AgdaPkt 2009-05-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~~~.~--,<~^ 6.1F Page 3 1977 for Environmental Impact Reports. Section 4 (b) of the Guidelines specifically state: "For a project which requires the preparation of an environmental impact report, an APPLICANT SHALL PAY the ACTUAL COST OF PREPARATION thereof as hereinafter provided. tt In light of the lack of staff or City Council discussion (during the October 28; 1996 City Council discussion of City contribution to EIR costs) with respect to the requirements set forth in the above resolution or CECA Guidelines mandating that applicants pay the costs of EIRs, it is likely that the City Council was simply unaware that no authority existed for public funds to be used to offset the costs of preparing an EIR for private projects. Clearly, had the City Council been made aware of the established obligation of applicants of private projects to pay the entire costs for the preparation of EIRs and the City Council desired to consider circumstances in which public contributions could be made, further amendment of Resolution 6882 and the CECA Guidelines could have been ordered. The staff recommendation of a city contribution of up to a maximum of 18% was based on the notion that approximately 180/0 of the subdivision would be comprised of publiC right-of- way. In fact, it is clear now that the public right-of-way discussed in 1996 is in actuality to be a private street. Moreovert staff believes there is no unusual, special or extraordinary public benefit to be derived from this project. Further, the 1996 offer by the city to consider contributing up to a maximum of 18% of the costs of an EIR was subject to the preparation and submission of a detailed financing plan which would then be considered by the City Council at a subsequent public hearing. No such financing plan has ever been submitted to nor has any public hearing been held by the City Council for consideration. Staff is recommending that Council deny this request based on the following: 1. There is no authorization for public funds to be used to offset the obligation of a project proponent to pay the fees related to preparation of an EIR; 2. The City's CECA guidelines dated May 23, 1977, specifically state that the applicant shall pay the actual cost of preparation of an EIR; 3. The 1996 Laurel Way discussion was intended to encourage the neighbors to initiate an organized planning effort and develop a financing plan at that time to help pay for the EIR which clearly did not occur; 4. Since 1996 the City has restructured the fee and deposit system for Planning permit review and processing for projects with a land area greater than % acre. Based on this requirement, the project applicants are subject to funding all consultant and staff costs just like all other projects which meet these criteria. 5. The City should not set precedent for subsidizing the processing of private development for-profit applications. ALTERNATIVES Direct staff to amend Resolution 6882 and the CEQA Guidelines in order to allow City financial participation in certain specified private projects. FISCAL IMPACT There will be no fiscal impact if the City Council adopts staffs recommendation. However. there would be a fiscal impact of at least $28,766 if the City Council amends Resolution 6882 and the CEQA Guidelines and approves the EIR contribution toward the Laurel Way