Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Mr. Steve Worrall <br />January 13, 2012 <br />Page 13 <br />Additionally, as noted in Section V.B., parking below code requirements is not per <br />se an environmental impact. Accordingly, Table 5 -1 must be revised to so reflect. <br />The RDEIR indicates that there will be less area of ground disturbance resulting <br />from this alternative because less underground sewer infrastructure will be necessary. (P. <br />5 -75.) Yet, Table 5 -1 mistakenly indicates that water quality impacts of the alternative <br />are greater. <br />This correct analysis, based on substantial evidence in the record, shows <br />Alternative Site 12 to be environmentally superior to the Project. The table must be <br />revised accordingly. <br />VI. THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ARE NOT COMPARED TO THE <br />PROJECT. <br />The City continues to improperly compare the mitigated Project to alternatives <br />without mitigation for purposes of determining environmental superiority. The City's <br />response to comments that the concept is a "novel" one that is not supported by the <br />CEQA Guidelines or applicable case" (RFEIR, p. 79) is curious since this "novel" <br />concept has been provided for in CEQA for nearly 25 years. <br />"[A]gcncies are required to certify the completion of an EIR <br />`on any project they propose to carry out or approve.' (§ <br />21100.) As a matter of logic, the EIR must be prepared <br />before the decision to approve the project. Not until project <br />approval does the agency determine whether to impose any <br />mitigation measures on the project. (§ 21002. 1, subd. (b).) <br />One cannot be certain until then what the exact mitigation <br />measures will be, much less whether and to what degree they <br />will minimize environmental effects. According to the <br />Regents, the decision to require mitigation measures on <br />project approval removes the need to consider project <br />alternatives in the EIR. The decision imposing mitigation <br />measures, however, is not made, and cannot be made under <br />CEQA, until after the EIR has been completed. To adopt the <br />Regents' view, would be to say that alternatives need not be <br />discussed if there is a possibility that the agency might adopt <br />mitigation measures. Such result would invert the chronology <br />of the CEQA process. Laurel Heights _ _Improvement Assn. v. <br />55A -146 <br />