CC Min 1996-09-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Senior Planner Passanisi displayed overheads of Laurel Way and explained staff's recommendation to deny the appeal and reconfirm the Council policy requiring an EIR of the entire area. Senior Planner Passanisi discussed funding alternatives for an EIR, including an assessment district, reimbursement agreement or a City contribution. He said the real issue before the Council was whether the City wanted to grant approvals and variances without having the benefit of an EIR, and the staff believed it should not. Mayor Hartnett said he agreed that the main issue was granting approvals without an EIR. He asked if there was a precedent whereby the City advanced funds for an EIR under some reimbursement arrangement if the project was built. Planner Passanisi said the normal case was to have the developer deposit those funds with the City and the City hire the appropriate consultants to conduct the EIR. City Attorney Schricker said "local CEQA regulations provide that for private projects the project proponent must pay for the improvements, and conversely a City project is paid for by the City. I'm not aware of any combined projects." City Attorney Schricker referred to the Lido project on the agenda, saying it is a private project which has public facilities which will be dedicated to the City, and in that case the EIR was paid for solely by the project proponent in accordance with local regulations. In response to the question whether the City would be precluded ITom paying for some of the EIR, City Attorney Schricker said "If you find a public purpose, a municipal purpose for the expenditure, then it is valid." Mayor Hartnett asked "Would we be precluded ITom paying for the EIR.... Is there a vehicle for us to recoup the costs of doing so in a unilateral fashion?" Could the City say "our next step is an EIR, we'll pay for it but, nothing happens after that unless there is some binding way of getting the money back?" City Attorney Schricker said "the only legal way that you do it unilaterally is to use the reimbursement assessment district type of proceeding... because, the parties who would benefit, presumably would be the other property owners ITonting on Laurel Way or the extension that would be covered by the EIR. You do not have the legal authority as a condition on your own volition to make the expenditures for an EIR and then unilaterally say, ok when you come to the City... you have to pay your share of that. You have to give the owner an opportunity to be heard before you impose that expenditure on him, so you would have to go through a process that we have in our Code.... such as our reimbursement agreement proceeding which is very much akin to an assessment proceeding with a hearing, determin(ing) what the costs would be, and after the hearing, overruling protests." Councilman Leipzig asked what was the difference between the current application and the one brought before the Council in 1985 having to do with the Hatfield property. City Attorney Schricker advised that "the Hatfield application together with the adjoining owner... The City Council at that time granted the application of Hatfield and the same night denied the application of the property now shown as Montandon REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 MINUTES Page No. 477 PAGE 12