• A statement of the lead agency’s views on the ultimate balancing of the merits of approving a project despite its environmental damage.

• When the agency decides to approve a project that will cause one or more significant environmental effects, the lead agency shall prepare a statement of overriding considerations which reflects the ultimate balancing of competing public objectives (including environmental, legal, technical, social, and economic factors).

• The statement must:
• be in writing and;
• state specific reasons supporting agency action based on the final EIR or other substantial evidence in the record.

• Substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinions supported by facts.
• Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment.

• Approval of Project | Public Resources Code §21002
• Use of EIRs | Public Resources Code §21002.1
• Findings of Overriding Considerations | Public Resources Code §21081(b)
• Determination of Significant Effect on the Environment | Public Resources Code §21082.2

• Duty to Minimize Environmental Damage | 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15021(d)
• Findings Requirements | 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15091
• Statement of Overriding Considerations | 14 Cal. Code Regs §15093

Selected Cases .

• Sierra Club v. Contra Costa County (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1212: Court held that a statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the record or contained in the final EIR.

• Resources Defense Fund v. Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Cruz County (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 886: Appellate court reversed trial court’s decision and held that failure by Commission to prepare a written finding stating reasons for infeasibility of alternatives and failure to prepare an adequate statement of overriding considerations was more than a "harmless error".

• Laurel Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515: Court suggested that an impact can be substantially lessened but still remain significant.

Return to Decision on Project page

Go to NOD index page