Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 6.3 - CEQA Findings Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital FEIR Page 1 September 2021 Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital Project CITY OF CHULA VISTA CANDIDATE’S CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2021030087) Page 2 September 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 3 A. California Environmental Quality Act .................................................................... 3 B. Project Background ................................................................................................. 4 C. Record of Proceedings .............................................................................................. 4 D. Custodian and Location of Records.......................................................................... 5 II. PROJECT SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 5 A. Project Location ........................................................................................................ 5 B. Project Description ................................................................................................... 5 C. Statement of Objectives ........................................................................................... 8 III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................ 8 A. Notice of Preparation ............................................................................................... 8 B. Public Review of Draft EIR ...................................................................................... 9 C. Decision Making Process .......................................................................................... 9 IV. GENERAL FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 9 V. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA ........................................................... 10 A. Legal Effects of Findings........................................................................................ 11 VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .................. 12 VII. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ................................................................................ 12 VIII. FINDINGS RELATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ....... 13 IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...................... 13 A. Impacts Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels: Findings Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1) ................................................................... 13 B. Impacts that can only be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels by another Jurisdiction: Findings Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) ............... 13 C. Impacts that would remain Significant and Unavoidable Findings Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) .............................................. 13 X. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES ............................................. 13 Page 3 September 2021 I. INTRODUCTION A. California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000, et seq.) promulgated thereunder, require that the environmental impacts of a project or program be examined before a project is approved. In addition, CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require that certain findings be made before project approval. It is the exclusive discretion of the decision-maker certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to determine the adequacy of the proposed candidate findings. It is the role of staff to independently evaluate the proposed candidate findings and to make a recommendation to the decision-maker regarding their legal adequacy. Specifically, CEQA Section 15091(a) states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project or program for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless such public agency makes one or more of the following findings: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects on the environment; (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can or should be, adopted by that other agency; or (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. CEQA also requires that the findings made pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines be supported by substantial evidence in the record (Section 15091(b) of the CEQA Guidelines). Under CEQA, substantial evidence means enough relevant information has been provided (and reasonable inferences from this information may be made) that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. Substantial evidence must include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts (Section 15384 of the CEQA Guidelines). When making the findings required in CEQA Section 15091 (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects, if any have been identified. These measures, if included, must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. The following Candidate Findings of Fact (Findings) have been submitted to the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista (Planning Commission), as the decision-making body, to be approved for the above-referenced project pursuant to CEQA. The project, as detailed below, would result in less than significant impacts. Page 4 September 2021 Having received, reviewed, and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR20- 0001) for the City of Chula Vista Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital (project), State Clearinghouse No. 2021030087 (Final EIR), as well as all other information in the Record of Proceedings (as defined below) on this matter, the following Findings are hereby adopted by the City of Chula Vista (City) in its capacity as the CEQA lead agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for current and subsequent discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City and responsible agencies for the implementation of the project. B. Project Background The City prepared a Project EIR as defined in Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines. In accordance with CEQA, and the City of Chula Vista environmental review procedures this Project EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project, and focuses on the physical changes in the environment that would result from the project. These Findings are made relative to the specific conclusions of the Final EIR prepared for the project. C. Record of Proceedings For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: • The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the project; • Comments received on the NOP; • The Draft EIR for the project; • All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft EIR; • All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review and comment period for the Draft EIR; • All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference or cited to in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR; • All supplemental documents prepared for the EIR and submitted to the Planning Commission prior to this hearing; • Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations; • Any documents expressly cited in these Findings; • City staff report prepared for this hearing related to the proposed project and any exhibits thereto; Page 5 September 2021 • Project permit conditions; and • Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by CEQA section 21167.6(e). The Draft EIR and related technical studies were made available for review during the public review period on the City’s website at: https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/public- notices/environmental-notices D. Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative record for the City’s actions related to the project, as detailed above, are at the offices of the City of Chula Vista, Development Services Department, located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California 91910. The Development Services Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the Record of Proceedings, are and at all relevant and required times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Planning Division. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e). II. PROJECT SUMMARY A. Project Location The Eastlake Behavioral Health Hospital (project) would be located at 830 and 831 Showroom Place within the City of Chula Vista (City), in southwestern San Diego County. The topography of the site consists of a relatively flat, vacant lot that has been previously graded. The project site is comprised of two lots (assessor’s parcel numbers [APNs] 595-710-11 and 595-710-12) totaling approximately 10.5 acres. Specifically, the project site sits north of Fenton Street, west of Hunte Parkway, and east of Lane Avenue. The project site is within the approved Business Center II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA), which is part of the larger Eastlake II General Development Plan (GDP). The Eastlake Business Park, which contains existing commercial development and parking lots, is subject to a zoning designation of Business Center 4 (BC-4). The environmental setting is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.0 of this EIR. Residential properties to the north and east are downslope approximately 60 feet at the base of an existing manufactured slope. There is no legal access between the project site and adjacent neighborhood. B. Project Description The project includes the construction of a new behavioral health hospital on an approximately 10.5-acre lot within the existing Eastlake Business Center. The project would be constructed within a vacant lot, located in the northeast section of the business center, bounded by existing commercial office space to the south and west, and single-family residential homes to the north and east. The proposed one-story building would Page 6 September 2021 total approximately 97,050 square feet, and would include 186 parking spaces, landscaping, and on-site recreational areas, all detailed below. The building would include 120 beds located within six distinct nursing units: • Unit 1A: a 20-bed geriatric psychiatric unit • Unit 1B: a 20-bed adolescent psychiatric unit • Unit 2A: a 20-bed adult general psychiatric unit • Unit 2B: a 20-bed adult dual-diagnosis psychiatric unit • Unit 3A: a 20-bed psychiatric unit (patient mix to be determined) • Unit 3B: a 20-bed psychiatric unit (patient mix to be determined) The project would also include separate adolescent and adult outpatient therapy programs, gymnasium, and a recreational arts and craft program. Specific medical and ancillary services would include in- and outpatient behavioral health services for geriatric, adult, and adolescent patients, nutrition support, and physical therapy, as well as a gymnasium, cafeteria for inpatients, visitors, and staff, and an inpatient pharmacy. Outdoor Areas/Landscape and Lighting Plans The project would include approximately 25,000 square feet of outdoor activity areas within the project site, including six exterior patient activity areas and two outdoor staff areas. The project includes approximately 164,206 square feet of landscaping including around the proposed building/perimeter of the project site and parking areas. The project includes walls and fencing around the perimeter of the project site. Specifically, the project proposes two different types of fencing, including a 12-foot solid fence around the outdoor activity areas, and an 8-foot perimeter fence on the east, north, and south borders of the property. The security fencing would be a decorative wall, constructed of solid concrete. The perimeter fence would be constructed of split-face concrete block. Outdoor lighting within the project site would be constructed to illuminate all external pedestrian walkways, and outdoor activity areas, as well as the parking lot. Lighting would include pole-mounted lights for vehicular areas, pedestrian scale pole-mounted lights for general campus illumination along pedestrian pathways, bollard pathway lighting for enclosed garden areas, and downlight-mounted lighting with architectural shade canopy at facility entryway points. Exterior lighting around the building is automatic, controlled by motion/ambient and light sensor built-in with the fixtures. Exterior security lights are also automatic controlled by motion/ambient and light sensor built-in with the fixtures. Parking lot lights are automatic controlled by motion sensor and Photocell which are built-in with the light fixtures. These light sensors would turn on lights when it gets dark or when motion is detected. They also serve to save energy by switching themselves to ambient mode when extra light is unnecessary. Page 7 September 2021 Grading The project site was previously graded in 2002, but additional earthwork would be required to accommodate the behavioral health hospital. Approximately 61,000 cubic yards of cut and 10,000 cubic yards of fill would be required, resulting in an export of 51,000 cubic yards of soil. The existing grade separation between the site and the adjacent residential areas would remain as the existing perimeter manufactured slope would not be altered by the proposed finish grading of the site. Personnel and Security The project would operate 24 hours per day, employing approximately 150 staff and facility personnel, working in three employee shifts. Day shifts would be eight hours, except for nursing who would work 12 hours. Shifts are anticipated to be varying times (depending on type of personnel) between 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The project includes a security plan which addresses security of patients, staff, and the surrounding community. On-site security measures include fencing and landscape barriers, a single public entry and exit from a driveway at the end of the cul-de-sac, 24-hour monitoring of common areas through closed circuit camera monitoring, patient checks at a minimum of every 15 minutes, and controlled access in and out to the facility and between units to encourage safety. Security personnel will be on-site 24 hours a day to monitor the hospital and the surrounding area. Circulation and Access Access to the project site would be taken from the driveway at the end of the cul-de-sac at the terminus of Showroom Place. An internal roadway around the perimeter of the project site would allow for large truck and fire truck access. Parking Internal parking lots would be constructed within the southern portion of the project site. Pursuant to the Eastlake II Specific Plan (which governs development standards), a hospital is required to provide 1.5 parking spaces per bed. Therefore, the project is required to provide a total of 180 parking spaces. The project proposes to construct a total of 186 parking spaces, with 20 of these designated as accessible spaces. Patient and visitors would park closest to the building. Staff would park towards the south, closer to the vehicular entry point Page 8 September 2021 C. Statement of Objectives As described in Section 3.3 of the Final EIR, the following primary objectives are identified for the project: • Provide quality, safe, cost-effective, socially responsible health care services that focus on behavioral health. • Construct a behavioral healthcare facility compliant with the state’s Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) seismic safety regulations, right sized for the growth of patient volumes. • Provide ancillary services including dietary services, on-site pharmacy, and outdoor activities. • Facilitate a responsible partnership between Scripps and Acadia healthcare to provide expert, specialized care in behavioral health. • Locate a facility at a site that best serves the needs of the community including: o Location in an area underserved by inpatient beds (based on recommendations from the California Hospital Association that there be 50 inpatient behavioral health beds for every 100,000 population1); o Proximity to major road network; o Appropriate size (10+ undeveloped acres) to construct a one-story facility; and o Zoning that allows for a hospital use. The City has considered the statement of objectives sought by the project and hereby adopts these objectives as part of the project. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A. Notice of Preparation In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City distributed an NOP of a Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse, local and regional responsible agencies, and other interested parties. The NOP was circulated for public comment from August 31, 2020 to September 29, 2020. A virtual scoping presentation was available for review during the NOP review period. Comment letters received during the NOP review period are included in the Final EIR as Appendix A. 1The City of Chula Vista should have 134 inpatient beds, but only 64 beds are available. Page 9 September 2021 B. Public Review of Draft EIR The Draft EIR for the project was prepared and circulated for review and comment by the public, agencies, and organizations for a public review period that began on April 27, 2021, and concluded on June 25, 2021. A Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse and the Draft EIR was circulated to state agencies for review through the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research. A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR for review was mailed to organizations and parties expressing interest in the project. Comments submitted to the City during the public review of the Draft EIR have received formal responses as required by CEQA. Those responses to comments have been incorporated into the Final EIR. C. Decision Making Process The project will be formally heard before the Planning Commission on November 10, 2021 when an ultimate disposition (approval/denial of the project and certification of the Final EIR) will be determined. IV. GENERAL FINDINGS The City hereby finds as follows: • Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050 and 15051, the City is the “lead agency” for the project. • The Draft EIR and Final EIR were prepared in compliance with CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, and any City Significance Determination Thresholds. • The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft EIR and Final EIR, and these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City. • In determining whether the project has a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting these Findings pursuant to Section 21081 of CEQA, the City has based its decision on substantial evidence and has complied with CEQA Sections 21081.5 and 21082.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15901(b). • The impacts of the project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time of certification of the Final EIR. • The City reviewed the comments received on the Draft EIR and the responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to such comments add significant new information regarding environmental impacts associated with the project. The City has based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these Findings concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the Final EIR. Page 10 September 2021 The responses to comments on the Draft EIR, which are contained in the Final EIR, clarify and amplify the analysis in the Draft EIR. • The City has made no decisions that constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources toward the project prior to certification of the Final EIR, nor has the City previously committed to a definite course of action with respect to the project. • Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR and/or Final EIR are and have been available upon request at all times at the offices of the City, custodian of record for such documents or other materials. • Having received, reviewed, and considered all information and documents in the record, the City hereby conditions the project and finds as stated in these Findings. V. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA CEQA Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[...].” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects or programs and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures that will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” CEQA Section 21002 goes on to state that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects.” The mandate and principles announced in CEQA Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects or programs for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project or program, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that “changes 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” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)). The second permissible finding is that “such 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 Section 15091 (a)(2)). The third potential conclusion is that “specific 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 Section 15091(a)(3)). CEQA 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.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: “legal” considerations (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565). Page 11 September 2021 The concept of “feasibility” also questions of a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and core objectives of a project (see San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1, 18; see also 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). 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. CEQA Section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines Section 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” (CEQA Section 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. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-527, 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 Section 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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely “potentially significant,” these Findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR. In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modifications or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the exclusive jurisdiction and responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b), and (c)). A. Legal Effects of Findings To the extent that these Findings conclude that various design features incorporated into the project and mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been Page 12 September 2021 modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City hereby binds itself to implement these design features and mitigation measures. These Findings, therefore, constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City formally approves the project. VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM As detailed below, the Final EIR did not identify any significant impacts requiring the adoption of mitigation measures. All impacts were determined to be below a level of significant due to regulatory compliance, project design features, or the nature of issue area presented no potential significant impacts. Therefore, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is not required to be adopted. VII. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The Final EIR contains an environmental analysis of the potential impacts associated with project implementation. The Final EIR concludes that the project would have no significant direct or cumulative impacts and require no mitigation measures associated with the following issue areas: • Land Use (Issue 1-Physically Divide an Established Community and Issue 2-Affecting Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations) • Aesthetics (Issues 1 and 2-Scenic Vista/Scenic Resources, Issue 3-Visual Character, and Issue 4-Light and Glare) • Air Quality (Issue 1-Consistency with Plans, Issue 2-Violate Air Quality Standards, Issue 3- Cumulative Net Increase of Criteria Pollutants, Issue 4-Sensitive Receptors and Issue 5-Odors) • Energy (Issue 1-Consumption of Energy Resources and Issue 2-Plan Consistency) • Geology and Soils (Issue 1-Exposure to Seismic-Related Hazards, Issue 2-Soil Erosion, Issue 3-Soil Stability, Issue 4-Expansive Soils, Issue 5-Septic Systems, and Issue 6- Paleontological Resources) • Greenhouse Gas (Issue 1-GHG Emissions, Issue 2-Policies, Plans, and Regulations Intended to Reduce GHG Emissions) • Hazards (Issue 1-Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials, Issue 2- Accidental Release, Issue 3-Emissions Near a School, Issue 4-Hazardous Materials Sites, Issue 5-Airport Hazards, Issue 6-Emergency Response Plan, and Issue 7- Wildland Fires) • Hydrology and Water Quality (Issue 1-Water Quality Standards, Issue 2- Groundwater, Issue 3-Drainage Patterns/ Storm Water Runoff, Issue 4-Flood Hazard, and Issue 5-Water Quality Control Plans) • Noise (Issue 1-Ambient Noise Levels, Issue 2-Ground Borne Vibration and Ground Borne Noise Levels, and Issue 3-Airports and Airport Land Use Plans) • Public Services and Recreation (Issue 1-Public Services, Issue 2- Demand on Parks, and Issue 3- Expansion of Recreational Facilities) • Transportation (Issue 1-Conflicts with Applicable Plans, Issue 2-Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), Issue 3- Hazards Due to a Design Feature, and Issue 4-Emergency Access) Page 13 September 2021 • Utilities and Service Systems (Issue 1-Need for Construction or Expansion of Service Facilities, Issue 2-Insufficient Water Supplies, Issue 3-Inadequate Wastewater Treatment Capacity to Serve Demand, and Issues 4 and 5-Solid Waste Capacity and Regulatory Compliance) • Wildfire (Issue 1-Emergency Response Plans, Issue 2-Pollutants from Wildfire, Issue 3-Infrastructure Improvements, and Issue 4-Flooding or Landslides) VIII. FINDINGS RELATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The City finds the characterization of impacts in the Final EIR with respect to issue areas identified as less than significant have been described accurately and would result in less than significant impacts as so described in the Final EIR. This finding applies to the impacts evaluated in the Final EIR and determined to be less than significant, as stated under section VII, Summary of Impacts. IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. Impacts Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels: Findings Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1) No significant impacts which require mitigation were identified in the Final EIR. B. Impacts that can only be Mitigated to Less than Significant Levels by another Jurisdiction: Findings Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) No impacts that could only be mitigated to less than significant through the actions of another jurisdiction or public agency were identified in the Final EIR. C. Impacts that would remain Significant and Unavoidable Findings Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) No impacts in which specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, which would make mitigation infeasible were identified in the Final EIR. X. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES In accordance with Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must contain a discussion of “a range of reasonable alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” Section 15126.6(f) further states that “the range of alternatives in an EIR is governed by the 'rule of reason' that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.” The objectives of the proposed project are stated above. Page 14 September 2021 The Planning Commission must consider the feasibility of any alternatives to the project, evaluating whether these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects while achieving most of the objectives of the project. The Final EIR includes an analysis of two alternative project scenarios: No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative and the Reduced Intensity Alternative. All impacts associated with the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would be the same as the proposed project, except for landform alteration/aesthetics, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas, and noise, which would be greater than the proposed project. Specifically, under this alternative, impacts related to greenhouse gas and noise could remain significant and unmitigated. As discussed in Section 7.2.6 of the EIR, The No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative building area would be approximately 60,000 square feet bigger than the project and would generate approximately 75 percent more traffic, likely resulting in greenhouse gas emissions above the 3,000 MT CO2E screening threshold. This alternative would be required to include mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; however, should these measures fail impacts would remain significant and unmitigated. Although the No Project/Medical Office Building Alternative would meet the primary project objectives, this alternative is rejected as infeasible because it would result in impacts greater than the proposed project, including potentially significant and unmitigable impacts related to GHG. Compared to the proposed project, the impacts associated with the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be the same except for air quality, energy, greenhouse gas, and utilities and service systems which would be less than the proposed project. However, this alternative is rejected as infeasible because it would not achieve the primary objectives of the project including the ability to serve the regional needs of the community by providing the needed inpatient beds. Finding The Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, finds pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) that the alternatives presented and considered in the Final EIR constitute a reasonable range of alternatives to permit a reasoned choice among the options available to the City and/or the project proponent, however, due to economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, are infeasible as identified in the final EIR.