SU0008325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Public Resources Code section 21002, a key provision of CEQA,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 states that the procedures required by CEQA"are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures,a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. Although an EIR must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives,an alternative may ultimately be deemed by the lead agency to be "infeasible" if it fails to fully promote the lead agency's underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at pp. 999-1000; Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 314-315; City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417.) ...Measibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic,environmental, social,and technological factors." (Ibid.;see also CNPS,supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001.)Thus,even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project, the decision- makers may reject the alternative if they determine that specific considerations make the alternative infeasible. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, the alternatives to be discussed in detail in an EBR should be able to "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project[.]"For this reason, the project objectives described above provided the framework for defining possible project alternatives. (See Bay-Delta,supra,43 CalAth at p. 1166.)Alternatives also were evaluated based on `. general feasibility criteria suggested by the CEQA Guidelines. These criteria include site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations,jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site, including consideration of whether or not the site is already owned by the applicant(DEBR,p.7-2.) Based on the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6 and the Project's Objectives, the following alternatives to the Project were identified: • No Project Alternative, • Reduced Project Size, • Building Realignment Alternative, • Alternative Use—Combination Gasoline Station,and • Alternative Use—Retail with Fast-Food Restaurant. Other alternatives were preliminarily considered in the Draft EBR Chapter 7 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, but not considered further in the Draft EBR analysis. Off-site Love's Travel Stops Environmental Impact Report 11 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations %v