|
DARROW: Right. And, that's the problem that we run into, is that they're telling you this, but
<br />really you don't have the information because the bank isn't providing you with some sort of
<br />loan guarantee or anything.
<br />REPLOGLE: Could that Catch 22 be dealt with, with the annual or biannual even progress
<br />reports, when the permit is issued say we're going to do this, you have this much time a year,
<br />whatever, to get financing, and we need a report on that before this can move forward. And, that
<br />could be the catalyst to be sure that annual reports are filed. And, as you say, if they don't file
<br />them, you know, they're not doing it.
<br />DARROW: That's a good suggestion. The other alternative is maybe a specific condition after
<br />they've received approval to provide information of the ability to be able to move forward with
<br />the project. And, again, I think they, the reason for the focus on this is the Commission was
<br />concerned about speculation. People getting their zoning or getting their project approved,
<br />turning around and selling it, and just making money off the work they did for that. Because the
<br />value of a commercial property versus a residential property is much higher. So, they did this
<br />work to get it rezoned and then they go and sell it. So, we'll talk a little bit more about that, too,
<br />after.
<br />AU: Question, Jeff, so, you know, they—what, so there's applicants out there that come out,
<br />outright and say that their intentions are to sell it. So, how do you deal with that?
<br />DARROW: That's speculation. The General Plan, all through the General Plan
<br />AU: —And, they can do that.
<br />DARROW: Well, no, it says to curb speculation. It actually is saying do not, you know, make
<br />efforts to not allow speculation, because that increases the value of projects and makes it more
<br />unaffordable. Right? And, so that's the intention here. I must reallyI think it's just going off
<br />on its own, but, and I have a little blurb on that at the end of this that talks a little bit about that,
<br />but again, that's one of the things—we're not bringing that up. That's something that's being
<br />brought up because of these concerns from the public as well as the Commission. And, again, I
<br />gotta say some of the statements that are being made by the public I think are misunderstandings.
<br />They, for some reason, they think if a project doesn't get off the ground and sits there for 30
<br />years that somehow that's speculation. That's not speculation. That's just that project couldn't
<br />get off the ground. In fact, it's the actual opposite, because if they had built the project back 30
<br />years ago, it would have cost them probably half of what it would have cost today. So, it now
<br />increases the cost to be able to do the development, as well as when they come back in and get
<br />their permits, they open the door for all these new updated conditions that are far more strict than
<br />it was back then, including fair share. That's probably, if they even had fair share back then,
<br />would really cost the developer a significant amount of extra money. Anyway, that's just my
<br />thought on that.
<br />CLARKSON: So, for rezones, when the fair share applies to a new rezone, it doesn't apply to an
<br />original zone from the sixties where the person comes in for a Building Permit, you can't go, oh,
<br />EXHIBIT D
<br />6
<br />
|