2008 RES R-01-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23I 24 25 26 27 28 completely or reduced to a level of insignificance ... if such would render the project unfeasible").) 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. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subds. (a), (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." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal. 3d at p. 576.) The City has determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, the PEIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings on the Project, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the Project are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; or (2) potentially significant and each of these impacts will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified mitigation measures; or (3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation measures. SECTION II RESOLUTION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as "less than significant" and where no mitigation is required. These findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the PEIR in this Section II. The Project would result in less than significant adverse impacts on a number of environmental issues. In addition, Project compliance with existing City, County, special district, State, or federal regulations would prevent the generation of significant adverse impacts. Thus, the City hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and do not require the imposition of mitigation measures: A. Aesthetics• Potential Impact: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (PEIR page 4-5) Finding: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. (PEIR pages 4-5) �