Table of Contents

PRIMARY RESEARCH FINDINGS

The primary research findings are summarized in the ten points below.

It is critical before planning any participation effort to understand current and likely future community concerns about higher-density development.

These concerns are usually misconceptions--they may be exaggerated while containing grains of truth. Concerns can also involve the perceived character or reputation of proponents and opponents. Planning strategically for a public participation effort means structuring a process with the right concerns in mind. Focusing on the wrong concerns, or treating valid concerns as misconceptions or exaggerations, can result in failure. When addressing community concerns, it is critical to acknowledge and understand the presence of multiple communities that should be brought into the public planning process.

Overcoming distrust and other emotionally based barriers requires a genuine, sincere commitment to community involvement.

Many parties have a legitimate stake in development choices, and neighborhood wishes will not always outweigh the interests of other stakeholders, such as landowners, investors, developers, and neighborhood businesses. The immediate neighbors' concerns, however, must be sincerely viewed and visibly treated as legitimate. They must not be dismissed out of hand as merely NIMBY (not in my backyard) selfishness.

Community planning and development increasingly are being approached in a manner designed to avoid and prevent conflict.

Some of the features of this preventive approach include beginning a participatory planning process before proposing anything specific; making great efforts to be inclusive, representative, and balanced in selecting process participants; focusing first on developing a positive vision of what residents want for their neighborhood and community; creating development standards intended to ensure quality design; and focusing time and attention on developing solutions to problems that will arise with growth and development.

Many helpful techniques and tools have been developed and are available for use by local planners in collaborative community-based planning processes.

Techniques include meeting facilitation, charrettes and design workshops, visioning exercises, image preference surveys, focus groups, Web-based interactions, project tours, and regional planning exercises. Tools include digital photo simulations, visualization software, traffic modeling software, and fiscal, economic, and environmental impact modeling software. Identification of the best tool or technique or the best combination of tools and techniques will vary. It is critical to evaluate the circumstances of a planning proposal or process and then select the most appropriate approaches to undertaking collaborative community-based planning.

Elected and appointed officials, senior planners, and other staff and consultants must provide skillful and committed leadership for these processes to work.

Much of the skill is in the effective use of the strategies, methods, techniques, and tools discussed in this report. Process leaders must be willing to allocate the time (from multiple departments, not just planning) and other resources needed to make the process work and to demonstrate that the local government takes the process seriously.

When a group process is chartered, it is often valuable to establish broad planning goals and principles at the outset.

This charter, or mandate, can help keep a group on track and make a productive outcome more likely.

Ensuring feasible outcomes is a key objective of a successful collaborative planning process.

As a process moves beyond the development of specific principles, goals, and objectives to consideration of detailed development regulations, specific plans, and specific policy decisions, it is critical to deal with such implementation practicalities as market and financial feasibility assessment, design guidelines and specifications, and consistent development review procedures.

Careful, accurate documentation of the results of a public participation process is critical to retaining the value of the effort.

Memories fade, elected officials, city staff, and residents leave, and new people participate. Documentation is a key part of creating institutional memory, and refreshing the memory reinforces the conclusions. Bringing participants together for periodic updates and discussions can help retain group cohesiveness and energy. This assures both residents and developers that the outcome is realistic and its implementation over time will conform to their expectations. This, in turn, is critical both to securing private investments and to gaining taxpayer support for the needed public investments in infrastructure and facilities.

Higher-density projects often maximize benefits to a neighborhood or community only when there is adequate funding to meet infrastructure, facility, and ongoing service needs.

While developers may be able to cover some of these requirements, in many cases there is no alternative to taxpayer funding for a portion of the cost. Local government revenues and revenue-generating options (as determined by state law) often do not give cities and counties sufficient resources to meet the needs generated by higher-density development.

Collaborative planning processes hold, in principle, great potential to help California move in the direction of promoting more concentrated and efficient growth practices, but they will be greatly constrained by the broken condition of local government finance.

Until California's local government financing is fixed, no amount of good citizen process is likely to make more than a portion of proposed, desirable projects successful. Repairing local government finance requires making it sufficient to fund both the capital and operating needs created by higher-density infill projects, and consistent (in terms of incentives and subsidies) with more compact growth development policies.

Background

This report continues the research described in Making Growth Work for California's Communities, published by the Mineta Transportation Institute in May 2003. Making Growth Work included the results of a survey of planning officials from throughout California. The 200 jurisdictions responding to the survey represented 58 percent of the state's population and included all areas of the state and all types of communities. The following are key findings of that research:

Cities and counties throughout California anticipate land use intensification. Responding to the question, "In general, would you say that your jurisdiction is moving in the direction of using land more intensively?", 153 of the 200 responding jurisdictions, representing all population sizes, geographical locations, and social and economic circumstances, answered "Yes."

Restriction of urban expansion is a large and growing trend in California. Of the 128 jurisdictions that found the issue applicable (those that were not surrounded by other jurisdictions or natural barriers), 85 reported that they are moving toward restricting outward growth.

The highest levels of growth-related controversy reported by survey respondents involved intensification of uses, particularly housing uses, in existing residential neighborhoods.

Growth-related controversies could increase significantly in coming years. Many jurisdictions are still studying or only beginning to implement new planning approaches. The population and economic growth projected for California, especially when combined with restrictions on outward growth, will force planners to attempt to situate a large amount of new development within existing communities.

Strategies used by jurisdictions that have successfully implemented new planning approaches include extensive neighborhood and community involvement in the planning process, attention to design detail, use of visualization techniques, and improvement of community facilities and services within and around new projects. These strategies require funding and skills not always available to jurisdictions.

California communities that hope to accommodate projected growth within existing boundaries without encountering potentially debilitating opposition from residents must substantially enhance existing planning resources and skills, involve neighborhoods and communities in shaping their own futures, provide guidance to ensure that growth is accommodated in a manner beneficial to the community, and secure adequate and stable funding sources.

Research completed for this project reinforced the finding that densification of development, particularly residential development in or adjacent to existing neighborhoods, will be increasingly controversial. The research described in this report is intended to address the need of local elected and appointed officials, planners, and other local staff and project proponents for more and better information, skills, techniques, and tools to cope with these controversies and avoid debilitating opposition to the intensification of land uses.

Research Objectives and Methodology

The four basic methods of managing conflict are confrontation, compromise, consensus, and avoidance. Each method has its own assumptions and ways of implementation, and any one may succeed. Confrontation is used when one side has overwhelming power and does not care what happens beyond completing the task at hand. Compromise is more likely when each side has comparable power and is willing to accept a solution that is not fully palatable but meets some or many of its goals. Consensus occurs when each side realizes its goals can be achieved through cooperation and collaboration. Avoidance is used when the outcome does not matter or one side realizes it cannot win.

This study focuses on consensus as the best method to promote community involvement and the successful completion of higher-density projects.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Many local and regional planners, planning consultants, and community relations experts have worked diligently to develop improved strategies, tools, and techniques to cope with the controversies arising from higher-intensity community growth and development.

At the same time, methods of dealing with conflict have progressed greatly in recent years. New strategies, concepts, tools, and techniques for conflict resolution and win-win negotiation have been developed in university programs and by practitioners in many fields. From labor relations to neighborhood disputes, from tort avoidance to family counseling, much has been learned about dealing with what appears to some to be the innate contentiousness of people. This work has helped planners and development project proponents to devise new strategies, tools, and techniques for dealing with growth-related conflicts.

This project had several research objectives related to understanding and documenting the progress that has been made. The following were the main objectives:

To investigate contemporary research and work by selected localities and consultants in achieving community acceptance for higher densities.

To describe the strategies and methods that can contribute to success in gaining community acceptance of higher-intensity land uses.

To assemble a package of nuts-and-bolts public involvement and decision-making techniques and tools that local and regional officials, planners, and project proponents can consider and draw upon in fashioning their land use and transportation planning and development review activities.

To identify which strategies, methods, techniques, and tools have been successful in particular circumstances, to evaluate why they have been successful, and to describe what others can learn from these successes.

To identify barriers to the successful use of strategies, methods, techniques, and tools, and consider what steps might reduce these barriers.

METHODOLOGY

The research conducted for this project had three primary components: literature review focused on identifying techniques and tools, consultant interviews, and case studies. The methodology for each is summarized below. The work products for each discrete research component are contained in appendices as referenced in each summary. The results of all research components were integrated into the analytical presentation contained in the body of this report.

Literature Research on Techniques and Tools

Online literature, published books, articles, brochures, and academic journals were reviewed to compile an index of the tools and techniques that have been used successfully to gain community acceptance of higher-density development. This literature review was completed by San José State University Department of Urban and Regional Planning graduate student Sanhita Mallick under the direction of Professor Dayana Salazar, Acting Chair, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, San José State University.

Three literature review products are contained in See Tools and Techniques: See A Summary of Tools, See A Summary of Techniques, and See Database of Tool Developers. The final product, a Bibliography, begins on See Bibliography.

Consultant Interviews

See Exploratory Research on Potential Case Studies and the professional knowledge of the principal investigator and the other team members, were used to select consultants for telephone interviews. The consultants selected have been actively involved in higher-density development projects. A template of questions for the interviews was prepared. It focused on gaining the consultants' insights concerning the usefulness of (and problems associated with) various strategies, methods, techniques, and tools. Draft summaries of the interviews were prepared and reviewed by research team members. A final summary of each interview was prepared, along with a summary of all four interviews; these are presented in Appendix C.

Case Studies

A preliminary Internet-based search was conducted by Sanhita Mallick to generate a list of potential case studies. See Exploratory Research on Potential Case Studies provides information on 20 projects that were potential candidates for case studies. It includes a narrative on each project, website addresses where more information can be obtained, and contact information for city staff, consultants, or developers involved in the project.

The list of potential case studies was identified by the following criteria:

Development plans and projects with proposed densities higher than the norm for the community, with an emphasis on mixed-use projects and transit-oriented development;

Plans and projects that had been implemented in the preceding five years; and

Plans and projects in urban, suburban, and exurban environments in the northern, southern, and central regions of California.

Local government officials and private planning consultants were asked to provide assistance in identifying additional potential case studies. Technical planning reports, books, and promotional materials on higher-density development and community participation were also used as a basis for identifying potential case studies.

Key planning staff and consultants in charge of the citizen participation process for 30 projects were contacted, and preliminary telephone interviews discussed projects in more detail. These preliminary interviews focused on the extent to which the planning and development teams met with community opposition, and how actual or potential opposition was addressed.

Next, the research on potential case studies and the consultant interviews were reviewed by the project team to select the eight full case studies to be completed for the project. The following criteria used in selecting the eight case studies:

Applicability to a wide range of communities;

Impact on, and involvement with, a large group of people;

Carefully developed and high-quality initial policy or development proposals;

Use of a creative array of tools and techniques in the public review process;

Use of public and private financial resources applied to mitigation;

A statewide distribution of projects, from northern, southern, and central areas; and

A diversity of significant planning or development project types, such as urban and suburban infill and community expansion.

The team decided that the case studies would include three locations in Southern California, three in Northern California, and two in the Central Valley. The selected case studies were investigated further. Individual development projects within the City of Sacramento were considered, but the Sacramento Blueprint planning project was selected as a Central Valley regional growth case study. The eight case studies were too few to enable the research team to reach conclusions regarding regional distinctions. The criteria upon which each case study was selected are presented in detail in each case study write-up. The final list of case studies, which are evaluated in See Case Studies, are as follows:

City of Brea -- Downtown Revitalization

City of Hercules -- Central District Plan

City of Milpitas -- Midtown Specific Plan

City of Pasadena -- General Plan Revision

City of Reedley -- Specific Plan

Sacramento Area Council of Governments -- Blueprint Project

City of San Diego -- A City of Villages Strategic Framework, General Plan

City of San Jose -- Five Wounds/Brookwood Terrace Neighborhood Improvement Plan

The research team's initial interest in having some case studies of unsuccessful planning efforts was rejected because of the limited number of case studies. The definition of success varies among the case studies. An objective definition of success would be valuable; however, the team concluded that such a definition would require a longer time perspective than is possible for the issues and approaches investigated in this study.

The case studies were prepared by two members of the research team. Applicable websites were reviewed and, when possible, written copies of studies and related documents were obtained.

Persons with differing perspectives or roles were selected to be interviewed for each of the eight case studies. An initial interview format was developed. Two case studies were completed as a test; then the researchers, individually and as a group, assessed the interviews. The research team modified the initial interview template to focus the interviews more tightly on the core objectives of the study. Interviews were attempted, and in some case arranged, with citizen participants in the planning process. The research team found it difficult to reach private sector participants; therefore, feedback from the community was generally derived from discussions with public officials and from review of testimony recorded in community workshops and other public meetings.

As the research progressed, three initially selected case studies were replaced by others that the team felt would yield more useful information. Members of the research team reviewed the draft case studies, and revisions were made based on the review comments.

See Case Studies contains all eight completed case studies and a summary overview of case study findings.

Understanding Community Concerns

Each community is distinct and different from other locations. Within what is generally thought of as a community are multiple communities that have varying impacts on and expectations of the public land-use planning process. Before presenting or analyzing the strategies, methods, techniques, and tools available to address community concerns and fears related to more intense development, it is important first to consider what those concerns and fears may be.

It is beyond the scope of this research to develop an exhaustive list of possible concerns, but the public agency staff or development proponent should remember that people can harbor many concerns -- including variations and combinations of those concerns -- about the impacts of a proposed development or planning project.

Some common concerns that may be present in a community or neighborhood are discussed below.

PROJECT-RELATED CONCERNS

Concerns can involve common misconceptions, such as a loss of property value, an increase in the crime rate, or the degraded appearance of the neighborhood. These fears are often unfounded, and in some cases the impact of a project may be exactly the opposite -- improved property values, greater safety, and enhanced neighborhood appearance. Often, these concerns are raised based on an earlier generation of poorly designed higher-density developments. When a proposed project is not well designed, these can be legitimate issues.

Concerns may be related to the impacts of significantly increasing the number of persons in an area. Issues can include traffic and parking impacts; school overcrowding; increased use of public facilities such as neighborhood parks, branch libraries, or community centers that may already be overburdened; additional demands on public services such as police and fire response, where existing services levels are already perceived as inadequate; or additional demands on privately provided services that are perceived as inadequate.

These concerns may be entirely unfounded, as the project proponent may be planning (or required) to contribute to improved facilities or services to an extent equal to or greater than the additional demands the proposed development would create. These concerns may have some reality but be exaggerated, and the project's proposed mitigations may address most of the additional demands. These concerns may be substantial, and the project or the local government may be unable or unwilling (for physical, financial, legal, or other reasons) to provide or require mitigations that address the additional demands created by a project.

PROPONENT-RELATED CONCERNS

Aside from the actual or feared impacts of a proposed project itself, some communities may have concerns about the local government or about developers. There may be a generalized mistrust of government ("in the pockets of the developers and special interests," for example). Views such as "the city just wants the tax revenues," or "those politicians just want the city to get bigger and bigger so they can have more power" may be encountered. Specific histories with the local government, or with specific developers or projects, may have left a legacy of distrust or suspicion. Ideological views can cause residents or businesses to be suspicious of proposals coming from local government or from developers, or of projects that involve eminent domain, taxpayer subsidies, tax increment redevelopment, or other specific features.

In addition to predispositions and historically developed attitudes, concerns may be raised by the way in which a developer or a local government has acted recently. If the attitude toward neighborhood advocates is dismissive or patronizing ("a bunch of selfish NIMBY reactions"), or if residents believe that project proponents are just going through the motions of listening while the decisions have already been made, neighborhood residents may well be hostile.

PROCESS-RELATED CONCERNS

The public review process for a development proposal must be sensitive to project- and proponent-related concerns as well as specific community concerns and issues. The review process for higher-density projects should address the specifics of the proposal and the needs, concerns, and interests of the community. Structuring the review process is addressed in the next two sections, "Thinking Strategically" and "Preventing Polarization in the Planning Process." See Public Involvement Program Design Checklist contains a "Public Involvement Program Design Checklist" that will assist in identifying specific process-related concerns.

Thinking Strategically

A workable path into the future cannot be charted without knowing the terrain to be navigated and the obstacles to be surmounted. Thinking strategically about community growth and development, and specifically about the intensification of land uses, requires a thorough understanding of the terrain and the obstacles. If a planner responds to a valid concern as if it were a misconception, or responds to a community objection as if it were based on a project feature when it is the planner that the community distrusts, the public process will likely be unsuccessful, and the community may oppose the project.

The research on this project suggested that the first step in designing a public involvement process for a development should be to acquire an understanding of both public attitudes and the real impacts that a potential project or development plan may have on the interests of the various groups in the community. This understanding can be developed in several ways.

Some developers or planners meet privately with a small group of community leaders and neighborhood advocates to solicit their views before proposing anything. Some use formal focus groups or opinion surveys. Planners or developers frequently consult with other planners or developers who have been involved with previous projects or planning processes in the same area to gain insights from their experience. Increasingly, large-scale community processes, sometimes called "visioning" exercises, will be launched to involve community or neighborhood residents in expressing in some detail their hopes and fears for the future of their areas. Design charrettes can contribute to developing the necessary understanding.

In terms of the real and objective impacts of potential projects or development plans, the planning process should be informed from the outset by a factual and quantitative assessment of the infrastructure, facility, and service-level conditions and capacities in the area. With this understanding, the potential impacts of various projects or development patterns on traffic, schools, service facilities, service levels, and private services can be anticipated, at least in broad terms, and the planners or developers can avoid statements or proposals that residents may perceive as insensitive, uncomprehending, or uncaring.

Each community and neighborhood is unique, and can differ in a surprisingly large number of variables: attitudes; history; racial, ethnic, and income makeup; type and arrangement of current development; level of anticipated involvement in a governmental decision-making process; adequacy or inadequacy of current infrastructure, facilities, and services; unique community assets or problems; cultural or ideological factors; personalities and psychological needs of neighborhood leaders and activists; and much more. Thinking back to the description of concerns outlined in the preceding section, one can see the importance of thinking strategically.

If the community's main concerns come from misconceptions regarding property values, crime increases, or neighborhood appearance, techniques to convey more positive expectations about a project's impacts include slide presentations, tours of similar projects already constructed, visualization software, models, and data on property values or crime statistics from adjacent or similar projects. If these are not the primary concerns of residents, such efforts would not only be ineffective, they could exhaust a community's limited willingness to come to meetings or hear input about a project without ever addressing the real concerns. Equally important, if historical distrust is a significant factor, the choice of who will convey information could be critical. Failure to appreciate this factor could result in the information being dismissed out of disbelief. Again, failure could result from a lack of understanding of the situation.

Some concerns may be exaggerated but still have some validity. Other concerns may be largely or entirely valid. Sorting these out and establishing relative priorities again involves listening to and understanding the community's concerns and carefully analyzing the objective situation. This requires different tools and techniques from those used to deal with misconceptions -- for example, task forces, committees, charrettes, and visioning processes. For objective analysis, software for traffic modeling and other infrastructure analysis may be helpful, and quantitative assessment of additional demands on schools, community facilities, and service levels may be important. Different tools and techniques are needed for both the initial and the evolving understanding of the community's concerns and the objective situation.

To the extent that the community's concerns involve real, negative impacts, thinking strategically means anticipating where the process will go. The community involvement process must consider potential mitigations, which means that project proponents, planners and other governmental staff, and the community must clearly understand the physical, financial, legal, or other resources and constraints influencing possible mitigation strategies. For planners and other governmental staff and the project proponents, an early understanding of what mitigations may be possible can prevent unrealistic expectations and help to guide the community participation process in setting priorities between competing desires. Some negative impacts may be fully mitigated with a modest effort; others may be intractable because of insurmountable physical, financial, or legal constraints. Financial limitations may mean that one or another feature can be added to the project, but not both. The process of sorting this out must be participatory and frank if the local staff member or developer hopes to be believed at the end when reporting "This is the best that we can do."

The second important factor to think strategically about when planning a public participation process might be called compensating offsets. If the process is structured to bring them out, it will frequently be discovered that projects bring benefits as well as costs. New residents may expand the market sufficiently to make it possible to attract better neighborhood-serving stores and private recreational facilities. Development may provide the tax and fee base that allows local government to make long-needed improvements in community facilities, such as a neighborhood park, branch library, or community center. Developer-funded project mitigations may do more than mitigate: enlarged storm drains, street landscaping, intersection improvements, internal project open space, removal of blight, and the like can significantly improve the quality of neighborhood services or the appearance or livability of an area. These benefits may surprise residents who were focused on the negative, but the participation process must be carefully designed to bring out the benefits at a time and in a way that will not appear to be a whitewashing of a largely undesirable project.

Third, it is important not to overlook psychological factors such as a general distrust of government, ideological predispositions, class, race, or ethnic prejudices, past or continuing governmental arrogance (real or perceived), and grudges held for past actions by the local government or developers. Such factors can cause critical problems that doom participation efforts to failure: refusal of key persons to participate, rejection of information as untrue or dishonest because of who is conveying it, the perception that a process is insincere and that residents are being co-opted while the government or developer has no intention of listening to what they have to say, and so on. Such problems may be overcome, but only if they are well understood when the process is designed.

Strategies and tactics to overcome such problems include finding widely credible honest brokers (such as community nonprofits) to convene a participation process; selecting a chairperson who the community perceives as honest and fair; including residents and activists in the early participation process planning and in preplanning meetings; starting the process before heavy investments have been made by proponents; including all likely opponents in the process; making the entire process fully clear; carefully documenting discussions and decisions; and structuring the effort to get explicit community approval in successive stages.

The research on this project suggested strongly that overcoming distrust and other emotional barriers requires a genuine commitment to community involvement. Many parties have a legitimate stake in development choices, and neighborhood wishes will not always outweigh the interests of other stakeholders, such as landowners, investors, developers, neighborhood businesses, the local government that must serve the development, and adjoining communities or local governments that have to deal with spill-over impacts. If a community perceives itself as impacted by a development proposal, its concerns must be viewed sincerely and treated as legitimate, not be dismissed out of hand as merely NIMBY (not in my backyard) selfishness.

Preventing Polarization in the Planning Process

Communication experts know that it is harder to change an existing opinion than to form a new opinion. Once an adversarial process has started, it can be difficult to stop. When people dig in their heels for a fight, they tend to stop being receptive to information that conflicts with their existing opinions. As the expression goes, they would "rather fight than switch." Practitioners of conflict resolution and win-win negotiation know that conflict produces distinctive psychological dynamics. Human beings and human societies may have evolved genetically and culturally to respond to conflict in particular ways. Once our receptors signal "fight," we want to defeat those we see as our enemies.

The research completed for this project reinforced this common wisdom. Consultants and case study participants interviewed frequently described efforts to structure processes that start before polarization and conflict begin, and the literature reviewed displayed this same preference.

When the traditional approach to land-use planning is viewed in this context, it can seem as if it were designed to promote conflict. The developer or landowner makes a large investment of time and money and often generates a strong emotional commitment to a particular project concept. This first step starts a process in which everyone understands that the project proponent has a strong interest in not changing the proposal very much.

Because both professional planners and neighborhood advocates often believe that the developer is either politically influential or will try to be, they often feel that they must identify what is wrong with the project proposal and act quickly to get their case in front of decisionmakers before they have made up their minds in favor of the proposal. Thus, the proposal often functions like a red flag waved in front of a bull.

Because many people expect the proponent to exaggerate the benefits of the proposal, planners and community members have an incentive to exaggerate what they perceive as its problems. Everyone is positioning for a win-lose conflict, or at best for a win-lose negotiation. Planners look for areas of conflict with existing policies and analyze the impacts of the proposal on traffic, schools, and other facilities and service levels. Residents develop mental images of the project into which they and their neighbors pour their worst fears. Such paranoia helps project opponents to articulate their strongest case and to marshal as many allies as possible. When everyone girds for a fight, the results are seldom optimal.

Many thoughtful people on all sides of this process think there has to be a better way. Our research identified many features of an approach to community planning and development designed to minimize and, if possible, avoid conflict. The Public Involvement Program Design Checklist in See Public Involvement Program Design Checklist has questions that can help in establishing a project-specific public process. The following are some of the approaches highlighted in our re search:

Design the public process to fit the need. Care fully evaluate what experts and how much technical knowledge are needed to address issues and resolve potential disputes.

Identify real deadlines that affect the process and project.

Involve potentially interested parties in a participatory process before a specific proposal or plan has been created.

Involve experts in process facilitation and participation techniques who can help ensure that the process is open, frank, fair, and balanced, and is perceived that way to all concerned.

Identify how best to communicate with each participant group.

Involve, as conveners and task force or committee chairs or co-chairs, people the community knows to be fair and objective.

Involve community members in participation process planning from the beginning and at all stages; this reassures them that the process is not designed to be manipulative.

Organize every meeting with the understanding that it is important; never convey that people are attending an unimportant meeting. For each meeting, establish clear objectives; design an effective agenda; choose an appropriate time and location; take the time for effective outreach; prepare materials that clearly communicate key information; and prepare the meeting environment.

Make sure any task forces or committees are balanced and representative and not skewed toward the most vocal elements of the community.

Understand the possible facility- and service-level impacts of a potential project well enough to identify and involve everyone who might later realize that they have a stake.

Allocate adequate time and funds for a participation process. People feel manipulated when they feel rushed or are told there are no funds to provide adequate information or analysis.

Focus on what community members do not want for their neighborhood and community as well as what they do want, for example, through visioning exercises.

Avoid processes that encourage no change; use processes that encourage consideration of alternatives and options.

Involve the community in the architectural design process through such techniques as charrettes.

Structure a process to identify the positive impacts of potential projects, as well as the negative impacts.

Create a solution-oriented process in which mitigation needs and strategies are explored thoroughly, and methods to i ncrease offsetting benefits are identified and explored.

Articulate key issues and tradeoffs to facilitate people making tough decisions.

Be as clear as possible about the level and type of resources available and not available for impact mitigation or to increase offsetting benefits. This avoids raising false expectations, that can lead to the perception of a bait-and-switch situation.

Effective Techniques and Tools for Facilitating Communication

Because of differences in communities, it is critical to understand public attitudes and interests as well as the real and feared impacts of a potential project or development plan. The techniques and tools identified in this section and See Tools and Techniques can help to facilitate acquisition of knowledge about the community and public involvement. Additional information and Web resources are contained in See Web Resources and the See Bibliography.

No tool or technique is the best for all situations. The best tool or technique depends on the issue and the history, nature, and expectations of the community. Issues and communities vary greatly and the best approach is that which, after careful thought, best addresses the specific features of the situation being dealt with.

An Overview of Techniques

In this study, the term "techniques" means the procedures or methods used as part of public processes conducted to consider development proposals or planning options including specific land-use planning alternatives and general plan policies. The techniques presented and described below are drawn from literature review, consultant interviews, interviews completed for the case studies, the professional experience of the project team, and the Community Participation and Dispute Resolution class at the University of California at Davis.

Some of the most important techniques were discussed above in See Understanding Community Concerns See Thinking Strategically and See Preventing Polarization in the Planning Process The techniques discussed below should be considered in light of those three sections. For more details on techniques and references to providers of some tools used to implement specific techniques, see See Tools and Techniques, See Web Resources, and the Bibliography.

Task Forces and Committees

Groups that include community and neighborhood participants have a wide variety of purposes, from developing policies or design standards to evaluation of project or plan alternatives. Success usually means coming to clear and consistent conclusions by more than a narrow majority and without a bitter minority faction. To be most successful, groups should include all points of view, represent all stakeholders and community segments, be balanced, do all business and prepare work plans and agendas in the open, start before issues have become polarized, have clear goals and starting principles, be convened in a credible manner, be chaired by persons with process skills and a reputation for fairness, have adequate time to do their job, have adequate information to analyze their work, have facilitation and technical consultant support, have multilingual support if needed, and keep a clear and detailed record of their meetings and conclusions.

Public Meetings, Workshops, and Hearings

To be seen as fair and constructive and to obtain the best two-way communication, public meetings, workshops, and hearings should have most of the characteristics recommended for task forces and committees.

Meeting Facilitation

Trained meeting facilitators offer many valuable skills: getting everyone to participate; preventing one person or point of view from dominating; encouraging people to listen to each other; bringing out issues and perspectives to be seen and discussed more clearly; finding opportunities for agreement that others in the meeting may miss; identifying issues that need more discussion or for which better information might promote resolution; and recording the proceedings visibly so that people feel heard. Hiring a professional facilitator is often a worthwhile expense.

Charrettes and Design Workshops

According to the National Charrette Institute, the French word charrette , meaning "cart," was often used to describe the final, intense work effort expended by French art and architecture students to meet a project deadline. A charrette in a public process context combines this creative, intense work with public workshops and open houses. Participants can focus on the design of a particular development or the design of a larger area. Participants include members of the community as well as design experts. The design experts function as resource people, while members of the community, working in groups, develop possible solutions to the problems that are the focus of the charrette. The experts then evaluate the possible solutions, often integrating the work into a recommended design solution. Since design (both for appearance and functionality) is a particularly important issue for higher-density projects, charrettes and design workshops can both solicit detailed community input and build trust. Charrettes work best when a community is focused on building a positive vision for its future or when design inputs are needed from a community on a particular project. They may not work well when a community is trying to decide whether to go ahead with a controversial project.

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a group problem-solving process in which group members spontaneously contribute ideas to address a specific issue. Ideas are not evaluated when submitted, which encourages creativity and a wide range of possible solutions. Comments are recorded on large sheets of paper, and the ideas are sorted and analyzed after the brainstorming effort is completed. Brainstorming facilitates participation by all members of a group and can counter tendencies to focus on lowest common denominator solutions. Brainstorming can be used any time during a meeting.

Visioning Exercises

Visioning, sometimes called envisioning, refers to community participation processes designed to find common ground and reach consensus concerning future growth and development. Visioning is intended to give a community a better understanding of its surroundings, educate residents about potential improvement options, identify development preferences, define the desired changes from the development process, and promote a sense of ownership among community members. Depending upon the tools employed, a large number of participants can take part in these processes. Visioning exercises often employ image preference surveys, discussed below.

Image Preference Surveys

In an image preference survey, residents view contrasting pairs of images, such as streetscapes versus buildings, parks, or sidewalks. Using a rating system, the residents indicate which image from each pair they prefer. The results are tabulated and reviewed by the group. Contrasting images help participants make clear distinctions between what they like and dislike. The process contributes to the development of a common vision for the community. The opinions of a large number of participants can be gathered using this process. The effects of higher-density development as opposed to other types of development can be clearly identified. Several image preference tools are described and vendor contact information is provided in See Tools and Techniques.

Focus Groups and Opinion Surveys

Focus groups and opinion surveys can be helpful in understanding what residents want and do not want for their community and neighborhood. They can often elicit insights about underlying motives, beliefs, values, prejudices, and the like. As discussed earlier, really understanding the underlying basis of a community's objections to higher-density development is often critical in designing a public participation process that can engage and resolve those issues.

Priority Setting

A common way to have a group identify priorities is to give each participant a number of votes (for example, adhesive dots) to allocate among a list of possible actions, policies, or other potential outcomes. Items that receive the highest number of votes are the focus of subsequent discussion. Care must be taken to carefully define the alternatives and their potential limits, such as cost and relation to the total budget resources.

Online Interactive Communication

While a website may be seen as merely a tool, it is described here as a technique because of the potential to use it creatively and interactively to promote a dialogue between a community and its elected leaders and professional planners. Websites can convey written information, present still and moving images, display visualization software products and photo simulations (see See An Overview of Tools), receive feedback, host discussions, administer opinion and image preference surveys, expand the audience for meetings and public hearings, link to a wide range of other online educational resources, and more. Care must be exercised that use of the Web does not eliminate or substantially reduce the involvement of people who do not have access to a computer or are untrained in using computers.

Opinion Leader Identification and Outreach

In many communities, a focused effort to identify and involve key opinion leaders is critical to achieving a balanced and successful process. Respected leaders can provide credibility, stability, intelligence, and good judgment to the process. Their knowledge of community history enhances the understanding of concerns and values that have their origins in that history. They can identify other key persons and groups that should be involved, and can help in creating a process that is fair and representative in terms of points of view, interests, and community subgroups.

Public Information Programs

Community participation processes can benefit enormously from well-implemented public information programs. Objective factual information on modern design techniques, on the potential to mitigate adverse project impacts, and on how higher-density projects affect property values, neighborhood character, and crime rates can be beneficial in orienting a participatory process in realities rather than unfounded fears.

Idea Fairs

Idea fairs are carefully planned events at which members of a study group or the general public are invited to visit a site to receive information and provide ideas on particular issues. For example, a site that is the focus of a planning effort could have booths that address issues of concern in the process, such as building design, street design, landscaping, public art, and community access. The fair allows people both to receive information (for example, balloons could be set at proposed building heights) and provide reactions and suggestions.

Regionwide Planning Exercises

Some regional planning agencies (usually known either as metropolitan planning organizations or councils of governments) have participatory programs to educate citizens about the long-range benefits of more compact development. Regional planning exercises, especially when coupled with targeted pilot projects to create incentives, can lead to effective local implementation of densification.

Press and Editorial Board Education

The news media, both reporters and editorial writers, may have some of the same misinformation as residents about higher-density projects. If reporters and editorial writers are not clear about the facts relative to these issues, their coverage can easily increase community fears rather than calm them. A focused effort to give high-quality, well-documented information to the news media can help support a public process grounded in facts rather than fears.

Tours of Higher-Density Projects

Seeing, as they say, is believing. Few techniques are more effective in calming fears about higher-density projects' appearance, neighborhood impacts, residents, and effects on property values than visiting such projects in other neighborhoods and communities. Tours can include talking with project residents, neighborhood residents, and public officials such as police officers and park and recreation staff. This can present a realistic picture of how such projects affect an area.

Group Mapping

Group mapping usually involves individuals or smaller subgroups using base maps on which they record ideas, opportunities, possible solutions, and constraints. Mapping usually is conducted as a table-top exercise, since that facilitates use of the base maps. An alternative is to have clipboard-size maps used as part of a walking tour.

Exploring and Communicating Historical Experience

Relative to understanding the real fears and concerns of the community, it can be challenging to identify the negative lessons residents have brought from past experiences. Focus groups sometimes can get at these issues, and talking with long-term community residents and opinion leaders can also help. Meeting with developers who were active in the community in the past, and planners of similarly long tenure (including retired planners), also may help. Town history buffs, newspaper clipping files, old planning records, as well as existing projects in the community all may help to identify the nature and origin of community concerns about higher-density development.

Comprehensive Project and Options Analysis

Whether the analysis is of one project, several project options, specific land-use planning alternatives, or general plan options, the focus too often is limited mostly to the negative side -- what problems might the project(s) or option(s) create and how might the project(s) or option(s) conflict with existing policies? While such analysis is critical, the benefits a project might bring to a community or a neighborhood must also be examined. Benefits may be intrinsic to a project (for example, landscaping); they may be made possible by a project (such as improvements funded from project revenues to the local government), or they may be caused by a project (such as stimulating the development of better neighborhood-serving businesses). A comprehensive analysis should include consideration of both project mitigation possibilities (corrective improvements such as intersection modifications) and project offset possibilities (compensating improvements such as an expanded neighborhood park or branch library). Comprehensive analysis enables public process participants to consider all aspects of projects or options.

Focused Impact Studies

In addition to using impact-modeling software discussed in See An Overview of Tools, various consultants have developed methods for analyzing the fiscal, economic, and environmental impacts of projects or policies. Using these services can have benefits similar to those of the software packages, and such consultants are often best employed in conjunction with using software-modeling tools.

Project Occupancy Profiles and Income Projections

Working from the sale or rental prices projected for a residential project, it is often possible to create an occupancy profile , describing what income levels and occupations will be able to afford to buy or rent a unit in a proposed development. This often shows residents that their prospective new neighbors are likely to include teachers, police officers, and other people they feel positive about.

Comparable Project Property Value Analysis

Much research shows that higher-density projects generally do not have a negative effect on property values, and such projects may have the unexpected positive effect of improving the desirability or appearance of a neighborhood. Pulling together a sample of this research, and sometimes gathering local examples, will often convince residents that fears for the value of their property are unfounded.

An Overview of Tools

In this study, the term "tools" refers to devices used to prepare and convey information on development proposals or options (ranging from individual development proposals to specific land-use planning alternatives to general plan policies). The tools discussed below are drawn from literature review, consultant interviews, preliminary and final interviews completed for the case studies, and the professional experience of the project team.

For more details on the tools discussed below, and for references to providers and vendors along with websites and contact details, see See Tools and Techniques. Visioning process support tools (image preference surveys) were discussed in See An Overview of Techniques, and details on providers along with contact information are also in See Tools and Techniques.

Digital Photo Simulation

A digital image of an existing streetscape or built environment can be modified by adding a proposed building or buildings, other proposed design features such as street lights, trees, and grass medians, and transportation features such as light rail, bike lanes, and parking lanes. Photo simulations let community members compare a project area before and after a proposed development. Several development alternatives can be assessed. This process also can illustrate changes incrementally -- first adding a median, then street trees and lights, then a building, and so on. Since the present and the future appearance of an area can be displayed side by side, photo simulations can show the unanticipated positive impacts of higher-density development. As a result, they can promote community acceptance.

Visualization Software

Visualization software displays realistic views of a project or alternative projects to assess the impact of specific policy and development options. These tools can convey a clear understanding of the visual effects of a project, which is often a concern for community members. Sometimes they permit viewing only a predetermined number of perspectives, but more elaborate software incorporating GIS capabilities can show a project from any perspective and can allow viewers to make project changes quickly, thus accommodating the participatory process. Animated 3-D views can show the visual experience when someone walks through or drives past a proposed development. Dynamic 3-D views created with sophisticated software can produce multiple views from different locations, conveying a clearer understanding of the visual characteristics of a proposed project.

Traditional Graphic Representations

Traditional graphic tools used to present projects and their surrounding areas include drawings, photographs, slides, colored maps, aerial photographs, and traffic flow diagrams. Public process participants often understand graphically presented projects or data more readily than projects or data presented using verbal descriptions, charts, or tables. Maps of the surrounding area as well as aerial photographs can present a project in a broader perspective and assist community members in understanding other land uses in a project area.

Three-Dimensional Models

Three-dimensional models are physical models of a proposed project and its surroundings that show the project boundary, buildings, streets, open spaces, landscaping details, and uses of surrounding parcels. Models may show only the volume of the buildings, or show in detail how the buildings would actually look. They show the relationship of built spaces to open spaces (parks, plazas, roads, and so on) in and around the development, and the relationship between the scale and mass of the proposed buildings and that of surrounding buildings (often a point of concern for higher-density developments).

Traffic Modeling Software

Traffic modeling software visualizes the impacts of projects, plans, and policies on auto traffic as well as on other trip modes, both within a neighborhood and on the regional network. With this tool, mitigation measures can often be tested for effectiveness, as can the impact of a project or a plan after all measures have been implemented and assessed. Such modeling can also show the intersections and roadway segments, for example, where traffic impacts are likely to be too small to be noticed, alleviating fears. By showing the potential increased demand for non-auto transit services, they can help justify and plan for the provision or improvement of bus or light-rail services or the construction of improved bike or pedestrian facilities.

Fiscal, Economic, and Environmental Impact Modeling

Software packages that model and project the fiscal, economic, and environmental impacts of new development projects or plans can help define appropriate mitigations, help alleviate baseless fears, and demonstrate the prospective benefits of projects or plans.

Keys to Success and Barriers to Overcome

Much of what has been discussed in this report involves aspects of the strategies, methods, techniques, or tools that contribute to successful community participation processes related to planning for higher-density development. This section summarizes some of the project team's overarching conclusions, presents what we believe to be the most important keys to success in winning approval for higher-density plans and projects, and reviews the daunting barriers that remain to making density work for California's neighborhoods and communities.

OVERARCHING CONCLUSIONS

The research conducted for this project, plus the research completed to prepare Making Growth Work for California's Communities (Mineta Transportation Institute, May 2003), yield three main conclusions.

First, large amounts of higher-density development will not be imposed on California's communities against their will or wishes. Battles may sometimes be won in spite of community opposition, but the war will only be won with community support.

Second, communities and neighborhoods will only support higher-density development if they are convinced it is in their interest to do so, which requires the involvement of residents and other stakeholders in an intensive collaborative process of community planning. Only in this way will myths be dispelled, fears calmed, conflicts resolved, and agreements forged about what to build and where to build it.

Third, although cleverness sometimes convinces communities that higher-density development is in their interest, consistent results will be based on truthfulness. For higher-density development to be in the best interest of communities and neighborhoods, regional, state, and federal action is needed on several fronts. Dysfunctional incentives and subsidies to poorly planned growth must be phased out. Barriers to well-planned, well-designed higher-density development must be reduced. Incentives to support and encourage more intensive and balanced land use must be provided. Perhaps most important, adequate public funding must be assured for the essential facility and service investments without which higher-density communities will not be higher-quality places to live, work, and raise a family.

Sophisticated techniques for persuasion and for avoiding and resolving conflict will not substitute for the other actions needed to make higher-density growth work for California's communities.

KEYS TO SUCCESS

Some of the most critical elements to successful community participation are outlined below.

Understand Concerns and Think Strategically

Take the time and effort needed to fully understand a neighborhood's or community's aspirations, values, concerns, fears, and history as those relate to growth and development. Recognize that a physical area identified as a community consists of multiple communities, each of which needs to be understood. With this understanding, think strategically about how to structure a collaborative planning process.

Provide Skillful and Committed Leadership

Elected and appointed officials, senior planners, and other administrators must provide skillful and committed leadership for these processes to work. Leadership includes a sincere commitment to community involvement. Much of the skill is in the effective use of the strategies, methods, techniques, and tools discussed in this report. "Committed" means being willing to allocate the time and resources (from multiple departments, not just planning) needed to make the process work and to demonstrate that the local government takes the process seriously. Part of being committed flows from the sincere belief that residents have a legitimate stake and a right to participate; part flows from a conviction that collaborative planning is valuable. The importance of this commitment, and of making it visible to community participants, is difficult to overstate.

Avoid Premature Decisions

Start a community process before key decisions have been made, not after. This makes it clear to participants that the process matters and avoids polarizing participants.

Establish a Positive Vision

If participants define what they want for their neighborhood and community rather than just what they do not want, it will be possible later to consider options in a more balanced way, make tradeoffs, and proceed realistically. It will also be easier to see development as an opportunity to achieve improvement.

Build Trust and Ownership at Every Opportunity

Ensure an open process by doing everything in public and involving participants in planning the process. Do not rush or pressure participants; provide the information they need to evaluate all the issues fairly. Avoid manipulation or the appearance of manipulation. Do not make false assurances or raise false hopes about available resources. Keep careful records of discussions and decisions. Provide a fair chairperson. Make sure that groups are balanced and representative. Make sure that opponents are in the group rather than outside it, and do not try to discourage opponents from having their say. Make sure that all stakeholders are represented. Get professional facilitation as needed, and be proactively honest about the pros and cons of any option under consideration.

Establish Clarity Concerning Goals and Principles

When a group process is chartered, broad planning goals and principles should be established at the outset. This can help keep a group on track and make a productive outcome more likely.

Ensure Predictable Outcomes

As a process moves beyond the development of specific principles, goals, and objectives to consideration of detailed development regulations, specific plans, and specific policy decisions, it is critical to deal with such implementation practicalities as market and financial feasibility assessment, design guidelines and specifications, and consistent development review procedures.

Ensure Accurate Documentation

Careful, accurate documentation of the results of a public participation process is critical to retaining the value of the effort. Memories fade, elected officials, city staff, and residents leave, and new people participate. Documentation is a key part of creating institutional memory, and refreshing the memory reinforces the conclusions. Bringing participants together for periodic updates and discussions can help retain group cohesiveness and energy. This gives both residents and developers real assurance that the outcome is realistic and that its implementation over time will conform to their expectations. This is critical both to securing developer investments and to gaining taxpayer support for the needed public investments in infrastructure and facilities.

BARRIERS TO OVERCOME

If planning for higher-density development were easy, everyone would do it successfully. As indicated in the "Overarching Conclusions" section above, there are real barriers to making it work. Some of the more significant barriers, both local and those arising from the decisions and those policies of higher levels of government, are described below.

A Collaborative Planning Process Is Expensive and Time Consuming

Local government operating budgets are often hard pressed to cover even basic essential services. Planning staffs are frequently stretched to the limit, and the time demands of participatory planning can appear difficult at best. Finding time and money for staff training, or to acquire the software or other tools to support various planning processes, can also seem daunting.

Budgets Inadequate to Meet Demands of Higher-Density Development

Higher-density projects often maximize net benefits to a neighborhood or community only if there is adequate funding to meet infrastructure, facility, and ongoing service needs. While developers may be able to cover some of these requirements, often there is no alternative to taxpayer funding for part, sometimes a significant part, of the cost. Local government revenues and revenue-generating options (as determined by state law) often do not enable local government to meet the needs generated by higher-density development. In fact, funds are frequently diverted (directly or indirectly) to provide incentives and subsides that encourage sprawl rather than higher-density infill projects.

Traditional Attitudes Often Not Supportive

Some attitudes common in local government are barriers to successful citizen participation processes. Professionalism on the part of planners, engineers, and other staff often makes it difficult for them to let go of control and cede real power to a citizen-based planning process. Reinforcing this is the tendency to equate the self-interest of neighbors to selfish NIMBYism. Although when larger entities such as landowners, developers, or schools represent self-interest it is often seen as legitimate, sometimes it is perceived as selfish when neighborhoods are