05-28-19_AGENDA PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (2019) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2019 City of Santa Ana Local Guidelines 7-17 ©Best Best & Krieger LLP however, may be developed after project approval when it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project's environmental review provided that the Lead Agency (1) commits itself to the mitigation, (2) adopts specific performance standards the mitigation will achieve, and (3) identifies the type(s) of potential action(s) that can feasibly achieve that performance standard and that will be considered, analyzed, and potentially incorporated in the mitigation measure. Compliance with a regulatory permit or other similar process may be identified as mitigation if compliance would result in implementation of measures that would be reasonably expected, based on substantial evidence in the record, to reduce the significant impact to the specified performance standards. If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the effects of the mitigation measure shall be disclosed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project itself. If a project includes a housing development, the City may not reduce the project’s proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure or project alternative if the City determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure or project alternative that would provide a comparable level of mitigation without reducing the number of housing units. Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. In the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, mitigation measures can be incorporated into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design. Mitigation measures must also be consistent with all applicable constitutional requirements such as the “nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards—i.e., there must be an essential nexus between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental interest, and the mitigation measure must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the project. Where maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of a historical resource will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings” (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, the project’s impact on the historical resource shall generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus not significant. The City should, whenever feasible, seek to avoid damaging effects on any historical resource of an archaeological nature. The following must be considered and discussed in an EIR for a project involving an archaeological site: (a) Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites; and (b) Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, the following: (1) Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites; (2) Incorporation of sites within parks, green space, or other open spaces; (3) Covering the archaeological sites with a layer of chemically stable soil before building tennis courts, parking lots, or similar facilities on the site; and/or 3 -113