AgdaPkt 2013-09-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

a,7.A. - Page 17 7. Pursuant to CEQA section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, and in support of its approval of the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the CEQA Findings of Fact for the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, finds that such Findings of Fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record, and adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact. 8. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Findings Regarding Alternatives, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, and adopts the attached findings that describe how only the Project would satisfy the Project Objectives and that none of the alternatives has environmental advantages over the Project when balancing the Project Objectives. 9. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference, and adopts the attached SOC that describes how the merits of the project outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts identified that will result with implementation of the Project. 10. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, and in support of its approval of the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that requires all mitigation measures described in the Final EIR be implemented by means of Project conditions, agreements, or other measures, as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. In addition, with respect to the mitigation measures, the Planning Commission finds that: (a) Some of the intersection mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program cannot be implemented absent the approval of other agencies in addition to the City. These mitigation measures and the other agencies whose approvals are required are: (1) Mitigation 7-1 and 7-5 (Woodside Road/Broadway Intersection): Caltrans; (2) Mitigation 7-2, 7-6 and 7- 13 (Woodside Road/Bay Road Intersection): Caltrans; (3) Mitigation 7-12 (Veterans Blvd./Woodside Road Intersection): Caltrans; (4) Mitigation 7-14 (Woodside Road/Middlefield Road Intersection): Caltrans; and (5) Mitigation 7-18 (Marsh Road/Scott Drive Intersection): City of Menlo Park. The Planning Commission hereby finds that these mitigation measures are partly within the jurisdiction of other public agencies and can and should be approved by those other agencies. If any of these mitigation measures is not approved by the other agency listed, that mitigation measure will be infeasible. (b) The Draft EIR identified one potential mitigation measure that is infeasible, as follows: Mitigation 7-11 and 7-19 - Widening of US 101 to add mixed flow lane. The Planning Commission finds that this mitigation measure is infeasible because, although the US 101 segments near the Project site currently ATTY/RES0.2901/STANFORD EIR CERTIFICATION REV:08-29-13 VR Page 7 of 56