SU0004094 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

result in a less-than-significant planning impact. (Draft EIR,p. 4.2-11.) Findings: Based on the whole record, this Commission finds that with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2.3, impacts related to conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan are reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-11.) D.2.2. Agricultural Resources Impact 4.3.3 Mining activities have the potential to result in offsite impacts to adjacent agricultural lands. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-10.) Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant. Facts: Vineyards in the project and haul route vicinity would potentially be adversely affected by fugitive dust from project operations. A literature review has found that spider mite population increases in vineyards could be associated with increased dust levels (Costello, 2004; Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission, 2002). See Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-10 to 4.3-11. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 4.3.3: Implement Mitigation Measure 4.6.1 to control the generation of fugitive dust during mining activities. Dust control measures incorporated at the project site and haul routes to reduce the total PMIO to below the CAAQS would also reduce project related dust fallout on nearby vineyards. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-11.) Findings: Based on the whole record, this Commission finds that with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3.3, offsite impacts to adjacent agricultural lands are reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-11.) Impact 4.3.4 Deep pit aggregate extraction will reduce the agricultural productivity of the project site. (Draft EIR,p. 4.3-11.) Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant. Facts: The physical and chemical makeup of soil materials within the upper soil horizon may change during stockpiling, and those changes could affect future soil productivity. See Draft EIR,pp. 4.3-11 to 4.3-13. Mitigation Measures: 11