My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN012192
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN012192
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:03 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 10:00:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
50 <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer agreed with some of Mr. MacDonald's points. He <br /> felt that this project would benefit the City. He pointed out that <br /> if Council denied the project and requested it to return in April, -- <br /> there would be so few projects at that time that it would likely be <br /> 'approved. So why not just grant an extension now and save steps? <br /> He felt that good government allowed flexibility. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner indicated the City has a set of procedures which <br /> should be followed. The development community must know that the <br /> Council is serious. If Council is firm in allowing projects with <br /> growth management to lapse then perhaps the developers will build <br /> them on time. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that Council should follow the rules regarding <br /> the expiration of growth management. Lapsing gives Council an <br /> opportunity to review a project and determine whether anything has <br /> changed in the interim that could affect the desirability of having <br /> the project built. However, the opportunity for Council to <br /> override this and allow an extension is a prerogative and should be <br /> kept. This is a project that will clean up an eyesore and she is <br /> looking forward to its completion. She supported the extension of <br /> one year. There is no point in putting the owners through <br /> reapplying for growth management. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Mayor Mercer, to <br /> grant a one year extension of growth management. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver added that he could support a compromise which <br /> suggested that the payment of the fees were completed within a <br /> certain period of time such as 60 days or less. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer suggested that some of the delay was caused by <br /> the City and the City should take responsibility. He urged <br /> granting the extension. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush suggested that if Council were to approve the <br /> extension it should introduce an ordinance (general or specific) <br /> and then adopt a resolution if it wanted to condition the approval <br /> on the payment of fees. <br /> <br /> Discussion ensued regarding consequence of non payment of fees <br /> and lapsing of growth management approval. <br /> <br /> A substitute motion was made by Ms. Scribner, and seconded by <br /> Mr. Tarver, that Ordinance No. 1545 be introduced, to be read by <br /> title only and waiving further reading thereof, amending the growth <br /> management Ordinance to permit a one year extension of growth <br /> management approval if the applicant pays, by a date specified by <br /> City Council, all fees which are payable upon the issuance of <br /> building permits for the project. <br /> <br /> 1/21/92 <br /> 18 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.