|
He continued, however, if Council decides not to wait and wants to approve the
<br />reimbursement agreements at this meeting, Signature Properties has significant disagreement with
<br />the staff recommendation that Signature is obligated to pay 69% of the cost. When Ruby Hill
<br />was approved, there were two complete traffic studies done and none of them recommended that
<br />Signature participate in the mitigation of the "S" curve. During negotiations for annexation to
<br />the City, staff was concerned that at some point the "S" curve would be improved but they did
<br />not know when. Staff asked Signature to advance the money for this and to participate in a
<br />prorata share of the costs to be determined at a later date. We agreed to that. At that time, it
<br />was assumed that the levels of development in the Vineyard Corridor would be higher than is
<br />curren~y expected due to recent Council actions. At a high level of development, the
<br />reimbursement Signature Properties expected to receive was 80% of what was paid. It also
<br />believed the cost of the project would be $600,000. So the cost to Signature would have been
<br />approximately $120,000 to $150,000. Given the reduced level of development and increased
<br />cost of the project, the expectation is now for Signature to contribute six or seven hundred
<br />thousand dollars. He did not believe this was a fair distribution of the costs. He asked staff
<br />what models were used for the reimbursement formula. Vista Diablo was cited as an example
<br />since it had to do some widening and straightening of Vineyard. Those costs were advanced by
<br />Vista Diablo and a reimbursement agreement then entered into. Ruby Hill also dedicated land
<br />and made improvements with no reimbursement from anyone because the property across from
<br />it was not going to develop. He asked why the same rules do not apply to Ruby Hill? The cost
<br />ofthe project should be spread among Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 30, with the
<br />proviso that in the future, when the Specific Plan is complete and the costs are to be spread over
<br />the balance of the properties (Lots 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 27), there is an ability
<br />to do that. Signature would agree to advance all the money and contribute about $200,000 that
<br />would not be reimbursed. He also believed that when property is developed land must be
<br />dedicated for the roadways that have to be built. In this case, there has been $100,000 in
<br />outlays so far and he recommended spreading this sum against the properties that would
<br />otherwise have had to dedicate land. That should be Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and
<br />30 and that in the future if there is a need for right of way for the rest of Vineyard Avenue, that
<br />should be their obligation, just as the right of way dedicated by Signature was its obligation.
<br />
<br /> Ms. Michelotti asked what the $100,000 was spent on?
<br />
<br /> Mr. McKeehan said it was land acquisition costs. If those properties were developed,
<br />the owners would have to dedicate the land, so he felt that money should be repaid to Signature
<br />when the property develops.
<br />
<br /> Mr. Lum referred to the Vista Diablo model and indicated whenever reimbursement
<br />agreements are drafted it seems in theory relatively straightforward to apply the nexus of
<br />impacts, but in practice each circumstance must be reviewed individually and Vista Diablo is
<br />vastly different than the "S" curve situation. At Vista Diablo, development is balanced on either
<br />side of Vineyard to support the widening of Vineyard. At the "S " curve, there is a brand new
<br />roadway that is needed because of the traffic generated by Ruby Hill as well as by other
<br />
<br />08/13/96
<br /> -8-
<br />
<br />
<br />
|