My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 231376 Exhibit A - Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP)
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2020-present
>
2023
>
RES 231376 Exhibit A - Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/5/2023 9:05:52 AM
Creation date
4/5/2023 8:52:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
3/21/2023
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
1857
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 <br />are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before <br />approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); <br />CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an <br />EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or <br />more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations <br />have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the <br />significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. <br />a)(1).) The second such finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the <br />responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. <br />Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such <br />other agency." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion is that <br />s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of <br />employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or <br />project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) <br />Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being <br />accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account <br />economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 <br />adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of <br />Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta In.) <br />The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a <br />particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a <br />project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.) "[F]easibility <br />under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable <br />balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; <br />see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, <br />715.) <br />The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a <br />significant environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City <br />must therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are <br />used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is <br />based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines <br />therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the <br />statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that <br />public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or <br />feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant <br />environmental effects of such Projects." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.) <br />For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one <br />or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant <br />level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or <br />measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect <br />to a less-than-significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in <br />Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. Planning Commission (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519- <br />521, in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to substantially <br />lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all of which <br />rendered the significant impacts in question less than significant.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.