Warning: Declaration of ThemeSwitcherWidget::update($new_instance) should be compatible with WP_Widget::update($new_instance, $old_instance) in /home2/glenbro4/public_html/wp-content/plugins/theme-switcher/theme-switcher.php on line 79

Warning: session_start(): Cannot send session cookie - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/glenbro4/public_html/wp-content/plugins/theme-switcher/theme-switcher.php:79) in /home2/glenbro4/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wiziapp-create-your-own-native-iphone-app/modules/html5.php on line 82

Warning: session_start(): Cannot send session cache limiter - headers already sent (output started at /home2/glenbro4/public_html/wp-content/plugins/theme-switcher/theme-switcher.php:79) in /home2/glenbro4/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wiziapp-create-your-own-native-iphone-app/modules/html5.php on line 82
What is the Story of Storybook Park? Public Hearing Scheduled! | Glenbrooke News

Bringing Neighbors Together

What is the Story of Storybook Park? Public Hearing Scheduled!

Every homeowner in Glenbrooke should have received the  'Notice of Public Hearing'  from the Elk Grove Planning Commission.    This meeting will take place Thursday, April 5, 2012 at 6:30 p.m  at the City Council Chambers, 8400 Laguna Palms Way, Elk Grove. The agenda for this meeting is printed below.

What does this all mean?      According to  City of Elk Grove Project Planner, Christopher Jordan,  the City  adopted the Laguna Ridge Supplemental Parks Impact Fee  (SPIF) in September 2011 which provides an alternative process for financing  the acquisition, design and construction of the parks, including  Storybook.

As a bit of history,  there was a written agreement between Pulte/Del Webb and the City for Pulte to donate the land for Glenbrooke's three parks; Promenade , Rose Garden and Storybook .   Once built, they would be turned  over to the City and Cosumnes Service District  (CSD) to manage and maintain as "turn-key operations."    That happened with Promenade and Rose Garden Parks.

However, since that agreement was drawn,  the housing market in Elk Grove took a dive and resulted in other developers going bankrupt or just not completing  promised parks.    Glenbrooke home sales slowed but continued to sell.    As a solution to  promised parks not being built in Elk Grove, the City adopted the new Supplemental Parks Impact Fees.   This means instead of Pulte developing Storybook park per the old written agreement,  the Planning Commission is going to recommend  formally canceling that agreement.

Instead, the new Ordinance requires that Pulte pay the SPIF every time a permit is pulled for a new house.  Thus  Pulte would be paying 'upfront' the cost for  Storybook park.   When enough fees are collected, the city will design and build the park - again turning it over to CSD to maintain.

The developers are still responsible for paying for the parks- even though we know those fees are passed on to new buyers in the house's purchase price.    Mr. Jordan stated that we already pay Mello Roos taxes for the maintenance of the parks and there will not be any additional taxes to homeowners.

Pulte objected to the SPIF implementation ,  their position was they had  already paid 'upfront fees"  by donating land for parks - including the 'grand canal' along Whitelock - to offset the then proposed SPIF and therefore should be exempt from SPIF.

GlenbrookeNews posted a  story about the January 11, 2011 City Council meeting when two  Pulte employees, Greg Van Dam & Jack Jareji, plus the Attorney for Pulte &  R & B developers, spoke during the Public Comment session.     You can read the closed caption discussion  (from the City’s web site) of this agenda item below; or view the entire council meeting video HERE.   Warning:  downloading the video will take a long time.  There was LONG discussions regarding this item – see transcript below.

So where does that leave Storybook Park?     According to Mr. Jordan,   development of that park is on the "short list schedule to begin building sooner rather than later."



CITY OF ELK GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION  REGULAR MEETING Thursday, April 5, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 8400 Laguna Palms Way, Elk Grove, CA 95758

The Elk Grove Planning Commission welcomes, appreciates, and encourages participation in the Meetings. The Planning Commission requests that you limit your presentation to three (3) minutes per person. The Planning Commission reserves the right to reasonably limit the total time for public comment on any particular noticed agenda item as it may deem necessary. If you wish to address the Commission during the meeting, please complete a Speaker Card and give it to the Clerk prior to consideration of the agenda item.





Members of the audience may comment on matters that are not included on the agenda. Each person will be allowed three (3) minutes or less if a large number of requests are received on a particular item. No action may be taken on a matter raised under “public comment” until the matter has been specifically included on an agenda as an action item. Members of the audience wishing to address a specific agendized item are encouraged to offer their public comment during consideration of that item.


All matters are approved under one motion unless requested to be removed for discussion by a commissioner or any member of the public.




4.1 A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN: The Sustainability Element and Climate Action Plan identify the policies and programs the City will implement in its compliance with the California Global Warming Solutions Act, Assembly Bill 32.

Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council certify the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2003 General Plan EIR and the adopt the Sustainability Element and Climate Action Plan.

4.2 PULTE AND R&B DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS: Cancelation of Development Agreements with Pulte Home Corp. (“Pulte”) and Reynen & Bardis L.P. (“R&B”) concerning parks development within their respective projects within the Laguna Ridge Specific Plan located as that area south of Elk Grove Blvd, north of Poppy Ridge Rd and west of Big Horn Blvd.

Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council find that no further CEQA review is necessary and recommend adopting an Ordinance canceling the Development Agreements.




Planning Director comments/report on items not on the agenda.


Planning Commission business/comments or opportunity to request information from staff.



CLOSED CAPTION TRANSCRIPT of January 2011 Elk Grove City Council Meeting 
>> item 9.2 the public hearing to consider adoption of the supplemental park ridge. >> before we get started I know the folks are here from the ridge and it was a big package delivered today and nothing new coming forward and you can do yourself a favor and your client a service by not getting it earlier but delivering it on the day of council meeting does not make much sense. >> we'll declare the public hearing opened. >> good evening. Mayor and vice mayor and council members. There's a proposed supplemental park fee for the planned area. And the study and program are the culmination of the three- year effort between city staff and a group of more than 30 members.


I think the staff spent the last three years developing and reviewing and refining the list of improvements included in this program and based upon feedbacks and council. During the process, staff made every effort to accommodate staff request and although there wasn't 100% consensus on the feed program, staff feels that program presented before you is the most viable based on the preferences and council's goal and responsibilities. Concerning the issues we did not have consensus, staff outlined what they were in the staff report beginning on page 4. And the section in the staff report related to the issues represent staff understanding of the positions on each of the groups and includes a staff recommendation on each. There will be some discussion about these issues after public comment. I won't go into detail on each one of those. Just for the time. However, if you have any questions on what we have read so far in the staff report, the city staff is available to answer them and in addition if you have any questions on the calculation and methodology, we have consultants this evening.


>> any questions? >> it looks like we don't have any. Stand by. We'll open public comment and we have quite a few speakers and the first one is matt doll followed by Christian pekunski and Greg van dike. >> mayor and members of city council. My name is matt Dolan as the CFO of one of the builders in Laguna ridge and we just want to take this time to say thank taught city staff and the people that have spent all of these years working on this plan to go ahead and get finalization for a park fee in place. We believe that the staff has come up with the best possible solution in this case and we hope that after adoption that the city council and the staff would come together and also add this fee to the program that city council has already in place.


thank you for your time. >> thank you, matt. Christian skanodi. >> good evening. My name is Christian skanodi and an attorney and represent the two initial developers of the Laguna rim area. We would like to thank the city staff and manager's office for moving the fee program forward to reach a fair distribution of park costs throughout the area. We support adoption of the fee program and belief that staff has arrived at the appropriate legal conclusions and fair results with the recommendations and the staff report before you tonight.


from a big picture perspective, we think it is important to recognize that while the city could amend or modify park dedication requirements and for future development in the plan area, for park lands dedications and improvements that have been made and those exact things that have been required of these first phase developers, those must be included in the fee program. In other words, since those developers have already incurred these costs based on the existing land use approval the city can't now exclude those from this fee program. In order of magnitude, while these are separate developers with separate development projects, they are similarly situated and they were the initial developers and incurred a significant cost. That order of magnitude is $200 million and in parks and improvements in this plan area that these developers have put in. As you know this process started back in 2005 and at that time Joe chin the finance director committed to the city council when they adopted the finance plan that they would be back before council to adopt a park fee and "fund all of the parks and the parkways in the program" and the city has been working towards this result and it's been a long time coming and we are here before you for the conclusion of the process. As you know the state holders have worked on this for the last 3 years and r&b have made considerable compromises to get this before you. Just to name a few, despite the legal obligations to include all of these parks and park ways they have voluntarily agreed to exclude all of the park ways other than grand park way at a cost to them at about $6 million.


They have also agreed to exclude light rail corridors, six acre dedication benefiting other properties and have agreed that all park land previously dedicated at a higher value would be -- that was their project's requirement would be excluded from the fee announcement and the staff recognizes that's a considerable savings by not including that and they have agreed to exclude the low flow channel 25-foot corridor in the grand park way and pullte r&b can't support this without the inclusion of grand park way as you know because it has been required by the city it is a legal obligation to include the grand park way. There has been an argument raised to wrap up, we have put in writing I know a number of documents came across last night but we disagree with the assertion that the 404 permit in any way precludes putting the grand park way into the fee program. There is nothing in a 404 permit that precluded the city from the developers from dedicating or constructing the grand park way in accordance with the specific plan requirements for that amenity and, therefore, it must be included in the program. I would like to thank you for your time tonight. If you have any follow-up questions I am available for anything you might have. >> go ahead. >> just one quick question.


you referenced that r&b has already agreed to remove a certain percentage of land from the sale end. Could you elaborate, acreage, can you help me understand. >> one of the representatives are here, they voluntarily greed to remove the parkways in the specific plan and the finance plan as park amenities that would be included in any nexus study and any program to be adopted over the last 3 years as a series of compromises took place, they agreed not to include those in the fee program to be spread throughout the plan area but instead allowed those costs not to come into this program voluntarily. >> who's that compromise made with? >> all of the stakeholders, they grade in all of the meetings that they would not push to have the parkways in the program at those meetings and they supported staff in making that recommendations to you tonight. >> on that point, if there are future speakers that have relevant points, I am interested in hearing that. >> thank you.


>> Mr. Mayor. >> Mr. Chinam. >> I have a question, too. Similar focus, I want some clarification on history or application. You mentioned that there was nothing in the 404 permit to conclude the instruct should the instruction as called out but what raised my eyebrow is that the purpose of that channel is called out as 404, as far as requirement regardless whether or not that park way would be created or not.


>> thank you for giving me a little more time. I got cut off by my time, I have a longer explanation and submitted the documents from the biologist confirming our position and that is this, that first of all, as one of the concessions that r&b made they have excluded the low flow channel and they have agreed to exclude the 25-foot corridor on the side which is a part of every other fee program and other fee programs in the city including Franklin. With respect to the 404 park permit the argument has been this, that a portion of grand park way was used as mitigation for that 404 permit. The 404 permit initially did include those requirements and it was repealed and during that appeal the city was involved and you will see the city's letter say that they could not agree to allow the grand park way to be used for mitigation in any way that conflicted with the city's requirements to the development and use of grand park way. The permit was then modified and the final permit did not have a requirement that it be used as mitigation and in fact, the exhibit was the plan itself, in other words the requirements for development and youth of grand park way were the city park requirements and nothing in the 404 permit precludes that and that is the only legal inquiry is whether or not the grand park way could be used as required by the plan for park purposes. >> can you tell me if the final 404 permit was the one in August '05. >> I did provide that to the clerk with our biologist's opinion explaining the response to that objection. >> I will look to see if I can find the one attached here.


Thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. Greg van dam. >> good evening. My name is Greg van dam and I'm vice-President Of Pulte group which is the developer of dell web and send text and Pulte communities, I would like to thank the city staff for the tremendous effort for the fee program and for the council to understand the details of the program. During the 3 year process the group has agreed to the number of concessions in an effort to bill consensus with staff and land builders, we believe that staff has brought forward a fair and equitable program that we can support.


However, I would like to emphasize that inclusion of the park park way is continued to the program and I urge the council to adopt it and like to implore that getting this program across the finish line is important in allowing our company to have building permits and constructing homes. We have spent approximately 8- and-a-half million dollars in the last five years in construction costs to develop the parks and park ways included in the fee program. The nexus study included in the program indicates that our fair share of construction costs is approximately $3 million. So to date we have spent more than five million dollars above the equitable share to develop parks within the city and due to the delays in getting the program established the city has no alternative but to collect $15,000 in park fees per permit to assure funding of any future fee program. We understand the rationale for this but without the assurance of getting credit for the more than five million dollars spent to date above our fair share it is difficult to justify the paying of the fee. in light of this, we May be force the wait until the fee program is implemented. Once again I thank you for consideration and urge the council to adopt the fee program as presented by staff.


Thank you. >>> thanks, Greg. >>> next speaker les hawk follow by john -- I'll probably butcher your last name. Duraki. >> I have worked with the developers in all four cases and here tonight to support the park program and more specifically the staff recommendations. I think they have got it right, a lot of very complicated issues with the program we have been working on it since 2005 and off and on if not continuously and struggling with the city fee and a private land fee of over ten thousand and we have taken that over the pass five years from 27,000 for a single family lot to about under 12,000. That is making good progress in the right direction and none of the facilities that you look for are going away and they will be funded ultimately through development but this is a park program in front of you tonight and we think staff has it dead on with respect to the remaining issues that have been brought up. With that, I would like to open it up to any questions you guys might have on some of the specifics.


>>> council member huhn. >> I do have a question. I did find the attachments to her letter. The memorandum from Gibson and cordell referencing the 404 permit that, is referencing the final 404 permit from the core? >> yes. >> thank you. >> any other questions?


>> no other questions on that permit? Like anything else that we dot permit is complicated and it was over a two to three-year process of obtaining that permit. there was subtly as it relates to the park way, the core backed on will do certain things that should do certain things. >> and to be fair, we did talk about those points and I do see that there is some "should" language in here and you shall establish and maintain and you must establish and then it actually says in this special condition that the purpose is to mitigate for the remaining loss of approximately 1900 linear feet. >> and what it doesn't go on to say Mr. Huhn. >> you can promote me anytime.


>> thank you. Exactly. we further discussed that with the core and acquired additional mitigation property on the weary ranch property ultimately dedicated. The simple answer no mitigation credit allowed for ryan and bartos for the grand park way as it relates to the perimeter. >> for wet land or anything as a part of the project or because this is calling out about the actual feet of stream function. >> our full mitigation requirement was satisfied off site. We received no mitigation credit for having developed grand park way.


>> thank you. Any other question? Thanks. >> good luck. >> thank you. >> john juraki. followed by thad Johnson.


>> you got it. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, my name is john duraki and I represent Pulte group and Greg explained the Pulte Centex developer and I am here to speak about the ranch property that is located to the south of wet lock in the phase 2b portion of the Laguna ridge and I want the to express support and the staff recommendation that having the supplemental park fee program in place is essential to get that project off of the ground. I know it's been a common goal in our quarters to move the development project forward and this is a necessary piece to move it forward and it gives us what we need to make a commitment. That was it and I won't be labor anymore of the discussion. >> brevity is appreciated. >> no problem. Any questions, otherwise I will go take a seat.


>> any questions? >> all right. Thank you. >> Thad Johnson followed by Steve vendor. >> good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the council, Thad Johnson a property owner in the Laguna ridge plan. I’m here to express concerns and objections to the conclusions of over 28-acres of non-park land.


I have submit add -- submitted a letter and have copies. The land is comprised of the wet land mitigation land at a cost of over 13-and-a-half million dollars. Over $15 for a single-family home. It simply defies logic to include them which are roughly equal to the combined total acreage of all ten of the neighborhood parks in phases one, two and four of the specific plan. A majority of the acreage is on the west side and comprised of mitigation lands that were a required component of the 2400 unit grove project. the inclusion of these lands in the parks which for all practical purposes require landowners that is a fraction of what the developers of the grove project was selling their properties for, to subsidize those for a required component. The lands are not assessable or serve as park land for the community, not now and not in the future.


Nor has it been shown that these lands were planned for any uses other than what is used today as required component. On a side note one half of this area of big horn is not dedicated and em come berred by mechanic's liens as a result of the unpaid fees. the payments to the developer would lower the bar of what qualifies a credible park land. I ask you to ask your partner if they ever have or would accept such land as satisfaction of a park requirement. I think the answer would be an unequivocal no. The land is not park land and included in a park fee would be inequitable and unjustify and unjustifiable take to qualify a give-away to another developer, we ask that you reject the inclusion of the lands in the laguna ridge. On the east side of big horn boulevard that are comprised of versailles, one hundred foot width to give you a sense of scale, it is 4 times the width of big horn corridor and nearly 3 times the 36 -- foot width of the ridge corridor as well as the elk grove boulevard and bruceville road corridor abutting the Laguna ridge plan.


considering the lack of corresponding benefit, the four- and-a-half million dollars cost and perpetuity would have inefficient use of land and resource. Since none of the land has been dedicate to the city, we would suggest that land which has not been dedicated, not be accepted as for sale for the city and not included and let it remain with the underlying landowner. We should ask that city only require the standard 25-foot set back and perhaps an additional 10 or 15 feet set back along the corridor consistent with what has been constructed on the west side of the corridor there outside of the drainage of wet lane mitigation area. That concludes my comments this evening and I am available for any questions. >> thanks for that information. You and I have been talking a lot about this and talking to some of the other folks as well. We are in a position that we are not having -- we are not writing policy, we are having to interpret the policy and I guess what I'm trying to figure out here is how does your statement -- how do you reconcile the inclusion of the parkway in the specific plan with your position?


>> I think that park way, it is not a parkway, it is a drainage corridor and wet land area. It was drawn out or called out as part of the parkway and never called out to be reimbursable for parkland to be paid for by property owners. Ask yourselves this, if it was not in that schematic, what would it be now? Developed or a drainage portion and mitigation area? I submit to you that it would be a drainage portion and wet land mitigation area for the federally mandated part of the 404 permit. >> we heard earlier testimony that this in fact was not mitigation land. It was done offsite.


I don't know if you have had a chance to -- when we were talking you were under the impression it was otherwise. I don't know if you saw the letter which I just saw for the first time from the city that was included in, I think, random bartos' submittal, this is a letter from the city manager in 2005 that says the nonwet land area will be a passive park inviting residents to walk along the banks and park-like setting. >> no active or passiveness creating in that area, Mr. Councilman, you cannot access that, there are no trails or picnic tables and there is no community access or activity in that park that would constitute any type of park use or reck creating. >> I have a copy of the commit and it requires that this property, the entire stretch of it shall be used as mitigation as part of 404 permit. One of the former references that no, they had permit mitigation requirements that were satisfied on the wear property, that is in four and an additional mitigation requirement and not a substitute for this mitigation requirement. >> okay.


Thank you. any other questions? >> thank you. >> Steve. >> good evening. My name is Steve bender and represents the family and we are not developers. We have had a ranch there for years and grew up there.


I am here to support the city staff's report and nexus studies done and I went back to 2005 with all of the process going on and the meetings, think staff did a great job and a lot of the other guys are knowledgeable than I am but from what I have seen and read, and participated in, I think it is a fair think that were involved in the planning of that whole area. I don't -- I just wanted to show my support and let you know that I think the staff did a great job. >> thanks, Steve. >> Chris barter. Followed by Lynn weeks. >> mayor and council members, I'm Chris barttos and I am available for questions if you have any but I don't have a lot to say. Have you been working on the project with the city for five years and the staff has done a great job, it is a five-year process that has come to a conclusion and we are still fighting the same battle, the amount of people in opposition, to not criticize them for opposing anything but we have paid the money and the fees and we have done the job and we should be reimbursed for what we did.


We have taken a big hit on numerous items and I might remind you when I could stand before the elk grove city council and Mr. Cooper May have been there at the time, and Sophia May have been, but we dedicated and engaged the city with 20-acres of land and we have been a good partner and citizen and hard to stand here when someone is trying to pick away for what they did for their benefit simply because they will pay the hundred bucks. That's all I have to say and your staff have been wonderful and done a good job. I hope this is recommended. >> thank you. Lynn weeks. Followed by William Abbott.


Or excuse me, by ed gil lam. >> good evening. I just have a couple of questions that I wanted to ask. I wasn't sure who was going to be benefiting the most in the end when this is passed because it will be a benefit to the residents or the future homeowners in that area. It wasn't really clear to me had the parks would be built. We are collecting fees and reduced the size of the parks and somebody purchasing a home, would they have any idea when the park might happen, thank you. >> thank you, Lynn.


>> ed gilam, william Abbott is the last speaker. >>> good evening, Mr. Mayor and council. Ed gil lamm representing Jackson properties and we are the complaining members. There are numerous things we have with this particular thing. Probably primarily this was always intended to be a drainage area. There's some indication that the city requires this to be constructed as grand park way, I am in the sure what the city requires, if you look at I believe it is exhibit 3 in your nexus study, will you find that only thing possibly construed is 15 feet of the 25-foot setback at the pathway and side walk unit.


If the city was going to require additional width, wouldn't they have widened that 15 feet, certainly wouldn't have widened the drainage ditch, it was dictated by technical matters. That ditch, as big as it is, that was required to convey the drainage from the property. Incidentally, 90% of the land was Pulte land or our land at the time they built it. I can't see any additional width with the possibility of 15 feet in that park way. It is draining channel and that's all it will be. There is some indication that they created it to be a grand park way for the city. In fact if you stood in the middle of the road you will see a 250-foot drainage ditch and if you look to the east before it was constructed will you see a drainage ditch.


I can show you maps from 1996 that show this was a drainage corridor and that's 90% of what your exhibit shows a drainage corridor and nothing but that. 15feet with setbacks on the street. We believe that is -- and you’re actually asking the other owners in the plan area to pay up to $400,000 per acre in land costs for a side slope of the drainage channel. You are asking us to pay $225,000 per acre to improve that. I'm not sure the argument that Mr. Hawk advanced about the nature of the revised permit. We got our copy of the 404 permit from the city.


We didn't get the latest copy, I am not sure whose fault that is but certainly special condition, number 3 absolutely requires the area to be set aside for mitigation for wet lands that have been described on the grove probably. There was a drainage ditch that drained the pond on the ryanbartos property that came onto bristol road. That drainage course was in fact removed and mitigated and we believe part of that occurs in the central drainage area. We find it ironic this council reduced the roadway fees recognize that we were in a desperate struggle in this economy. And so now you are proposing to add it back and Mr. Bartos says one hundred dollars, it is $1500 a unit, not going to the city, you reduce the roadway fee that was a benefit to the whole city but you reduce and increasing $1500 for the benefit of those parties. >> ed, I know that you mentioned standing in bristol and looking east and would you have seen a farm drainage ditch and west you see a farm drainage ditch, you were at least somewhat involved in the Franklin plan.


>> I was the project manager. >> how big is that drainage ditch area? I know it has associate the trail. Who paid for that and who dedicated it and how did that drain? >> it was a drainage ditch before the plan area was conceived and on donemar property and my and my recollection it was not reimbursed and it was required to be dedicated. >> do you have any idea of the width? >> 180 feet is what comes to mind.


I'm not positive about that. and this is very similar in size. It was necessary sear to convey the drainage. If you look at exhibit 3, ninety percent of what is suggested is drainage ditch, you won't play soccer there. >> you would but it would be on that corridor. >> May I speak? >> for drainage on the Franklin side, there's a few programs in place for that.


[Inaudible] >> you are saying there was a fee program for that, that is outside of the drainage channel? >> it includes drainage and park way land. >> and council member, you asked the width and you gave him the length? >> 180 feet, not wide. >> say that again. >> I think including the parkway it is something like that. >> the drainage park way here and Laguna ridge is upstream and gets smaller is 170. >> the width.


>> yes. >> if you think about it from back of white lock to the back of the residences that is probably about right. >> and the east Franklin site you are saying is about 180 feet wide. >> that's my recollection. >> I didn't get a tape measurer and it is right behind my house and it looked different. >> any other questions. >> I did want to ask, I should have asked thad this question.


I forgot. I asked the representative from r&b about the acreage that was removed prior to this and I would like for to you respond to that same question. As I understand about sixty acres or so that have been pulled out. How do you respond. >> they did that voluntarily. I don't recall it being done voluntarily. It wasn't expressed to the group that they were going to remove that, it was removed by city council, at city council direction.


>> if that 60-acres were included, would that have an impact our site? >> it would certainly have an impact. The reason it was excluded and still valid, those sales are internal to those projects. I mean, they weren't generally a benefit to the whole community. They were internal for their budget. >> talking about the grand park way here, genuinely trying to wrap my hands around how two different people that are both smart, nice and funny, can have such a difference of opinion. I'm generally trying to figure this out.


The city the specific plan area call the out the grand park way specifically and then this letter from the city manager July 27th 2005 to the core sort of really clarified its intent. I'm generally trying to figure out how based upon that evidence the position is still that this is not park way land? >> I don't know what that letter says. I have not seen it. I have heard bits of it being read and I guess my question is that I don't think that question channel is covered by that letter, I believe that letter in fact the core requirements don't interfere with the 15 feet and for that matter the 25 feet. But the drainage channel and I defy somebody to tell me that core doesn't require mitigation planting and maintenance. I think there's something referred to in that core permit that requires an additional document as to how the area is going to be maintained and I guarantee you by core standards.


That whole area is subject to 404 U.S. Permit and I don't think if it says should or shall or might the reality that core will enforce those kinds of requirements. >> I think the one paragraph here from the city manager that says the city was going to adopt the plan because of many special features, the highlight is the wet land park and 23.3- acres of open space area has active and passive recreational uses. The nonwet the channel area will function as active and passive park inviting residents to walk along the park like setting. >> along the banks is key because along the banks is that 15 -- foot strip and the 25 -- foot strip and not the channel. Yet the channel side slopes. I'm sorry. Nobody will reck create on the channel side slopes.


There's a drainage area that covers that and access is prohibited. >> along the lines, just quickly, can I ask heather or anyone on staff that might know, is there a definition of non wetted channel area that we can use as a reference point? >> I'm sorry. Can you say that anyway. >> the nonwetthe channel area will function as a passive park etc., etc. Is a considered nonwetted, what is a nonwetted channel area, how is that defined. >>council member Davis f I May, I think what it refers to, there's no definition, let me say that.


I think what that refers to is usually when you have a drainage nature at the bottom they have a low slope channel, that channel is intended to be wet because it carries runoff throughout the year and the wintertime and it is rain and in the summertime it is residential irrigation that goes on the streets and goes down to the channel. So that is an area where it is permanently wet and the nonwet is referred to everything above that, that would carry some drainage during the storm and then otherwise it remains. >> so in exhibit 3 the wet is the flow channel and the nonwet is everything else. >> I think that's a fair assumption. >> I think Mr. Davis, one of the things we differ, this was always going to be a channel, I can show you documents going back in the '90s that show that. This area was not developed but what they decide as per the estimates and thepraisals, they have a signed the values to this land, this land is going to be a drainage channel and never going to be anything else.


So to assign a land value to those areas and to charge that I don't think is the proper procedure. >> any other questions? >> william Abbott. >> Mr. Mayor, I want to ask you, I did see john brannon was listed I wanted to make sure we didn't skip over Mr. Rainon. >> Mr.


Bartos said he was there in case of questions. >> thank you. >> thank you, mayor and members of the council. I'm phil abbott and represent gallon ranch. In light of the time limits, I will make just a handful of points. First of all, due to the nature of the conditions of the approval on allenranch a previously approved subdivision map, that map does not contain the same broad language regarding the obligation in the future fee as other subdivisions do within the city. One of our positions within the fee structure that the staff is asking you to adopt, one of the assumptions is that allen ranch is included within the obligation and it's our position probation are based upon the exact positions that is not an obligation that this project bears so one potential solution to our problem without getting into the specifics is for the council to determine if it concurs in our analysis that the allen ranch is not burdened by this fee obligation and deals with the language, in fact the language of allen ranch is materially different from similar language that addresses the fee and other projects.


When you get to the point of recording that map that issue will come back again and we are trying to address it student as part of your deliberations and the other appointments are minor within the fee structure but they certainly from a lawyer's perspective are important. First of all, when you adopt a fee, one of the basic tenants you have to follow is that they have to be consistent with your plan documents and one of the questions circulating, are the linear parkways and what do we do and our point is that your specific plan is very clear and draws a very succinct line between your access and your linear park system and assigns values. the fee program is to eliminate the distinction and to lure that distinction and treat the plan along the parkway as if it were an active park. I didn't think that is within your plan, if you want to change it, that is your option but that is not proposed tonight. When you adopt the fee, have you to be consistent with your planning documents and your specific plan contains very detailed standards and distinctions between the two different types of parks and I didn't think they are simply interchangeable as being proposed in the fee program. The other issues and concerns have to do with land costs and those have been addressed by ed gil lam and our point is if this city council were to use its own general funds to fund this and the areas are encumbered under zone 11 and under those circumstances if you were spending your own money, the advisors would give you the impact of those restrictions and when you are proposing to adopt this fee and that fee has to be related, the fee has to be reasonable so you don't have an unlimited ability to insert any kind of cost number, it has to have a basis of fact and we think that a different standard is applied here than the city would, if it was acquiring the property on its own account and it has been overstated not only because of white walk but because of the drainage requirements. our final point related to land value is that your staff report tonight says while the city attorney's position and I don't necessarily disagree is that you should use the land value at the time of dedication and that's rational for why the fee program includes high values for lands dedicated in 2006. And a different value for lands dedicated in 2008 and our point is that the land and thad johnson referenced it, land identified in d2 and 3 on page 74 to our knowledge has never been dedicate to the city and our subject to numerous liens and they are in the fee program as 2008 values.


And that doesn't make sense. I don't think it makes your criteria. >> please wrap up. >>> that conclusions my comments and I appreciate the time and thank you for the opportunity to address the council. >> thank you. >> no one else to speak? We'll close the public comments.


Close the public hearing and go to council deliberations and start with... Go ahead. >> heather, the fee you referenced to pay for the drainage channel over there, is that a park fee? >> it's called the franklin supplemental drain fee. >> it's a drainage fee. Okay. And can you give me any kind of an idea of the I realize land values are obviously going to be varied as opposed to the dedication when that took place, can you give me an estimation of the cost per acre assigned in that fee for improvements? >> sure, when the study was done in 2003-dollars and the cost per acre varied from 75,000 per acre up to 170,000 per acre.


>> okay. thank you. >> any other questions of the staff? >> actually on that point, if I missed it, you gave an estimate of the drainage fee amount for franklin. >> the land cost. >> was that different from the park fee? >> was there a different amount for the park fee versus the drainage.


>> in e franklin the park fee is separate because those parks are controlled by the csc and separate program. >> I get that, so this is not exactly apples to apples but do we know if this is a differentiating amount. >> I can't recall the different amounts but I know they are in the same range. >>what do you mean in the same range, heather? >> they are not thousands of dollars difference between each other. When this fee program was adopted this fee, it varied, the north and central shed and the costs are allocated based on the benefits to what facility. At the time that this was adopted, the highest one for the special shed was $1300 a unit and since then it was 2005- dollars so it has gone through adjustments so I don't know the amount off of the top of my head but I would guess it is the 2000 to 2500 range.


And again that includes land for the drainage channel and what they call the parkway total. Do you have a figure for the park fee in east franklin? >> not with me. But... >> a rough estimate. >> we can look it up. >> fred, do you know? >> five thousand.


>> five thousand dollar park fee. >> any other questions. go ahead. >> is the fee program. [Inaudible. [. >> fred, would you come forward, I have a question for you. >> you are going to have to go way back with me on this.


when I was on the cfc board we approved, there was a drainage ditch and it wasn't anything else. And we did not, if I remember correctly, we didn't cite it as adjacent to a park or anything around it. We talked about putting a passway so people could look into it but had it sectioned off for safety reasons, do you recall where that drainage ditch was, I think it was the northwest part of the city, but I cannot recall. >> it was the park wet land area over by case elementary school. >> I'm trying to recall because there was a great -- a lot of discussion that evening that it wasn't -- you couldn't use it for anything. It was like a detention basin. Collecting water and you couldn't do anything with it.


I was wonder figure you recalled that. >> it was definitely not that kind of a project. I remember that. >> thank you, mayor. >> Councilman Davis. >> one of the issues here is that the on onus has been on the property owners to reach agreement and they have not. I guess what I -- it wasn't illustrated in the staff report so I would like the staff to go through that a little bit more, please, what -- at the start of this discussion between the property owners, which were the issues and which have been resolved?


obviously this is one that hasn't been. The magnitude of what is resolved and what is open and the other thing is to under stand the magnitude of impacted property owners what percentage are supportive that your aware of the staff proposal and what percentage of the property and their owners have outstanding issues. >> in terms of the issues to date, there are quite a few, we did have a memo that had stated the progress and the issues that we had resolved and one of the things was included in the cafeos that was early on. Maybe some of the other staff members can think of other things that we resolved. >> well, at the beginning prior to May of '09 the staff was working for was a series of fees to reimburse for the consideration of specific plans to reimburse for the land costs for the infrastructure improvements that were created and an infrastructure development fee or idf that would have reimbursed for the drainage ditch and finally the park fee. In May of '09 the council provided direction that because of the poor economy as referenced by Mr. Gillam that the city was looking to limit the fees.


As a result, we have eliminated the specific plan fee. We have eliminated the land component by in large and the idea. So the only program we have left is the program/open face feed that's before you this evening and in those discussions we have focused on things like what is the appropriate date of evaluation? I know there has been some discussion about dedications of park land in east franklin and my recollection is that since I have been here, there have been dedications that were valued by the appraiser or the county assessor because they are handled under the quincy act. As part of your decision in May of 2009, you identified certain improvements and amenities that you wanted to continue from thelaguna ridge plan and that's the basis that we have been moving forward and finding out the cost of that. There have been a number of others and that's why Ms. Sh agondy spoke about that they have done a number of things of the improvements in the area and it May be that rende andbartos have a more complete list.


>> do you have any idea what proportion of the property owners or one side or the other? flushh >>>... So it's been [Inaudible ]. >> okay. >> can you explain specifically how the amounts were arrived at? >> I'm sorry? >> how was the fee arrived at. Is it possibly just to explain it so we can all hear how the fee amount was reached. >> through a standard nexus study where you identify all the costs of improvements, identify the improvements to be included and then costs of all of those and then two components, park development and park land acquisition, so there's two elements, park development costs are provided by the csc based on their cost elements.


Park land was done on appraisal reports on an annual basis [ inaudible] And it goes through sort of a standard nexus model where you determine that the fair share of each type of user within the plan area based on the type of development whether it's residential or commercial, and it's then the land -- the costs are spread according to sort of what the a dwelling unit equivalent in each type of development. Their fair share is put in terms of its equivalency to a dwelling unit equivalent. >> and the follow-up to that, have we every contemplated in any documentation specific plan or anywhere else a differentiation about the fees for a community park versus fees for parkways and open space? >> right now, actually, I think the way they are identified in the nexus study, I think our consultant has done separate calculations for community park costs are identified differently than neighborhood parks because especially with. >> I hear you. But the parkway fee amount is, have we contemplated differentiating the traditional park amount from the parkway sale amount? >> not for this program specifically.


>> city attorney concurs with that? >> I think as set forth in these letter that was sent today it talks about in particular the financing plan that was part of the [Inaudible] Referring to park, parkway, open space, and recreational funding. and she references page eight of the financing plan. So, I think that that answers your question, that yes, in the laguna ridge specific plan and in the financing plan that went along with, that the city envisioned a series of green spaces, if you will, that had different uses that were all being sort of conglomerated into a single park fee program to fund park, parkway, open space, and recreational facilities. >> so we haven't contemplated differentiating the fee, essentially. >> no. >> I would disagree with that.


We have contemplated it, we decided not do it previously. Originally there was going to be a park improvement fund, a public land fund, andinfrastructre development fund. >> but in terms of what the original document said we were going to do, it was that we were going to have a fee program, a park fee program. We came up with the other differentiation to handle in addition to parks, the other components of all of theinfrastructre as well as the adoption of the specific plan itself. >> so my last question here because I've been going back and forth a lot with the owners on this point and trying to figure out what the city's intent was, did the army corps of engineers require us to dedicate this parkway as mitigation land, or was it the city's of sac that required that land to be dedicated as a parkway? Obviously it's called out in a specific plan, but and I think rightfully requests have been made for evidence and the only evidence that's been produced to date is evidence from, you know, July 27th, 2005, to the letter from the city manager to the corps of engineers specifically calling the corps out for including that land as mitigation and saying it should be included as park land, basically. So I just want to make sure... >> this was before I was here, but in reading this letter the city manager was saying the parkway was special and was not nearly a flood control usage.


And that the city therefore supported r & d in making it solely about mitigation land. >> I think this is a tipping point issue. Thank you. . >> anyother questions for staff? Okay. Go to deliberations. Counselwoman scherman?


>> thank you, mayor. I've heard a lot tonight. we have a lot of reading material here. We have a lot of green sheets that we get at the last minute. We received this stack of paper earlier. But I keep hearing "not sure" i think so" "I can check" maybe it was included" "not sure what the army corps of engineers meant." I think there's a lot of unanswered questions. My biggest question is, how in the world did we decide, and it could be staff, it could be advisors, consultants, whomever, how did we decall that a drainage different a retaining basin, to try to put it into a park land.


It doesn't make sense to me. It's hole in the ground that's collecting water. Who in the world would want to build a home next door to it? We have neighbors now that complain because their neighbor behind them are flooding them out because the level of the property isn't even. You talked about, you know, we got wet and wetter land and a lot of wet and wetter land. It just -- we asked who is going to benefit the most, is it the developer? was it the city?


Or who is going to really not benefit by it would be the homeowners because they are going to talk at $1500, not the $200 I heard earlier, or $100 I think it was. So that would be a cost to the new owners. Here we're trying to help the developer to build so that we can, you know, keep this economy, you know, give it a jump start but at whose expense? And I certainly don't want it to be at the homeowners' expense. We have a lot of developers that are willing to come, but if we keep see sawing the way we do they're not going to want to come and my thought right now is there's so many unanswered questions that I would like for -- actually, I will not make a decision tonight, if the council takes a vote, then I will have to vote no because I feel that we need to have some more time on this to digest this and get the answers that were asked this evening that we were not given the answer to. that's all I have, thank you, mayor. >> thank you, counselwoman scherman.


Councilman Davis. >> this is a tough one because we have to mediate a difference between two property owners on a whole set of deal points and that is the last one. I wasn't on the council when the specific plan was adopted and Councilwoman Scherman asked the question is who the heck would want to have the ditch, et cetera. I mean, the council adopted this. So I would -- the city council adopted this specific plan so the city council at time had a vision for this parkway and we're not redefining that parkway tonight. it's a matter of interpreting the division of the city. And I have to look at evidence, and to me the -- I mean the evidence is pretty clear at this point.


And I still haven't yet been convinced that there's evidence to the contrary, including the grand parkway has always been a part of the vision of the city council that adopted it, again before my time, before three of us arrived here. But yet, you know, I think we need to maintain an integrity of it. With respect to putting this off, the problem I see with putting it off would be that the citizens ultimately would feel the pain because the longer we wait, the less fees are collected, and ultimately these are fees that have to go into the construction of the park. And if we don't adopt a fee based upon a vision that's been in place for many years, we're going to move forward, and we're going to lose every day we have a potential losing revenue that goes toward park construction. Frankly the responsible thing for us to do would be to act tonight, from my perspective. >> May I respond to that? >> yes.


>> you're absolutely correct, it was done by the vice mayor cooper and myself we were the original council members but time changes, and we have to change and make adjustments when things aren't the way we envisioned it, you know, ten years ago, going on 11. not so much that we didn't do it in the year 2000. Still, I agree with you we had the vision and things change and we need to change with it. >> thank you. >> Councilman Hume. >> this is a tough one and it's more than just dealing with two property owners, I think it's going back and dealing with what's right, what's fair, and what makes sense. And before I kind of get into my deliberation, heather, can you tell me for that drainage fee, you said it doesn't include land acquisition costs. Those costs would have been reimbursed by some other fund? >> are you speaking of the franklin?


>> in franklin, yes. >> I any it does include land acquisition. >> so the 5,000 didn't include land. >> correct. >> that was the park component. >>yeah. The park.


>> so that drainage fee, that 2500 did include land acquisition. And when that land was acquired, what use was it appraised? Was it appraised as encumbered land? >> um, the -- well, the sac report doesn't say specifically -- I'm sorry, [ Inaudible] Report it looks like some of it is based on actual price paid for acres, the remaining are based on a price. >> okay. And I'm not sure if you'd be the one to answer this or taro or whom, but when an appraisal is done for that compensation for a function, a utility like a drainage channel, richard you might answer this for me, when an appraisal is done or a price is determined, that is not considered developable property, is that correct? >> wouldn't be appraised at highest and best use.


It depends on the properties encumbered. I think if it's -- if you're purchasing a property it would appraised at a highest and best use if it doesn't have any encumbrances on it. >> okay, okay. I think what's been alluded here, in fact, Councilman Davis called it out that we're not enacting policy we're trying to interpret it. But we're looking at what has been a moving target over the last, you know, seven years, and has really only started to come into focus here in the last two or three. And one of those was when we started by determining whether we're going to have the park improvement fees or idf fee and the plt fee and what was going to be included in all of those. And you know, I think that the specific plan does call out a depreciation between active park land and exhibits in the specific plan show one active park landz| and the other one as parkways and for sale, and one of the issues that I raised when this plan was coming forward and I was on the planning commission that none of those for sales got counted toward credit.


They they weren't getting credit for park fees and credit for park land that was an ex-action. A lot of this I'm going to lay at the feet of the prior administration in moving fast and loose and how they were getting this plan forward. They were focused on the goal and not on the process and what was right on how to get there. And the letter from the prior city managers or several city managers ago to the colonel of the corps of engineers, it nothing more than saying the corps shouldn't encumber the property, not necessarily saying what they should do, but the final permit is the final permit and it has language in there that you must do this for this drainage channel for these purposes one of which is assisting drainage. More importantly in the letter from the city attorneys, it says, you know, oh, we have this vision of creating this passive and active recreation space with places to enjoy the stream site. That has not happened. If you go and look at the area out there it is fenced off and there was no access down anywhere near that drain taj channel and that's part of what's called out in the permit.


So I think there was a lot going on and the worst, I believer, the worst mistake that was done and this is because it was focused on the vision and times were fast and there wasn't a lot of thought given to it was we want these things now you private entities go out and figure out how to do it and how to pay for them. So you then had piranhas feeding on themselves and a herd of cats and now we're trying to move the food to get them back in line so we can move forward because now its affecting the city and us paying for the parks. There should have been a fee program in place that was agreed upon, not agreed upon, but people would involved in it with their eyes wide open as opposed to now it's been a moving target for seven years. I think you have to look back at intertent versus the actual the intent is to have an ameantity in that plan and a great non-vehicle corridor. However, I don't live in a world where drainage ditches are considered park land and I don't want to go down the slippery slope and we talk about playing soccer on the side after ditch you want to talk about a slippery slop, let's talk about paying park fee credit for drainage ditches at the cost of $225. That's good money when you think about go out there and look at what's been done about that ditch. The early plan participants were required to do these improvement. They should not be expected to come out of pocket solely for those because they were good guys trying to get something done.


so my attitude is, there is some reimbursement there, but it should not be for the entire core do and it should not only exclude the low flow channel. It should look alt at the area that is the drainage channel, which is slope, the flat land, low it flow channel the flat land and the other slope. That area precluded from access as drainage function and should be charged and reimbursed accordingly. It should not be charged and reimbursed as park land. If we're not going to consider where people can go out and play fetch with their dog, that's not park land, you're not going to consider park land that is the drainage ditch that encumbered by a corps of army engineers permit that says you must do these following things, one of which is maintain vegetated buffer. So they should be reimbursed but they should be reimbursed at a reasonable amount. I don't think that amount is what's called out for the park fees for some of the parks that, you know, that actually have access and passive use.


That's for the west portion. And as far as the values, you know, if I'm hearing is when the dedication takes place, that's when the value for the land component is factored, then that's what it is. We can't reinvent how the process is done, and certainly if 3%, 6%, or 20% of the people were objecting, if they were on the other side they'd be objecting in favor. The precedent you set for one is held to others. And you want to keep the process as pure as possible. So I think there is an amount in there but I don't think it's the fee that is being put forward with respect to the drainage channel. Now if you come on to the east side of big horn and you're looking at where the drainage essentially is piped underground so you have a much longer for sale, we should take a look at that.


One, the $225,000 an acre improvement figure, and two, whether it needs to be 100 feet wide is essentially going to be a path much like what is in the ground today and then just trees. so, so I guess where I'm coming from is I agree that time is of the essence, they have come as far as they can come on their own. They need the city intervention at this point. So it's time to step in but I think we need to step in and need to look at what's doing right and what's fair and not put out as these were the kind of hand shakes that were made back in the day sort of a thing. That's my position. >> Councilman Cooper. >> I'm not going to go ahead.


>> vice mayor cooper. >> I'm not going to regurjtate everything, but I believe all the players here tonight, everybody has given their input. We know all the folks here involved, not put it off until later on. It started many years ago. Started with the idea of giving our citizens to get the best possible. Part of it goes back on the memo from 2005, I'll read it again. [Reading quickly]. i was here on the council when that was decided and the city was trying to get, like I said earlier, the best possible for its citizens and people get out there and walk.


So my issue is this evaluation and Councilman Hume said, we have to find a mark on there somehow. We have to decide this tonight. We owe it to everyone not to let it languish. It's important. Both sides are interested. Some developers have got homes already. we owe it to them, they have no know the lay of the land.


It is a moving target and anyone can build out here and if they're building homes we have to support that 100%, absolutely. That affects a lot of people so we have to make a decision tonight on it. It's matter of figuring out what is owed. . >> Councilman Hume put things in perspective exactly the way I felt about it and discussing it with the city attorney. We have the burden that was passed down from previous council, previous administration, which, as we've already heard, the majority of the council and almost all of the administration has changed since then. So the developers were tasked to put this together and it didn't happen. First you should have never had it tasked to you but unfortunately it was.


And now we've got the obligation to fix it. there's two sides to this whole thing. I think the way Councilman Hume put it is the way I discussed with the city attorney, my feeling is you don't buy an old junker and paid a brand new mercedes price. And the wetland was the wetland prior to development going in. So there was some language that I discussed with the city attorney, and if she could recall better than I do what the language was. Just to hit a couple of points. some of these things were done at a business risk.


Not only was the city going foot loose and fancy free on how they made their decisions, I think the developers were, too, because things were skyrocketing so they were willing to throw anything they could at it. Understandably so, I think there was problem a little strong-arming that took place to get some of that done. I can't fix that. That's in the past. When I look at this creek, I have the same situation on my property. And when there were improvements done there we had to bring it up to -- this was in the mid-90s, we had to bring it up to the 200 year flood plain. My guess is, this creek probably up to within a foot of the free board covers that 200 year flood plain which would be the requirement for the area.


i feel that the landowners who developed that do owe a return on their investment but not at full developed values if they could build homes or commercial property. Build commercial office space. I'm not going to repeat everything that's been said before, but I would like susan, if you could, to repeat the language that you and I discussed earlier about the possibility that if we move forward with this, to take these proposed concept and make that in place as a fee program but look at adjusting the valuation of the grand parkway. >> the conversation you and i had was an alternative to the current recommendation from staff. And essentially if the council wishes to fine tune some of the assumptions made in the nexus study then we would ask that you provide us with direction on sort of each of the points listed in the staff report. But at a minimum tonight, staff would ask that you, at least, introduce the ordinance that creates the fee program with an understanding that the actual setting of the fee by resolution will follow at later date after we've given proper notice. So, for example, if we're to follow council member hume's suggestions regarding exclusions if he could give us linear measures then we can talk about that.


If there are specific questions that the council wants to see documentary evidence on, for example, was this land originally a wet land or was this a created facility to serve as a drainage channel. are there questions about pub hick access to this area? Is this split rail fence supposed to beremoved. If the split rail fence were to be removed, would that answer questions. Whatever issues that the council have the way the fee program is currently calculated if we can get those out on the table then that will speed the analysis and return for the actual setting of the fee to go ahead and at least introduce the ordinance creating the fee. Is that the discussion that you and I had? >> yes.


>> and I'm absolutely fine with that. I agree we need to get a plan in place so we can continue collecting fees. [Audio faint]. >> as far as where we are to clarify the points that we made, again, I go back to the intent versus the actual, and the intent was to create a nice amenity, a parkway area, and i agree with that wholly and I believe with these drainage corridors can function aesthetically as a creek environment or enhanced for the people that are passing by, but again, it is fenced as a backyard of the residences and with a split rail fence a few feet off of the trail corridor that prohibits any kind of use. so I think if you look at the exhibit 3, which is the schematic out of the goodwin study, 120 feet on the free one max slope, the bottom, and then 31 max slope. That should be compensated as such, et cetera. I don't know, not only is that section drainage channel but again going back to the 404 permit that was provided and this is why I wanted to make sure that this was the final 404 permit is because there was some talk about the original four standards and then what was implemented and this is what was implemented and it was apparently softened given the letter from the prior city manager was calling out for things, but it still calls out some musts with respect to vegetative buffers and then it does say, you shall, which is the word in force, establish and maintain within the area the drainage channel the left bank the right bank and the main channel bench. So so again, I don't know how we figure out that valuation, but i know that it's not $225,000 in improvements from a park perspective.


In a drainage fee such as east franklin, heather, is it the cost of improvements for improving the ditch creating the drainage channel, is that factored in is there simply a acquisition cost? That park fee does not include the parkway along the drainage channel? It does not. So do we know who bore the --  where that cost was borne if it's not being reimbursed by a fee program? In other words, I think that as was said, those were hot times, crazy deals were being made, you know, we wished they were back but we wish had done them better or would do them better next time. But the reality is, it has to --  i don't think there was any binding promises that we can design at this point. As far as it was a moving target from the beginning, it's been a moving target, they've come as close as they can get and now we have to say all right, this is the bull's eye.


Help me get to that bull's eye. >> to the extent that we wish to compare the proposed [Inaudible ] With the actual fee program in franklin I think that's something we can cover in the staff report when and if that's the will of council to bring this back. So, in other words, if the council is not going to adopt the resolution setting fee this evening then we can come back and say in the east franklin land for the drainage channel is paid for this way we don't have a similar construct in laguna ridge. All we have in laguna ridge right now based on the action of council in '09 is this park fee. So that was I think that that is part of the difficulty. And this park fee includes both land and amenities within its scope. >> okay.


That's a good start. >> so do we have enough of a motion to go with that? >> well, I think do we need an actual motion to. >> for the introduction. >> for the reading of the motion. >> for the introduction of the ordinance, yes. The question I would have is whether staff has sufficient answers to the other questions relative to the [Inaudible] Issue and those types of questions to be able to inform us on what the nexus study should look like.


We will have to renotice it because as was pointed out in the staff report there is an issue on the place and talk. The place and talk fee that was used in the nexus study is what we believe the park fee is going to be but we know that the people have improved the land thus far have paid an actual higher fee for the, for those lands that are subject to dedication. >> okay. Then I will introduce the waive the full reading by substitution of title only in amending chapter 16.82 of the elk grove municipal code establishing a laguna ridge supplemental park fee. >> second. >> I wasn't directing my comment to staff. I was also including the developers that spoke.


We need to clarify and confirm the figures they were giving us as well so it wasn't anyone in particular it was just overall speakers that I heard lots of comments, and we should do some research and that's included in our discussion so I can go with that. >> the thing I would add, when this comes back, I really would like to know the slope after the east drainage. I think it's steeper than three to one. I'm looking at this picture of the parkway and I have driven by, there was a vision established in the special if I can plan. That vision was that laid forth pretty large chunk of open space so that elk grove can enjoy it. And I don't think we can turn a blind eye to that vision. I still hold in high value the vision that this community have open space that it can be on, not just look at.


And I get that there's a fence here and I want a better understanding of the process that went into this fence. Although it's not a, you know, it's not a 5 foot wrought iron fence, I can guarantee that. Your dogs are going through I can guarantee that. I'm looking forward to learning more about this process and comparing this to other "ditches" throughout elk grove because I don't think this is that. >> to be clear, what I heard are the following questions. one is what does the relative slope of the grand parkway channel versus other channels, a comparison with other programs as to where different parks are paid or not paid, questions regarding the slope areas in the other programs to the extent there is a land component, theswin and talk issue, is there anything else I missed? >> I don't think you missed anything.


I would cast a broader net because I think gary is right about most drainage ditches have a deeper slope but I know there's one in east elk grove specific plan right there south of vaughn, east of waterman, that has a meandering wetted area or low flow channel so it is a much wider creek area. For the purpose of providing that aesthetic open space and the non-[Inaudible]. >> it's eeasy to focus on east franklin because it's next door but we'll go broader than that. >> on the slope issue, part of that is a safety reason. If you go beyond richard May know, but on a certain slope then have you to go up to a 6 foot fence so somebody can't climb through there and fall down into the channel and not be able to climb out because of the steepness of the slope. That's part of the reasoning instead of having a narrow tore deeper channel, they go wider to get the slope down so if a child fell in that they could crawl out. >> I just want to thank council member davis for recognizing what our vision was way back when. We asked the developers continuously and daily we want green space don't concrete over every inch of ground.


It was tough. But we had growth that was happening rapidly but we have the vision of open space and I appreciate you understand that we wanted it and we will retain most of it but there are some places we can look at that are steeper but, you know, to really understand is it really to the benefit of the citizens to have an open space as wide as this one here and all the -- and that won't go over everything again, but again, just wanted to say thank you to council member davis, appreciate you --  >> susan, do we have enough to go on to take a vote? >> I don't think we need to take a vote. >> can I ask for one additional point of clarification. Council member hume had mentioned addition apple between the eastern portion and the western portion of the grand parkway, the western portion being the fenced off one and the even portion one, when looking at the valuation, you wanted to look at western portion but weren't really clear on the eastern portion where there is a bigger sale. Can you clarify your direction on that side of the grand parkway? >> well, my first distinction is the drainage ditch versus what is a flat sale.


And I guess to adequately answer your question as far as where I'm coming down on it is looking at what is the use of that 100 foot swath. If it was going to be, you know, a small path area that has a certain meander and then essentially a buffer, landscaping buffer, then I would come back again and question the $225,000 per acre improvement cost of planting trees. If it's going to be larger landscaped maintained useable area, then we need to kind of look back more at that, and/or we look at, again, the 25 foot landscaped quarter that would normally be exacted and then something that would be --  excuse me -- comparable to what we have included on the west end as far as non-drainage component. Is that -- ? Is that close enough? >> Councilman Hume, I think [ Inaudible] Elk grove down to a 35 foot behind curve versus 100 foot curve. >> and that, I mean I would agree with that assessment and I would look at it even maybe perhaps for equitable over the specific plan is if you look at the landscape buffer that's being called out from the back of curb of the street to the drainage ditch component is a 25 foot typical landscape plus 15 foot. What I would be considered reimbursable for park land for a total of 40 feet which would be right in that size you're looking at.


>> and I believe that hasn't been dedicated yet so is there -- susan is there a possibility to adjust that as these maps come forward? >> we have irrevocable offers of dedication in conjunction -- the developers have put a king's x if you will on that land so they've lost the ability to develop that land. They said that we intend to dedicate it it just then becomes the city's responsibility to accept it once the conditions are met. So they have for all intents and purposes lost the ability to develop that land with those --  which is why that was the date selected for the valuation. Even if we haven't yet accepted it. >> is that something we have an option to go back and renegotiate on that? >> that was an agreement that was reached with the developers group quite a while ago, by quite a while ago I mean years ago.


The initial issue. I mean you can obviously do as a council is the ultimate decision maker in anything, but I would not encourage that. >> okay. . >>one last thing this is totally off topic if we end up with that 100 foot swath and put that meandering trail deep into the 100 feet rather than associated with the roadways so it does create a removed amenity which can be enjoyed away from traffic. >> we have concerns regarding law enforcement making sure you don't want it too far off the beaten path because obviously you have people that are out there doing bad things, so I think have you to balance that definitely. >> 100 feet behind curb is pretty far back considering the standard residential lot is 100 feet deep. . >> does staff have everything they need?


>> you have a motion and a second pending on that one so we don't need a motion on the continuation of the fee. >> okay. so a motion and a second all those in favor? >> yaye. >> opposed? So we're not going to go to the second motion then, had you? Huh?


The council then moved on to item #10 on their meeting agenda.




16 Responses »

  1. April 5, 2012 Planning Commission Staff Report on Agenda Item 4.2...99 Pages


    Memo: There were more meetings after the above mentioned one.

    • Thanks Norma, that was a very informative link. From that, I can see that there is some sense of urgency, on Pulte's part, to cancel the contract (since Storybook needed to be accepted by the city before the 501st building permit could otherwise be issued per 6.3.3, page 17 of the document).

  2. Most likely our grandchildren will be living here by the time that park is put in. :-) Need to get the facts and take it to the meeting, bring a personal lite to it. You can't do it alone.......when you have many in the community (Glenbrooke) behind you at those meetings, that's when they listen. JMHO

    • I know there are some other homeowners planning on going. You will have to post how the meeting went - I am scheduled to get a new knee on Monday will be out of action for awhile.

  3. New knee...maybe you should have gotten those rooster injections. LOL

    Most likely will go....lot of stuff going on this week and next week though.

  4. Info from doing a little digging & from memory of past city council meetings................

    This item is a request to rescind the "development agreements" with two developers requiring the builders fund and build parks within their respective developments. The council has entered into subsequent agreements with the builders to pay fees rather than require parks be built at certain levels of units being built. In order to finalize the new agreements, the old ones have to be rescinded.

    The parks will still be built, but since fees will be paid, the construction will be done through the CCSD parks department. My concern is, how will that effect the timing of the build out of the parks? Not sure where to go from here...maybe a meeting of the "minds" would be in order to see best way to proceed and fill that room up with Glenbrooke residents. 3 - 4 people and their attorney will eat you up.

    Oh yea,
    The new area off of Bilby; CUP; park doesn't have to be built until sometime after the last home is put in....will the city have collected enough money or will fees have to be collected from residents?

    The people who scream the loudest will most likely get their park put in first.

    That's the Reader's Digest version ...

  5. There were several meetings after the 2011...had to do some searching to find the FINAL...January 11, ( 2012)


  6. Had to do some searching...meetings PRIOR to the one posted above:

    April 13, 2011
    June 8, 2011
    September 14, 2011


    Lot of homework for someone!

  7. Thanks for all the pieces, Norma - that is a lot of work to research all that.
    We talked about this last night at Hand and Foot. Seems most resident's don't care if they cancel the prior agreement as long as the park is built and SOON. They are worried the new fees will go to "parks in the plan" and not necessarily Storybook park. It would go a long way if the city let us know their timeline for completion, not just "sooner rather than later"

  8. Something else interesting.....I see that our official web site has posted the Agenda item...most likely due to questions being asked about the letter we received. That being said, what happened to the GCA website only being allowed to post GCA business? While this involves Pulte, it has nothing to do with the HOA. I believe our HOA stepped over a line and should have guided residents to contact Mr. Jordan or Pulte. JMO

    Now...it may well be that many don't care if they cancel the agreement which is their right, but the rest of the comment just leaves me shakng my head. I SURRENDER!

  9. BTW...a few pictures of the standing water, weeds jackrabbit parties & what we see each day we leave our homes & drive down Del Webb or have coffee on the patio would cover a thousand words. Seeing is believing! JMHO

  10. Without commenting...much too involved, it would be best to watch the Video of the meeting which should be posted by tomorow afternoon sometime. Meeting went as I expected after emails and having a couple of conversations with planning today. There were 5 - 7 Glenbrooke residents present. Hope this works.............if not I'll give you another tomorrow.


  11. Tease.... any word on completion of park?

  12. LOL.........too lengthy to explain. In short, we are about a year late in being concerned about the parks being finished. Could even be that Pulte will have finished and moved on to bigger projects by the time the park is put in, leaving us a weedy sink hole and field of jackrabbits. (oh yea, and expansion) We do have ONE more chance in May when this will go before the city council to be finalized...so to speak.... but that will most likely take more than Glenbrooke has been willing to give so far...fill up the chambers & have a few speakers. May be too late, won't know until you try. Otherwise the community that screams the loudest to the city & CSD will get their park first----when money allows! That's the catch $$$. Could be 3-4 years. Time enough to put in our community garden and sell veggies on the roadside or maybe a mj grow would be more profitable.

  13. A little addition...The present set a agreements weren't being adhered to or enforced. If they had been we wouldn't have had to go through the exercise we went through last night. Hindsight tells me if folks effected when the parks weren't built per the agreements had gone to council to complain early on, there may have been some teeth to the agreements. No one went last night and if you don't think the city council knows this you are sadly mistaken. Oh, 5-7 people, that's nothing!

    Our son even got up and spoke for us...had to slap me some in doing it since he doesn't live here, but I did my work personally behind the scenes....one on one.

    That's my 2 cents and I'm off to big and better things.