Laserfiche WebLink
243 <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that staff is looking for guidance from <br />the Council regarding this matter and recommending that an <br />ordinance be prepared to regulate the temporary use of public <br />sidewalks for food service by adjoining restaurants. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer commented that creative things have to be done in <br />the downtown area and that he was in favor of trying this out. He <br />agreed that an ordinance should be prepared so that everyone is <br />treated fairly and consistently and abides by the same rules. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr agreed. <br /> <br />8j MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCILMEMBERS <br />Item 8a <br />Modifications of the Growth Manaqement Program - Lapsinq <br />Provisions and Small Project Exemption Provisions <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 90:195) regarding the <br />matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that the proposed revisions attempt to <br />shorten the growth management lapsing time period from the <br />existing 30 months to 18 months and to put in place some <br />mechanisms that will assure the Council that a development is <br />built in the year approval is granted. To prevent the approval <br />from lapsing, the final map would have to be filed and <br />improvements made in the year the units are approved. In <br />addition, all development-related fees should be paid for or <br />building permits issued in the same year. This would achieve some <br />kind of growth management through which construction could be <br />predicted from year to year. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer indicated that he did not think that the new rules <br />should be retroactive to previously approved projects. He said <br />that this would be unfair to those developers who have paid fees, <br />entered into agreements and spent money for capital improvements. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that if the developers applying for growth <br />management approval this year will be required to comply with <br />final map, infrastructure improvements and development fees, it <br />would be fair to require the same of those who have been around <br />for 18 months and have not done that much. He added that <br />exceptions could be made for projects that are restricted by <br />special conditions like the Foothill Road realignment study. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired if the small project exemption provisions <br />would require an applicant with a 15-lot property, only five units <br />of which would be developed each year for three years, to come <br />back every year and go through the entire process, rather than to <br />have all 15 units approved at one time and have him develop only <br />five units each year. <br /> <br /> - 13 - <br /> 5-15-90 <br /> <br /> <br />