Planning Scholarship and Grant Opportunities

Information to and from the Public
URBS 300
March 23, 2015
California Planning Foundation Scholarship
$1,000
Excellent academic record
Senior in 2015-16 academic year
500 word essay why planning is important to you, how
scholarship will help, short- and long-term career goals
2 letters of recommendation
Demonstration of financial need
Due March 31, 2015
http://www.csun.edu/social-behavioral-sciences/urban-studies-
planning/california-planning-foundation-scholarships
Railway Association of Southern California Scholarship
2 undergraduate scholarships or $3,000
Enrolled in Fall 2015 in degree program related to rail
transportation industry
Minimum GPA of 3.0
Interest in profession in rail transportation industry

Need a letter of recommendation and personal statement
Due March 30, 2015
http://www.railwayassociation.org/scholarship.html
WTS: Ava Doner Memorial Undergraduate Scholarship
2 awarded: $4,000 or $6,000
Open to women only
Due in October, awarded in November
http://www.wtsinternational.org/losangeles//scholarships/
Association for Women in Architecture Foundation
$1,000
California resident or accredited California school
Due April 22
Application form, transcript, 2 sealed recommendations,
personal statement, portfolio
Can be senior year
http://awaplusd.org/scholarships/

Pacific Water Quality Association
“Major of Study Related to Potable Water Quality Scholarship”
$1,000
Proof of enrollment
Essay on usefulness of education and how money will help
Transcripts
Application
Letter of recommendation
http://www.pwqa.org/images/shared/scholarship_application.pdf
Mail-in, must be received by April 1, 2015
California Transportation Foundation: Bimla G Rhinehart
Memorial Scholarship
$2,500
Due April 1, 2015
Application, Essay, Letter of Recommendation, and Resume
planning/california-transportation-foundation
Dot Maps

When They are Useful
When deciding locational issues
Determine if there are patterns
Find if there is NIMBYism
Find alternative and consistent patterns of desired change
Determine reasons by the results
What Do You Need
Maps (the hard part)
Make your own via GIS
Purchase maps that may be of limited use ($15/map?)
Stickers
Facilitators for each group
Advisory Groups & Interviews

Why Advisory Groups?
Cross-sample of the public
Can become informed and understand the full situation
Relationships develop that moderate extremes
Link back to constituencies
Principles for Establishing Advisory Groups
Include all viewpoints
Role in decision-making defined
Limited length of time
Members communicate with constituencies
Authority interacts with advisory group
Use non-technical language
Prepare for extra time and expense
Selecting Members of Advisory Groups
Organization selects and balances interests
Third party selects
Organization identifies interest and lets groups select
representatives
Also allow volunteers
Popular election

Procedures in Advisory Groups
Voting & Parliamentary Procedure
Preferable to avoid, want more consensus
Robert’s Rules of Orders
Attendance & Alternates
Observers
Subcommittees
Confidentiality
Usually become public
Communications
Minutes
Interviews
Provide significant feedback
Time-consuming
Very limited sample
Most people are honored
Negative: Tend to receive more agreement
Understand purpose of the interview
Interviewee would like to know
Determines focus of questions

Interviews
Selection
Attempt to be representative of viewpoints
By telephone, determine if umbrella group is representative
Length: 30-60 minutes
Be conscious of time
Questions
Avoid leading questions
Ask open-ended questions
Take notes
Keep eye contact
Tape recorder or take notes after
Confidentiality
Sharing information
General statement OK, watch confidentiality
Groupware Demo
Situation
http://www.urbanrail.net/am/lsan/los-angeles.htm

Groupware
Presentation
Questions to solicit feedback
Technology Issues
Add-in to Powerpoint
Making sure computer accepts the add-in
Ensuring USB works
Batteries for the clickers
Preferred Subway Station Design
1. MARTA Peachtree Center
2. Hollywood METRO Station
3. NYC Subway Station
My Preferred Subway Station Design Is
MARTA Peachtree Station

Hollywood Station
NYC Station
A. MARTA Peachtree Center
B. Hollywood METRO Station
C. NYC Subway Station
With a Fixed Capital Budget, METRO Should Focus on…
Subway Expansion
Streetcars
Bus Rapid Transit
Expanded Bus Service
With a Fixed Capital Budget, METRO Should Focus on…
Subway Expansion
Streetcars
Bus Rapid Transit
Expansion of LA’s Subway System Should Focus on

Profitability
Lowest Capital Cost
Tourist Service
Serving the Underserved
The Subway Line to be Expanded
Red
Blue
Green
Gold
Purple
Expo
Groupware
Anonymity
Everyone involved
Quick and interactive
Fun!
Set-up time
Limited questions
Strengths
Weaknesses

Web-based: Survey Monkey
Free for up to 100 responses
Useful feedback from attendees or non-attendees
http://www.surveymonkey.com/
Due Wed: Decision-Making Process
Continuing with Participation Plan
Group assignment
½ page
1 Section (basically a table)
Outline the stages needed to during the participation plan
Develop a time-frame that will give enough time to host
meetings and collect feedback
StageCompletionStage 1: Informing the public about the need
for a landfillDecember 2004Stage 2: Identifying alternative
sitesApril 2005Stage 3: Evaluating alternative sitesFebruary
2006Stage 4: Selecting a siteJune 2006Stage 5: Construction
planningJanuary 2007

123
0%0%0%
MARTA Peachtree Station
Hollywood Station
NYC Station
0%0%
100%
1234
0%0%0%0%
Subway Expansion
Streetcars
Bus Rapid Transit
0%0%
100%
0%
1234
0%0%0%0%
123456
0%0%0%0%0%0%
URBS 300
March 16, 2015
$1,000

Due March 31, 2015
Minimum GPA of 3.0
Due March 30, 2015
2 awarded: $4,000 or $6,000
Open to women only

$1,000
Due April 22
Can be senior year
$1,000
Proof of enrollment
Transcripts
Application

$2,500
Dues April 1, 2015
Advisory Groups & Interviews
Why Advisory Groups?
Cross-sample of the public
Can become informed and understand the full situation
Relationships develop that moderate extremes
Link back to constituencies
Principles for Establishing Advisory Groups

Include all viewpoints
Role in decision-making defined
Limited length of time
Members communicate with constituencies
Authority interacts with advisory group
Use non-technical language
Prepare for extra time and expense
Selecting Members of Advisory Groups
Organization selects and balances interests
Third party selects
Organization identifies interest and lets groups select
representatives
Also allow volunteers
Popular election
Observers
Subcommittees
Confidentiality
Communications

Minutes
Interviews
Time-consuming
Very limited sample
Interviews
Selection
Questions
Take notes
Keep eye contact

Confidentiality
Sharing information
Dot Maps
When deciding locational issues
Determine if there are patterns
Find if there is NIMBYism
Find alternative and consistent patterns of desired change
Determine reasons by the results
What Do You Need
Maps (the hard part)
Make your own via GIS
Purchase maps that may be of limited use ($15/map?)
Stickers

Due Mon: Level of Interest & Interested Groups
Continuing with Participation Plan
Group assignment
½ to 1 page long
2 Sections
What is the expected level of interest?
What groups generally will be interested and what is their
position?
While some seems repetitive (like the history) it is useful
because the reader can skip to this section and not read the
history.
URBS 300

March 16, 2015
$1,000
Due March 31, 2015
Minimum GPA of 3.0
Due March 30, 2015

2 awarded: $4,000 or $6,000
Open to women only
$1,000
Due April 22
Can be senior year
$1,000

Proof of enrollment
Transcripts
Application
$2,500
Dues April 1, 2015
Information to the Public

Goal
Provide unbiased information
Information to all participants
Hurdles
Press will maximize conflict
Internal pressures to “look good”
Certain groups will never trust
Internal approval processes are time-consuming
Goals for Communicating to the Public
Large Reach
Control of Message
Low Preparation Time
Low Monetary Costs
High Overall Effectiveness
Getting Information to the PublicMethodMessage ControlPublic
ReachCostPrep TimeFeedbackFace to FacePresentation to
Community GroupsHighMediumMediumHighHighExhibits and
DisplaysHighMediumMediumHighMediumMediaFeature
Stories/News ReleaseMediumHighLowHighLowMedia
Interviews/Talk ShowsMediumHighLowMediumLowMedia
KitsLowHighLowHighLowInternetInformation Repository (city
website)HighLowLowMediumLowSocial
MediaMediumMediumLowMediumMediumMailingsTechnical

ReportsHighMediumHighMediumLowMass
Mailings/NewslettersHighHighHighHighLowNewspaper
Inserts/AdvertisingHighHighHighHighLow

The Response
Extended time period
Same information with a better format

Getting Information from the Public
Multiple methods
Look at constraints and goals
MethodPublic ReachCostPrep TimeFeedbackSmall
GroupsAdvisory Group/Task
ForceMediumMediumHighHighRetreatLowHighHighHighCoffee
KlatchMediumLowHighHighFocus
GroupLowMediumHighHighLarge Group MeetingsConsensus
Building/ConferenceHighHighHighHighLarge/Small Group
MeetingsHighMediumHighHighPublic
HearingsMediumLowHighLowCharretteHighHighHighHighSoci
al InteractionsInterviewsLowLowHighHighCity Walk/Field
TripMediumMedium/HighHighHighTechnologyPolls and
SurveysHighHighHighHighHotlinesMediumHighMediumMediu
mInternetMediumLowLowMediumVotingHighHighHighHigh

Observers
Subcommittees
Confidentiality
Communications
Minutes
Meetings: Seating Assignments
People come and group together
Like-minded are together
Less interactions
Mixing methods
Name tags with table numbers
Tags with color-coded dots
Interviews

Time-consuming
Very limited sample
Interviews
Selection
Questions
Take notes
Keep eye contact
Confidentiality
Sharing information

Web-based: Survey Monkey
Free for up to 100 responses
Useful feedback from attendees or non-attendees
http://www.surveymonkey.com/
Reporting to the Public
Provide quick feedback
2-3 weeks maximum
While still on public’s mind
Specify timeline
Show how feedback is affecting decision-making
An added alternative
Search criteria selected
Respond to issues that seem “ignored”
Explain why the suggestion were not taken
Break Out Groups

To allow individual feedback and brainstorming
To cause interaction between guests
To cause discussion
Mix interests to create communications
Separate issues to create common bonds
At the beginning of processes where brainstorming is preferred
What Do You Need
Large paper and stands
Markers
Cost: $50/pad and markers (fairly cheap)
Alternate Format: Dot Democracy
People brainstorm issues/improvements
People vote for/against
4 dots “for”, 4 dots “against”
Can put multiple dots on a given issue
Will get different results at each breakout group
Looking for trends and want to record findings
What you need
Dots, dots, and more dots
Scissors

For Wednesday
1 group will do brainstorming by topic
1 group will do dot democracy
I will bring pads, markers and dots
Due Wed: Issues and
Issue Management Program
Participatory Plans &
Case Studies
URBS 300
March 9, 2015

James Ring Scholarships
$1,000; 2 awarded
Requirements
URBS Major
60 units completed by end of spring semester
Not a graduating senior
Essay of 500 words on how scholarship will help for career
objectives
Attend ceremony
Strong candidates
Cumulative GPA >3.2
URBS Major GPA >3.5
Service activity in campus or community organizations
Due March 13, 2015 to Prof. Henrik Minassians
planning/james-ring-scholarship-awards

$1,000
Due March31, 2015
Minimum GPA of 3.0

Due March 30, 2015
2 awarded: $4,000 or $6,000
Open to women only
$1,000

Due April 22
Can be senior year
$1,000
Proof of enrollment
Transcripts
Application

$2,500
Dues April 1, 2015
Will post to URBS website
What is a Participatory Plan

Participatory Plan
Framework
Plan
Proposal
Strategy
Pre-work
…before the big job starts
The rational planning in communicative planning!

Public Participation Planning
Decision Analysis
Clarify the decision being made
Specify the steps and schedule
Decide need and purpose of public participation
Process Planning
Specify anticipated accomplishments of each step
Indentify stakeholders
Identify techniques for each step
Link techniques into a plan
Implementation Planning
Plan implementation of each activity
HP Office Building
Arizona Orme Dam
Chula Vista, California
Three Case Studies

HP Office Building: Site
2-year abandoned factory site
HP’s first factory (closed in 1995)
Palo Alto, CA
2 sides have residential housing
City planners had designated area as mixed use

HP Office Building: Issues
Affordable housing
Housing values
Avoid traffic
Activists speaking for the neighbors
HP: Neighborhood Outreach
Met with city planning director
Immediate neighbors (within 300ft)
“Bring me a winner”
Communication brochure

Visit neighbors and businesses
Neighborhood meeting: 25 attendees
Minimize traffic
Increase landscape
Avoid a monolith
Improve street view
Neighborhood leaders
HP Outcomes
2nd meeting and mailing
Presented designs
Landscaping over affordable housing
3rd meeting and mailing
8 attendees (others satisfied)
Outcome
Residents pleased
No major concerns
Held in a neighbor’s home

HP Office Building: Approval
Review Process
Architectural Review Board
Controversy goes to City Council
4 or 5 neighbors spoke in favor
Architectural Review Board had minor changes
Opened in 1999
Arizona Orme Dam

Central Arizona Water Control Study: Orme Dam
Phoenix, AZ: Salt and Verde River Confluence
Authorized in 1968 as part of Central Arizona Project
Irrigation
Flood protection
Opposition
Fort McDowell Indian Community
Environmentalists: Bald eagle sites
Proponents
Business: flooding in 1978-79

New study with Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of
Engineers
Started around 1980
Orme Dam: Advisory Committee
24 Governor-appointed stakeholders
Water users
Environmentalists
Fort McDowell Indians
Downtown business interests
Mayor of Phoenix
Governor would promote committee decision
Monthly meetings
Newsletter with 5,000 subscribers
Sent every 2-3 months

Orme Dam: Advisory Committees
Environmental Group
Evaluate wildlife habitat
Social Impact Group
Evaluate impact on Indian tribes
Both had experts from federal, state, and local agencies
Orme Dam: Meetings
3 rounds of workshops
Each round met at 6-7 locations around Phoenix
Round 1: Criteria
Environmentalists set up pamphlets to cheat the system
Review point: Met with environmentalists to work out issues
Round 2: Elements and separate actions
Multi-attribute alternative analysis result presented
Round 3: Alternative plans
Near consensus

Orme Dam: Multi-attribute Utility Analysis
Branches: Twigs
Economics : Benefit/Cost ratio; Total cost amortized; Local
economic benefits
Environmental: Endangered species habitat; Game species
habitat; Water quality; Air quality
Staff evaluate how well each option fulfills the twigs
Each homogeneous groups ranks the branches
Each groups rankings allow identification of preferred option
Business and agriculture interests not the Orme Dam
Environmental interests same alternative as business
Orme Dam: Outcome
Build two dams (23-1)
Verde: blocked by lawsuit

Aqua Fria built: New Waddell Dam
Positive feedback on the process
2005: Arizona Republic article describing water problems
(releasing run-off) a result of not building these dams
Orme Dam Victory Days
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBjPo-ja4Eg
Chula Vista Beachfront

Chula Vista Beachfront
Unique land swap agreement
Met legal requirements
Used innovative ideas to achieve results
Consensus was built
Developers
Port
Neighbors
Environmentalists
Video

Public Participation Group Projects

From Groups and Discuss Topic
Work in groups of 4
Will generate a public participation plan on a controversial
subject
Don’t choose a project that has been decided
Do choose something that is of interest
Want to figure out a plan to deal with the controversy
Critiques of Communicative Planning
URBS 300
Wednesday, March 5, 2015
$1,000; 2 awarded
Requirements
URBS Major

objectives
Attend ceremony
Strong candidates
Cumulative GPA >3.2
URBS Major GPA >3.5
$1,000
Due March31, 2015
Minimum GPA of 3.0

Due March 30, 2015
2 awarded: $4,000 or $6,000
Open to women only
$1,000
Probably due April 15 (this year’s is not out yet)
Can be senior year
$1,000
Proof of enrollment
Transcripts
Application

Typology of Planning TheoriesLocus of
PlanningCentralizedDecentralizedMode of
PlanningRationalApplied Scientist: Rational PlanningPolitical
Activist: Advocacy PlanningNon-rationalConfront Politics:
IncrementalismCommunicator: Communicative Planning
Mixed Scanning
Equity
Planning
Rational Planning StepsStepsRational PlanningIncremental
PlanningMixed ScanningAdvocacy PlanningEquity
PlanningCommunicative PlanningData CollectionData
AnalysisForecastingEstablish GoalsDesign AlternativesTest
AlternativesEvaluate AlternativesSelect
AlternativesImplementationMonitor/EvaluateStepsRational
PlanningIncremental PlanningMixed ScanningAdvocacy
PlanningEquity PlanningCommunicative PlanningData
CollectionXFund.XXXData
AnalysisXFund.XX?ForecastingXFund.XXEstablish
GoalsXXXXXDesign AlternativesXFund.X?Test
AlternativesXFund.XEvaluate AlternativesXFund.XSelect
AlternativesXXXXX?ImplementationXXXXXXMonitor/Evaluat
eXX (can always undo)XXX?
Communicate Theory Finale

Planners Communicative Responsibilities
Prevent and correct false promises
Correct misleading expectations
Eliminate unnecessary dependency
Create and nurture hope
Spread policy and design questions to those affected
Nurture dialogue
Communicate genuine social and political possibilities
Planners roles
Initiators
Start a consensus-building process
Finders and presenters of information
2-way communication requires revisions
Find experts of alternative viewpoints
Written documentation
Minutes, issue reports
First drafts of negotiating documents
Mediators and facilitators
Shuttle diplomacy
Represent stakeholders
Advocacy vs Communicative Planning
Mediated negotiation
Should use to address power imbalances
Useful when
Involves many issues
Trading to find mutual gain
Diverse interests rather than fundamental rights are at stake

Consensus Building
All stakeholders present
Common information for all
Interests of each stakeholder identified
Agree on facts, create options, develop criteria to chose, make
decision if agree
Consensus Building:
San Francisco Estuary Project
5-year project
50 stakeholders (developers, agriculture, water agencies,
environmentalists)
Salinity level was indicator of choice
Communicative Checklist
Equally informed
Empowered to discuss
All claims and assumptions must be able to be questioned
Sincerity and honesty
Credentials and experience
Comprehensibility
Factually accurate
Group must seek consensus
Contributions of Communicative Action
Focus on communicative aspects of planning
Planners effect the future
Planners can help rebalance power and end inequities

New methods for developing plans
Consensus building
Dispute-resolution
Group decision-making techniques
New research opportunities
Communicative Theory Critiques
Potential drawbacks of
Communicative action
Few daily activities are communicative
Preparing and organizing issues
Determining alternative approaches
Budgets and timetables
Legal and political aspects
Managing and being managed
Citizens are not altruistic
Too many perspectives
Citizens are narrow-minded, self-serving, and prejudiced
May represent themselves and not a group
May not be accepted if just representing themselves
Small-town planning may prevent overarching benefits (Abram,
2000)

Political process may prevent consensus
Winners & losers
Losers will fight, must go to court
Depends on planning system and requirements
Consensus may not be reachable
Power distribution may not change with communicative action
Creates distrust
Decisions may not be made until later
Focus on process rather than content
Avoids showing what is good
Loss of image, maps, and plans
BART process
Traditional transportation plans
Focus on technical studies
Public-participation requirement increasing
Goals assumed
1996 Strategic Plan: A New Era of Partnership
Major issue: Free & Inadequate Parking
90% full by 9am
(Willson, Payne, and Smith, 2003)
The Sides

22
First Workshop
Education of issues
Prevent early negotiation
“Suffering” stories indicate bargaining
Identify goals
Started as a parking process, ended as an access problem
Find points of agreement
Created ground rules
Second Workshop
Draft framework
Goals
Policies
Neutral meeting facilitator
Don’t focus on differences
Focus on implications of framework
No system-wide changes on controversial issues
Agreed on incremental parking charges
Positive outcomes
Set station modal access targets
Adopted new parking time regulations
Charges for use of reserved parking

Parking charges for joint development of new stations
First manager of parking programs
Station access plans for 12 stations
No litigation
Did Communicative Planning Work?
Citizens are not altruistic, nor is the board
Adopted incremental policies
May not get quick changes
Added ½ year to the process
Atlanta Vision 2020
Atlanta Regional Council (ARC)
Desired future state for region
Funding by local foundations and corporations
Break from decision-making by small elite
Collaborative effort took about a year, set-up 2-1/2 years
Phase IDateItemJuly 1991ARC staff completes VISION 2020
prospectusOct 1991Selection of Steering Committee
beginsConsultants selected to prepare material and
strategiesDec 1991Press conference announces VISION
2020May 1992Outlook Conference presents results of Delphi
surveySept 1992Joint retreat of ARC Board and Steering
Committee refines future statement containing alternative
scenarios for the regionOct 1992Consultant selected to conduct
public outreachFuture statement presented to RLI
membersConsultant facilitates VISION 2020 CongressDec

1992Joint retreat reviews future statementJan 1993Outreach
begins: Community Forums, Junior Achievement, Speakers’
BureauMar 1993TV town hall meeting airsCitizen survey and
newspaper supplement appear in four newspapersMay
1993Outlook Conference present report, “A Shared Vision for
the Atlanta Region”June 1993National Civic League provides
three 2-day session of community collaboration trainingJan
1994Chris Gates, of Nation Civic League, trains collaborative
Initiating Committees, addresses Steering Committee
(Helling, 1998)
Phase IIDateItemMay 1994Leadership Strategies Inc hired to
facilitate, manage collaborative process, and train ARC
staffOutlook Conference releases baseline population and
employment forecasts, initiates collaborativesJune 1994First
meeting of Governance, Health, Transportation, Human
Services, Diversity and Housing collaborativesJuly 1994First
meeting of Economic Development collaborativeSept 1994First
meetings of Environmental and Public Safety collaborativesOct
1994First meeting of Education collaborativeFeb 1995VISION
2020 Regional CongressMar 1995Second TV town hall meeting
airsMay 1995Leaders of all 10 collaboratives meet to address
cross-cutting issues and define major initiativesJune
1995Newspaper supplement, “The Regional Dialogue”, appears,
including second public opinion surveyCelebration breakfast
presents the collaboratives’ initiatives, launches Action
Planning TeamsJuly 1995Implementation Committee
formedSept 1995Outlook Conference present printed report, “A
Community’s Vision Takes Flight”
(Helling, 1998)
Collaborative OutcomesDescription of Collaborative

OutcomesValid ResponsesMean ScoreMet people I did not know
who were concerned about this topic1992.7Learned what other
people think about this topic1942.6Group brought together
people who previously had not talked1972.5Group made
progress toward consensus on what is important1952.3Educated
others about my point of view1922.2Group raised new issues
that weren’t on the table before1922.1Learned about the politics
surrounding the topic1922.1Learned a lot about the topic
generally1912.1Learned of issues of which I was not previously
aware1942.0Made contacts that may be useful in my
job1912.0Educated others about facts previously unknown to
them1912.0Convinced others that my issues are
important1902.0
(Helling, 1998)
Atlanta Vision2020 Results
Promoted interpersonal interaction
Only 11 of 41 action initiatives implemented
Develop cynicism
Interviewees felt much more work to be done
Plans not adequate to take vision to reality
Politicians maintained distance
Cost $4.4 million
Lino Lakes, MN
I-35E Corridor
Development pressures
Minneapolis suburb
Mixed-use project proposed
AUAR – Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Large areas
Not based on specific proposal

(Shively, 2007)
Lino Lakes – Advisory Board
39 member
Appointed by City Council
City environmental board, landowners, developers, public
30 regularly participated
8 development meetings
1 draft review
1 process issue review
Consultants facilitated
Results of Change in Perceptions
Data from pre- and post- process surveys
Positives
Members agreed more that membership was representative
Increased confidence that agencies and developers would
comply with outcome
Post-survey had smaller standard deviations in responses
indicating more similar perceptions
Those who attended most did not have perception changed;
they were most concerned and most fixed in their positions
Conclusions
Few daily activities are communicative
Citizens are not altruistic

Political process may prevent consensus
Consensus may not be reachable
Power distribution may not change with communicative action
Focus on process rather than content
Mixed Scanning
Equity
Planning

What is a Public Participation Plan?
URBS 300
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
$1,000; 2 awarded
Requirements
URBS Major
objectives
Attend ceremony
Strong candidates
Cumulative GPA >3.2
URBS Major GPA >3.5
$1,000

Due March31, 2015
Minimum GPA of 3.0
Due March 30, 2015
2 awarded: $4,000 or $6,000
Open to women only
$1,000
Due April 22

Can be senior year
$1,000
Proof of enrollment
Transcripts
Application
$2,500
Dues April 1, 2015
Will post to URBS website
Decision Analysis
Process Planning

Decision Analysis
Process Planning
Six Steps of Decision Analysis
Decide who needs to be involved
Clarify the decision-maker
Clarify the problem
Specify stages and their schedule
Identify constraints
Decide need for and type of public participation
Who Needs to be Involved
Identify the decision-maker

Others in your agency involved with plan
Public affairs
Governmental affairs
Graphics & layout
Publications
Contracting
Local office managers
Identification and inclusion will help increase success (they will
identify with the plan)
Clarify Decision-Maker
Difficult to identify
Low level: decision overridden
High level: not involved
Involve them early, ask them to:
Identify potential controversial issues
Identify stakeholders who will influence senior management
Identify participants to provide credibility
Determine frequency of reviews
Identify boundaries and constraints to apply to the process
Indicate desire to review the public participation plan
Create partnerships with those who can “veto” results
Clarify the Problem
What is the problem?
Planning team (your agency) should identify
Frequently conflicting points-of-view
Resolve conflicts to focus the plan
Is the project needed?
Is the problem value-oriented (not technical)?

Are many technical decisions catalyzed from public input?
Are innovative solutions allowed?
Specify Stages and Their Schedule
5 generic decision-making steps
Define the problem
Establish evaluation criteria
Identify alternatives
Evaluate alternatives
Select a preferred alternative
Why is this useful?
Determine appropriate public participation stages
Explain to public and get buy-in
Time-frame with back-end date
Identify Constraints
Agency already committed
No need for public participation
Internal opposition to public participation
Schedule or resource constraints
Constraints on release of information
Decide Need for Public Participation
Questions to consider to determine need
Is public participation required?
Is the decision likely to be controversial?
Significant impacts
Decision has uneven impacts
Impact existing vested interest or use (rights)

Already controversial issue (or tied to)
Is there a trade-off of values?
Decide Type of Public ParticipationGoalType of ProgramBetter-
informed publicPublic information programFulfill
requirementsMinimal; lose credibility if controversial
issueOpportunity for public to voice opinion, no interaction
expectedPublic hearing (1-way)Support or informed
consentCollaborative problem-solvingFull agreementDefined
negotiation process, parties with ability to make binding
commitments
Decision Analysis
Process Planning
Eight Steps of Process Planning
Decide on planning team
Identify stakeholders and potential issues
Assess controversy

Define public participation objectives
Analyze necessary information exchange
Identify special considerations
Select public participation techniques
Prepare a public participation plan
Decide on Planning Team
Group may change from decision analysis step
Identify Stakeholders and Potential Issues
Stakeholders
Make sure none are left out
Target the program
Assess controversy levels
Indicate if internal/external
Internal may have significant power
One identification tool
Economics
Use
Mandate
Proximity
Values/Philosophy
Other tools
Self-identification
Prior documents
Ask interested people
Staff knowledge
Past participation in similar issues

Determine Stakeholders Roles
Unsurprised Apathetic
Provide them with information
Observers
Read papers and reports
Only get involved if something is upsetting
Commenters
Too busy to be more involved than a meeting or two
Technical Reviewers
Required assessment methods
Active Participants
Committed
Need to include
Co-Decision Makers
Start early so they are committed
Identify Potential Concerns
Need time to address
Resolve studies
Policy decisions
Develop informational materials
Releasing information is time-consuming
Writing and editing
Require many internal reviews
Assess Controversy
Indicators of controversy
Significant impacts
Prior controversy
Related to major issue or power struggle
Local politics

Stakeholder group existence based on controversy
Helps to identify timing and involvement
Define Public Participation Objectives
What do we want from the public at the end of each stage?
StageObjectiveDefine the problemObtain an understanding of
view of all significant interests
Identify level of public interestEstablish evaluation
criteriaIdentify a complete list of possible criteria
Agree on evaluation criteriaIdentify alternativesDevelop a list
of all possible alternativesEvaluate alternativesDevelop
understanding of impacts
Assess relative merit of alternatives by interestsSelect a course
of actionDetermine most acceptable alternative
Analyze Information Exchange
For each public participation objective
Identify information provided to stakeholders
Identify information needed from stakeholders
Identify Special Considerations
Timing (or lack thereof)
Technical complexity
Level of interest (numbers)
Importance to Groups
Public Awareness
Hostile or apathetic public
Divided or united public
Geographic extent
Outside interest

Maturity of issue
Existing institutions
Organization Credibility
Political Sensitivity
Pre-commitment
Resources
Select Public Participation Techniques
Activities for each stage
6 months is a critical length for no communication
Prepare a Public Participation Plan
Why develop?
Determine how public participation effects decision-making
Send for review to achieve buy-in
Informs management of progress and expected controversy
Shared with stakeholders to assess interest and commitment
Demonstrates rationale for decision if later controversy
What’s in it?
Description of consultations with outside groups
Key issues and controversies
Key affected people and their perceive controversy
Level of interest
Decision-making process
Planned public participation
Review points for planning process
Budget and staff resource requirements

Decision Analysis
Process Planning
Involve many people to make meetings work
Jointly develop the plan to develop buy-in
Who?
Spokesperson
Technical Experts
Meeting Facilitators
Graphic Artist
Publications
Publicity and Media Relations
Mailings
Logistics
Tricks of the Trade
Never take an elected official by surprise
Publication approval takes forever
Visit the meeting room in advance
Have a technology backup
Don’t outnumber the public

Background
Preliminary Consultation
Major Issues
Issues Management Program
Level of Interest
Interested Groups
Decision-Making Process
Public Participation Activities
Review Points
Participatory Plan
Background
Existing landfill close in 1999 (Sunny Glen)
Groundwater contamination
3-year temporary contract which will not be renewed
Incinerator discussed in mid-1990s
Air quality opposition
Approval
Department of Public Works lead agency
City Council to approve
Reviews by
Los Diablos County Solid Waste Division
California State Dept. of Health Services
Preliminary Consultation
Interagency Group (staff)
Sunny Glen
Department of Public Works
Planning Department

County of Los Diablos
Solid Waste Department
Planning Department
Environmental Compliance Department
California Department of Health Services
Engineering and environmental consultants
Consultation with:
City Council members
League of Women Voters
Neighborhoods Against Garbage (NAG)
Presidents of three neighborhood homeowners’ associations
Major Issues
City’s credibility: old facility not safe as city claimed.
Health risk and groundwater contamination: neighbors of any
landfill will be extremely concerned.
Land use compatibility: landfill compatible with existing and
future land uses?
Stigma: threat to property values and image of their
neighborhood.
Traffic: Noise, dust, and traffic safety from movement of
trucks. Expressed as a concern for children en route to or from
school.
Reduction of waste stream: Environmental groups may oppose
siting the landfill to force greater reduction of waste generated.
Issues Management Program
City’s credibility: Openness and visibility of entire process.
Health risk and groundwater contamination: Landfill impacts
on groundwater involves major technical work. To ensure

credibility:
Technical advisory committee will develop scope.
Citizen advisory committee will review scope.
Members of technical advisory committee help select
engineering consultants.
Land use compatibility: During Stage 1, the members of citizen
advisory committee were taken on a field trip to a modern
sanitary landfill. Subsequent trips for neighborhood leaders
scheduled as needed.
Stigma: Assess property value impacts from siting comparable
facilities in other communities. Conclude by the end of Stage 1,
before site identification. Discuss study design with both the
citizen and technical advisory committees. If the study shows
negative property value effects, mitigation to be identified and
analyzed during Stage 2.
Traffic: Traffic studies for each site. Scope and consultant
selection reviewed by both the citizen and technical advisory
committees.
Level of Interest
With the history of the old landfill and the potential for
neighborhoods to become organized in opposition to proposed
sites, the level of citizen and group interest is expected to be
very high, justifying an extensive public participation program.
Interested Groups
Neighborhood groups (notably NAG)
Organized during the closure of the old landfill: quite active.
Each possible host neighborhood is likely to organize.
Developers and owners of large parcels of land

Interested and concerned.
Future growth depends on solving the solid waste problem
Landfill location influences areas of future city development.
Environmental groups
Concerned with reducing the waste stream.
Concerned with groundwater contamination.
Select site with fewest environmental impacts.
City Council members
Potential controversy, want to be kept fully informed of all
activities, particularly within their electoral district.
Decision-Making ProcessStageCompletionStage 1: Informing
the public about the need for a landfillDecember 2004Stage 2:
Identifying alternative sitesApril 2005Stage 3: Evaluating
alternative sitesFebruary 2006Stage 4: Selecting a siteJune
2006Stage 5: Construction planningJanuary 2007
Public Participation Activities: Stage 1
Informing the Public about Need for Landfill
Main objective: Make the public fully aware of siting
emergency.
Second objective: Gain acceptance of proposed study
methodology and public participation plan.
Public participation activities during this stage
Newspaper insert describing need for new landfill. Signed by
influential community leaders.
Feature newspaper stories to describe problem.
Speakers’ bureau to make presentations at civic clubs,
homeowners’ association meetings, and other local gatherings.
Talk shows with city council, city managers, and other
recognized leaders.

Both a citizen advisory group and a technical advisory group
(with technical representatives from agencies). Hire a
facilitator.
Review the study methodology and public participation plan
with both advisory groups.
Newsletter 1 describing (1) project need, (2) the establishment
of the advisory group, (3) the study methodology, and (4) the
public participation plan.
Identifying Alternative Sites
Technical studies to identify potential sites.
Public participation objectives
Ensure public is satisfied all potential sites are considered
Agreement on criteria to evaluate sites.
The public participation activities include:
Series of public workshops. Public asked to
Propose alternative sites
Review the study methodology and public participation process.
Series of meetings with advisory groups to get agreement on
evaluation criteria.
Series of coffee klatches with homeowners’ associations to
discuss proposed evaluation criteria.
Newsletter 2, describing proposed evaluation criteria and
process and announcing a town meeting.
Town meeting for final comments on evaluation criteria.
Evaluating Alternative Sites
Screening out unacceptable sites and identifying final

alternatives.
Public participation objectives
Ensure public is satisfied with alternatives screened out
Ensure public is fully informed about remaining alternatives.
The activities are:
Series of screening workshops with both advisory groups to
screen out clearly unacceptable alternatives.
Series of meetings with homeowners’ associations to review
screening decisions.
Newspaper insert 2 to describe alternatives dropped and
remaining. Announce upcoming public workshops.
Paid advertisements to announce public workshops.
Series of public workshops to review remaining alternatives.
Newsletter 3 describing public comment on remaining
alternatives.
Selecting a Site
Preferred site identified and recommended to City Council.
Primary public participation objective: Develop consensus
The public participation activities:
Final evaluation workshop with the technical advisory group.
Evaluation workshop with the citizens’ advisory group.
Neighborhood workshop with remaining neighborhoods with
potential sites.
Citizen advisory group retreat to develop recommendations for a
preferred site.
Briefings with elected officials to announce the advisory group
recommendation.
Meetings with neighborhood homeowners’ associations to
explain the advisory committee recommendations.
Series of meetings with the neighborhood of proposed site to
identify mitigation.
Newsletter 4 to announce advisory group recommendation and

final public meeting.
Final public meeting to discuss the advisory group
recommendation.
Newsletter 5 to announce the site and describe city council’s
review process.
City council holds public hearings, as required by city
regulations.
City council makes a decision.
Newsletter 6, announcing city council decision.
Construction Plan
Primary public involvement objective: Finalize mitigation
measures and minimize construction issues.
Public participation activities:
Series of neighborhood coffee klatches to discuss construction
process and to identify neighborhood issues.
New advisory group consisting, primarily of neighbors plus one
or two members from previous advisory groups.
Work with the new advisory group to develop alternative
approaches for addressing neighborhood concerns and reducing
construction impacts.
Handout describing approaches to addressing neighborhood
concerns and inviting people to a series of neighborhood
meetings.
Series of neighborhood meetings to get neighborhood reactions
to approaches for reducing construction impacts.
Work with the neighborhood advisory group to evaluate the
alternative approaches for reducing construction impacts, and
develop a proposed plan.
Handout summarizing the proposed plan, and distribute it along
with an invitation to a final round of meetings.
Series of neighborhood meetings to review proposed plan.
Brochure describing the plan to minimize constructions impacts,

and mail it to every home in the neighborhood.
Review Points
Meeting to review plan
End of Stage 1 (Dec 2004)
End of Stage 2 (April 2005)
End of Stage 3 (Feb 2006)
Assignment for Monday
Background and Preliminary Consultation &
Powerpoint Introduction
Background and Preliminary Consultation
What is the history of this project or area?
Identify why it is important for the public participation plan
Should be short and succinct but address all relevant inssues
Powerpoint Presentation
3-minutes long
Present the topic and background
Get relevant pictures and maps to show location and provide
information

Communicative Planning
URBS 300
March 2, 2015

$1,000

Due March31, 2015

Minimum GPA of 3.0
Due March 30, 2015

2 awarded: $4,000 or $6,000
Open to women only

$1,000
Probably due April 15 (this year’s is not out yet)

Can be senior year

$1,000
Proof of enrollment
Transcripts
Application

Mixed Scanning
Equity
Planning

StepsRational PlanningIncremental PlanningMixed
ScanningAdvocacy PlanningEquity PlanningData
CollectionData AnalysisForecastingEstablish GoalsDesign
AlternativesTest AlternativesEvaluate AlternativesSelect
AlternativesImplementationMonitor/Evaluate

PlanningData CollectionXFundamentalXXData
AnalysisXFundamentalXXForecastingXFundamentalXXEstablis
h GoalsXXXXDesign AlternativesXFundamentalXTest
AlternativesXFundamentalXEvaluate
AlternativesXFundamentalXSelect
AlternativesXXXXXImplementationXXXXXMonitor/EvaluateX
X (can always undo)XXX

Postmodernism
Rejects modernism tenants of
Sense of order
Comprehensibility
Predictability
Rationality
Recognizes
Complexity of problems
Elusiveness of solutions
Chaotic nature of social, economic and political environments

Oppression by Modernism
Race
Culture
Gender
Time- and space-specific communities

Why postmodernism?
Fragmented power
Distrust of government and experts
Multiple discourses
New tribalism
Technology changing quickly

Planning in the Postmodern
Dark Side of Theory
Promote radical urban forms, institutions, and development
practices
Assertively express local and particular interests of our
constituents
Communicative Theory
Connect people and ideas
Create joint learning
Coordinate interests and players
Build social, intellectual and political capital
New methods to work on challenging tasks
Prepare for uncertainty

Communicative Action
Collective sense of meaning created by communications

Shared understanding
Communication is the essence of the planning process
Planners influence public’s perception through communications

Applegate Valley
500,000-acre watershed in SW Oregon
Historic gold-mining
BLM and Forest Service own 70% land
Large-scale timber harvest in late 1960s
Medford, Grants Pass, and White City grew
Timber revenue ½ of county revenue
Environmental opposition
Spotted owl
Marbled murrelet
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/olympia/wet/team-research/owl-res/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbled_Murrelet

Applegate Partnership
“The Applegate Partnership is a community-based project
involving industry, conservation groups, natural resource
agencies, and residents cooperating to encourage and facilitate
the use of natural resource principals that promote ecosystem
health and diversity. Through community involvement and
education, this Partnership supports management of all land
within the watershed in a manner that sustains natural resources
and that will, in turn, contribute to economic and community
stability within the Applegate Valley”
Led by Jack Shipley

Resident & Environmentalist
9 members
2 federal land managers
2 environmentalists
2 timber company employees
1 community organizer
1 soil & water conservation district employee
No staff

Applegate
5 months of unpublicized getting to know you meetings
Open to public and membership open
Represent perspectives rather than take positions
Focus on problem solving and collectively identifying
alternatives
Make preliminary suggestions
Social and professional networks tested ideas
Field trips
Helped find agreement
New techniques identified
Expanded to private lands

Applegate Conclusions
Wide support
Some environmental groups did not participate
Wanted to stop all timber sales
Federal agencies still responsible for decision-making
Provided much data
Were actively involved

Questions
Would the process be different for rational planners?
Would advocacy planning worked better for Applegate?

Types of Information
Technical
Experience
Stories
Intuition

Types of CommunicationTypeOne-WayTwo-WayFace-to-
faceNon-verbal face-to-face communicationXMeetingsXXFront
counterOXCasual
conversationXInternet/ElectronicFacebookXOE-
mailXOWrittenFormal plans and reportsXMemosXVoice: Phone
callsOX
Note: X – Strong Form, O – Weak Form

Four Characteristics of
Good Communication
Comprehensible
Sincere
Legitimate
True

Information
Historically studies are ignored
Not value-neutral
Experts disagree
Most influential when part of assumptions and policy
definitions
People frequently cannot explain what information caused the
decision
Institution and process changes

Process Change:
Human Rights
1970s law to require human rights reports
Law could not be rescinded by Reagan
Three changes
Training how to find out and interpret data changed actions
Created advocacy on behalf of foreign officers
Human rights was a concern of most meetings and incidents

Process Change: California Environmental Quality Act
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
Require reporting of environmental effects of development
Allows court cases for poorly prepared reports
Requires feedback from the public
Change is up-front as developers try to prevent court cases
Only based on information
Doe not require protecting environment

Unemployment index
Took 20 years to fully develop
Unemployment rate became identical to unemployment
Ingrained in society – people fought to keep it
Predictive models
Legislation integration
Understanding of economy

Planners Communicative Responsibilities
Prevent and correct false promises
Correct misleading expectations
Eliminate unnecessary dependency
Create and nurture hope
Spread policy and design questions to those affected
Nurture dialogue
Communicate genuine social and political possibilities

Planners roles
Initiators
Start a consensus-building process
Finders and presenters of information
2-way communication requires revisions
Find experts of alternative viewpoints
Written documentation
Minutes, issue reports
First drafts of negotiating documents
Mediators and facilitators
Shuttle diplomacy
Represent stakeholders

Advocacy vs Communicative Planning
Should use to address power imbalances
Useful when
Involves many issues
Trading to find mutual gain
Diverse interests rather than fundamental rights are at stake
Consensus Building
Common information for all
Interests of each stakeholder identified
Agree on facts, create options, develop criteria to chose, make
decision if agree

Consensus Building:
San Francisco Estuary Project
5-year project
50 stakeholders (developers, agriculture, water agencies,
environmentalists)
Salinity level was indicator of choice

Communicative Checklist
Equally informed
Empowered to discuss
All claims and assumptions must be able to be questioned
Sincerity and honesty
Credentials and experience
Comprehensibility
Factually accurate
Group must seek consensus

Contributions of Communicative Action
Focus on communicative aspects of planning
Planners effect the future
Planners can help rebalance power and end inequities
New methods for developing plans
Consensus building
Dispute-resolution
Group decision-making techniques
New research opportunities

Planning Scholarship and Grant Opportunities

Planning Scholarship and Grant Opportunities

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Planning Scholarship and Grant Opportunities

Similar to Planning Scholarship and Grant Opportunities (20)

More from dirkrplav

More from dirkrplav (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Planning Scholarship and Grant Opportunities