Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A - ATTACHMENT NO.2 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />(2) Providing contact information for the agency, and <br /> <br />(3) Identifying the nature of the agency's jurisdiction or permitting authority, and <br />describing briefly the standards or policies governing the agency's decision <br />whether to issue permits for the project. 1 <br /> <br />In the course of this analysis, we also make recommendations regarding ways in <br />which the environmental review process might proceed under the California <br />Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Cal. Pub. Resources Code, ~ 21000 et seq.) in the <br />event the City decides to move forward. <br /> <br />EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <br /> <br />Most agencies have permitting authority that focuses on particular resources or <br />aspects of the project; such authority does not extend to the project as a whole, or involve <br />the broad exercise of discretion or forging of land-use policy. Where such authority does <br />reach a significant portion of the project, or involves the broad exercise of discretion, we <br />note that fact, and devote more attention to the nature of the permitting authority of those <br />agencIes. <br /> <br />At this point in the process, we cannot predict how stakeholder agencies will <br />exercise their permitting authority. We cannot identify agencies that are likely to deny <br />permits, or speculate about the conditions or mitigation measures the agencies will attach <br />to their permits. We can, however, summarize briefly the nature of the discretion the <br />agencies will have in making those decisions. <br /> <br />No agency has discretion as broad as that of the City of Redwood City itself. <br />Indeed, of all the agencies with jurisdiction over the project, the City has the broadest <br />authority to consider, weigh, and balance competing policy concerns. Likewise, the City <br />has the broadest authority to decide whether to approve, modify, or disapprove the <br />application. For the project to proceed, the City must amend the land-use element of its <br />General Plan to authorize the uses proposed by DMB. In exercising its discretion <br />regarding whether to amend its General Plan, the City is relying on its basic police power <br />and, as such, is acting with maximum range of discretion. (Gov. Code, ~ 65800; <br />Birkenfield v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Ca1.3d 129, 140; Village of Belle Terre v. <br />Boraas (1974) 416 U.S. 1, 9.) <br /> <br />1 / This analysis is based on: (1) the application and related information submitted to the <br />City by DMB in May 2009, (2) independent research regarding the laws and regulations <br />applicable to agencies with jurisdiction over the project, (3) guidance or policy documents <br />adopted by those agencies, (4) correspondence provided to us by those agencies or by the City, <br />and (5) meetings or telephone calls with agency and DMB representatives. The analysis reflects <br />information obtained as of the date of this memorandum. <br /> <br />2 <br />