3_Exhibit C - Laserfiche WebLink

Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less-than-significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant. Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR. CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the Project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b).) With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Go/eta ll, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.) These findings constitute the City Council members' best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final SEIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City hereby binds itself to implement these measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City Council adopts a resolution approving the Project. I. No or Less Than Significant Impacts Without Mitigation Based on the discussion in Sections 4 and 6.E of the Draft SEIR, and other supporting information in the record, the City Council finds that the Project would have no or a less than significant impact associated with the specific issues identified below. As a result, no mitigation measures were determined to be needed to address the following: 1. Aesthetics The Project would not significantly damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. (Draft SEIR, pp. 4.A-15 to 4.A-16; Impact 4.A-2.) The Project would not significantly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Planning Area. (Draft SEIR, pp. 4.A-17 to 4.A-19; Impact 4.A-3.)