HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1995 0607 CC REG ITEM 11NJ '>
ITEMIL6 N.!_
AGENDA
CITY OF MOORPARK
TO: Honorable Mayor and Ci
y C'ounc i 1
FROM: Jim R. Aguilera, Direc° 7j of Community Development
DATE: April 6, 1995 (CC meet:ic.
Meeting of 4/19/95) of F,'7/95 continued from CC
SUBJECT: Consider amending Counc:_1 policy regarding
the method used to select and hire P,.q�p�'� CAUFQRf ;
environmental consul tar;.t �fi^9
s
for specific plans of ;>
�5
- -- - - -- - -- � 199
Background:
During the General Plan process, the Council amended the
City practice regarding the method used for the selection and
employment of environmental consul.tant.s. It had been the practice
that the City conducted the selection process and hired the
consultant with funds provided by -he developer. This practice is
still followed for non specific p_ar projects such as Bollinger.
The process was changed in oz(ler tc, allow the specific plan
applicants the ability to choose whether they would follow the
existing practice or they would o t t:.
consultant themselves. Since the p;::)ii- :- y hrevisilon, theoapplicant
for Specific Plan No. 8 has elect.ecl
practice and the applicant for S,e,,, :if t =;) fC _ 11ow our previous
hire their own consultant pursuant P_Lan No. 1 has elected to
-he new Council policy.
Two other specific plans have s:i(:)wn a interest in filing an
application (No. 2 -JBR and No. 9- Braemar /Moorpark Unified School
District). Given no direction to t'rte contrary, staff will allow
each applicant to Choose the se L
wish. ec ;_� r az -u-1 employment method they
The Community Development C120=,:ttee ;Lawrason \Perez)
reviewed the policy at their meeti:,4 of 4/6%95 and directed staff
to place this item on the Council ',4enda fcr further
consideration. The Committee discusion did not reach consensus
for exclusive use of either option 1he Committee thought that
the choice as to which. selection, arcs i:iring process could be made
by the City Council upon request' t. 1e
specific plan. The Council could o t WeapplfacatnttouPiocess a
each project in determi ri ing the orc _3! ; r _
)e fo] lowed.
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 ;f keeping control over the
environmental process. They are:
The EIR is a document that s 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 cont.aclled the process, there should
be no reason to find the document; non - certifiable except for
reasons beyond our control lack of money from the
applicant to fund the prc.ces )
Staff believes that there al.: ;c exists an issue of public
perception, that if the City does does not control the process
and the document, that the applicant has somehow been
scrutinized to a lesser degi =e eves
document. - f it is a well prepared
The City is also powerless t.c-
hiring consultants
prevent an applicant from
of questi
ri,ble ethics and capabilities.
It is certainly possible to r,.a�'e
process and also have
an applicant control the
a compe-'ent.
the aforementioned issues be
document without any of
also believes that it is
,zcr a factor. However, staff
•i n tJiE
have the City manage the
applicant's best interest to
procfeEs.
statement is that the City, L;
The rationale behind this
corrections" as the document
constantly makin g "course
is less time consuming than t;
c
jve"
This
°ae alter:latgve.
applicant manages the process
document which
WWhenothes
;gaff gill be given a
may be complet
participation. The comments
;.rat wi,.h little City input or
for;
be so severe that it would
staff at this point could
Of funds and time on the City
-An enormous expenditure
�;
These time and money losses c
;end the applicant's part.
staff representatives of tE
z,ca have been avoid
been avoided if the
certify the EIR, were inti;ie
(whc, are expected to
process. Unfortunate) g
y, st,af_
"�'r`''ved through the
u1
problem were r. occur, the app
-;� : =xpect that if this
cant
blame on the C. -ty for delayin,
. rright resort to placing
°tie
we think the applicants rat:"'
pzc:cess. Interestingly,
process is bec =fuse they be. Le
i_i fcr wanting to manage the
money.
e} v ari sae time and
Finally, given that the a
their Specific Plan PPii =ant will continue to control
the EIR document preand wi._l be consistently involved in
paration., staff asserts that the
applicant's desire to have <� certifiable document in as
expeditious time as possibly
manner. "i7.a nct be compromised in any
Report Status Since 4/19/95:
The City Council discussed ttiis issue on 4/19/95 and decided
to continue this item to the Councia
meeting of 4/19/95, staff has beer, informedgbyf 6/7/95. Since the
(Specific Plan No. 2 representative; Y to s to old
City hire,at his expense, the that he intends to have the
EIR and the specific plan. , °n �.z t ants which will
produce the
Recommendation:
Direct staff as deemed approx.;-iate.