SU0006254 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Analysis Background The proposed project would include the sixth small lot Tentative Map(PA-0600363)to be considered for the Specific Plan III area. On November 22, 2005,the Board of Supervisors approved three small lot Tentative Maps(PA-0500143, PA-0500144, and PA-0500145)for 1,251 residential lots as part of the Board's Specific Plan III project approval. On August 17, 2006, the Planning Commission ` approved the 286 unit Regents Gate small lot Tentative Map (PA-0500544). On November 14, 2006, the Board of Supervisors approved the 286 unit Machado small lot Tentative Map. Development of the subdivision as proposed would require the filling-in of the drainage swale that exists on the project site. (See Figure 2) This feature is also referred to as a riparian habitat corridor and a wetland. In order for development(i.e.,approval)of the subdivision to proceed, both the Master Plan and Specific Plan III document need to be amended to eliminate the Open Space/Resource Conservation area (i.e., the riparian habitat corridor/wetland)shown on various maps and referred to in various tables of these documents. Use of a Development Agreement has been common practice for developers in Mountain House r in connection with their proposed Major Subdivision applications. The proposed Development between the County and Golden State Investments II LP would vest(i.e., lock in)certain provisions/sections of the General Plan, Mountain House Master Plan, the Mountain House Development Title, and Specific Plan III for the duration of said Development Agreement(i.e., 25 years with three possible 5-year extensions). [Note: With the exception of the recently approved Machado Development Agreement, the proposed Development Agreement for the Altamont Heights Project differs from previous Mountain House Development Agreements since it includes the Regional Traffic Impact Fees (RTIF)as one of its vested elements. Therefore, the proposed project would be subject to that fee while these other approved Mountain House projects subject to Development Agreements would not. These previous Mountain House Development Agreements did not include the RTIF fees as vested elements because the RTIF was adopted after the County entered into those Development Agreements.] V Analysis r The project was reviewed for consistency with the General Plan, Mountain House Master Plan, Specific Plan III, the Mountain House Public Financing Plan, and other community plans. The project was found to be consistent with these plans. As part of this consistency review, the following matters were reviewed: 1) housing diversity and affordability; 2) Public Land Equity Program (PLEP) obligations; 3)proposed units versus planned units; 4)continued use of the private right-of-way; 5) loss of riparian habitat/wetland; and 6) r Master Plan and Specific Plan III amendments. Each of these is discussed below. Housing Diversity and Affordability. One of the primary objectives of the Master Plan is to ensure that homes are available and affordable to employees working in Mountain House (Master Plan Objective 3.9.3 (a)). This objective is supported by policies requiring a mix of residential housing types, the availability of ` affordable housing for households at every income level, and reliance on market forces to determine the number, rents, and sales prices of dwelling units within the community(Master Plan Section 3.4.1, Policy(e); Section 2.5, Goal (a)and Objective (d); and Section 3.9.3 Policies (a) and (d)). 15