COMPLIANCE INFO_PRE 2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Some guidance for dealing with growth-inducing impacts when the location and extent of the impacts is to some extent speculative is provided by the Court's ruling in Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors ([2001] 91 Cal. App. 4th 342). The sufficiency of analysis of growth- inducing impacts was an issue contested in that case. In its decision, the Court provided the following guidance: ...the EIR must discuss growth-inducing impacts even though those impacts are not themselves a part of the project under consideration, and even though the extent of the growth is difficult to calculate. It does not follow,however,that an EIR is required to make a detailed analysis of the impacts of a project on housing and growth. Nothing in the [CEQA] Guidelines, or in the cases, requires more than a general analysis of projected growth. [Emphasis added.] Neither CEQA itself, nor the cases that have interpreted it, require an EIR to anticipate and mitigate the effects of a particular project on growth [in] other areas. The Project would increase the availability for disposal of biosolids, a regulated waste stream in California. Although the Project does not include any applications for sewer plant expansions, it could remove or reduce an obstacle to growth because the availability for disposal of biosolids waste would be increased as a result of this Project. If the Project were fully utilized,up to 2,000 tons per day of biosolids disposal could be made available to entities within and outside of Kern County. Biosolids disposal is not restricted by the availability of local landfills in the same way that sewage disposal and water supply needs must be accommodated by the local systems. Biosolids can be hauled to other distant areas by long haul trucks. Conclusion: Although the Project will not be able to take more than 2,000 tons per day of biosolids, and would not completely compensate for the reliabilityof other biosolids facilities, either disposal, land application, or recycling, serving southern California, it could nonetheless remove or reduce an obstacle to some level of growth. It cannot be known precisely where future growth may occur in Antelope Valley, Los Angeles County, and Orange County. It is,however,reasonable to assume that most of the growth would occur in accordance with current city and county general plans. By providing increased reliability for disposal of biosolids for sewage facilities, the Project could enable such jurisdictions to approve a larger aliquot of their planned growth than might have been possible under existing biosolids facilities without the Project. Removal or reduction of an obstacle to growth could accommodate growth that has already been planned for in those areas. Growth that could occur as a result of the removal of this obstacle could affect agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation and traffic, and utilities and services. It is therefore, growth inducing and the impacts are significant and unavoidable. SECTION IV. FINDINGS REGARDING CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MAKE CERTAIN ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INFEASIBLE. Findings of Fact—Section 15091 March 15,2016 H.M. Holloway Landfill Modification Project Final Board of Supervisors 48