AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 85 = Page 3 1977 for En�iranmenta! Impact Repvrts. S+ection 4(b} of �#�e Gu�delines speci�cally state: "For a project wh�ch requires the �reparativn of �n en►rirs�nmenta! impact repor#, an APPLICANT SHALL PAY the ACTUAL COST OF PREPAi�ATION ther�af as hereinafter providecf." �n ligh# of t�e lack of s#aff or �ity Counc�l discussion (tluring the 4ctober 2$, 199� City Council discussian af Cify contribution to E!R costs} with resp�ct to the �uirernenfs set fortF� in the abov� resolution ar CEQA G�idefines mandating that appticar�ts pay th� costs of EIRs, it is Iikefy that the City Council was simply unaware that r�o authority existed for public funds to be used to offset the costs �f preparing an EIR for pr��ate projects. Clearly, had the City Councfl been made aware of the estab�ished oE�li�ation of applicants o€ private projeGts to pay the en#ire costs for the preparatian o�F E1Rs and #he Cr�y Counci� desir�d to consider circumsta�ces in which p�blic contri�utions eould be made, further amendment of Reso��tian fi$82 and the CEQA G�idelines cquld �tave been ordered. The staff recommenda#ion of a c'rty cantributian vf up to a maximum of 18% was based an the r�ation tha# approximately �# 8°/b of the suhdi�ision wo�Jd be comprised of public right-af- way, In fac#, i# is clear naw that t�e public right�of-way discussed in �996 is in ac#uality to E�e a privafe street. Mareo�er, staff belie�es there is no unusuaf, special ar extraordinary p�ab�ic benefit to be derived �ram this project. Further, t1�e 1998 affer by the city �o consider cnntributing up to a maximum of 'IS°/a of the costs of an EIR was subject to the preparation and submissiar� of a defailed itnar�cing plan which would then be considered by t�e Ciiy Council at a subsequent pr�6�ic �earir�g. No such �nartcing plan F�as e�er heen s�tl�mftted to r�or #�as any pub�ic hearing b��n held by fF�e City Council €qr consideratian. Staff is recommer�ding that Council deny t�is regues� bas�d or� the followi�tg: i. There is no au#horizat�an for publi� f�nds to be used to ofFset the obligation of a project prc�ponent to pay the fees refated to �reparation of an EIR; z. The Ci#y's CEQA guidelines da#�c� May 23, 9 977, speci�ically state that the applican# si�all psy tMe actuai cvst of preparatipn of an EI R; 3. The 1996 Laut�� Way discussion was intended #o encaurage the neighbors to �ni#iate an organized pl�nning effart and develop � financing p�an at that time to hetp pay fo� the EIR which ciearly did rtot occur; �. Since 'I99fi the City has restructured the fiee and depasit system for Planning permit review and processing for projects witf� a land area greater �ha� %� acre. Based on this requir�men#, the prajecfi applic�nts are su�ject #o funding a!f c�nsultant and sfaff costs just f�ke afl afher projects which meet #hese criteria. 5. The City should no# se� precedentfor s�bsidizing #he processit�g a# pri�ate developmerrf for-profi� appficatians. ALT�RNATIVES Direct staff to amend Resofutiar� fi882 and the GEQA Guidelines in ord�r #o allow Ciiy �ir�ancial participatian in certain specified private prajects. �iSCAL i�GIPAC�' There wil� b� no fiscai impac� if t�e City Co�tncil adopts staff's recommendation. However, there would be a fiscaf impact ofi at least $28,766 if the City Caur�cil amer�ds Resolutian fi882 and tf�� CEQA Guidelir�es ar�d a�proves �he EIR contribut�on toward #he i..aurel Way