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 //).) <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.App.4th 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.App.4th 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 11, 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 /> CE 5T ac an Statement 32 — 25 2 <br /> Of ri ing onsiderations -2- 61 /Rer�0 2 1 <br />