SU0004094 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Magnify, No Foam A, Gramoxone Extra, Surflan A.S.,Bufferplus,Asana XL, Dipel DF, Nu- Film-P, TreflanHFP,Rovral fungicide, Buffercide, Kocide 101, Super 94, Rocket DL, Hasten spray adjuvant, Phostoxin, Silwet L-77, Buctril 4EC, Weedestroy AM-40 Amine salt, Rally 40W,New Century Buffer, Ammonium Sulfate, Supracide 25-W,MSO concentrate, Omite 6E, Britz B-85, Buccaneer, Orchard Star, Britz Silglow, and Weedar 64. In addition, there are above ground fuel tanks on the site that contain gasoline and diesel fuel. These are all farm tanks that are less than 500 gallons in size and are exempt from the permitting process with the County Environmental Health Department. The potential for water quality impacts due to the storage and use of hazardous materials would be significant under the No Project Alternative. (Draft EIR, p. 5-8.) Biological Resources Under the No Project Alternative, impacts to biological resources from existing agricultural activities could still occur. However, the potential for on-site impacts to biological resources under the No Project Alternative would be less than those associated with the project due to the lack of substantial physical changes to the site. (Draft EIR,p. 5-8.) Cultural Resources The No Project Alternative would allow continued agricultural use of the property. The potential for damage to archaeological and historic resources from deep excavations that could occur under the project would not occur. (Draft EIR,p. 5-8.) Hazards and Hazardous Materials Agricultural chemical use associated with the current agricultural practices on the site would continue under the No Project Alternative. As noted above under water quality,numerous agricultural chemicals are used onsite. In addition, there are above ground fuel tanks on the site that contain gasoline and diesel fuel. These are all farm tanks that are less than 500 gallons in size and are exempt from the permitting process with the County Environmental Health Department. The potential for water quality impacts due to the storage and use of hazardous materials would be significant under the No Project Alternative. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-8 to 5-9.) Visual Resources Under the No Project Alternative existing land use at the site would remain unchanged and continue to be orchards and field crops. Views of the Coastal Range from adjacent roadways and from surrounding lands would not be obstructed. Impacts to visual resources would be less than those associated with the project. (Draft EIR,p. 5-9.) Findings: Based on the whole record, this Commission finds that the No-Project Alternative results in no significant impacts because no mining operations at this site would occur. However, the No- Project Alternative would not meet the basic project objectives and would likely result in other mine site development with similar or additional environmental impacts; the Commission fends that the No-Project Alternative is economically and socially infeasible and is therefore rejected. 46