Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Engagement Open Houses topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff: Phase‑3 open houses drew about 206 participants; themes were housing, parks and transportation
Summary
Capital Delivery Services’ consultant summarized five open houses and a virtual session, reporting about 206 attendees across events (average ~41–42 in‑person; virtual ~61), translated materials into eight languages, used dot exercises and comment cards, and said a follow‑up report and raw comments would be provided "by the 30 first."
Lucero Arechaca, the community engagement consultant who presented the Phase 3 open‑house briefing for Capital Delivery Services, described the format and preliminary results of five in‑person open houses and a virtual session held as part of the 2026 bond engagement. Arechaca said staff used consistent materials across events (including boards and a five‑dot prioritization exercise), translated materials into eight languages, and collected comment cards and on‑site surveys.
Why it matters: The open houses and surveys are the primary public input staff will use to refine which projects appear in draft bond packages; task force members asked whether the engagement produces project‑level tallies or only thematic results.
Key details presented: Arechaca gave preliminary participation metrics—"we had about 206 people attend in general," she said—with an average of roughly 41–42 people at in‑person events and about 61 at the virtual session. Emerging themes identified from the dot exercise and comments included housing, parks and recreation facilities, and transportation. Arechaca said staff are preparing a follow‑up report and expected to deliver it "by the 30 first," and that the task force would receive both thematic summaries and access to raw comment cards.
On project‑level data: staff said the dot exercise is designed to highlight priorities by programmatic category rather than to produce a public vote on every named project, but they confirmed that comment cards and the survey provide project‑specific comments and that staff would provide the raw cards and supporting detail so members can see which projects were mentioned.
Next steps: Arechaca said the comprehensive follow‑up report (including demographic breakdowns and raw comments) will be shared to inform the task force’s April meetings; members asked staff to include project‑level dot distributions and to provide demographic and ZIP code information for participants where available.
