Item 22 - Public Hearing Regarding Bristol Project

Home Browse Search

Related Bristol Mixed -Use Project CEQA Findings of Fact 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). Notably, section 21002 requires an agency to "substantially lessen or avoid" significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that "substantially lessen" significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002's mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 ("CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level"); Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300, 309 ("[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance ... if such would render the Project unfeasible"). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the Project lies with some other agency. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091, subds. (a), (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576). The City of Santa Ana has determined that based on all the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings on the Project, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the Project are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; (2) potentially significant and each of these impacts would be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified mitigation measures; or (3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation measures. City of Santa Ana 2 CEQA Findings of Fact September 2024