Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 327 <br />B.A. - Page 85 <br />Page 3 <br />1977 for Environmental Impact Reports. Section 4 (b) offhe Gtddelines specifically state: <br />I or a project which requires the preparation of an environmental Impact nap A an <br />APPLICANT $HALL. PAY the ACTUAL COST OF PREPARATION thereof as <br />hereinafter provided.' <br />In W of the lack of staff or City Council discussion (during the October 28, t99B City <br />Council dlscuesfon of City contribution to EIR costs) with respect to the requirements sat <br />forth in the above resolution or CEQA Guidelines nondating thtst applicants pay the costs <br />of EIRS, It is likely that the City Council was slrrtply unaware that no authority existed for <br />public funds to be used to oftet the casts of preparing an EIR fbrprivrate projects. Clearly. <br />had the City Council been made e:ware of the established obllgathn ofapplicsnts of private <br />projects to pay the entire casts for the preparadon of EIRs and the City Council desired to <br />considercircumstances In which pubitc contributions could be made, further ameadmard of <br />Resolution 6W2 and the CEQA Guidelines could have been ordered. <br />The staff recommendation of a city cont ft0on of up to a nwdmum of 18% based on <br />the notion that appy oxirnately 18% of the subdivision would be comprised of public rWM-of- <br />way. In fad, it is clear now that the public right -sway dlscusw in 1IM is in actuality to <br />be a pirate street. Moreover, staff bellevw there is no unusual, special or extraordinary <br />public benefit to be derived from this profit. 1"urtheG the 1958 offer by the oily to wider <br />contributing up to a maximum of 18% ofthe coats of an EIR was subject toThe pmparaftn <br />and submission of a detailed financing plan which would then be oansidered by the Cly <br />Coundl ata subsequent public Imerfng. No such financing plan has ave been submitted <br />to nor has mw public hearing been held by the City Councii for oonsideraifon. <br />Staff Is recommending that Council deny this request based on the following: <br />1. There is no authorisation for public funds to be used to offset the own of a projed <br />proponent to pay the fees related to preparation of an EIR; <br />. The CWa CEQA gLddelines datsal May 23, 1977, speclfiCait state that the app&wi <br />shall pay the aatuai cost of pWarstion of an EIR; <br />s. The 1988 Laurel Way discussion was Intended to ermum 9e the neighbors to ird" <br />an organhmd planning effort and develop a finenc:ing plan at that One to help pay for <br />the EIR which clearly did not occur; <br />4. Sinoe I M the City has restructured the fee and deposit system for Planning permit <br />review and processing for projects with a land area greater then %acre. Based on this <br />requirement, the project applicants are sulajed to funding all consultant and staff costs <br />just hike aft other projects which tneet Own criteria. <br />s. The City should not set preoedentfcr subsidizing the processing of pdva* deveio;Mnt <br />for-pro8t applications. <br />Ar rEmTmn <br />Direct staff to amend Resolution 6882 and the CEQA Guidelines In order to allow Ctiy <br />fvtancdel participation in certain specified private projects. <br />Frame, ImpAcr <br />There will be no fiscal impact if the City Council adopts staffs recomrmndatio n. However, <br />there would be a fiscal impact of at least $28,766 if Me City Council amands Resolutim <br />6882 and the CEQA Guidelines and approves the EIR oorddbuWn tov and the Laurel Way <br />