Laserfiche WebLink
Section 3.6.1: City Attorney required to approve developer's <br />CCRs. City Charter does not appear to provide the City Attorney <br />with authority to approve such third party documents. <br />***Section 3.6.3: If City Attorney fails to respond within 30 <br />days, the City will have been deemed to have approved the <br />CCRs. This is extraordinarily uncommon given work -flow in the <br />City (e.g., what happens if the City Attorney is absent, on <br />vacation, or if it is lost in the mail.). Governments rarely allow <br />for defacto approval due to a non -response. <br />***Section 4.2.1: Suggest that public art section be <br />consolidated with a requirement for a pedestrian bridge <br />crossing Main Street. No metrics given for evaluating how 0.5% <br />of the project's value are given. No requirement for City <br />"approval" of the art plan. <br />***Section 4.2.1(b): Santiago Park Improvement text is <br />extremely confusing. Owner may be required to manage and <br />construct Santiago Park Phase II Public Improvements subject <br />to review and approval by the "City." The agreement defines <br />the term "City" and "City Council" differently. Who approves <br />the budget and management plan? No requirement for a <br />minimum spend by the developer, only that the project cost <br />will not exceed 1.4 million. No provision for a payout of $700k <br />to the extent City decides to construct improvements on its <br />own. No provision for how the City will "pay back" 700k (e.g., <br />will this be credited against impact fees)? No appraisal process <br />