Laserfiche WebLink
this parcel given the circumstances and the conditions that we have? We’ve talked about the <br />second two issues, let’s take the access issue in a little bit more detail. Before the applicant <br />acquired the property we were approached, when the property was in escrow, we were <br />approached to talk about an easement agreement. Shipman’s position was that an easement <br />agreement is okay but there were concerns at that time; and at that time there was an <br />understanding that there was an intention to do a water bottling facility. Shipman’s position was <br />that we can negotiate an access agreement provided you do certain things, indemnification <br />because of safety issues, insurance, and improvements to that intersection of Railroad and Milo <br />Streets. But we didn’t want to have traffic going on Railroad Avenue because as you’ve seen <br />from the photos that we submitted you’ve got some major curvature issues as well as sight <br />distance issues. No agreement was ever reached, escrow closed. Subsequently we were <br />contacted again to enter into an easement agreement. This property is what’s called land courted <br />property. And basically land court property you don’t have adverse possessory rights. You have <br />to have expressed easement rights. Again, we indicated that we were going to talk to them about <br />it. As we were reviewing this we then get notice that there was this rezoning application. So it’s <br />kind of a cart before the horse issue that we’re dealing with, which is let’s get this access issue <br />resolved first. <br />Now the context of the kinds of improvements that this easement agreement would necessitate <br />now knowing what the plans of the applicant are, it does beg some question for Shipman as to <br />the kinds of conditions that would be necessary for an easement agreement. We’re not trying to <br />hold the applicant hostage on this rezoning issue but we want to know what is going to be <br />happening with respect to the development of the property. And in that context what’s really <br />appropriate from an improvement standpoint is to assure that there are no real major safety <br />issues. And the fact is that this road does run past the school and is of inadequate width. Thank <br />you. <br />WATANABE: Okay. So to be clear then you do have some concerns with regard to <br />whether it fits within the CDP and you also have access concerns aside from the legal access <br />concerns, which I guess to a large extent Shipman does control. Is it my understanding that <br />Shipman is more concerned about the improvements or potential improvements that should be in <br />place if such accesses were granted? <br />YEH: You know, I would say it’s a safety, liability and adequate infrastructure <br />issue that -. <br />WATANABE: So if adequate infrastructure were there, there would be no objection? Is <br />that what you’re saying? <br />YEH: You know that’s a primary issue but, you know, there’s also the issue as to <br />whether or not there is already adequate inventory of industrial locations, and if it’s consistent <br />with the CDP. <br />WATANABE: Before I state my opinion maybe -. <br />OGATA: I have a question. <br />WATANABE: Ms. Ogata, yes. <br /> EXHIBIT C <br />10 <br /> <br />