2007-01-05 tclark - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ord. 90-93 Condition E required payment of the water commitment. Do you know whether or not that was, in the due diligence in acquiring the property, whether or not that was paid by the prior owner? LIM: We don’t believe so, and we have the same condition in ours. Mr. Francis is going to be starting his work based upon action today by the Commission. If we get a favorable response he’s going to begin his work on the engineering submittal for the determination of what the water commitment payment would be. We will be paying our own water commitment. IWASHITA: So, I guess, the concern I would have is that basically the County will be losing out on this prior requirement where the water commitment payment from 1997 is supposedly to have been paid within 90 days from the enactment of the ordinance. So I don’t know if that could be addressed here. But in going through the process I guess it seems to me that the County should not be shortchanged. I know the Water Department doesn’t really hurt for money. But if that payment had not been made, right, that would be a basis for the Director at that time to proceed with the repeal of the subdivision, I’m sorry, the rezoning approval, would it not? YUEN: The question was if they had paid that? IWASHITA: No. If they hadn’t, assuming Mr. Lim is right and the prior owner did not make this payment within the 90 days. YUEN: Well, there are a couple of possible consequences. All right, first consequence is that the Director will be authorized to initiate a rezoning of the property; second consequence is that if they came in later to try and develop the property and upon review it was discovered they had not met this condition, then we would say they need to go for a time extension. You see, well, let me see, before I jump and say what it would be, let me just make sure. I believe they would have only 90 days to extend administratively. IWASHITA: Right. YUEN: So then they would have to go to the Commission and Council to extend that, to extend, you know, now for example, if they were trying to extend it. But, you know, I can also tell you that, so that’s why I say they are in a limbo stage. You know, you cannot develop the property according to ML zoning; but it’s also fairly clear under the law that, there’s case law that discourages the concept of automatically reverting the zoning. The law is that it should be done with notice to the owner. So we would not say that the failure to have paid the water commitment automatically reverts the zoning to an RS. It puts you in this limbo situation where you haven’t fulfilled the conditions of your ML zoning but you haven’t been reverted to the RS zoning. GRAHAM: My sense also is that we are not taking final action here, we are just making a recommendation to the County Council, and maybe we don’t need to belabor this too much. Yes, Commissioner Iwashita. EXHIBIT A 8