CC Min 1995-02-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Director Patterson and the Council Members discussed the remaining ten items to be decided upon in the Development Agreement with Westport Investments described in City Attorney Schricker's hand delivered letter dated February 27, 1995, (amending the language of the draft amendment dated February 15, 1 995R), agreed with staff's recommendations on six items, and asked for further discussion on Items (4), (6), (7) and (9). Item No.4. Councilwoman Steinfeld asked for clarification ofItem No.4 regarding fees. City Attorney Schricker advised that the paragraph is redundant, and it was to the mutual advantage of both parties to remove this language as it was confusing. Director Patterson added that some language was carried over from the 1985 agreement into the current agreement resulting in redundancies that really do not need to be said again. The whole paragraph could come out and it would not change the agreement for either party. The developer wants it left in. The Council agreed they would prefer to remove it, but if the developer insisted on leaving it in, the Council would accept that. Councilman Sanfilipo asked for clarification about changing the word cap to cover in the Agreement. Director Patterson, City Attorney Schricker and City Manager Everett advised that it was necessary to be as generic as possible due to the fact that the Integrated Waste Management Board had not yet decided what to require in this development, and both parties did not want wording that would put the developer in violation of the Agreement. Item No.6. Director Patterson advised that the developer wanted anyon-site improvements that met certain requirements for construction over refuse to be automatically accepted by the City. The City Council had stated in previous discussions of the Westport development that it wished to retain its discretion in accepting improvements. City Attorney Schricker stated that this was a critical issue that had not been agreed to by both parties: the developers requested inclusion of the language "acceptance thereof shall not unreasonably be withheld." City Attorney Schricker advised that the revision to the revision distributed this evening (dated February 27, 1995, but not hand delivered) addressed another portion of that clause which is acceptable to the City which is to enumerate the conditions under which on-site, over garbage improvements would be accepted, including: if the offers are made in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance in effect at the time of the offers, the improvements had been designed in accordance with City standards, and the acceptance shall be subject to the terms and conditions of indemnification. Westport Investments agrees to those portions of the revisions. City Attorney Schricker added for clarification that the developer agreed to the enumerated items, but the crux of the matter was the developer wanted the implication that the Council would accept the offers of dedications over garbage improvements, and they want that to be stated in the context of the Council shall not unreasonably withhold acceptance. In response to Council questions, City Attorney Schricker advised that if the City accepts any improvements it would be with the obligation to maintain them as part of ownership, but in other developments, internal streets and lights quite frequently are retained as privately owned and maintained. MINUTE BOOK NO. 53 Regular Meeting Minutes Page No. 072 February 27, 1995 Page 7 - -- - ---