Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 2 - CEQA Findings <br />2.1 Introduction <br />This chapter presents the impacts that were identified in the EIR and the findings that are required in <br />accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The possible findings for each significant <br />adverse impact are as follows: <br />1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or <br />substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR ("Finding I"). <br />2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public <br />agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such <br />other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency ("Finding 2"). <br />3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations, including provision of employment <br />opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project <br />alternatives in the EIR ("Finding 3"). <br />CEQA requires that the Lead Agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to <br />avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a <br />result of a project. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are <br />infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (State <br />CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)[2],[3]). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to <br />mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, <br />taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." State CEQA <br />Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta <br />Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta II] [1990] 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].) <br />Only after fully complying with the findings requirement can an agency adopt a Statement of <br />Overriding Considerations (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 <br />Cal.App.3d 433, 442, 445 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727]). CEQA requires the Lead Agency to state in writing <br />the specific rationale to support its actions based on the Final EIR and/or information in the record. <br />This written statement is known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Statement of <br />Overriding Considerations provides the information that demonstrates the decision making body of <br />the Lead Agency has weighed the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse effects in <br />determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable <br />adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." <br />The California Supreme Court has stated that, "the wisdom of approving any development project, a <br />delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the <br />local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret <br />and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced" (Goleta II, 52 <br />Ca1.3d 553, 576 [276 Cal. Rptr. 401]). <br />San Lorenzo Lift Station EIR (Project No. 06-3510) 2_1 <br />Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Consider 68 _ 15