Ave, Room 2500 B, Portland, OR 97201 Committee Members in Attendance: Jessica Engelmann, Lisa Frisch, Amber Holland, Keith Jones, Amanda Keasberry, Mack McFarland, David Newman, Stephanie Parrish, Wendy Rahm, Kathy Russo, Maya Sykes, Andrew VanDerZanden, Mason Wordell Committee Members Absent: Gaylen Beatty, Judy BlueHorse Skelton, Julie Bunker, Michelle Comer, Nicholas Fazio, Randy Gragg, Savahna Jackson, Melinda McMillan Community: Thomas Ray, Jo Durand, Marion McNamara, Deanna Mueller-Crispin PP&R Staff: Tate White, Barbara Hart Project Consultant Team: Laurie Mathews (MIG), Rachel Edmonds (MIG), Teresa Chenney (Mayer Reed), Shannon Simms (Mayer Reed), Gwen Shaw (Toole Design) Facilitators: Kristen Bishop (LCA), Zachary Johnson (LCA)

MEETING SUMMARY Welcome & Introductions Barbara Hart opened the meeting at 5:35 and reviewed the agenda. Committee members then introduced themselves.

Previous Meeting Summary Review Kristen Bishop presented the previous meeting summary. CAC members provided the following questions and comments, with responses from the project team in italics: • I would like further clarification on the Tate’s explanation about whether the South Park Blocks are a good candidate for preservation. Are you following the Secretary of the Interior standards? o Tate defers to the consultant team as she was just repeating their previous comments about taking a rehabilitation approach. Yes, the consultant team is well aware of the standards.

• When will safety be discussed? o Safety is a lens through which we can look at the design concepts and it should be talked about throughout the process, including during tonight’s discussion.

The CAC then unanimously approved the previous meeting summary.

Public Comment • Jo Durand, a downtown resident and member of Friends of the South Park Blocks, asked if the design concepts presentation would be made publicly available. o Tate White: Yes, this same presentation will be presented to community groups.

It will ultimately be posted online.

1

•

Deanna Mueller-Crispin, a downtown resident, expressed concern that bikes, pedestrians, and scooters sharing the same space as part of the Green Loop is a potential safety concern that should be considered.

Review of Project Goals Barbara Hart reviewed the project goals and the CAC goals. Questions and comments from CAC members noted below with responses from PP&R in italics: • Are these different from the priorities that we identified? o Yes, these are the overall project goals.

• What do you mean by adjacent uses? o This includes the buildings that line the park, sidewalks, and streets.

• Does that include residential, the university, and cultural institutions? o Yes, those are all included alongside streets and transportation.

• For goal #3 [Better understand, respect, and reflect the complexities of the park blocks’ history], I would say you should refine that to include elements that need to be protected for historical preservation purposes. o The project goals are not going to change at this stage since they were discussed at meeting #1, but we appreciate and take note of this comment.

Draft Concepts Presentation & Discussion The Design Team led by MIG gave a presentation on the draft design concepts. Laurie Matthews (MIG), Rachel Edmonds (MIG), Shannon Simms (Mayer Reed), and Gwen Shaw (Toole Design) presented three concepts: Emerald Arrow, Braided Districts, and Mirrored Chain. The team emphasized the “kit of parts” approach that is seeking to incorporate the best elements of each concept into the preferred concept. Questions and comments from CAC members during and after the presentation are noted below with responses from the Design Team and PP&R in italics: • Has the design team analyzed the impact of the Green Loop on existing structures, particularly in the cultural district? o Yes. The presentation will go into more detail on Green Loop concepts.

• Regarding the tree analysis, is there a plan for the replacement of existing trees? o Yes. Each concept address tree succession planning.

• Regarding the tree succession strategy, the trees shown in green are what is left after removal? o The green represents the trees that are considered to be healthy and in good condition at this time.

• How would the Farmers Market function under the Emerald Arrow concept? o The market would function similar to today. It would potentially benefit from a renovated plaza outside the Smith Memorial Student Union.

• The images show a lot of hardscape, where is the grass and greenery? o These images are examples, they are not a perfect match but provide a taste of what the proposed improvements could look like.

2

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

Are these transportation plans compatible with the bus transit streets as identified in Central City in Motion? o Yes. I understand that Madison is barely used. I am very concerned about closing that block of Main, however. We need car access.

Can you talk more about the gateway elements? o They are generally programming spots. All the concepts have gateway features at endpoints. We are looking for further feedback on what those gateways might look like.

The circulation plans are unique. I think it important to have a straight linear path down the blocks that people can use to get places. I like the Braided Districts concept from a pedestrian standpoint.

I like the diagonal paths in addition to the central promenade.

I don’t feel like there is a real issue at the intersections. Traffic on those streets is clogged most of the time. I think visibility is important, and there may be a cheaper way to enhance visibility like flashing lights or some paint.

I am concerned about the idea of narrowing the streets because emergency services utilize that space when they visit buildings along the blocks.

As far as street closures go, I’d be interested in exploring woonerfs as an alternative to full closures. The woonerfs around Director Park are a good example.

Bike signals should be explored. I feel that bikes stop at signals but may or may not stop at stop signs.

The diagonal where the Green Loop goes from one side to two sides should only happen after Market. Trying to make that transition on the Clay or Columbia blocks does not seem like a good idea since so much is happening on those blocks.

The performance space in front of Lincoln Hall seems weird to me. It doesn’t seem to draw people in and sits on a heavy traffic street.

I like the connection to the Native American Culture Center.

I am pro on the Main Street closure. The Shemanski/Lincoln blocks are flexible and programming space could be enhanced by having Main closed. I see cars blow the stop sign on Main all the time.

I like the idea of activating the area in front of Lincoln Hall with a performance area. It gives this space a more open feel and makes it more flexible.

Director Park was designed for activation but is rarely used for events.

I think we need to carefully consider the difference between temporary street closures for events and permanent closures. We have 100,000 people that need to get in and out for work, we have students at PSU, and tourists who need to get around. When you talk about taking away road space, it becomes difficult to approve.

In general, I prefer temporary street closures over permanent street closures. Main has an island in the middle of it that might be able to be redesigned for better pedestrian movement.

3

• • • • • • • •

• • •

• • • • • •

The street closure adjacent to the Vue Apartments should take into account that the street is sloped there, so it is not useful to use it for anything other than maybe the Green Loop.

I’m concerned about the Green Loop crossing the park diagonally. This takes up park space.

I’d like to see the Green Loop stay on one side of the blocks. I don’t like the idea of having it cross the park.

Having the Green Loop cross the park could lead to bike/pedestrian collisions.

Has the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) approved these designs? o These are all conceptual at this stage, but we have reviewed with BPS who has a representative on the Technical Advisory Committee.

I appreciate what people are saying about car traffic, but this is an opportunity to give people more opportunity to move around without cars.

Regarding street closures, I want to clarify that I am opposed to east/west closures, not closures for the Green Loop.

How would bikes interact with tabled intersections? If it is not convenient for them to have to go up and town to cross the tables. o The tables would bring the intersections up to the curb level, meaning cyclists would stay level the whole time.

Do tabled intersections slow cars down? o Yes. Tables are a method of traffic calming because they reinforce the idea that the cars are entering a different space.

Are tables or medians more effective at traffic calming? o It is contextual. Different areas would yield different results.

Are there examples of tabled intersections in Portland? o In North Portland there is a tabled crosswalk crossing Albina. We don’t have a lot of current examples, but Central City in Motion proposes many. They are commonly used in other cities.

I would assume that tabled intersections make it easier for people with disabilities to cross from block-to-block. I think this would work particularly well with the central promenade approach.

The Oregon Historical Society (OHS) would like to have a sightline with the Portland Art Museum (PAM). I would prefer a central promenade over diagonals. I am worried that diagonals will take up quiet space.

Do the existing planting beds remain on the museum blocks? o Yes, the rose beds remain.

Safety is a major discussion as far as plantings go. When there’s low vegetation, things happen. People will sleep or throw garbage in those areas.

In the Lincoln block, it is difficult to keep vegetation growing because people walk through the beds. This should be taken into consideration.

I am personally not in favor of adding more rose beds. Thinking about climate change and maintenance adding beds requires a lot of work and seems counterintuitive.

Maintaining existing beds is great.

4

•

• • •

• • •

• • • • • •

I am concerned about the Green Loop flow during the Farmers Market and other events. o The Farmers Market would be a destination on the Green Loop. It would not be appropriate to expect that people would ride their bikes or scooters through there. They could get off and walk through, or detour to another bike lane.

If we’re going to have food carts further down, there’s potential for bike delivery from the Farmers Market to the food carts.

The feedback we heard during Sunday Parkways was that the South Park Blocks was the best section to ride or walk through.

Is Broadway going to have a 2-way bike facility? o We will verify this and follow up with you.  The current plan is for Broadway to have two-way bike facilities north of Harvey Milk and a southbound one-way facility south of Harvey Milk with a corresponding northbound facility on 4th Avenue. This design preserves parking on Broadway.

It would be good to have a bunch of bike racks around event areas.

It is possible to require people to walk their bikes through certain areas. They did it down by RiverPlace.

The Park Blocks were created when evergreens were removed to create a firewall so that fires from the West Hills would not come down into the City. One of the defining features of the blocks is the open space. Deciduous trees were planted in place of the conifers. Deciduous trees should be protected. I think these concepts are protecting them.

I would be okay with conifers if they have a higher base.

It would take 10 to 20 years for conifers to reach a height that avoids the safety concerns.

We need to listen to the experts, who thought that adding conifers would be a good idea. Biodiversity is important for a healthy park.

A park is artificial. It is not a natural environment.

The Smith Plaza covering might be a problem due to the open space origins of the park. I think small structures are okay, and temporary structures are certainly not a problem, but I think big structures might be a problem for nomination.

Safety is a real concern with the Green Loop. Pedestrians and bikes are in conflict.

People cross the street outside of marked crossings. I think that needs to be considered when talking about the Green Loop. I don’t know whether it would be better to have it on a single street or divided between both sides.

The project team asked for feedback on the character of features like gateways, art, and play structures.

• I like the example images with wooden imagery. There were social seating areas with roofs that I would naturally want to engage with.

• Nature play areas are in high demand. Finding a way to spread them throughout the park would be great as opposed to isolating a play area on one block.

5

• • • • • • • •

•

• •

Play areas should be decentralized and not just a single playground.

I love the idea of musical instruments. I get nervous that they could become annoying, however, so we should be mindful of where we want quiet hubs and where it’s okay for it be noisier.

I think nature-focused playground could draw a lot of people in. Westmoreland has a lot of these types of playgrounds and they are used by people of all ages as play areas and sitting areas.

From the PAM perspective, it’d be interesting to consider artist-designed seating, participatory art, experiential art, etc. PAM would be interested in participating in that process.

I love that a block of Madison is closed in two of these concepts. This will allow greater flexibility for programming. I have mixed opinions on the Main closure, but I lean more in favor of closure.

There is currently a lack of seating where you can sit and look at the person you are sitting with. More picnic tables and other forms of social seating would be appreciated.

What are PAM’s feelings regarding the Green Loop staying on Park Avenue West alone? o Loading and unloading is important. I think there are a lot of people who need to weigh in on how this would work so I am not making a judgement yet.

Trying to look at the park through the lens of people with disabilities, is it confusing to have diagonal paths versus straight shots? o That is a great question. We are going to be taking these concepts to the Accessibility Advisory Committee for their feedback.

I like the idea of adding covered areas. To what extent are historic preservation concerns going to impact the ability to put in new elements? o Design details would need to be worked out. It might be possible to design a shelter space that is compatible with rehabilitation.

Is there a way to get around these historic preservation issues? o We need to be thoughtful about how new elements interact with the historical elements.

What is the benefit of listing? o There is still flexibility even when it is listed. Listing helps protect historic elements that are important to the character of the park. The Halprin Sequence is a great example of how improvements can occur in a listed park.

Next Steps Tate White provided an overview of upcoming opportunities for community engagement.

• November 23rd: Community event in conjunction with the Farmer’s Market.

• December 5th: Design Commission and Historic Landmarks Commission joint presentation.

• A second survey is being drafted and will be made available online and in paper format.

• Staff is organizing focus groups with high school students, PSU students, and refugee and immigrant communities.

6

Evaluation Kristen Bishop thanked everyone for participating and asked for feedback on positive aspects of the meeting as well as things that should be changed for future meetings. + : The handouts were fabulous, readable, and sent well in advance.

Close Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 PM.

7

South Park Blocks Master Plan Community Advisory Committee Wednesday, March 11, 2020, 5:30pm – 8:00pm 1900 SW 4th Ave, Room 2500 B, Portland, OR 97201 Committee Members in Attendance: Jessica Engelmann, Nicholas Fazio, Lisa Frisch, Randy Gragg, Amber Holland, Keith Jones, Amanda Keasberry, David Newman, Stephanie Parrish, Wendy Rahm, Maya Sykes, Andrew VanDerZanden, Mason Wordell Committee Members Absent: Gaylen Beatty, Judy BlueHorse Skelton, Julie Bunker, Michelle Comer, Savahna Jackson, Mack McFarland, Melinda McMillan, Kathy Russo Community: Fred Leeson, Story Swett, Thomas Ray, Kyle Leslie-Christy, Devrelle Dumas, Quincy Brown City of Portland Staff: Tate White (PP&R), Barbara Hart (PP&R), Laura Lillard (BPS), Nick Falbo (PBOT) Facilitators: Kristen Bishop (LCA), Zachary Johnson (LCA)

MEETING SUMMARY Welcome & Introductions Barbara Hart opened the meeting at 5:32 and reviewed the agenda. Committee members then introduced themselves.

Previous Meeting Summary Review Kristen Bishop presented the previous meeting summary. CAC members unanimously approved the previous meeting summary.

Public Comment • Story Swett, a downtown resident who sits on the Land Use & Transportation Committee of the Downtown Neighborhood Association, stated that master plans should start with a historic understanding of what exists and how it developed over time. Story stated that the process seemed flawed because it was not cataloging characteristics.

• Fred Leeson, a community member, talked about the discovery of a Native American artifact under the Park Blocks in 1962. Fred stated that knowledge of Native American history in the Willamette Valley is scant compared to the knowledge of Columbia River and Pacific Coast Native American history and that it would be fascinating to learn more.

Fred appreciated the existing conditions report and hopes that it will be utilized in the development of the master plan.

• Kyle Leslie-Christy, student body president at Portland State University (PSU), noted that 48% of PSU students are experiencing food and housing insecurity and that community gardens could be a practical way to help address some of the issues that present themselves to PSU students.

1

•

Quincy Brown, a PSU student and member of Metro’s Racial Equity Committee, stated that the process should be used to address equity and outreach issues around the park blocks and institutions like the Portland5 and the Portland Art Museum.

Community Comments on Draft Design Concepts Barbara Hart presented an overview of community engagement activities and the results of the design options survey. Since the concept development workshop, the project team has conducted 16 stakeholder/commission meetings, two student focus groups (Portland State University and St. Mary’s Academy), two CAC meetings, and one community gathering. The team also placed 35 English/Spanish lawn signs in the park. The project web page has received over 15,000 views. The design options survey received 138 response. The survey demographics were similar to last time. Barbara reviewed key findings from the survey report.

Barbara Hart gave a recap of community engagement goals and efforts, highlighting the involvement of students from St Mary’s Academy and PSU who participated in focus groups.

She explained the comment report contained all the feedback received from the community during the review of the draft design concepts. Barbara reminded the group that the comment survey is just one of the tools used to gather feedback about the draft concepts. Like all the tools, the survey represents the opinions of the people who participate. As such the survey results are not meant to be generalized as a scientifically valid sample of all Portlanders.

Barbara opened up a discussion about the comment report and engagement efforts. Questions and comments from CAC members are noted below with responses from PP&R in italics: • The first and second bullet points on the key findings seem to be in conflict. Are gateways popular or not? o When we ask the ranking questions that we did, it can come out both ways.

There was an option for gateways and the north and south end that was popular and ranked higher than mid-park gateways.

• Thank for your outreach, it really does make it a difference. It is important to reach out to the Asian community, which is the largest minority in the downtown area.

• The second survey does not capture the urgency of people who do not want to see immediate changes to the park. Twelve comments mentioned frustration with the lack of a none-of-the-above option to the questions. The survey also did not ask people what they liked and wanted to preserve. It did not mention the possible costs of the proposed designs. Ranking questions without a none-of-the-above option bias the survey results.

The survey is flawed and there are all kinds of problems with statistics and numbers.

What is the base numerator for each question? Are the people that chose not to respond included? Do the people that did not respond constitute people who would have chosen a none-of-the-above option? o This survey is not determinative. It is not meant to be a scientific study, just a glimpse at community opinions. We asked people what they valued about the existing park during the Visioning process last spring and summer, and the results of the first survey influenced these designs. A report of Community Visioning 2

• •

•

•

•

• •

input, including the results of the first survey was presented to the CAC and is available on the project web page.

People get fatigued when they do long surveys. This is not a funding document, but just a temperature check.

One thing that I don’t see is information about what design concept was most popular.

Was this intentional? o The design team will use the results of this survey, the stakeholder outreach, the CAC, and the technical advisory committee (TAC) to guide the creation of the preferred design. This is not about picking any one design. Overall, the Emerald Arrow and Braided Districts had more features that people preferred.

Is there a plan to collect additional feedback? o Yes, once we have a preferred draft design, we will present it to you and then take it out to the community for another review We have one more major step ahead to refine the design Has the design team had an opportunity to address an audience? o The design team has presented at previous CAC meetings, the concept development workshop, and at the two community gatherings. They will be at the next CAC meeting as well.

I went to the community event and there wasn’t an opportunity to present to an audience and gather feedback. I understand that in the past, people didn’t often reach a wider audience, but it feels that we are going from one extreme to the other. o Commission briefings were good for that. I will say two things: 1) I originally scoped this out for the three park design concepts to be more fleshed out before they went to the public. The design team wanted to test their designs early. They really wanted to hear from the community. We ran into challenges with how complex the concepts were. Doing a plan for an existing park is really challenging. The next stage will be a great opportunity for more focused presentations and feedback. 2) When you’re talking about buildings or private developments, it’s easier for the designer to communicate a singular vision, when you’re talking about parks it is more of a complicated process where we need to consider community input, maintenance, and operations among other factors.

It can be done. There is maybe still an opportunity to gather people at the museum to hear what the guiding concept/narrative is. There would be a lot more momentum.

I really appreciate the input of younger students [at St. Mary’s Academy]. It was through the student review board whose goal is to get diverse range of student voices. Around 10 students participated. Most students used the park to get around, not as a destination. There was a big emphasis on creating gathering places, group seating, the renovation of Smith plaza, and adding plant diversity while keeping the strip of green 3

•

•

•

•

downtown. The parks give a natural element to the school that otherwise wouldn’t exist. A lot of people leaned towards the Emerald Arrow concept.

What are demographics of St. Mary’s? o All women. I believe there is a lot religious diversity. o A little over 50% white. o Group we met with was a ⅓ students of color.

Quincy Brown, PSU: the biggest concern of PSU is that there is no PSU representative on the committee. Engagement with the Native American Student & Community Center is important. Community gardens would address the lack of gathering spaces and could create spaces for outdoor spaces/outdoor classes. Native plantings are important, as well as new designs that are ADA accessible. o There are two PSU representatives on the CAC who are not present today. Judy Bluehorse Skelton, Assistant Professor Indigenous Nations Studies and Savahna Jackson, PSU Indigenous Nations Studies student.

Kyle Leslie-Christy, PSU: A big topic of discussion was the contiguousness of the blocks.

We don’t see natural ecosystems broken up by roads. When we do native plantings or community gardens, they should be centralized or contiguous. In that planning session, we were told that we were contacted but I hadn’t heard anything. Community garden space is a serious need. Forty-seven percent of students are experiencing food insecurity.

I was unaware of the PSU food insecurity stats. Is there any opportunity for a capstone project to look at feasibility of the community garden? What kind of soil remediation, etc., and what would security look like? These are all huge questions. It would make a fabulous student project. It would either prove the point or suggest looking at other alternatives o PSU President: We already have an orchard on west side, so we have people who run spaces like that. There are 1,000 individual volunteers annually. The ability of students to be agents is there.

Green Loop Presentation Laura Lillard of the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability presented on the Green Loop. The presentation included information on the design principles and implementation strategies, as well as areas were the loop was under active planning or development. Block 216, the Ankeny Food Carts, and the Blumenauer bridge are examples of Green Loop sections that are in progress.

Comments from CAC members after the presentation are noted below:

4

•

•

From Sunday Parkways, there seems to be a misconception that the Green Loop will add thousands of bikes. There should be more communication about what type of traffic can be expected and how pedestrians and cyclists will be kept safe.

We are still in the design phase for the loop. This is about creating places. We are creating a place for food carts on the Green Loop. We are not looking at just a bike infrastructure/pedestrian infrastructure project, we are creating moments. The Blumenauer bridge is important because it connects Northeast Portland to Southeast Portland. In the event of an earthquake, this bridge is wide enough for emergency vehicles and is seismically safe. We are looking at if municipal broadband could be included. The Green Loop goes right by the Convention Center, which provides an opportunity for 3-4 million visitors to visit businesses without having to use a car. The need for parking goes down.

Development of Preferred Design Tate White led a discussion about the development of the preferred design and asked for feedback on what should be included. Questions and comments from CAC members are noted below with responses from PP&R in italics: • The survey does represent that gap in the communities that we missed. We talked about it so passionately in the first meeting. We’ve done all this great work. We’re still not hearing from a lot of groups that we mentioned need to be brought into the process. Not sure how we can push ourselves forward, but we need to. In my mind, what we’re stuck with is a binary gendered and white vision for the parks. o There are a lot of perspectives we still need to hear from. Hopefully the plan will represent a park that will be utilized by a diversity of people. o Thank you for your concern and commitment to racial equity. I appreciate any and all help from the group to expand and improve our engagement work. The focus of community engagement during the design review process focused on expanding involvement of students, PSU communities of color, the Native American Community Advisory Council and Parks Accessibility Advisory Committee. We designed the student focus groups to hear from a diverse group of student leaders and are very pleased with the diversity of perspectives and the quality of the responses from participants. Consultations with the NACAC and PAAC are ongoing. The partnership with the Farmers Market helped to expand our contacts as well.

• I feel unclear about the historic designation and where the conflict might be between design concepts and historic designation. Does that impact the ability to designate?

• As a corollary to that question, if we put the Green Loop through the parks, is that voided? o The clear preference for the Green Loop alignment was on Park Ave West which would put the 2-way facility in the right-of-way, outside of the park. The project 5

•

•

•

•

•

•

team is led by an expert in historical/cultural landscapes. The existing conditions report acknowledges what are the significant features. We don’t want to propose anything that would impact too much. Tree canopy is impetus and tree succession planning. Want to make sure that we respect its history while providing for all Portlanders.

The defining characteristics were in the existing conditions report. That report talks about things that should be respected. The deciduous trees in alignment and grassy open space are the key defining characteristics. Central City 2035 does specify that the historic preservation nomination should be put forward now. City Council approved the nomination. It has been suggested that the nomination should precede the master plan. o The promenade and the canopy are the significant features. We have been asked to pursue this master plan now. One example of things that we can work on are the pathways, which are not level and not accessible, but our team knows that there is a way to rehabilitate them without conflicting with historic significance.

Could this be a partial nomination or does it have be the whole set of blocks? o There have been suggestions that cultural district blocks are historically significant. The PSU blocks were modified in the 1970s.

On this topic, I need more information about why we would support/not support a nomination as it relates to what I’m recommending for the master plan. o We still want to know your ideas and trust the consultant team to balance those ideas with preservation.

A nomination would allow for all kinds of new things, as long as the deciduous trees in their alignment with grass areas is preserved. You could still put in a monument, etc. It is still an open space. In the summertime you have shade, in the winter you have sun, in the fall you have color, and in the spring you have flowers.

The Portland Business Alliance looked at each of the streets and we looked at all modes.

Some of the streets that are designated for closure are portals. The block with Madison is underutilized and could be closed. o Northern three blocks are most popular for events.

Main is more of an issue, but a case-by-case closure is okay. Safety is a huge issue. When you are obliterating any traffic from the blocks, you are creating a safety issue. When you take cars off a street, it creates safety issues. I don’t drive a car, but we’ve had a bad history of thinking we can eliminate a car when it can have an entrenched negative impact. o If Portland’5 decides to close their block of Main permanently, would [Portland Business Alliance] support closing the block of Main between the parks?  That would require further study. In general, we would be okay with closing Madison.

6

• •

•

• •

•

•

• •

The Downtown Neighborhood Association would oppose closing Main.

I’d like to hear the process going forward. What level of detail is the next preferred plan going to be? Will cost estimates be included? o The master plan will stay at a high level. When we find funding, we will do more detailed planning. o Streets are a critical piece of how the South Park Blocks function today. The streets and blocks have a relationship. These streets used to go all the way through. Only in the ‘70s they created the PSU campus. PBOT has been working with Parks and Recreation on how to make street crossing safer. The character of these streets does change dramatically. Jefferson and Columbia get busier and our focus would be to reduce pedestrian exposure by making the crossing distance shorter. Clay and Market could receive a median treatment.

Will the plan go down to the level of recommended intersection treatments? o Yes, because that impacts the pathways. We are working to understand PBOT’s preferences.

It is important to note cost and tradeoffs in the next phase.

One thing that may be missing: the programming and oversight of the spaces. It’s about what’s around them. Skidmore might have worked better with better ground floor programming. Is there a group that manage the whole of the South Park Blocks or should different entities take sections (PAM, OHS, PSU, etc.)?

More social seating is an awesome idea. Who is going to maintain it and make sure they aren’t stolen? What is the management of these blocks? We could close Madison, and maybe Main, but how is the space going to be managed/maintained?

Oregon Historical Society (OHS) feels like we share the blocks with the Portland Art Museum (PAM). As much as we would love to help, we are having a hard enough time with our own facility. Going back, I got the impression from the consultants that they advised the incorporation of conifers and that that would not jeopardize the historical preservation considerations. o It is important to look at phasing and what’s left over. The tree succession plan is going to be evolving as we create that preferred design. The Urban Forestry Commission is in support of diversification. The trees are coming to the end of their lives. The team has proposed certain types of conifers planted in specific areas, similar to Chapman and Lownsdale Square.

Those who live in the area know that Main is heavily used by cars. The Downtown Neighborhood Association never opposes temporary closures, however.

There is not much support for conifers in your report. 6/7 in ranking. A number of comments mentioned no conifers.

7

•

• •

•

• •

•

•

•

Activation is often the first thing cut in the budget cycle. Director Park had best laid plans, but parks in downtown that aren’t under a 501c3 have safety issues and are under-managed. Activation is a separate line item and is not a guarantee. We have to keep that in mind. The idea of having activation all the time is not going to happen.

There are institutional structures that don’t have ground floor retail along the blocks.

This is almost the worst place to take activity away.

Historic preservation is a big issue. Preserving the character and being innovative are not mutually exclusive. Mutual listening is required. People who are hard core preservationists and those who don’t care need to compromise. We have to worry about chairs, management, and maintenance. A piece of design feedback: for social seating, we’d get a bang for the buck if we focused on social seating around Smith Plaza, low hanging fruit in terms in seating issues.

I really wanted to note that the PSU focus group noted that there is not enough tables/clean spaces to work. I loved the recommendation of having the seating be artistic. It has more respect/interaction/curiosity. I’m very supportive of interesting seating/social gathering spaces. Sitting on benches and talking I don’t like.

I’m supportive of evergreens if they can be incorporated. There are evergreen broadleaves that aren’t conifers.

I’m so excited about the Green Loop. I can bike on Broadway into downtown but have a weird route home. Cyclists are already treating as the Green Loop. If we are lowering traffic levels on Park West, I don’t think closing Main is as in important.

We’re getting to the point where the Elms are dying. As the climate changes, some trees will survive better. We need to maintain a healthy ecosystem. I’d be curious to see if the designers could provide precedents on conifer and evergreen alleés so we can envision the concepts and translate character into environmental sustainability.

Tate White: Based on all the feedback we’ve received, I do see a path forward for the draft preferred design that I will overview quickly: o Block 1: partnership with native American student center, native planting, renovate playground o PSU Blocks: Smith Amphitheater block idea was popular. A lot of value. PSU students’ concerns about food insecurity. Social seating. o Neighborhood Blocks: we’d like to hear more thoughts. More social seating? New art features/interactive features? o Cultural blocks: people want to see them more connected, with a central promenade.

We need something exciting to activate the space. The area with PAM and OHS is a central area. It depends on when you draw the line of the nomination. That’s the 8

• • • •

obvious location for social activities for the non-academic world. Partnerships, donors, etc., could be sought.

There is a lot of excitement from PAM about the Madison space. It is a pain to get permitting for a temporary closure.

Built-in group seating could be beneficial as well as with the artistic touch.

Block 1, with the improvement of the playground and partnership with Native American Center could be a great learning activity for native plantings.

Something that the central promenade would be having less blockages if we created raised crosswalks in the streets.

Next Steps Barbara Hart reviewed the next steps in the process.

We are now working with the design consultants to review the draft concepts in light of your guidance and all the community feedback. The draft design concepts remained unchanged during the community review period. This was intentional to ensure that all participants considered the same set of design options and responded to the same questions between September 2019 and February 2020.

The next CAC meeting will be held in May. At that time we will present the draft design that combines the strongest elements from the three draft concepts. Following the CAC discussion of the draft preferred design, we will begin another round of community review and comment.

There will be one additional meeting of the CAC to discuss final guidance on the park design and celebrate all your work. We will be in touch soon to schedule the remaining two meetings.

Tate and I will follow up with a recap of your design discussion to help clarify what we have heard. Please contact us if you have questions or want to talk further about next steps.

Evaluation Kristen Bishop thanked everyone for participating and asked for feedback on positive aspects of the meeting as well as things that should be changed for future meetings. + Thank you for food.

It was helpful to have the Green Loop presentation.

It would have been good to be reminded of the elements that got nixed.

Close Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 PM. 9

South Park Blocks Master Plan Community Advisory Committee Tuesday, June 2, 2020, 5:30pm – 8:00pm Zoom Meeting Committee Members in Attendance: Gaylen Beatty, Julie Bunker, Nick Fazio, Lisa Frisch, Randy Gragg, Amber Holland, Keith Jones, Amanda Keasberry, David Newman, Stephanie Parish, Wendy Rahm, Kathy Russo, Maya Sykes, Andrew VanDerZanden, Mason Wordell Committee Members Absent: Judy BlueHorse Skelton, Michelle Comer, Jessica Engelmann, Savahna Jackson, Mack McFarland, Melinda McMillan Community: Dean Barnett, Brooke Best, John Czarnecki AIA, Leslie Hutchinson, Fred Leeson, B Story Swett City of Portland Staff: Tate White (PP&R), Barbara Hart (PP&R), Eder Katembwe (PP&R), Nick Falbo (PBOT), Lora Lillard (BPS), Brandon Spencer-Hartle (BPS) Design Consultant Staff: Laurie Matthews (MIG), Rachel Edmonds (MIG) Facilitators: Kristen Bishop (LCA), Zachary Johnson (LCA)

MEETING SUMMARY Welcome & Introductions Barbara Hart opened the meeting at 5:30.

Zoom Overview Zachary Johnson provided an overview of the Zoom toolbar and protocols for the meeting.

Introductions Barbara Hart asked advisors to introduce themselves by answering the question “how are you doing?” in the chat box.

Agenda Review Barbara Hart reviewed the meeting agenda.

Previous Meeting Summary Review Kristen Bishop presented the previous meeting summary. CAC members unanimously approved the previous meeting summary.

Draft Preferred Design Presentation and Discussion Laurie Matthews and Rachel Edmonds presented the Draft Preferred Design. Questions and comments from CAC members are noted below with responses from the project team in italics: • Are you saying that each block may have up to 4 unique species of trees? o There is a pallet of about 6-10 species for the blocks. There will be consistency throughout the blocks.

• What is the lifespan of the elms?

1

• •

•

•

•

• • •

o They are considered to have a medium-length lifespan. They can live maybe 150200 years. There are instances where they can live longer, but Dutch elm disease often prevents this.

Were conifers considered for the Cultural District? o There was more opportunity for conifers in the University District.

What are the economic implications of turf for Blocks 3 and 4? Is it only in these blocks? o In Block 4, a planting area, not turf, replaces hardscape. We recommend changing the maintenance approach to a European model that lets lawns grow longer before cutting.

Do the Block 4 plans call for tree removal? o Yes, four trees may be removed through the renovated plaza design and construction. These potential removals are balanced with the additions of new trees in other places throughout the University District.

The gateway planting is located at the south end of Block 1. Shouldn’t it be pointed to the SE with the entry on Jackson? o Few people enter the park directly from the south. The plantings on Block 1 serves as more of a terminus.

Have removable canopies like the one proposed for Smith Plaza been used in Portland before? o We have seen them utilized successfully in multiple cities. o Portland’5 uses a removable canopy for Music on Main. It was manufactured by a local company. Portland’5 will provide information about the manufacturer to the project team.

For the lawn on Block 6, please think about a native meadow instead of European grass. o The lawn would consist of native plantings. The “European model” refers to the maintenance technique.

Where would the gateway features be at Shemanski Square? o Gateway planting and art would be located in the planting beds at the Salmon Street entrances.

Is the stage removed in Shemanski Square? o No.

Kristen Bishop asked each advisor to briefly share their initial thoughts on the Draft Preferred Design. Questions and comments from CAC members are noted below: • There has been a pretty good synthesis of a lot of ideas. The relationship to the museum is particularly compelling. It could line up to be a great civic space. I’ll be curious to see how the Portland Art Museum’s landscaping interfaces with the improvements. It may be just a matter of your presentation, but I’m not feeling a unifying element apart from the tree canopy. A unifying element could be furniture or something else that pulls all the blocks together.

• I think the team took a lot of feedback and synthesized it. We remain concerned about a potential Main closure without a programming element. Without programming, spaces

2

•

•

•

•

•

•

• • •

• •

are not used properly. That is my concern, and I would like more information about programming.

I really love the plan. This is a great connection of the blocks. Right now, Shemanski, Lincoln, and Roosevelt Squares are being used for Farmer’s Market during the COVID situation. This is an example of what is possible. The Smith Amphitheater renovation serves the Farmer’s Market well. Existing benches with tapering bases to them, are quite dangerous. The more that we can have level areas in our hardscape, the better.

I was really happy to see Green Loop alignment on Park Ave West. I really like how it might connect to the museum. Having separation between peds and cyclists is important beyond paint. I’m interested in the interaction between the market and the Block 2 Green Loop diagonal.

Generally, I love the design. I love the tree strategy and the enhancement of crosswalks in the Cultural District. Is there any thought to putting up flashing crosswalks signs? I don’t know what kind of bike racks exist in the areas, but since we have the Green Loop, we could place more bike racks. These could look like art pieces.

I think that the design team did an excellent job. The whole is better than the parts. I like the Central Promenade. The Green Loop buffer and new planting beds would be extremely difficult to maintain over time. I’m a little bit concerned about the tree succession plan; small trees that take a while to mature will not provide any shade benefits or sense of canopy for years.

I’m a big fan of the Cultural District plan in terms of connecting these spaces. I have questions about how programming would be managed. I love the social seating, I hope that we are able to bring those elements sooner rather than later. I love the event space at Smith Plaza. I do agree that there is a need for unifying features.

Overall, I really like the plan, especially Block 10/11. I like the creativity in those blocks especially. A few questions: how is the seating accessible to wheelchairs? Is there a possibility for collaboration with the Native American Student and Community Center for art? What are the rules for skateboarding?

Thanks to Tate, Barbara, and the consultants for so much work. I like a lot of things but have some problems [regarding historic preservation approach] that I will discuss later.

I remember we had a conversation about the bathrooms. Are those being talked about?

Why isn’t there any social seating in Shemanski Square? That is an area where we talk about activation? I wanted to inquire about other general safety features like lighting?

I love it, it’s great. I’m really impressed by what you came up with. My favorite parts are the Cultural District ideas. I like the central place to gather. Our programs have exceeded capacity, so having another space for events is exciting. It could bring people to our front door. From a personal standpoint, I appreciate the tree succession plan that was put out there. I think it is a great idea, and I like how the Green Loop is brought through the sections.

Overall, I’m really excited about how the plan came together. I’m curious about the height of the plants and trees. I recognize the safety details about sight lines, etc.

It’s really cool. I agree that as the design phase goes on, some unifying elements should be included. In terms of closing Main and it becoming a skateboard ramp, it already 3

•

does. For a multitude of safety reasons, we (Portland’5) are looking at closing the block of Main we program permanently and making it into a green space with a tiered seating terrace type of look.

I echo what has been said. Will there be under-seat lighting for accessibility and safety reasons? And what other types of lighting? On the programming of the event spaces, it would be nice to have a management company to do that. Can we have more educational, informational signage about history, statues, etc. that are good for schoolchildren and tourists?

In response to the initial thoughts and questions, the project team provided the following comments: • Final master plan will address lighting, materiality, etc. We envision other unifying features. At this stage, we are looking at multiple examples. We don’t want to be too prescriptive.

• We have talked a little about habitat, we are still looking at heights of planting and native beds, so that there is some attention to things that bring in more habitat. There will be open space at eye level and then the canopy above.

• There is currently one Portland Loo at Peace Plaza. The design does not currently include a place for another one, but the cost estimate will include an additional bathroom.

• We did not add social seating to Shemanski Square because of the fountain. That fountain needs some breathing room around it. People who program the square like the limited vertical features.

• Accessibility, seating, and avoiding tripping hazards are all built into how things will be designed moving forward.

• Collaboration with Native American Student and Community Center was an impetus for providing more space for rotating art exhibits.

• Programming ideas will be incorporated into the plan, but we will not be prescriptive.

• The narrow nature of the blocks means that there will not be large events, but there can be programming that spills out from cultural institutions. We will establish our desire for a programming entity in the master plan.

• The plan calls for elevated planting areas so that people do not cross by foot and trample the plantings. There are no recommendations for low fencing at this point.

• Costs will be managed by a reduction in some maintenance, less lawn space, the tree succession strategy, and the new planting areas. We see it as shifting the maintenance work, not adding new requirements.

Kirsten Bishop asked advisors to indicate their initial stance on the Draft Preferred Design using consensus cards. Green represented general support, yellow expressed a desire for more information, and red represented general opposition. The tally was 11 green cards, 1 yellow card, and 1 red card. The concerns of the advisor who provided a red card were related to historic preservation, tree loss, evergreens on a narrow park, hardscape elements, and pedestrian safety.

4

Connected Cultural District Presentation and Discussion Nick Falbo presented the Connected Cultural District concept. The concept is a new idea separate from the Draft Preferred Design. After the presentation, every advisor provided a “thumbs up” to indicate they thought the concept was worth exploring further.

Master Planning Process and Historic Preservation Presentation and Discussion Tate White and Brandon Spencer-Hartle presented an overview of how historic preservation considerations work with the master planning process. Questions and comments from CAC members are noted below with responses from the project team in italics: • Personally, I don’t think the master plan should proceed until the National Register of Historic Places nomination is filed with the Department of the Interior. Last week the Downtown Neighborhood Association got a written letter that gives us a green light to proceed because three out of the four criteria are either eligible or potentially eligible for a historic nomination. Only one is needed for approval, but it is quite possible that three are doable. Key historic features need to be protected. Thus far, the draft does not do a great job of that. A basalt indigenous artifact was found in the Park Blocks. This was missed by the project team. It is not enough to say that the master plan can be altered in the future. What is possible and what is not possible needs to be more clearly identified before proceeding. In 2016, the Broadway Tower agreement that funded this plan stated that PP&R would complete the listing by 2020. The nomination should have been completed by now. What was the agreements between Parks & the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)? o Tate White: We would love to see this letter and be aware of the communication you’ve had with SHPO. PP&R has been communicating with them as well. We’d be happy to work with you through this process, so that would be really helpful.

PP&R’s commitment was fulfilled by another nomination. The bureau’s preference is to proceed with master plans first. Our leadership has reiterated this approach. o Laurie Matthews: It’s great to see the information you uncovered, thank you.

Nothing that we are proposing here will go against the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation. Because this park wasn’t conceived, designed, and implemented all at one time, there has been a lot of change. A “characterdefining feature” is different for landscaping than it is for a building. We have identified significant historic features. It’s the spatial organization, it’s the tree canopy, art features punctuated throughout the blocks, and promenade style features. I commend the City of Portland for engaging with SHPO. We recommend that agencies have robust conversations with their SHPO, but it rarely happens. It has benefited everyone at the City and on the project team to have conversations with SHPO. SHPO prefers to comment on the design when the design and construction moves forward.

5

o Brandon Spencer-Hartle: Places listed in national register are protected under land use regulations under Oregon state law. Listing would bring a demolition protection to the most evident contributing features to the site. Whether or not it is listed, because it has been determined eligible, there is a required process for future improvements to go through. One of the great parts of this master planning process, has been approaching the process with a recognition of historic features. It’s always best practice to have a public agency that owns and manages the property be involved in the nomination process. Regardless of how the sequencing goes, the master plan and the nomination inform each other but neither of them is trumping the other. o As a historic preservation expert not part of the team, it is clear that the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA) has a strong perspective. Who is the actual proponent who is putting forth the nomination, the DNA or the City?

The master planning process does not preclude or otherwise infringe on a future nomination. SHPO has expressed support for the master planning process and the consultant team has provided an approach that will not impact the significant features. There seems to be enough evidence that we can proceed with the master plan without precluding a nomination.

Next Steps Barbara Hart reviewed the next steps in the process.

• An online open house will be available from June 10 to June 29. Advisors will receive information that they can share with their constituents.

• Another CAC meeting will likely be held in August to review the community feedback.

Close Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 PM.

6

South Park Blocks Master Plan Community Advisory Committee Wednesday, June 2, 2021, 5:30pm – 8:00pm Zoom Meeting Committee Members in Attendance: Gaylen Beatty, Jessica Engelmann, Nico Fazio, Randy Gragg, Amber Holland, Keith Jones, Amanda Keasberry, Melinda McMillan, David Newman, Stephanie Parrish, Wendy Rahm, Judy Bluehorse Skelton, Maya Sykes, Andrew VanDerZanden Committee Members Absent: Savahna Jackson, Mack McFarland, Kathy Russo, Mason Wordell Guests: Stella Tsai, Larry Cusack, Arthur Lawrence Downard Jr, Adele F. Pelletier, Patricia Ferrell, Steve Pinger, Gerry Kelly, Brett Morgan, La June Thorson, Jessica Richman, Catherine Garvin, Rachel Edmonds, Thomas Ray, Walter Weyler, Brooke Best, Diana Stuart, Deanna Cintas, Dianne Lamberty, Sabrina Louise, Jo Durand PP&R Staff: Tate White, Barbara Hart Other City of Portland Staff: Nick Falbo (PBOT), Lora Lillard (BPS), Brandon Spencer-Hartle (BPS) Facilitators: Kristen Bishop (LCA), Zachary Johnson (LCA)

MEETING SUMMARY Welcome & Introductions Barbara Hart opened the meeting at 5:32. Committee members then introduced themselves.

Barbara then reviewed the meeting agenda.

Previous Meeting Summary Review Kristen Bishop presented the previous meeting summary. CAC members provided the following questions and comments.

• On page 4, the line reading “the concerns of the advisor who provided a red card were related to historic preservation” should include additional concerns that the advisor was not able to voice during the meeting include tree loss, evergreens on such a narrow park, increase in hardscape elements, and pedestrian safety.

• On page 5, the line reading “In 2015, the Broadway Tower agreement that funded this plan stated that PP&R would propose listing by 2020” should read “would complete the listing by 2020.”

The CAC then approved the previous meeting summary.

Public Comment • La June Thorson expressed concerns about the loss of deciduous trees and the possibility of a heat island effect cause by more hardscape elements. La June wanted the blocks to remain a quiet place of contemplation in the middle of the urban environment and believed that better maintenance was needed, not an overhaul of the

1

•

•

park. She stated her support for the outdoor art installations near the Portland Art Museum.

Walter Weyler spoke in opposition to the general structure of the plan. He was concerned about tree loss, stated that the plan would leave 25% fewer trees and the elms still had a lot of life left in them as they can live to be 300 years old and 95% of them are healthy. Walter stated that the plan would eliminate the whole center line of elms for a paved walkway and eliminate trees on the western row for the Green Loop.

Diana Stuart questioned the timeline of the proposed master plan, stating that it seemed rush and that the process took a long time but that the community will have less than two months to review the plan before it goes to City Council. She posited that the plan is being rushed to avoid community discussion about the tree succession strategy because, in her view, the plan will eliminate the elms because of their interconnected root structures. She stated that the CAC has been misled about tree health and that if people care about the environment, they should oppose the plan.

Secondly, Diana stated that the process had shown the neighboring residents were against the project. She stated that downtown residents count on the park for green space and recreation. She felt that the CAC did not represent the downtown neighborhood. Finally, Diana stated that the plan does not account for the aging population because it focuses on activation and the Green Loop, which do not benefit older residents.

Community Comments on Draft Preferred Design Barbara Hart reviewed the community engagement efforts that occurred as part of the process.

She recapped the community events, three surveys, the online open house, meetings with stakeholder groups, and several focus groups. Barbara then went through the Draft Preferred Design Comment Report, highlighting areas of agreement and areas where there were strongly felt views on opposing sides.

Questions and comments from CAC members after Barbara’s review are noted below with responses from PP&R in italics: • I would like to point out that the neighborhood that that surrounds the park had little outreach and the largest minority in the area are Chinese. They are heavy users of this and look at the park for respite.

I would also like to point out that it is possible that there is a diverse perspective in the Native American opinions. There is a resident nearby named Earl who is a Native American elder who is from a tribe in Alaska, but he has lived here a long time. He is a frequent user of the park. I asked him, for his thoughts about the park, and he just loves this park. I asked him about the proposed changes, and he said, “Oh no, they shouldn't change anything about this park; these trees are sacred.” He said, walking in this park, for him is a spiritual experience. That is outreach that you are missing.

2

•

•

•

o Barbara Hart: I appreciate you sharing that. I think what we tried to do with our outreach was to reach park visitors, those that live in the area, and work in the area. The purpose really was to give everyone who is interested the opportunity to weigh in and participate, but we know absolutely that we could not have reached everyone, and we know that the focus groups that we do are limited in size, but they really allow in depth conversations. Certainly, none of this feedback is meant to represent everyone in Portland; it is not a scientific survey meant to be an absolute reflection of a cross section of the city. These are important voices and I appreciate your participation, and the other voices of the advisory members that we have been hearing from throughout this process.

I think the earlier person testified about how the senior citizen community, including Native American seniors, really did not have the opportunity to provide much input. You certainly have great outreach to young people, but this should not just be a young person's park. o Barbara Hart: Our outreach was not targeted on young people, per se, and certainly we welcomed people of all backgrounds and ages and interest levels to join us for the online open house. I think it's worth noting as I mentioned to begin with, we were all working under challenging times and so rather than have events in the park itself, which we've done in the past, we had to limit ourselves a bit to online outreach, and I know that that does give us a different demographic of the folks who participate.

I want to commend you on your outreach. It has been challenging times. I went to a couple of the outreach meetings that were on the parks, and I think that this group is extremely representative of a wide swath of interests on the Park Blocks. No process is going to net every single human being with an opinion about the Park Blocks. I think under challenging conditions, and I even think without the challenging conditions, this was a superlative outreach effort and I want to commend you. I invite the other CAC members who felt that this was a strong process to join with me, because I think this needs to be a dialogue with all this not just with the folks that want to try to put a stop to this master plan. o Barbara Hart: Thank you.

I wanted to acknowledge that I really appreciate it given the challenges of the virus and everything. The virus has really hit the Native community hard along with other communities, but to still be able to come together and convene was important. I recognize Tate who came to several of our Native American Community Advisory Council meetings. We have been meeting monthly for 12 years and we are an allvolunteer committee of diverse tribes in diverse parts of the country, and really appreciated the time that Tate in particular has taken to engage and follow up with community members who reached out to her with clarifying questions. She was really timely and thoughtful in her responses. She did the research, brought people together, brought others in to answer questions or provide more clarity. I feel like a lot of work has been done despite the pandemic. o Barbara Hart and Tate White: Thank you.

3

•

•

I just want to thank you Barbara for the work that you've done. I think the Community Advisory Committee has done some very good work here, and over a very long period of time. I want to back up what previous speakers said: I believe this has been done very well. I appreciate how it has been done. I have seen some other processes and it does not go nearly as smoothly or is as inclusive of some views outside of the white narrative.

I appreciate that there's been outreach and I appreciate your work. Thank you. o Barbara Hart: Thank you.

I just want to echo what others have said. I think under the circumstances it was the best possible result we could have gotten. I support where we are heading with this plan. o Barbara Hart: Thank you and thank you for being here.

Recommended Draft Plan Tate White presented the Recommend Draft Plan to the CAC. Tate reviewed the project goals and provided a summary of the design process. She then reviewed the Recommend Draft Plan conceptual design for the park, tree succession strategy, and concepts for the Green Loop.

Questions and comments from CAC members after the presentation are noted below with responses from the PP&R in italics: • •

•

•

What is the Green Loop proposal in the University District? o It is mostly a shared-used pathway along vacated right of way to the west. It moves diagonally across Block #2.

Will the planted buffer on the side of the Green Loop be a bioswale to capture stormwater runoff? o Those are the kind of discussions that we will have in future processes as elements get implemented.

Can Tate and Barbara state for the record that there is no plan to remove trees for the Green Loop? o Tate White: Thanks for that I will also add that Joel Smith, who is a Master Board Certified Arborist, is on Urban Forestry staff and has worked on this plan very closely with us. I spoke with him today because I think there has been some confusion about Title 11. There is an image in Title 11 that has been taken out of context, that is representative of one path of tree protection. There is a prescriptive path of protection that requires a minimum distance away from trees, and that was put in the code, so developers can complete a project without an arborist involved. This does not apply to trees in the right of way, and the trees along the western edge of the park are technically in the right of way. What happens there is a performance path, which has more flexibility, because an arborist is involved. Someone like Joel Smith would be involved in that process and would be very protective of the tree roots and the trees.

The example of Better Naito reducing bike traffic on the riverfront and the esplanade is relevant. Broadway is slated to become a dedicated bike route and will extend all the 4

•

•

•

•

•

way down to the Broadway Bridge. The Green Loop is not intended to be a commuter route. It is to encourage slow movement and enjoying the park.

Can you explain the logic of the arrangement of planters at Madison? o Tate White: Currently there are north-south and east-west planters here. The east-west planters remain and the north-south planters are being relocated to the Madison Street Plaza. This was a design choice of design team. Weexplored, you know what happened if we if we keep them in the same place, and both the internal Park designer on the project and the design team thought it was important that the central promenade be unobstructed.

I have seen posts and comments on social media in which people are upset about the tree succession plan. I have been trying to explain that they are not cutting down elms.

Is there a way to put more information out to explain that PP&R is not going to just cut down trees at will? o Tate White: The PP&R Public Information Officer just released explanatory information. It is available on the PP&R Facebook page. It can be hard to go over existing conditions and different challenges we have in this park to remind people that this is a very urban environment. I checked in with Urban Forestry, we're losing two to three trees a year.

Exactly, this is not a forest, it is an urban environment and we can’t just let things happen without intervention because we’ve already intervened. o Tate White: There are also safety considerations. Earlier this year one of the trees fell into a nearby condo building and when urban forestry went to clean it up, they noticed that another elm was an obvious danger, so they removed that one as well. This is an example of why we need to have this tree succession strategy in place to guide us as we replace those trees.

Thank you for all the work that has gone into this. You have done a really great job. It is a balanced plan and a great job gathering input. As a resident, I am really excited. It’s a really great vision for moving forward. I recognize that it is a vision and there will be more detailed discussion as implementation moves forward. I’m really supportive of the Green Loop. The pedestrian promenade provides an additional outlet for walking. Bike commuting, again, that happens. But as we build an environment where the park blends into the ROW, it becomes not conducive to bike commuting. They will move over to other streets. I love where this is going.

Gratitude to Barbara & Tate, thanks for reaching out to friends of South Park Blocks. You have made a great effort to gather information and comments. It’s quite a complex plan and not everyone is going to agree with everyone. The concepts are interesting and compelling package. I’m not in favor of every aspect, but I like the vision of moving forward. The trees are not going to be there forever. Going forward, is maintenance on the University blocks still going to be done by PSU and on the Cultural blocks by the City? The plantings and the other additions are considerably greater than what is there now. Efforts to maintain culture district planting is already volunteer effort. This will take a lot more maintenance. Wondering if you had any idea about that? o Tate White: Maintenance was seriously considered as part of the plan. One of the reasons you see planters move around as opposed to always just adding new 5

•

•

•

•

•

ones is so that we can maintain a similar amount of planting to keep maintenance approachable. The agreement with PSU for them to do regular daily maintenance will remain the same.

If you look at the science of trees, you cannot do construction near the trunks without ruining them all. The amount of additional hardscape is a real threat to these trees. You damage and threaten all the trees. Be open to the points being raised in the chat because I don’t necessarily agree that the plan has adjusted to competing interests.

Many comments in the survey did not have an activation goal. o Tate White: I just wanted to address that I do have a lot of respect for my colleagues I wish Joel Smith was here and I'd be happy to convene a meeting with him if you're available to do that during his normal working hours. He's been working for the city for seven years, and he's the one who is there when PBOT or other contractors are doing sidewalk construction work. He has said in seven years he's done that for 1000s of trees. We're here to protect and promote the trees and promote a healthy canopy into the future. I just want to acknowledge that because there's a lot of really great intention and expertise that's going into these recommendations.

We made in error in how we included the trees in Halprin sequence historic nomination.

Unfortunately, the way we wrote them into the nomination will be challenging to maintain tree health. PP&R has learned from that. This is an entirely different situation, but the principles of overplanting still apply. This has been the strangest public reaction I have ever seen. Mistaken information and then obvious misinformation has happened.

There is no intention to proactively cut down trees. There is considerable expertise here both within PPR, and within the consultant group, and a lot of sensitivity to, you know, trees in their historic context and their historic form, and their health. I just want to pass that along because I really regret the way we wrote the National Historic nomination for Halprin; I think we really hamstrung ourselves in that open space sequence and I wouldn't want to see anything like that happen here.

I have two comments. The first is I want to also say how impressed and thankful I am for the level of community engagement for this master plan. I really think that it has been a model that I hope is shared through other master planning processes, so thank you for that meaningful engagement work. The second piece: I've worked in urban habitat landscaping for about 15 years. When you are looking at successional plans, especially with native vegetation and urban landscapes, I'm really impressed by the expertise that was provided in looking at especially native plantings in the Park Blocks and the way that they're laid out intentionally as part of the successional plan.

I had concerns that the plan would be watered down. This is a good example of how the team and the committee was able to take a diverse set of perspective and blend them.

The incorporation of Green Loop is great and a good attempt at reaching universal design. There is one place where the plan does not quite do what it could: the status quo has been maintained is a lot of ways. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and it further illustrates the community buy-in that went into this project.

I echo the gratitude for your inclusivity. Can you talk a little bit more about what the process would look like if this plan was adopted?

6

•

o Tate White: It’s a challenging question because the opportunity to do this plan came out of a Design Commission Decision, and the money came from that public benefit contribution. It was a great opportunity to do the process. Sometimes we do park master plans and they sit on the shelf for a while, to be completely transparent, unless there is a community champion or partners that really are pushing for these projects to happen. Generally, the projects will go on our long Capital Improvements List, and we'll continue to seek out the right funding source matches, whether it be grants that are appropriate, or if there is capital improvement money that's available. Generally, those funds have to take into account systemwide priorities so it is going to depend on city policy and city priorities. When these projects would move forward, they would go through more detailed design and construction and would go back to council to you know get additional approvals. At that point we would have another engagement process.

I really appreciate all the expertise that was brought to this project. The Urban Forestry folks do so much and have worked on other things, and park staff and everyone that loves this place we call home have been really committed to this. I guess I'm reminded that everything we do is for future generations. Probably no one on this call is going to get to see the next succession of trees fully come in, but we're looking at future generations, and we're also looking at a changing landscape. The landscape has always been changing. It has always been in flux. It is dynamic. It is alive. I think we can look globally at Indigenous folks around the world who have changed and moved and adapted to that, whether that's flooding that comes in, or the drying up and desertification. We recently hosted a conference on our beloved Western red cedars, and we may not see them in the next generation’s lifetime. They are talking about the forests that you can see down at Klamath in Southern Oregon, being more of the treescape that's going to be in our forests, up here and in Northern Oregon. The Pacific Northwest is in a huge state of change. I appreciate that this design and the conversations have attempted to imagine the future. We’ve had our hottest weather in the last few years. We have the Klamath Basin, looking very dry, and we are seeing some of those species on their own start migrating north, literally walking north to find the water they need.

I just want to commend everyone for being creative and courageous to contemplate what lies ahead for the downtown area and for the region, and what our future generations will be experiencing. I think the diversity of the understory is brilliant as we create more habitat for native birds and other critters who are finding it harder and harder to find a place to call home in a changing landscape. As someone who was involved with the Cully Park Native Gathering Gardens, that was a 2008 master plan. It was a landfill. It was a landfill. It wasn't primo real estate and all of the community is committed to transform that into a healing space. I think that's what drives a lot of the folks that are in these committees that keep coming back and working into the night and volunteering is, we're hopeful we see a vision for the future. We're constantly trying to heal the land and through healing the land we heal the people. I just really appreciate 7

all the energy, and I look forward to seeing what unfolds. It is not going to look like exactly what we're seeing on paper but I'm excited about the surprises the plant world will have for us as we go along.

Thank You Barbara Hart thanked the CAC for their many months of volunteer service on the committee.

She then opened it up to final comments from CAC members. Questions and comments from CAC members after the presentation are noted below with responses from the PP&R in italics: • I've had so much fun working with all of you and getting to know other just devoted fans of the Farmers Market so thank you for. I would love to say that the illustrations have been beautiful. It's been so much fun to see the concepts so well diagrammed and illustrated. And when I brought some lay people to the community outreach they just gushed over it that because they understood everything, because it was so well presented.

• You know I do realize how much work is put into this, but I've seen a community member with his hand up for 20 minutes. I would like to defer my time to him. o Barbara Hart: As we said earlier, this is really discussion time for the advisory committee. We appreciate that we have many guests with us this evening, and many of them may have questions that we haven't yet addressed, and we'd be happy to follow up with them.

Wrap Up & Next Steps Barbara Hart and Tate White wrapped up the meeting by explaining next steps. Community members are invited to provide comments on the Recommended Draft Plan to the Portland City Council as part of a public hearing on July 7, 2021. For more information, community members can visit the “Engage with City Council” page on Portland.gov.

Close Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 PM. ***Meeting notes were recorded by consulting facilitators. The draft watermark signifies this was the final South Park Blocks Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting, and these notes were not discussed and approved at a proceeding meeting like the other CAC meeting notes..

8