HomeMy WebLinkAboutSmall Area Plan newsletterSTONEY CREED SMALL AREA PLAN NEWSLETTER
This is the fourth newsletter for the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan.
Newsletters follow each meeting of the Storey Creek Basin Planning Group and
are distributed by group members from the Stoney Creek neighborhoods.
B ck ,roun
on December 5, 1994, the Orange County Board of Commissioners
adopted the following charge: "To prepare a land rrc,,se plan, including
recommendations for implementation, for the Stoney Creek Basin Manning Area
southeast of the town of Hillsborough. " A Manning Group of neighborhood
representatives plus elected and appointed officials was formed. There are
currently 21 members and six alternates. The first meeting was on March 16.
preparation of the Stoney Creek Basin Small Area Plan involves
developing a set of alternative plans. The Status Quo, Open Space, and Neo-
traditional alternatives were developed by graduate planning students from UNC,
while Orange County staff is developing the Rural Character and Flexible
Development alternatives. A critical review of the alternatives will take place
and desirable features of each will be incorporated into a recommended plan..
wh re V.e Are
Meethig four of the Planning Group was held on May .l 8 at the Richard
Whetted Center With 10 Planning Group members and three alternates present.
The purpose of the meeting was to bear Orange County staff present the Rural
Character alternative. The Dural Character- Study began in late 1987 with the
formation of a citizens' task force to develop a plan to preserve the County's
rural character. Initially the project focused on the Rural Buffer area followed
by a set of recommendations (1990_92) for the County's remaining rural areas.
Goals of the Rural Character Study included the preservation of agfi-
culture protection of natural and cultural resources, protection of visual
resources, orderly growth, andflexibilityfor landowners. Along with the goals,
a series of development options were proposed which would replace current
conventional development standards with a range of development options. Bight
options ranging from ono - dwelling- per -five -acres and no required open space to
one-quarter acre lots with 70% required open space were defined (on a loo acre
Z 'd ZOH6� 9616 'ON M DNIldNV'IdHHHHHU0 Ned �9 :Z Ind 96 -Z -Ef
tract this option would result in 130 dwellings on 30 acres and 70 ages of open
space). Incentives such as private roads, lower fees, and expedited review are
provided on both ends of the development density spectrum..
To develop the Rural Character plan alternative for the Storey Creek
Basin, undeveloped areas were identified and grouped into "project sites. In
all, 19 sites were identified. An evaluation of each site was done and a
recommendation as to the best suited Rural Character development option was
made. The property of Mr. Bob Strayhorna a member of the .planning Group
and Rural Character Study Committ ,was used as a case study. Applying the
five -acre lot option to his 178 acres resulted in 37 lots averaging 4.63 acres.
Applying the staff - recommended Rural Character options to the study area
resulted in an additional 1,769 dwelling units. The development options
prepared by the students resulted in 879 units for conventional development, 899
units for the open space option, and 3,307 units for the neo- traditional
development option.* 1t% ortant to . ,mem that ral Cha ar ctc�r
aitern tiv+ entails eii'ght,_possiblc vel�tnmertt �11tio and t t too
UWa for si is h i . of th lando r /d. evej To give an idea of
the range of densities possible, applying the five -acre lot option throughout the
area would result in 380 additional units while utilizing the one - quarter acre lot
and 70% open space option would result in 2,507 additional units.
After receiving the Rural Character presentation, the planning Group
expressed a. strong desire to complete discussions of development alternatives
and proceed with developing a community vision and setting goals.
next s tins or Inf t� ivy
The planning Group is scheduled to meet again pn June 15. Developing
a comrnunity vision and defining goals as referenced above is proposed as the
main order of business. For more information, call Gene Bell, Planner III in the
orange, Court Planning Department. He can be reached at extension 2589 at
g County
732 -8181 (Hillsborough), 967 --9251 (Chapel Hill), and 688 -7331 (Durham).
*Tho Rural Character t9tals reflect two different a u i ns r the SbuilttW'
work. rirst, it includes 378 lot* in Transition ( ban grow) tO
urban standards, anal secOud, a. lower percentage Of land is assumed to be needed
for roads and other infrastructure.
Stoney creek smai i Area Plan McWsl e t tar 4
� -195
0 'd ZOOE�fi 9616 'ON Xdd ONINNV'IRINnODHNUO Yid 99:Z 1H 96 -Z -Ul
STONEY CREEK SMALL AREA PLAN
RURAL CHARACTER DESIGN SCENARIO
PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Developing an impact assessment for the Rural Character design alternative was complicated by the
difficulty in comparing this alternative to the previous designs. The previous three design alternatives
(Conventional -II, Density - Neutral and Neo- Traditional) were evaluated in an ordinal manner against each
other, and therefore do not relate to the Rural Character alternative. Likewise, the Rural Character impact
rankings are difficult to compare to the previous "internal' comparisons. In some cases, comparing the
Rural Character alternative to the previous three alternatives is an "apples to oranges" comparison.
For these reasons, and the fact that impacts will be evaluated in detail when the final plan is produced,
the Rural Character impact assessment is presented in brief narrative form, with an updated summary
table. Much of the basic information regarding impact evaluation and significance is covered in detail in
the appendix of the students' report, and therefore is not rehashed here. While there are some differences
in what impacts are measured against, the previously -used categories of impacts and the methodology of
evaluating impacts have been retained for comparison purposes (where such comparisons can be made).
Below is the Summary of Impacts table presented by the students, with Rural Character impacts added.'
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
,...:.:.; ........::...:
.....:.:::.::::.:::.:....:... : ::.:::: :.:.. :..:...:.:
,.:. .
Conventional.:.:
.. .
(Seenaric� ;2)
I�enszt .....:< >: >::
Neuiral
>.<.::< :.;:.;.:::...:. > .;::..'
Teo Traditional
.::..........
Character
Stormwater pollution
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
NPS pollution
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
Sedimentation and
Erosion
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW to
MEDIUM
Wildlife Habitat
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
LOW
Natural Character
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
LOW
Historic Resources
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
Water Service
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
Sewer Service
NONE
NONE
HIGH
MEDIUM
Ground Water
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
Septic Disposal
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
Transportation
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
NOT EVAL.
Air Quality
LOW
LOW
LOW
NOT EVAL.
Schools
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
MED/HIGH
Public Safety
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
1 - The students ordinal level of impact (LOW /MEDIUM /HIGH) were developed relevant to the other two student
alternatives, and thus are not relative to the later - developed Rural Character alternative. The Rural Character
impacts shown in the table are evaluated against the status quo, rather than evaluating against a mix of the
three very different student alternatives, or individual alternatives with internally - relative rankings.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT NARRATIVE
As shown in the above table, each impact was rated low, medium or high. The methodology and means of
evaluating the impacts for the Rural Character design is the same as that performed by the students
(Appendix A of student report). As stated in the Rural Character alternative, the numbers produced in
the design are only one way that the area might develop. The choice of development options is that of the
property owner, and could vary considerably from that chosen by staff in the site design process.
In general, the Rural Character design created by staff performed well in terms of its impact on
environmental and cultural impacts, including water quality, sedimentation, natural character and historic
resources. Moderate impacts were found in water /sewer areas, primarily because of the mixture of lot
types impacting both on -site and off -site services. The impact on schools, public safety and fiscal were the
most significant.
WATER QUALITY (stormwater, non -point source (NPS) pollution, and sedimentation): The
mix of conventional and Open -Space Development (OSD) lots in the Rural Character design is not
anticipated to have a significant impact on water quality. Large stream buffers have been designated along
Stoney Creek and its tributaries, well beyond those required for watershed protection regulations. There
would be no discharging wastewater systems in the area. The combination of stream buffers, areas of
larger lots, and stormwater control measures in OSD's (as spelled out in the Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Ordinance) should address any concerns about erosion - particularly in the developed portion of
OSD's, where impacts are more concentrated.
The most significant impacts would occur on the large open -space development in the center of the area,
but these could also be addressed through comprehensive stormwater management and erosion control.
Impacts on water quality from the golf course should be monitored, and environmentally - sensitive means
of developing and maintaining the golf course should be employed.
WILDLIFE HABITAT: The Rural Character design, using the study goals and action strategies, is very
sensitive to the issue of protecting wildlife habitats. All areas of identified habitat, wetlands, and other
likely areas used for wildlife corridors have been preserved on the interior of the 700 acres of open space,
including substantial forested areas. However, the expansion of human activities in the basin will have
some effect on "edge habitats" and some currently forested areas adjacent to development.
NATURAL CHARACTER: The Rural Character alternative, as the name implies, is cognizant of the
impact on the area's character, and uses a mixture of large lots consistent with the current character of
the areal; protection of many current features in open space; and open -space lots, many of which will not
affect visual character by using existing vegetative cover and topography in the design process. Additional
open space will be provided in the undeveloped portions of large -lot developments, likely expanding the
actual "open space" in the basin from one -third to nearly one -half of total area. The design alternative also
recognizes the importance of certain long -time character variables like agricultural activities, and vistas -
and attempts to retain their character in the design.
HISTORIC RESOURCES: All identified sites in the area would be protected in permanent open space,
with a surrounding "shield" or buffer of at least five acres. In addition, some sites that are of long -time
community (like the Strayhorn home) but not yet historic character are also designed around so as to
minimize any negative impact.
WATER SERVICE: Of the 1,391 lots /units planned for the rural portions of the basin, a total of 984 (744
single - family lots, 80 townhomes and 160 apartments) would require water service from a source other
than an individual on -site well, The remaining 407 lots would be expected to rely on individual wells for
water supply. Based on what is currently known about hydrogeologic formations and ground water supplies
in the area, the larger lots should be able to find wells with an adequate supply of water for residential
purposes.
Using demand assumptions of the previous alternatives, the total daily demand for water from these 984
lots /units would be 0.32 million gallons per day (mgd). If the 378 urban lots (proposed for service with
Hillsborough water and sewer) are added, the total daily demand is 0.44 mgd. Some of the lots /units
needing water service may use a community water supply - either community wells with a supply system,
or some other form or shared water supply. However, a substantial number of the lots /units will likely
require service from the Town of Hillsborough. The Town currently has approximately 1.5 mgd of water
supply - with an additional 1.8 mgd projected to be available around the year 2000, producing a future safe
yield of at least 3.3 mgd. The potential for water purchases with the City of Durham may increase this
amount of available water. The Town's water treatment plant currently has a capacity of 3.0 mgd. The
Town's current water demand is approximately 1.3 mgd.
As a highest -case scenario, if there are no community systems and all 984 lots use Town water service, a
projected demand of 0.44 mgd (including urban developments in the basin) would impact the Town's
projected water system by requiring about 22 % of the Town's future available capacity.
The potential for community water systems to serve some of these areas does exist. The hydrogeologic
formations that tend to have the highest yield of ground water are found near Stoney Creek between New
Hope Church Road and I -85. In this area, a community system may be more likely to develop adequate
yield. However, not enough is known at this time about ground water resources to make a definitive
statement on community well yield in this or other portions of the area
SEWER SERVICE: It is anticipated that approximately 920 lots in the rural portions of the area (1,298
including the urban lots projected for Town water /sewer) will require some form of wastewater service
other than on -site or off -site septic tank systems. A projected wastewater flow (effluent generation) of 0.38
mgd would result from this amount of development. Some of the 920 lots may be served by non - discharging
community wastewater systems (such as low - pressure or spray - irrigation systems), developed and
maintained under the auspices of the County Wastewater Monitoring and Maintenance Assurance program.
However, many of the lots /units will likely require sewer service from the Town of Hillsborough.
The Town's wastewater treatment plant has a capacity of 3.0 mgd, and is currently treating 1.05 mgd. As
a highest -case scenario, if all 1,298 lots /units required Town sewer service, an additional 0.38 mgd would
be treated by the Town (19% of current /future available capacity).
GROUND WATER: As mentioned in WATER SERVICE above, best available information about the
hydrogeology of the basin is that ground water yields will vary by location. Yields may range from average
(relative to other categories) in some portions of the basin, potentially good in a small area near Stoney
Creek, and less than average in areas to the north and west. Potential for community wells appear to exist,
although exact location will be critical to ultimate ground water yield. Aside from the question of
hydrogeology, further analysis on recharge rates for these aquifers is needed before definitive statements
can be made. However, it appears probable that the denser open -space developments will not be able to
rely solely (or perhaps not at all) on ground water for the water supply. At least 407 lots in this design
would not need water service and would use individual wells.
SEPTIC DISPOSAL: Soils with severe limitations for septic tanks occur throughout the site, as is the
case in much of Orange County (see suitability maps for specific areas). In general, these areas of poorly -
drained soils or soils with shallow depth to bedrock make for larger lot sizes in order to find adequate land
for nitrification fields. On -site soil testing will be required to determine appropriate areas for on -site
(septic) systems. Approximately 472 units in the design would be likely to use septic systems.
TRANSPORTATION: Not evaluated at this tune. Transportation and air quality impacts will be
evaluated in detail when the final plan is prepared.
AIR, QUALITY: Not evaluated at this time. Transportation and air quality impacts will be evaluated in
detail when the final plan is prepared.
SCHOOLS: The entirety of this area falls within the Orange County School district. Using the
methodology undertaken by the previous alternatives, the 1, 770 total housing units in this design (including
urban lots) would generate 773 school -age children when the area is fully developed (assumed to be the
year 2005). Of these school -age children, 385 would be of elementary school age, 179 would be of middle -
school age, and 209 would be of high school age.
In looking at existing school capacity (counting the new Stanback Middle School scheduled to open in fall
1995), the alternative would impact school capacity as shown in the following table:
As can be seen, the students generated from the number of lots in the Rural Character design would leave
the system over - capacity in all three categories. It should be noted that this analysis does not take into
account any possible redistricting, school construction or expansion that might be needed (with or without
the Rural Character alternative impacts). Impact fees of $1,327,500 would be collected for school capital
costs, which would mitigate this impact.
PUBLIC SAFETY: Under the Rural Character Study goals and action strategies, the Stoney Creek basin
(minus Transition Areas) is expected to remain rural and in the jurisdiction of the Orange County Sheriff's
Department and the Eno/New Hope Volunteer Fire Departments, and the Orange County Rescue Squad
for public safety protection. The 378 urban lots designed in the Transition Areas would be projected to be
annexed over time and served eventually by the Town of Hillsborough.
Using the methodology based on the current ratio of officers /person (developed in evaluating previous
alternatives), the Rural Character design would impact police /sheriff service as follows:
......................................... .... .... ... ..... .
........................
0
7?uJxGe Jur�sdict�on .::.:::.::::::::::::: :::::...::: RCS ..e qe :PQ . u at Qn........C�
.. ....., :.:....:..::::::::...::::::..::....::.::..:... ............:............I..... _...F.:....:.:.:..:.::...: ..::.....:.....:..:..: ..... :...:.....:...::.:.:::.::.
.: own.:o':i�Usor..:ou h ::::.:::.::::..Q`.:
:.
new.: �ces�dxts.:.1...
pez�.:: �:.:.::. P:..- ....:..::..:::::::..::.::.:::::
_..
- New O ffic er s Needed
3
- - -
:: ...:.:
: :rax
h .. .
d: ...
34 new:.:ese
i. .
>`
e .
; : :
. ....r..... o n.,;5 .:
«:S. :.:.
- New ffic ers N eeded
O
7
- -
In addition, the potential need for additional firefighting equipment exists based on the increased number
of dwelling units, and should impact both fire departments. The possibility of a new rescue station (perhaps
near the 911 building) should be explored within the area to serve the additional dwellings.
FISCAL IMPACT: To be presented at meeting.
(rz..-I, =m
At,
4 p
A2
T—i
rmq�Yj �j= m
wr
?04. 1
�.j 1 7:1111�-5171V
f
tT
A
ILI
AD
01�2
` 7ex"
"W-M -!L�-
wVT
fA
' rt
. . . . . . . . .....
1,, I- � , r �- T�i.?.°;� "Y'�,e�'r�° f•� -o+• ��t' k x} 41'i�'+�v��t�r��d'�'•'t�(� +�Ll. •y�l
'TM
� --r'r th
747�p .) ii.. I A..
Ngdz
aR,
a-A
fy
4JE 130C
10. OBTAINING CONSENSUS
HAPTER 10 OBTAINING CONSENSUS
Some issues are so divisive that even when opportunities have been
provided for everybody to be heard, the only thing that's clear is that the
community is still badly divided. On occasion, politicians will go ahead
under these conditions and make a decision, often by a divided vote. But
these decisions are often challenged in court, or become the basis for the
next election. Some issues hang around for years, going away -- if ever --
only because external events make them seem irrelevant.
If you are designing a public participation process for such an issue, you
may want to design your process with the explicit goal of building a
consensus. This can be a very different kind of public participation
process than one where your goal is simply to make sure everybody is
listened to before the decision is made. When you are building a
consensus, you are attempting to find a solution to which everyone will
agree (or at least a solution no major party objects to violently).
In recent years there has been considerable research and
experimentation with collaborative problem solving approaches which
build consensus prior to formal decision making by an elected body. This
chapter discusses some of the lessons learned.
Winners and Losers
Many people approach politics as if it were a contest, with winners and
losers. (Perhaps you've heard the saying, "Politics is the original contact
sport. ") Given this assumption, the important thing is to be a winner. But
this creates an adversarial climate -- "all's fair in sex, war and politics" --
which makes it virtually impossible to achieve consensus decisions.
Here are some of the key attitudes that need to change before you'll be
effective at building consensus decisions:
-- 62
J•
10. OBTAINING CONSENSUS
Someone Has to Lose
The truth is, when people have to work together over time, if you "win" at
the expense of someone else losing, all you've done is plant the seeds for
the next conflict. Resentment builds. People want to get back at you.
In labor/management negotiations, for example, the rule for years has
been that if one side goes away feeling they've "lost," the negotiations
have been unsuccessful. Think of all the ways either side can get back at
the other over the years, if they really feel they've been done in. Much the
same is true of communities. People in a community will be working
together for years. If one side of the community triumphs over another, all
it does is poison the atmosphere in the community and ensure that the
battle will be fought again as soon as the loser has regrouped.
The premise behind collaborative problem solving is that it is possible to -=
71 1
come up with a solution that meets everybody's needs. There may not
need to be any losers. The problem with assuming that someone has to Pi
lose is that you then act in ways -- in order to ensure you're not the loser ^z
-- that preclude a collaborative solution. The assumption that there has to
be a loser is a self - fulfilling prophecy. -
If We've Got the Votes, We've Got the Power
After an election, groups may gloat over the fact that they've got a one -
vote majority on a city council or county commission. Their glee may be
short - lived. The truth is that when governing bodies are badly divided,
they often vote on issues only to find that in actuality they haven't the
power to make their decision happen. In our society, there are many
sources of power and many checks- and - balances, including the courts
(who may halt the proposed action) and other levels of government (who F
may need to grant permits or provide funding). One -vote victories often
bog down in a quagmire of challenges and new requirements.
Think about what happens, though, if everybody has been brought into
the decision. If you go to another regulatory body, you've already
addressed the concerns that could slow things up there. If you go to the
state legislature for funding, your state legislator is happy to sponsor your
cause, because he or she comes out a winner. Think about the same
state legislator when you ask for funding for a project approved by 3 -2;
the legislator knows that by supporting the proposal he or she is likely to
#. 10. OBTAINING CONSENSUS
F- offend a sizable number of constituents. What does a legislator get out
of championing a proposal that only part of the community supports?
-_ Consensus Takes Too Long
You can make a decision fast by majority vote, but you may never be able
to implement the decision. Or the cost of implementation may be so high
that you'll wish you never got involved.
There's little doubt that it takes longer to build a consensus before making
rt a decision. The cost of making the decision will be higher. But the costs
resulting from the decision may be much lower. With a consensus,
implementation is usually much easier and less costly, because you don't
pay the costs of continued division within the community. On balance,
the costs to the community are usually much less.
Premises Behind Collaborative Problem Solving
The premises behind collaborative problem solving -- the process used to
build consensus decisions -- are:
• A solution exists (even though you don't know what it is now) that can
meet everybody's needs.
• You will find fundamental shared interests on which you can build.
• While there may be differences, people who disagree with you are not
adversaries or enemies.
• Everybody will get more of what they want if they work together.
Positio.nal Bargaining and Collaborative Problem Solving
One of the fundamental problems in talking about consensus is that
people immediately begin to think in terms of "bargaining" or
"compromise." This is because the mental image we have of consensus
is associated with one kind of negotiation, which is called "positional
bargaining." In positional bargaining, both sides start out by taking fixed
positions, sometimes described as "non- negotiable demands," which are
often accompanied by extensive rhetoric about the evil character of the
other side. Then both sides make a series of reciprocal concessions until
a compromise has been reached. Each side has to give up something in
From'. Pt-o Jrarrl For Cornnu,)rly PNb)rfn-$"1vi2� 1 19`2- 64
10. OBTAINING CONSENSUS
return for an agreement. Rarely do people go away completely happy.
Instead they talk about the outcome "being the best we could get." In
other words, they're not "too dissatisfied."
The collaborative problem solving approach is very different. In
collaborative problem solving you don't start out by taking fixed positions.
There are several reasons for this: (1) taking fixed positions establishes
an adversarial relationship from the beginning; (2) the positions people
take often mask (to themselves, as well as others) their fundamental
interests; and (3) by talking about positions first, you rule out
consideration of a whole host of other solutions that might meet your
interests just as well.
Instead, collaborative problem solving starts out by getting all sides to
define what their fundamental interests or purposes are. Normally,
groups will find that the issue or problem and some of their interests are
shared, while some interests are not. But the assumption is: in order to
find a workable solution, we've got to come up with a solution that meets
all these interests. That solution may look nothing like what each group
thought it needed when the process started, but at the end all groups
agree their needs have been met.
Steps in Collaborative Problem Solving
In somewhat more detail, here are the steps in the collaborative problem
solving process:
Agree on a Decision - Making Process
The first step is to agree on how you'll go about reaching an agreement --
some variant on the steps outlined here. Essentially what you're after is
getting buy -in from everyone that they'll work collaboratively. Also, in the
beginning, there's a great deal of mistrust, so people are fearful that one
side or other will manipulate or misuse the process for their ends. By
agreeing on the process, everybody is satisfying themselves that they're
playing on a level field (e.g the process is equally fair to everybody).
Agreeing on the process also covers concerns like:
• Putting limits on discussions with the media while problem solving is
going on.
65 -
ffi
Jx
r t
10. OBTAINING CONSENSUS
=_. Confirming that everyone can speak for their organization or
{ constituency.
• Discussing the procedures by which any agreement would be formally
ratified.
Often, much of this discussion actually takes place before the participants
sit down across the table. Otherwise, the wrangling over process during
the first meeting(s) can convince everybody that problem solving is
hopeless.
What's happening as people begin to agree on the process is that they
are becoming emotionally used to the idea that an agreement might be
possible, and the mere fact that the sides are able to agree to a process
is some indication that maybe it will be possible to work together.
Agreeing on a process is a first success, even if it is modest.
Identify Fundamental Interests
This is quite possibly the most important single step in the process.
During this step, participants are asked to go beneath their stated
positions and assess what it is, fundamentally, that they need to be
satisfied with a conclusion. Here's an illustration of the difference
between an interest and a position:
Interest
(Developer) Reasonable rate of return
on investment.
(Resident) Minimal or no increase in
traffic and congestion.
(Activist) Employment opportunities
for immigrants.
Position
The building must be
twelve stories to be
profitable.
No more high -rise
buildings!
Oppose police efforts.
Stop people who are
soliciting work on
street corners.
As you can see, when you look at the fundamental interest, there are
often ways other than the announced position by which the interest could
MOO
10. OBTAINING CONSENSUS
be met. In effect, this is a process of breaking people away from prior
positions they've taken, and pushing back to fundamentals: "So if
understand you correctly, it's not the fact that the building is twelve stories
high that's essential -- it's that twelve stories produced a satisfactory rate
of return; but if the same return could be achieved another way, it's the
return that really matters." What this does is open up a whole new range
of possibilities, and it is this opening up of possibilities that makes it
possible to imagine that there could be a solution that meets all
participants' interests.
Define Criteria for an Acceptable Solution
At this step, you take the interests identified above, make them specific,
and define how you're going to measure whether or not they have been -
met (e.g., what does a "reasonable" rate of return mean ?) In the process _
of doing this you are developing an agreement that, if these criteria are - -
met, the solution is acceptable to everyone. Y
Jointly Identify Alternatives9_
Now you jointly identify alternative solutions. The "jointly" is important for
two reasons. First, what has been created by virtue of the first few steps
i.. of this process is a sense that "we" -- all of us in this collaborative problem - -
solving process -- have a problem which "we" are trying to solve together. = _-
Since we share the problem, we're jointly looking for solutions. Second,
it's important at this stage that ideas not be associated with particular`°
people or groups (e.g., "John's idea," "the environmentalists' proposal,"
etc.). In fact, you would usually use a technique such as brainstorming to t
ensure that there are many, many ideas, and they are not being --. =-
advocated by any particular group.
Jointly Evaluate Alternatives
Just as developing altematives is a shared activity, it's important to
evaluate the alternatives together so that no one becomes an advocate,
�,..
and everybody has access to the same information.
Develop a Solution That Meets the Criteria
= =-
At this point, the most workable ideas are put together in various
combinations in an effort to find one or more solution which meets the
-
criteria established earlier. Be aware that these solutions may not meet
_-
- �.-
67
A Case in Point
10. OBTAINING CONSENSUS
the positions people expressed before the collaborative problem solving
process began. But they do meet the defined interests, and the criteria by
which those interests are measured.
Swallow Hard!
The name of this step is slightly facetious, but in fact it's not at all unusual
to have a little backsliding at this point. First, it begins to dawn on people
that they're really about ready to come up with an agreement. It's fish or
cut bait time! This kicks up a number of anxieties, and there may even be
a resurfacing of some of the old suspicion and mistrust that was present
at the start of the process.
This is also a time when people start talking to others in their group or
constituency about the proposed solution. They may have discussed
things abstractly before, but now it's starting to be for real. Sometimes
other people in their groups are still wedded to the stated positions, rather
than interests. So discussions must take place between those at the
problem - solving table and the people they represent.
Commit to Implementing the Solution
Now it's time for each party at the table to do whatever is necessary to get
commitment from his or her group or constituency to make the agreement
binding, effective and enforceable. A group may have to formally adopt a
resolution. A developer may have to discuss the plan with his financial
backers. A city council may have to vote to adopt the agreement.
Jointly Implement the Solution
Because the participants have worked together to solve "our" common
problem, they also work together to make it happen. If the state
legislature has to be lobbied for funding, they lobby together. If other
organizations need to be involved, they are approached by
representatives of all the groups. It is a shared solution, so "we" all share
in making it happen.
Here's a brief case history of the use of collaborative problem solving in a
Southern California county:
.:
21. WORKING WITH ADVISORY GROUPS
and ensuring that the group focuses on the issues. You won't be able to
do this at the same time you ardently advocate a fixed position.
Here are a few suggestions:
• Develop agendas in advance and check them with the group before
proceeding at any meeting. Change agendas to meet emergent
needs only after gaining approval of the group.
• Have a common set of rules or procedures.
• Agree on who shall speak for the group to outside parties, especially
to the media.
• Arrange for regular minutes that distinguish records of discussion from
decisions.
• From time to time, review the mission and objectives of the group to
assess progress. If necessary, remind the participants of the time
constraints.
• If you must speak for an interest (and you are playing the facilitation
role), vacate the chair for a brief period, handing it over to someone
else while you make your comments.
• If you feel a personal conflict of interest arising, state the problem
clearly to the group and ask for guidance. Maintaining group
confidence of your impartiality is essential to continued progress.
• If, as chairperson, you have reacted to an outside request for
information or attended a meeting in which the group's work was
discussed, report this to the group at the next available opportunity.
--� Getting Consensus in an Advisory Group
A decision reached by consensus is an agreement where all parties
accept a balance of gains and losses to achieve a workable result.
Consensus - seeking may take much longer than a simpler "majority rules"
approach. The results, however, are more likely to be politically
acceptable and more durable in practice. Chapter 28 provides guidelines
for developing a consensus, but here are a few suggestions that apply
specifically to advisory groups:
• Take time in the beginning of the group's life for members to meet
other members as colleagues, rather than as antagonists across a
175
21. WORKING WITH ADVISORY GROUPS
negotiation table. This may require field trips or other common
activities where group members get to know each other personally,
not just as representatives of positions.
• Have each member write a short statement of what they wish to
achieve through the group's work; then discuss these expectations in
an information sharing meeting.
• Ensure that each member understands the group's mission and
objectives.
• Before trying to address issues, make sure that there is a clear and
satisfactory statement of what the issues are.
• When proposals for a decision are being made, seek a number of
options, rather than trying to draft a single statement. The options
must embody the differing viewpoints of participants. They can then
be examined by everyone for pros and cons.
• When different viewpoints or options are presented, take the time to
hear each participant, without judging or condemning the proposal at
first hearing. Most communication gaps begin with problems in
listening and unwillingness to let a speaker make his or her point.
• Everyone must be willing to re -open issues or concerns already
decided if a new compromise changes the way a member perceives
the balance of interests taking shape. Tolerance for this review must
be balanced by a respect for the group's work by each member.
• Consensus cannot survive if any members of the group are working to
achieve a hidden agenda or using a manipulative strategy. Concerns
have to be explicit and all cards must be placed on the table.
• Sometimes, compromise is not acceptable to one or more of the
participants in an advisory group. In these cases, it may not be
possible to achieve consensus on a single proposal. The remedy for
this situation is to present either a minority report or a range of
alternatives. With either approach, it is essential to give reasons for
the alternatives, so that they can be assessed by the agency. It
should be remembered that the closer to consensus an advisory
group can get, the more likely it is that their recommendations will be
accepted and implemented.
176
1
GROUND RULES
1. Focus on interest not positions **
2. Agree on meanings
3. Stay focused *
4. Discuss undiscussables **
5. Share all relevant info **
6. Steve gives rides - NO CHEAP SHOTS
7. Be factual
8. Don't meet on full moon
9. Reach decision by consensus **
10. Explain reasons behind statements
11. Focus on concensus
12. Disagree openly
13. Exchange relevant information with non -group members
* = Comments in support of statement
2
CONCERNS
1. Keep in touch with reality (long process)*
2. What is consensus * **
3. Outcome derailed by absent stakeholders
4. Preplanned alternate - bias
5. Have voice in process
6. Hillsborough not at table
7. Optimistic but worried about conflict
8. Past divisiveness
9. Cost to landowners
10. How far out is target to implement
11. Trees left
12. Is this just a frivolous exercise
13. Is it too late to preserve what is special about Orange County
14. Limited voice of citizens
15. Won't get plan implemented
16. Won't reach consensus
17. University Station developers not here
18. Giving Advise -- Implementation
19. What is possible in this area
20. Not everyone is here **
21. Lots of work -$ will prevail
22. Rural Buffer Chapel Hill- Carrboro- -Deal with our own plan
*= Additional comments in agreement
3
1. Understand alternatives Communicate to neighborhood
2. Communicate back to group
3. Understand each other - consider others
4. Enough handouts for everyone and disseminate information
5. Description -broad information land profile
6. Leave with working knowledge
7. Reasonable scenarios
8. Enthusiasm for outcome
9. Understand and be able to communicate
- government doesn't hear
10. Knowledge of content & process
11. Better community through sharing
12. Balanced results
13. Be successful model for other groups in county
14. Identify character (special) - preserve
15. Emerge with small area plan that presereves rural character
16. Most powerful outcome = consensus
17. Positive outcome
18. Don't waste our time
Firm grasp of issues \alternatives
19. Long term hospitality \quality of life
20. Children can enjoy this community have special childhood
21. How can citizens have input
22. Community meeting
23. Workable, reasonable plan that is respected
24. WE HAVE HOPE WE CAN REACH CONCENSUS
4
CONSENSUS
-No strong objections
-One strong objection doesn't stop -No Veto
- Resolve all disagreements -is a high goal
(send dissenting viewpoint)
-Not unanimity
-Can live with -can support /can support
Come together in good faith to resolve all disagreement and
find solutions everyone can live with
- Newsletters
- Community Meeting
*= Additional comments in agreement