Laserfiche WebLink
5. POLICY BOARD BUSINESS <br /> 5.01: Review Framework for a Future Citizen Engagement Process Related to the <br /> Environmental Protection/Resource Management Chapter of the Comprehensive <br /> Plan <br /> City Planner Anderson stated that this case is not a continuation of the Planning Commission and <br /> EPB joint meeting in April. It is to review the Board's proposed framework for how it is going <br /> to proceed to look at the Environmental Protection/Resource Management Chapter of the <br /> Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the citizen engagement process used in the past has worked <br /> well for the City when they were looking for public feedback on small land use area planning. <br /> This process involves a scoping meeting to look at a broad general question to engage the public <br /> and allow the participants to identify specifics they would like to talk more about and to ask <br /> meeting participants to break off in smaller groups and discuss a specific issue and then <br /> reconvene in a larger group to discuss and look at themes that have support from participants. <br /> The second step would be to develop alternatives and solutions based on the discussion. The <br /> third step would be to agree on how to move forward. This may require a follow-up meeting <br /> depending on how many people attend the meeting and the discussion. He stated that there has <br /> been positive feedback regarding this process because the City is not setting up the agenda but is <br /> getting feedback and input from the public and basing what the City is going to do off of the <br /> input. He requested input from the Board on what the question for the public meeting should be <br /> and what additional resources the Board would like to see available for the public meeting. He <br /> stated that a public meeting would likely take place in late fall. <br /> Board Member Lewis asked if City Planner Anderson wanted the Board to select a singular topic <br /> or question from the case information provided. <br /> City Planner Anderson replied that the case information contained examples of questions asked <br /> in the past so none of those questions would be used. He stated that the intent of the question <br /> would be to draw out the public and get them engaged. <br /> Board Member Covart asked if it would be possible to have a list of natural resources under <br /> question number two. <br /> City Planner Anderson stated that they might be able to highlight a couple of very broad natural <br /> resource topics and underneath the broad question have specific bullet points such as water <br /> resources. He thinks the question itself would be broad and the supporting promotional materials <br /> could contain a more refined list. <br /> Acting Chairman Valentine stated it is a challenge and a delicate balance to provide focus <br /> without leading people too much. <br /> City Planner Anderson explained that Staff would kick the meeting off with an example of a <br /> topic and then open it up to the public for their concerns and encourage them to write those <br /> concerns on the wall on a post-it note. People interested in a specific topic are put into a small <br /> group with their interest. Each small group takes its own notes and presents back to the group as <br /> a whole. He stated that the phrase "natural resources" would interest the public. <br /> Environmental Policy Board/May 19, 2015 <br /> Page 2 of 7 <br />