SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Supervisors January 28, 2013 Page 7 Another instructive decision here is California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Ca1.AppAth 957. The case is one of a few that have considered feasibility determinations made based on the "economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations" cited in Public Resources Code sections 21061.1 and 21081, subdivision (a)(3), as permissible factors to consider in making a feasibility determination. In that case, the city approved a master plan for a city-owned greenbelt property. The planning process for the master plan included provisions for resources enhancement and a trail system that would include an east-west multi-use trail, among other things. One of the key goals was to preserve and restore coastal prairie habitat, particularly Santa Cruz tarplant populations. The city prepared a draft EIR, which acknowledged that the project would have a significant effect on tarplant habitat due to the chosen alignment of the multiuse trail, which would be paved, compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act,and connect the communities adjacent to the greenbelt property. The EIR analyzed four project alternatives to the multiuse trail that might reduce or eliminate the plan's significant impacts: a no project alternative; an alternative that was similar to the project, but in which the east-west trail would not travel through a portion of the property; an alternative that was also similar to the project,but in which all trails were unpaved; and an alternative that provided an unpaved trail system without an east-west connector trail. In its CEQA findings addressing the feasibility of the alternatives outlined in the EIR, the city council concluded that all the alternatives were infeasible based on policy grounds and for failure to satisfy project objectives. The California Native,Plant Society sued, challenging the city's infeasibility findings on procedural and substantive grounds. As to the city's feasibility analysis, the court clarified the difference between a determination of "potential feasibility' justifying the inclusion of an alternative in an EIR and a finding of"actual feasibility"made by agency decision-makers at the end of the CEQA process. As stated by the court, while it is up to the EIR preparer to identify alternatives as potentially feasible, the decision-making body may or may not reject those alternatives as being actually feasible at the time of project approval. Agency decision-makers must necessarily weigh and balance the pros and cons of different courses of action, taking account of a broad range of factors. The court concluded that the city council had properly engaged in such balancing. Citing City of Del Mar,supra, 133 Cal.App.3d 401, the court concluded that the city was legally justified in rejecting environmentally superior alternatives as infeasible on the basis of its determination that the alternatives were undesirable from a policy standpoint because they failed to achieve primary objectives of the project, and because substantial evidence supported this finding. The court explained its reasoning here as follows (citations omitted;italics in original): Here, the City's infeasibility findings likewise are based on policy considerations, particularly the City's interest in promoting transportation alternatives as well as access to its open space for persons with disabilities. Such policy considerations are permissible under the relevant statute, which calls for a determination that "economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations . . . make infeasible the mitigation measures or alteratives identified in the environmental