SU0012821 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- I ,s I I Item No. 1 PC: 11-5-92 SU-91-15 ATTACHMENT A IMPACT S IDENTIFIED IN � FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL THE RIVER OAKS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT • Section 15901(a) of the State CEOA Guidelines states: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (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 Final EIR. (2) Such changas 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. (3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible any mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The County of San Joaquin ('County'},the lead agency under CEQA, has approved the Major Subdivision application and adopted the findings listed below. All of the mitigation measures listed in conjunction with each finding will be implemented by the project applicant ("Applicant'), resulting in the project having no significant adverse environmental impacts except for those items listed on the following pages for which Statements of Overriding Considerations have been adopted. I. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF -THE PROJECT WHICH ARE AVOIDED OR SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENED A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A-1. Potentially Significant impact: Swainson's hawk nair that nested on the site during the 1990 i br.eeding season mav be discouraged from returning. Development may discourage the pair of Swainson's hawks who used a nest on the site in 1990 from returning to the nest site. it is also not known if this pair returned to the nest site during the 1991 and 1992 breeding season. Construction activities on the site during the breeding season could cause nesting pairs to abandon their nests. Finding: 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 Final EIR. These -28-