SU0004916 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

college would be developed.This is compared with 2,302 residential units, 1.5 acres of neighborhood commercial,256,130 sf of office commercial, 1,507,260 sf of limited industrial,42.3 acres of parks,two K-8 schools,a 108.8-acre community college, and approximately 125.5 acres of other public facilities. _ This alternative would include more residential units,industrial square footage,and park space than the proposed project,and less office commercial than the proposed project and would not include a community college.This alternative would also implement the separate neighborhood concept of the MHMP for Neighborhoods A and B, with each of these neighborhoods having its own neighborhood center.This is compared to the proposed project, under which Neighborhoods A and B would be consolidated around a single neighborhood center and for which a community college would be developed in the southwest portion of the project site in place of most of the housing in Neighborhood A. A 65-foot-wide PG&E and Chevron easement containing 26-inch and 36-inch natural gas pipelines and an 18- inch crude oil pipeline bisects the project site in a northwest-to-southeast-trending alignment.The California Code of Regulations,Title 5—Education, Section 14010, Standards for School Site Selection,requires that a risk analysis be prepared where a proposed school would be located within 1,500 feet of an existing natural gas transmission pipeline.The intent of this requirement is to document the potential explosion hazard risk posed by natural gas transmission lines to schools and to determine whether the risk is acceptable.As indicated in Figure 3- 4,the K-8 school planned for Neighborhood A by the MHMP would be located on the easement itself and/or _ within 1,500 feet of the easement.Therefore, a risk analysis of the hazard posed by the pipelines to the school would be required.There is a potential that the results of the analysis,the California Department of Education (CDE),and/or the local school district would determine that the planned school location represents an unacceptable risk,in which case a different location would require consideration.Therefore,there is a potential that the MHMP land use map cannot be implemented as approved,at least with respect to the Neighborhood A school. Because this alternative would be consistent with the MHMP, some entitlements being sought under the proposed project would not be required.These entitlements include amendment of the County's General Plan to permit development of a community college; amendment of the MHMP to add a public college designation, – consolidation of neighborhoods,realignment of Central Parkway,and amendment of the acreages of multiple other land use designations; amendment of the MHCSD Utility Master Plans for stormwater, water,and wastewater improvements; and amendment of the Consolidated Development Title to address changes of _ development standards. IMPACT ANALYSIS Land Use and Agriculture Like the proposed project,the MHMP Buildout Alternative would convert the project site from agricultural and – residential uses to mixed urban uses,remove the existing irrigation canals,develop new urban uses adjacent to existing uses,and develop new unlike urban uses adjacent to one another.Like the proposed project,this alternative would cause similar significant conflicts with existing uses(e.g.,public safety hazard from on-site irrigation canals), – similar significant conflicts between proposed uses,and a similar significant and unavoidable farmland conversion impact(conversion of approximately 759 acres of Important Farmland)compared with the proposed project.In addition,this alternative would require development of a 30-acre interim recycled water irrigation pond on the _ Pombo property,resulting in a significant and unavoidable conversion of 30 acres of Important Farmland at the location and resulting in a significant conflict with existing agricultural zoning at that location similar to the proposed project.[Si nHarl EDAW College Park at Mountain House Specific Plan III Draft EIR – Alternatives to the Proposed Project 5-10 San Joaquin County