Title
Final Deliberations Process, Continued
Body
Issue:
On November 19, 2012, the Comprehensive Plan Update Sub-Committee (CPU) recommended to the full Planning Commission (Commission) a process for the Commission's Final Deliberations. The Commission adopted the recommendation with minor revisions and directed CPU to continue refining the proposal as needed.
Committee Recommendation:
N/A
Director's Recommendation:
Determine any needed refinements to the process for the Commission's Final Deliberations.
Staff Contact:
Stacey Ray, Associate Planner, (360) 753-8046
Presenter(s):
Commissioner Rob Richards, Chair, CPU Sub-Committee
Background and Analysis:
Having started the Comprehensive Plan Update process in 2009, members of the Olympia Planning Commission (OPC) are now preparing to enter the final stage of their role in the Comprehensive Plan Update: determining final recommendations for the City Council.
The Final Deliberations are noted in the Charter as the time when the public record closes, Commissioners consider the public input from throughout the process, and conduct final votes on the recommendations of Council. If a proposed extension is approved by City Council on November 5, the Commission will have ten meetings between now and March 2013 dedicated to Final Deliberations.
The Comprehensive Plan Update Sub-Committee (CPU) is identified in the Charter as the appropriate body to provide leadership to OPC on the deliberation process, including the Final Deliberations. At their October 17 meeting, members of the CPU Sub-Committee determined a recommendation (Attachment 1). That recommendation was shared with the Commission on November 19, 2012.
The Commission made the following revisions to the Final Deliberations process:
1. Revise the process for ranking the topics to be covered under priority #3 to an "instant run-off" voting procedure. Commissioner Bardin will bring a more detailed explanation and example of this process to the CPU meeting.
2. In order for the Commission to bring forward a topic for reconsideration, two-thirds or a greater number of votes in favor from members present are needed.
See Attachment 1 for the revised Final Deliberations Process handout, which outlines the revised process as adopted by the Commission on November 19, 2012.
After having adopted the process, the Commission also directed CPU to use the Sub-Committee's November 28, 2012, meeting to focus on continuing to refine the process, such as how the Commission may organize their remaining meetings dedicated to the Comprehensive Plan and how Commissioners may review and consider individual text edits. As well as a potential role for CPU between now and the end of the Final Deliberations process.
Text Edits. Commissioners have raised concerns about how to integrate text edits and language drafted by Commissioners into the Final Deliberations process. The approved prioritization scheme notes that consideration of draft language and text edits are Priority #6 and Priority #5. If Commissioners intend on using draft language elsewhere in the process, or want to further fine how Priorites 5 and 6 will be addressed, the following are general findings from a discussion held by the Commission Leadership Team on this topic. The findings may assist CPU in providing a recommendation to the full Commission, and include:
1. If requested, staff can compile all text edits from Commissioners into one document for OPC to review. However, if staff were to do so, it is with the following assumptions:
o Commissioners will use the existing format, and provide edits electronically in a Word template;
o Clear deadlines will be set for submittals of draft language or edits;
o A minimum amount of time (approximately 3 weeks) will be needed for staff to have time to compile the submittals.
2. Staff will comment on Commissioner submittals with one of three general responses:
Green. Staff has no issue with the proposed edits. In other words, it is not a substantive change, and doesn't result in a change of policy direction.
Yellow. The proposal is a change in current practice/policy so it needs to highlighted. It's a policy question. It's legal and could be done.
Red. Staff would not support the change because of anticipated consequences. For example, the submittal suggested a revision that is illegal or not feasible.
3. Text edits may also be compiled in a staggered fashion, according to an established meeting topic schedule. A two week minimum would still be needed between the submittal and the date of meeting for staff to prepare the materials.
4. A third alternative is to address proposed text edits as they arise or are brought forward for discussion by Commissioners without staff support. If Commissioners were to pursue this option, staff recommends the following guidelines:
o Commissioners should come prepared with language at the meeting, or it is distributed in advance;
o Staff won't consolidate all proposals or provide green/yellow/red comments;
o Commissioners commit to and understand the implications of potentially reviewing up to nine separate submittals at one time.
5. Lastly, the Commission will need to determine at what point in the approved prioritization scheme Commissioners can or should submit text edits or draft policy language.
Neighborhood/Community Interests (if known):
Citywide
Options:
This meeting is dedicated to a general discussion of potential refinements to the Final Deliberations Process approved by the Commission on November 19, 2012.
Financial Impact:
None. This work item is budgeted as part of the Commission's work plan in 2012.