RES 17976 - Laserfiche WebLink

4 1 effect as identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines §15091[a][1].) The second such 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. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." (CEQA Guidelines §15091[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." (CEQA Guidelines §15091[a][3].)Public Resources Code §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." CEQA Guidelines §15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also, Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [1990] 52 Ca1.3d 553, 565 [Goleta II].) 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. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego [1982] 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.) "`[F]easibility' 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,Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland[1993] 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between"avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely"substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used. Public Resources Code §21081, on which CEQA Guidelines §15091 is based,uses the term "mitigate"rather than"substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with"substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy 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." (Pub. Res. Code §21002.) For purposes of these findings, 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. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. Planning Commission (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519- 521, in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the significant impacts in question less than significant. Although CEQA Guidelines §15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed],"these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less-than-significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant. Moreover, although §15091,read literally, does not require findings to address 10