My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0013380
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
P
>
PATTERSON PASS
>
0
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
GP-89-11
>
SU0013380
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2020 4:22:18 PM
Creation date
6/2/2020 4:07:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0013380
PE
2600
FACILITY_NAME
GP-89-11
STREET_NUMBER
0
STREET_NAME
PATTERSON PASS
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
TRACY
Zip
95376-
APN
20904003
ENTERED_DATE
5/29/2020 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
PATTERSON PASS RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\gmartinez
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
373
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
However, the Redesigned Project produces four village <br /> centers which will offer quite similar range of goods , <br /> services , and activities . This approach loses the <br /> opportunity of establishing a special Town Center which, <br /> because there is only one, can offer a concentration of <br /> activities and serve to unify the entire community. <br /> 5 . Village Three Center, consisting of an "island" floating <br /> in regional park, is not well connected into the rest of <br /> the community. It fails to achieve the stated goals of <br /> integrated, higher density village centers . <br /> 6 . The extensive regional park area does not effectively <br /> serve the region ' s population and would be better located <br /> off-site in conjunction with an important open space <br /> feature . <br /> 7 . The Redesigned Project does not include any office <br /> commercial uses . This contradicts the idea of providing a <br /> full service, balanced community. <br /> 8 . This alternative allocates an unreasonably high amount of <br /> land to open space uses (buffers , easements , regional <br /> park) which is infeasible economically. The Regional Park <br /> acreage is about three times larger than is needed to meet <br /> the County' s standards for a community of 30 , 000 . <br /> 9 . The community would be substantially smaller than the <br /> Project , and so would be less viable and less able to <br /> attract major employers . <br /> 10 . The proposed marina location is probably infeasible, due <br /> to the proposed salt water intrusion barrier . <br /> 11 . The redesigned alternative fails to include any golf <br /> courses , and so fails to meet the demand for this type of <br /> recreational use. <br /> 12 . The Redesigned Project alternative could impose a greater <br /> fiscal burden on the County General Fund. <br /> 13 . Many of the impacts of the Redesigned Alternative would <br /> not result in significant environmental advantages as <br /> compared to the Project , including biological impacts , and <br /> in many of the areas in which the Redesign Project is <br /> stated to have an advantage, the comparison does not <br /> consider that the adopted mitigation measures will lessen <br /> the extent of these impacts in the approved Project . <br /> C3-5 <br /> 0276r <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.