Urban Planing Term Paper
abdlla16
weed8_wed_2015.pptxWhat is a Public Participation Plan?
URBS 300
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
James Ring Scholarships
$1,000; 2 awarded
Requirements
URBS Major
60 units completed by end of spring semester
Not a graduating senior
Essay of 500 words on how scholarship will help for career objectives
Attend ceremony
Strong candidates
Cumulative GPA >3.2
URBS Major GPA >3.5
Service activity in campus or community organizations
Due March 13, 2015 to Prof. Henrik Minassians
http:// www.csun.edu/social-behavioral-sciences/urban-studies-planning/james-ring-scholarship-awards
California Planning Foundation Scholarship
$1,000
Excellent academic record
Senior in 2015-16 academic year
500 word essay why planning is important to you, how scholarship will help, short- and long-term career goals
2 letters of recommendation
Demonstration of financial need
Due March31, 2015
http ://www.csun.edu/social-behavioral-sciences/urban-studies-planning/california-planning-foundation-scholarships
Railway Association of Southern California Scholarship
2 undergraduate scholarships or $3,000
Enrolled in Fall 2015 in degree program related to rail transportation industry
Minimum GPA of 3.0
Interest in profession in rail transportation industry
Need a letter of recommendation and personal statement
Due March 30, 2015
http:// www.railwayassociation.org/scholarship.html
WTS: Ava Doner Memorial Undergraduate Scholarship
2 awarded: $4,000 or $6,000
Open to women only
Due in October, awarded in November
http://www.wtsinternational.org/losangeles//scholarships /
Association for Women in Architecture Foundation
$1,000
California resident or accredited California school
Due April 22
Application form, transcript, 2 sealed recommendations, personal statement, portfolio
Can be senior year
http://awaplusd.org/scholarships /
Pacific Water Quality Association
“Major of Study Related to Potable Water Quality Scholarship”
$1,000
Proof of enrollment
Essay on usefulness of education and how money will help
Transcripts
Application
Letter of recommendation
http:// www.pwqa.org/images/shared/scholarship_application.pdf
Mail-in, must be received by April 1, 2015
California Transportation Foundation: Bimla G Rhinehart Memorial Scholarship
$2,500
Dues April 1, 2015
Application, Essay, Letter of Recommendation, and Resume
Will post to URBS website
Public Participation Planning
Decision Analysis
Clarify the decision being made
Specify the steps and schedule
Decide need and purpose of public participation
Process Planning
Specify anticipated accomplishments of each step
Indentify stakeholders
Identify techniques for each step
Link techniques into a plan
Implementation Planning
Plan implementation of each activity
Public Participation Planning
Decision Analysis
Clarify the decision being made
Specify the steps and schedule
Decide need and purpose of public participation
Process Planning
Specify anticipated accomplishments of each step
Indentify stakeholders
Identify techniques for each step
Link techniques into a plan
Implementation Planning
Plan implementation of each activity
Six Steps of Decision Analysis
Decide who needs to be involved
Clarify the decision-maker
Clarify the problem
Specify stages and their schedule
Identify constraints
Decide need for and type of public participation
Who Needs to be Involved
Identify the decision-maker
Others in your agency involved with plan
Public affairs
Governmental affairs
Graphics & layout
Publications
Contracting
Local office managers
Identification and inclusion will help increase success (they will identify with the plan)
Clarify Decision-Maker
Difficult to identify
Low level: decision overridden
High level: not involved
Involve them early, ask them to:
Identify potential controversial issues
Identify stakeholders who will influence senior management
Identify participants to provide credibility
Determine frequency of reviews
Identify boundaries and constraints to apply to the process
Indicate desire to review the public participation plan
Create partnerships with those who can “veto” results
Clarify the Problem
What is the problem?
Planning team (your agency) should identify
Frequently conflicting points-of-view
Resolve conflicts to focus the plan
Is the project needed?
Is the problem value-oriented (not technical)?
Are many technical decisions catalyzed from public input?
Are innovative solutions allowed?
Specify Stages and Their Schedule
5 generic decision-making steps
Define the problem
Establish evaluation criteria
Identify alternatives
Evaluate alternatives
Select a preferred alternative
Why is this useful?
Determine appropriate public participation stages
Explain to public and get buy-in
Time-frame with back-end date
Identify Constraints
Agency already committed
No need for public participation
Internal opposition to public participation
Schedule or resource constraints
Constraints on release of information
Decide Need for Public Participation
Questions to consider to determine need
Is public participation required?
Is the decision likely to be controversial?
Significant impacts
Decision has uneven impacts
Impact existing vested interest or use (rights)
Already controversial issue (or tied to)
Is there a trade-off of values?
Decide Type of Public Participation
| Goal | Type of Program |
| Better-informed public | Public information program |
| Fulfill requirements | Minimal; lose credibility if controversial issue |
| Opportunity for public to voice opinion, no interaction expected | Public hearing (1-way) |
| Support or informed consent | Collaborative problem-solving |
| Full agreement | Defined negotiation process, parties with ability to make binding commitments |
Public Participation Planning
Decision Analysis
Clarify the decision being made
Specify the steps and schedule
Decide need and purpose of public participation
Process Planning
Specify anticipated accomplishments of each step
Indentify stakeholders
Identify techniques for each step
Link techniques into a plan
Implementation Planning
Plan implementation of each activity
Eight Steps of Process Planning
Decide on planning team
Identify stakeholders and potential issues
Assess controversy
Define public participation objectives
Analyze necessary information exchange
Identify special considerations
Select public participation techniques
Prepare a public participation plan
Decide on Planning Team
Group may change from decision analysis step
Identify Stakeholders and Potential Issues
Stakeholders
Make sure none are left out
Target the program
Assess controversy levels
Indicate if internal/external
Internal may have significant power
One identification tool
Economics
Use
Mandate
Proximity
Values/Philosophy
Other tools
Self-identification
Prior documents
Ask interested people
Staff knowledge
Past participation in similar issues
Determine Stakeholders Roles
Unsurprised Apathetic
Provide them with information
Observers
Read papers and reports
Only get involved if something is upsetting
Commenters
Too busy to be more involved than a meeting or two
Technical Reviewers
Required assessment methods
Active Participants
Committed
Need to include
Co-Decision Makers
Start early so they are committed
Identify Potential Concerns
Need time to address
Resolve studies
Policy decisions
Develop informational materials
Releasing information is time-consuming
Writing and editing
Require many internal reviews
Assess Controversy
Indicators of controversy
Significant impacts
Prior controversy
Related to major issue or power struggle
Local politics
Stakeholder group existence based on controversy
Helps to identify timing and involvement
Define Public Participation Objectives
What do we want from the public at the end of each stage?
| Stage | Objective |
| Define the problem | Obtain an understanding of view of all significant interests Identify level of public interest |
| Establish evaluation criteria | Identify a complete list of possible criteria Agree on evaluation criteria |
| Identify alternatives | Develop a list of all possible alternatives |
| Evaluate alternatives | Develop understanding of impacts Assess relative merit of alternatives by interests |
| Select a course of action | Determine most acceptable alternative |
Analyze Information Exchange
For each public participation objective
Identify information provided to stakeholders
Identify information needed from stakeholders
Identify Special Considerations
Timing (or lack thereof)
Technical complexity
Level of interest (numbers)
Importance to Groups
Public Awareness
Hostile or apathetic public
Divided or united public
Geographic extent
Outside interest
Maturity of issue
Existing institutions
Organization Credibility
Political Sensitivity
Pre-commitment
Resources
Select Public Participation Techniques
Activities for each stage
6 months is a critical length for no communication
Prepare a Public Participation Plan
Why develop?
Determine how public participation effects decision-making
Send for review to achieve buy-in
Informs management of progress and expected controversy
Shared with stakeholders to assess interest and commitment
Demonstrates rationale for decision if later controversy
What’s in it?
Description of consultations with outside groups
Key issues and controversies
Key affected people and their perceive controversy
Level of interest
Decision-making process
Planned public participation
Review points for planning process
Budget and staff resource requirements
Public Participation Planning
Decision Analysis
Clarify the decision being made
Specify the steps and schedule
Decide need and purpose of public participation
Process Planning
Specify anticipated accomplishments of each step
Indentify stakeholders
Identify techniques for each step
Link techniques into a plan
Implementation Planning
Plan implementation of each activity
Implementation Planning
Involve many people to make meetings work
Jointly develop the plan to develop buy-in
Who?
Spokesperson
Technical Experts
Meeting Facilitators
Graphic Artist
Publications
Publicity and Media Relations
Mailings
Logistics
Tricks of the Trade
Never take an elected official by surprise
Publication approval takes forever
Visit the meeting room in advance
Have a technology backup
Don’t outnumber the public
Background
Preliminary Consultation
Major Issues
Issues Management Program
Level of Interest
Interested Groups
Decision-Making Process
Public Participation Activities
Review Points
Participatory Plan
Background
Existing landfill close in 1999 (Sunny Glen)
Groundwater contamination
3-year temporary contract which will not be renewed
Incinerator discussed in mid-1990s
Air quality opposition
Approval
Department of Public Works lead agency
City Council to approve
Reviews by
Los Diablos County Solid Waste Division
California State Dept. of Health Services
Preliminary Consultation
Interagency Group (staff)
Sunny Glen
Department of Public Works
Planning Department
County of Los Diablos
Solid Waste Department
Planning Department
Environmental Compliance Department
California Department of Health Services
Engineering and environmental consultants
Consultation with:
City Council members
League of Women Voters
Neighborhoods Against Garbage (NAG)
Presidents of three neighborhood homeowners’ associations
Major Issues
City’s credibility: old facility not safe as city claimed.
Health risk and groundwater contamination: neighbors of any landfill will be extremely concerned.
Land use compatibility: landfill compatible with existing and future land uses?
Stigma: threat to property values and image of their neighborhood.
Traffic: Noise, dust, and traffic safety from movement of trucks. Expressed as a concern for children en route to or from school.
Reduction of waste stream: Environmental groups may oppose siting the landfill to force greater reduction of waste generated.
Issues Management Program
City’s credibility: Openness and visibility of entire process.
Health risk and groundwater contamination: Landfill impacts on groundwater involves major technical work. To ensure credibility:
Technical advisory committee will develop scope.
Citizen advisory committee will review scope.
Members of technical advisory committee help select engineering consultants.
Land use compatibility: During Stage 1, the members of citizen advisory committee were taken on a field trip to a modern sanitary landfill. Subsequent trips for neighborhood leaders scheduled as needed.
Stigma: Assess property value impacts from siting comparable facilities in other communities. Conclude by the end of Stage 1, before site identification. Discuss study design with both the citizen and technical advisory committees. If the study shows negative property value effects, mitigation to be identified and analyzed during Stage 2.
Traffic: Traffic studies for each site. Scope and consultant selection reviewed by both the citizen and technical advisory committees.
Level of Interest
With the history of the old landfill and the potential for neighborhoods to become organized in opposition to proposed sites, the level of citizen and group interest is expected to be very high, justifying an extensive public participation program.
Interested Groups
Neighborhood groups (notably NAG)
Organized during the closure of the old landfill: quite active.
Each possible host neighborhood is likely to organize.
Developers and owners of large parcels of land
Interested and concerned.
Future growth depends on solving the solid waste problem
Landfill location influences areas of future city development.
Environmental groups
Concerned with reducing the waste stream.
Concerned with groundwater contamination.
Select site with fewest environmental impacts.
City Council members
Potential controversy, want to be kept fully informed of all activities, particularly within their electoral district.
Decision-Making Process
| Stage | Completion |
| Stage 1: Informing the public about the need for a landfill | December 2004 |
| Stage 2: Identifying alternative sites | April 2005 |
| Stage 3: Evaluating alternative sites | February 2006 |
| Stage 4: Selecting a site | June 2006 |
| Stage 5: Construction planning | January 2007 |
Public Participation Activities: Stage 1 Informing the Public about Need for Landfill
Main objective: Make the public fully aware of siting emergency.
Second objective: Gain acceptance of proposed study methodology and public participation plan.
Public participation activities during this stage
Newspaper insert describing need for new landfill. Signed by influential community leaders.
Feature newspaper stories to describe problem.
Speakers’ bureau to make presentations at civic clubs, homeowners’ association meetings, and other local gatherings.
Talk shows with city council, city managers, and other recognized leaders.
Both a citizen advisory group and a technical advisory group (with technical representatives from agencies). Hire a facilitator.
Review the study methodology and public participation plan with both advisory groups.
Newsletter 1 describing (1) project need, (2) the establishment of the advisory group, (3) the study methodology, and (4) the public participation plan.
Public Participation Activities: Stage 2 Identifying Alternative Sites
Technical studies to identify potential sites.
Public participation objectives
Ensure public is satisfied all potential sites are considered
Agreement on criteria to evaluate sites.
The public participation activities include:
Series of public workshops. Public asked to
Propose alternative sites
Review the study methodology and public participation process.
Series of meetings with advisory groups to get agreement on evaluation criteria.
Series of coffee klatches with homeowners’ associations to discuss proposed evaluation criteria.
Newsletter 2, describing proposed evaluation criteria and process and announcing a town meeting.
Town meeting for final comments on evaluation criteria.
Public Participation Activities: Stage 3 Evaluating Alternative Sites
Screening out unacceptable sites and identifying final alternatives.
Public participation objectives
Ensure public is satisfied with alternatives screened out
Ensure public is fully informed about remaining alternatives.
The activities are:
Series of screening workshops with both advisory groups to screen out clearly unacceptable alternatives.
Series of meetings with homeowners’ associations to review screening decisions.
Newspaper insert 2 to describe alternatives dropped and remaining. Announce upcoming public workshops.
Paid advertisements to announce public workshops.
Series of public workshops to review remaining alternatives.
Newsletter 3 describing public comment on remaining alternatives.
Public Participation Activities: Stage 4 Selecting a Site
Preferred site identified and recommended to City Council.
Primary public participation objective: Develop consensus
The public participation activities:
Final evaluation workshop with the technical advisory group.
Evaluation workshop with the citizens’ advisory group.
Neighborhood workshop with remaining neighborhoods with potential sites.
Citizen advisory group retreat to develop recommendations for a preferred site.
Briefings with elected officials to announce the advisory group recommendation.
Meetings with neighborhood homeowners’ associations to explain the advisory committee recommendations.
Series of meetings with the neighborhood of proposed site to identify mitigation.
Newsletter 4 to announce advisory group recommendation and final public meeting.
Final public meeting to discuss the advisory group recommendation.
Newsletter 5 to announce the site and describe city council’s review process.
City council holds public hearings, as required by city regulations.
City council makes a decision.
Newsletter 6, announcing city council decision.
Public Participation Activities: Stage 5 Construction Plan
Primary public involvement objective: Finalize mitigation measures and minimize construction issues.
Public participation activities:
Series of neighborhood coffee klatches to discuss construction process and to identify neighborhood issues.
New advisory group consisting, primarily of neighbors plus one or two members from previous advisory groups.
Work with the new advisory group to develop alternative approaches for addressing neighborhood concerns and reducing construction impacts.
Handout describing approaches to addressing neighborhood concerns and inviting people to a series of neighborhood meetings.
Series of neighborhood meetings to get neighborhood reactions to approaches for reducing construction impacts.
Work with the neighborhood advisory group to evaluate the alternative approaches for reducing construction impacts, and develop a proposed plan.
Handout summarizing the proposed plan, and distribute it along with an invitation to a final round of meetings.
Series of neighborhood meetings to review proposed plan.
Brochure describing the plan to minimize constructions impacts, and mail it to every home in the neighborhood.
Review Points
Meeting to review plan
End of Stage 1 (Dec 2004)
End of Stage 2 (April 2005)
End of Stage 3 (Feb 2006)
Assignment for Monday
Background and Preliminary Consultation & Powerpoint Introduction
Background and Preliminary Consultation
What is the history of this project or area?
Identify why it is important for the public participation plan
Should be short and succinct but address all relevant inssues
Powerpoint Presentation
3-minutes long
Present the topic and background
Get relevant pictures and maps to show location and provide information
