|
| | | | Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphon:.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/562165173
Or by phone: (646) 749-3112
- One-touch: tel:+16467493112,,562165173#
Access Code: 562-165-173
| | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 1. | | Call To Order (Time)
Minutes note: Meeting convened: 11:05 A.M. | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 2. | | Roll Call
Minutes note: II. Roll Call - Michael Anderson, Jennifer Evans, Tanya Fonseca, George Martin, Kevin Muhs, Pam Ritger, Marissa Meyer, Celia Jackson, Dennis Grzezinski, Susanna Cain, James Davies, Nathan Jurowski (guest) | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 3. | | Review and Approval of Minutes
Minutes note: Approved. | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 4. | | Remaining Introductions (anyone not present at first meeting)
Minutes note: Michael Anderson, Nathan Jurowski | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 5. | | Standard Meeting Time and Logistics
Minutes note: Tuesdays, 11:00am - Tanya Fonseca partial conflicts. | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 6. | | Work Group Process including how to achieve alignment, agreement, consensus and accountability
Minutes note: Celia Jackson leading the discussion. Has ideas that might be helpful if we get stuck. Jennifer Evans prepared flow chart on consensus agreement. To make sure we have open, honest dialogue and we deal with getting stuck. Gives concrete ways to problem solve. Flow chart document will be shared out. People can take time to look at. Hopefully it’s an agreement on how to make decisions.
George works with modified consensus. Is a trainer. Traditional consensus divides sides and modified tries to avoid this. Stand asides and blocks are concerns that need to be resolved. Are different approaches. Avoid one person holding up the whole show. Can dramatically delay action. George will put together a flow chart also. Then we can discuss further at next meeting.
| | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 7. | | Review and Continue Brainstorm of Potential Big Ideas
Minutes note: Looked at preliminary chart last meeting. Jennifer Evans chart can use - Overview Transportation JE. Might be easier to break out into subgroups. A way to break up the work. Categories from ICLEI recommendations. Four categories plus an “other” category. Read chart from left to right. Matt thinks the four categories make sense. People feel the information is organized in a user friendly way. Not a be all and end all. Question is whether it’s a good way to divide up the work. George okay with this organization. Pam thinks it makes sense to break into smaller subgroups. But do need to expand upon the policies and the criteria to evaluate them. Use Erick’s template prepared for all of the work groups including looking at funding needs, consultant needs, etc. Jennifer developed another chart for evaluating each issue according to Erick’s template - Initial Planning Template Comparison.
For the Green Buildings working group, Pam made a similar spreadsheet for people to add own policies and ideas. Can we do the same? Maybe starting with something more skeletal. Matt thinks the main thing is to divide up the work for greater elaboration. Maybe can use the template that Jennifer shared - each sub group uses it.
Celia thinks need to look at what impact on people is that could cause more problems. Need to be aware of unintended consequences. Ted thinks category E could be efficiencies like better stop light design. Generally people okay with dividing up the work this way.
Michael asks how do we keep in touch and report to each other and build consensus. Maybe sub group meet then come back to full group to talk further. As we get to recommendations we work much more as a whole group. Question is do we do this at the one regular meeting in break outs.
Question, does it really have to be one big idea. Task force members feel the number could increase. Goal is to narrow it down to highest impact actions. Also work from this committee needs to blend with land use committee. Complex issues that won’t involve just one big solution. Different time frames on the changes too. With four sub groups not really possible to have just one solution. Implementation plans may require that some things done before others. For example may need good alternatives to cars before make them more expensive for people. Also some things already happening and others just starting. Marissa says need to be just very organized and clear in our final document. Presentation will be very important.
George concerned about transit and access for low income people. We are missing certain information. Would like County presentation on battery electric buses and on their future plans for routes. Kevin Muhs thinks that makes sense. Will be 11 battery electric buses.
Need clarification at the Task Force level that if policy changes that don’t take big funds and difficult/complex implementation, then no reason to limit to very big ideas. Pam will bring to broader Task Force this week.
Summary - four sub groups, clarification on simpler policy recommendations, people look over the document and decide which sub groups they’d like to be on by the next meeting. Celia asks what time commitment for each sub group. Is there a way to assure sufficient participation in each group. Matt thinks maybe a poll with first choice and second choice. Could be evenly split among work group members. Also people can just join other subgroups occasionally. Hopefully by next meeting get that first step done.
Put together an Excel spreadsheet with the four categories and the issues so that people can add and input into the spreadsheet as a live document. Ted and Jennifer will work on this.
Subgroup strategies go through checklist based on template from Erick as drafted by Jennifer.
Question, does racial equity mean the same thing to everyone? How measure? Same for community input? Need to be very clear on these things so talking about the same things. George says two work groups that address these questions including Jobs and Equity, and Education and Outreach. Have a contract for outreach to the public. Would address any possible community objections. Will have something this week. Jennifer says definition given for each category so that do define them. Can incorporate information from other work groups. Matt notes that the templates we’re working with are not final and can always be modified.
For sub groups is the process first brainstorming, then research effectiveness and feasibility? Or will subgroups define their own work? Working with ICLEI consultant on forecasting impact of different kinds of policies. When do we need to get the ideas to the consultant to get the forecast? Pam will add this question to larger Task Force meeting.
Next meeting, March 2, 11:00am.
| | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 8. | | Discussion and Decision on How to Organize the Work | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 9. | | Public Comments – Up to 2 minutes per speaker | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 10. | | Adjourn (Time)
Minutes note: 12:25 P.M.
Minutes provided by Ted Kraig | | | |
|
Not available
|