SU0004094 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Increased traffic volumes from the project would contribute to cumulative noise impacts to residences along truck haul routes. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6.5 would reduce the project's incremental contribution to cumulative noise impacts, but not to a less-than-significant level. As a result, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable for the project. Based on the whole record, this Commission finds that there are no additional feasible mitigation measures that would reduce potential cumulative noise impacts to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR,p. 6-11.) DA. OTHER CEQA REQUIRED ANALYSIS IN THE EIR D.4.1. Cumulative Impact Analysis Cumulative impacts are defined in State CEQA Guidelines §15355(b) as: The change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. For the purposes of the EIR for this Project, the cumulative setting is based on a cumulative growth scenario that incorporates development anticipated under both the San Joaquin County General Plan, in which the planning horizon year is 2010, and the Stanislaus County General Plan, in which the planning horizon year is 2015, as well as reasonably foreseeable future development projects at the time of publication of the NOP, as shown in Table 6-1 of the Draft EIR. (Draft EIR, p. 6-3.) The cumulative setting is based on other anticipated mining-related development within the vicinity of the project, specifically within the Vernalis and Tracy areas. These areas were selected since they represent the areas where other proposed and approved mining projects are located and where the effects resulting from the project could contribute to the cumulative environmental impacts. There are no other types of projects, such as large residential, commercial or industrial development in the vicinity of the project. (Draft EIR,pp. 6-3, 6-5.) The locations of these approved and/or pending projects are shown in Figures 6-1 and 6-2 of the Draft EIR. (Draft EIR,p. 6-5.) The detailed discussion for the following Cumulative Impacts and their respective mitigation measures, if any, are set forth above in greater detail in Sections D.I through D.3 (above) of these CEQA findings. Cumulative Impacts Considered to be Less than Significant and Requiring No Mitigation Impact 6.1: Cumulative Land Use Compatibility Impacts. (Draft EIR p. 6-8.) Impact 6.2: Cumulative Agricultural Productivity Impacts. (Draft EIR pp. 6-8 to 6-9.) Impact 6.6: Cumulative Slope Stability Impacts. (Draft EIR p. 6-12.) 37