Laserfiche WebLink
In the case of Area 5, on the west site of McKinley Avenue, just <br /> south of Yosemite Avenue, land is vacant in the immediate vicinity. A <br /> closer look suggests that it is in an urbanizing zone. It is in proxim- <br /> ity to residential development in Manteca and being near a City of <br /> Manteca sewer expansion project currently, there are interjurisdictional <br /> conflicts between the Lathrop community and the City of Manteca over <br /> which municipality will annex the locality. Traffic circulation is also <br /> somewhat more problematic in this vicinity. Sites 3, 4 and 5 all had <br /> higher initial land costs and lacked the potential for rail transit, <br /> which the preferred location has. However, the applicant has not yet <br /> proposed a connection with rail transit for the proposed project. <br /> While concerns regarding land costs and access were expressed by <br /> the applicant, alternative Areas 3 and 4 should be considered potential <br /> alternative locations to the proposed project site. <br /> Area 3 would be located near a major highway (Highway 99) to allow <br /> convenient access. Area 4 currently has industrial uses in the vicinity <br /> which would be compatible with the proposed project. <br /> ALTERNATIVE SIZES AND LOCATIONS <br /> Within the boundaries of the proposed project area, there is poten- <br /> tial for modifying the plot plan to relocate and/or rearrange the facil- <br /> ity's individual processes. Rearrangement of the proposed facilities may <br /> reduce potential impacts to cultural resources, if further testing <br /> reveals that the site has archaeological significance. Were a site <br /> discovered, construction activities could then readily avoid it, and it <br /> could be preserved. Movement of the facilities in a northerly or east- <br /> erly direction would relocate equipment closer to residential noise <br /> receptors to the east of the site, although this would have a negligible <br /> impact. The existing trains in this location currently are a source of <br /> significant noise. All other identified impacts would be the same as <br /> assessed for the proposed project. <br /> 6-4 <br /> 101-40.R3 4/10/89 <br />