Laserfiche WebLink
FUKE:Yeah, one last stab, you know, hopefully to get this thing off the <br />table. But, you know, just kind of reflecting on the last hearing anyway on this matter. I <br />think there was a consensus amongst the Commissioners there that it makes good <br />planning sense to have roads or streets extend to the end of the property line and, you <br />know it increases potential for roads to connect and all that stuff. And I think we also <br />acknowledged that the adjoining property owner, in this situation here the State, they <br />have no plans, well, not right now. But if and when they do it, then you know, at some <br />point in time the roads have to connect. I think we also, the point I was trying to make, <br />too, is that when you create like a 400-foot section thats going to be deadened then it <br />becomes like a haven for, you know, illicit activities to occur, trash and all that kinds of <br />stuff. So it creates a very apprehensive situation for residents in that area, and as well as <br />for the County to eventually maintain that small little section. And I think there was also <br />a consensus that if they defer the construction of this road that at some point in time it has <br />tobethedevelopersresponsibilitytoconnectanditshouldntbeaburdenplacedonthe <br />County or the general community. I think we all agreed on that. <br />So what we €re trying to do is like how can we arrive at a win-win situation where we can <br />kind of protect the residents in this area, avoid the potential for future maintenance and <br />liability on the part of the County if this road gets constructed, and at the same time <br />making sure that when this road is needed the developer is held, you know, his feet is <br />held to fire, basically. And I think what your Planning Director has proposed based on <br />the suggested recommendation of Commissioner Iwashita at the last meeting I think <br />accomplishes that. <br />ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners, you have any questions for the applicant? <br />It puts us in a discussion mode or a motion mode. Go ahead, Commissioner Graham. <br />GRAHAM:Sidney, I dont remember the exact timing but just reflecting back <br />to the last meeting, I remember when I expressed my concern I had the sense that you <br />kind of walked away, not walked away, but that you kind of had some wheels clicking <br />like maybe you had something different that you thought you might put forth when it <br />came forth again. But maybe that was just in line with what Commissioner Iwashita <br />proposed. Maybe he proposed it later, I dont remember. But, so Im just sort of <br />probing, did you have some thing different or is there anything different? <br />FUKE:No, I think that what Commissioner Iwashita came forth with and <br />as kind of reflected in the Planning Directors memo, you know, really ties the property <br />owner down for bearing the responsibility. Because I think the language said covenant <br />shall include an obligation to authorize the County to foreclose upon the encumbered <br />property. So that means that if he doesnt do it, then the County will foreclose, get the <br />property, sell the land and build the road. Thats kind of my understanding. So I think <br />that from that standpoint the public or the County is protected in the event there is <br />nonperformance on the part of the landowner. <br />2EXHIBIT E <br /> <br />