SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Supervisors January 28, 2013 Page 4 environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15365; see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1.) The ultimate determination of whether an alternative is feasible or infeasible must be made by an agency's decision-making body (here, the Board of Supervisors). Such a task cannot be delegated to staff. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15025, subd. (b)(2).) Thus, the Board is not bound by County staffs opinion on these issues. Any decision to reject an alternative, however, must be supported by substantial evidence. (Pub. Resources Code, §21081.5; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091,subd.(b).) One legitimate basis for rejecting an alternative to a private development proposal is on pure economic grounds. One of the leading cases on this subject is Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.appAth 587, 598-601 (Uphold Our Heritage), in which the Court of Appeal rejected a town's CEQA findings prepared in connection with a proposed demolition permit for an historical mansion owned by the late computer entrepreneur Steve Jobs. The court found fatal problems with the town's CEQA Findings because the town never obtained information from the applicant regarding the costs of building a new home to replace the existing structure proposed for demolition. Without such comparative cost information, the town council could not undertake a complete side-by-side comparison between the proposed "project" (demolition and new construction) and an alternative consisting of renovating the historical structure. After reviewing prior CEQA case law dealing with the rejection of alternatives to private projects on economic grounds, the court announced the applicable legal principles as follows: If the cost of renovation exceeds the cost of new construction, it is the magnitude of the difference that will determine the feasibility of this alternative. [Citation.] There is no evidence in the record on which such a determination can be made. In requiring such an evaluation, we do not imply any disagreement with appellants that Jobs's personal wealth or ability to shoulder the costs of the proposed alternatives is irrelevant. In Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley(2 004) 124 Cal.AppAth 430(MODE),the court rejected the claim that the financial wherewithal of the project applicant bears upon the feasibility of mitigation measures and project alternatives. (Id. at p. 448.) CEQA should not be interpreted to allow discrimination between project applicants for an identical project based upon the financial status of the applicant. (Id. at pp. 448-449.) The court explained, "Economic unfeasibility is not measured by increased cost or lost profit, but upon whether the effect of the proposed mitigation is such that the project is rendered impractical. [Citation.] The fact that a project costs too much to be profitable or cannot operate at a profit so as to render it impractical does not hinge on the wealth of its proponent. No proponent, whether wealthy or not, is likely to proceed with a project that will not be economically successful. But, if the project can be economically successful with mitigation, then CEQA requires that mitigation, regardless of the proponent's financial status." (Id. at p. 449.) Accordingly,the question is not whether Jobs can afford the proposed alternative, but whether the marginal costs of the alternative as compared to the cost of the