AgdaPkt 2019-12-16 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.C. - Page 36 of 178 would be no significant geology and soils impacts from implementation of the project. For these reasons, the project would not result in irreversible damage that may result from environmental accidents. (Draft EIR, pp. 182-183.) SECTION V: FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS. Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a Draft EIR to discuss the ways the Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d), a Project would be considered to have a growth -inducing effect if it would: • Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment; • Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., construction of an infrastructure expansion to allow for more construction in service areas); • Tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or • Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. The project would replace existing facilities and relocate existing uses (i.e., the Sequoia YMCA) onsite. The proposed traffic calming measures facilitate safer (i.e., slower) vehicular circulation, and do not foster growth. For these reasons, the project would not foster or stimulate substantial economic growth or population growth (refer to the discussion is Section 3.14 Population and Housing of the Draft EIR) in the surrounding environment. (Less than Significant Impact) (Draft EIR, p. 181.) SECTION VI: FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES Where significant impacts are identified, section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states: (a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives, which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis: (b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002. 1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. ATTY/RESO.0124/CC RESO RECOMMENDING CEQA CERTIFICATION -YMCA REV: 12-12-19 IY Page 19 of 44 459