Laserfiche WebLink
"""'°~ CITY of PLEASANTON <br />Planning Commission <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />DCte : October 2~, 1972 <br />Time ; 3:0o P.M. <br />PIGCe; Conference Room - City Hall <br />The City Attorney indicated that thi <br />would be permissible. Commissioner <br />Pereira then wished to confirm that <br />the applicant would have to pay the <br />cost of such preparation. The City <br />Attorney stated that the City may <br />want to fix the fee. <br />Commissioner Pereira wished to know <br />if it is possible that the Commissio <br />review the design and site plan <br />subject to approval of the environ- <br />mental impact statement; is it <br />possible, if the applicant enters <br />into a release or waiver? <br />Mr. Hirst replied that in his opinio <br />this is not possible. The City will <br />be proceeding at its own risk if it <br />goes any further on this application <br />without conditions of the Environ- <br />mental Quality Act requirements bein <br />complied with. <br />Mr. Hirst told the Commissioners thai <br />in regard to the application and <br />their funding with HUD, he talked to <br />a gentleman in that organization, <br />Mr. Robert Rogers , about the dead- <br />line on the feasibility letter on <br />October 25, 1972. This letter was <br />originally granted on April 28, 1972 <br />to expire 90 days after, or in July. <br />There have been extensions granted. <br />As Mr. Hirst understands the situa- <br />tion, HUD will in every way abide <br />by the City's determination with <br />respect to the requirements of the <br />Environmental Quality Act. He was <br />led to believe that if it is necessa: <br />to extend the feasibility letter two <br />weeks to 30 days to accommodate the <br />requirements of the Environmental <br />Quality Act, this would not be a <br />problem with HUD. He stressed to <br />-3- <br />