Laserfiche WebLink
***Section 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 require development of a <br />overcrowding mitigation plan, local live work preference, and <br />local sourcing plan. Approvals are not by City Council and the <br />method of approving these plans appear to violate the Charter. <br />Moreover, no penalties are set forth for the developer/future <br />owner's failure to comply. Section 4.8 also allows the <br />developer to change the overcrowding mitigation plan upon <br />notice to the City but no approval by the City is required? <br />***Section 5 recognizes owners right to set up a financing <br />district. Why? This clause would be appropriate for a <br />residential subdivision —not an apartment complex. Unclear <br />whether and how this would apply to adjoining properties. <br />However, developer is required to pay 50k to City for funding a <br />study for establishment of an assessment district. This may be <br />construed as the developer paying for a study to justify the <br />inclusion of other properties. The text should be clarified such <br />that developer may not add other properties to a special <br />assessment district or request that other properties be added. <br />***Section 6: Provides for annual compliance review. No <br />metrics given and no financial penalties proscribed for non- <br />compliance. <br />Section 6.2: Provides for special compliance reviews upon <br />request by City Council. City Manager to perform review. No <br />provision for the developer paying for this form of review or how <br />deficiencies to be addressed. Section 6.3(d) requires extensive <br />