HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 0705 CC REG ITEM 11C190. i
\R
ITEM Ill, Coo
AGENDA
CITY OF MOORPARK
,OROArRK, CAL11`0�.N -'
`1y Council Meetng
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council -
F,C710
FROM: Jim R. Aguilera, Director of Community Develo p me
''��55/
f �•7`-�
DATE: April 6, 1995 (CC meeting of 6/7/95 continued fvm CC
Meeting of 4/19/95) du U�
SUBJECT: Consider amending Council policy regarding MOORPAW. CALFORNIA
the method used to select arid'4iTtW,. CF° q Map
environmental consultants forClk�e)W- ''pla of 199.6
f 799
ACTION: ,u -7!�5 • � � � /® �r
Background:
W.F#P
During the General Plan process, the Council amended the
City practice regarding the method used for the selection and
employment of environmental consultants. It had been the practice
that the City conducted the selection process and hired the
consultant with funds provided by the developer. This practice is
still followed for non specific plan projects such as Bollinger.
The process was changed in order to allow the specific plan
applicants the ability to choose whether they would follow the
existing practice or they would opt to hire the environmental
consultant themselves. Since the policy revision, the applicant
for Specific Plan No. 8 has elected to follow our previous
practice and the applicant for Specific Plan No. 1 has elected to
hire their own consultant pursuant to the new Council policy.
Two other specific plans have shown a interest in filing an
application (No. 2 -JBR and No. 9- Braemar /Moorpark Unified School
District). Given no direction to the contrary, staff will allow
each applicant to choose the selection and employment method they
wish.
The Community Development Committee (Lawrason \Perez)
reviewed the policy at their meeting of 4/6/95 and directed staff
to place this item on the Council agenda for further
consideration. The Committee discussion did not reach consensus
for exclusive use of either option. The Committee thought that
the choice as to which selection and hiring process could be made
by the City Council upon request of the applicant to process a
specific plan. The Council could then weigh factors unique to
each project in determining the process to be followed.
0016.5
Staff's View:
Staff has discussed this issue, and found that there were
several factors which we considered in our deliberations that
prompted us to favor the option of keeping control over the
environmental process. They are:
The EIR is a document that is expected to be certified by
the City. If we do not agree with its contents then we have
an obligation to not certify the EIR. This places the City
in an adversarial position with the applicant, in public.
Conversely, if the City controlled the process, there should
be no reason to find the document non - certifiable except for
reasons beyond our control (e.g. lack of money from the
applicant to fund the process).
Staff believes that there also exists an issue of public
perception, that if the City does not control the process
and the document, that the applicant has somehow been
scrutinized to a lesser degree even if it is a well prepared
document.
The City is also powerless to prevent an applicant from
hiring consultants of questionable ethics and capabilities.
It is certainly possible to have an applicant control the
process and also have a competent document without any of
the aforementioned issues being a factor. However, staff
also believes that it is in the applicant's best interest to
have the City manage the process. The rationale behind this
statement is that the City is constantly making "course
corrections" as the document moves through the process. This
is less time consuming than the alternative. When the
applicant manages the process, staff will be given a
document which may be complete but with little City input or
participation. The comments from staff at this point could
be so severe that it would require an enormous expenditure
of funds and time on the City's and the applicant's part.
These time and money losses could have been avoided if the
staff representatives of the City (who are expected to
certify the EIR) were intimately involved through the
process. Unfortunately, staff would expect that if this
problem were to occur, the applicant might resort to placing
blame on the City for delaying the process. Interestingly,
we think the applicants rationale for wanting to manage the
process is because they believe they can save time and
money.
00 t6$
Finally, given that the applicant will continue to control
their Specific Plan, and will be consistently involved in
the EIR document preparation, staff asserts that the
applicant's desire to have a certifiable document in as
expeditious time as possible will not be compromised in any
manner.
Report Status Since 4/19/95:
The City Council discussed this issue on 4/19/95 and decided
to continue this item to the Council meeting of 6/7/95. Since the
meeting of 4/19/95, staff has been informed by Mr. Greynald
(Specific Plan No. 2 representative) that he intends to have the
City hire,at his expense, the consultants which will produce the
EIR and the specific plan.
Recommendation:
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
00'937