SU0004916 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Cultural Resources The project site does not contain any cultural resources listed in the NRHP or the CRHR,and although the site _ (including the off-site infrastructure areas)contains 10 known historic-era cultural resources,none of these are listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR. A portion of the site(Grant Line Village)contains 23 existing buildings/structures that may represent historic resources(i.e.,are currently 50+years of age or would be 50+ years of age at project buildout (20251)and may contain undiscovered and unrecorded subsurface cultural resources. Both the MHMP Buildout Alternative and the proposed project would disrupt the 815-acre project site,off-site infrastructure locations,and Grant Line Village;thus,both would have the potential to result in significant impacts on undiscovered and unrecorded subsurface cultural resources and/or potential historic structures. In addition,the potential to affect undiscovered and unrecorded subsurface cultural resources would be similar to that of the proposed project because this alternative would also require the development of a 30-acre interim recycled water irrigation pond and nonpotable water system on the Pombo property.[Similar] Drainage Both the MHMP Buildout Alternative and the proposed project would include development of the 815-acre project site; construction activities within the off-site infrastructure sites; grading of the project site; an increase in impervious surfaces, 100-year runoff,and runoff velocity; and an increase in demand for capacity in the existing and proposed MHCSD storm drain system.The 100-year runoff quantities for this alternative and the proposed project would be 1,249 cfs and 1,206 cfs,respectively(MacKay&Somps 2004).Both scenarios would result in — less-than-significant sedimentation/erosion and flooding/exceedance of storm drain capacity impacts,because of. • the considerable amount of existing San Joaquin County and MHCSD policies,requirements, and standards — applicable to development within the MHMP area that each of these scenarios would need to comply with and • the general consistency of each of these scenarios with the Mountain House Storntwater Master Drainage _ Plan. However,the MHMP Buildout Alternative would generate approximately 3.5%more runoff during the 100-year storm event than the proposed project and thus would generate a correspondingly greater demand for capacity in the MHCSD storm drain system than the proposed project.[Greater] Water Quality Both the MHMP Buildout Alternative and the proposed project would include grading, earth-moving activities, and excavations during construction across the 815-acre project site(with the possible exception of Grant Line — Village).Both scenarios would also include construction activities of roughly the same scale and size over the same 20-year period.Therefore,it is anticipated that this alternative and the proposed project would result in similar significant water quality impacts during construction.[Similar] _ Both the MHMP Buildout Alternative and the proposed project would convert 815 acres from primarily agricultural uses to mixed urban uses and thus would generate urban runoff that would eventually be discharged to Mountain House Creek and Old River. As indicated in Table 4.8-5 in Section 4.8,"Water Quality,"constituent loading under these two scenarios with BMPs incorporated would result in less contaminant loading for each of the constituents evaluated than is currently generated on the project site by the existing agricultural uses. Therefore,both scenarios would result in less-than-significant water quality impacts during operation. As — indicated in Table 4.8-5,constituent loading during operation would be greater under this alternative than under the proposed project.[Greater] EDAW College Park at Mountain House Spec is Plan III Draft EIR — Alternatives to the Proposed Project 5-12 San Joaquin County