Laserfiche WebLink
• recreation amenities including golf courses , Old <br /> River park etc . <br /> 4 . Redesigned Project Alternative <br /> Finding : Specific, economic, social or other <br /> considerations make infeasible the Project alternative <br /> identified in the Final EIR. <br /> Statement of Facts : <br /> The Redesigned Project Alternative presents a number of <br /> problems in terms of circulation, land use relationships , <br /> proposed land uses and densities , usable open space and open <br /> space maintenance, and community identity. These issues are <br /> summarized below. <br /> 1 . The Redesigned Project fails to produce a workable plan to <br /> build a new community which can attract new businesses and <br /> build houses at a density and product mix that is <br /> marketable and feasible given current conditions . <br /> 2 . Circulation in the Redesigned Project is circuitous and <br /> does not provide for direct connections between homes and <br /> jobs . The stated goal is to "clearly separate industrial <br /> access from commercial and residential areas . " This <br /> contradicts one of the primary goals of Mountain House, <br /> which is to establish strong links between housing and <br /> employment . Indirect circulation will result in longer <br /> trips and more air and noise impacts . Likewise, access <br /> from the freeway does not provide a direct connection to <br /> the Town Center or the community as a whole and requires <br /> extra driving time . <br /> 3 . The residential product mix has been shifted to such a <br /> high net density ( i .e. , by decreasing medium density while <br /> increasing medium high and high density) that it is no <br /> longer market-driven; in other words , the developer will <br /> not be able to sell these houses and the community will <br /> fail . If the developer cannot sell houses , the community <br /> will not be able to finance its own improvements , thereby <br /> defeating another primary goal for Mountain House to pay <br /> its own way and provide housing and jobs at no cost to the <br /> County. <br /> 4 . The Redesigned Project proposes four village centers . <br /> This differs from the Proposed Project , which establishes <br /> one major Town Center with a series of other neighborhood <br /> centers . The issue here is one of interpretation of <br /> General Plan policies , not one of environmental impact . <br /> Both approaches can comply with the General Plan . <br /> C3-4 <br /> 0276r <br />