Has PPH Given Up on the ERTC?

On June 28, The Board of Directors of PPH had a closed session to give intruction to their negotiator, Robert Hemker, concerning the "Agency's interest in land, price and terms of payment". The property was identified as ERTC 6.6 acres known as proposed parcels 27-29 and 30-36. Public records show that PPH owns parcels 30-32 which amount to about 6.6 acres. Also, public records show that PPH has an option on parcels 27-29 and 33-36. Public records show that JRM-ERTC, the seller, has relocation rights in parcels 30-32, which means that the seller has the right to reacquire parcels 30-32 and relocate PPH to substitute property elsewhere in the ERTC. Presumably, the seller will invoke this right if PPH does not acquire parcels 27-29 and 33-36, or some substantial portion thereof.
The public property records are available at the links below:
http://members.cox.net/4robroy/escondido/2005-0226220GrantDeed.PDF
http://members.cox.net/4robroy/escondido/2005-0226221relocation.PDF
http://members.cox.net/4robroy/escondido/2005-0226222option.PDF

The ERTC parcel (or lot) map is available at:
http://members.cox.net/4robroy/ERTC-Blog.GIF

At the closed meeting of June 28, PPH would have been discussing either:
1) exercising the option to acquire parcels 27-29 and 33-36; or
2) relocating from parcels 30-32 to other parcels in the ERTC.

We do not know.

The options on parcels 27-29 and 33-36 are reported to expire on August 27, 2005. See North County Times:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/06/30/
news/inland/22_44_526_29_05.txt

Based on recent activity, it would be incredible for PPH to be having serious negotiations to execise the option on parcels 27-29 and 33-36. PPH says it is looking at other property in San Marcos and Escondido, and it is expecting to meet with Escondido next week to discuss the Spruce site. Leaking the San Marcos property search before negotiating with JRM-ERTC for acquiring parcels 27-29 and 33-36 would have been an impressive tactic, but the timing (before the Escondido meeting) was wrong for political reasons. Also, the terms of exercising the option appear to have been set by the Option to Purchase, Purchase Agreement, and Escrow Instructions dated as of Feberuary 11, 2005, executed by the buyer and the seller, and referenced in the public record Relocation Right Agreement. What more needs to be negotiated just to exercise the option?

Instead, I suspect that PPH has given up on the ERTC. I believe that they learned that the environmental issues were too difficult to mitigate. How can a hospital be placed next to a 500MW electric power plant?

In the closed meeting, I also suspect that PPH was negotiating for the best possible relocation parcels they could get from JRM-ERTC. PPH may not have obtained what they wanted--or, they may not have wanted to finalized the relocation matter on June 28 because the timing would be wrong for letting the public to find out that PPH has given up on the ERTC.

But the meeting was closed to the public, and apparently, no reportable action took place. My comments are pure speculation based on tidbits of information. Time will tell.