AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ATTACHNIE ?� 8.A. - Page 83 � Page 1 . . . . .- - .,. .�.._ . . .. _ ... . ;:. . . .., . .. ... ._: ��,�� .: . ' : � _ . : � � � , � . . � . . . . :. . �T� tM.� H�o�c��e �l�:y�r �G�� u��: �� . � � � . � - � F�:��t��:::�� a�� - .:� � n��y � s, �aas sug.��c� Request f�r Financiaf Contribution #award the Pre�aration of an Emrironmenta� lmpact Report (E�R} for the Lauret Way Subd€visian RECOMM�HDATI�N Deciirre to cantribute funding toward EIR costs for the Laurel VIlay Subdi�isior� BACKGROl7ND The Laurel Way Jaint Ven#ure, which is comprised af most of#�e pr�perty owners who awn unde�eloped parcels on L.aurel Way, is proposing to develop the remaining vacar�t portion af the si�e consisting of 21 sir�gle family lofs, wh�ch wi�l be eonsolidated inta 18 single family lots. The developer has already depasited funds with the City �o t�egin processing planning ent'rtlemenfs, and a plant�ing consultant has begun preparation of th� Environmental �rnpact Report. AI! 6ut iwo of the property owners are participating and contributing in the Laurel Way Joint V�ntur�. The project de�eloper is seeking City funds to pay 18% ofi the costs of an Eff� for this project. In prior can�ersations w�th staff on this subject, staff h�s advised the project dev�loper �hat after ha�ng confierred with the C�y Attomey's Office, staff �tas na au�nrity to grant suc� a request. In 1988, the Gity Council establiahed a policy that an Envirortmental Impact Repart, incl�ding al[ r�ec�ssary t�cht�ical studies, be prepar�d �rior ta any new development on �.aurei Way. Tf�e EIR was to exarnine ti�e full bui�d-out of the street, and provide compreher�si�e inf�rmafian {engineering, geolagy, biolagy, �nd o#her studies) �ecessary to guide dedelopmen# an �aure� Way. The City po�icy represented a comprehensive appraach to examine the en�ironmental issues associated with de�elopment on �.aurel Way, and possibly eatabfish developmen# guidelines within that en�vironmental �ontext. The City wished to avpld "piecem�al deve�opme�t" of an area #�at had so many pla�r�ing, environmenta! and engineering-related challengas such as steep siapes, unstable soi�s, heavy �egefiation, etc. The City Council reaffirmed #his policy severa� times as individual pro�ect �Iar�s were submitted to the City from 1988 to 199�. On Septem�er 16, 7998, t�e City Cour�cil upheld a Planr�ing Cammission denial for four variances far a proposed singie family I�ome an L.aur�l Way. By so do�n� the City Council upheld #he policy of first prepari�,g an EIR prior to any deveiapment on Laurel Way. Further, the Gi"fy C�unc�l directed staff to expiore alternative rnechanisms far funding an EIR, wi�h the possibility of the City con�ribt�ting a partion of the Ell� costs. On October 28, 1996, as an i►��ormat�onal item, staff presented a r�po�t with respect ta alternative mechanisms fior funding the EIR. In summary, the staff said and the Council rJetermined fhak if there was a ��luntary effort shown by #he property owners to �ay for the EtR, and if a detailed financing plan were submi#ted to ar�d appro�ed by the City Council, then �e City would be wiiiing to cor�sider participa#ion up #p a max�mum of 18°!a ofthe total casts o#fhe EfR. The maximum 'I8% contribution was based on #h� p�blic rig�t of way being approximat�ly 18% a�f the entire su�division. Approval ofany detailed financing plan would