My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
RulesCommunications Highlights 2009 0526
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Committees
>
Rules & Communications Committee
>
RulesCommunications Highlights 2009 0526
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/12/2009 10:00:01 AM
Creation date
6/12/2009 10:00:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Committee Highlights
Document Date (6)
5/26/2009
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2009 0615
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2009\Packet 2009 0615
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting May 7, 2009 <br />EXCERPT RE: BZA PC CONSOLIDATION <br />Draft Minute No. 2009-09 Page 4 of S <br />Community Development Director Sims agreed that a subcommission could hear the <br />simpler issues that would keep them off the evening agenda. <br />Vice Chair Marr totally concurred with Member Gilcrest. She had heard similar <br />presentations by the City of Oakland and the city where she worked. That city used San <br />Leandro as a model for one-stop planning and permitting, which was what they aspired to <br />in the future. That was why having two bodies was so important. <br />Member Daly also concurred with Member Gilcrest. An intangible value existed with <br />having more people involved with decisions involving the city. It was more efficient and <br />the savings would not justify the loss. <br />Member Shields agreed with Member Gilcrest. Merging the two bodies would cause a <br />loss to the city by eliminating the expertise of members of the two bodies. <br />Member Sidari also agreed. However, he disagreed with taking too many issues away <br />from the Board. He recalled just a few years ago when only one man with the County <br />approved Conditional Use Permits, who was like a god. People felt more comfortable <br />with a Board making those kinds of decisions. <br />Member Mendieta asked if the effect of the stimulus plan had been factored into the <br />budget for the next six to 18 months relating to increased business activities. <br />Community Development Director Sims replied that it was staffs biggest fear, because <br />they were very busy at this time with the current reduction in staff. The biggest <br />drawback to merger was the unwieldiness of the activity and decisions that would have to <br />be made. The other drawback would the reduction of public participation in the process. <br />These were the two major concerns of the Council. <br />Member Mendieta agreed that one monthly meeting was the best option in which each <br />member could contribute to the quality of life in each member's district. <br />Member Shields observed that once the two bodies were merged into one, it would be <br />impossible to create the two bodies, again. <br />Community Development Director Sims stated that point had been made by the <br />Planning Commissioners. He encouraged the Board Members to share any other <br />comments with him by contacting him. All comments would be shared with the Rules <br />Committee. <br />Member Shields asked when a decision would be made. <br />Community Development Director Sims guessed that the Council would want to <br />discuss it during a work session, along with other budget issues. Some of the staff <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.