pages: PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-10-08 | 8 | Ms. Woodbury noted that while staff has interviewed consultants, they had not selected a consultant yet. Member McNamara thanked the Planning Board members and the appellants for spending so much time on getting the forum discussion to this point. She inquired whether there was a budget to pay for the panelists and mediators, and added that the budget could become significant. She supported the format that Ms. Woodbury refined from David Earley's forum because she liked non-working breaks; the suggested format had two significant breaks during the day. She noted that the Housing Element and the transportation component were combined into one 90-minute session, instead of two one-hour sessions, which she believed would be easier to absorb and follow. She liked the idea of seeking professional input outside of Alameda. President Cook noted that they felt very uncomfortable being labeled as one side, and the appellants as the other side. She believed the City Council and Planning Board wished to set up a very objective workshop where people represented a variety of different interests. Consequently, they resisted an adversarial approach throughout the six hours of meetings that were held. Member McNamara agreed with President Cook's comments, and was more interested in hearing their perspective, which may supplement or complement the Planning Board's perspective. Member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the difference between a 90-minute session and two one- hour sessions to discuss the Housing Element and transportation was 30 minutes. She believed strongly that it had taken considerable effort to be able to hold this kind of forum. She believed there were many serious-minded members of the community who have thought long and hard about this issue, and who wanted in-depth information. She believed another 30 minutes of substance would be valuable. She noted that both versions would end at 4 p.m. and believed that a working lunch would be valuable. She hoped that the session would also be televised. Member McNamara noted that the morning session was designed to be very structured, with speakers and an educational and informational approach. She supported that format, and believed that after the lunch break, she supported the small group breakout sessions as well, which would give the citizens of Alameda an opportunity to have input and to summarize additional issues. She noted that the small group members could select a facilitator amongst themselves, who would report the results of their meeting back to the group. She noted that Barbara Kerr had expressed concern that the small groups' input would not be reported back to City Council, but that would be reported and recorded in the public record and brought back to City Council. She did not believe that would be a concern. She suggested that for either format option, allowing an hour at the end of the day for more questions by the public would be valuable. If there were more than 20 speakers, she suggested randomly selecting speaker slips to fit into the time allotted. 8 | PlanningBoard/2007-10-08.pdf |