|
The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part,
<br /> through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are
<br /> required. This mandate to adopt findings is found in Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision
<br /> (a), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision(a). Under these provisions, for each significant
<br /> environmental effect identified in an EIR for a Project,the approving agency must issue a written finding
<br /> reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that changes or alterations
<br /> have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
<br /> environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. The second permissible finding is that such changes or
<br /> alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency
<br /> making the finding, and that such changes have been adopted by, or can and should be adopted by, such
<br /> other agency. The third potential conclusion is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
<br /> other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,make
<br /> infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, §
<br /> 15091.) "[F]easible"means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable
<br /> period of time,taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors."
<br /> (CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.)
<br /> As set forth here, the City Council has adopted the first permissible finding with respect to all significant
<br /> effects identified in the EIR, concluding that all such effects can be mitigated to less than significant
<br /> levels. The City Council therefore has no need to consider the feasibility of any project alternatives. (Pub.
<br /> Resources Code, § 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council(1978) 83 Cal.App.3d
<br /> 515, 521 (Laurel Hills); see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d
<br /> 692, 730-731; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California
<br /> (1988)47 Ca1.3d 376, 400-403.)
<br /> Under CEQA, where the significant impacts of a project cannot be avoided or substantially lessened,
<br /> either by mitigation measures or a project alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings,
<br /> may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a"statement of overriding considerations"
<br /> setting forth the specific reasons that the agency found the project's benefits outweigh its unavoidable
<br /> adverse environmental effects. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15093; Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).)
<br /> Here, however, as noted above, the City of Pleasanton has identified and adopted feasible mitigation
<br /> measures that mitigate all significant environmental impacts of the Project to less than significant levels.
<br /> Thus,just as the City is not required to address the feasibility of alternatives, the City is also not required
<br /> to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project.
<br /> PROJECT DESCRIPTION
<br /> GHC Lund Ranch LLC is requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development(PUD) development plan,
<br /> which would allow the construction of a total of 50 residential units on the 195-acre Lund Ranch II
<br /> property. The project site is presently designated for Rural Density(1 dwelling unit per 5 gross acres) and
<br /> Low Density(less than 2 dwelling units per gross acres) Residential uses.The subject property is zoned
<br /> "PUD-LDR/OS," Planned Unit DevelopmentâLow Density Residential) District.
<br /> Approval of the PUD application would result in the development of residential uses on approximately
<br /> 22.7 acres of the Lund Ranch site. The proposed gross residential density for the site would be 0.26
<br /> dwelling units per acre. The development proposal also includes the extension of Lund Ranch Road from
<br /> its present terminus at the Lund Ranch property boundary to the southeast for approximately 1,500 feet
<br /> onto the property. The proposed extension of this roadway would also entail the construction of three cul-
<br /> de-sacs to serve the planned residential uses on the Lund Ranch site. Additionally, two driveways would
<br /> LUND RANCH II(PUD-25)RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 2 FINDINGS
<br />
|