Note:  What is shown below is a copy of the original letter, made for this website.  It is included here only so that the contents of the original letter can be searchable.  (The PDF received from the City is in the form of an image, and so is not a searchable document.)

What is below is not the letter sent by the letter-writer. It may contain typographical errors and other departures from the original.  The PDF displayed above is accurate.  The text below is not accurate.  It is printed here for indexing purposes, so that each word can be indexed and included in the search.

To: Planning Commission Chair Davies, Commissioners Tangney, Mayer, Figueroa, Lehman,
Simmons, Yodowitz
Community Development Director David Loya, Jen Dart, Delo Freitas
From: Fred Weis
Date: Monday, May 8, 2023
General Subject: Suggested format to assist you with the Framework that you are
currently using
Bold and red are used to highlight, so you can skim.
Each point here is written so you can get the basis of it very quickly.
You do not have to go through the contents in order — You can skip to what interests you
and read what you want.
For a one minute review: Look at Item 7 and read the Summary.
There are many ideas presented here. As an individual, you can select what seems best for you.
There can be group agreement on which aspects to use, but that’s not necessary. Using any bit
of what is presented here has the potential to add efficiency to your process.
Contents:
1 – Info on the form that was sent earlier
2 – Introduction
3 – The Bike Rack situation, and level of importance
4 – How the form would be used
5 – The basis of the form
6 – The form
7 – The important information that is included and displayed
8 – Summary
1 – Prior to your Thursday, April 27, meeting I wrote to you:
A form to help with the Framework: I have mentioned to you and spoken with David
Loya and Chair Scott Davies that I have developed a one-page form that would work in
2
conjunction with your current “Framework” process. Its use would not alter or replace any
aspect of the Framework — it would augment it. It would involve just a few minutes of
extra work (which either each of you or staff could do, or a combination) and would, I
believe, further increase the efficiency at your meetings. It would also help eliminate the “I
thought we were talking about what’s on Page 56″ and “What is that in reference to?” type
of discussions, which occur perhaps more frequently than you may realize.
The format is very similar to what Commissioners Simmons and Lehman are
already doing — just formalizes things a bit, and adds some missing info that will help the
process. The idea is to make your comments easier to read by the other Commissioners
(and the public) and easier to process and to understand — and at same time have the
discussion be complete, accurate, and faster. I developed the form and have been
adjusting it, based on what you have actually been submitting as your comments. As per
the current style, I’ll present it as a 45-second “elevator pitch” and then a couple of pages
of examples and backup material. If you can be more efficient on the smaller areas, then
you will have more time to discuss the more visionary or crucial material.
2 – Introduction
What I am suggesting here adds to your existing Framework. It augments it — makes it
faster and easier. This saves time.
It does not replace anything you are already doing.
Using this form will take a few minutes of time. You can enter the form, or Staff can do it.
Or you can do part and Staff can do part. It could be that you enter all your comments
directly onto the forms — and it won’t take any more time at all. The result will be that
what you want to express will be more effective.
The Framework has evolved as you’ve used it. For example, at your last meeting (April 27),
you recognized that your comments related to editorial matters — typographical errors —
are in a different category than “substantial” matters.
As an observer, I’m in a different position than the Commission. You are involved with the
in-the-moment discussions and decisions. I get to see more of the overall picture. I respect
the work that you are asked to do. If I can make your work easier — with maps, research,
this form, ideas for efficiency, etc. — I am happy to do so.
3 – The Bike Rack situation, and level of importance.
It seems to be the case that comments go into the bike rack for one of four reasons:
1. Ran out of time: A topic (i.e. General Plan Chapter) is scheduled. There is a
list of comments to discuss. The Commission goes through the list in the order
that they’ve been presented. Items that were displayed toward the end of the
list go onto the bike rack.
2. More info needed: The Commission recognizes that more information is
needed before a decision or recommendation can be made.
3. A larger discussion than is wanted at that time: If the comment involves
what is acknowledged as a big discussion, then it might be put off until later.
4. There is a neutral vote, or the Commission otherwise agrees that further
discussion is needed.

In every case, what is missing is: What is the priority of this item? What is its level
of importance?
This new form addresses that.
4 – How the form would be used
The form could be used as a PDF that you’d fill in; as an MS Word document form that
would be filled in; as an e-mail form; or simply as a checklist of info pieces that you’d
put into your own writing. (It could be easily made into a data-entry form, which greatly
assists the organization, but the Commission has strongly stated that you do not want
another program or place to go for entering material, and I support you on that.)
As mentioned above, this form is very similar to what Commissioners Simmons and
Lehman (and perhaps others of you) are already doing — it just formalizes things a bit,
and adds some missing info that will help the process.
Later here I will give a real-life example of a comment from this week (May 9), as your
comment would be displayed in this form.
5 – The basis of the form
1. If there were a bit more information in your comments, the discussion and decisions
could be completed more efficiently.
2. Certain critical information is absent: Specifically a summary, a chapter reference
(mostly there, sometimes not), and a level of priority.
3. There can be a one-sentence summary — not more than 120 characters and preferably
shorter.
As an example, that previous sentence here has 16 words and 96 characters (with
spaces). You should be able to state the title of your comment briefly — and not as a
narrative (i.e. paragraph) but as a true title.
4. The summary is descriptive and non-ambiguous. You can recall the discussion
around the Vision Statement, where it was not clear which of the two Vision Statements
was being discussed. This confusion has occurred other times too.
5. Level of priority is a critical factor. We need to know how important this matter is
to you. Just the change of one word can be a huge alteration in scope or intent — “shall /
should / can / may / will” being the well-known examples, and there are plenty of others.
Even if level of priority were the only concept from this form that was utilized,
that in itself would be helpful to your process.
The Commission discussed making the distinction between regular comments and minor
typographical errors, so that is now incoporated.
6 – The form. Here is a blank form. Again, we are looking at the information that it contains.
The nature of the form, and whether you use a form at all can be discussed. We are looking at the content that is here, and how that would help you.

6 – How the form would be used — an example from the May 9 compiled comments.
7 – The important information is included and displayed
8 – Summary
1. I see only the compiled comments — I have no idea how you are submitting your
comments now.
2. The form can be used as a fill-in-the-blanks PDF, a fill-in-the-blanks MS Word doc, a freeform Word doc, a free-form e-mail template, or just as a suggestion as to what info could
be included in your comments. (“Free-form” meaning you can type wherever you want.
3. I am presenting this as a form, because a standard form potentially makes it easier for
staff to compile, and maybe makes it easier for you too. The form itself is not the main
point here — it’s the info that the form requires. Your comment input should include:
1. Priority: Your evaluation of how important this is. This is the key point.
2. Consent: Your evaluation – Can this be a consent item.
3. Document / Page Number: Make it easier for others to find what you are
referencing.
4. Your name / initials.
4. If this basic information is included in your comment, then going through this material will
be more efficient and will more accurately reflect what the Commission wants.
There are many ideas presented here. As an individual, you can select what seems best for
you. There can be group agreement on which aspects to use, but that’s not necessary. Using
any bit of what is presented here has the potential to add efficiency to your process.
Thank you.

— Fred Weis