3 - The Bowery - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Bowery Mixed-Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact City of Santa Ana 1 May 2020 CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE BOWERY MIXED-USE PROJECT SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2019080011 CITY OF SANTA ANA DP NO. 2019-06 Public Resources Code section 21002 states 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[.]” Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which would avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Agencies demonstrate compliance with section 21002’s mandate by adopting findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a).) The approving agency must make written findings for each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project and must reach at least one of three permissible conclusions. • The first possible finding is that “[c]hanges 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.” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a)(1).) • The second permissible 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” and that “[s]uch changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (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.” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Agencies must not adopt a project with significant environmental impacts if feasible alternatives or mitigation measures would substantially lessen the significant impacts. Public Resources Code 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.” State CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds “legal” considerations as another indicium of feasibility (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565). Project objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417.) Further, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Id.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) An agency need not, however, adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subds. (a), (b)). Further, environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347). 3-23