My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2020-065 - Adopting Environmental Findings of Fact
Clerk
>
Resolutions
>
CITY COUNCIL
>
2011 -
>
2020
>
2020-065 - Adopting Environmental Findings of Fact
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/20/2020 3:04:10 PM
Creation date
8/20/2020 3:02:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Resolution
Agency
Clerk of the Council
Doc #
2020-065
Date
8/20/2020
Destruction Year
P
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
88
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 Warner Redhill Mixed -Use Proiect CEQA Findings of Fact <br />Notably, section 21002 requires an agency to "substantially lessen or avoid" significant adverse <br />environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that "substantially lessen" significant <br />environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002's mandate. (Laurel <br />Hills Homeowners Assn. Y. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 ("CEQA does not mandate <br />the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible <br />mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage <br />from a project to an acceptable level"); Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. Y. County of Los <br />Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 309 ("[t)here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a <br />project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance ... if such would render the <br />Project unfeasible"). <br />CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, <br />to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. <br />Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible <br />or where the responsibility for modifying the Project lies with some other agency. (State CEQA <br />Guidelines § 15091, subds. (a), (b). The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of <br />approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is <br />necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are <br />responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those <br />decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of <br />Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576). <br />The City of Santa Ana has determined that based on all the evidence presented, including, but <br />not limited to, the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings on the <br />Project, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the <br />following environmental impacts associated with the Project are: <br />(1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; <br />(2) potentially significant and each of these impacts would be avoided or reduced to a level <br />of insignificance through the identified mitigation measures; or <br />(3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be <br />substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation measures. <br />City of Santa Ana <br />May 2020 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.