SU0013380 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item No. 2 PC: 4-9-92 GP-89-11 Page 2 Supervisors on December 5, 1991, and further refines and delineates specific subsequent plan requirements if a New Town General Plan Amendment is approved. PROJECT DESCRIPTION HISTORY: Trimark Communities first submitted a pre-application for a New Town General Plan Amendment in the fall of 1989. In December of 1989, a pre-application conference was held to determine what the full application requirements should be. A detailed General Plan Amendment application was subsequently filed and determined complete on July 3, 1990. When this process was initiated, it was anticipated that by the time all the analysis and environmental review has been completed, this proposal would be amending the new 2010 General Plan, since at that point in the Plan's preparation, there was no consideration for including any new towns. However, once the processing of this amendment was underway, the Board of Supervisors determined that it was appropriate to include, for study purposes,five new community proposals in the General Plan update, including Mountain House. At that point, the applicants realized that the adoption of the 2010 Plan would be delayed, and they decided to continue processing the General Plan Amendment (GPA) as an amendment to the existing Plan. BACKGROUND: The Mountain House new town proposal, or General Plan Amendment, has already been heard by the Planning Commission as a proposed new community for possible inclusion in the General Plan 2010. The Commission heard the project description in public hearing on February 18, 1992. Once all of the new community proposals (five in all) have been heard by the Commission, they will determine which ones, if any, they will recommend to the Board of Supervisors for inclusion in the new General Plan. Since this GPA is a separate application from the General Plan 2010 process and is amending the current plan, a separate Environmental Impact Report was prepared to address all potential significant impacts if the GPA is approved. However, because of the overlap in application processing, this EIR is also pertinent to the 2010 process and was significantly referenced in the staff analysis of the February 18, 1992, hearing. THE "MITIGATED PLAN': During the public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the project proponents submitted a revised land use diagram. This revised diagram was in response to impacts identified in the Draft EIR. They felt that there were several impacts which could be mitigated with a"rearrangement, of land uses, a revision to the internal circulation system, and an alternative buffer approach. These revisions are illustrated in the diagram and Land Use Table on the following pages. A detailed explanation of the mitigations acccomplished by this revised diagram was supplied by the project proponent and is included as Attachment E.