AgdaPkt 2010-10-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7.A Attacnnaga 42 at pp. PS-28 to PS-33, PS-51 to PS-52, PS-55, PS-58 to PS-63) Moreover, the • New General Plan specifically assesses the risks associated with rising sea level and includes several additional policies and implementation programs designed to mitigate the flood risks directly associated rising sea level. (See New General Plan at pp. PS-5 to PS-6, PS-12 to PS-13, PS-15 to PS-18) Implementation of these policies and programs is expected to mitigate the impact of possible floods from rising sea level to the extent feasible. As explained in the New General Plan and DEIR, however, the precise timing and extent of a possible rise in sea level due to global warming is inherently uncertain. (See New General Plan at PS-5 to PS-6, PS-28 to PS-34, DEIR at p. 4.16) As a result, the City cannot conclude with certainty that the policies and programs in the New General Plan would fully p �' Y mitigate the impacts of long-term sea level rise from global warming. Nor can the City conclude, given this uncertainty, that there are any other mitigation measures which could be feasibly implemented and which would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Consequently, this impact is deemed by the City to be significant and unavoidable. (ii) Remaining Impacts. Because there are no other feasible mitigation measures available to mitigate the significant impact identified above, it is considered significant and unavoidable. (iii) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other benefits of the New General Plan override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the New General Plan relating to sea level rise caused by greenhouse gas emissions, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below. IV. Findings Regarding Project Alternatives Public Resources Code section 21002 prohibits a public agency from approving a project if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects. When a lead agency finds, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, that a project will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, it must, prior to approving the project as mitigated, first determine whether there are any project alternatives that are feasible and that would substantially lessen or avoid the project's significant impacts. Under CEQA, "feasibility" includes "desirability" to the extent that it is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors, and an alternative may be deemed by the lead agency to be "infeasible" if it fails to adequately promote the lead agency's underlying goals and objectives for the project. Thus, a lead agency may reject an alternative, even if it would avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant environmental effects of the project, if it fords that the alternative's failure to adequately achieve the City's goals and objectives for the project, or other specific and identifiable considerations,make the alternative infeasible. ATTY/RESO/RES0.2055/ATTACHMENT1.A 28 10/6/10