I continue to be mystified by the concern that the survey could be gamed, as is indicated by "We don't want to be gamed by having somebody, every day, who's very unhappy submitting negative reviews."

As our current San Mateo County mail-in ballots demonstrates, it's a simple matter to arrange a "non-gameable" anonymous ballot or survey. Simply mail out a survey marked with the recipient's ID to each resident. When they are returned a trusted clerical individual checks that ID off on the original mailing list and then removes that ID information from the unopened survey before passing the survey to the people compiling and responding to the data. Any subsequent fraudulent surveys will be caught when the ID is checked against the mailing list.

Also, pleas be sure that the survey goes to all people that are residents, or at minimum have requested a permit of some sort, not just those that have successfully completed a project, a smaller percentage of the population.

The idea that reducing the size of the ASRB from seven to five will help is misguided and will make the current dysfunction worse. The meetings are long because they are very badly run. For example, each member is invited to ramble on about his/her feelings about the design, rather than simply focusing on the yes/no question: is it consistent with the design guidelines? If the board members carefully studied the design before the meeting and arrived with their potential non-conformities written down, the board could focus just on those specific subjects, take votes, and arrive at the yes/no answer quickly. Thinking out loud in a public meeting is a waste of everyone's time.

The reason the ASRB can't find volunteers is because the meetings are long and tense, and that is because they are polarized and dominated by a unified but unrepresentative troika. Any reasonable potential volunteer would realize his/her voice is not going to have much effect. Reducing the board from seven to five will simply make that domination permanent.

The right way to achieve a quorum is to leave the quorum size alone and INCREASE the size of the board. Reducing it is just giving in to the existing mess.

If the current distorted board membership were fixed, the board spent a few hours working on meeting procedure, perhaps with an experienced consultant, and the two professional architects called for by the municipal code were added, I believe the board would have no trouble finding well-qualified volunteers.

Sorry, but maybe the board needs disbanded? Can't the planning department determine the yes or no answer based on compliance with the guidelines?

I'm guessing that would also take an ordinance to the town council?