CCMIN011795 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Michelotti asked how this time period was determined. Mr. Swift stated that originally there were no time limits on development plans. Some years ago conditions were added to have the development plan lapse after a particular period of time if progress was not shown. Most of the projects in that category were residential and the time frame related to the growth management program at that time. Two and a half years matched the cycle of obtaining growth management approval, tentative map approval, and then obtaining a final map. Since that time the growth management program has been modified and tentative maps are required before growth management. That is why the two and half years was used. These applications are not done routinely. Staff considers whether the office building is still appropriate for the site, whether it meets all requirements of the current City policies regarding architecture and whether it is believed it will still meet current approval. Council may, of course, revisit the project. Ms. Dennis understands the logic, and if staff feels the project is still appropriate two and a half years from now, it does not make sense for staff and the applicant to go through a lot of work to reapply. Mr. Swift indicated the Fairgrounds was contacted to see if it was interested in acquiring the site and staff was told it was not interested. There are no neighbors per se, adjoining the site, although notices were sent out. Ms. Michelotti disagreed that this should be processed as a major modification. She believed that if staff has reviewed the project and determined it to still be viable, then there is no reason to appeal. No action was required or taken on this item. There was a break at 9:06 p.m. which included a brief closed session to discuss the impact of Item 10a(2) on the negotiations with the firefighters association, with labor negotiators Bocian and Miller. The meeting was reconvened at 9:33 p.m. 01/17/95 - 11 -