SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Supervisors January 28, 2013 Page 8 impact report." Under this authority, an alterative that "is impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint"may be rejected as infeasible. Additionally, an altemative "may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record." Appellants nevertheless attack the infeasibility determination in this case, asserting that the City "rejected the alternatives simply because they did not like them, not because they were truly infeasible."As we see it, however, appellants' assertion represents nothing more than a "policy disagreement with the City." In making its infeasibility findings, the City determined "how the numerous competing and necessarily conflicting interests should be resolved." At bottom, appellants' disagreement is "with the nature of the balance struck between those interests." This is not a case involving straightforward questions of legal or economic infeasibility. Arguably, such cases may present brighter lines for judicial review. Whether or not that is so, this much is clear: it is wholly improper for us to "arrogate to ourselves a policy decision which is properly the mandate of the City." In this case, the City's determination was consistent with permissible statutory factors. And it was justified under relevant case law, including Del Mar, supra, 133 Ca1.App.3d.401. (177 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1001-1002.) Importantly, a decision-making body's findings on the feasibility of the alternatives may be supported by any "substantial evidence in the record." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.5; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (b); see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Association v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 (in assessing the feasibility of alternatives in findings, "the agency may receive such information in whatever form it desires"); CEQA Guidelines, § 15131, subd. (c).) Thus, the courts have consistently upheld agency decisions to rely on substantial information submitted by project applicants in rejecting project alternatives set forth in EMs. (See, e.g., San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 690-693; Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1400-1401; and Sierra Club, supra, 121 Cal.AppAth at pp. 1507-1508.) In short, the kind of substantial evidence discussed below provides legitimate grounds upon which the Board may reject as infeasible Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4. We will now address that evidence in detail for each alterative. A. Expert Opinions of Tim Youmans and Am Lapin of Economic& Planning Systems Inc.