2006-04-21 TSeascape-development

Home

this road. Because I think if the developer doesnt build the road that the reality is the Countys going to have to build it and so it should be at the Countys cost. And it provides a security interest, which is clearly foreclose-able by the County and have a specific amount that a court can assess in the foreclosure sales amount payable to the County. And then there wont be any issue as far as what is an appropriate amount and so forth. If foreclosure and I think you know its appropriate that foreclosure as the prior discussion indicated that foreclosure is the best remedy for the County. And in order to make it an effective remedy then a specific amount needs to be established. So in the process of going through this then what I envision is that the County will have a lien interest a security interest for a very specific dollar amount which it can foreclose on in the future whether its 5 years from now or 20 years from now. That would be an amount adequate to cover the cost for the County to build the road. ALAMEDA:Any response Mr. Fuke? Applicant? DICKLER:IappreciatewhatMr.Iwashitaistryingtodoandwouldhesitantlyagree to it. I think that the language that the Director put in with respect to the applicant may build the road or bond this construction has to be in there because as we go forward on development, I need the flexibility with lenders to remove that covenant as long as other provisions are provided. But as far, you know our intention is to build the road. Our intention is to build out future projects when theyre approved on this parcel so that I dont have any objection to that. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Thank you Mr. Chair. Just to make it clear I did not intend to delete the words or the applicant may a build the road or bond its construction. That would remain. ALAMEDA:Okay. Other Commissioners before we move into a potential motion, either way? Were still in discussion. Commissioner Watanabe and then Mr. Director. YUEN:You know if I could just comment on that. I dont have any objection to it, I dont think it changes what we have in there already. The only thing that it changes is that you would do a construction cost estimate now and increase it by 3% a year instead of there being an estimate at the point of time where theres a legal dispute. I dont think it-. Thats the only difference. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita follow up? IWASHITA:The reason Im recommending this is that I think its best that the parties agree to a specific-, that both sides agree to a specific number and so in the future theres no basis to argue about what the number should be. And I think the court in the future in a foreclosure case which is an equitable proceeding in which the court must protect the interest of both parties that legal issues can be raised on what number it should be and so forth. So, and what the intent of the parties was in making this agreement if a specific number is not reached like you know the arguments going to be the Countys going to say well it has to be County cost and the Developers going to say no its the Developer cost. And those kind of arguments you know are potentially out there in the future and what Im trying to do by making this suggested EXHIBIT A 15