Laserfiche WebLink
Related Bristol Mixed -Use Project <br />CEQA Findings of Fact <br />CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT <br />FOR THE RELATED BRISTOL MIXED -USE PROJECT <br />SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA <br />STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2020029087 <br />CITY OF SANTA ANA DP NO. 2022-31 <br />Public Resources Code section 21002 states that "public agencies should not approve projects as <br />proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would <br />substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" Section 21002 further <br />states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in <br />systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible <br />alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which would avoid or substantially lessen such <br />significant effects." <br />Agencies demonstrate compliance with section 21002's mandate by adopting findings before <br />approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); <br />State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a).) The approving agency must make written findings for <br />each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project and must reach at <br />least one of three permissible conclusions. <br />• The first possible finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or <br />incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant <br />environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. <br />(a)(1)•) <br />• The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the <br />responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the <br />finding" and that "[s]uch changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and <br />should be adopted by such other agency." (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) <br />• The third potential conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other <br />considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, <br />make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." <br />(State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) <br />Agencies must not adopt a project with significant environmental impacts if feasible alternatives or <br />mitigation measures would substantially lessen the significant impacts. Public Resources Code section <br />21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within <br />a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological <br />factors." State CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds "legal" considerations as another indicium of <br />feasibility (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565). <br />Project objectives also inform the determination of "feasibility." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego <br />(1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417.) Further, "`feasibility' 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." (Id.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. <br />City of Santa Ana <br />CEQA Findings of Fact <br />September 2024 <br />