SU0004916 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4.2.3 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS The proposed project would result in significant land-use3 and agricultural impacts if it would: ► Result in conflicts between existing land uses(sensitive land uses,canals,dairies,transmission lines, pipelines)and proposed land uses; ► Result in conflicts between proposed land uses; ► Convert Important Farmland to non-agricultural use; ► Conflict substantially with existing zoning for agricultural use or with Williamson Act contracts; Conflict substantially with adjacent agricultural operations;or Result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. 4.2.4 IMPACTS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY This section is based on a review of aerial photos and maps showing existing and planned land uses,a survey of existing land uses, and a review of Important Farmland maps from the California Resources Agency Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Initial Study(IS)found that the proposed project would not physically divide an established community because it would be constructed in an area that is almost entirely used for farming.However,the northwest comer of the project site contains Grant Line Village(an area of approximately 50 existing residents)that can be regarded as a small community. Residents living in this community would receive increased access to their properties after development of the proposed project.The IS also found that the proposed project would not physically divide an established community or conflict with habitat conservation plans(refer to Section 4.10, `Biological Resources,"for further discussion).Therefore,in accordance with Section 15063(b)(1)(C) of the CEQA Guidelines,the potential for the proposed project to divide an established community or conflict with habitat conservation plans is not evaluated further in this EIR. See the IS (Appendix B of this Draft EIR)for further discussion. 3 Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines,Environmental Checklist Form,XI. Land Use and Planning,includes as a question: "Would the project conflict with any applicable land-use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?" Where the proposed project would conflict with government plans or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect,this is addressed in the applicable sections of this EIR.This is not identified as a significance threshold here because inconsistency with applicable plans is not necessarily an environmental issue(i.e.,does not necessarily result in environmental effects).This issue is _ addressed in the applicable sections of this EIR.For example:conflicts with County agricultural zoning is addressed in this section;compliance with the SJMSCP is addressed in Section 4.10,"Biological Resources";and conflicts with the sound wall height limits of the MHMP is addressed in Section 4.14,"Visual Quality." Project consistency with the County General Plan land-use designations and zoning is addressed in Section 4.3,"General Plan Policies and Zoning." College Park at Mountain House Specific Plan III Draft EIR EDAW San Joaquin County 4.2-13 Land Use and Agriculture