pages: PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf, 16
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2005-05-23 | 16 | full analysis. Mr. Lynch noted that a number of communities have gone forward with the environmental documents first, then the plan. The voters would then be provided with the alternatives and an idea of the general concept as it related to the baseline data. Ms. Kohlstrand believed that Alameda Point provided the perfect opportunity to have a meaningful community debate about whether Measure A should prevail, or whether another development approach should be considered for that area. Mr. Thomas believed that the last meeting would be productive if it could be devoted to evaluating the two plans that had been developed through the process. He added that this would not be the end of the planning process. Mr. Lynch noted that he would be out of the country on June 8, but suggested that the City election schedule be presented to the public at that time; a special election would be very costly. He noted that would help structure the planning timeline so that any possible ballot issues may be considered. Mr. Piziali suggested that issue be considered at a separate meeting. Ms. Eliason noted that it may be best to hold the discussion after the Navy's decision was known. b. Staff update on current stafflevels in the Planning Division of the Planning & Building Department. Ms. Eliason advised that Mr. Cormack would retire in mid-June, and his position was slated to be frozen. In the next budget cycle, Ms. Altschuler's position would be eliminated. She noted that staffing would be thin for the time being, and that the recruitment effort for a Planning & Building Director was underway. Greg McFann and Jerry Cormack shared the Interim Planning & Building Director position. The entire Planning & Building Department was in the process of conducting a fee study and evaluation of staffing. Those results will be available in the next month or two; it was hoped that it would show that the staffing levels were too low, given the volume of work on both the Planning & Building sides, allowing the Development Review Manager position to be unfrozen. Mr. Lynch noted that because of the time lags involved, some of the fees may not be recovered during the current fiscal year. He noted that the expectations of processing applications must be considered. Mr. Lynch inquired how many city and county jurisdictions in the State were fully funded and staffed. Ms. Mariani suggested that point be brought before City Council. Planning Board Minutes Page 16 May 23, 2005 | PlanningBoard/2005-05-23.pdf |