SU0013380 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

development of a 'self-contained' community; ensuring that all public services and facilities are sized to accomodate no more than the build-out of the new town; locating all public services within the new community (for example, the sewage treatment plant) so that there are no growth inducing pressure on intervening land; the inclusion of significant open space buffers, or conservation easements that will separate urban development from agricultural operations; and the adoption and adherence to strong growth limitation policies on intervening lands that are contained in the General Plan 2010 document. Finding: Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible any mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Supporting Facts: The proposed project would be growth inducing despite the implementation of the above reference mitigation measures since it would introduce a potential population of 43,000 people into an area that is almost entirely in agricultural production. Its location at the county line, approximatley 3.5 miles from the City of Tracy will exert growth inducement pressures that cannot be eliminated.This fact has already been demonstrated with the submittal of a pre-application for a commercial proposal on 157 acres across Patterson Pass Rd. from the proposed new town. Unless there were a mechanism to ensure that intervening agricultural lands could not develop, it is inevitable that some growth outside the current town boundaries will occur as a result of approving this new town. However, measures can be employed to minimize these impacts, as have been described in the Mitigation section above. 5. Impact: There will be increased public exposure to the effects of explosions and/or chemical releases from train accidents. Mitigation: The EIR proposes a number of mitigation measures to reduce the level of exposure to these potential dangers. These mitigations include: significant land use separations between the railroad tracks and any occupied land use;the use of berms, walls, and landscaping to separate visually and physically the railroad tracks; and the recommendation to locate only non-residential land uses adjacent to the tracks. Finding: Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible any mitigation mesures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Supporting Facts: The project would expose people to an increased risk of exposure from a catastrophic accident which could occur along the stretch of tracks which bisects the project site, despite the implementation of the above described mitigation measures. However,the chance of an accident Attachment C CA (PC: 4-9-92)