2011-023 - Development Agreement Between the Community Redevelopment Agency

Home Browse Search

CHAPTER 2CEQA Findings 2.1INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the potential impacts that were identified in the EIR and the findings that are required in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The possible findings for each significant and/or potentially significant adverse impact are as follows: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR (“Finding 1”). (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency (“Finding 2”). (3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives in the EIR (“Finding 3”). CEQA requires that the Lead Agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a result of a project. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (State CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)[2],[3]). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” State CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: “legal” considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta II] [1990] 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].) Only after fully complying with the findings requirement can an agency adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 442, 445 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727]). CEQA requires the Lead Agency to state in writing the specific rationale to support its actions based on the Final EIR and/or information in the record. This written statement is known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Statement of Overriding Considerations provides the information that demonstrates the decision making body of the Lead Agency has weighed the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable.” The California Supreme Court has stated that, “the 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” (Goleta II, 52 Cal.3d 553, 576 [276 Cal. Rptr. 401]). Transit Zoning Code (SD 84A and SD 84B) EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-1