My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3 - The Bowery
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
Planning Commission (2002-Present)
>
2020
>
05-11-20
>
3 - The Bowery
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/9/2020 9:59:32 PM
Creation date
11/9/2020 9:57:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PBA
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
272
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
<br />The Bowery Mixed-Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact <br /> <br />City of Santa Ana 2 <br />May 2020 <br />Notably, section 21002 requires an agency to “substantially lessen or avoid” significant adverse <br />environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant environmental <br />impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners <br />Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 (“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the <br />environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone <br />the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable <br />level”); Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d <br />300, 309 (“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or <br />reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the Project unfeasible”). <br />CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to <br />substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project <br />modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where <br />the responsibility for modifying the Project lies with some other agency. (State CEQA Guidelines § <br />15091, subds. (a), (b). The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . <br />any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left <br />to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such <br />decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, <br />and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. <br />576). <br />The City of Santa Ana has determined that based on all the evidence presented, including, but not <br />limited to, the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings on the Project, <br />and submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the following <br />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 of <br />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 /> <br /> <br />3-24
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.