Laserfiche WebLink
6.0 ALTERNATIVES <br /> southern property line and areas designated for the storage of excavated soil moved to the eastern half <br /> of the project site. <br /> With the exception of the high sensitivity area in the northern portion of the property, the <br /> relocation of lots, roads, golf links and clubhouse would be consistent with the recommendations <br /> in the biological section (Figure 4.7-15). <br /> 6.5 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES <br /> As required in CEQA Guidelines (15126(d), an alternative which is environmentally superior to the <br /> proposed project must be identified. The foregoing analysis discusses potential impacts associated with <br /> each alternative. Based upon this analysis, the environmentally superior alternative is the mitigated <br /> alternative, which reduces significant unavoidable impacts with the relocation or elimination of certain <br /> portions of the development proposal. <br /> While the no project alternative might have been the environmentally superior alternative, it does not <br /> protect the cultural and biological resources known to exist on the site. With the no project alternative, <br /> there is no guarantee that the site can be preserved for its cultural and biotic resources, particularly if <br /> the land is leveled for intensive agricultural production. Several factors contribute to the reason for <br /> the site's uniqueness: because '�'h�the property has remained in one family through several <br /> generations, eoupled with the faets that the family had an appreciation for its natural and cultural <br /> resources, and the site had not been available to the public.are the primary faeters for retaining the aife4 <br /> This uniqueness cannot be guaranteed in the future unless a conservation easement is <br /> granted, or the property is deeded and/or sold to a land conservation organization or a public agency. <br /> While implementation of either one of these transactions would be considered a noble effort, <br /> unfortunately, at the present time there are no plans to proceed <br /> with either. <br /> The other two alternatives each eliminate a segment of the development proposal,but neither one totally <br /> eliminates the impacts unless project plans are revised to reflect the changes recommended in the <br /> mitigated alternative. Thus, neither alternative is considered environmentally superior to the mitigated <br /> alternative. <br /> 6-9 <br />