11-0118_STROSCHER G3 LLC_E1_Correspondence E1
Correspondence-Council Member Frees(
Notes on the Agreement-- comments by the Planning Commission from December 14,
2010 and January 11, 2011, reviewed as a courtesy to the City Council only:
1. Section 2.3 'Tern — PC says 7 years seemed too long, but G3 says it is a way to
ensure protection for the project in case of unforeseen circumstances.
2. Section 2.5.1 'Transfers & Assignments ---Bottom line PC is worried about giving
away the ability to approve ownership. Can be mitigated. by adding "if new
ownership is less than 51%." It would read: " .... Owner need not obtain the prior
written approval of City for the assignment of this Agreement to a limited liability
company, limited partnership or corporation wholly-owned by, or under common
control with, Owner, if ownership is less than 511V
3. Section 3.1 Vesting-PC worried abort multiple phases-s, C-3 saxth arC; planning
one phase and fast.
4. Section 3.6.4 Changes in the Project—PC worried about the changes being
approved by Planning Director. .PC would life to have it identified how major (or
minor) the changes would be before it would tri.11ger CC approval. Grant Taylor
says that this clause is normal in development agreements.
5. Section 3.7.1 ----"Applicability of Temporary Reductions In Development Impact
Fees —PC had big concern over this. PC asked if we were "giving away the store?"
Cindy Russell. finding out if it would trigger prevailing wage.
6. Section 3.8.4 Operating Memoranda — Concern over the City Manager's authority
to execute the operating memoranda. Grant says that is normal.
7 4oCtinn 0.1 and 9.2 — Defaults _ C thought that-Possibly the t"'o bottom line-S oil
default should be the same. If G3 defaults the agreement is terminated and if City
defaults the agreement is terminated. Not leave them a loop hole for a lave suit as it
reads now.
8. Concern over Issue K-----p. 4 Water fines PC concerned about OPEN ISSUE.