Laserfiche WebLink
(d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall <br />also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it <br />has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid <br />or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures <br />must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other <br />measures. <br />(e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the <br />documents or other materials which constitute the record of the <br />proceedings upon which its decision is based. <br />(f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the <br />findings required by this section. <br />Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being <br />accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account <br />economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 <br />adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors <br />(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta ll).) <br />The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or <br />mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (California Native <br />Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 1001 ["an alternative 'may be found <br />infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is <br />supported by substantial evidence in the record"'].) An alternative may also be rejected because <br />it "would not 'entirely fulfill' [a] project objective." (Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi <br />(2012) 205 Cal.AppAth 296, 314-315.) "[F]easibility" under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to <br />the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, <br />environmental, social, and technological factors." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 <br />Cal.App.3d 410, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 <br />Cal.AppAth 704, 715.) <br />With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, <br />a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the <br />agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why <br />the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse <br />environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources <br />Code, § 21081, subd. (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 <br />left 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." (Goleta Il, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.) <br />When adopting Statements of Overriding Considerations, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 <br />further provides: <br />Santa Ana General Plan Update <br />CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement <br />Of Overriding Considerations -2- <br />October 2021 <br />