HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 0419 CC REG ITEM 11JAGENDA
CITY OF MOORPARK
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jim R. Aguilera, Director of Community Developmeri
DATE: April 6, 1995 (CC Meeting of 4/19/95)
SUBJECT: Consider amending Council policy regarding the method
used to select and hire environmental consultants for
specific plans
Background:
ITEM A T. ,1
City Council rvico i
ry.
mi r l/ 1991
ACTION:'
A/
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 (LawrasonlPerez) 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.
00158
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.
00159
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.
Recommendation:
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
00160