2007-01-05 tclark - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

IWASHITA: I guess my inclination is that an additional condition should be that the applicant pays whatever that fee was in 1997, in addition to the fee that the applicant is going to be required for this rezoning. Cause to me the County is losing out on whatever, the Water Department is losing out of that water commitment payment per its guidelines in 1997 that should have been paid even if the property wouldn’t have been developed under the approved ML zoning, you know -. And an extension was granted it would have gotten it at that time, whenever that was. So, you know, this entitlement which the Director is correct that, you know, is protected by law, I mean it has conditions. So we go through this whole process and then basically the owner gets the benefit of the upgraded zoning and sells the property without any of the conditions. I don’t see why the County Water Department in this case should be shortchanged the fee that it was supposed to have been paid under the conditions by the owner who got the rezoning approved and has already sold the property. You know, that fact should not impede the fact that the requirement should be met. GRAHAM: Mr. Lim, would you like to comment on that at all? LIM: Yes. I think as the Director indicated these rezonings happen quite often and in most cases they don’t do anything with the old rezoning ordinance. You know, Commissioner Iwashita’s comment might sound what would be in the best interest of the County; but I think it’s so hypothetical it’s pretty difficult to impose it on the owner. You know, No. 1 it wasn’t our condition and No. 2 those water facilities charges are based upon a calculation on what was proposed to be developed. And at this point in time I’m not aware of anything that was submitted to the County, so you don‘t really have any baseline for what that facilities charge would have been from the ‘97 ordinance anyway. IWASHITA: May I respond? GRAHAM: You can respond, but I was just thinking if we come to a point in a short while in order to move things along where we have a motion on this application, then you could suggest that as an amendment to the motion. Or if you make the motion, you can include it in the motion; but at that point we won’t have Mr. Lim, so if you do have anything further you’d like to address to Mr. Lim for his response, you’re certainly welcome to do so. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My concern is that in this case the applicant purchased the property for his own perceived development purposes; and it’s real estate firm as well as developer, and I’m sure that Clark Realty understood its due diligence requirements in terms of purchasing the property and examining 97-93 before it purchased the property. And if there was any question about whether or not the conditions have been met, especially B, then it should have been addressed with the Water Department at the time and determined before sale whether or not the payment had been made. And if, as Mr. Lim had indicated, that in fact the payment hadn’t been made then, you know, as a real estate company it should know that this zoning is in limbo; and it has purchased the property in my mind under those circumstances. And now I don’t think they can really argue that in ignorance it should not have to make the payment that it actually knew or should have known that it had not been paid. So the bottom line EXHIBIT A 9