Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Moderator: Celeste Werner, AICP  Matrix Design Group – Vice President  Michele Parlett  Bexar County, TX  Project Manager for: ▪ Lackland AFB JLUS.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Moderator: Celeste Werner, AICP  Matrix Design Group – Vice President  Michele Parlett  Bexar County, TX  Project Manager for: ▪ Lackland AFB JLUS."— Presentation transcript:


2 Moderator: Celeste Werner, AICP  Matrix Design Group – Vice President  Michele Parlett  Bexar County, TX  Project Manager for: ▪ Lackland AFB JLUS  Frank Sherman  City of San Antonio, TX  Project Manager for: ▪ Camp Bullis JLUS  Jeff Fanto  Okaloosa County, FL  Project Manager for: ▪ Eglin AFB JLUS ▪ Tri-County Growth Management Plan  Mike Hrapla  Matrix Design Group  Project Manager for: ▪ NSA Panama City, FL JLUS ▪ Camp Bullis JLUS ▪ Malmstrom AFB JLUS

3  Laying the Foundation for a Successful Project  Michele Parlett  A Full Time Job  Frank Sherman  Engaging the Public  Jeff Fanto  Partnering with Consultants  Mike Hrapla

4 Laying the Foundation for a Success – Project Startup

5  JLUS Purpose and Goals  Assess development and compatible growth  OEA Partnership  OEA partners with a community sponsor  Strong Executive Leadership  Military and Civic  Community Technical Expertise  Planners, Engineers, Landowners  Good Faith Commitment  Collaborative effort and Consensus

6  A cooperative land use planning effort between the military installations and their surrounding communities  It promotes compatible community development that supports military training and operational missions

7  Actions that could and should be taken by various stakeholders to solve problems related to existing incompatible development and prevent future problems

8  Clearly identify the major factors that adversely effect the installation’s operations  Clearly identify the installation’s operations that adversely impact quality of life for the community  Clearly identify the parameters of the study area  Budget for modifications

9  The community by providing a forum for understanding the economic and physical impacts of a military installation’s operations.  It evaluates the impacts of the community’s development patterns on the viability of the installation’s mission.

10  A tool for application of compatible planning between the community and installation  A forum for bridging communication between the community and installation

11  Community Sponsor  Municipality, County Government, State Governments, Councils of Government (COGs), regional planning organizations  Sponsor role  Provides non-federal match  Provides project oversight  Provides project facilitation  Provides project implementation

12  Champions and policy makers  Federal and State Agency Representation, Local and State Electeds, Senior Military Leadership, Senior Civic Leadership—Business and Real Estate  Executive Role  Guide the direction of the project  Promote and Encourage support for project  Promote and Encourage support for implementation of recommendations

13  Subject Matter Experts as it relates to project purpose  Planners, Engineers, Landowners, Economic Development Practitioners, Realtors, Builders, Legal expertise  Technical Role  Know the community policies and issues  Understand the problems  Develop workable solutions  Assist in implementation efforts  Advise Executive Leadership as necessary

14 Community Sponsor Executive/Policy Committee Working/Advisory Committee Technical Committee RESPONSIBILITIESPARTICIPANTS COORDINATION, ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT/GRANT MANAGEMENT MUNICIPALITY, COUNTY OR STATE GOVERNMENTS, COGs Policy Direction; Study Design/ Oversight; Budget Approval; Monitoring; Report Adoption City Officials; County Officials Base Leadership; Private Sector Leaders State Officials Technical Issues; Alternatives Report Development; Recommendations Local and Base Planners; Community Staff; Business Representatives Residents

15  Commitment for project  Active participation during process and implementation efforts  Collaboration  Open to ideas  Willingness to address controversial issues  Open to creative problem solving

16  OEA Compatible Growth   JLUS Project Websites ; ; ;   Social Media Websites  Linked In; Facebook

17 A Full-Time Job

18 Before JLUS After JLUS

19 (extracted from office description)  Ensure tasks in the SOW and consultant contract are completed on schedule  Coordinate the data collection  Serve as a focal point for all entities  Set up a schedule of events and monitor timeline

20  Arrange one-on-one meetings between consultant and agencies  Schedule and coordinate key meetings with the Executive Committee and Advisory Com.  Coordinate Public Meetings ▪ (time, location, agenda)

21 At the outset:  Write Statement of Work  Write Grant Request  Write Request for Proposal  Evaluate Proposals  Orchestrate Movement to City Council  Write Resolutions authorizing grant or support

22 JLUS Ready for Take-off Camp Bullis JLUS Lackland AFB JLUS Randolph AFB JLUS OEA Grant…check. Committees formed…check. Publicity…check. We’ve got County Clearance. Let’s get this baby off the ground!

23 Experience, Knowledge, and Qualifications

24 Local Government  government procedures, policies, departmental functions, political realities Management  organize, plan, communicate, coordinate, direct, and research Military  understand organization, possibly less open with information, change is sometime difficult

25 Military Operations  Mission – training (train like you fight) ▪ Noise, light, dust, 24/7  Organization and Chain of Command ▪ Not run by committee, not open and transparent, sometimes little knowledge of local government processes Local Government Operations  Limits of authority, open meetings laws, freedom of information act, records retention  Police Powers – regulations/restrictions

26 Government Policies and Procedures

27 Ability to Speak the Language AICUZAPZ ANGABW BRACETJ EISGIS MDPPUD NOENVG Zoning, Density, Vesting, Smart Growth

28 ResponsiveFlexible Detail OrientedCommunicative AnticipatoryPersistent SensitiveThick Skinned AffableSense of Humor Ability to multi-task

29 Foundation for the Study  Time Consuming: possibly months  Military, Government, and Agency staffers ▪ have other priorities  Persistence to get data ▪ requires checking back – without being irritating

30 Research  Does Data Exist? Is it Current?  Operations Orders, Manuals, Letters of Agreement ▪ Example: Air Operations Manual at FAA Office at Airport and Alamo Area Council of Governments LOA with Ft Sam Houston  Need Specifics and Statistics ▪ 8 million rounds of ammunition fired in 2009 at Camp Bullis  Military Personnel Rotation – civilians as continuity  Local Government – cultivate old timers

31 Arrange and Attend  Elected officials, get on calendar in advance, avoiding conflicting meeting dates  Minutes: writing and editing With Consultants  Military, government departments, and stakeholders Other Government Entities  Federal, state, counties, agencies (U. S. Fish and Wildlife, Commission on Environmental Quality, etc.)

32 JLUS Public Meeting

33 Community Outreach  Rural difficult, lack of interest until property identified Publicity, Advertisement, Public Meetings ▪ Ex: High Schools, etc. (contracts, security, audio-visual, food)  Elected Officials: e-blasts and newsletters  Postings  Website Updating  Draft Plan to Municipalities and Libraries

34 Consultant: busy organizing data, analyzing it, formatting, and drafting the narrative, rationale, and recommendations -- does not have time to deal with every issue, department, stakeholder, or research all details Consultant and Project Manager act as a Team


36 Military Developers Property Owners Government Federal, State, Local Environmentalists Supervisor Elected Officials Media Citizens Consultant Real Estate Professionals Project Manager

37  Reading and editing drafts and revisions  Public Meetings and Comment Period ▪ Consolidation of Public Comments  Government Process for Approval  Memos/briefings to City Hall  Briefing Council Members (Districts)  Writing Resolution of Support

38 Nexus and Neutral

39 Full-Time Job – But Don’t Take It Home! “It came with the job!”

40 Engaging the Public

41  Study area: 3 counties/10 municipalities in Northwest Florida

42  Region is “Military Friendly”  Eglin – $6 billion annual economic generator  Hurlburt Field (Okaloosa Co); NAS Whiting Field (Santa Rosa Co); NAS Pensacola (Escambia Co); Tyndall AFB and NSA Panama City (Bay Co)  FL Statutes mandate military compatibility  Community responsibility via Comprehensive Plans/Land Development Codes  OEA supported JLUS w/financial & technical assistance

43  New BRAC missions  7 th Special Forces Group (Airborne)  F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Initial Training Site ▪ Pilot and Maintenance training  Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)  Conducted concurrently with JLUS  Structure agreed upon via jurisdictional resolution

44  Meetings held “in the sunshine”  Policy Committee noticed, open to public  Technical Advisory Group “closed” but open to interested citizens to participate in the process   All minutes, presentations posted here  Local media – NWFDN, Bay Beacon, WFTW  Editorial boards/outreach to staff writers/on air

45  We were moving right along…..until  JLUS originally scoped to use ‘06 AICUZ  Local community (Valparaiso) push to use JSF data ▪ AF agreed to provide data at release times provided in NEPA ▪ OEA provided additional resources for analysis  First EIS data released concurrent with DEIS ▪ Blended Mix preferred alternative  Then came the FEIS ▪ AF preferred alternative changed ▪ Additional analysis required  Draft JLUS and recommendations ▪ We were moving faster than NEPA ▪ Concerns of JLUS recommendations “getting ahead” of EIS  Result: 8 month delay in JLUS completion

46  Keeping on message…”We are NOT the EIS!”  JLUS and EIS were separate studies ▪ JLUS – Community-based study (open) ▪ EIS – Air Force study (not open)  NEPA limitations on active public involvement ▪ Public hearings not Q&A, merely opportunity to comment  JLUS had only story to tell (at times) ▪ Not all good news (Valparaiso) ▪ Mixing JLUS/EIS became common; everyone got the blame  Meetings…..bloody meetings ▪ 19 public meetings (most poorly attended) ▪ 45 one-on-one’s

47  Other ways we engaged  JLUS Policy Committee Chairman penned op ed ▪ Pledged to work together to solve emerging issues  Eglin base commander supported JLUS process ▪ Vice chair of JLUS Policy Committee  In the end, we may have lost the battle….  Valparaiso panned JLUS/EIS at every turn ▪ Local headlines read: “Val’P scoffs at JLUS”, “Val’P decries JLUS”, “Valparaiso mayor walks out of JLUS meeting”, “Valparaiso sues Air Force”  ….but we’ll win the war!  JLUS implementation continues ▪ Val’P did pass resolution of support (omitted any noise references, though) ▪ Working with City on Noise Attenuation Study RFP and other long- term strategies

48  Lessons Learned  Active participation/involvement is critical! ▪ Keeping ambassadors is vital to forward movement ▪ You’re only as good as the staff/policy makers  JLUS concurrent with EIS – extremely difficult ▪ Constantly changing data compounded difficulty  Resolutions of support at the beginning  supportive communities at the end ▪ Val’P on board until the issues came out in print ▪ Turned recommendations into “you’re against us” ▪ Lawsuits & settlement agreements

49 Partnering with Consultants

50 JLUS Experience Beale AFB – CA Edwards AFB – CA FT Irwin - CA NAWS China Lake – CA R2508 – CA Bay Co - FL Navy- AF Guam - GU Idaho – ID Malmstrom AFB – MT Camp Rilea – OR Camp Bullis - TX Del Rio – TX Kingsville – TX Camp Williams – UT Hampton/Langley – VA Fairchild AFB – WA

51  If you are considering a JLUS – Let’s talk about: Challenges Inclusion Discovery Process Public Outreach Key Focus Items Outcomes Overview

52  Wide range of stakeholders  Broad spectrum of issues  Timeframe and Time Commitments  Strong property rights issues  Rural and Urban situations  Minimal authorities in rural areas Challenges


54  Committees  Stakeholders  Concern Citizens and Groups  Other Regulatory Agencies  Striving for: Buy in  Buy in  Acceptance  Willingness to implement Inclusion – Who and Why

55 Public Officials Local / County Other Agencies Military Representatives OEA JLUSParticipantsResponsibilities Sponsors OEA City County Policy Committee Policy Direction Study Oversight Monitoring Report Adoption Technical Committee Technical Issues Alternatives Report Development Recommendations Coordination Accountability Grant Management Financial Contribution Planning Staff Engineering Staff Technical Specialists Special Interests Committees Key Roles and Assignments

56  Known Issues  Broader Factors  Future Concerns  Solutions Discovery – Looking for ?

57 December 8, 2008 – San Diego, CA

58 15. Cultural Sites 16. Legislative Initiatives 17. Interagency Coordination Natural 18. Water Quality / Availability 19. Threatened and Endangered Species 20. Marine Environments Competition for: 21. Scarce Resources 22. Land or Airspace 23. Frequency Spectrum 24. Ground Transportation Man-Made 1. Land Use 2. Safety Zones 3. Vertical Obstruction 4. Housing Availability 5. Infrastructure Extensions 6. AT/FP 7. Noise 8. Vibration 9. Dust / Smoke / Steam 10. Light & Glare 11. Alternative Energy Development 12. Air Quality 13. Frequency Spectrum Interference & Impedance 14. Public Trespassing Compatibility Factors

59  Number of committee meetings  Opportunities for review at phases points  Time for adequate review cycles Process – It is Iterative

60  Many issues across wide range of concerns  Numerous stakeholder positions  Impacts to schedule Process – It is Iterative

61  Public Information  Public Participation  Public Input  Public Outreach Seek Active Engagement Public - Outreach & Input


63  Increased Understanding of Range of Issues  Geographic Awareness  Tool Box of Strategies or Actions  Formalize Cooperation & Coordination IMPLEMENTATION  Prepared for next step - IMPLEMENTATION Key Focus Items

64  Report  Understanding  Awareness  Cooperation Body of Knowledge that helps decision makers at all levels make better informed decisions Outcomes


66 Frank Sherman City of San Antonio, TX Military Affairs Office Senior Manager Analyst 210-207-1337 Michele Parlett Bexar County, TX Economic Development Senior Analyst 210-335-0034 Jeff Fanto Okaloosa County, FL Growth Project Coordinator 850-609-3014 Mike Hrapla Matrix Design Group Vice President 602.288.8344

Download ppt "Moderator: Celeste Werner, AICP  Matrix Design Group – Vice President  Michele Parlett  Bexar County, TX  Project Manager for: ▪ Lackland AFB JLUS."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google