Laserfiche WebLink
2. That the cancellation is not likely to result in <br /> the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural <br /> use. <br /> <br /> Uses on adjoining properties are limited to grazing <br /> and open space use. These agricultural uses are <br /> compatible with the proposed alternative land use <br /> -- low density residential housing. Indeed, the <br /> agricultural uses of the Lund ranch itself have <br /> coexisted with similar 'residential uses on its <br /> border for over 20 years. The existing grazing <br /> activities on adjoining sites may continue with <br /> negligible impact after implementation of the <br /> proposed residential use. <br /> <br /> 3. That cancellation is for an alternative use which <br /> is consistent with the applicable provisions of the <br /> City's General Plan. <br /> <br /> As previously stated, the City's Land Use Element <br /> of the General Plan had designated this area for <br /> residential use as early as 1965.- The recent <br /> adoption of the General Plan update retained this <br /> designation for the subject property. The <br /> residential development for 129 single-family units <br /> and City park site addition previously approved for <br /> the site is consistent with that designation. <br /> Development of this property will enable the City <br /> to meet housing goals and policies as stated in the <br /> City's Housing Element. <br /> <br /> 4. That the cancellation will not result in <br /> discontiguous patterns of urban development. <br /> <br /> This finding was made by your Council in the <br /> "window" cancellation. The approved development <br /> plan for the property abuts existing residential <br /> development on the west and on a portion of its <br /> northern boundary. Indeed, streets and utilities <br /> developed in the residential area to the west of <br /> the site had been stubbed in anticipation of future <br /> extensions to complete the utility and street <br /> system circulation for this area. Development of <br /> the subject property would be a logical extension <br /> of the adjacent residential area. <br /> <br /> 5. That there is no proximate noncontracted land which <br /> is both available and suitable for the use to which <br /> it is proposed the contracted land be put, or, that <br /> development of the contracted land would provide <br /> more contiguous patterns of urban development than <br /> development of proximate noncontracted land. <br /> <br />SR:86:418 <br /> <br /> <br />