|
There was a time in the past where we would cc the Commission and Council on all our letters on
<br /> the time extension request, on the annual progress report responses, then it, I think it just got to be
<br /> too much where they asked us to stop doing that. But there could be this possibility, as mentioned,
<br /> of a report, which isn't so, you know, constant flow of sometimes just minimal response letters.
<br /> But the way that the condition is worded now, it still gives the ability for the Council to not grant
<br /> it or to grant an administrative, the ability for the Planning Director to grant an administrative time
<br /> extension.
<br /> DEFRANCO: Right, so just to improve my clarity, so you already are under the purview of the
<br /> County Council where this decision comes from, right?
<br /> DARROW: That's the authority granted to the Director.
<br /> DEFRANCO: To do that.
<br /> DAR-ROW: Yes.
<br /> DEFRANCO: And, you know, I have to credit Mr. Van Pernis because in previous times he
<br /> always brought up the idea of putting in sunset clauses and things, so we don't get to this place. I
<br /> guess I'm just wondering if this is already in place. It seems like creating more limitations isn't
<br /> about transparency. I mean it concerns me to place five years on someone, even though, you
<br /> know, if this is investments, and how things go, whether it be pandemics or the global recessions
<br /> or whatever is happening, it's huge, and to try to say, okay, five years and then that's it, unless,
<br /> unless, you know. And that's already happening, you know, you put a time limit when you give
<br /> these things, you put this criteria on them when you give them. But I think one piece that's being
<br /> left out, which you said sort of fell through the cracks is nobody is getting those reports, so we,
<br /> nobody knows what's stale, what's being left stale, what's being kept current. I'm just
<br /> wondering—
<br /> DARROW: If, yeah, if I could just real quickly respond to that. There's been statements made,
<br /> oh, some people are granted 10-, 20-, 30-year time extension. That's incorrect. The time
<br /> extension granted would be the administrative time not to exceed what was originally granted.
<br /> What happens is when—we'll just use an example—an ordinance is passed, it has a five-year time
<br /> to complete construction with an administrative time extension up to five years, once that 10 years
<br /> passes, there is nothing that can be done on that project; if they come in for a building permit, a
<br /> grading permit, anything, it will not pass. So, it basically just sits. Unfortunately, we don't have a
<br /> mechanism. There are thousands of permits that are becoming inactive throughout our files that
<br /> we don't have a process currently that we can say, okay,there's all these guys are coming up on
<br /> their time frame, we need to go do something. We have so much going on as time goes on
<br /> currently. But again, that's something that would be we've looked at in the past trying to
<br /> implement. But the fact is is that what happens is this stays stale for—it could be like the one we
<br /> saw today, 1998,they got an administrative time extension to 2008, it sat stale for 14 years. Now
<br /> a new applicant, new buyer has it, they are coming in, but nobody could have done anything after
<br /> 2008 regardless; they, we would, they would have been told the same thing, you have to go back
<br /> to Commission, you have to go back to Council to re- either amend the time or to re-initiate a new
<br /> 12
<br /> EXHIBIT G (DRAFT)
<br />
|