SU0013380 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 . Reduced Scale Project Alternative Finding : Specific economic, social , or other considerations make infeasible the Project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Statement of Facts : As discussed above, with respect to most of the identified impacts of Reduced Scale Project does not further reduce those impacts to a significant degree . According to the FEIR, the Reduced-Scale Alternative does reduce certain of the identified unavoidable impacts of the Proposed Project , but the advantages of the Reduced-Scale Alternative are debatable . While the alternative would preserve some agricultural land on site, the Project could result in preservation of an equivalent amount and quality of land off-site as a wildlife mitigation and for wastewater reclamation. (See Mitigation 4 . 13-1(f) . Also , the reduction in the amount of farmland developed, and in the impacts on transportation and air quality, are achieved by a 60% reduction in the population of the new community. If , as is likely, the reduction of the size of Mountain House simply transfers the lost population to other sites , the net impact on the County ' s agricultural land, traffic, and air quality is likely to be negligible . Moreover , if the growth is simply transferred to other locations on better agricultural land, consists of less compact development , and is not designed to minimize auto use, reducing the scale of Project at this site actually could increase cumulative environmental impacts . The Reduced-Scale Alternative also would not be feasible . The alternative would have a less positive fiscal impact than the Project , and therefore an increased chance that it would operate at a General Fund deficit . Also , the FEIR notes that the backbone infrastructure for this alternative may impose a higher financial burden on developable properties . Finally, the substantial reduction in the overall population and employment , by reducing the "critical mass" of the community, could hamper its intended ability to develop as a relatively self-contained, diverse community. 1 . The Reduced-Scale Project Alternative fails to provide the critical mass required for a true new town. At 40% of the Project , the reduced alternative would not be able to generate the economy of scale required to cover the costs of infrastructure and essential urban services . Likewise, the alternative would not be large enough to support a true town center . The nonresidential uses proposed for this alternative, especially the commercial acreage, C3-6 0276r