My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
55C - ALTON AVE OVERCROSSING @ SR 55
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2005
>
10/17/2005
>
55C - ALTON AVE OVERCROSSING @ SR 55
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 4:51:04 PM
Creation date
10/12/2005 12:34:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Item #
55C
Date
10/17/2005
Destruction Year
2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Draft Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (applies to CEQA only) <br /> <br />9.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS <br /> <br />In cases in which significant impacts are not at least "substantially mitigated," the lead agency, <br />after adopting the findings, may approve the project if it first adopts a statement of overriding <br />considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's <br />"benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (State eEQA <br />Guidelines, SS 15093, 15043, subd. [b].) The California Supreme Court has stated that, "[t]he <br />wisdom of approving. . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of <br />interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents <br />who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that <br />those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, 52 Ca1.3d 553, 576 [276 <br />Ca1.Rptr.401].) Only after fully complying with the findings requirement can an agency adopt a <br />statement of overriding considerations. (eitizens for Quality Growth v. eity of Mount Shasta <br />(1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433,442,445 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727].) <br /> <br />The proposed project does not require a Statement of Overriding Considerations because <br />proposed mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to less than significant and there <br />would be no unavoidable adverse impacts resulting from the proposed project. <br /> <br />Alton Avenue Overcrossing at SR-55 <br /> <br />K-33 <br /> <br />April July 2005 <br /> <br />55C-51 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.