SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

legal, and technological factors. The concept of"feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.AppAth 1490, 1506-1509 (court upholds CEQA findings rejecting alternatives in reliance on applicant's project objectives);see also California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 957, 1001 (CNPS)("an alternative`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"') (quoting Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act [Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2009] (Kostka), § 17.309, p. 825); In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165, 1166 (Bay-Delta) ("[i]n the CALFED program, feasibility is strongly linked to achievement of each of the primary program objectives"; "a lead agency may structure its EIR alternative analysis around a reasonable definition of underlying purpose and need not study alternatives that cannot achieve that basic goal").) Moreover, "`feasibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego(1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410,417 (City of Dei Mar); see also CAPS,supra, 177 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1001 (after weighing "`economic,environmental,social,and technological factors,' ... 'an agency may conclude that a mitigation measure or alternative is impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint and reject it as infeasible on that ground")(quoting Kostka,supra, § 17.29,p. 824).) For purposes of these findings (including the table described in section VII below), the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In contrast,the term"substantially lessen"refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect,but not to reduce that effect to a less than significant level. CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt feasible mitigation measures or, in some instances, feasible alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons that the agency found the project's benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project is included herein in Section IX below. VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for the Project, and is being approved by the Planning Commission by the same Resolution that has adopted these findings. The County will use the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to track compliance with Project mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will remain available for public review during the compliance period. The Final Mitigation Monitoring and Love's Travel Stops Enwonmental Impact Report 9 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations