My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
LUBA RET. EX 076/077 RE-E
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
LUBA RET. EX 076/077 RE-E
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:32 PM
Creation date
3/28/2017 9:26:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
LUBA Materials
Document_Date
8/31/2015
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
155
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• IV. Collaborative <br />Process <br />This project was undertaken to: <br />"Develop consensus and endorsement by stakeholders <br />on a set of flexible guidelines for neighborhood street <br />designs for new developments that result in reduced <br />street widths." <br />The collaborative process relied on two groups of stakehold- <br />ers. A larger group was comprised of a broad cross-section <br />of interest groups and numbered about thirty people from <br />around the state. A core team of nine members, a subset of <br />the larger group, was convened to guide the collaborative <br />problem-solving process, working in conjunction with the <br />consultant and staff. This "Design Team" consisted of repre- <br />sentatives from these groups: special districts, fire service, <br />state fire marshal, non-profit advocacy, traffic engineering, <br />builder/developer, city planner, public works, and a repre- <br />sentative from the Department of Land Conservation and <br />Development. <br />The Design Team's responsibilities were to recommend <br />participants for the larger collaborative working group, <br />determine the priority interests, recommend a statewide <br />endorsement and implementation process, and provide <br />input on technical presentations required. At the Design <br />Team's first meeting, they decided to assign themselves the <br />task of creating the draft street design guidelines. They <br />would take their products to the larger group for input, <br />recommendations, and eventual endorsement. Consensus <br />would be sought within the Design Team before going to the <br />large group. Likewise, consensus at the large group would <br />be fundamental to achieving the project's goals. <br />The large group was instrumental in providing actual sce- <br />narios of community experiences to the Design Team. They <br />also helped enlarge the scope of affected parties and corre- <br />sponding issues by including other service providers that <br />use large vehicles, such as school busses and solid waste <br />haulers. Members of the large group provided valuable <br />reference materials to the Design Team. They provided <br />substance that had been over-looked on more than one <br />occasion. Large group members were pleased to know that <br />a core team of well-respected stakeholders was representing <br />their interests. The Design Team engaged the large group at <br />• significant junctures in its work. <br />6 <br />96 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.