Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises concerns about unsigned development plans; city staff says plans are approved
Summary
A resident identified as Mr. Kessler told the council that submitted construction plans lacked engineer, fire-chief and soil-engineer signatures and warned of reprinting costs; city staff later told the council the plans in question were approved and construction had started.
A resident identified during council discussion as "Mr. Kessler" urged the Atwater City Council on March 9 to hold staff accountable after he said multiple sets of development plans were submitted without required signatures. "The city has not signed these plans. Engineer signature is not on the plans. Fire chief, not signature is not on the plans. And the soil engineer is not on the plans," Kessler told the council.
Kessler said developers and contractors face significant expense when plan sets are deemed invalid and must be reprinted. He said the project has community support but that repeated review errors are frustrating and delay construction. "If your staff can't do the job, then who's held accountable?" he asked the council.
Council and staff responded during member reports. A staff member told Kessler that the plans he referenced were approved and that construction had already started. "The plans that mister Kessler brought up, they're approved. There's nothing holding you back. I see that construction started," a city representative said. The city also offered to work with Kessler to obtain any outstanding signatures.
Why it matters: missing signatures on engineering or approval documents can delay permitting, increase costs for applicants and create confusion on construction sites. At the meeting the council did not take formal disciplinary action; staff said they would follow up with Kessler to resolve any remaining administrative steps.
No ordinance, permit revocation or formal hearing occurred at the meeting; the exchange took place during public comment and the council's response was limited to clarifying that the plans were approved and offering staff follow-up.
