HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 0621 CC REG ITEM 11EAGENDA
CITY OF MOORPARK
TO: Honorable Mayor and Cit•� '-ounciL
FROM: Jim R. Aguilera, Directir :)f Community
ITEMA, E L
,Or. ?ARK. CAUFC' -' _
'-;ty Council Meeting
199,1
'.CTION
Developme
DATE: April 6, 1995 (CC meeti.,.g of 6/7/95 continued from CC
Meeting of 4/19/95)
SUBJECT: Consider amending Council policy regarding t00011PARK, CALIFORNG
the method used to select and hire p IM"&V
environmental consultants for specific plans of 1995
Background:
Ry "'U �
During the General Plan process, the Council amended the
City practice regarding the method , ,ised 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 pyaa projects such as Bollinger.
The process was changed in cider tc allow the specific plan
applicants the ability to choose wht_he:r they would follow the
existing practice or they would opt co hire the environmental
consultant themselves. Since the policy revision, the applicant
for Specific Plan. No. 8 has elected o fc,llow our previous
practice and the applicant for Specific 'Lan No. 1 has elected to
hire their own consultant pursuant the new Council policy.
Two other specific plans havc- shown ,:a interest in filing an
application (No. -JBR and No. a >=r.aemar /Moorpark Unified School
District) . Given no direction tt th:� contrary, staff will allow
each applicant t - ho7)se the se [e: t L )r: and employment method they
wish.
The Community Development. ConmI--tee Lawrason \Perez)
reviewed the policy at their meetinj of 4'6/95 and directed staff
to place this item on the Council _ a Benda f_or further
consideration. The Committee di.scts3i,: .Dn .1�d not reach consensus
for exclusive usef _either optic:,z. The - ommittee thought that
the choice as to iii i c select c)ri rl i hi r i ilg process could be made
by the City Counc;_! u�)on request_ f he applicant to process a
specific plan. he C'oi.,nci.l could i ti ?n weigh factors unique to
each project in i-r, -ri ining thEE� x 1 �De followed.
00165
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 w =.th its contents then we have
an obligation to not certify :-Yie EIR. This places the City
in an adversarial position wi Y. 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 contro:i (e c. Lack of money from the
applicant t c:) fund the process= ,
Staff believes that there also exists an issue of public
perception, that if the City aces not control the process
and the document, that the applicant has somehow been
scrutinized t_:, a Lesser degr(- mover: document. it is a well prepared
The City is also powerless to prevent an applicant from
hiring consultants of questicra.:)le et -tics and capabilities.
It is certainly possible to Yip ;v, an applicant control the
process and also have a competeit document without any of
the aforementioned issues being a fact -or. However, staff
also believes that it is in the appli(: ,'ant's best interest to
have the City manage the procF:s: The rationale behind this
statement is that the City I S making "course
c n
orrections" as the documet �.es r_-:h-ir-ough the process. This
is less time consuming thaa-, t ,� a:]_te.rt ative . When the
applicant manages t=he process, :staff V,r_ill be given a
document which may be complet, t,ur with little City input or
participation. The comment. 3 f,)r. staff at this point could
be so severe that _,t would re:.x_rF an enormous expenditure
of funds and time on the City and iYe applicant's part.
These time and money losses c.d havE been avoided if the
staff represent ati_ves of the t, y (wh(c: are expected to
certify the EI:R.; were intimate _I inv(d ved through the
process. Unfortunately, st,if f "c ul d (expect hat if this
problem were t;) occur, the apY ica.nt rright. resort to placing
blame on the City for delayi.n,_t r he p7 ; ;ess . Interestingly,
we think the applicants rat i> 'c >7 wanting to manage the
process is bec ci: ;e
money. they ne the}
31- t ime and
0(1166
Finally, given that the appli &.nt will continue to control
their Specific Plan, and will ke consistently involved in
the EIR document preparation, staff: asserts that the
applicant's desire to have a :,Ert.ifiable document in as
expeditious time as possible will. not be compromised in any
manner.
Report Status Since 4/19/95:
The City Council discussed th__s issue on 4/19/95 and decided
to continue this item to the Counc-..l 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 consul--ants ,which will produce the
EIR and the specific r :l.an..
Recommendation:
Direct staff as deemed appropriate.
0 01 C.7