Mineta
Transportation
Institute
Created by
Congress in
1991
MTI Report 03- 02
Higher- Density Plans:
Tools for Community
Engagement
MINETA TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
The Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies ( MTI) was created by
Congress through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ( ISTEA) and established in the
California State University system at the San José State University College of Business. MTI continues as a
University Transportation Center ( UTC), reauthorized in 1998 by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
( TEA- 21).
MTI is unique among UTC’s in two areas. It is the only center with an outside, internationally respected Board of
Trustees, and it is the only center located in a College of Business. The Board provides policy direction, assists with
needs assessment, and connects the Institute and its programs with the international transportation community. The
Institute’s focus on policy and management resulted from a Board assessment of the industry’s unmet needs and
led directly to the choice of the San José State University College of Business as the Institute’s home. MTI applies
the focus on international surface transportation policy and management issues in three primary areas:
Research
The Institute aims to provide policy- oriented research for all levels of government and the private sector, to foster
the development of optimum surface transportation systems. Research areas include: security of transportation
systems; planning and policy development; interrelationships among transportation, land use, the environment, and
the economy; financing of transportation improvements; and collaborative labor- management relations. Certified
Research Associates conduct the research. Certification requires an advanced degree, generally a Ph. D., a record
of academic publications, and professional references. Research projects culminate in publication available both
in hardcopy and on the Institute’s website.
Education
The educational goal of the Institute is to provide graduate- level education to students seeking a career in the
development and operation of surface transportation programs. MTI, through the College of Business at San
José State University, offers an AACSB accredited California State University Master of Science in Transportation
Management and a Graduate Certificate in Transportation Management that will prepare the nation’s transportation
managers for the 21st century. The masters degree is the highest conferred by the California State University
system. With the active assistance of the California Department of Transportation, MTI delivers its classes over
a state- of- the- art broadcast videoconferencing network throughout the State of California and via webcasting
beyond, allowing working transportation professionals to pursue an advanced degree regardless of their location.
To meet the needs of employers seeking a diverse workforce, MTI’s education program promotes enrollment to
under- represented groups.
Information and Technology Transfer
MTI’s third responsibility is to develop and maintain electronic information systems to store, retrieve, and
disseminate information relating to surface transportation policy studies. The Institute’s website, TransWeb,
enables transportation professionals, students and individuals worldwide to access information relating to surface
transportation research and policy. TransWeb is found at http:// transweb. sjsu. edu and delivers regional, state,
national, and international transportation information. The Institute also maintains a library of periodicals and
other unique publications for transportation research in cooperation with the San José State University Library
system. MTI is funded by Congress through the United States Department of Transportation Research and
Special Programs Administration ( RSPA), the California Legislature through the Department of Transportation
( Caltrans), and by private grants and donations.
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the information presented herein. This document
is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U. S. Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program and the California Department
of Transportation, in the interest of information exchange. This report does not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the U. S. Government,
State of California, or the Mineta Transportation Institute, who assume no liability for the contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard
specification, design standard, or regulation.
a publication of the
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business
San José State University
San Jose, CA 95192- 0219
Created by Congress in 1991
MTI REPORT 03- 02
Higher- Density Plans:
Tools for Community Engagement
August 2004
Kenneth Schreiber, Principal Investigator
Gary Binger
Dennis Church
1. Report No.
4. Title and Subtitle
7. Authors
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
15. Supplementary Notes
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
16. Abstract
17. Key Words
19. Security Classif. ( of this report) 20. Security Classif. ( of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
18. Distribution Statement
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
11. Contract or Grant No.
10. Work Unit No.
8. Performing Organization Report No.
6. Performing Organization Code
5. Report Date
2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business
San José State University
San Jose, CA 95192- 0219
California Department of Transportation
Sacramento, CA 95819
U. S. Department of Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration
400 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590- 0001
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
Unclassified Unclassified
Final Report
Technical Report Documentation Page
Form DOT F 1700.7 ( 8- 72)
FHWA/ CA/ OR- 2002/ 34
Higher- Density Plans: Tools for Community Engagement
Kenneth Schreiber, Principal Investigator; Gary Binger; Dennis Church
This study focuses on the strategies, methods, techniques, and tools that can be used in working with community
residents and other stakeholders to increase the intensity of land use— specifically to gain community acceptance of
higher- density residential and mixed- use development.
This report provides information that local, regional, and state agencies, planning professionals, and project and plan
proponents can use to develop and implement the type of collaborative efforts that involve residents in planning the
futures of their communities. The following points summarize the primary research findings:
1. It is critical, before planning any participation effort, to understand current and likely future community concerns
about higher- density development.
2. Overcoming distrust and other emotionally based barriers requires a genuine, sincere commitment to community
involvement.
3. Community planning and development is increasingly being approached so as to avoid and prevent conflict.
4. Many helpful techniques and tools have been developed and are available for use by local planners in collaborative
community- based planning processes.
5. Elected and appointed officials, senior planners, and other staff and consultants must provide skillful and
committed leadership for these processes to work.
6. When a group process is chartered, it is valuable to establish broad planning goals and principles at the outset.
7. Ensuring feasible outcomes is a key objective of a successful collaborative planning process.
8. Careful, accurate documentation of the results of a public participation process is critical to retaining the value of
the effort.
9. 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.
10. 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.
Advocacy groups; Case studies;
Economic benefits; Land- use models;
Urban planning.
August 2004
MTI 03- 02
65W136
182 $ 15.00
To order this publication, please contact the following:
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business
San José State University
San Jose, CA 95192- 0219
Tel ( 408) 924- 7560
Fax ( 408) 924- 7565
e- mail: mti@ mti. sjsu. edu
http:// transweb. sjsu. edu
Copyright © 2004 by
Mineta Transportation Institute
All rights reserved
Library of Congress # 2004100789
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors extend their sincere thanks to Professor Dayana Salazar, San José State University,
for her professional assistance and for identifying and supervising graduate student Sanhita
Mallick. Thanks to Ms. Mallick for her valuable research.
Thanks to Chris Beynon, Bruce Race, Debra Stein and Matthew Taecker for the interview
information in Appendix B. The many people who were interviewed and otherwise provided
information for the case studies in Appendix D are identified in the case studies and are
sincerely thanked. Their contributions were critical in facilitating the research and identifying
many of the study’s conclusions.
Thanks also to the MTI staff, including Research Director Trixie Johnson, Research and
Publications Assistant Sonya Cardenas, and Editorial Associates Catherine Frazier and Irene
Rush for publication assistance.
Table of Contents
Mineta Transportation Institute
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PRIMARY RESEARCH FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Literature Research on Techniques and Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Consultant Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
UNDERSTANDING COMMUNITY CONCERNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
PROJECT- RELATED CONCERNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
PROPONENT- RELATED CONCERNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
PROCESS- RELATED CONCERNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
THINKING STRATEGICALLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
PREVENTING POLARIZATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
EFFECTIVE TECHNIQUES AND TOOLS FOR FACILITATING
COMMUNICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
AN OVERVIEW OF TECHNIQUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Task Forces and Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Public Meetings, Workshops, and Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Meeting Facilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Charrettes and Design Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Brainstorming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Visioning Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Image Preference Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table of Contents
Mineta Transportation Institute
ii
Focus Groups and Opinion Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Priority Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Online Interactive Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Opinion Leader Identification and Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Public Information Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Idea Fairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Regionwide Planning Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Press and Editorial Board Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Tours of Higher- Density Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Group Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Exploring and Communicating Historical Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Comprehensive Project and Options Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Focused Impact Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Project Occupancy Profiles and Income Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Comparable Project Property Value Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
AN OVERVIEW OF TOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Digital Photo Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Visualization Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Traditional Graphic Representations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Three- Dimensional Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Traffic Modeling Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Fiscal, Economic, and Environmental Impact Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
KEYS TO SUCCESS AND BARRIERS TO OVERCOME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
OVERARCHING CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
KEYS TO SUCCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Understand Concerns and Think Strategically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Provide Skillful and Committed Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Avoid Premature Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Establish a Positive Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Build Trust and Ownership at Every Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Establish Clarity Concerning Goals and Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table of Contents
Mineta Transportation Institute
iii
Ensure Predictable Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Ensure Accurate Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
BARRIERS TO OVERCOME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
A Collaborative Planning Process is Expensive and Time Consuming . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Budgets Inadequate to Meet Demands of Higher- Density Development . . . . . . . . . 36
Traditional Attitudes Often Not Supportive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Unrealistic Expectations Regarding What Developers Can Provide . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM DESIGN CHECKLIST . . . . 39
THE NATURE OF THE ISSUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
AUDIENCES/ STAKEHOLDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
POLITICAL LANDSCAPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
PRACTICAL LANDSCAPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
COMMUNICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
APPENDIX B: TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
A SUMMARY OF TOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Graphic Representation Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Visualization Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Visioning Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Visualization Tools Based on the Geographic Information System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Impact Analysis and Forecasting Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Citizen Participation Support Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
A SUMMARY OF TECHNIQUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Techniques for Successful Community Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Choosing Strategy According to Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Using Large- Area Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
DATABASE OF TOOL DEVELOPERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
APPENDIX C: CONSULTANT INTERVIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Table of Contents
Mineta Transportation Institute
iv
SUMMARY OF CONSULTANT INTERVIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Broad Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Recommended Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Possible Roadblocks to Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Effective Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
APPENDIX D: EXPLORATORY RESEARCH ON POTENTIAL CASE STUDIES . 81
PROJECTS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Downtown Precise Plan ( 2001 Amendment), Mountain View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
General Plan Amendment 2002, Fairfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Compact Development in Berkeley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Downtown El Sobrante Transportation— Land Use Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Downtown Development in Walnut Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
800 High Street, Palo Alto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Taylor Towers, San Jose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Los Gatos Gateway, Los Gatos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
General Plan Update 2001, Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Olive Drive Apartments, Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Development, Pleasant Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Town Center, Hercules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
PROJECTS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Downtown Revitalization Plan, Brea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Paseo Colorado, Pasadena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
PROJECTS IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Silver Bend Housing, Bowman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Metro Square, Sacramento . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Islands of Riverlakes Project, Sacramento . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Yuba City Infill Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Doe Mill Neighborhood, Chico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Table of Contents
Mineta Transportation Institute
v
APPENDIX E: CASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Original Planning Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Types of Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Critical Challenges Faced During the Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Accomplishments and Disappointments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
CITY OF BREA: DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION CASE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . 106
Project Description and Development Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Basis for Case Study Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
The Role of Density in the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
The Barriers to Higher- Density Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Techniques and Tools Used to Respond to Community Fears and Resistance to
Higher- Density Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Project Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Analysis of Project Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Lessons Learned from the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Persons Interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Documents Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
CITY OF HERCULES: CENTRAL DISTRICT PLAN CASE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Project Description and Development Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Basis for Case Study Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
The Role of Density in the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
The Barriers to Higher- Density Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Techniques and Tools Used to Respond to Community Fears and Resistance to
Higher- Density Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Project Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Analysis of Project Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Lessons Learned from the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Persons Interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Documents Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Web Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Table of Contents
Mineta Transportation Institute
vi
CITY OF MILPITAS: MIDTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN CASE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Project Description and Development Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Basis for Case Study Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
The Role of Density in the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
The Barriers to Higher- Density Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Techniques and Tools Used to Respond to Community Fears and Resistance to
Higher- Density Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Project Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Analysis of Project Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Lessons Learned from the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Persons Interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Documents Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Web Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
CITY OF PASADENA: GENERAL PLAN REVISION CASE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . 129
Project Description and Development Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Basis for Case Study Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
The Role of Density in the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
The Barriers to Higher- Density Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Techniques and Tools Used to Respond to Community Fears and Resistance to
Higher- Density Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Project Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Analysis of Project Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Lessons Learned from the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Persons Interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Documents Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
CITY OF REEDLEY: SPECIFIC PLAN CASE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Project Description and Development Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Basis for Case Study Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
The Role of Density in the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
The Barriers to Higher- Density Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Techniques and Tools Used to Respond to Community Fears and Resistance to
Higher- Density Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Table of Contents
Mineta Transportation Institute
vii
Project Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Analysis of Project Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Lessons Learned from the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Persons Interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Documents Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS: BLUEPRINT PROJECT
CASE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Project Description and Development Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Basis for Case Study Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
The Role of Density in the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
The Barriers to Higher- Density Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Techniques and Tools Used to Respond to Community Fears and Resistance to
Higher- Density Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Project Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Analysis of Project Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Lessons Learned from the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Persons Interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Documents Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
CITY OF SAN DIEGO: A CITY OF VILLAGES CASE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Project Description and Development Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Basis for Case Study Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
The Role of Density in the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
The Barriers to Higher- Density Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Techniques and Tools Used to Respond to Community Fears and Resistance to
Higher- Density Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Project Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Analysis of Project Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Lessons Learned from the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Persons Interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Documents Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Web Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Table of Contents
Mineta Transportation Institute
viii
CITY OF SAN JOSE: FIVE WOUNDS/ BROOKWOOD TERRACE CASE STUDY 156
Project Description and Development Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Basis for Case Study Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
The Role of Density in the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
The Barriers to Higher- Density Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Techniques and Tools Used to Respond to Community Fears and Resistance to
Higher- Density Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Project Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Analysis of Project Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Lessons Learned from the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Persons Interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Documents Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
APPENDIX F: WEB RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
DISPUTE RESOLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
TECHNICAL TOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Animation Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Site and Model Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Visual Preference Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
ABOUT THE AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
PEER REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Executive Summary
Mineta Transportation Institute
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study focuses on the strategies, methods, techniques, and tools that can be used in
working with community residents and other stakeholders to increase the intensity of land
use— specifically to gain community acceptance of higher- density residential and mixed- use
development. It represents a continuation of the effort 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. That survey concluded that California’s cities and counties expect higher- density
infill projects to be among the primary growth management challenges in the decades ahead,
and that if potentially debilitating opposition from residents is to be avoided, cities and
counties must substantially enhance existing planning resources and skills and involve
neighborhoods and communities in shaping their own futures.
This report, Higher- Density Plans: Tools for Community Engagement, provides information that
local, regional, and state agencies, planning professionals, and project and plan proponents can
use to develop and implement the type of collaborative efforts that involve residents in
planning the futures of their communities. Objectives for the research covered by this report
included the following:
• Describe the strategies and methods that can contribute the most to gaining community
acceptance of higher- intensity land uses.
• Assemble a package of nuts- and- bolts public involvement and decision- making techniques
and tools, and describe the keys to their successful use.
• Identify barriers to the successful use of strategies, methods, techniques, and tools.
The research conducted for this project had three primary components: literature review
focusing on the identification of techniques and tools, consultant interviews, and case studies.
The work product for each component is contained in appendices. The results as a whole are
integrated in the body of this report.
PRIMARY RESEARCH FINDINGS
The primary research findings are summarized in the ten points below.
Executive Summary
Mineta Transportation Institute
2
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
Executive Summary
Mineta Transportation Institute
3
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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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
Executive Summary
Mineta Transportation Institute
4
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.
9. 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.
10. 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
Mineta Transportation Institute
5
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
Background
Mineta Transportation Institute
6
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
Mineta Transportation Institute
7
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.
Research Objectives and Methodology
Mineta Transportation Institute
8
• 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 Appendix B: “ A Summary of Tools” on page
41, “ A Summary of Techniques” on page 52, and “ Database of Tool Developers” on page 56.
The final product, a Bibliography, begins on page 173.
Consultant Interviews
Appendix D, “ Exploratory Research on Potential Case Studies,” and the professional
knowledge of the principal investigator and the other team members, were used to select
Research Objectives and Methodology
Mineta Transportation Institute
9
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. Appendix D 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.
Research Objectives and Methodology
Mineta Transportation Institute
10
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 Appendix E, are as follows:
1. City of Brea— Downtown Revitalization
2. City of Hercules— Central District Plan
3. City of Milpitas— Midtown Specific Plan
4. City of Pasadena— General Plan Revision
5. City of Reedley— Specific Plan
6. Sacramento Area Council of Governments— Blueprint Project
7. City of San Diego— A City of Villages Strategic Framework, General Plan
8. City of San Jose— Five Wounds/ Brookwood Terrace Neighborhood Improvement Plan
Research Objectives and Methodology
Mineta Transportation Institute
11
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.
Appendix E contains all eight completed case studies and a summary overview of case study
findings.
Research Objectives and Methodology
Mineta Transportation Institute
12
Understanding Community Concerns
Mineta Transportation Institute
13
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
Understanding Community Concerns
Mineta Transportation Institute
14
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.” Appendix A contains a “ Public Involvement Program Design Checklist” that will
assist in identifying specific process- related concerns.
Thinking Strategically
Mineta Transportation Institute
15
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
Thinking Strategically
Mineta Transportation Institute
16
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 these 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
Thinking Strategically
Mineta Transportation Institute
17
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.
Thinking Strategically
Mineta Transportation Institute
18
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
Mineta Transportation Institute
19
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.
Preventing Polarization in the Planning Process
Mineta Transportation Institute
20
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 Appendix A has questions that can help in establishing a project- specific
public process. The following are some of the approaches highlighted in our research:
• Design the public process to fit the need. Carefully 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.
Preventing Polarization in the Planning Process
Mineta Transportation Institute
21
• 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 increase 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.
Preventing Polarization in the Planning Process
Mineta Transportation Institute
22
Effective Techniques and Tools for Facilitating Communication
Mineta Transportation Institute
23
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 Appendix B can help to facilitate
acquisition of knowledge about the community and public involvement. Additional
information and Web resources are contained in Appendix F, “ Web Resources,” and the
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 “ Understanding Community
Concerns,” “ Thinking Strategically,” and “ 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 Appendix B, Appendix F, 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
Effective Techniques and Tools for Facilitating Communication
Mineta Transportation Institute
24
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.
Effective Techniques and Tools for Facilitating Communication
Mineta Transportation Institute
25
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
Effective Techniques and Tools for Facilitating Communication
Mineta Transportation Institute
26
identified. Several image preference tools are described and vendor contact information is
provided in Appendix B.
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
“ An Overview of Tools” on page 30), 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
Effective Techniques and Tools for Facilitating Communication
Mineta Transportation Institute
27
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
Effective Techniques and Tools for Facilitating Communication
Mineta Transportation Institute
28
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
Effective Techniques and Tools for Facilitating Communication
Mineta Transportation Institute
29
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 “ An Overview of Tools” on
page 30, 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.
Effective Techniques and Tools for Facilitating Communication
Mineta Transportation Institute
30
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 Appendix B. Visioning process support tools ( image
preference surveys) were discussed in “ An Overview of Techniques” on page 23, and details on
providers along with contact information are also in Appendix B.
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.
Effective Techniques and Tools for Facilitating Communication
Mineta Transportation Institute
31
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.
Effective Techniques and Tools for Facilitating Communication
Mineta Transportation Institute
32
Keys to Success and Barriers to Overcome
Mineta Transportation Institute
33
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.
Keys to Success and Barriers to Overcome
Mineta Transportation Institute
34
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.
Keys to Success and Barriers to Overcome
Mineta Transportation Institute
35
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,
Keys to Success and Barriers to Overcome
Mineta Transportation Institute
36
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.
Keys to Success and Barriers to Overcome
Mineta Transportation Institute
37
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 involved.
Unrealistic Expectations Regarding What Developers Can Provide
Developers need to make a profit to continue building, and there are limits to what they can
afford to provide in conjunction with development projects. At the same time, infill higher-density
projects often create extra risks and costs for developers, making it difficult or
impossible for them to project what compromises they can afford, or even if a project is
feasible. This is a major barrier to building projects that include sufficient quality features and
mitigations to make them attractive additions to neighborhoods. Addressing this barrier will
require not only regional and state action, but also more predictability concerning the policies
and decisions of local planning authorities.
Until local government financing is rationalized and made sufficient to fund both the capital
and operating needs created by higher- density infill projects, and made consistent ( in terms of
incentives and subsidies) with development policies that facilitate higher- density growth, no
amount of good citizen process will make all the otherwise desirable projects successful.
Even where a combination of local government and developer funds covers the capital needs
and operating costs of a project, it is frequently difficult for local government to afford the
staff time and operating expense of a truly collaborative planning process. Shortages of funds
and time often prevent local government staffs from getting the tools and training they need,
which translates into not getting the practical experience that could foster changes in the
negative attitudes described above.
The resulting reduction in collaborative planning means developers will continue to face
unpredictable costs and risks, reducing their ability and willingness to commit to funding
needed for project mitigation measures.
Keys to Success and Barriers to Overcome
Mineta Transportation Institute
38
In conclusion, although in principle, collaborative planning processes hold great potential to
help California move in the direction of smart growth, in practice, they will be greatly
constrained by the broken condition of local government finance.
Appendix A: Public Involvement Program Design Checklist
Mineta Transportation Institute
39
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM DESIGN CHECKLIST
The following checklist was provided by Jeff Loux and Mary Selkirk as part of a November
2003 class ( Community Participation and Dispute Resolution) sponsored by the University of
California- Davis Extension and the California Center for Public Dispute Resolution.
THE NATURE OF THE ISSUE
• What are the objectives of the project and/ or the nature of the policy issue?
• How high are the stakes? What happens if we do not make an agreement or reach a
decision? Do we need public support to proceed?
• What is the level of technical complexity; what experts will we need; how much technical
knowledge will be needed to resolve disputes; do we have or can we get the information?
• What are the key policy issues/ questions? What are the constraints and opportunities?
AUDIENCES/ STAKEHOLDERS
• Who are the stakeholders and what are their primary interests? What are their technical
capabilities?
• Do stakeholders represent particular constituencies; do they cluster in coalitions or are they
independent?
• What are their characteristics and are we prepared to address them ( geographic
distribution, ethnicities, languages, income, tenure in the community)?
• What is the history and legacy of community participation, values, and identity?
• Are there existing organizational structures: neighborhood groups, associations, churches,
etc.?
• What are the options for stakeholders in the absence of collaborating? How good are those
options?
POLITICAL LANDSCAPE
• What is the overall political landscape? Are there decision- makers who are involved? Are
there informal leaders? Do leaders support the collaborative effort?
Appendix A: Public Involvement Program Design Checklist
Mineta Transportation Institute
40
• Are there political constraints on particular solutions? Is there willingness to share power
or at least accept new solutions?
• Are terms expiring? Are election cycles going to intervene? Are there dynamics between
staff and political leadership that you need to be aware of?
PRACTICAL LANDSCAPE
• What is your budget for mediation/ facilitation and for technical work? Are there options
to expand the funding?
• What partners may be available?
• What is the time frame? Are there real deadlines and triggers/ hammers? Can you use these
to the project’s advantage?
• What about seasons, schedules, and availability?
COMMUNICATIONS
• How do you best communicate with each of the stakeholders and coalitions? Who is best
to communicate with stakeholders?
• What type of media is best to use: newspapers, cable TV, Web, existing newsletters, or
other options?
• Will stakeholders communicate to their broader constituencies? How can you enhance
this? Intervene? Are there dynamics between staff and political leadership that you need to
be aware of?
Appendix B: Tools and Techniques
Mineta Transportation Institute
41
APPENDIX B: TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES
The following was prepared by Sanhita Mallick under the direction of Professor Dayana
Salazar, Acting Chair, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, San José State University.
Tools, for the purpose of this study, are devices used to prepare and convey information on
development proposals or planning options. Techniques are the procedures or methods used as
part of public processes conducted to consider development proposals or planning options.
This appendix describes tools and techniques and provides websites and other sources of
information.
Table 1 on page 57 provides information about companies and other providers of services
associated with various tools and techniques. Sources of information on specific tools and
techniques are also provided in Appendix F and the Bibliography at the conclusion of this
study.
A SUMMARY OF TOOLS
Graphic Representation Tools
Graphic representation tools used to present projects and their surrounding areas include
drawings, photographs, colored maps, aerial photographs, and traffic flow diagrams. Drawings
can be sketched by hand or generated by computer- aided design ( CAD) programs. These tools
can be used to express the project concept or other key project- related information graphically.
The general public may understand graphically represented data more easily than charts,
tables, and verbal descriptions.
These traditional methods are used widely where advanced computer software is not available.
Maps and drawings are inexpensive and easy to produce and can communicate project concepts
clearly. Maps of the surrounding area as well as aerial photographs present the project in a
broader perspective and assist community members in understanding other land uses in the
project area. Diagrams can make complicated information easier to understand. Photographs
depict the existing condition of the site.
Appendix B: Tools and Techniques
Mineta Transportation Institute
42
Two- dimensional drawings provide only a limited sense of the visual characteristics of the
project. When a design changes, maps and charts may have to be redrawn, which can be
cumbersome and laborious.
Visualization Tools
Visualization tools present realistic views of a project and are often employed for consensus
building in higher- density projects. For people who cannot visualize the scale or size of a
building from numeric specifications or two- dimensional drawings, these tools can provide a
clear understanding of the visual effects of a project, enabling residents to assess the impact of
specific options. Since the visual impact of a project is often a concern for community
members, these tools can play a crucial role in gaining community acceptance.
In the Islands of Riverlakes project in Sacramento, the developer presented three- dimensional
and drive- through views of his proposal. Although the residents were aware of the
development that was allowable based on zoning, they had no idea what the proposed building
would look like. Three- dimensional views were used to convey that perspective to neighboring
residents and to solicit their input.
Several electronic and nonelectronic tools available for presenting visual characteristics of a
proposed project are described below.
1. Physical Models
Physical models are three- dimensional models of the 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.
Models portray the form of the proposed buildings. They show the relationship of built spaces
to open spaces ( for example, parks, plazas, roads) in and around the development, and show the
relationship between the scale and mass of the proposed buildings and surrounding buildings
( often a point of concern for higher- density developments).
For nontechnical persons, models are better than two- dimensional site plans for understanding
the basic elements of a project. Models are attractive and, therefore, get more attention than
drawings.
Appendix B: Tools and Techniques
Mineta Transportation Institute
43
Because models are small, it can be difficult to assess the likely visual impact of the buildings
on people walking or driving past them. Models are not flexible; to reflect any significant
change in a project scheme, a model has to be rebuilt. This is impractical for a brainstorming
process involving the community.
2. Three- Dimensional Views
Three- dimensional ( 3- D) views of a proposed project from different angles and locations can
show the project concept and the physical realities of the proposed built environment. The
views can be hand drawn or generated by computer. Colorful representations of the physical
environment from the pedestrian’s viewpoint help community members visualize and assess
the environment the development would create.
For an audience with limited knowledge of the planning and design field, 3- D views are more
appealing and easier to understand than 2- D technical drawings. With texture, design details,
and lighting and shadow effects, computer- generated 3- D images often look very realistic.
Animated 3- D views can show the visual experience when someone walks through or drives
past a proposed development. Dynamic 3- D views ( using sophisticated software) can produce
multiple views from different locations and convey an even better understanding of the visual
characteristics of a proposed project.
Resources for Three- Dimensional Tools
Autodesk Viz
Website: http:// usa. autodesk. com
Creates and animates detailed, realistic 3- D renderings. Light and shadow effects can
be shown. Lets viewers visualize design alternatives from a set of predefined views,
paths, and walk- throughs. Real- time interaction with the user is not possible.
Creator
Website: http:// www. multigen. com
Details at: http:// www. multigen. com/ products/ database/ index. shtml
Enables real- time interaction. Creates 3- D massing renderings, and users can walk or
fly to any location and view the details of the proposed built environment from there.
Appendix B: Tools and Techniques
Mineta Transportation Institute
44
Renderings are less detailed than in a non- real- time 3- D tool, but actual photographs
of the project location can be used to make the views more realistic.
VIO ( 3- D runtime or viewer)
Details at: http:// www. multigen. com or http:// www. itspatial. com
3- D rendering software program that depicts a project from any vantage point. A set of
design alternatives can be displayed in real time. Photorealistic or massing images can
be viewed in the context of the existing surroundings. Predefined viewpoints and walk-throughs
can be created and shown at a later time.
3. Photo Simulation
Photo simulations alter photos of existing physical conditions in the area where a project is
proposed. A digital image of an existing streetscape or built environment is changed by
adding the proposed buildings and other proposed design features such as decorative street
lights, trees, and grass medians, and transportation features such as light rail, bike lanes, and
parking lanes.
Simulated photos let community members compare a project area before and after a proposed
development. They can assess the impacts of several alternative development scenarios and see
how a streetscape might be improved when a project is built. This process can also illustrate
changes incrementally, first adding a median, then street trees and lights, then a building, and
so on. By showing unanticipated positive impacts of higher- density development, photo
simulation helps gain community cceptance. Displaying the present and future appearances of
a development side by side enhances understanding of improvements that would result from
the project. Showing incremental changes clearly illustrates the successive stages of a project.
Resources for Photo Simulation Tools
Richard Heapes, Street- Works
814 King Street, 3rd Floor, Alexandria, VA 22314
Tel: ( 703) 837- 1630
Heapes uses painting software to simulate the proposed development.
Appendix B: Tools and Techniques
Mineta Transportation Institute
45
Steve Price, Urban Advantage
436 14th Street, Suite 1114, Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: ( 510) 835- 9420
Website: http:// www. urban- advantage. com
Price uses photo- editing software to add a proposed project to images of an existing
site.
Ron Morgan, Urban Ventures
1900 Dilworth Road E, Charlotte, NC 28203
Tel: ( 740) 342- 2510
E- mail: urbanventures@ mindspring. com
Morgan uses both aerial and street- level photographs to illustrate the effects of
proposed neighborhood revitalization projects.
Visioning Tools
“ Visioning” refers to community participation processes designed to find common ground and
reach community 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, and define desired changes to be achieved in the
development process.
Visioning tools are used by process participants working individually or together. The result is
a collective vision of the community, and the process helps to develop a sense of ownership
among community members.
Visioning tools help people to identify their development preferences and learn the preferences
of other community members. These tools are intended to help achieve wide agreement about
community development goals. Depending on the tools employed, a large number of
participants can take part in these processes.
Specific visioning tools are described below.
Appendix B: Tools and Techniques
Mineta Transportation Institute
46
1. Image Surveys
In an image survey, residents view contrasting pairs of images, such as streetscapes versus
buildings, parks, and sidewalks. They use a rating system to indicate which image from each
pair they prefer. The result is 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,
which helps everyone involved in the community development process.
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. Preparation of an image survey includes collecting or generating appropriate
images, which can be time consuming and expensive. In community- wide image surveys,
computer kiosks can be provided at different sites to facilitate participation.
Resources for Image Surveys
Visual Preference Survey
Anton Nelessen, Nelessen Associates
49 River Road, Belle Mead, NJ 08502
Tel: ( 908) 431- 0104
E- mail: vps@ nelessen. org
Website: http:// www. nelessen. org
A proprietary planning tool that uses paired photographs of built environments, with
each pair showing different physical conditions or physical changes. These imag