June 25, 2001

LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS

TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

FROM: Carol Roos, Sr. Legislative Analyst

FILE NO.: 010599

HEARING DATE: June 28, 2001

COMMITTEE: Housing, Transportation and Land Use

SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BASED PLANNING

SUMMARY

SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ACTION

Your office asked the Office of the Legislative Analyst (OLA) for a jurisdictional analysis of comprehensive long-range planning processes which include significant neighborhood and community input.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Community based planning is an evolution and reinvention of traditional planning, particularly specific area plan development. It is developing at a time when there is a perception in many cities that planning "from the top down" has failed in the neighborhoods. Community based planning is inclusive, bringing in all stakeholders, including neighborhood residents, regularly participating groups, advocates, planners and businesses, and bringing them in at the beginning of the process rather than having them respond to a finished plan. Community based planning makes mixed use development an integral objective of the process, considering and combining housing, commercial and transportation components together, rather than addressing them separately. The process takes advantage of the contributions of experts such as city planners and the knowledge of neighborhood residents, who know the neighborhood best. Successful community based planning considers the character of a particular neighborhood or community, within the context of the city as a whole.

BACKGROUND

Problems with traditional Comprehensive Planning were noted as early as the 1960"s. Criticism included assertions that meaningful public debate on comprehensive planning is virtually impossible because of its scope and generality, and that the role, power and knowledge of planners is too limited for them to prepare a comprehensive plan.ⁱ

In the 1990"s, a shift in viewpoint occurred, with the idea that the growing practice of consensus building as a method of deliberation provides the opportunity to reformulate the idea of comprehensive planning, built on different conceptions of knowledge, authority, analysis and public participation than traditional comprehensive

planning. Consensus building is a specific type of group process involving extensive discussion among a wide range of stakeholders: individuals, or their representatives, with interests in the outcome. It proceeds, not through formalities -- which may emphasize differences -- but through structured discussion which seeks common ground. As a group, participants can learn about one another" interests/concerns, challenge assumptions, reframe issues and jointly develop strategies. Rules normally require unanimity among participants, or at least willingness by all members not to oppose a proposal before a proposal is put forward. Consensus planning is increasingly seen as an alternative to continuous conflict over issues, and formal processes. It is seen as replacing one-way communication at formal hearings -- whether citizen to agency, department or board or vice versa -- with two-way dialogue. Community based planning is a type of consensus planning.

San Francisco has a tradition of community based planning. In the 1970"s, Community Development Block Grant funding (CDBG) was directed at community planning efforts. Community Development Block Grant money was administered by the Mayor"s Office of Community Development (MOCD), providing dollars to the Planning Department for a neighborhood planning group. The group was dissolved in the early 1980"s. Community revitalization projects were undertaken for Third Street, 16^th Street, and 24^th Street. In the late 1970"s, the federal Model Cities program allocated funding for community service programs to non-profit community development corporations (CDC"s), of which programs like BART"s Fruitvale transit oriented development, are descendants. Moneys were also available in the 1970"s through the federal RAP program (Rehabilitation Assistance Program) for community improvements such as house painting, for example. These federal and local programs were precursors, and share basic elements, of community based planning.

In the 1980"s in San Francisco, a number of specific plans were developed including the Downtown Plan, and the South of Market, Chinatown, and Van Ness Avenue Plans. At that time, the Neighborhood Commercial Plan and zoning, and rezoning of the Tenderloin were also implemented. These planning efforts were spurred, in part, by market forces during the boom cycle of the period, including burgeoning office and hotel development downtown which began to overflow into surrounding neighborhoods, especially Chinatown and SOMA (office development) and the Tenderloin (hotel development). The planning efforts sought to address and contain office development within the downtown core, and protect affected neighborhoods. The specific plans and rezoning included outreach to stakeholders throughout the planning process. The planning processes for the specific plans also typically included environmental review and plan development, with specific, formal public access points such as initial public notice of a proposal or planning effort and receipt of public comment; publication of a draft report for public review and comment, and an approval hearing.

Community based planning, expands these earlier planning processes. It emphasizes bringing all stakeholders together at the beginning in a generally informal, non-hierarchical context, to develop a plan collaboratively. Community planning replaces more top down planning with consensus planning, integrating bottom up planning (that is, neighborhood/stakeholder input), from the start. Community based planning initiatives are now underway in San Francisco"s Better Neighborhoods 2002 program and in other jurisdictions, for example, in Oakland (Fruitvale BART station Transit Oriented Development [TOD]), and San Jose (Strong Neighborhoods Initiative).

ANALYSIS

SAN FRANCISCO

Better Neighborhoods 2002

The Better Neighborhoods 2002 community based planning program (BN2002) of the San Francisco Planning Department is known to most stakeholders concerned about land use planning in the City. It is generally considered a successful effort, as evidenced by the fact that neighborhoods are queuing up to enter the program which is currently limited to three neighborhoods: Balboa Park, the Central Waterfront, and Upper Market/Octavia Boulevard.

The Better Neighborhoods 2002 process includes ongoing discussion with residents in each of the neighborhoods through a series of public workshops, walking tours of the neighborhood, bus tours of other neighborhoods, focused meetings and discussion groups held throughout the neighborhoods, and other public activities and events. Better Neighborhoods identifies eight Key Elements of a Great Neighborhood. They are:

· Special Character

· Part of the Whole (A neighborhood"s relation to the City)

· Getting Around Easily (Choice in transportation modes, reduced reliance on the automobile)

· Walk to Shops

· Safe Streets

· Gathering Places (parks, plazas, sidewalks, shops)

· Housing Choices

· City Services

Funding for BN2002 is General Fund moneys, almost exclusively (about $1.3 million per Better Neighborhood).

The Balboa Park Better Neighborhood also received a TCSP (Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program) grant.

Augmenting BN2002 alone does not address land use planning for the whole City. BN2002 addresses relatively small areas of the City. As the name and geographical focus imply, BN2002 creates consensus about one neighborhood at a time. Better Neighborhoods planning is taking place, however, in the context of overall planning, by planners at the Planning Department with a citywide view based on the General Plan. This planning combines background, planning concepts and data collection regarding housing, transportation, commerce and industry trends, and so on. Development of the associated Strategic Action Plan is currently ongoing. Resulting policy would be incorporated in the General Plan and implementing ordinances.

OTHER JURISDICTIONS

Fruitvale BART Station Transit Oriented Development, Oakland, California

This development is considered a successful community based planning effort, and the process is being replicated at other BART station areas. This redevelopment project represents a large public/private partnership to create a mixed use development on approximately 20 acres surrounding the Fruitvale BART station in Oakland. The Fruitvale BART Transit Village will include affordable and on-site senior housing, a health clinic, senior and child care centers, social services and a library; space for non profit organizations is included. Open space will include a plaza linking the BART station and the transit oriented development to the retail area centered at International Boulevard (formerly East 14^th Street); the open space will accommodate business carts and cultural activities, and a bike station will be provided. The project includes façade improvement and support for businesses on the key bordering arteries of Fruitvale Avenue and International Boulevard.

The Fruitvale, as it is called, is considered the business and cultural center for Oakland"s Latino community.

The public-private partnership, includes BART, the City of Oakland, La Clinica de la Raza and others as indicated below.

The project cost is estimated at $100 million. Primary funders include the City of Oakland with federal Enhanced Enterprise Community and Community Development Block Grant funds, and the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which is supporting the senior housing development. The City of Oakland has awarded grants as noted. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided some funding for site assessment. And more than $1 million has been raised from a variety of other sources including private and corporate foundations. Early planning money was provided by the US Department of Transportation and the city. The façade improvement and support for existing businesses on Fruitvale Avenue and International Boulevard will be supported with Hope 6 HUD funding and an anticipated grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation through its national Main Street Project. The project is now within a Redevelopment Area, as well.

Planning for the Fruitvale Transit Village and upgrading of the surrounding area has involved numerous players around the common goal of mixed use development. The provision of health care, child care, senior services, transportation, shopping and cultural events show promise for strengthening the fabric of the community. The project is being developed in phases, with senior housing built in a "pre-phase" (now complete and occupied). About 70 senior housing units have been completed. The central core of the project (totaling about 135,000 sq.ft.), including affordable housing (about 45 units), health clinic, child care, senior center and pedestrian walkways will begin construction in 2001 with consolidation of existing BART parking lots in a garage to allow for development of the transit village on existing surface parking lots. Associated retail space will also be developed. Development of the entire project is expected to take up to ten years.

The project received more than 50 applications from existing merchants for façade improvement support as local business skepticism shifted to support for the project. As a result of the project, the City of Oakland created a new transit zone which allows high density multi-use developments at other BART stations in Oakland.

San Jose

San Jose has a comprehensive community planning program, entitled the Strong Neighborhoods Initiative. The city has identified about 20 neighborhoods ranging from about 4,000 to 20,000, in terms of population, totaling about 300,000 people, or about one-third of the city. While the first focus is on areas most in need of public investment and support, including the most deteriorated infrastructure and housing stock, resources are not concentrated in one area. The city"s council members choose the neighborhoods, and projects are located in all but two of ten council districts.

San Jose"s community planning effort is characterized by teams, ranging from neighborhood teams to city teams including planners and city service providers, public works, parks, transportation, and police departments. There is also a city council office liaison, who attends all meeting, so that there is constant communication with the elected official"s office. The initiative can be compared to community policing, in which beat cops become a part of the neighborhood. Regarding funding, the city is working to declare all of the neighborhoods in the program as redevelopment areas, as the city"s redevelopment agency is strongly positioned as a funding base. The program includes a commitment to stay in the community, including long-term commitment in the form of 30-year redevelopment area designation.

San Jose"s community planning group has identified eight situations when teams outperform individuals (community based planning is, of course based on a team, or consensus, approach): When the task is complex; creativity is needed; the path forward is unclear; more efficient use of resources is required; fast learning is necessary; high commitment is desirable; the implementation of a plan requires the cooperation of others, and the task or process is cross-functional. The Strong Neighborhoods Initiative embodies all of these situations, and the organizational framework of the initiative is built around cross-functional teams.

Perhaps most important, each of the Strong Neighborhood areas has a city staff neighborhood team responsible for organizing the community, developing a neighborhood improvement plan, and implementing community priorities. This neighborhood team is a diverse group of people working together for the common goal of strengthening neighborhoods.

The neighborhood team is responsible for working with the community members in a specific neighborhood, considered by San Jose planners as essential to developing a true partnership with neighborhoods. This team becomes the link between the community, the plan it creates, and the city organization. Its role is to assist in creation and implementation of the plan. The team also provides a first point of contact for residents and other staff working in that community. The core members of the city"s neighborhood team are Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services; Planning; Building, and Code Enforcement; the Redevelopment Agency; and in areas of high crime the Police Department. A typical core team will consist of a:

· Community Coordinator from the Neighborhood Services Division,

· Senior Planner or Planner from the Planning Division,

· Assistant from the Council office

· Code Inspector from the Code Enforcement Division,

· Development Officer from the Redevelopment Agency, and

· Lieutenant from the Police Department (in areas of high crime)

Many departments that are essential to the success of the Strong Neighborhoods Initiative provide support to this core team and assign staff to individual neighborhoods. Typically these staff must cover a larger number of neighborhoods than members of the core team. Most neighborhood teams have support from:

· Department of Transportation

· Housing/Neighborhood Housing Services

· Public Works

· Office of Economic Development

· Other Divisions in Parks Recreation and Neighborhood Services

· And other departments and agencies on a case by case basis

By design the neighborhood team is non-hierarchical. Though there is a team leader, this does not imply a reporting relationship. The individual members of the team still report back to their respective department, but collectively the team is responsible for the work in its individual neighborhood.

The Neighborhood Services community coordinator has primary responsibility for community outreach and organizing. During the planning phase this means taking the lead in developing a neighborhood advisory committee, and providing outreach, logistical support for the advisory committee meetings and community workshops. In the implementation phase, the community coordinator will serve as team leader. The community coordinator will take the lead in working with community members, city departments and outside agencies to implement the neighborhood improvement plan. Throughout the initiative their role is that of facilitator of community involvement and coordinator of plan implementation.

During the planning phase the planner will be the team lead and will be responsible for coordinating with other team members, departments, and agencies for providing direction to consultants. During this initial period the role of the team is to support the creation of a community driven neighborhood improvement plan. The planner will bring the team together to assist with data gathering, developing the advisory committee, and supporting the consultant team.

During the planning phase the development officer from the Redevelopment Agency will be the lead on all redevelopment projects and opportunities within the neighborhood.

The code enforcement inspector acts as a liaison to coordinate the delivery of code enforcement services in the area. The inspector will play a key role in surveying the area for blight and determining the focus of future enforcement efforts. They will work with inspectors assigned to the area as well as providing direct service.

The Strong Neighborhoods Initiative, thus links residents, planners, city service providers, city council and neighborhood services staff together in a team that collaboratively creates a neighborhood plan and provides for its implementation.

CONCLUSION

Community based planning is an evolution and reinvention of traditional planning, particularly specific area plan development. It is inclusive, bringing in all stakeholders, including residents of the neighborhoods, as well as regularly participating groups, advocates, planners and businesses, and bringing them in at the beginning of the process rather than having them respond to a finished draft plan. Community based planning makes mixed use development an integral objective of the process, considering and combining housing, commercial and transportation components together, rather than considering them separately. The process takes advantage of the contributions of experts such as city planners and the knowledge of neighborhood residents, who know the neighborhood best. Successful community based planning considers the character of a particular neighborhood or community, within the context of the city as a whole.

Key Elements of Community Based Planning

Based on research for this report, including interviews with persons involved in community based planning, key elements of successful community based planning include:

· Goals. BART planning staff advise that community based planning participants start by identifying what the key goals are for the overall process. These will, in turn begin to dictate what the project is. BART is now committed to transit oriented development at its stations. (Fruitvale is just one example.)

· Inclusiveness. Successful community based planning includes all stakeholders.

· Diversity. This follows from the above item. The diversity of the community is considered.

· Networks. Persons interviewed encouraged use of existing networks of community groups: formal lists and information exchanges with group leaders.

· General versus specific. Those interviewed noted that it is good to begin at the general level, rather than going to the level of detail of a specific project, or type of project, level. Examples of the general include, What do stakeholders want the process to be? What do they want to get from the process? What kind of input to they want?

· Related Questions. These might include: What do people like about their community? What don"t they like? What do they want to change?

· Asset building. The San Jose Strong Neighborhoods Initiative and Better Neighborhoods both place emphasis on identifying a neighborhood"s special character and strengths and building on them, a positive rather than negative approach.

· Acknowledgement of the uniqueness of the planning project or area. BART staff advise that "one size fits all," does not apply.

· Recognition of the value of all stakeholders. Planners have professional expertise critical to community based planning, in the areas of transportation, urban design, and open space, for example. At the same time, no one knows a planning area better than the person who lives there.

i ENDNOTES:

Planning Through Consensus Building: a New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal, Judith E. Innes, Professor, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California at Berkeley; December 1994.

ⁱⁱ Bay Area Partnership for Building Health and Self Sufficient Communities for Economic Prosperity, Promising Bay Area Community Building Initiatives: Profiles and Analysis, Association of Bay Area Governments; March 16, 1997.

See http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/wreform/.

ⁱⁱⁱ The information in this section is primarily from Christopher Harkness, Community Services Supervisor, San Jose Departments of Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services, communication; April 6, 2001.