Lessons from the South Broadway NEPA Process
Based on May 17, 2007 conversation with the Consensus Committee
Successful Elements of the South Broadway NEPA Process
- There was a clear commitment by City staff to spend time with neighborhood organizations and stakeholders in meetings and one-on-one. In this way, trust and productive working relationships were developed.
- Neighborhoods and residents were valued as problem solvers and keepers of community priorities and needs.
- The face-to-face discussions in the Consensus Committee were an opportunity for “people to become real”.
- Consensus Committee members dedicated substantial time to the process, and actively engaged their constituencies and carried information to and from the NEPA Process.
- Meeting Flyers were simple and effective, they helped neighborhood organizations get the word out about public meetings, and may have helped reach beyond “the usual suspects.”
- A Consensus Committee, with agreed upon Protocols and ground rules and independent facilitation, contributed to the process and its outcomes
- With some room for improvement, the website was a useful tool for sharing information.
Criticisms of the South Broadway NEPA Process:
- Perhaps the greatest, most cited criticisms of the South Broadway NEPA process were related to linking community involvement, visioning, and land use and transportation planning. Many felt that land use planning and zoning decisions were divorced from transportation planning questions. Frustration was captured in statements such as “if you ask a road question, you get a road answer”, and requests for “an overriding vision”, “a more holistic process” and “Making a place, not just making a road.”
- Coordination with other agencies and studies may have resulted in a shorter, more efficient process.
- Early, it was suggested that the interests of the “future resident” be represented in deliberations. This admittedly difficult goal may not have been achieved.
- There is some disagreement and uncertainty with some of the assumptions inherent in traffic planning and modeling. For example, not all believe that reduced congestion and increased traffic flow is a good. As another example, some question whether longer term (20 year) traffic modeling assumptions are accurate vis-à-vis fuel prices and travel mode choices.
Suggestions for Future Environmental Impact Assessment and Planning
- Neighborhood plans may be unique opportunities to help link the visioning, community involvement, and planning processes, deserve the support of City resources and Staff.
- Expand and refine the use of web based information sharing and discussion. Explore options such as wikis, online forums and Drupal to further discussions between meetings.
- Meet in comfortable places with good acoustics
- Clarify the role of, and the City’s relationship with, Resident Neighborhood Organizations.
- Work for the greatest possible coordination among city agencies. Help people understand City Government decision making processes and organizational structures.
- Continue to work to reach beyond the “usual suspects” in these studies and public involvement process.
- Design public meetings where members of task forces such as the Consensus Committee can speak and work directly with the public, rather than one or two-way discussions between the city and meeting participants.
- These studies are powerful planning tools. Don’t let the constraints, challenges and requirements of these and associated planning efforts preclude dreaming big, building a collaborative vision and designing exceptional places for Denver.