Laserfiche WebLink
Moreover, although §15091, read literally, does not require findings to address <br />environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will <br />nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the SEIR. <br />CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, <br />where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would <br />otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such <br />changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the Project lies with some other <br />agency. (CEQA Guidelines §15091[a], [b].) <br />With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or <br />substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve <br />the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the <br />specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its <br />"unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines §§15093, 15043[b]; see also, <br />Pub. Res. Code §21081[b].) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of <br />approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is <br />necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are <br />responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those <br />decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, supra, 52 Ca1.3d at p. 576.) <br />These findings constitute the City Council's best efforts to set forth the <br />evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the proposed Zone in a manner <br />consistent with the requirements of CEQA. To the extent that these findings conclude that <br />various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final SEIR are feasible and have not been <br />modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City hereby binds itself to implement these measures. <br />These findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set <br />of obligations that will come into effect when the City Council adopts a resolution approving <br />the proposed Zone. <br />I. No or Less Than Significant Impacts Without Mitigation <br />Based on the discussions in Chapter 4 and Section 6.E of the Draft SEIR, and other <br />supporting information in the record, the City Council finds that the proposed Zone would have no <br />or a less than significant impact associated with the specific issues identified below. As a result, <br />no mitigation measures were determined to be needed to address the following: <br />1. Aesthetics <br />Impact 4.A-1: The proposed Zone would not cause significant new adverse <br />impacts on scenic vistas. (Draft SEIR, pp. 4.A-17 to 4.A-23) <br />Impact 4.A-2: The proposed Zone would not cause significant damage to scenic <br />resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a <br />state scenic highway. (Draft SEIR, pp. 4.A-23 to 4.A-24) <br />Impact 4.A-3: The proposed Zone would not cause significant degradation <br />to existing visual character or quality. (Draft SEIR, pp. 4.A-24 to 4.A-25) <br />11 <br />