1

Comp Plan Update Process IdeasComp Plan Update Process Ideas

This presentation was developed by Larry Leveen, not the City of Olympia. Ideas and opinions herein are the author’s only, and are not adopted recommendations of the Olympia Planning Commission. Larry is Chair of the Planning Commission’s Comprehensive Plan Update Subcommittee. You can reach him at larryleveen@comcast.net.

2

Update Process GoalsUpdate Process Goals

A good Comp Plan Product– A “timeless document”

• Relevant for years into the future• Not reflective of only a single issue/concern

– Provides clear policy direction• Goals and policies should be concise• Internal consistency within each chapter and

throughout the Plan

– A resource for Council, staff, advisory committees and community at large• No guarantee, but certainly a requirement!

3

Update Process AttributesUpdate Process Attributes

Should be designed specifically to enable the previous goals to be reached

Should be clearly communicated to the public throughout all phases– Timeline (past, present, future), specific tasks,

opportunities for input, type of input needed Should integrate Planning Commission (OPC)

in a meaningful fashion– So we can provide Council with information

needed to make informed decisions leading to adoption of plan

4

Update Process Design IssuesUpdate Process Design Issues

Outreach Pitfalls:– Public confidence is (always) at stake– Mistaking quantity of outreach for quality– Assuming public buy-in on existing Plan

structure or content Internal Pitfalls:– Must be a realistic task for OPC

• Large volumes of unfocused public input will be difficult to use in updating the Plan

• Update timeline must be adhered to• It must not derail other OPC work (SMP update, etc.)

5

Update Process StrategyUpdate Process Strategy

A phased approach that:– Breaks the project into manageable pieces– Refines and specifies input over time

• Helps ensure public buy-in on structure and content• Avoids requiring fluency in “Planner-speak”• Orients public to and fosters familiarity with The Plan

– Provides OPC with “tested” input:• Helps OPC evaluate current Plan Goals & Policies• Helps us make specific recommendations to Council

about Draft Plan issues, tensions, content, etc.

6

Update Process Strategy ProposalUpdate Process Strategy Proposal

Phase 1: Collect public input as general “Guiding Principles” regardless of content– Similar to Comp Plan Goals

– Be specific on the feedback format -- desired as future process steps rely on format fidelity• Example A: “We need a variety of park types to serve

Olympia’s diverse recreation needs.”• Example B: “Every neighborhood should have retail

destinations within them.”• Example C: “No private development should be permitted

within a full block of the waterfront.”

– Compatible with planned public meetings

7

Update Process Strategy ProposalUpdate Process Strategy Proposal

Phase 2: Public Hearing/meeting check-in– Share public input collected to date in the format of

Guiding Principles– Ask the public:

• Did we hear you properly when recording these Guiding Principles?

• If not, what did we miss?

– Inform the public of our intent to seek commentary on these Guiding Principles from “Expert Panels”

– Potential Opportunity to check in with City Council on progress-to-date

8

Update Process Strategy ProposalUpdate Process Strategy Proposal

Phase 3: Ask “Expert Panels” to critique Guiding Principles (GPs)– Panelists would have special or professional

level experience with specific topics (e.g. land use, transportation, finance, etc.).

– Panelists would be asked for each GP:• 1. Does it have any fatal flaws? If so, what?• 2. If flawed, but not fatally flawed, what tweaks could

be made to still capture the spirit of the GP?• 3. What specific policies would be needed to support

unflawed or “mildly flawed” GPs?

9

Expert Panel Process Flow ChartExpert Panel Process Flow ChartDoes Guiding Principle have any fatal flaws?

How could Guiding Principle be tweaked to still capture its intent/spirit?

Does Guiding Principal have non-fatal flaws?

Yes.

No.

Yes. What are they?

What policies are needed to support this Guiding Principle?

Record for later use.

No. Guiding Principle proceeds in process unaltered.

What are they? Record for later use.

Record for later use.

10

Update Process Strategy ProposalUpdate Process Strategy Proposal

Phase 4: Public Hearing/meeting check-in– Share Expert Panel feedback about Guiding Principles

• Group A: Non-problematic GPs– Share Panel’s draft policies to support GP

• Group B: Mildly Problematic GPs– Share Panel’s concerns and suggested tweaks– Share Panel’s draft policies to support GP

• Group C: Highly Problematic GPs– Share Panel’s perspectives about these as truly unworkable

– Seek buy-in on Panel’s tweaks to Group B– Seek buy-in on Panel’s draft policies for Groups A & B– Seek buy-in on dropping Group C GPs

• There may be no buy-in, which is OK

– Check in with City Council on progress-to-date

11

Update Process Strategy ProposalUpdate Process Strategy Proposal

Phase 5: Synthesize Draft– OPC converts GPs into Draft Plan Goals– OPC uses feedback to draft any further policies needed

to support GPs– Existing Plan Goals and Policies likely used

– Provide a Draft Plan for public comment & editing iterations prior to a Final Draft Hearing

– Hold OPC Hearing

12

Update Process Strategy ResultUpdate Process Strategy Result

OPC can hand off to City Council:– A Draft Plan– Commentary Raising specific policy

issues/problems encountered that need resolution

– Specific recommendations on those issues– Other recommendations on issues related to

enacting the plan (not just adopting it) Council Can hold a hearing and deliberate

13

Update Process Strategy SummaryUpdate Process Strategy Summary

Public input gets more specific over time Has two public buy-in points Has been reviewed by experts Has OPC input to normalize language of Draft

Goals and Policies Uses the existing Plan where appropriate Innovates where needed Provides realistic hand-off point for Council

hearing/deliberations/adoption Provides Plan “Implementation” advice

14

Comp Plan Update Process IdeasComp Plan Update Process Ideas

End of PresentationEnd of Presentation

This presentation was developed by Larry Leveen, not the City of Olympia. Ideas and opinions herein are the author’s only, and are not adopted recommendations of the Olympia Planning Commission. Larry is Chair of the Planning Commission’s Comprehensive Plan Update Subcommittee. You can reach him at larryleveen@comcast.net.