The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal Aboutbrewsterinterviewfindings_v5+ Brewster Coastal Adapta0on Planning: Public Engagement Assessment Findings and Recommenda5ons Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. November 2015 + n Project Introduc0on and Overview: Develop a Coastal Adapta5on Strategy for Brewster to guide future decisions regarding coastal areas in light of future coastal change, SLR, and erosion. n CBI’s Role: Engage residents and stakeholders in a public par5cipa5on process – incorpora5ng vulnerability and risk informa5on as well as public needs and concerns – to build consensus around a recommended Coastal Adapta5on Strategy. Background Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. www.cbuilding.org n A not-‐for-‐profit (501(c)3) organiza5on with 20 years of experience in the fields of collabora5on, nego5a5on and dispute resolu5on. n Our mission is to empower stakeholders—public and private, government and community—to resolve issues, reach be7er, more durable agreements, and build stronger rela5onships. n CBI works across the US and interna5onally on mul5-‐party public issues including land use, environment, energy, social policy, cultural resources, educa5on, interna5onal development, strategic planning, and corporate community engagement. n CBI works as a neutral party equally accountable to all stakeholders. We adhere to the Ethical Standards of the Associa5on for Conflict Resolu5on. Who We Are: Consensus Building Ins0tute + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. Tonight’s Agenda n Mee5ng Overview n Assessment Process n Assessment Findings n Process Recommenda5ons n Ques5ons, Comments, and Discussion + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. Mee0ng Overview Goals n Review findings from community interviews and focus groups n Share dra] recommenda5ons for a public process to develop a coastal adapta5on strategy for Brewster n Gather feedback and input to refine and finalize process recommenda5ons + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. Ground Rules for Tonight PLEASE… n Be concise n Be respec^ul n Be on topic n Be construc5ve + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. First Step: Assessment Process n Worked with Town to generate interviewee list n Dra]ed interview ques5on protocol n Town invited interviewees to focus groups n Scheduled and conducted focus groups n Iden5fied and organized interviews with addi5onal people + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. Who We Heard from: 45 Individuals, represen5ng… n Business and real estate representa5ves n Relevant Town department and Commi7ee representa5ves n Pe55on organizers and signers n Part-‐5me and full-‐5me residents n Coastal Commi7ee members n Variety of Beachgoers – younger, older, families, etc. n Representa5ves from the State Park and the Museum of Natural History + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. What We Found: Brewster’s Coastal Areas are Valuable Because… n Unique feature -‐-‐ The Brewster Flats n Safe for families with young children n Appealing aesthe5cs n Source of revenue for the town n Recrea5on opportuni5es n Focus of family tradi5ons n Historical significance + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. FINDINGS Desirable components… n Beach/Coast Access: § Op5ons for vehicle access (parking, shu7le, etc.) § Suitable access for range of mobility levels § Considera5on of the different ways people use the coastline n Other op0ons iden0fied: § Concessions, permanent wash facili5es, etc. but many also said adding these would detract from the aesthe5c value of the coastal areas. + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. FINDINGS Threats to the coastal areas: n Beach erosion n Storm surges n Hardening of the shoreline: jehes, bulkheads, etc. n Sea Level Rise (SLR) + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. FINDINGS Perspec5ves on Town management of coastline n Spectrum of views suppor5ng or against the previous town decisions regarding coastal management – some views strongly felt n Some feel current Town process for making decisions has not sufficiently engaged and addressed the concerns of the community n Some percep5on of “us” vs. “them”, but not necessarily based in real differences in views n Support for the approach to develop a proac5ve, cohesive coastal strategy rather than taking on projects on a case-‐by-‐case basis n Uncertainty around the impacts of this process on private coastal land + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. FINDINGS Sugges5ons on shoreline management approach n Move back from shoreline n Con5nue beach nourishment n Shore up par5cular areas n Beach plan5ngs n Mats and other tools for accessibility n Raise infrastructure n Recognize link between public and private shoreline management approaches n Obtain open spaces when they become available n Find more parking spaces a li7le further out for those who can/will walk n Explore poten5al for shu7les n Enforce beach road parking restric5ons + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. FINDINGS Process Needs n The coast and beaches are important to almost everyone in Brewster n Residents hold a range of views about specific issues at stake, and do not fall into easy-‐to-‐represent “groups” n There is a desire for broad, shared access to credible and legi5mate scien5fic informa5on about risks and hazards n There is a strong interest in maximal transparent, public engagement in decisions impac5ng beach access and the coast n Private land owners along the coastline could be deeply impacted by this strategy, and need a voice + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. RECOMMENDATIONS n Beach Use Survey § Goes out in January to all taxpayers to learn more about when & how coast is used, public needs and experiences with beaches n Technical Assessments § Research on baseline condi5ons, projec5ons and visualiza5ons of vulnerabili5es & risks from erosion, storms, and sea level rise n Brewster Coastal Advisory Group (BCAG) § Representa5ve Steering Group to guide technical assessments, prepare for Charre7e, and help integrate input and seek consensus recommenda5on during and a]er Charre7e n Public Charre6e Process § Mul5-‐day, mul5-‐faceted process to engage public in developing community vision, examine, evaluate, and review op5ons, revise and develop recommenda5ons + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. n Provide guidance to technical team to prepare for the public Charre7e n Work with technical team between public mee5ngs to integrate public input and prepare next steps n Help guide final refinement of plan Brewster Coastal Advisory Group (BCAG) + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. n Coastal Commi7ee members (up to 7) n Representa5ves of coastal neighborhoods § 3 groupings -‐ West, Central, East n Representa5ves of non-‐coastal residents § 3 representa5ves of a diverse range of users n Representa5ves of other coastal users: § Sea Camps, Oceans Edge, Museum of Natural History, Brewster Conserva5on Trust n Representa5ve of Hospitality industry (rentals, hotels) n Representa5ve of Real Estate sales/development industry n Representa5ve of other businesses (Chamber of Commerce) + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. Selec0ng BCAG Par0cipants n Stakeholder Group Self-‐Selec0on § SH Caucus Mee5ng with all who fit the category, with or without facilitator § Other internal process? n Open and Transparent Nomina0on Process through Board of Selectmen § Develop nomina5on form and simplified selec5on process + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. Criteria to Guide Selec0on of Representa0ves n Capacity to represent and ar5culate the interests and concerns of their “cons5tuents,” as accurately and thoroughly as possible, to help ensure that recommenda5ons developed by the Advisory Group reflect the concerns of their cons5tuency. n Willingness and interest in preparing for and a7ending all mee5ngs and ac5vely par5cipa5ng in discussions n Willingness and ability to engage in respec^ul and construc5ve dialogue, strive to bridge gaps in understanding, to seek resolu5on of differences, and to pursue the goal of achieving consensus on the content of the topics under discussion. + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. Representa5ves from: n Board of Selectmen n All Ci5zens Access Commi7ee n Bikeways/Pathways n Conserva5on Commission n Open Space Commi7ee n Planning Board n Finance Commi7ee n DCR/Nickerson State Park Why Liaisons: n Possess informa5on, knowledge, and exper5se valuable to topics of delibera5on n Have delineated responsibili5es related to topics of delibera5on n Valuable or necessary for approving or implemen5ng any outcome or solu5on Liaisons Role: n Share informa5on and exper5se n Offer opinions and views in areas of their exper5se and responsibili5es n Listen and learn from the representa5ves and technical experts n Represent and bring informa5on back to cons5tuents + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. RECOMMENDATIONS Beach Use Survey Brewster Coastal Advisory Group (BCAG) Public Charre7e • Public Workshops • BCAG guidance • Technical work • Liaisons and other Stakeholder mee5ngs • Open Houses Technical Assessments Brewster Coastal Adapta5on Strategy + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. What is a Charre6e? n “The Charre7e is a mul5-‐ day collabora5ve planning event that engages all affected par5es to plan, design and realize solu5ons that transform communi5es” -‐ Na$onal Charre,e Ins$tute + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. Why use a Charre6e? Deep and Broad Engagement: Mobilizes the collec5ve energy of all interested par5es, beyond just representa5ves, in developing the best sustainable solu5on Feasibility: Brings together scien5fic and technical work with the interests and needs of people Efficiency: Reduces project 5melines, increases produc5vity, reduces costly rework Place-‐based and design centered: Focuses on specific loca5ons and envisions + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. alternatives refinement plan public review concepts public review public review Charre6e Feedback Cycles Par5cipants work in a series of short feedback loops vision + Sample Charre7e Schedule: Kick-off public visioning meeting! Create alternative designs! Charrette begins with set of options for review! 4 - 6 weeks ! 4 - 6 weeks .! Review & Revise!Final Review! + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. Maximize Transparency and Input n Select dates to avoid conflic5ng ac5vi5es n Announce in advance via email, website, print, and radio n Film/televise and make available on-‐line on demand n Use technologies (like cell-‐phone polling) for virtual input n Document all mee5ngs via detailed Mee5ng Summaries n BCAG mee5ngs open to public with public comment period n Project website, hosted by CBI, with all mee5ng informa5on and materials: h7p://www.cbuilding.org/projects/brewstercoast + Be7er nego5a5ons. Be7er decision making. Be6er results. Ques0ons? Stacie Smith, stacie@cbuilding.org Eric J. Roberts, eroberts@cbuilding.org