SU0014565 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Three alternatives to the proposed project are considered in the following analysis: the No Project Alternative, the Planned Development District Alternative, and the Lower Density Residential Use Alternative. The following discussion compares the impacts of these alternatives with the impacts associated with buildout of the study area as discussed in Section 3 of this report. 4.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The No Project Alternative involves maintaining the project area and study area's existing General Plan Agricultural Land Use. Only a limited amount of future development (which includes single family residences and other uses associated with agricultural uses) could be added in the project area as a result of this alternative. Under this alternative, most of the environmental impacts of the proposed Traina Brothers project and development of the study area would not occur, would be substantially reduced, or would be delayed. This alternative would postpone potential enviromental impacts on agricultural soils, traffic, public services, hydrology, noise, and air quality that would be associated with most eventual uses of the study area. San Joaquin County and City of Tracy resources could be focused on other areas which could be more easily served at a lower cost. Given that properties in the project area are privately owned and that the adjacent Valpico Rural Residential Area is already being developed for residential use, it is probable that other proposals for development in the study area would be submitted in the future, even if the proposed General Plan Amendment was not approved. 4.2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT This alternative assumes the creation of a Planned Development District that conceptually could satisfy both agricultural and rural residential goals to some degree. The objective of such a district would be to develop a compatible residential and agricultural use of the site by clustering residential uses in one portion of the site and leaving the remainder of the site for agricultural uses. Since normal suburban development is not possible in this area because services such as sewer and water are not available, and lots smaller than 1 1/2 acres cannot accommodate septic systems, it has been assumed that the residential lots would be zoned RR -65. Two scenarios have been developed: one scenario would allow residences to be developed at RR -65 densities on 25 percent of the site and agriculture to be preserved on 75 percent of the site; and the other scenario would allow residences on 50 percent of the site and agriculture to be preserved on 50 percent of the site. Under the first scenario, 54 residences could be accommodated on 102.5 contiguous acres (assuming 20 percent of the 102.5 acres are to be used for streets) and the remaining 307.5 acres would remain in agriculture. Development of the study area in this way would reduce the traffic, air quality, and noise impacts as compared to buildout of the site at RR -65 as discussed in Section 3 of this report. In addition, land use compatibility impacts would be less than if the entire site were developed as residential. Furthermore, the loss of prime agricultural land would be reduced. 4-1