SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

95205. The custodian of these documents is the San Joaquin County Community Development Director. The County's decisionmakers have relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching their decisions on the proposed project even if not every document was formally presented to the decisionmakers as part of the County files generated in connection with the proposed project. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the project files fall into one of two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions with which County decisionmakers were aware in approving the proposed project. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978)76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392;Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6.) Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to County Staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the final decisionmakers. For that reason,such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the County's decisions relating to approval of the proposed project. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 153, 155.) V. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that"public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" The same statute provides that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of Projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Section 21002 goes on to provide that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a Project,the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. The second permissible finding is that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.The third potential conclusion is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.) As explained elsewhere in these findings, "feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,taking into account economic,environmental, social, Love's Travel Stops Environmental Impact Report 8 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations J