Laserfiche WebLink
4y$~SAIVToy CITY of PLEASANTaN <br />~~o <br />.~.:o~~ Planning Commission <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />DOfie October 17, 1972 <br />Time : 8:22 P.M. <br />PIGCe; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />Secretary Castro explained that the <br />matter before the Commission is a re- <br />vision in the development plans for <br />the project. Original review is <br />basically the same except that one <br />condition at that approval was that <br />more precise development plans be <br />submitted. <br />Commissioner Carrigan expressed some <br />concern about certain rumors being <br />bantered around concerning different <br />plans being submitted to the Commissi n <br />than was submitted to HUD. He was <br />very curious as to Commission's posit on <br />regarding legality of considering thi <br />application. Can input be received <br />from the City Attorney? <br />It was clarified that if the plans <br />were approved that evening, that woul~ <br />be the last stop before the Commission <br />before building permit is taken out. <br />Some discussion followed as to con- <br />fusion on legal ramifications on this <br />application. <br />Commissioner Pereira asked of applic <br />if the question of the submittal of <br />two different sets of plans to the <br />two separate agencies were true. <br />Rev. Robert Vogt of United Presbyteri <br />Church was present and had several <br />people speak to the questions. <br />t <br />Secretary Castro then read a note <br />pertaining to a conversation conducte <br />with Mr. Robert Rogers of the HUD off'ce. <br />In essence, it meant that if the <br />applicant's feasibility letter expire <br />on October 25, 1972, as is now slated <br />to do, there is no guarantee renewal <br />of funding would be automatically <br />forthcoming. <br />-17- <br />