4-21-16 CPAC Summary - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ONE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE ELEMENT OF THIS DRAFT PLAN THAT STANDS OUT FOR YOU (4/21/16 CPAC MEETING)  Plan relies on the vision, which is prose and weak vs justification and missing vital points  Quality of work; typos, legends, colors of maps, typeface, visual ease of reading  The Loop is emphasized; the Loop is not all of University City  Housing stock and data is not comprehensive and detailed in Third Ward  Does not demonstrate critical relationship between plan elements and citizens; the document should be for the residents or community  Substantive issues with data and maps  Consultants did not capture essence of University City; is generic of any city vs uniqueness of our community  Boiler plate  Not an equitable discussion of all wards and areas of the community; emphasis on Ward 1 “good” traits  Lack of specifics on demographic differences in our community and challenges thereof  Vision presentation is confusing – do not like future presentation  Lack of details on sustainability, equity and environment Thoughts about what to do next?  Can this be a strategic plan?  Process for next steps?  Were told some data could come later  Change orders for additional work?  Consultants need to know CPAC is not yet satisfied  Dialogue between CPAC and consultant on deficiencies?  Go over the memo with consultant Group Feedback Highlights  Boiler-plate document  Info about U City not adequately incorporated  Data inadequate  Citizens not represented in the content  Ward 3 info and housing data inadequate  Racial equity not well presented 1