|
4 Environmental Analysis
<br /> 4.11 Land Use and Planning
<br /> The Project would be consistent with the applicable policies of the Transportation and Mobility
<br /> Element as well. Relevant policies in this element include Policies TM-1.11 and TM-1.15. The
<br /> Project would use existing roadways and would not be required to improve the transportation
<br /> system. Transportation impacts are also discussed in Section 4.15, Transportation, of this Draft
<br /> EIR. As discussed therein, the Project would have less than significant impacts on the
<br /> transportation system.
<br /> The Project would also be consistent with the applicable General Plan Infrastructure and Services
<br /> Policies (Policies IS-1.2, IS-1.8, IS-1.9, IS-2.6, IS-4.8, IS-5.1, and IS-7.1). The Project would use
<br /> the existing transportation network and does not include any improvements to existing
<br /> infrastructure, including public roadways in the vicinity. Access to the Project site would be
<br /> provided from West Patterson Pass Road to Midway Road to a driveway that leads to the Project
<br /> site. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with Policies IS-1.2, IS-1.8, or IS1.9.
<br /> Further, the Project does not include any habitable structures, such that would require the
<br /> extension of water or wastewater services to the site. No permanent sanitary facilities would be
<br /> required. As discussed in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft EIR, there is a
<br /> sufficient water supply to support development of the Project. Finally, as discussed in Section
<br /> 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR, the Project would be designed to site
<br /> stormwater drainage facilities in a manner that would efficiently capture and dispose of runoff and
<br /> minimize impacts to water quality. Accordingly, the Project would be consistent with Policies IS-
<br /> 2.6, IS-4.8, IS-5.1, and IS-71.
<br /> The Project would be consistent with the applicable policies of the Public Health and Safety
<br /> Element (Policies PHS-1.10, PHS-3.1, PHS-3.2, PHS-3.4, PHS-3.5, PHS-4.3, PHS-5.6, PHS-
<br /> 5.7, PHS-5.10, PHS-5.11, PHS-6.7, PHS-7.1, PHS-7.2, PHS-7.3, PHS-7.5, PHS-7.6, PHS-7.8,
<br /> PHS-7.9, PHS-8.1, PHS-8.6, PHS-9.1, and PHS-9.4). In accordance with Policy PHS-1.10, the
<br /> Project would provide adequate emergency vehicle access to the site and site access would
<br /> comply with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and/or San Joaquin County
<br /> Fire Protection District requirements. The Project would also be designed in compliance with
<br /> federal, state, and local worker safety and fire protection codes and regulations, which would
<br /> minimize the potential for the occurrence of fire, consistent with Policy PHS-4.3. The Project
<br /> would also incorporate fire protection measures in accordance with the requirements set forth by
<br /> the County through the Site Approval application process.
<br /> In accordance with Policies PHS-3.1, PHS-3.2, PHS-3.4, and PHS-3.5, geologic hazards have
<br /> been considered in design of the Project and the potential for such hazards are discussed in
<br /> Section 4.7, Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources, of this Draft EIR. As discussed
<br /> therein, the Project would not be located within one-eighth mile of an active fault, or on soil highly
<br /> susceptible to liquefaction or subsidence. The Project site is not located in an area determined by
<br /> the County to have a high liquefaction potential and, therefore, a liquefaction study is not required
<br /> for the Project. Ultimately, as determined by this Draft EIR, the Project would have less than
<br /> significant impacts related to geologic hazards, with the exception of impacts related to soil
<br /> erosion and loss of topsoil, which would be mitigated to a less than significant level with
<br /> implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1; and with the exception of impacts to
<br /> paleontological resources, which would be mitigated to a less than significant level with
<br /> implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-2 and GEO-3. Thus, the Project would be
<br /> consistent with these policies of the General Plan.
<br /> Griffith Battery Energy Storage Project 4.11-20 Tetra Tech/SCH 2022120675
<br /> Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2023
<br />
|