2006-04-21 TSeascape-development

Home

YUEN:Right its not secured by in say the subdivision of Seascape in the individual lots. In fact Seascape itself will be developed as a condominium. It could be secured against Seascape as a whole in which case its an obligation of the condominium. I dont know that thats what would happen because that complicates Seascape but it would not be-. If they did Seascape as an individual, as individual lots for example we, that would require another subdivision so it wouldnt comply with the terms of this ordinance to take one of the lots, one small lot within Seascape and burden that lot. It would have to be one of these 15-acre lots that are created by this subdivision referenced here. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe follow-up? WATANABE:Just as a follow-up I would prefer that the one TMK for Seascape not be encumbered because were saying that thats supposed to be affordable housing and then youre placingtheburdenonyouknowtheownersofaffordablehousingtocomplete3or400feetof road. I would prefer that it be on a separate parcel also owned by the applicant that you know of sufficient value that we wouldnt have to be concerned about whether it be completed or not. ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:I think we should ask the applicant for comment on that. The Department doesnt have any objection but it would be a different lot other than Seascape. ALAMEDA:Sure this would be a good time for the applicant to not just comment on that but comment on other comments that weve shared. Now is your time. DICKLER:Thank you Mr. Chairman. Number one in direct response to Mr. Watanabes question it was always, it was the intent or we understood the intent was to secure it against one of the other 3 parcels, the 10 or 15 acre parcels not the Seascape Condo. And as Mr. Yuen said that it would be too complicated to do it against that, the present project, the condo project as it stands. Mr. Fuke wants to make comment also. FUKE:I think that this dialogue is very healthy because I think that whats happened and the more you get into it and looking at the languages that theres a concern about-. Its true maybe you know the overall intent is fine but are there enough assurances that the road would be completed because the Planning Director, current Planning Director would probably be very vigilant about it but the question is what happens like 15 or 20 years from now. And also I think Commissioner Iwashita also brought up the point about like what happens, you know what is the process you know by which you encumber a property and you know have the road constructed? What Id like to suggest is you know taking into account all thats been said is probably like an added language in that area which will generally read along this line. And, cause Im assuming that Director Yuen will be here for another 3 to 6 months but it would read something like this. A draft of the covenant providing the assurance and process for completion of this road shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval within 3 months after the effective date of this ordinance or after this amendment prior to its recordation. So in other words like you know the Director is fully aware of like all of the discourse thats EXHIBIT A 13