My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0013380
Environmental Health - Public
>
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
Item No. 2 <br /> PC: 4-9-92 <br /> GP-89-11 <br /> Page 6 <br /> the General Plan Amendment. <br /> Critical to this discussion of contract cancellation is whether the Board of Supervisors can make all the <br /> legally required findings required for cancellation. This may prove to be troublesome, since the Mountain <br /> House DER notes that the City of Tracy also has much land available for development that is proximate <br /> to their city boundaries. Also, a survey of property owners adjoining the proposed new town indicated <br /> that several in Alameda County have filed Notices of Nonrenewal in anticipation of the project extending <br /> into Alameda County. Adjoining property owners in San Joaquin County are also likely to remove <br /> agricultural lands from operaton due to future land use conflicts occurring between urban uses at the <br /> project site and adjoining agricultural operations. The onus is on the project proponents as petitioners <br /> to the cancellation request to prove through the submission of substantial evidence that the findings <br /> required for cancellation can be made. <br /> PROPOSED LAND USES: <br /> The Mountain House new community envisions a development of complementary urban land uses that <br /> would result in a self-sufficient urban town of approximately 43,000 people. Land use designations would <br /> be distributed to theoretically allow a fully integrated town where all residents could be employed within <br /> the town boundaries if they so choose. However, competition for job generating land uses from other <br /> parts of the County and region may make creation of a true jobs/housing balance difficult in the short <br /> term. Housing product types and prices are planned by the proponent to be of a variety and scale so <br /> that they would be affordable for all of the jobs created. <br /> The Mountain House project includes a total of 15,338 dwelling units proposed on 2,335 acres. Of these, <br /> 14,582 units are low or medium density and will be developed primarily as single-family residential units. <br /> In addition, 756 units will be built in the high density range as multi-family attached units. Commercial <br /> uses are planned for 275 acres, and industrial uses take up 427 acres. A total of 260 acres are reserved <br /> for schools, with open space and recreation utilizing 814 acres. Lastly, 556 acres are needed for public <br /> utilities and roads. <br /> LAND USE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS: <br /> The loss of 4270 acres of agricultural land is an unavoidable, significant, adverse impact. The only <br /> effective mitigation is denial of the project. However, there are several partial mitigations that can be <br /> implemented to minimize the loss of the agricultural lands and to address future land use conflicts <br /> between adjoining agricultural lands and an urban community. These mitigations include:1 <br /> • Farmland mitigation fees. The developer could be required to pay a mitigation fee to the County <br /> or an appropriate agency (such as the S. J. Ag/OS Trust). <br /> • Imposition of significant buffer areas adjacent to agricultural lands. In the case of Mountain <br /> House, a minimum 500-foot-wide buffer is recommended along the western boundary. See <br /> Attachment B, C., for specific recommended language. <br /> 'Any mitigation measure followed by the initials 'SP' cannot be imposed until the Subsequent Plan <br /> stage. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.