2008 RES R-01-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14' 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 Agencies demonstrate compliance with section 21002's mandate by adopting findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Public Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) The approving agency must make written findings for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project and must reach at least one of three permissible conclusions. The iirst possible iinding is that "[c]hanges 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." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1).) The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding" and that "[s]uch changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion is that "[s]pecific 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." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Agencies must not approve a project with significant environmental impacts if feasible alternatives or mitigation measures would substantially lessen the significant impacts. Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors". State CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds "legal" considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 565.) Project objectives also inform the determination of "feasibility." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal. App. 3d 401, 417.) Further, "`feasibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Id.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal. App. 4th 704, 715.) An agency need not, however, adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subds. (a), (b).) Further, environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337, 1347.) Notably, section 21002 requires an agency to "substantially lessen or avoid" significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that "substantially lessen" significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002's mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. Planning Commission (1978) 83 Cal. App. 3d 515, 521 ("CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a proj ect to an acceptable level"); Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 ("[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided 0