Murray City Planning Commission Meeting Summary

I attended a Public hearing called by the Salt lake City Planning Commission on September 24, 2014. The hearing was titled "Zoning Map Amendment." In my paper I will delineate my observations from the meeting and comment on the different aspects that appeared remarkable to me in terms of the public engagement. I will also make recommendations wherever necessary.

As a successful engagement in meetings depend on the access to information about the meeting, I would start from here. Firstly, as I sought for information regarding a public hearing in the website, I could not find their detail agenda. The City of Holladay was the only Planning Commission website that gave detail hearing agenda with particular time and contents of the discussion topics. Murray City Planning Commission mentioned

only topics of the discussion of the hearing but there was no information regarding time. Salt Lake City Planning Commission however, only lists the title of the hearing with no contents or time data in their agenda. For instance, the agenda on October 15 hearing partially mentions the content; but doesn't mention exact time of the specific topics that were scheduled to be discussed in the hearing. Therefore, it was not easy to decide if the hearing would be filled with public input and mutual discussion. Interestingly, I could not even access their agenda when I tried it two months ago. I could access the agenda much later when the dates were close to the meeting day. Some of the meeting date did not provide any agendum at all since the meeting sessions were cancelled.
The website also did not seem very user friendly in terms of finding the staff report.

One has to search for it; I would recommend the staff report to be put in a separate column next to the agenda in the "Planning- 2014 Planning Commission Meetings" table. This would make it much easier for a first time visitor to collect information very easily. They can interest more visitors to their meetings by making their website user friendly and staff report readily accessible. Secondly, I would like to mention about the staff report since it presents important information and background about the project to be discussed in the meeting. The information presented in the staff report was straightforward except for the repeating nature of the language. However, the report exclude opinions that were against the proposal. As I read the staff report before, I was under the impression that there were no disagreement with the project proposal. However, soon after I stepped into the meeting I observed something very different. The opposing voices were dominant enough to provide me a skewed image of my impression about the project. There were many other aspects about the hearing that surprised

me.

To begin with, I was expecting a brief overview about the project which was absent in the meeting. They could summarize the project and the issues in nutshell with PowerPoint slides to make their content more lucid, attainable and public friendly. The only one slide they had was a wordy slide with the big project title and the location of the site in words. There was no photo or site plan of the project in the PowerPoint. A graphical representation such as the site plan or recent photos of the projects taken during the field trip can make the hearing more lively and inviting. More importantly, the three project screens (all sized approximately twenty inches) faced the officials instead of the participators. The public would have to turn to their left to be able to watch the PowerPoint screen, while the officials can view from their chairs just easily. More interestingly, people who would sit in the back rows of the room could not even watch the screen. This is because the chairs reserved for the public were set very awkwardly in the room. Three big tables occupied the first portion of the room and were pushing the rows those chairs aside. Those table pushing against the rows of the chairs gives a disturbing image of the room. The only use of those massive tables I saw was to put the staff reports and few other handouts at one corner. I really wondered what were those tables for.

I would highly recommend that the tables are replaced with the rows of chairs reserved for the public. This would ensure that the chairs have more room and passageway for the public to walk around when they have to approach the podium. This is because the present arrangement does not allow correct spacing to ease the movement of people. Next, the setting of the room was not very inviting. The podium reserved for the planning commission officer set at one end of the room with the chairs at the front facing the podium created a court like environment. The audio system of the room was not very convenient for those would sit at the back rows. I had to move front to be able to hear the discussion clearly. I am also critical about the lighting of the room. The current lighting do not illuminate the room equally; the podium is more vivid than the corner where the public seats are reserved. I would suggest to install identical lighting across the room along with better audio quality so everyone in the room feels equally important. This can change the look of the room from intimidating to welcoming. People lose their interest when they cannot hear others comment in a meeting. Therefore, a well set-up, engaging room for public hearing would include big projector screen facing the audiences, good quality audio system and a uniform lighting system so that everyone in the room can hear each other and engage meaningfully. I would also like to comment on the furniture arrangement of the room to encourage participation. A round table setting looks more interactive, reciprocal and engaging for a discussion as such. This could present the content of the discussion in a more visible way.
Thirdly, I asked myself if the presentation felt friendly, and to my surprise it was again a negative response. There are number of reasons for my feeling which I am going to delineate in the following paragraphs. To start with, the planning official did not introduce themselves before the meeting started, nor did they give any introduction of the project. The hearing started with a very generic motioned open, people were called for presenting their opinions. All the officials looked very unfriendly, cold and arrogant. People around the proposed site plan were only invited to attend and give their comments in the meeting. They had to submit their concerns in written format to the officials beforehand. Besides, there were open sessions for public to speak for a given amount of time. Every time people cross-questioned they would just deflect it to the City Council. They blame on City Council saying they have no authoritative power on the issue and there is hardly anything they can do. There was one person who had few critical questions and he pointed out to some of the shortcomings of the meeting. The planning commission official did not let me talk second time as he wanted. They said he can only comment but no questions would be taken from him. This was really surprising for me. They also did not present materials in plain English. All throughout the meeting they were using several planning jargons which drove about three people away from the meeting. It was also the bureaucratic nature of the meeting overall that frustrated the public. The planning official did not seem like they have read the entire package of the readings beforehand. This is because they looked at things really quickly every time a new issue was being discussed.

The majority of the people were opposing the plan; whereas only a few supported. Therefore, I did not feel it was a great balance between the two parties and the entire community was represented. The commissioner conducted the proceeding the way a judge does in a courtroom. The communication of the meeting was very formal and strategic. One can only comment or speak if he is invited and can only speak for an allocated amount of time. In this meeting, the official stopped public as they were running out their allocated time which is two minutes. I believe it is not a fair amount of time to present one's idea and justify it with supporting detail. Most of the speakers seemed nervous. People were complaining that they were not aware of what they are can or can't do in the historic zoning district, and when, where they should seek for approval for their proposed amendment. The planning official just directed them to the website and acted as it was their fault that they did not know because it is just very easy to visit the website to educate themselves. Indeed, one official while answering during the cross-questioning session literally commented that. Additionally, there were contentions regarding the access of information regarding the proposed change. Many people complained that they were not notified about the changes in their neighbor while the planning commission officials were saying that they collected signature and affidavit to ensure that the owners were in agreement with the proposed change. When asked repeated times, the officials blamed the mail delivery system for the happening. Indeed, they confessed that they sent mail to a land owner to the previous address they were living.

When the public mentioned about the clarity of the language in the website and in the staff report, the officials replied that their question was not appropriate and was not specific to the application. There were also disagreement regarding the use of signature requirement; many disliked the idea and requested its dismissal. They recommended "housing meeting" instead of the mailing and signature idea saying that the existing practices do not help them about the criteria they have not maintain in the historic districts. They sought more explanation as mentioning that they felt assaulted. More interestingly, they demanded the use of specific language in the literature of the website when the officials were directing them to the frequently asked question (FAQ) sections in response to their other questions. Many of them repeatedly mentioned that they could not access information about the meeting and the rationale for the historic districts mandate. The Planning official just dismissed them saying it was City Council's decision and planning commission cannot do anything about it.

An idea public meeting should utilize PowerPoint during the meeting minute so that everyone has very clear understanding of what's happening and why. The PowerPoint should include images of the site plan from various perspective such as aerial, rear image of the site and maps of various scale of the location. They can also include the background of the proposed plan in bullet points. It would also shows that the Planning Commission has invested a sensible effort as an agent to a community and has done their job thoroughly by site visiting, and analyzing. To encourage and invite meaningful public engagement the planning officials and the moderator of the meeting have to be welcoming and friendly. They can do so by just giving them explanation to the questions or issues raised and using simple appreciating words like "good luck" and other greetings expressions. The best official would actually relate the questions or concerns with their own experiences very briefly which I observed in the Planning Commission meeting in Murray. He was very passionate about the meeting and every time appreciated and thanked every applicant for going through the process , putting their time with the planning commission. He also added funny little story or made small joke at the end of the public comments sections which is a very effective way of moving a discussion successfully forward. I also believe that a meeting is meaningful when it is mutually interactive. The redistribution of power among citizen is only possible when they are informed, thus, the officials should answer their "why" and "how" question in the public meeting. This would enable them to learn how policies are set in local and national level.

As Arnstein classified in his article "A Ladder of Citizen Participation" the Salt Lake City planning commission meeting falls under the category "informing." This is because the hearing went one way and the public were hardly granted opportunity to influence the authority. There are several aspects about the meeting that proves supports my comment. Firstly, the public were not answered according to their questions and at times their questions were simply ignored. At one case, there was one person who was not allowed to speak the second time. Thus, the feedback or negotiation part which can enable flow of information in the discussion was absent. Secondly, the majority of the public even when they opposed the idea could not influence the final decision since it was governed by the zoning ordinances of the Historical Residential District (HR-1) zone. Thirdly, the public were not given explanations to many of their queries and the meeting environment was not welcoming enough to encourage participation. Finally, and importantly, the participant claimed that the information presented in the website and the staff report about the historic district guidelines was technical and beyond their understanding to some extent.