Laserfiche WebLink
MM4.13-1 through MM4.13-24 would also apply to this impact. (Impact 4.3-2) <br />Project Analysis and Conclusion <br />The City determined that long-term development related to localized air quality impacts from <br />operational emissions (Impact 4.13-1) and operational emissions due to the size of the TZC <br />area with the potential to conflict with AB 32 (Impact 4.13-2) were found to be significant and <br />unavoidable and that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible <br />additional mitigation. Specifically, no additional feasible mitigation measures exist that would <br />avoid or substantially reduce these impacts. <br />Any future development within the TZC area requiring discretionary action would continue to be <br />subject to a project -level CEQA review at the time an application is filed for an individual project <br />Mitigation measures MM 4.13-1 through MM4.13.24 would continue to apply. <br />The new regulations in Table 1 — Current and Proposed Text Regulations would provide that no <br />land use shall generate or cause any visible dust, gases, or smoke to be emitted into the <br />atmosphere and that uses, activities, and processes shall not operate in a manner that emits <br />dust, fumes, odors, smoke, or particulate matter, unless authorized under Federal, State, or <br />local law. This will result in a beneficial impact to climate change/greenhouse gas emissions. <br />Therefore, the existing significant and unavoidable global climate change impacts would not <br />result in new or different impacts requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental <br />EIR. <br />5.14 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE <br />Would the project: <br />a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the <br />environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or <br />wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or <br />animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered <br />plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history <br />or prehistory? <br />b. Does the project have potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the <br />disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? <br />c. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively <br />considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a <br />project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the <br />effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? <br />d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects <br />on human beings, either directly or indirectly? <br />As detailed herein, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, a <br />Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is not appropriate for the project because none of the criteria <br />permitting such a document under State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 are met. <br />Project implementation does not include nor require implementation of specific development <br />projects. The majority of the City is urbanized, with residential and nonresidential development, <br />and mobility and public facilities all contributing to Santa Ana's existing built environment. <br />The proposed text amendments to SAMC Sections 41-2001, 41-2001.5, 41-2002, 41-2004, 41- <br />2005, 41-2006, 41-2008, 41-2009, and 41-2008 would merely update to clarify that the <br />January 2025 54 Environmental Analysis <br />