Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 325 <br />•-� <br />ATTAC0VRT -,8.A. - Page 83 • <br />Page 1 <br />IBM <br />Aileig <br />May 18, 2009 <br />SUBJ r <br />Raqueat for Financial Contribution toward the Preperation of an Environmental impact <br />Report (EIR) for the Laurel Way Subdivision <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Decline to contribute funding toward EIR costs for the laurel Way Subdivision <br />BAcKaRoUND <br />The Laurel Vft Joint Venture, which Is cornprlsed of moss cfthepmperty&m wms wino own <br />undeveloped paroele on Laurel Way, is propasing to develop the remalrft vacant portion <br />ofthe side consleting of 21 single family lots, which w#I beaonsoMeted into 18 sing1sfamtiy <br />lots. The developw has a Inredy deposited funds with the City to begin processing planning <br />wMemente, and a planning consultant has begun preparation of Me Environmental <br />Irnpact Report All but two of the property owma are partiicipating and oontributing in the <br />Laurel Way Joint Venture. The project developer Is seeking City funds to pay 18% of the <br />costs of an EiR for this project. In prior conversations with stofi on this subject, staff has <br />advised the protect d kgw than after hawrg co kred with the City Attorney's Office, <br />stair has no authority to grant such a request. <br />In 1988, the City Council establish a policy that an Environnn+ental Impact Report, <br />Including all necessary technical studies, be prepared prior to any new development on <br />Laurel Way. The EIR was to exitmirte tate full build -out of the sine, and pmvWo <br />conVrehensive information (engineering, geology, biology, and other studide) rtaoesWN to <br />guided neat on Laurel Way. The Cllr poky represented a cornprohmWa <br />approach to examine the envim runental isseees amciatsd with development on Laurel <br />Vfty, and possibly sstabl sh develcpmi guidelines wit n that environmental context. The <br />City wish to avoid Wmerneal development" of an arae had so many planning, <br />environmental and engineering -related chellenpe such as steep slopes, unstable solls, <br />heavy v%eWon, etc. The City Council reaffirmed this poky several times as indkWuatl <br />pivioct plans were submitted to the City from 1 tiM88 to 19N. <br />On September 113, 199e, the City Council upheld a planning Commission denial for four <br />verlowas for e. proposed single family hone on Laurel Way. By so doing the City Council <br />upheld the policy of first preparing an EIR prior to any development on Laurel VVay. <br />Further, the City Council directed staff to explore aftmative mechanitmo for funding an <br />EIIR, WO lite possibility of the idly conM ming a portion of the EIR costs. On October 28, <br />1988. as an informational darn, staff pmeented a raport with roved to ahem dW* <br />mechanisms for funding the EIR. In summa ry, the staff said and the Council determined <br />than if blare was it voluntary effort shown by the property ownem th pay ibrthe EIR, and If a <br />detailed financing plan ware submitted two and approved by the City Council, thein ft City <br />wouldbevAllingtoconsidr participation up to a maximum of 189 of time total costa of" <br />EIR. The maximum 18% contribution was based on the public right of way being <br />approxirrtately 18% of the entre subdivision. Approval of any detailed financing plan would <br />