SU0004094 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

mitigation measures (See Section D.3 of these findings), the County concludes that these cumulative impacts would remain significant even after mitigation has been incorporated when combined with other related projects. Therefore, these impacts are overridden by the project benefits (Section F below) as discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section G below). D.4.2. Growth Inducing Impacts CEQA §21100(b)(5) specifies that growth inducing impacts of a proposed project must be addressed in an EIR. State CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d)provides direction to the scope of the analysis. As stated therein, an EIR must"discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment." This discussion must include projects that would remove obstacles to population growth. The availability of sand and gravel aggregate resources does not, in itself, induce or encourage growth. The development of new sources of aggregate is typically considered a response to growth, not something that induces growth. Urban growth in San Joaquin County and Stanislaus County is controlled by their respective General Plans and is based on long-term land use allocations and the availability of a variety of factors. (Draft EIR,p. 6-2.) The San Joaquin County General Plan identifies the County as a leading agricultural producer, although it is noted that it is undergoing a transformation to more of an industrial and service economy. San Joaquin County's Census 2000 population of 563,598. Based on State of California Department of Finance projections,total population is projected to be approximately 727,800 by 2010 and approximately 887,600 by 2020. If the County is to sustain this growth and achieve a more diversified economic base, the county must ensure improvements to the County's infrastructure. The development of the project site for mining purposes would not be expected to induce substantial new population growth in the area; rather, it would serve to provide for the needed infrastructure of the County. (Draft EIR,p. 6-2.) E. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(a) requires an evaluation of"a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The objectives of the proposed mine expansion project are identified in Section 3.4 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, and in Section B.1 of these Findings. Alternatives are used to determine whether or not a variation of the proposed project would reduce or eliminate significant project impacts within the basic framework of the objectives. State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(c) discusses the range of alternatives to be evaluated, requiring that"[t]he EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. ...Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in the EIR are: (I) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or(iii) inability to avoid significant 39