Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 04 12 Reports Date: 041204 The following Document was handed out by Commissioner McGinnis on 04/12/04 under "Reports" t . , " , CITIZEN AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION PLAN John J. Drago City A.dministrator City of Longwood The City of Longwood has adopted a new Citizen Awareness and Participation Plan for the day-to-day entitlement application the city's Planning Division handles, The plan requires developers to engage in early citizen participation as a routine part of the public hearing process. This paper explains how the plan works and discusses how it has fundamentally changed the interactions between the public, developers, and professionals during the development approval process. Introduction Many communities are experiencing an increase in public interest in planning and land use decisions. In response, local government is striving to improve citi4en involvement in these decisions. There have been two big shortcomings in these new participation efforts. The first is an almost exclusive focus on the large plan or project. Nearly all new ideas in public participation have come out of comprehensive plans, community visioning efforts, major transportation plans, large public works projects and the like. These big plans and projects certainly are important to residents of a community, but what about the day-to- day land development decisions? Rezonings, subdivision plats, conditional use pennits and variances can have as much - perhaps more - impaCt on the public as the big plans, yet the role of citizen participation in these decisions has change little in decades. Second, when looking to hnprove citizen involvement; local government has concentrated on new and better tools and techniques rather than new and better processes and procedures. Sending hearing notices to more people, making site posters bigger and buying larger newspaper ads.may get the word out to more people, but does it .improve the quality of citizen involvement? New tools applied in the same old way don't yield better results. The City of Longwood has adopted a Citizen Awareness and Participation Plan that addresses these shortcomings by creating a new citizen participation process for the day-t<rday entitlement applications the city's Planning Division handles. To begin to describe this new way of doing citizen participation, it's necessary to start by looking at the situation that created the need. What was the problem we were trying to solve? The Problem Longwood is one of the communities near Orlando and, like Orlando, has been experiencing a significant rate of growth for several years. Residents have watched the vacant land around them fill with houses, apartments and businesses. They've seen traffic increase and air quality decrease. Concern about the pace and quality of development has grown along with the community. <' -2- Residents were beginning to feel that they should have more say in the land use decisions that affected their lives. Many people were demanding to be involved in the decision process to an unprecedented degree. They started. to complain that the standard hearing process was inadequate, insisting on detailed information about projects and wanting to be more involved in project planning and negotiations. Citizens became mor~ vocal and angry, frustrated over a lack of meaningful involvement in the decision making process. There was .a general lack of civility in public hearings, including personal attacks on applicants, Land Planning Agency Board members and City Commission members. At the same time, developers were feeling besieged. Working in good faith with city staff, they assumed they had an acceptable project only to go to a public hearing to find residents up in arms over their proposals. Development applications were being routinely tabled so applicants could address residents' concerns. In early 2000, the City Commission began expressing. concern about the increasingly hostile public hearing environment. The situation wasn't just uncomfortable; the Commission feared it would divide the community. City staff was asked to do something about the problems. The City's first approach was to try and do a better job of what we were already doing. Rather than send public hearing notification letters to households within 150 feet of a project, we sent them to everyone within 300 feet. In~tead of a two-line newspaper ad, we wrote longer, more descriptive notices of public hearings and began posting meeting information on the Internet. This improved things, but not much, We also took a fresh look at the public hearing process to see if something fundamental was wrong, We found plenty. Problems with the Hearing Process The statutorily required hearing process for cities and counties in Florida is very similar to the rest of the United States: . The developer/applicant files an application for a change in land use. . The local government's staff reviews the application and prepares a report and/or recommendation. . The local government sets a public hearing date before the appropriate review body. . The local government notices the hearing 10 days prior by putting an advertisement in the newspaper, sending a letter to all property owners within 300 feet of the property in the application and posting a notice of some sort on the property. . A public hearing is held by the review body, which makes a recommendation or decision on the application. ,., , -3- There are three major problems inherent in this process. First, there's a huge timing problem. While a public hearing is the cu/min.ation of several months of work for the applicant, the resident heard about it for the first time two weeks ago. Citizens are asked to go to a public meeting to speak on a proposal they know little or nothing about. So, while the applicant is ready for a decision, the citizen is new to the process, trying to find out what's going on and how this might affect them. Next, is the structure of the hearing itself. Hearings are designed to allow the decision-' makers to hear everyone and make a decision. Hearings are not designed for dialogue, discussion or negotiation. Questions and information gathering are discouraged. That's not usually too much of a problem for the applicant, they've had ample opportunity to work with the staff on the proposal. For the citizen who just heard about a proposal that may adversely impact their neighborhood, hearings are just an opportunity to gripe and express frustration. Finally, the hearing is a decision point in the process. The citizen's first opportunity to get involved in the discussion is at the time the decision 'is to be made. Again, what option does a resident have when speaking on a proposal that is within minutes of being decided but to speak against it? When this occurs, it's a very frustrating situation for the applicant who, if they knew of the neighborhood concerns earlier, may very well have been able to resolve them. Instead, they're looking at a denial, a continuance, or at the very least, a nasty public hearing. We concluded that we really didn't have citizen participation at all. At best, we had citizen notification. All we were doing was notifying citizens that they had an opportunity to complain. They weren't being given an opportunity to participate in a discussion and decision. Even if all parties wanted a productive discussion of the project and its impacts, they couldn't have one. The Solution It was clear the public hearing process was not only doing nothing to prevent battles between residents and developers, it was virtually reauirina them. If you wanted to design a hearing process that would make all participants angry and ensure that none of them felt like they were treated fairly, you couldn't' do much better than the one we had. But what to do about it? We came up with five simple principles that needed to be the basis of any solution: · Require applicants to invite a dialogue about their project early in the process. This would encourage the applicant and resident to talk with each other rather than at each other. Residents would get an opportunity to influence the project by talking directly with the applicant. The applicant would get a chance to explain his project and sell neighborhoods on it. Most important, it would be done early, before the public hearing. This would make the hearing what it was designed to be, a final statement of issues and positions before the decision making body. <.' -4- · Require applicants to address issues and concerns. Applicants would not just listen to residents concerns, but would respond to them and explain what they were - or were not - going to do about them. · Establish this as standard procedure for any hearing application. As a standard part of the development review process, this "true participation" would be routine and systematic. Residents, staff and elected officials, and board members could count on it. It would be standard operating procedure, rather than something an applicant mayor may not volunteer to do. · Don't touch the hearing process itself. The public hearing .was a legal requirement that had to stay in place with little or no change. The city would continue to set and advertise public hearings as before. All legal requirements would continue to be met. No change would be made in an applicant's right to a hearing. This was not to be an attempt to give neighborhoods inappropriate decision making power or to try and force consensus on issues. · Put it in the Development Code. This would make it "the law of the land." By actually putting it in the Development Code rather than making it an administrative policy of procedure, it would be clear that this was the Commission's policy for every public hearing. The Citizen Awareness and Participation Plan . The City of Longwood's Citizen Awareness and Participation Plan went into effect. The plan is quite simple, consisting of five parts: 1. A purpose statement that clearly out lines that the Plan is there to facilitate communication and encourage a dialogue early in the review process. The Plan is specific that it is not intended to produce complete consensus. on all applications. 2. A description of the citizen participation process; requiring all applicants for any public hearing to accomplish three basic steps: a) Prepare a Citizen Participation Plan: This includes a written description of the project, an assessment of who might be affected by the project, and a strategy for how those affected will be able to participate. City planner's work with applicants to customize their participation plans to fit the specific needs of their projects. The type and scale of the request, the character of the surrounding area and the level of potential controversy detennines the strategy. A comprehensive handbook with guidelines on how to develop the plan is available to applicants to help them with the process. b) Implement the Plan: The applicant mails letters, holds meetings, call property owners; whatever their plan requires. They listen to citizen , " '- -5- comments and concerns, answer questions, and determine the best solution for issues presented to them. c) Report What Happened: After the applicant has implemented their plan, they prepare a final report summarizing their effort, the issues and concerns raised, and what they have done about them (or not done as the case may be). The report must be submitted before the hearing is advertised and goes to the decision-makers, along with the City staff's report. After these steps are completed, the applicant goes through the normal. public hearing process, citizen participation report in tow. 3. A list of the minimum information needed in a Citizen Awareness and Participa- tion Plan and report. 4. A description of the minimum required notice area. The applicant must work with the planning staff to determine the notice area. 5. Timing provisions for both the plan and report. The applicant can start their plan before they apply, but not before meeting with a planner. The public hearing cannot be set until a report is received. Here's the actual text, taken from the City's Development Code. SECTION 10.08. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN: A. Applications for the following land use decisions shall include a Citizen Awareness and Participation Plan (CAPP): 1. Site development plan review. 2. Variances involving a non-residential use. 3. Other applications at the discretion of the Administrator. B. The purpose of the CAPP is to: 1. Ensure that applicants pursue early and effective citizen participation in conjunction with their applications, giving them the opportunity to understand and mitigate any real or perceived impacts their application may have on the neighborhood and community. 2. Ensure that the citizens and property owners of Longwood have an adequate opportunity to learn about applications that may affect them and to work with applicants to resolve concerns at an early state of the process. 3. Facilitate ongoing communication between the applicant, interested citizens and property owners, City staff, and elected officials throughout the application review process. ...:........ -6- 4. The CAPP is not intended to produce complete consensus on all applications, but to encourage applicants .to be good neighbors and to allow for informed decision-making. 5. At a minimum the CAPP shall include the following information: a. Identification of the residents, property owners, interested parties, political jurisdictions, and public agencies that may be affected by the proposed development. b. Description of how notification will be provided to those interested in and potentially affected by the proposed development. c. Description of how information will be provided to those interested and potentially affected of the substance of the change, amendment, or proposed development for which approval is sought. d. Description of the means by which an opportunity will be provided . . to those interested or potentially affected to discuss the proposal and expre,ss any concerns, issues, or problems well in advance of the first public hearing. e. The applicant's schedule for completion of the CAPPo f. The means by which the applicant will keep City officials informed on the status of citizen participation efforts. . 6. The level of citizen interest and area of involvement will vary depending . on the nature of the application and the location of the proposed development. The applicant. will determine the target area for early notification after consultation with the Planning Division staff. At a minimum, the target area shall include the following: a. Property owners within the public hearing notice area as required by other sections of this Code. ./ b. The head or chair of any homeowners association or registered neighborhood group within the public notice area required by other sections of this Code. c. Other interested parties who have requested to be placed on an interested party's notification list maintained by the Planning Division. 7. These requirements apply in addition to any other notice provisions required elsewhere in this Code. ~'- -7- 8. The applicant may submit a CAPP and begin implementation prior to fonnal application at the applicant's discretion. This shall not occur until after the required pre-application conference and consultation with the Planning Division. . 9. Where a CAPP is required by this Code, the applicant shall provide a written report on the results of the citizen participation efforts prior to the notice of public hearing. This report will be attached to the public hearing report. The report shall, at a minimum, contain the following infonnation. a. Details of techniques used to involve interested and potentially affected parties, including: i. Dates and locations of all meetings where citizens were invited to discus.s the applicant's proposal. ii. Content, dates mailed, and numbers of mailings, includ- ing letters, meeting notices, newsletters, and other publications. . Hi. Location of residents, property owners and other interested parties who received notices, newsletters, or other written materials. iv. The number and names of people that participated in the process. b. A summary of concerns, issues, and problems expressed during the process, including: i. The substance of the concerns, issues, and problems. ii. The manner in which the applicant has addressed or intends to address these concerns, issues, and problems. iii. The concerns, issues and problems the applicant is unwilling or unable to address and why. How the Plan Is Administered Major responsibility for the program has been assigned to a Planning Division staff member, who works with planners, applicants, and elected officials to make the process run as smoothly as possible. A major function of this staff member is to be the liaison applicant arranging project briefings and answering questions from citizens. :...' - 8- The applicant can start at any time during the application review process, even before the application is made. Planners work to make this process as "non- regulatory" as possible, taking a cooperative approach and working extensively with applicants. The Plan set up a process and basic information the applicant must provide. It does not, however, specify participation techniques. There is no requirement for a neighborhood meeting. For example, applicants and their assigned staff planner work out the techniques required based on the typ~ of application, past experience with other applications of the same type, knowledge of neighborhood issues, and other factors. This allows the Plan to be applied to all kinds of hearing applications, from major planned developments covering thousands of acres of vacant land to a setback variance for a room addition on a house. Does it Work? After a year and a half, we can make some initial assessments about the CAPP's impact: .~ . The process is more civil. We've seen significant changes in the interactions between developers and the public. People are talking to each other, not at each other.. Having to present and defend their own projects to citizens has made developers more respectful of their neighbors, and some are actually enjoying the process, seeing this as an opportunity to influence future customers. Even in those projects where there is still significant disagreement at the public hearing, the discussions tend to be more calm and focused on problems rather than personalities. Residents feel as if they're part of a dialogue and developers, even those who don't prevail, have told us they were treated fairly. . Citizens go to public hearings better prepared. Having more information about the project early in the process allows citizens who speak at public hearings to better make their case. People also seem less nervous about speaking in public when they're prepared. · Decision-makers are better informed. The members of the land Planning Agency and the City Commission have been very pleased with the citizen participation process. They get valuable information on discussions that have occurred prior to the public hearing and what the developer has done to accommodate neighborhoods. . Citizen participation procedures are standardized. Planners still have to judge what techniques are appropriate for a particular application and what appropriate notice areas are, but they don.'t have to try and talk an applicant into working with a neighborhood. . Public hearings have been calmer. In the past months there has been no knockdown drag-out hearings that were becoming quite frequent in the years before the CAPP Program. .' '!;~)' ,-- , , .....' .# -9- Problems with the Ordinance There have been some problems, of course. In addition to the usual kinks and stumbles any new program has, we've encountered a few fundamental issues that keep coming up. Many applicants are leery of the process the first time they encounter it. For many, . public participation is something they've never been directly responsible for and they assume the plan and implementation process will be beyond them. Some are afraid they're being set up, or that a neighborhood vote will be taken. Once an applicant has gone through the process though, the most common reaction is something like "Is that all there is to ir? A lot of this can be attributed to the newness and uniqueness of the CAPP Program. Applicants who have done more than one participation process have found it easier each time. Most applicants are concerned that the citizen participation process will add time to the usual hearing process. Since the participation process is done concurrently with other application review, and can even begin before filing an application, there is no reason it has to add to the total processing time. What appears to be happening is that more time is taken to get to a hearing, but the hearings go more smoothly, with fewer tablings, continuances and the like. Getting some developers to take this seriously has been a challenge. The best predictor of success in the process seems to be the attitude of the applicant. Applicants that accept the process and are sincere about following the staff suggestions and review' comments do well. Those that fight the idea of participation continue to have an uphill battle. Conclusion Many communities are finding they need to improve their public participation and hearing processes. As more citizens and elected officials look for alternatives to the routine hearing process, Longwood's approach can be useful. It's simple, the ideas in the CAPP Program are easily transferable, and it works. Date: 041204 The following Document was discussed on 04/12/04 under Mayor Bush's "Report" '#. Apr 07 04 04: 31 p p. 1 ., J CITY OF OVIEDO FLORIDA 400 ALEXANDRIA BOULEVARD · OVIEDO, FLORIDA 32765 . (407) 9n-6000 TOO LINE (407) 9n-6340 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL Date: 04/07/04 TO: Andrea Lorenzo-Lucas FACSIMILE NUMBER: 407-327-6695 FROM: Pamela Vitale City Manager's Office FACSIMILE NUMBER: 407 -977 -6009 There are 2 Pages including this one. If you experience any problems receiving this transmission, please call 407-977-6000. . Apr 07 04 04: 32p 10.2 CITY OF OVIEDO FLORIDA 400 ALEXANDRIA BOULEVARD. OVIEDO, FLORIDA 32765. (407) 977-6000 TOO LINE (407) 977-6340 April 7, 2004 The Honorable JohQ F. Bush Mayor, City of Winter Springs 1126 East State Road 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708-2799 Dear Mayor Bush: Our City Council has decided on the dates of May 18111,19111, 25th, or the 26th. We expect the meeting to last approximately 1 to I Y2 hours and we would like to meet at Seminole Community College if this is satisfactory to you. We look forward to meeting with you and would appreciate you letting us know if any of these dates are convenient for you, Thank you for your attention to this matter. ;,relY, 0 A / ~fJ !f)L j)ttP-f tJI/; REGINA BERESWILL Councilwoman cc: Mayor Thomas Walters Chairman Robert DaHari Councilman Dominic Persampiere Councilman Todd Russell Date: 041204 The following email Document was referenced on 04/12/04 under Mayor Bush's "Report" . ... ,P- j ~ WebMaui - DeerSong Subdivison ~ ;' D!t~-Il- ~--I i~;~re 1 f~~y-I ::~:1I1 r Fo~!r~1 lp:e~~l !-~!:-I r o~:-I r\;~:~I--~~:.1 Date Sent: Saturday, April 03, 20042:01 AM From: MKDIVA84@aol.com To: jfbush <jfbush@winterspringsfl.org> Subjeet: DeerSong Subdivison I Status.: .., D Urgent D New [ Add to Address Book J Good Afternoon Mayor Bush, ~ written to you before in reference to this subdivision, and the concern that the h'omeowners ~re having in reference to this subdivision. I work with the homeowners in reference to solving their some of their problems. It is real sad that some of the residents in this subdivision are so afraid that they do not come out of their homes, because of the drugs and all the bther problems that go on in this subdivision and the mere fact they right across the street from the police and the vandalism that happens in this community, I would like to schedule a time for you and I and the president of hiscommunity to walk the property so that you can hear some of the concerns that these homeowners are expressing, The 50b block of this small community, is constant plagued with drugs and major problems, the people are afraid to come out there homes. We have tried over and over to get help from the police department and they put a good front and acJually take their time when' they are call to things that happen in this neighborhood. The sad thing have of the {~sidents do not even know who you are any of the commissioner are but they still voted for you, hoping for change. We know for sure the crimes and th'e problems that these residents are having in DeerSong are not going on in your or any of your staff neighborhood, because the pOlice makes sure that those area's are patrol and given the attention that is 'needed. It's sad that you only see elected official's during election time. I work very hard in this community and the people of this community look to me to answers mat should be answer~d by elected officials. There are two homes that major problems in this neighbo[hood and the police do not do any thing about these homes, These homes -house drug dealers and 502 San Gabriel, the house is unlivable and it has been reported over and to code Enforcement, these people through grease (frying, cooking) right out their front door. Please contact me sb that we can look into this issue, because, my goal is to better this community, I would also like to have an area so that I can began tutoring programs for these children to help with the FACT, and everyday studies, Also I would like to sit down and discuss some programs to be able to help these children in our community with a Rec Center, that would be offered to the children all year long to help keep them out of tt-ouble, Our children are not bad, they just need guidance and it so sad the elected -officials only look and make sure that The TUSKAWILLA area gets all the attention, and nothing is done in reference to the Moss Ro$j area. Remember election time will come again and the same peo~Je: that voted for you all the majority of them do not even know whom you ~re but still voted let's change this so that they know who they: are. voting for ~nd feel good abeut keeping those in office :( Thank You ... ..:... Debra Thomas DeerSong Advocated 407-695-6914 ~ Secure mode active, Powered by Infinite Mobile Delivery v2.6 - @ Copyright 1995-2002 by Captaris "