1. (page
intentionally
left
blank)
REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION
PLAN/SUSTAINABLE
COMMUNITIES
STRATEGY
Review & Comparative Analysis of the
Public Participation Plans of SJCOG and
selected Metropolitan Planning
Organizations
*Including Debriefing Notes

2. (page
intentionally
left
blank)

3. iii
REVIEW
OF
THE
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
PLANS
OF
SJCOG
AND
SELECTED
METROPOLITAN
PLANNING
ORGANIZATIONS
INTRODUCTION
In
order
to
expand
public
understanding,
access
and
participation
into
the
transportation
planning
and
financing
decision-­‐making
process,
federal
and
state
law
requires
metropolitan
planning
agencies
such
as
San
Joaquin
Council
of
Governments
(SJCOG)
to
“provide
citizens,
affected
public
agencies,
representatives
of
transportation
agency
employees,
private
providers
of
transportation
and
other
interested
parties
with
reasonable
opportunity
to
comment”
on
transportation
plans
and
programs.
The
description
and
activities
meant
to
fulfill
this
requirement
is
outlined
in
each
respective
MPO’s
Public
Participation
Plan
(PPP).
At
a
minimum,
every
PPP
is
required
to
cover
the
following
aspects:
-­‐ Define
Purpose
and
Objectives
for
Public
Involvement
-­‐ Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Other
Agencies
-­‐ Identify
Stakeholders
and
Target
Audience
-­‐ Hold
Optional
Public
Hearings
-­‐ Consult
with
Advisory
Committees
-­‐ Provide
Visualization
Techniques
and
Public
Access
to
Information
-­‐ Distribute
Final
Documents
-­‐ Respond
to
Public
Input
-­‐ Review
Public
Involvement
Process
-­‐ Comply
with
the
Brown
Act
-­‐ Comply
with
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act
-­‐ Inform
and
Involve
Native
American
Indian
Governments
-­‐ Meet
Requirements
of
Executive
Order
12898—Environmental
Justice
However,
no
requirements
are
outlined
in
terms
of
the
document’s
structure,
format
and
design,
nor
are
any
limitations
set
regarding
additional
content
included
in
the
PPP.
This
paper
offers
a
review
of
SJCOG’s
PPP
and
is
meant
to
provide
a
critical
analysis
of
the
structure,
layout
and
content
of
the
document,
as
well
as
the
strategies
used
to
engage
the
public.
Additionally,
the
most
current
PPPs
of
the
Fresno
Council
of
Governments
(Fresno
COG),
San
Diego
Association
of
Governments
(SANDAG),
Metropolitan
Transportation
Commission
(MTC),
Sacramento
Area
Council
of
Governments
(SACOG),
and
Southern
California
Association
of
Governments
(SCAG)
will
be
reviewed.
An
overview
of
each
document
will
highlight
any
noteworthy
aspects
related
to
content,
structure,
layout
or
strategies
provided
within
each
respective
document.
A
Takeaways
section
at
the
end
of
each
review
will
highlight
any
unique
aspects
that
may
need
to
be
incorporated
into
a
future
update
of
SJCOG’s
PPP.

4. (page
intentionally
left
blank)

5. v
Table
of
Contents
INTRODUCTION
............................................................................................................................................
x
Table
of
Contents
.......................................................................................................................................
v
List
of
Tables
and
Figures
..........................................................................................................................
vi
EVOLUTION
OF
SJCOG’S
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
PLAN
...............................................................................
1
Review
of
selected
Metropolitan
Planning
Organizations
PPPs
.................................................................
3
Fresno
COG
.................................................................................................................................................
3
SANDAG
......................................................................................................................................................
5
MTC
............................................................................................................................................................
8
SACOG
......................................................................................................................................................
10
SCAG
.........................................................................................................................................................
12
SUMMARY
OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
.........................................................................................................
15
SJCOG
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
DEBRIEFING
..............................................................................................
18
BEST
PRACTICES
.........................................................................................................................................
24

6. vi
List
of
Tables
and
Figures
TABLES
Table
1
–
Appendices
of
the
2007
and
2011
SJCOG
Public
Participation
Plans
..........................................
2
FIGURES
Figure
1
–
Fresno
COG’s
Appendix
B:
Response
to
Comments
..................................................................
4
Figure
2
–
SANDAG
Public
Involvement
Tools
Evaluation
Table
................................................................
6
Figure
3
–
SANDAG
Appendix
A
Table
........................................................................................................
7
Figure
4
–
SANDAG
Chart
Examples
...........................................................................................................
7
Figure
5
–
MTC
Sub-­‐Section
D:
“What
We
Heard
From
the
Public”
...........................................................
9
Figure
6
–
SACOG
Colored
Title
Cover,
Section
Page
and
Callout
Examples
............................................
10
Figure
7
–
Examples
of
SCAG’s
Section
III
Public
Participation
Plan
Goals
...............................................
13
Figure
8
–
SCAG’s
Question
and
Answer
Style
Approach
to
Explaining
the
PPP
Process
.........................
14

7. 1
EVOLUTION
OF
SJCOG’s
PPP
In
an
effort
to
reach
out
to
the
people
of
San
Joaquin
County
and
in
response
to
the
passage
of
the
1991
Intermodal
Surface
Transportation
Efficiency
Act,
the
SJCOG
developed
a
Public
Involvement
Plan
(1995)
to
formalize
and
follow
public
outreach
strategies
to
involve
the
populace
in
transportation
planning
decisions.
Over
the
past
years,
SJCOG
has
implemented
those
strategies
and
have
incorporated
new
strategies
into
the
mix.
Publications
have
been
changed,
as
have
schedules
of
publications.
In
2005,
SJCOG
created
an
updated
PPP,
building
on
the
foundation
of
successful
public
participation
strategies
for
the
SJCOG.
In
response
to
the
passage
of
Safe,
Accountable,
Flexible,
and
Efficient
Transportation
Equity
Act—A
Legacy
for
Users.
Subsequent
iterations
(2007,
2011
and
2014)
of
the
PPP
have
been
updated
to
reflect
current
and
future
public
involvement
efforts
of
the
agency
in
response
to
federal
guidelines
and
requirements,
as
well
as
to
provide
documentation
used
to
educate
the
public.
This
section
will
review
SJCOG’s
past
three
PPP
updates;
adopted
May
2007;
May
2011;
and
most
recently
in
April
2014,
reflecting
the
incorporation
of
language
requirements
set
forth
by
federal
transit
law
and
FHWA/FTA
guidelines.
The
2007
document
built
on
the
framework
of
the
previous
2005
PPP,
but
evolved
both
stylistically
and
in
content
with
its
subsequent
update
in
2011.
A
Commitment
to
Public
Participation
section
was
placed
immediately
after
the
brief
introduction
at
the
beginning
of
the
Plan.
This
helped
to
inform
the
reader
of
SJCOG’s
commitment
to
providing
the
public
opportunity
to
be
included
into
the
planning
process—
outlining
the
guiding
principles,
general
approach
and
describing
the
strategies
meant
to
facilitate
that
goal.
That
theme
was
continued
on
through
the
rest
of
the
document.
Additionally,
a
more
thorough
explanation
of
how
the
concept
of
environmental
justice
was
shaped
historically
through
federal
statutes
and
Executive
Orders,
and
was
foundational
in
the
development
of
SJCOG’s
PPP.
Descriptions
which
detailed
the
development
of
the
PPP
were
incorporated
into
the
2011
update,
and
included
a
report
describing
the
feedback
received
during
public
review
of
the
Plan.
This,
too,
was
placed
early
in
the
document
instead
of
as
an
appendix,
as
it
was
in
the
previous
version.
Section
IV
Description
of
Committees
That
Contribute
to
Planning
Process
in
the
original
document
was
changed
to
Continuing
Public
Engagement
(what
is
now
Section
II),
which
featured
enhanced
descriptions
of
the
contributing
committees.
Also
newly
featured
in
the
2011
PPP
update
were
interspersed
information
boxes
which
urged
readers
to
Get
Involved,
which
highlighted
ways
the
public
can
participate
on
citizen
committees,
access
meetings
or
sign-­‐up
for
additional
information.

8. 2
A
Public
Participation
Techniques
(Section
III)
section
was
incorporated
into
the
update.
This
section
provided
the
reader
a
summary
of
the
general
techniques
SJCOG
employs
for
reaching
out
to
the
San
Joaquin
County
community,
including
specific
approaches
used
to
reach
low-­‐income
communities
and
communities
of
color,
populations
limited
in
English
proficiency,
and
techniques
used
for
reporting
on
impact
of
public
comments.
A
new
section
(Section
IV)
dedicated
to
highlighting
the
public
participation
procedures
for
the
Regional
Transportation
Plan
(RTP)
and
the
Federal
Transportation
Improvement
Program
(FTIP)
was
added
to
the
2011
PPP
update.
Tables
were
included
to
better
detail
the
public
participation
processes
for
updating
and
revising
the
RTP
and
FTIP.
Finally,
the
content
matter
of
the
appendices
included
with
each
document
changed
in
some
instances
(see
Table
1).
Most
significant
was
the
inclusion
of
the
public
participation
plan
which
addressed
the
SJCOG
Sustainable
Communities
Strategy
(SCS)
and
Regional
Transportation
Plan
(RTP)
which
was
a
required
byproduct
of
California
Senate
Bill
375
(2008)
aimed
at
reducing
greenhouse
gas
emissions
through
strategies
that
integrated
land-­‐use
and
transportation
planning.
Appendix
A
outlined
the
strategies
planned
to
involve
the
public
in
the
process.
Table
1
–
APPENDICIES
OF
THE
2007
AND
2011
SJCOG
PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
PLANS
The
most
recent
PPP
update
was
adopted
on
April
24,
2014.
The
overall
structure
and
content
of
the
Plan
primarily
remained
the
same
as
the
previous
version
(2011),
but
reflected
the
incorporation
of
specific
required
language
into
the
Plan,
as
set
forth
by
federal
transit
law
and
the
Federal
Highway
Administration
(FHWA)/Federal
Transit
Administration
(FTA).
This
regulation
requires
the
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
(MPO)
to
include
the
public
and
solicit
comment
when
the
MPO
develops
its
RTP
and
its
FTIP.
The
PPP
consists
of
six
sections:
I. Introduction
II. Continuing
Public
Engagement
III. Public
Participation
Techniques
IV. Public
Participation
Procedures
for
the
Regional
Transportation
Plan
(RTP)
and
the
Transportation
Improvement
Plan
(TIP)
V. Public
Agency
and
Tribal
Government
Consultation
Procedures
for
the
RTP
and
the
TIP
VI. Evaluation
and
Update
of
the
Public
Participation
Plan
Each
of
these
sections
has
accompanying
sub-­‐sections.
Additionally,
four
appendices
are
included
which
were
carried
over
from
the
2011
PPP
(see
Table
1).

9. 3
REVIEW
OF
SELECTED
METROPOLITAN
PLANNING
ORGANIZATIONS
PPPs
Fresno
COG
The
most
recent
version
of
Fresno
COG’s
PPP
was
approved
in
March
2012.
Its
PPP
consists
of
five
chapters:
Ch.
1
-­‐
Introduction
Ch.
2
-­‐
Federal
Requirements
Ch.
3
-­‐
Opportunities
for
Public
Participation
Ch.
4
-­‐
General
Public
Participation
Strategies
Ch.
5
-­‐
Additional
Fresno
COG
Public
Participation
Policies
Each
of
these
chapters
has
accompanying
sub-­‐sections.
Additionally,
two
appendices
are
included:
Appendix
A:
Partnerships
and
Contacts
Appendix
B:
Response
to
Comments.
Much
of
the
content
and
language
found
in
the
plan
are
very
similar
and
in
some
cases
verbatim
to
what
is
found
in
SJCOG’s
current
PPP.
This
is
not
an
uncommon
occurrence
as
agencies
often
model
documents
off
of
existing
ones
in
order
to
establish
consistency,
particularly
when
outlining
adherence
to
federal
and
state
regulations.
With
regard
to
public
participation
techniques,
Fresno
COG
makes
note
that
it
utilizes
“statistically
valid
telephone
polls.”
This
is
likely
in
reference
to
Fresno
COG
commissioning
the
services
of
AIS
Market
Research
to
serve
as
a
consultant
assisting
with
designing
and
conducting
a
“scientific”
survey
of
participants
who
were
accurately
reflective
of
Fresno
County’s
population.
A
total
of
802
respondents
completed
the
survey/interview
with
124
being
interviewed
in-­‐person.
The
findings
were
fed
directly
into
its
RTP
development,
including
the
drafting
of
Fresno
COG’s
Sustainable
Communities
Strategy
(SCS).
Also
of
note
was
the
inclusion
of
responses
to
public
comments
regarding
the
Draft
2012
PPP
(in
Appendix
B)
(Figure
1).
SJCOG
provides
similar
documentation
in
Appendix
B
of
its
current
PPP.
However,
the
summary
of
comments
is
from
presentations
and
Web
surveys
conducted
in
2007.

10. 4
Figure
1
–
Fresno
COG’s
Appendix
B:
Response
to
Comments
Takeaways
In
an
effort
to
provide
the
most
accurately
reflective
depiction
of
the
priorities,
desires
and
needs
of
San
Joaquin
County
residents,
SJCOG
should
consider
commissioning
the
services
of
an
outside
consultant
to
help
design
and
conduct
statistically
rigorous
surveys
(when
appropriate)
in
the
development
of
major
planning
projects
or
programming.
SJCOG
may
consider
providing
documentation
of
responses
to
public
comments
regarding
public
review
of
past
or
future
Draft
PPPs
as
an
appendix
in
future
updates.

11. 5
SANDAG
The
most
recent
version
of
SANDAG’s
PPP
was
approved
in
December
2012.
Its
PPP
consists
of
four
sections:
I. Introduction
II. Overall
Public
Participation
Process
III. Public
Participation
Plan
Evaluation
Methods
IV. SANDAG
Mandates
and
Designations
Each
of
these
sections
have
accompanying
sub-­‐sections.
Additionally,
four
appendices
are
included:
Appendix
A:
How
the
Public
Participation
Plan
Was
Updated
Appendix
B:
FHWA
Guidelines
for
Metropolitan
Transportation
Planning
(23
CFR
45-­‐.316)
Appendix
C:
Policy
Advisory
Committees
and
Related
Working
Groups
Diagram
Appendix
D:
SANDAG
Public
Participation
Policy
(Board
Policy
No.
025)
Much
like
SJCOG’s
current
PPP,
SANDAG’s
PPP
highlights
its
commitment
to
include
the
public
into
the
planning
process
and
makes
discernable
effort
to
make
known
opportunities
for
participation.
In
one
of
the
sub-­‐sections
of
the
Introduction,
SANDAG
provides
a
list
of
ways
the
public
can
get
in
contact
with
the
agency,
access
information,
view
related
media,
and
connect
through
social
media.
In
the
Public
Participation
Plan
Evaluation
Methods
section,
SANDAG
provides
a
useful
table
(Figure
2)
that
outlines
some
of
the
evaluation
measures
used
in
the
most
commonly
applied
public
involvement
tools
and
techniques.
This
provides
the
reader
with
an
easy-­‐to-­‐read
description
that
specifies
the
outreach
evaluation
method
used
to
monitor
and
evaluate
its
outreach
strategies.

12. 6
Figure
2
–
SANDAG
Public
Involvement
Tools
Evaluation
Table
In
Appendix
A,
SANDAG
provides
a
very
thorough
and
informative
description
of
the
tools
and
strategies
utilized
in
the
updating
process
of
its
PPP.
This
included
an
initial
outreach
survey,
press
releases,
tracking
social
media
responses,
schedules
of
presentations
made
to
local
advisory
bodies,
working
groups,
and
civic
organizations.
A
press
release
distribution
list
is
provided,
as
well
as
a
list
of
major
newspapers
public
notices
were
placed.
Of
special
note
were
the
tables
which
provided
a
summary
of
each
PPP
survey
question
and
corresponding
answer
count
and
rate
(Figure
3).
The
tallied
information
was
then
presented
for
each
distribution
method
(via
survey,
social
media,
in
Spanish,
and
CBO
aggregates)
(Figure
4).
Further,
an
extensive
table
documenting
public
comments
received
described
the
meeting/group/organizations,
date,
comments,
and
response
or
action
taken.

13. 7
Figures
3
&
4
–
SANDAG
Appendix
A
Table
and
Chart
Examples
Takeaways
SANDAG’s
PPP
document
is
a
very
easy
read,
which
likely
makes
it
appealing
to
a
larger
audience.
It
documents
in
clear
fashion
the
efforts
taken
to
incorporate
and
elicit
public
participation.
Appendix
A
is
a
very
useful
supplemental
document
which
provides
the
reader
quantifiable
data
to
review
and
its
thoroughness
underscores
to
the
public
SANDAG’s
commitment
to
represent
the
public’s
voice
as
accurately
as
possible.

14. 8
MTC
The
most
recent
version
of
MTC’s
PPP
was
approved
in
December
2010.
Its
PPP
consists
of
six
sections:
I. Introduction
II. Continuing
Public
Engagement
III. Public
Participation
Techniques
IV. Public
Participation
Procedures
for
the
Regional
Transportation
Plan
and
the
Transportation
Improvement
Program
V. Interagency
and
Tribal
Government
Consultation
Procedures
for
the
Regional
Transportation
Plan
and
the
Transportation
Improvement
Program
VI. Evaluation
and
Update
of
the
Public
Participation
Plan
Each
of
these
sections
contain
accompanying
sub-­‐sections.
Additionally,
four
appendices
are
included:
Appendix
A:
A
Public
Participation
Plan
for
the
Bay
Area
Sustainable
Communities
Strategy
and
Regional
Transportation
Plan
Appendix
B:
Public
Participation
Plan
Outreach:
Summary
of
Comments
from
2007
Presentations,
Focus
Groups
and
Web
Survey
Appendix
C:
2007
Tribal
Government
and
Interagency
Consultation
Appendix
D:
(included
as
a
“separately
bound
appendix”):
Public
Participation
Plan
Outreach:
Detail
of
Comments
and
Notes
from
2007
Presentations,
Focus
Groups
and
Web
Survey
The
PPPs
of
SJCOG
and
MTC
are
essentially
the
same
document
in
terms
of
structure
and
much
of
the
content.
Where
the
respective
documents
varied
was
in
what
information
was
presented
under
each
section.
For
instance,
under
sub-­‐section
D,
MTC
provides
a
summary
of
comments
(Figure
5)
received
on
the
Draft
July
2010
update
to
the
PPP,
organizing
the
information
into
five
emerging
themes.
In
contrast,
SJCOG
provides
specific
names
and
direct
quotes
from
comments
provided
during
community
meetings.
With
regard
to
public
participation
techniques,
the
techniques
listed
in
MTC’s
PPP
are
a
near
duplicate
of
what
is
found
in
SJCOG’s.
However,
the
following
listed
techniques
are
unique
to
MTC
and
not
shared
by
SJCOG:
-­‐ Contract
with
community-­‐based
organizations
in
low-­‐income
and
minority
communities
for
targeted
outreach
-­‐ Link
to
OneBayArea
website
from
the
individual
websites
of
the
regional
agencies
-­‐ Statistically
relevant
public
opinion
poll
(also
available
in
languages
other
than
English)
-­‐ The
methods
ABAG
and
MTC
will
use
to
report
progress
on
the
SCS
planning
effort
will
include,
but
not
be
limited
to,
the
web,
e-­‐mail
updates,
electronic
and
print
newsletters,
and
local
media
outlets

15. 9
Figure
5
–
MTC
Sub-­‐Section
D.
“What
We
Heard
From
the
Public”
Like
SJCOG,
MTC
lists
its
public
participation
goals
for
the
2013
SCS,
but
provides
an
additional
goal
not
listed
by
SJCOG.
MTC
lists
“6.
Participation
Satisfaction,”
which
seeks
to
have
people
who
have
taken
the
time
and
energy
to
participate
feel
as
though
it
was
“worth
their
while
to
join
in
the
discussion
and
debate.”
Further,
MTC
details
its
targeted
performance
measures
associated
for
each
of
the
goals.
In
Appendix
B,
MTC
once
again
provides
a
summary
description
regarding
the
themes
that
developed
during
public
outreach.
This
provides
the
reader
a
more
concise
overview
of
what
the
community
was
feeling
overall
regarding
specific
issues.
Takeaways
Though
the
SJCOG
and
MTC
documents
share
many
similarities
in
terms
of
structure
and
content,
MTC
does
provide
greater
detail
in
some
of
the
aforementioned
aspects
of
the
PPP.
SJCOG
can
enhance
its
document
by
further
articulating
the
common
themes
which
emerged
through
the
outreach
processes.

16. 10
In
addition,
SJCOG
may
want
to
consider
the
feasibility
of
incorporating
some
of
the
noted
public
participation
techniques
into
its
next
PPP
update.
SACOG
The
most
recent
version
of
SACOG’s
PPP
was
approved
in
August
2013.
Its
PPP
consists
of
four
sections:
1. Public
Participation
Plan
and
Process
2. Public
Participation
Process
for
MTP/SCS
3. Public
Participation
Process
for
the
MTIP
4. Native
American
Indian
Tribal
Government
Input
Each
of
these
sections
contain
accompanying
sub-­‐sections.
Additionally,
two
appendices
are
included:
Appendix
A:
Public
Involvement
Activity
Evaluation
Table
Appendix
B:
Advisory
Committees
(plus
a
list
of
acronyms
and
a
glossary)
The
design
and
layout
of
SACOG’s
PPP
was
designed
for
public
consumption.
The
colored
title
and
section
pages,
use
of
pictures
and
callouts,
as
well
as
the
supplemental
list
of
acronyms
and
glossary
are
all
intended
to
enhance
readability
and
understanding
of
the
content
(Figure
6).
Figure
6
–
SACOG
Colored
Title
Cover,
Section
Page
and
Use
of
Informational
Callout
and
Picture
Examples
SACOG
employed
a
robust
public
participation
process
in
the
development
of
its
MTP/SCS
that
involved
nearly
8,000
residents
in
its
region.
Between
2005
and
2006,
the
public
had
an
opportunity
to
participate
in
150
presentations,
17
community
workshops,
market
research
and
Elected
Officials
Summit.
Additionally,
SACOG
presented
Tall
Order:
Moving
the
Region
Forward,
which
featured
eight
simultaneous
workshops
that
brought
together
1,525
people
by
video
conferencing.
SACOG
also
conducted
significant
public
opinion
research
for
the
MTP/SCS
for
2035.
This
included
a
randomly-­‐
sampled
phone,
online
surveys,
and
focus
group
surveys,
as
well
as
a
self-­‐sampled
on-­‐line
survey.

17. 11
SACOG
also
worked
with
local
media
(e.g.
KCRA
3)
to
engage
the
public
for
input
on
regional
transportation
priorities.
This
relationship
allowed
for
transportation
issues
to
be
brought
to
television
and
computer
screens
across
the
Sacramento
region.
Residents
were
provided
the
opportunity
to
provide
input
on
through
a
poll
posted
on
KCRA
3’s
website.
The
efforts
resulted
in
more
than
55,000
viewers
and
more
than
1,300
online
poll
respondents.
In
the
sub-­‐section
titled
Development
of
a
Proactive
Public
Involvement
Process,
SACOG
provides
the
reader
bullet-­‐points
explaining
the
rationale
behind
promoting
public
participation
and
the
purpose
of
collecting
community
feedback.
This
is
yet
another
way
SACOG
educates
Sacramento
County
residents
on
the
public
participation
process
and
draws
attention
to
its
efforts.
Beyond
the
required
activities
for
public
participation
input,
SACOG
employs
a
number
of
innovative
optional
activities.
For
example,
conducting
interactive
resident
planner
workshops
where
participants
identify
an
interest
and
are
seated
with
individuals
with
different
interests.
They
are
then
given
a
planning
issue
and
asked
to
work
towards
a
consensus
on
recommendations,
using
a
variety
of
feedback
instruments.
In
this
manner,
the
workshops
provide
public
education
through
interactive
exercises.
These
workshops
provide
qualitative
input
similar
to
that
collected
from
focus
groups.
SACOG
also
develops
media
strategies
to
help
generate
interest
in
a
project
or
program.
An
effective
media
strategy
helps
frame
a
consistent
message
and
avoids
inaccurate
information
that
can
create
hindrances
in
understanding
or
implementation.
In
Appendix
A,
SACOG
provides
an
evaluation
table
for
public
activities
which
details
the
particular
public
involvement
activities,
applicable
program/project
the
activity
is
used
with,
evaluation
criteria,
performance
goals,
and
the
methods
used
to
meet
these
goals.
This
information
is
presented
for
both
the
required
activities
and
optional
activities.
Takeaways
SACOG’s
PPP
is
well-­‐designed,
intuitive
and
informative.
SJCOG
should
consider
enhancing
the
overall
look
and
readability
of
its
current
PPP.
An
attractive
and
informative
document
that
is
inviting
to
read
(e.g.
callouts,
glossary,
and
list
of
acronyms)
can
be
viewed
as
another
method
that
adds
to
the
overall
effort
of
generating
public
interest/participation
and
educating
the
public.
SJCOG
should
also
consider
strategies
to
enhance
or
better
leverage
its
existing
relationships
with
local
and
regional
media.
A
communications
calendar
(if
not
already
existing)
could
be
created
to
help
provide
a
long
view
strategy
used
to
feed
media
outlets
pitches,
news
releases
and
other
collateral
to
garner
potential
media
interest
in
planning
and
programming
developments.

18. 12
SCAG
The
most
recent
version
of
SCAG’s
PPP
was
approved
in
April
2014.
The
PPP
consists
of
11
sections
(three
being
appendices):
I. Message
from
the
President
II. Introduction
III. Public
Participation
Goals
IV. Public
Participation
Plan
Process
for
Achieving
Goals
V. Interested
Parties
VI. Public
Participation
Plan
Requirements
VII. Accountability
VIII. Conclusion
(Appendices)
IX. Appendix
A:
Strategies,
Procedures
and
Techniques
for
Public
Participation
Related
to
the
RTP,
FTIP
and
Overall
Work
Program
X. Appendix
B:
Acronyms
XI. Contacting
&
Providing
Input
to
SCAG
With
exception
to
the
appendices,
each
of
these
sections
contain
accompanying
sub-­‐sections.
In
Section
III,
SCAG
identifies
three
major
areas
of
its
PPP:
Outreach,
Engagement
and
Evaluation
(Figure
7).
Within
each
area
it
articulates
a
series
of
activities
and
goals.
Subsequently,
in
Section
IV,
the
strategies
and
initiatives
meant
to
achieve
the
aforementioned
goals
are
further
expanded
on.

19. 13
Figure
7
–
Examples
of
SCAG’s
Section
III
Public
Participation
Plan
Goals
Much
more
than
the
other
reviewed
PPPs,
SCAG
goes
into
extensive
detail
regarding
Title
VI
and
Environmental
Justice,
noting
the
historical
development
via
Executive
Orders,
federal
and
state
laws
which
led
to
the
requirements
that
SCAG
is
in
compliance
with.
SCAG’s
PPP
does
not
provide
much
specific
detail
regarding
its
overall
public
involvement
strategies.
Instead,
it
describes
them
in
broad
general
terms.
It
does
provide
more
detail
of
its
overall
approach
to
public
participation
strategies,
procedures
and
techniques
when
relating
to
the
RTP,
FTIP
and
OWP,
though
not
data
is
provided
from
previous
outreach
efforts
for
these
plans.
Takeaways
SJCOG
may
want
to
consider
adopting
SCAG’s
Q
&
A
styled
approach
(Figure
8)
to
presenting
information
regarding
its
public
participation
process.
This
strategy
may
help
to
better
inform
readers
of
answers
to
typical
questions.

20. 14
Figure
8
–
SCAG’s
Question
and
Answer
Style
Approach
to
Explaining
the
Public
Participation
Process

21. 15
SUMMARY
OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
SJCOG’s
current
PPP
presents
a
useful
and
informative
document
that
can
adequately
educate
a
reader
on
the
processes,
strategies
and
rationale
described
by
the
agency
in
the
public
participation
plan.
Notwithstanding,
improvements
can
be
made
in
terms
of
style,
structure
and
content,
which
may
aid
in
further
encouraging
public
involvement
in
the
planning
process,
along
with
educating
the
region’s
residents
of
SJCOG’s
transportation
planning
and
projects.
Additionally,
noteworthy
strategies
found
in
other
MPO’s
PPPs
are
listed
below
for
consideration.
Style
The
document
is
presented
in
a
straightforward
manner,
absent
of
elaborate
typeface
or
unique
design
aspects.
While
this
is
an
acceptable
style
format,
perhaps
more
attention
can
be
directed
toward
improving
the
future
aesthetic
of
the
Plan’s
next
update.
The
use
of
infographics,
pictures,
callouts,
creative
typeface
and
charts
can
all
be
used
to
enhance
the
reading
experience.
Making
an
attractive
and
appealing
document
should
be
part
of
an
overall
effort
to
educate
the
public
and
ultimately
increase
public
participation.
Structure
The
structure
of
SJCOG’s
PPP
smartly
places
an
early
emphasis
on
making
known
the
agency’s
commitment
to
public
participation.
To
further
strengthen
that
emphasis,
consideration
may
be
given
to
placing
the
federal
and
state
requirements
sub-­‐section
towards
the
end
of
the
document
or
as
a
separate
appendix,
as
reading
through
the
legislation,
Executive
Orders,
codes
and
requirements
may
be
too
technical
for
most
readers
and
may
dissuade
them
from
reading
the
document
in
its
entirety.
Content
The
stated
purpose,
goals,
rationale,
legal
requirements,
and
strategies
found
within
the
PPP
are
all
clearly
stated
and
well-­‐articulated.
However,
further
enhancement
to
existing
sections
and
sub-­‐sections
can
help
with
readability
and
public
understanding.
SJCOG
should
consider
providing
documentation
(as
Fresno
COG
has)
of
public
comments
received
and
the
corresponding
responses
provided
by
the
agency.
This
supplemental
information
can
be
added
as
an
appendix,
providing
the
public
documentation
of
its
correspondence
with
the
agency.
This
may
help
to
foster
the
notion
that
their
(the
community’s)
voice
is
heard.
In
similar
fashion,
SJCOG
may
consider
providing
quantifiable
(survey
data)
and
qualitative
(workshop
feedback,
public
comment)
data
for
public
review,
in
a
similar
fashion
to
what
is
found
in
Appendix
A
of
SANDAG’s
PPP.
When
the
volume
of
public
comment
present
the
opportunity,
SJCOG
can
do
a
better
job
of
conveying
public
opinion
by
consolidating
like
answers
into
common
answer
themes,
as
consensus
is
often
more
impactful
than
presenting
quotes
from
individual
respondents.
Unlike
many
of
the
reviewed
PPPs,
SJCOG
doesn’t
fully
articulate
or
provide
detailed
performance
measures
for
its
public
outreach
activities.
A
better
detailed
explanation
of
performance
measures
may
help
the
public
to
grasp
the
scope
and
effort
of
the
agency.
Finally,
SJCOG
may
consider
adopting
SCAG’s
Q
&
A
style
format
of
explaining
its
public
participation
process.
By
providing
answers
to
generically
asked
questions,
this
may
provide
yet
another
way
of
educating
the
public.

22. 16
Strategies
In
an
effort
to
provide
the
most
accurately
reflective
depiction
of
the
priorities,
desires
and
needs
of
San
Joaquin
County
residents,
SJCOG
should
consider
commissioning
the
services
of
an
outside
consultant
to
help
design
and
conduct
statistically
rigorous
surveys
(when
appropriate)
in
the
development
of
major
planning
projects
or
programming.
SJCOG
should
also
consider
strategies
to
enhance
or
better
leverage
its
existing
relationships
with
local
and
regional
media.
A
communications
calendar
(if
not
already
existing)
could
be
created
to
help
provide
a
long
view
strategy
used
to
feed
media
outlets
pitches,
news
releases
and
other
collateral
to
garner
potential
media
interest
and
better
strategize
impending
planning
and
programming
developments.
SJCOG
should
consider
conducting
interactive
resident
planner
workshops
(as
utilized
by
SACOG)
where
participants
identify
an
interest
and
are
seated
with
individuals
with
different
interests.
They
are
then
given
a
planning
issue
and
asked
to
work
towards
a
consensus
on
recommendations,
using
a
variety
of
feedback
instruments.
In
this
manner,
the
workshops
provide
public
education
through
interactive
exercises.
These
workshops
provide
qualitative
input
similar
to
that
collected
from
focus
groups.

23. 17
(page
intentionally
left
blank)
SJCOG
Public
Participation
Debriefing

24. 18
In
August
2014,
SJCOG
staff,
including
the
agency’s
deputy
director,
convened
for
a
debriefing
session
to
discuss
the
public
participation
efforts
used
in
the
development
of
the
2014
Regional
Transportation
Plan/Sustainable
Communities
Strategy
(RTP/SCS).
The
purpose
of
the
debriefing
was
to
provide
a
critique
of
the
techniques
and
strategies
used
to
engage
the
public
and
elicit
participation
in
the
transportation
planning
and
financing
decision-­‐making
process.
The
ultimate
goal
of
the
session
was
to
highlight
successful
practices
that
can
be
carried
forward
into
the
development
of
the
next
RTP/SCS
update,
as
well
as
to
identify
areas
that
need
to
be
addressed
or
improved
to
maximize
public
involvement
and
to
further
include
all
voices
which
makeup
the
San
Joaquin
County
community.
The
following
sections
provide
a
summary
of
the
key
takeaways
from
the
debriefing
discussions
regarding
specific
outreach
efforts
used
early
in
the
civic
engagement
process.
PUBLIC
LISTENING
SESSIONS
SJCOG
staff
conducted
a
series
of
listening
sessions
around
the
county
in
late
July
and
early
August
2013.
Six
total
meetings
were
held
in
Ripon,
Escalon,
Lodi,
Tracy,
Manteca
and
Stockton.
Overview:
• These
were
the
first
of
the
formal
outreach
sessions
with
direct
input
to
the
2014
RTP/SCS
• Sessions
advertised
by
printed
flyer/emailed
to
apx.
550
email
addresses;
notification
also
sent
to
interested
parties
that
asked
to
be
included
through
email
or
“opted
in”
on
sjcog.org
• 53
people
officially
attended
(signed-­‐in)
one
of
the
six
sessions
• 128
additional
responses
collected
via
a
survey
posted
to
the
website
What
strategies
were
effective?
Staff
noted
the
listening
sessions
were
better
attended
than
the
later
held
scenario
workshops.
To
promote
the
sessions,
email
blasts,
posted
flyers
at
public
venues,
Facebook
newsfeed
placement
(a
paid
service)
ads,
and
tweets
(Twitter
posts)
were
used.
Staff
said
the
sessions
were
adequately
staffed.
Though,
it
was
noted
that
a
staff
member
should
always
be
present
to
help
facilitate
the
exercises
(e.g.
walking
from
table-­‐to-­‐table
and
assisting)
during
the
event.
These
sessions
yielded
many
positive
comments
regarding
the
clicker
response/input
technology
that
were
utilized
at
the
events.
Staff
agreed
that
clear
distinction
between
workshops
was
provided.
Concerns
(including
those
voiced
by
the
public)
Staff
noted
there
was
indication
given
that
people
wanted
a
wider
variety
of
answer
choices,
as
they
felt
the
provided
answer
choices
weren’t
accurately
reflective
of
what
they
felt.
It
was
suggested
by
staff
that
future
questionnaires
include
“other”
as
an
answer
choice
to
resolve
the
issue.
One
participant
voiced
displeasure
about
not
be
given
enough
opportunity
to
speak
directly
to
the
audience.
Areas
needing
improvement

25. 19
Staff
needs
to
place
a
public
notice
prior
to
these
types
of
public
events.
It
was
noted
that
there
wasn’t
many
(if
any)
repeat
attendees
through
the
course
of
the
listening
session
series.
Staff
noted
it
needed
to
do
a
better
job
at
including
survey
questions
that
will
yield
useful
information
to
help
aid
in
fine-­‐tuning
public
engagement
approaches.
Suggestions
included
asking
survey
questions
such
as
“how
did
you
hear
about
this
event”
and
“what
would
you
like
to
see
next?”
It
was
also
mentioned
we
need
to
ask
income
level
demographic
questions
to
better
understand
how
well
we
are
reaching
environmental
justice
target
groups/communities.
There
is
a
need
to
improve
the
process
identifying
target
public
groups
and
go
to
them
to
elicit
their
participation.
Strategies
should
be
developed
to
allow
for
public
discussion
(as
appropriate)
in
a
forum
setting
that
won’t
allow
for
agenda
driven
grandstanding
or
diatribes.
It
was
recognized
that
there
were
no
language
specific
workshops
held,
though
translation
services
were
always
available
if
needed
at
these
sessions.
Finally,
it
was
noted
that
there
is
a
need
for
more
personalization
in
the
outreach
process;
a
follow-­‐up
protocol
should
developed
to
maintain
and
encourage
contact
with
attendees.
Needing
further
inquiry
It
was
suggested
by
staff
that
there
is
need
to
determine
the
duration
of
these
types
of
events
comparatively
with
other
MPOs.
This
information
will
help
to
inform
SJCOG
of
what
others
are
doing,
and
help
to
determine
food/beverage
and
staff
consideration.
It
was
recommended
that
staff
look
at
STANCOG’s
approach
to
attending
festivals
and
other
well
publically
attended
events
for
enhancing
opportunities
to
establish
grassroots
efforts.
In
relation
to
the
SJCOG’s
website,
staff
suggested
looking
into
whether
it
is
possible
to
determine
whether
website
visitors
clicked
on
the
video
(for
information/instruction)
before
taking
the
survey.
Also,
inquiry
needs
to
be
made
to
determine
what
types
of
cross-­‐tabulated
data
can
be
produced
that
would
help
in
the
development
of
methods
to
better
address
community/public
needs.
Finally,
it
needs
to
be
explored
what
the
best
translation
method
is
(i.e.
real-­‐time
translation
via
headphones
vs.
actual
translator
with
delay).
SCENARIO
WORKSHOPS
In
late
August
2013,
SJCOG
conducted
a
second
series
of
outreach
efforts
surrounding
the
newly
created
alternative
scenarios.
A
recap
of
the
round
one
listening
sessions,
description
of
the
next
steps
in
the
plan
development
process,
and
an
explanation
regarding
the
connection
to
the
scenario
element
was
provided.
The
workshops
were
also
used
to
evaluate
scenario
performance
and
help
SJCOG
choose
scenario
components
for
further
refinement.
Overview
• Second
series
of
outreach
efforts
• Flyers
provided
in
both
English
and
Spanish
to
same
email
groups
from
Listening
Sessions
• Workshops
advertised
in
both
print/on-­‐line
versions
of
local
papers,
as
well
as
on-­‐line
version
of
Latino
Times
and
Joaquin
magazine
• Approximately
61
participants
(41
attended
the
workshop
held
in
the
SJCOG
Board
Room)
attended
one
of
the
five
workshops

26. 20
• 25
additional
participants
filled-­‐out
an
on-­‐line
survey
posted
on
the
project
web
page
What
strategies
were
effective?
• A
wider
reach
for
a
potential
audience
• More
advance
notice
of
workshops
• More
detail
and
preparation
material
at
workshops
Concerns
(including
those
voiced
by
the
public)
It
was
noted
these
workshops
were
not
well-­‐attended.
Staff
whom
worked
the
events
stated
the
scenarios
were
hard
to
understand;
too
much
planning
jargon
and
information
was
too
technical
for
the
average
citizen
to
comprehend.
It
was
indicated
that
there
wasn’t
a
good
balance
of
socioeconomic
and
demographic
diversity
at
the
workshops.
Areas
needing
improvement
Staff
recognized
a
better
job
needed
to
be
done
identifying
scheduling
conflicts
with
local/community
events.
An
example
was
given
regarding
a
workshop
that
was
scheduled
at
the
same
time
as
a
locally
held
event,
and
it
was
suggested
this
may
have
been
partly
responsible
for
low
turnout
to
the
workshop.
Outreach
staff
should
inquire
about
being
placed
on
city/community
event
email
lists
to
be
kept
abreast
of
event
scheduling
in
each
targeted
location.
Staff
noted
it
needed
to
do
a
better
job
at
including
survey
questions
that
will
yield
useful
information
to
help
aid
in
fine-­‐tuning
public
engagement
approaches.
Suggestions
included
asking
“how
many
of
you
attended
a
previous
session?”
Staff
suggested
enhancing
visual
and
interactive
exercises
for
group
collaboration.
This
strategy
may
help
in
better
conveying
complex
planning
and
programming
concepts
to
the
general
public.
Interactive
exercises
help
foster
collaboration,
dialogue
and
interest.
It
was
recommended
to
review
SACOG’s
interactive
resident
planner
workshop
process.
Logistically,
staff
again
recommended
having
a
dedicated
staff
member
available
to
assist
and
facilitate
activities
at
each
workshop
table.
Needing
further
inquiry
Staff
recommended
inquiring
with
elected
officials/board
member
of
each
targeted
location
about
helping
promote
the
workshops
and
creating
a
“buzz”
with
their
own
respective
constituent
groups.
Staff
needs
to
further
explore
what
number
of
staff
are
needed
to
adequately
conduct
these
events.
MINI-­‐PRESENTATIONS

27. 21
In
addition
to
the
formal
Listening
Sessions
and
Workshops,
SJCOG
staff
provided
educational
presentations
to
a
variety
of
interest
groups
throughout
the
development
of
the
2014
RTP/SCS,
between
January
and
August
2013.
Overview
• Seven
presentations
were
provided
to
a
variety
of
interest
groups
between
January
and
August
2013
• At
the
request
of
several
interest
groups
and
standing
committees,
an
enhanced
outreach
efforts
were
provided
in
Jan./Feb.
2014
prior
to
the
release
of
the
draft
2014
RTP,
and
after
the
release
of
the
RTP/SCS
in
March
through
April
2014
What
strategies
were
effective?
Staff
noted
that
going
out
to
the
targeted
groups
worked
well—it’s
much
more
effective
to
reach
target
groups
at
their
locations,
in
a
comfortable
and
often
less
formal
atmosphere,
as
some
target
groups
are
less
likely
to
participate
if
they
are
simply
extended
an
invitation
and
expected
to
travel
to
a
specified
location.
Concerns
(including
those
voiced
by
the
public)
n/a
Areas
needing
improvement
Staff
noted
that
there
is
a
need
for
better
coordination
with
local
groups
to
better
target
efforts.
In
some
cases,
it
was
unclear
between
the
SJCOG
presenter
and
hosting
group
as
to
what
the
expectation
for
the
mini-­‐presentation
was
(i.e.
was
it
the
sole
reason
for
the
local
group
meeting…was
the
presentation
to
be
given
as
a
public
comment…or
set
up
on
a
table
for
after
the
meeting?).
It
was
recommended
by
staff
that
an
earlier
deployment
of
web
analytics
could
help
determine
if
retooling
is
necessary.
During
the
development
of
the
latest
RTP/SCS,
the
website
was
revamped
in
the
middle
of
the
outreach
efforts
which
made
measuring
web
traffic
to
the
site
difficult.
Staff
also
suggested
that
additional
staff
should
be
present
to
take
down
notes,
comments
and
relevant
information,
allowing
the
presenter
to
be
free
to
facilitate
the
discussion.
Needing
further
inquiry
n/a
PROJECT
WEBSITE
During
the
course
of
the
development
of
the
2014
Regional
Transportation
Plan,
SJCOG
maintained
a
dedicated
web
page
as
a
“one
stop
shop”
for
information
related
to
the
process.
The
website
included
such
as
items
as
a
FAQ,
Fact
Sheets,
videos,
links
to
on-­‐line
surveys,
virtual
workshop
materials,
and
links
to
join
the
interested
parties
list.
Staff
comments

28. 22
Materials
were
more
user
friendly
and
had
strong
graphic
content.
Diversity
of
type
of
materials
(i.e.
fact
sheets/YouTube,
web
site
posting)
were
good
ways
to
get
the
message
out
to
a
diverse
audience.
Fact
sheets
were
helpful
transmittal
materials
to
community
organizations
to
“pass
out”
or
circulate
within
their
organization.
VALLEYWIDE
OUTREACH
In
addition
to
the
civic
engagement
activities
undertaken
by
SJCOG,
a
complimentary
valleywide
outreach
program
provided
additional
outlets
to
disseminate
information
and
inform
interested
citizens
of
ways
to
obtain
project
information
for
each
of
the
eight
participating
Regional
Transportation
Planning
Agencies
(RTPAs),
including
SJCOG.
Tools
included:
-­‐ Templates
for
flyers
-­‐ Public
service
announcements
-­‐ Public
outreach
training
-­‐ Project
videos
Also,
a
combination
of
on-­‐line
ads
and
on-­‐line
audio
were
run
during
the
months
of
August,
September,
and
October
2013
and
included
on-­‐line
newspapers,
Google,
and
the
music
streaming
outlet
Pandora.
Images
of
several
on-­‐line
ads
are
included
on
the
pages
that
follow.
Media
outlets
and
on-­‐line
outreach
analytics
for
the
valleywide
outreach
campaign
are
included
after
the
images.
Staff
comments
Staff
didn’t
believe
the
valleywide
outreach
program
was
especially
beneficial
to
SJCOG’s
overall
outreach
efforts
in
terms
of
bringing
more
people
to
community
workshops/listening
sessions.
Staff
expressed
concerns
that
the
valleywide
branding
may
have
led
to
possible
confusion
and
ambiguity
when
trying
to
promote
the
individual
RTP/SCS
of
SJCOG.
Staff
suggested
utilizing
a
more
integrated
effort
instead
of
separate
strategies
would
prove
to
be
more
helpful
for
each
Regional
Transportation
Planning
Agency.

29. 23
(page
intentionally
left
blank)