Laserfiche WebLink
03/25/2013 <br /> use plastic and paper bags, it may not promote the shift to reusable <br /> carryout bags by retail customers as effectively and would place a <br /> financial burden on the Study Area retailers. <br /> B, FIND/NGS REGARD/NG PROJECT ALTERNATIVES <br /> CEQA only requires public agencies to make findings regarding the <br /> feasibility of project alternatives in limited circumstances. Public Resources <br /> Code Section 21081(a) provides that a public agency may not approve a <br /> project unless it makes findings, with respect to each significant project <br /> effect, that (1) mitigation has been required to reduce the significant effect, <br /> (2) mitigation to reduce the significant effect is within the jurisdiction of <br /> another public agency and should be adopted by that agency, and (3) that <br /> "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations . . . <br /> make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the <br /> environmental impact report." (Pub. Res. Code § 21081(a), emphasis <br /> added, see also CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a).) <br /> In Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (CH Oceanside) (2004) <br /> 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 490, the Court of Appeals confirmed that, where the <br /> city found that the only adverse impact of a project could be avoided through <br /> the imposition of mitigation measures, "it was not required to make any <br /> findings regarding the feasibility of proposed alternatives." (Citing Rio Vista <br /> Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 351, 379 <br /> ["CEQA does not require the agency to consider the feasibility of environ- <br /> mentally superior project alternatives identified in the EIR if described <br /> mitigation measures will reduce environmental impacts to acceptable <br /> levels"], Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Board of Supervisors (1988) <br /> 47 Cal.3d 376, 402, and Laurel Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. City Council <br /> (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521.) <br /> The Project would not result in any significant unavoidable effects. All <br /> potential impacts identified by Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR are <br /> either beneficial or less than significant such that no mitigation measures <br /> are required. Accordingly, the County is not required to make findings <br /> regarding the feasibility of the alternatives considered in the EIR. <br /> C. SUMMARY OF SlGN/F/CANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS <br /> Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe <br /> any significant impacts which cannot be avoided. Based on the analysis <br /> contained in the Final Program EIR, implementation of the Project would not <br /> result in any significant unavoidable environmental impacts. <br /> 13 <br /> ORD.#2393 <br /> FORMERLY MUFF#305 <br />