pages: PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-10-08 | 6 | she wished to share those points with the Planning Board for consideration. They believed it would be important to supplement the presentation made by Woody Minor with an objective presentation on both the legislative history and a summary of how Measure A had been implemented in the City. The Planning Board members advocated that those presentations be provided by current or former City staff, particularly the City Attorney for the legislative history and how it had been implemented by City staff. The first part of the sessions would be an hour-long session broken into three parts, providing an overview of the events leading up to Measure A, the language of Measure A, and some perspective on how that has affected the City's historic structures. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that for the second part of the forum, the Planning Board members felt that it was very important not to frame this discussion as advocating for or against Measure A. They believed it would be more important to focus on issues that related to Measure A for the City, as well as having a mix of viewpoints on the panel. They recommended that two different sessions be held, one dealing with housing and general housing issues, and a second session dealing with general issues related to transportation. They recommended that each panel consist of six members, and made recommendations from the broad list of speaker recommendations to represent a mix of Alameda residents and different perspectives on Measure A. They also suggested a series of questions that might be posed by a moderator to this panel, and responded to with a unique perspective on the topic. They recommended that the session last for 40 minutes, followed by an open session to take questions from the public. After a break, that would be repeated with the transportation forum. The afternoon schedule was similar to that recommended by staff, that the participants break out into small groups. She noted that the difference was that a working lunch was not included in the City budget. She believed that if people were expected to spend their entire day discussing Measure A, that it would be nice to provide lunch, at the discretion of the City Council. She believed the questions should be available beforehand to the people being asked to address them in order to give them sufficient time to research them. Member Ezzy Ashcraft believed that with respect to the speakers, there was a wealth of resources available, from professional planners to those who can speak to the history of living in this community. In response to an inquiry by Member Cunningham whether staff would formulate the list of speakers, Ms. Woodbury replied that staff could do that if it was the Board's direction. Staff would hire the Housing Element consultant, which would put the list together. Staff would be glad to ask people if they were interested and willing, and then work on the details. Member Cunningham noted that an update of the Housing Element was a lengthy and very involved process, and did not believe this would be the correct forum to discuss the Housing Element. He believed that the impact of Measure A on the Housing Element was a critical item to discuss, but wished to clarify that the intention of this forum was not to address the Housing Element. 6 | PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf |