pf07-021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�+ i � to exempt it from further review. If not, the RGU would have the option of updating the AUAR to account for this project, or review this praject separately in an EAW. The updating of the AUAR would also be a way to address the five year requirement at the same time as changing it to account for this project. It also appears that part of the issue that needs satisfactory resolution is the basis upon which the decision to require azi EAW is made by the city. The EQB rules do not dictate the manner of that decision; that is a local matter. The form of the decision that the rules prescribe is a record of decision including finding of facts that lead to the conclusion of ordering an EAW. An RGU may exercise that authority through the operation of decision made by a board or council (city council, planning commission or other) or delegate that authority to single individual (mayor, city manager, planning director, or city � development coordinator}. Most cities retain that authority to the city council and the decisinn-is frequentl}� �xpressed as a resolution or motion of the council. Based on the limited information in your letter, it seems probable that the RGU does have the discretionary authority to order envirorunental review of this project; and furthertnore at its discretion, decide if that zeview should be an EAW or be covered in the AUAR. Although it appears that the city has communicated to you that an EAW is necessary, it isn't possible to say, from your letter, how that decision was made. That may be an issue that you will need to clarify with the city. EQB rules do not specify how the decision is made or who makes it; only the basis of the decision as found in the rules. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to call or have any of the parties from the city call with further questions. My number is 651-201-2477 Sincerely, 9.� Jon Larsen, Principal Planner