Laserfiche WebLink
VAN PERNIS: I'll take that as an answer to my question, saying that they might sell under <br /> certain circumstances? <br /> FUKE: I cannot say that they will not sell it, because there is always that, because if I say that <br /> they won't sell it, and they do sell it, and then I'm going to be lying to the commission, and I <br /> don't want to lie to the commission. <br /> VAN PERNIS: Now, have they applied for any financing for this project since they acquired it? <br /> FUKE: I can't speak to that. Maybe Mr. North can. But I think that he indicated that, in <br /> response to a question to Chair Vitousek, that independent of any financing, the company is in a <br /> position to build it. <br /> VAN PERNIS: Well, the question is, if Mr. North could answer, was any financing applied for <br /> for this project. <br /> FUKE: That, I don't know. And may I ask the relevance behind that question? <br /> VAN PERNIS: Well, I'm following up on Mr. Vitousek's questions about whether this project <br /> is actually going to be built. It's first approved in 89, and here we are almost 40 years later, with <br /> no certainty when or if it would be built, versus sell or refinance it. You haven't got any <br /> information if there's been financing even applied for. You say we can always come back to the <br /> Planning Commission, but I would say that the permit should be, or permits, should be already <br /> cancelled. It was a sunset provision, if it's not built within a certain period of time <br /> VITOUSEK: Okay <br /> VAN PERNIS: these applicants should commit to when it's going to be built. <br /> VITOUSEK: Okay, we'll get into, we'll get into that during discussion <br /> KERN: And Mr. Chair, if I may. <br /> VITOUSEK: Yes, sir. <br /> KERN: Just, I'd like to try to bring us back to more of the criteria around the SMA. I do <br /> understand what you, you know, you are coming from that you want a commitment that this is <br /> going to be built in some way. Fully get that. I think we are kind of, need to probably bring the <br /> guardrails in a little bit. I'd also like to point out that the applicant did ask the Planning <br /> Department whether it was going to be a new, whether they want us to do a new application or a <br /> time extension, and it was the Planning Department that determined that this would be most <br /> appropriate as a time extension while reviewing it as a totality as it would be new. So I just, I <br /> want to underscore that, that we actually said that that would be the most appropriate manner to <br /> go. <br /> YATES: I have a question. <br /> 20 <br /> EXHIBIT D <br />