pages: PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-01-14 | 9 | Mr. Joseph Woodard submitted a speaker slip but was not longer in attendance to speak. Ms. Diane Lichtenstein, Homes, noted that she had sent an email to the Board. She had thought the purpose of the forum was an evaluation by experts and professionals as to the impact of Measure A over the past 35 years. In reading the staff report, she believed that was what was intended, and believed this should be a very objective analysis. Homes supported the recommendation that there be no small groups at this time due to the informational and analytical nature of the forum. She did not believe there would be enough time to process the information at one time. She hoped this forum would not become a pro-and-con discussion of whether Measure A should exist. She believed there should be a discussion of the impact of Measure A on education under "Diversity of Housing/Housing Mix.' The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. President Cook inquired about the professional speakers that had committed to the forum. Mr. Thomas noted that staff was working towards a February 2 meeting date, and that should be published in the next few days. Board Member Lynch inquired why there were as many as six people to a panel, as he had seen in some workshops in the past. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft recalled that consultant David Early recommended that small breakout groups be used to maximize the opportunity for public participation, because not everyone feels comfortable speaking before a large group. She recalled that the SunCal Alameda Point workshop was a good example of that format working extremely well. She believed the forum should be held in a place where it could be televised. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she spoke with Cathy Woodbury the previous week, and understood that more time was needed for the forum. She had inquired about the confirmed panel members, and was noted that there was a reason for setting the deadline in the first place. She noted that this had been planned since Summer 2007, and the panels had not been confirmed. She was concerned that the Planning Director had not made more progress at this point. She would like the forum to be a good one, and was reluctant to extend the time, and believed it was unrealistic to confirm February 2 at this point. She was frustrated by the fact that it had taken so long to see so little progress. Board member McNamara believed that the initial timeframe should be adhered to, and to move forward with it as best as they can. She suggested contacting alternative panelists. She believed the breakout sessions were secondary to the panel discussions, and emphasize that community education was the primary objective. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether more time would provide a better opportunities for obtaining a better venue and more panelists. Page 9 of 12 | PlanningBoard/2008-01-14.pdf |