Laserfiche WebLink
for value of developer work. This is another example of the City <br />leaving money on the table. <br />Has City determined whether the developer's work on the park <br />is a public project and will prevailing wage be paid? <br />***Section 4.2.1(c) No parameters given to guide decision - <br />making for limited access to Park Santiago neighbors to onsite <br />amenities. Potentially discriminatory against other residents. <br />Section 4.3.2: Specifies timing for impact fee payment. Confusing <br />clause states, "No fees shall be payable for building permits <br />issued prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement...." What <br />permits is this Section referring to? Appears to be remnant text <br />from boiler plate but creates ambiguity. <br />***Section 4.3.3: This Section provides for the issuance of fee <br />credits to the developer. No metric given for how the credits <br />will be calculated/how the developer's conveyance of public <br />land or park improvements will be valued. This is another <br />example of the City potentially leaving money on the table. <br />Why would the developer get fee credits for right of way <br />dedications necessitated by the project? <br />Section 4.6: Park access easement to be given by developer. <br />Approval for the easement appears to be by the City and not City <br />Council. Receipt and acceptance of an easement would require <br />City Council approval. <br />