10-03-2022 Council Work Session Packet

Home Search

B. Cumulative potential effects. The RGU shall consider the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project; C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; and D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. Section 5. Findings of Fact of the attached response document provides the City’s findings of fact and addresses each of the above referenced criteria. Section 6. Record of Decision concludes that an EIS is not required. Representatives from the project proposer and WSB & Associates, the City Engineer, will be present at the meeting to address any questions from the board. If the City determines that information necessary to a reasoned decision about the potential for, or significance of, one or more possible environmental impacts is lacking, but could be reasonably obtained, the RGU shall either: A. make a positive declaration and include within the scope of the EIS appropriate studies to obtain the lacking information; or B. postpone the decision on the need for an EIS, for not more than 30 days or such other period of time as agreed upon by the RGU and proposer, in order to obtain the lacking information. If the RGU postpones the decision, it shall provide written notice of its action, including a brief description of the lacking information, within five days to the project proposer, the EQB staff, and any person who submitted substantive comments on the EAW. Staff is of the opinion that no additional information is required and that any potential impacts and mitigation will be addressed through the city and other public regulatory permitting processes. Based on the information contained in the EAW, comment letters, and Findings of Fact, staff is recommending adoption of the Record of Decision. The Environmental Board will be reviewing the document on October 5, 2022. Their comments will be forwarded to the City Council for review and consideration following the Environmental Board meeting.