Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Wheeler and Ms . Sullivan <br /> March 26, 1992 <br /> Page Two <br /> I and other impacts associated with residential development. This <br /> A2 discussion should also be referenced to the discussion at <br /> pg 5-5 <br /> regarding growth inducing impacts. <br /> _(b) (4) & (c) (2) There is no proximate non-contracted land which <br /> is both available and suitable for the use to which it is <br /> Proposed the contracted land be put, or development of the <br /> contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban <br /> development that development of proximate non-contracted land <br /> The DEIR concludes that alternative sites would have to be <br /> large enough for both the residential development and the golf <br /> A3 course. This conclusion needs further support. Although the <br /> DEIR notes the availability of non-contracted land in the area, <br /> further analysis should be provided regarding alternative sites <br /> which are suitable for the project . Most helpful would be an <br /> additional land use map showing alternative sites which' could <br /> accommodate any or all of the project components. A potential <br /> "combination" of alternative parcels must be considered as <br /> required by Government Code subdivisions 51282 (a) (5) & (c) . <br /> Furthermore, as explained in the DEIR, the residential <br /> development would represent discontiguous growth. <br /> A4 "The proposed project represents a residential enclave <br /> in the midst of an agricultural region. [The project] <br /> would be a departure from the agricultural nature of <br /> the area. . . . (A) certain amount of complaint regarding <br /> noise, chemical drift, trespass and vandalism may <br /> occur. . . " (DEIR, p 4 . 1-11) <br /> A specific purpose of the. Williamson Act is to prevent such <br /> "leapfrog" development ., As stated by the California Supreme <br /> Court, the Act was intended to discourage <br /> "disorderly patterns of suburban development that mar <br /> the landscape, require the extension of municipal <br /> A5 services to remote residential enclaves, and interfere <br /> with agricultural activities . Sierra Club v. City of <br /> Hayward (1981) 28 Cal. 3d 840, 850, citing Government <br /> Code §51220 (b) (emphasis added) . <br /> Fhe. "residential enclave" proposed here exhibits the negative <br /> qualities of loss of open space, inefficient municipal services, <br /> A6 and agricultural conflicts, which the Williamson Act seeks to <br /> void. The proposal is a quintessential example of the type of <br /> avoid. <br /> development for which cancellation is unavailable <br /> under Government Code §51282 . <br /> 111-4 <br />