|
point. These developers have already been accommodated way, way past the point. They want
<br /> 40 years. If they want 40 years, it'd better be done, not come back in front of the Planning
<br /> Commission and hear again how it's a good project, give us some more time. Let's get it done
<br /> or move onto the next guy.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Yeah, I tend to agree with what pretty much everybody is saying, with
<br /> Commissioner DeFranco that this is an appropriate project in a good location, with
<br /> Commissioner Van Pernis that there are some things that need to be addressed.
<br /> I personally do not believe that the failure to perform on this is the result of factors that are
<br /> outside of the applicant's control. I personally believe that they made their calculated decision
<br /> not to build, and it was around this thing, you know, they said hindsight 2020, but it was their
<br /> decision; there is no outside factors preventing them from building other than themselves. To
<br /> me, I think this would have been cleaner as a new application, but the fact that Mr. Fuke prepares
<br /> such a thorough application, we have all the information that we need to consider in the SMA
<br /> permit review. I believe that we do need to put our foot down in one area, and that can be with
<br /> putting specific language that if the current extension is not built out, which, you know,
<br /> unfortunately, hearing from the developers, we didn't get a definitive yes, we are going to build
<br /> this, we've got, we have to see what the market is doing. So if we want to get something built,
<br /> you know, if they are the right person to do it, we can give them a chance to do it. But I think
<br /> that in this case a sunset clause on this as a condition would be appropriate where we are saying
<br /> that if you don't get it done by this time, that's it, permits voided, you come back for a new one
<br /> or sell it to someone else who is going to build it. Commissioner DeFranco.
<br /> DEFRANCO: Yeah, I agree with you, Mike. I just don't really understand legally. I need to
<br /> hear legally how you say that, how you, how that would sound and how we would do that. So
<br /> I
<br /> VITOUSEK: condition of the permit approval where, you know, instead of saying at the end
<br /> that"If the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Department
<br /> shall submit the applicant's request to the Planning Commission for appropriate action," let's say
<br /> something along the lines of if the timing conditions are not met, the application, the permit will
<br /> be voided, and that's it. They can apply for a new one. Commissioner Van Pernis.
<br /> VAN PERNIS: Yes, I just like to say in response to what Mr. Kern said, that it's, from my point
<br /> of view, it's not good enough to hide behind, well,this form of application doesn't address
<br /> infrastructure or if, a new application would be, doesn't address infrastructure. Well, it should. I
<br /> think infrastructure should be something that's considered when we have this kind of a delay.
<br /> There is nothing to prevent the developer, who may be in the future, to agree to address
<br /> infrastructure needs like additional traffic and view planes, etcetera. So I think that it's not okay
<br /> to say, well, it would not make any difference anyway. I think we should have an opportunity,
<br /> which would come about, if the developer doesn't perform, as Mr. Vitousek says.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay. I think in this case there are two conditions that I think would be
<br /> appropriate for us to add to this in my opinion. I think one of the conditions that we could add
<br /> would be a condition to preserve the view plane from Life Care, as the view planes are an SMA
<br /> 27
<br /> EXHIBIT D
<br />
|