CORRESPONDANCE - 11A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Selena Kelaher Page 4 of 6 The proposed Development Agreement provides legal recognition to a series of largely private commitments, provides a number of entirely uncertain/vague promises of future action, delegates powers to City employees in violation of the City's Charter, and facilitates public contracting of public spaces without meaningful notice. Examples of some of the defects in the Development Agreement follow: • Section 3.6.1 provides a protocol by which the developer will submit covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CCRs) to the City Attorney for review and "approval" without Council consideration. The review criteria is limited to whether the CCRs conflict with the Development Agreement, General Plan, and development conditions. However, the City Charter does not give the City Attorney authority to "approve" CCRs. See Section 703 of the Charter. Section 3.6.1 does not provide any opportunity for public input or Council input. • Section 4.2.1 (a) requires the developer provide and maintain public art valued at .5% of the design, engineering, and construction costs for the Project. This provision does not indicate where the art will be installed, how the calculations of value will be determined, and whether and how the Council would approve the submission. Given that no plans have been submitted, such art has not been reviewed/evaluated commensurate with the EIR and aesthetic impacts associated with the project. • Section 4.2.1(b) delegates the management and construction of unspecified improvements to Park Santiago and appears to violate both the Brown Act and public contracting requirements. • Section 4.2.1(c) provides for benefits given solely to the Park Santiago neighborhood including private security patrols, street -light enhancements, decorative concrete, and graffiti abatement. Although the developer should agree to these items (which could have been part of an overall settlement with the neighbors and private covenants), they are problematic as they appear to convey private benefits to a discreet/defined area without public input. Even assuming this were appropriate, why are such benefits not being conveyed to Floral Park, West Floral Park, Washington Square and other neighborhoods south of 171h street that will also be impacted by the Project? Although the City may take the view that public funds are not being expended, the reality is that such concessions constitute a portion of the overall value of the Project to the City, are being provided in an attempt to mitigate impacts, and are classified as being "public" in nature. • Exhibit H to the Development Agreement identifies a public park (Park Santiago) as being within the private roving patrol area. 'Be adoption of a subsequent security/patrol regimen requires both public input and review per the Brown Act and appears to delegate policing to a third party.