SU0007300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 demand for construction materials is based primarily on market conditions, specifically for infrastructure and development projects, and these activities are controlled by a variety of other factors including the restriction of work to nighttime hours. Production at the Munn& Perkins Quarry and other quarries varies with market conditions. In addition,the California Department of Transportation notified local agencies in February 2006 that California's permitted supplies of aggregate would be insufficient to meet the state's future infrastructure needs. Allowing for a limited number of nighttime operations at the existing Munn&Perkins Quarry would supply aggregate for nighttime roadwork in the region. Maintenance and reconstruction of state highways is often performed at night to minimize congestion impacts. Supplying aggregate for this work does not remove existing barriers to growth or induce growth that would not otherwise occur. The proposed Project would not create additional production capacity, but would allow for a shift in operating hours when needed. Therefore, the project is not growth inducing. Findings: Based on the information above, and the whole of the Record, the Commission finds that the proposed Project is not growth inducing. 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 Project are identified in Section 2.6 in Chapter 2,Project Description, of the Draft EIR, and in Section B.I 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 environmental impacts." The evaluation of alternatives is governed by the"rule of reason,"requiring evaluation of only those alternatives "necessary to permit a reasoned choice"(State CEQA Guidelines 12