1 Comp Plan Update Process Ideas This presentation was developed by Larry Leveen, not the City of Olympia. Ideas and opinions herein are the authors only, and are not adopted recommendations of the Olympia Planning Commission. Larry is Chair of the Planning Commissions Comprehensive Plan Update Subcommittee. You can reach him at

2 Update 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 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 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 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 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 Olympias 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 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 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 Chart Does 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.

10 Update Process Strategy Proposal Phase 4: Public Hearing/meeting check-in –Share Expert Panel feedback about Guiding Principles Group A: Non-problematic GPs –Share Panels draft policies to support GP Group B: Mildly Problematic GPs –Share Panels concerns and suggested tweaks –Share Panels draft policies to support GP Group C: Highly Problematic GPs –Share Panels perspectives about these as truly unworkable –Seek buy-in on Panels tweaks to Group B –Seek buy-in on Panels 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 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 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 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 Ideas End of Presentation This presentation was developed by Larry Leveen, not the City of Olympia. Ideas and opinions herein are the authors only, and are not adopted recommendations of the Olympia Planning Commission. Larry is Chair of the Planning Commissions Comprehensive Plan Update Subcommittee. You can reach him at