Laserfiche WebLink
4 NO ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT <br />ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WITHOUT MITIGATION MEASURES <br />4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES <br />Threshold M-1: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral <br />resource that would be of value to the reaion and the residents of the state. <br />Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impacts to mineral resources related <br />to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the <br />residents of the state. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-12 — 5-13.) <br />Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site is entirely located in an area designated as MRZ- <br />3, indicating that the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available <br />data. The Project site is currently developed with existing commercial retail and surface parking <br />lot uses. No mineral extraction occurs within or near the Project site, and no mineral extraction <br />would occur with implementation of the Project. Thus, the Project would not result in the loss of <br />availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of <br />the state. No impact would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. pp. 5-12 — 5-13.) <br />Threshold M-2: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally -important <br />mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific <br />plan or other land use plan. <br />Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in no impacts to mineral resources related <br />to the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site. (Draft Supplemental <br />EIR, p. 5-13.) <br />Explanation of the Rationale: The Project is not delineated as a locally important mineral <br />resource recovery site in the GPU or other land use plan. The Project would be located within a <br />fully developed urban site with no mineral resource sectors or active or inactive mines. Therefore, <br />implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally -important <br />mineral resource recovery site. No impact would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, p. 5-13.) <br />Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in cumulative impacts concerning mineral <br />resources. <br />Findings: The City finds that the Project would result in less than significant cumulative impacts <br />concerning mineral resources. (Draft Supplemental EIR, pp. 5-12 — 5-13.) <br />Explanation of the Rationale: The Project site is entirely located in an area designated as MRZ- <br />3 and is not delineated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site in the GPU or other <br />land use plan. The Project site is currently developed with existing commercial retail and surface <br />parking lot uses. No mineral extraction occurs within or near the Project site, and no mineral <br />extraction would occur with implementation of the Project. Thus, the Project would not result in <br />the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the <br />residents of the state or of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site. No impact would <br />occur. Therefore, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to mineral resources <br />would not be cumulatively considerable. No impacts would occur. (Draft Supplemental EIR, <br />pp. 5-12 — 5-13.) <br />City of Santa Ana The Village Santa Ana Specific Plan Project <br />August 2025 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations <br />4-27 <br />