Item 22 - Resolution Adopting Local CEQA Guidelines Resolution

Home Browse Search

Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (2023) INITIAL STUDY 2023 City of Santa Ana Local Guidelines 5-5 ©Best Best & Krieger LLP answers were checked. If practicable, attach a list of reference materials, such as prior EIRs, plans, traffic studies, air quality data, or other supporting studies. 5.08 EVALUATING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. In evaluating the environmental significance of effects disclosed by the Initial Study, the Lead Agency shall consider: (a) Whether the Initial Study and/or any comments received informally during consultations indicate that a fair argument can be made that the project may have a significant adverse environmental impact that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Even if a fair argument can be made to the contrary, an EIR should be prepared; (b) Whether both primary (direct) and reasonably foreseeable secondary (indirect) consequences of the project were evaluated. Primary consequences are immediately related to the project, while secondary consequences are related more to the primary consequences than to the project itself. For example, secondary impacts upon the resources base, including land, air, water and energy use of an area, may result from population growth, a primary impact; (c) Whether adverse social and economic changes will result from a physical change caused by the project. Adverse economic and social changes resulting from a project are not, in themselves, significant environmental effects. However, if such adverse changes cause physical changes in the environment, those consequences may be used as the basis for finding that the physical change is significant; (d) Whether there is serious public controversy or disagreement among experts over the environmental effects of the project. However, the existence of public controversy or disagreement among experts does not, without more, require preparation of an EIR in the absence of substantial evidence of significant effects; (e) Whether the cumulative impact of the project is significant and whether the incremental effects of the project are “cumulatively considerable” (as defined in Local Guidelines Section 11.14) when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, current projects, and probable future projects. The City may conclude that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program (including, but not limited to, water quality control plan, air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, plans or regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem. To be used for this purpose, such a plan or program must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process. In relying on such a plan or program, the City should explain which requirements apply to the project and ensure that the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable; and (f) Whether the project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological or historical resource. The City may use a threshold of significance (as that term is defined in State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.7) to determine whether a project may cause a significant environmental