City Council

24. \nCITY CONTRIBUTION, RESOLUTION OF INTENTION AND\nRESOLUTION PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S\nREPORT FOR PROPOSED UNDERGROUND UTILITY ASSESSMENT\nDISTRICT 2021-3 (FAIRVIEW/LA BREA)\nRecommendations:\n(a) Adopt the Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL\nOF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS\nINTENTION TO ORDER THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN\nIMPROVEMENTS AND TO FORM UNDERGROUND UTILITY\nASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2021-3 (FAIRVIEW/LA BREA) AND\nFINDING THE SAME EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA\nENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT”;\n(b) Adopt the Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL\nOF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PRELIMINARILY\nADOPTING, CONFIRMING, AND APPROVING THE ENGINEER’S\nREPORT AND APPOINTING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING\nPROTESTS TO IMPROVEMENTS IN PROPOSED UNDERGROUND\nUTILITY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2021-3 (FAIRVIEW/LA BREA)\nAND FINDING THE SAME EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA\nENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT”;\n(c) Appoint the January 13, 2026, City Council Meeting for a public hearing\nregarding proposed Underground Utility Assessment District 2021-3;\n(d) Acknowledge the intent to contribute $474,580 for the General Benefit\ncost, if the district is approved, and prior to bonds being sold;\n(e) Consider the request from the Fairview/La Brea proponents for the\nadditional City Contribution toward a public safety benefit of\nundergrounding the neighborhood located near open space;\n(f) Direct staff to return with a funding strategy if an additional contribution\nis approved above the General Benefit; and\n(g) Determine that the action is exempt from the California Environmental\nQuality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines sections 15301(b), 15302(c) & (d),\nand 15303(d); and further that this action implements the December 4, 2024\nPlanning Commission action, wherein the City previously conducted\nenvironmental review of the proposed undergrounding project and\ndetermined that the project was exempt and there are no changes to the\nproject, no changed circumstances, and no new information that could not\npreviously have been known, that would trigger the need for subsequent\nCEQA review.