Laserfiche WebLink
2. That the cancellation is not likely to result in <br />the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural <br />use. <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 />3. That cancellation is for an alternative use which <br />is consistent with the applicable provisions of the <br />City's General Plan. <br />As previously stated, the City's Land Use Element <br />of the General Plan had designated this area far <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 />4. That the cancellation will not result in <br />discontiguous patterns of urban development. <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 />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 />SR:86:418 <br />