2006-04-07 TAinaloa - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

road; but that now that it was a County road, he questioned that basis. He also questioned the amount of even the million dollars, because looking at what the County did in fair share assessments, this would have been more than if you were coming in for a rezone. And, so, he threw that out there. And he basically did not tell us which way he would rule but he posted several different scenarios in which he might not only wipe out, you know, half a million, he might wipe out the entire contribution because the County now owned the road and he would say its the Countys obligation. So on one end he was saying that thats a possibility. On the other end, hes telling the developer that maybe he would cut the baby in half and go more. So hes saying go sit down, try and figure out something. So, I think when we looked at it, the need to upgrade the road is not five years from now. It really is now. So if there is a promise to give us money sooner, then even if its less money its to the Countys benefit. Because then it would go into that special fund, there isanappropriationthattheCountyhas,andthenthatmeanswecoulddothe improvements sooner rather than later. So thats kind of the offset. Again, you never know whether somebody will actually come in and perform on a condition. There could be an extension but the Planning Commission would have to grant the extension of that one year on the payment of the half million. It cannot be granted administratively was the agreement we had. But the person who has the Use Permit can always petition the Planning Commission for extensions. You know, thats just the nature. And the Planning Commission or the Department can make a recommendation against, the Planning Commission can vote up or down either way. But what the balancing here was the possibility that we would actually see money much sooner and actually be able to put it into the road, versus maybe getting the money much later and in the meantime the road is not moving ahead. So there was some of that; also, the risk that if we went to the Judge, the Judge might just wipe out the condition entirely. ALAMEDA:Okay. Questions? Commissioner Graham had his hand up, and then well go right down the line there. Commissioner Graham, questions for Ms. Todd? GRAHAM:I sense before I feel ready to vote on this thing, what we do, I think were going to go into an Executive Session. And this is somewhat related to an Executive Session question but its right on top with what you were just saying, so let me just ask you on this. The Judge is not, lets say the Judge rules that he doesnt like what we did. The Judge is not going to turn around and say, Okay, this is the way the permit should be. The payment should be this, this and that. Hes going to just come, I believe, isnt he going to come back and say, Planning Commission made a mistake by imposing these conditions that are unreasonable, given the permit, so Im remanding it back to the Planning Commission to deal with this matter again; but when you deal with it you only make your conditions relevant to what theyre doing in such-and-such a way? So it comes back to us again as to how we want to do it. Am I correct? 9EXHIBIT D