SU0006225 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

v %W %W Analysis Background The proposed project would include the fifth small lot Tentative Map to be considered for Specific Plan III (PA-0500838). 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). `, The large lot Tentative Map would be for financing purposes only. It would be the fourth instance in which a large lot Tentative Map has been used in connection with development in Mountain House. ,or On June 3, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a large lot Tentative Map for Neighborhood F %W (SU-98-04), and on March 9, 2005 the Community Development Department approved two large lot Tentative Maps (PA-0500035 and PA-0500036)for properties owned or controlled by PCCP \. Mountain House LLC in Neighborhood D and in Neighborhood A/B. Use of a Development Agreement has been common practice for developers in Mountain House %W in connection with their proposed Major Subdivision applications. The proposed Development ` Agreement between the County and Joe J. and Lillian E. Machado 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: The proposed Development Agreement for the Machado property differs from previous Mountain House Development Agreements in that 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 previously approved Mountain House projects subject to Development Agreements would not. The 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.] Analysis t The project was reviewed for consistency with the General Plan, Mountain House Master Plan, V 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) school mitigation agreements; 4)hazardous materials; and 5) large lot Tentative Map conformity. Each of these is discussed %„ below. %W 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 4 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) %W and (d)). The proposed project would increase the diversity of housing products in Mountain House by 15