Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutBCAG_Meeting8_summarySeptember 19, 2016 – Revised Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 1 Brewster Coastal Advisory Group: Developing a Coastal Adaptation Strategy For Brewster Meeting Eight Summary September 19, 2016 | 5:00 – 9:30 PM Brewster Town Hall Rooms A&B | Brewster, MA Overview As it prepares for future coastal change, sea level rise, and shoreline erosion, and seeks to meet coastal access needs of the community, the Town of Brewster is supporting a public engagement process to develop a coastal adaptation strategy based on sound coastal science and public values and interests. The strategy will guide future decision- making in Brewster’s coastal areas. The Brewster Coastal Advisory Group has reviewed relevant scientific data and public input to develop recommendations for the town’s coastal adaptation strategy, in partnership with the Town of Brewster and its consultants (the project team). The project team consists of a public engagement team led by the Consensus Building Institute and a scientific and technical team led by Horsley Witten Group. The objective of the eighth and final meeting of the Brewster Coastal Advisory Group (the group) was to review and finalize the draft Brewster Coastal Adaptation Strategy. Materials distributed during the September 19th meeting included: the revised draft Brewster Coastal Adaptation Strategy; Individual and Small Group Suggestions for the Brewster Coastal Adaptation Strategy; Brewster Coastal Advisory Group Conceptual Diagram Process; Opportunities for Public Input and Comment; and draft 2016 Beach Sticker data analysis. A BCAG member also distributed an Open Meeting Law complaint. Meeting materials, presentations, and a video of the meeting are available on the project website: www.cbuilding.org/project/brewstercoast. Members who were present included: Abigail Archer, David Bennett, Ryan Burch, Ruth Courtnell, Claire Gradone, Pat Hughes, John Lamb, Mary O’Neil, Chris Powicki, and Jonathan Rice. Advisory group liaisons who were present included: Cindy Bingham, Eric Levy, and Chris Miller. Decisions and Action Items The group made the following decisions: • The group referred the Open Meeting Law complaint to the town counsel and agreed to meet again as a group, if necessary, within 14 days to respond to any response provided by the town counsel. September 19, 2016 – Revised Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 2 • The group reached consensus on a number of sections of the Draft report, including many of the town-wide strategies and the recommendations. The group agreed that the final report would identify areas of full group consensus, and include additional member ideas as a new section within the report. • The group agreed that the Coastal Committee would work with BCAG members to prepare for and present its final report to the Board of Selectmen. Action Items from the September 19 meeting included the following: • Group Members o Group members can send non-controversial suggested edits on the draft strategy language to CBI to inform revisions. • CBI/HW/Town o Cindy Bingham to investigate how to reconvene the Coastal Committee so the group can convene to plan the presentation of the Strategy to the Board of Selectmen. o CBI and HW to revise and finalize the strategy document based on the group discussion. § Update the introduction to clarify progress made by the group, which topics the group vetted, and which it did not. § Ensure the executive summary is consistent with the rest of the updated document. o CBI to draft a meeting summary of the September 19 meeting. o CBI to send the final strategy to the full BCAG as the final product. o Town Staff to submit the final strategy to the Board of Selectmen. o Town Staff to work to get a time on a Board of Selectmen agenda for the presentation. Welcome Ms. Stacie Smith, facilitator, welcomed the participants. She noted that Cindy Roth had informed CBI that she would not be attending and was resigning from her seat on the BCAG. Absent sufficient membership, the group discussed informally how to proceed if quorum was not reached. Opening Business After a quorum was reached, Ms. Smith reviewed the meeting agenda, objectives, and ground rules. She highlighted that the group would be working mostly from the draft Brewster Coastal Advisory Strategy and potentially the individual and small group suggestions document, which CBI had compiled. She reminded the group that the purpose of the group is to help the Town move toward climate resilience for public coastal areas and to set a framework, drawing on the science and community needs and values, to help future planning efforts. September 19, 2016 – Revised Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 3 She introduced a method the group could use to test support for various elements throughout the meeting. Each group member received a red, yellow, and green card. At appropriate times, Ms. Smith would ask people how they felt about a specific element of the draft strategy. Members could choose to hold up one of the three cards, with the following designations: red-orange cards indicate a member has a serious problem to discuss, yellow cards indicate the member has some questions or concerns to discuss, and green cards indicate the member generally supports the proposal or element under discussion. A group member requested clarification on the state’s expectation of the group. Chris Miller, town liaison, commented that he did not have the grant to read the details, but the state expects documentation of the meetings and the final strategy, which he expected the group would provide. Another member commented that paragraph two on page three of the draft strategy clarifies the expectations. A third member said she had not found the Board of Selectmen charge to the group. A fourth member clarified that the language in said paragraph is from the contract and describes the town’s commitment to the state; she confirmed that it was not an official charge from the Board of Selectmen. A group member distributed a complaint about the Open Meeting Law to the group and read the following statement: Open Meeting Law requires that an Open Meeting Law complaint be filed with the public body. I am now filing this OML complaint, which I place before each present member of the Brewster Coastal Advisory Group. The public body has 14 business days from the date of receipt to review the complainant’s allegations, take remedial action if appropriate, notify the complainant of the remedial action, and forward a copy of the complaint and description of the remedial action taken to the Attorney General. While the public body may delegate responsibility for responding to the complaint to counsel or another individual, it must first meet to do so. The group discussed the complaint. Several members asked for clarification about the complaint from the member who filed it; the member said the written complaint stood for itself and declined to provide clarification. After briefly reviewing the documents, a group member said the complaint seemed to focus on a procedural question about the compilation and distribution of group member suggestions prior to the meeting, and whether this is considered deliberation outside the meeting; he suggested if it is procedural, then the group should move on. The group discussed how to proceed in light of the complaint. Some group members expressed hesitancy to continue if they would be discussing documents that are in violation of the open meeting law. However, a distinction could be made between the draft strategy and the suggestions document, and the group could have a lot to discuss September 19, 2016 – Revised Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 4 if only looking at the draft strategy. Others suggested it was uncertain whether or not the complaint would be validated and suggested proceeding with the discussion. The group decided to refer the OML complaint to town counsel and to meet again, if necessary, within 14 days to respond to any response received from the town counsel (two members abstained from the decision). Meeting again is not required but was suggested, if needed, so the group could discuss potential responses if necessary. The group will need a quorum if meeting again, and will also need to appoint a chair. Ms. Cindy Bingham, Board of Selectmen liaison, introduced herself and applauded the group’s work on behalf of the Selectmen. She said the Selectmen look forward to reviewing the group’s final report or strategy and, when the time is appropriate, a presentation from the group about the final report. She noted that they hoped to receive feedback along the same lines of the recent government study report, and said she understood that next steps after tonight could include the Coastal Committee taking the group’s suggestions, thoughts, and presentation to move them forward in a constructive manner. Review and Refine the Draft Brewster Coastal Adaptation Strategy The group reviewed and discussed the draft Coastal Adaptation Strategy. Group members were asked to suggest the addition, removal, or revision of information in the strategy, and to focus on key ideas. Town-wide Strategies Group members made the following suggested revisions in the town-wide strategies section: • General comments o Make the strategy section a stand-alone section and move it to the front of the document. Ms. Smith noted that the strategy location is what the group decided on at the last meeting. o Revise the order of the town-wide strategies. For example, bicycles and pedestrians should not come first. Instead, new access locations in adapting to the future should come first. • Introductory paragraph o The group decided to add statements about the coastal overlay district under the “ongoing analysis of climate impacts” or “ongoing adaptive management” headings. • New access locations in adapting to the future section – The group suggested the following changes to improve the draft strategy: o Clarify that this section is about new landings or new ways to access coastal areas. It is not about adding more parking at exiting landings. September 19, 2016 – Revised Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 5 o Remove the “For example” sentence (second sentence in the first paragraph). o Un-bold the “New Access Locations in Adapting to the Future” and make it underlined, signaling this is a new section not associated with the “Alternative Access to Town Landings” section. o Clarify that the last sentence in the first paragraph by adding “satellite” so it reads “The town could evaluate how existing satellite parking facilities could…or if new satellite parking areas…” • Bicycles and pedestrians section o The group decided to replace “as roadways are upgraded” with “as opportunities arise.” • Access for individuals with limited mobility section o The group decided to add the goal that the town always seeks to achieve ADA compliance where feasible and practical, and to collaborate with the All Access Committee. • Other – Group members also discussed and agreed to include the following town-wide strategies in the draft strategy o Add an evaluation of climate impacts of future projects. For example, completion of a project may change the land, and the resulting impacts of the change, such as loss of carbon storage, could also be evaluated. o Add the strategy of conducting studies to understand the underutilization of coastal areas to avoid over crowding. It was suggested this strategy is a new strategy that should have its own underlined heading in the document in town-wide strategies; it should not be included under the alternative access heading. • Ongoing beach management and restoration; and, ongoing adaptive management o The group discussed merging the “ongoing beach management and restoration” and “ongoing adaptive management” sections. A member suggested that the information from the sections be merged under the “ongoing adaptive management” heading and a sentence added to clearly indicate that the efficacy of current beach management practices at all landings should be evaluated to learn lessons before simply continuing with their use. o Mr. Nelson, HW, suggested that the two headings are distinct. One is beach nourishment process that has been working to continue providing access. The adaptive management is a separate element, which is about understanding that conditions may be different in 15 years and the town should not be tied to old practices if a new practice makes more sense. He suggested adding a sentence to clarify and strengthen the notion that existing practices, such as beach nourishment, should be evaluated adaptively too. o The group agreed to keep the two sections distinct from one another and slightly revise them. The heading for “ongoing beach management and September 19, 2016 – Revised Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 6 restoration” should be changed to “evaluate and continue ongoing beach management and restoration.” The second paragraph currently under the “ongoing beach management and restoration” heading should be the first paragraph in that section and it should stress the need to evaluate current practices, record lessons learned, and spur appropriate adaptation. o Group members discussed the ongoing adaptive management text. A member suggested adding a sentence to indicate the town should look for flexibility in management approaches to be able to adapt to storms and other changing conditions. Another member suggested clarifying and strengthening the definition of adaptive management; it should clearly state that the town will evaluate current or previous management practices to determine if those are the appropriate practices to continue deploying, in light of new knowledge, materials, and technology. Another member suggested adding language to indicate the town should review how other towns are approaching these challenges and learn whether or not the approaches could or should be implemented in Brewster. The group again discussed the individual and small group suggestions document. A member suggested he would prefer to only look at the draft strategy to avoid possibly violating OML. Stacie clarified that if the group does not discuss the document, then either no new ideas can be considered or the members can only suggest new ideas that they thought of tonight and had not shared with anyone before; none of the small group work would be included. Several members made the following comments in support of the group’s review and discussion of the individual and small group suggestions document: • A member said she did not think the group had violated OML by compiling the suggestions and suggested the group look at the individual and small group suggestions. • A person said the group is innocent until proven guilty, and that she would not sign off on a draft report if it does not take into account the small group work. She added that the document was posted and made publicly available, and that if the group didn’t discuss it then they would leave a lot of unfinished business. • A member agreed and said the individual and small group suggestions document contains good information to consider and much of it is likely already included in the record, but CBI had asked for the bulleted information to organize it for easy review and integration into the draft strategy. • Another member commented that vetting what is said at a public hearing seems to be the remedial end of any OML violation; this meeting is where the open discussion would be occurring. This could be part of the remedial solution and the group should embrace this information, then address the OML issue at a later date. September 19, 2016 – Revised Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 7 • Another member agreed and suggested that discussing the individual and small group suggestions document is valuable because the group had not vetted the information; she added that anything not included in the draft strategy could be included in a separate document identified as issues the group did not fully vet but believes the issues are worth further consideration. In response, a member commented that some ideas that the group had not discussed had made it into the draft strategy. Ms. Smith said group members could review and discuss the individual and small group suggestions if they wished to. She asked members to suggest additional town-wide strategies that could be added to the draft strategy; she noted that suggestions could be drawn from the individual and small group suggestions document or from new ideas not included on individual and small group suggestions document. Members suggested the following additions: The group discussed the “Visual Access and Aesthetics” strategy in the individual and small group suggestions document. They noted that visual access was raised in the beach survey, during the visioning workshop, and also in other town projects. It was noted that some restoration actions (e.g. the creation of sacrificial dunes) might impair visual access, and that visual access should not take precedence over the maintenance of dunes or other coastal resources. The group clarified that visual access should at least be considered in future management and maintenance, but not mandated. The group agreed that CBI and HW should work in language suggesting the need to preserve and maintain coastal dunes and vegetation. They also talked about vegetation impairing visual access and whether or not visual access is a strategy or a guiding principle or concept. Chris Miller, town liaison, noted that vista pruning is permitted in some areas to provide visual access. Some members suggested that visual access may be more appropriate in the guiding principles than as a strategy. Others suggested it is a strategy since visual access provides people of limited mobility with methods to access the coastal areas, and so strategies that enable these individuals to view the beach (such as vegetation pruning) should be included. The group discussed whether or not visual access is a strategy primarily for people of limited mobility to enjoy the resources or if other people without limited mobility also value visual access. Ms. Smith noted that if the group is talking primarily about people with limited mobility, then more detail could be added about visual access to the paragraph about limited mobility; but if the group is thinking more broadly than limited mobility, then a separate section may be justified. Some suggested visual access is important to many people who do not have limited mobility, and suggested it be included as a strategy for this reason. The group discussed the removal of the word aesthetics. A member suggested that aesthetics should be a key consideration in some management approaches, and September 19, 2016 – Revised Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 8 suggested keeping aesthetics in the title and the final sentence. Chris Miller commented that aesthetics is in the local bylaw and is considered, but is often the last item to be considered because it is easily challenged in court given its subjectivity. It was noted that the values and guiding principles statements talk about natural beauty. Stacie asked the group if they’d like to include visual access as a stand alone strategy. Some supported this, while others said they thought it belonged in the values and priorities or guiding principles rather than the strategies. The group decided to enhance the language in the limited mobility section and to add a sentence in parenthesis in said section stating that visual access is not a value shared only by people of limited mobility. They also agreed to highlight and name visual access in the guiding principles. Recommendations The group discussed recommendations to add to the draft strategy, focusing primarily on the suggestion on page 12 (starting at “government structure and implementation”) of the individual and small group suggestions document. The author of the suggestion commented that the overarching goal of the proposal is to create a task force that would evaluate the creation of a coastal resources management board (CRMB) with sufficient standing and capacity to oversee the implementation of the Coastal Resource Management Plan, which will be based on the Coastal Adaptation strategy created by the Brewster Coastal Advisory Group. Some people thought it was an idea worth considering, but they didn’t feel there was sufficient time to discuss it thoroughly. They suggested adding it to a new document or a section of the draft strategy dedicated to topics and ideas the group thought were valid to consider but that the group did not have time to properly vet. The group proceeded to discuss the suggestion, and identified several questions and concerns related to the authority, scope, membership, and capacity of a CRMB and/or of the existing Coastal Committee. The group also highlighted some concerns about the scope of the task force itself. Main ideas are summarized below. Authority: The group made the following points about the authority of the existing Coastal Committee and of a new CRMB, and about their relation to the Board of Selectmen. • The existing Coastal Committee, which is advisory and reports to the Board of Selectmen, does not have the authority to implement the Coastal Resources Management Plan. Many group members suggested that the Coastal Committee or a new CRMB would need strong authority and standing, unhampered by the jurisdiction of other committees, to implement the Coastal Resources Management Plan. • Creating a CRMB seems like a duplication of efforts to some members. Brewster has a town planner with a background in climate change, the coastal committee, September 19, 2016 – Revised Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 9 and the Board of Selectmen, the latter of which oversee what happens at the landings and the coastal areas. Additionally, the government study report suggests that Brewster already has plenty of committees. • Some members suggested the Coastal Committee or a new CRMB may never receive implementation or enforcement authority. It also may not be legal or possible for the selectmen to transfer their authority to the CRMB since the care, custody, and control of the coastal areas is entrusted to the selectmen. Scope: The group discussed the scope of both the task force to evaluate the creation of a CRMB, and of a new CRMB or a revised Coastal Committee. • Regarding the scope of the task force, some group members expressed concern about the final two bullets of the proposal. They suggested the task force should not be responsible for drafting the coastal resources management plan. Additionally, some suggested the task force should be a public body subject to Open Meeting Laws. The group noted that the scope of the task force could include the evaluation of: 1) The pros and cons of establishing a CRMB that has more authority and decision making power to ensure the implementation of a coastal resource management plan. 2) The pros and cons of evolving the existing Coastal Committee into a CRMB with more authority or decision making power, or reconfiguring the Coastal Committee so that it continues to operate but with more authority or decision making power to implement the coastal resources management plan. 3) The potential for the scope of the CRMB (or a revised Coastal Committee) to cover both public and private property issues. Chris Miller noted that the scope of the existing Coastal Committee is the entire coastline. Additionally, a member suggested the CRMB (or revised Coastal Committee) should oversee management of the coastal flats but recognized that current regulations mandate the management of the flats to state and federal agencies. 4) Membership of the CRMB and the existing Coastal Committee. Membership: The group made the following points about membership on the CRMB and Coastal Committee. • The task force could suggest new membership for the Coastal Committee and/or membership for the CRMB. • The CRMB, if established, should have representation from all coastal interests in the town. • The CRMB, if established, could be an inter-governmental board with representatives from key boards or committees and town offices such as the Conservation Commission, the Natural Resources Department, the Planning September 19, 2016 – Revised Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 10 Board, the Board of Selectmen, etc. Members thought this would facilitate effective coordination between various boards and town departments and their respective policies, which would enable the board to be impactful. Capacity: The group made the following points about the capacity to complete work. • The existing Coastal Committee and/or a new CRMB will need resources, including staff support or other funding, to complete their work. For example, the Coastal Committee will not be able to complete the Coastal Resources Management Plan without funding or staff support, which could only be gained if the Board of Selectmen request funding for it at Town Meeting. • This is a county-wide issue that the Cape Cod Commission will also need to address and could possibly contribute to in someway. • A citizen could be put on the CRMB to ensure the guiding principles are consistently considered and implemented. • Ultimately, the CRMB will need a group of dedicated people who represent diverse interests and who have the knowledge and commitment necessary to do the best thing for the community from a coastal resource perspective. Other comments: The following points were also made. • Section 8.1 should clearly articulate how the strategy was created and assigned to the Coastal Committee, what the coastal committee will do with it, and that the Board of Selectmen has the authority to implement but must rely on Town Meeting to provide funding for implementation. • The Task Force could also look at whether or not a Climate Committee should be established to look at the complications climate change may cause for Brewster residents, town departments, and other public resources outside the coastal areas. • Regardless of how implementation proceeds, the group proposes more transparency in the development of projects and assurance that committees have full information and input on proposed projects. The group agreed that the issue of coastal resources management needs to be elevated and prioritized, and whichever group completes the work, whether it be the Coastal Committee or a new CRMB, the group must have the resources and support necessary to complete the work and collaborate with other town boards while upholding the principles established by the Brewster Coastal Advisory Group. The group unanimously agreed to add the following recommendation to the strategy document: To ensure the Brewster Coastal Resource Management Plan is implemented, the Brewster Coastal Advisory Group recommends that the Board of Selectmen or the Town Administrator form a task force to review the parameters of the existing coastal committee to ensure it has the staff, capacity, authority, and membership from other relevant town boards (to facilitate coordination across the boards) and a community September 19, 2016 – Revised Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 11 representative (to uphold the guiding principles outlined in the coastal adaptation strategy). Ms. Smith summarized the changes to be made in the draft strategy: • Section 8.1 will describe how the group got to where they are now, and how the Coastal Committee is supposed to use the draft coastal adaptation strategy to create the coastal resource management plan, but is unable to do so without the allocation of resources and staff time. • Section 8.2 will include recommendations to the Board of Selectmen that will help to develop and implement the coastal resource management plan. For example, the selectmen can add items to a warrant for Town Meeting to allocate staffing and resources to develop the coastal resource management plan. Additionally, the section will also describe the above unanimous agreement to recommend the creation of a task force, and recommendations to request and allocate resources to the implementing body, whether it be a new CRMB or the existing Coastal Committee. • Section 8.3 will be the information that is currently in 8.2 of the draft strategy. Next Steps Ms. Smith briefly reviewed the progress and potential next steps of the group. Some group members wanted to discuss the community overview, and suggested it was not adequately covered in the document or executive summary. A member said he thought the community overview was sufficient and that it could be placed in the appendix. Another person stated that it should be in the main document; she added that she would gladly draft text for the community overview and the group could yay or nay it. The group discussed whether or not to hold another meeting. Some members suggested the group should have an additional meeting(s), or possibly convene a subcommittee to finish working and propose a final draft to the full BCAG. They noted that the group raised a lot of good points and information but these had not been vetted, and the report also contains errors that could be clarified. Cindy Bingham, Board of Selectmen Liaison, said no additional funding is available for the technical or community engagement team after tonight, so the group would be on their own. If the group continues, she urged them to comply with Open Meeting Law. Others suggested the group had made as much progress as they could and that tonight should be the final meeting. Ms. Smith asked if, when the Coastal Committee begins to meet again, it would be possible as a first point of business for the Committee to invite BCAG members who aren’t on the coastal committee to join them to finalize the document. A member noted September 19, 2016 – Revised Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 12 that the document is not final and that the Coastal Committee doesn’t have the resources to finish it nor will they have consultant support, but perhaps having the responsibility would bring out creative ideas and approaches to finish it. Ms. Smith noted that the consultant team is committed to making the final updates based on tonight’s discussion. Ms. Smith raised considerations about reconvening the group. In addition to not having staff to facilitate or document the meeting, group participation rates are low. Some people dropped off due to other obligations, even though they were interested to participate in the beginning. She hypothesized that perhaps the BCAG format was not the right mechanism for this process and that it might not be the right mechanism going forward since the absence of one or two people will mean the group won’t achieve a quorum. She suggested the group recognize the good work they achieved and acknowledge that the group didn’t achieve the full task. She noted there was a lot of value in what the group had created and now the Coastal Committee can inherit the document and take it forward. The group discussed possibly creating two documents. One document, the coastal adaptation strategy document, would contain all of the information the group had agreed upon. The second document, yet to be produced, could include information the group did not have time to vet, and clearly indicate that there is a lot of valuable information that the group did not come to consensus on, but that they think it is important for the town to consider it as they create the coastal resource management plan. The facilitator suggested that this could be combined into one final document. The group revisited discussion about future meetings. A member suggested he would like to continue working as a group but recognized it may not be possible to continue, and that the Coastal Committee could take ownership and responsibility to identify and address non-vetted items, and call meetings to which BCAG members are invited to participate. In doing so, the Coastal Committee could create an addendum to the report to complete the work the group started and did not finish, and then submit it to the Board of Selectmen. Another couple of members suggested additional meetings would not likely yield consensus on everything. They noted the group had made significant progress, including that more folks in the town are enlightened of the issues facing Brewster. A member highlighted some of the accomplishments she thought the group had achieved, including reaching consensus on the vulnerabilities and threats, the guiding principles, most of the town-wide issues, and the general landing-to-landing adaptation strategies. She added in regards to the group’s charge, the group had identified the vulnerabilities, the coastal area issues, institutional processes and public engagement, adaptation, maintaining natural beauty, and working with natural systems to function as natural buffers, and pre-regulatory review and discussion of options, among others. The member noted that although the work is not complete, the information will not be lost. It will be available for future reference. September 19, 2016 – Revised Meeting Summary – Brewster Coastal Advisory Group 13 The group discussed next steps. The consultant team will update the document based on the group discussion, highlighting the conditions under which the group concluded, then submit it to Mr. Chris Miller. Mr. Chris Miller will then submit it to the Board of Selectmen. CBI will coordinate scheduling to find a time for the group to present the strategy to the Board of Selectmen. Coastal Committee members on the BCAG will convene a subcommittee of the Coastal Committee to plan the presentation to be delivered to the Board of Selectmen. Members thanked each other for the opportunity to work together on this issue. The facilitators thanked the group for their dedication. Ms. Cindy Bingham thanked the BCAG for their service. Public Comment No members of the public commented on the evening’s discussion.