SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Supervisors January 28,2013 Page 3 6); and to "provide a travel stop facility of sufficient size to capture overflow overnight truck parking"(Objective 7). (DE1R,pp. 3-1, 3-2.) Relevant Legal Principles Before laying out in detail the expert evidence mentioned above, we will first lay out a few legal principles, so that.the Board can consider the evidence in its proper context. These principles will demonstrate that the Board enjoys considerable discretion in determining whether a particular alternative set forth in an EIR is "infeasible" and thus may be rejected without violating CEQA. The reason why these issues matter at all under the law is the fact that CEQA contains a general statutory command that public agencies should not approve projects that would cause significant environmental effects when there are feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives that can substantially lessen such effects. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.) This "substantive mandate"i can be met through (i) the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, (ii) the choice of a feasible alternative that lessens or avoids significant effects, or(iii) a combination of mitigation and alternatives. Notably, "alternatives and mitigation measures have the same function — diminishing or avoiding adverse environmental effects." Stated another way, "alternatives are a type of mitigation." (Laurel Heights Improvement Association V. Regents of the University of California(1988)47 Cal. 3d 376, 403.) This substantive mandate is effectuated, in part, through the requirement that, after certifying a final EIR, lead agency decision-makers, as one of the actions needed to approve a project, must adopt findings describing the disposition of each significant effect identified in the EIR. The most common finding is that"changes or alterations" (typically mitigation measures) "have been required in, or incorporated into, the project," with the result that significant effects are `mitigate[d] or avoid[ed]." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a)(1); see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1).)Another possible finding is that proposed mitigation measures or alternatives, despite their environmental advantages compared with "the project," are infeasible. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) In our own experience, this "infeasibility finding" is used with some frequency with respect to mitigation measures that,for whatever reason, are simply unworkable.2 The finding is much more common,however,with respect to alternatives to proposed projects. The CEQA Guidelines define "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, '/See Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Commission (1997) 16 CalAth 105, 134. '/The Applicant is not asking the Board to reject any mitigation measures proposed in the EIR as infeasible. Rather,the Applicant is prepared to live with each and every mitigation measure set forth in the Project EIR.