AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

m�natt $�A. - Page 123 manatt � phelps � phillips Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council August 15, 2011 Page 12 (d) The Pro�dsed ��M'rn�at3on Me�snres" Fail to Avoid, Minimiize, Rectify, Reduce or Eliminafe the Pxoiec�'s Potentiallv Si�nificant Envirnnmental Ymnacts The Sta�£f Report ii�dicates that the adopted mitigation rneasures need only be implemcntcd "to the extent feasible." While we appreciate the veiled reference to CEQA's general z that "in the event specific econanaic, soeial, or other conditions ir►ake infeasible...project alternatives or...mitigation measures, individual projects" may nevertheless be approved, ineluding such "feasibility" considerations in an EIR is unorthodox and renders the EIR meaningiess and inadcquate. These considerations are properly cansidered in a Staternent of Overriding Coi�siderations — not in tYae EIlZ. As expla�neci in t�e Staff Re�ort, the Planning Coi�ninission certified the EIR as ha�'it�g no significant impact, provided the mitigation ineasures were adopte�i. However, havin� never addressed the feasibility of the �nitigation rrieasures {which a�1 contained a proviso that they need oi�ly be unplemented to the extent feasiblej, the Commission's conc�usion of na significant impacf is unsupported by substantial evid�nce. Accordingly, we rnust assume for the purposes of our re�view that the mitigation ineasures vvill not be implemented due to infeasil�ility, a�}d vvill fail to serve to mitigate the irrepaarable damage and risks �attendant to this planned development proj ec�. � 1 10 As set forth in sections I5093(a) and (b) of the C�QA Guidelines (Esnph. added): (a) C�QA requires the decision-t�►aking agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other henefits, including regianwide or statewide environmental benefits, af a proposed project again.st its unavoidable en�vironmental risks when datermining whether to apprave the project. If the apecific economic, le�al, socia�, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or stiatewide environmental benefits, of a progased prajec! outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental affects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "aaceptable. (h) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence af sign'r�cant eifeets whicls are identified in tl�e fi�al EIit but are not avoided or anbstantially lessened, the agency shall state iax writ�ng the speciffe reasons to support its action based on the fina� ETR aadlor ofher information in fhe record. Tl�c statement of averriding considerations shall be supported 6y substantial evidence in the record. '� See, e.g., Staff Report ai p. S citin$ concern that the applicai�t �as already said t�at cosks are a real cancern, i.e,, unl�ss houses are large siza, the "value" of the houses won't sustain the high costs af road oonstruction, mitigation measure�, and maintenance.