Res19 15813 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

12/16/2019 approved at the discretion of a public agency"]; see also State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a) [an "EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible"].) CEQA defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1.) The State CEQA Guidelines add "legal" considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.) Project objectives also inform the determination of "feasibility." (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828-829.) `..[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (City of Del Marv. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Ca1.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) "Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision making body is considering actual feasibility [.]" (Cal. Native Plant Soc v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 1000 ("Native Plant"); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081(a) (3) ["economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations" may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible] (emphasis added).) Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a project's environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced "to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned." Outside agencies (including courts) are not to "impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken." (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Ca1.App.3d 274, 287.) IMPACTS THAT ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED The following findings, including impact statements, mitigation measures, findings, and facts in support of findings, are based on the full administrative record including but not limited to the Final EIR, which contains a greater discussion of each issue. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1), the mitigation measures will be required in the project and avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, as described herein. Air Quality Impact AIR -3: The project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Finding: The implementation of mitigation measure MM AIR -3.1 would reduce the project's significant community risk caused by construction activities to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a) (1).) Facts in Support of Finding: The computed maximum increased lifetime residential cancer risk from construction would be 3.5 in one million or less with implementation of the above mitigation measure, which would be below the BAA QMD significance threshold of 10 in one million, as identified on page 41 of the Draft EIR. ATTY/RESO.0124/CC RESO RECOMMENDING CEQA CERTIFICATION —YMCA RESO. NO. 15813 REV: 12-12-191Y MUFF NO. 601 Page 7 of 44