SU0013380 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Susan Goodwin, with David Taussig and Associates, 1337 Howe Avenue, in Sacramento, representing the applicant, was present to address the Fiscal and Financial Sections of the Draft EIR. She made the following points: Regarding Section 4 . 9 (Fiscal Section) of the Draft EIR: • The fiscal analysis shows that only 40% of the nonresidential acreage is developed by the year 2010. The hotel never devel- ops, which reduces sales tax revenues and the transient occu- pancy tax revenues; the commercial/industrial property is not resold throughout the 17-year project period. • She listed some items which, she said, should have been included in the fiscal analysis: At the current rate that the County collects, the project would generate over $600, 000 annual recurring surplus at buildout. • Including other technical data, the projected County surplus in the year 2010 would be over $9. 5 million. • She showed charts of portions of her report. • She said that Mountain House will be a fiscally balanced project and it stands to be a project that generates surplus revenues to the County. Regarding Section 4 . 10 (Financial Section) of the Draft EIR: • Mountain House is a financially viable and a financially balanced project. • They see no extraordinary infrastructure requirements that would make any phase of Mountain House a financially infeasi- ble project. • They see a very basic allocation of costs. There are many financing options available that will provide a more fair allocation to nonresidential land uses. It is likely that a combination of the financing options will be used on Mountain House. Steve Picki-Al, with Korve Engineering, 155 Grand Avenue, Oakland, a transportation consultant on the project, was present and made the following comments: Regarding the Transportation Section of the Draft EIR: • The report can be misleading in that it would lead one to believe that the project would make a more significant contribution to long-term traffic growth on the regional network of freeways and roadways than it actually does. • Severe impacts on the traffic arena are fairly specifically located and are not distributed uniformly across the southern part of the County. • He showed tables and graphs to support his statements and said that the Final EIR should provide more objective tables and graphs on the traffic impact. Steve Atkinson, with the firm of Baker and McKinsey, in San Francisco, representing the applicant made the following comments: PC MINUTES -2- JAN 16, 1992