SU0014565 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Under the second scenario, 109 residences could be accommodated on 205 contiguous acres and the remaining 205 acres would remain in agriculture. As with Scenario 1, development of the study area in this manner would reduce traffic, air quality, and noise impacts as compared to buildout of the site at RR -65. In addition, land use compatibility impacts would be less than if the entire site were developed as residential and the loss of prime agricultural land would be reduced. However, Scenario 2 would not be as effective as Scenario 1 in keeping agricultural and residential uses from impacting each other because there would be more area for incompatibility impacts. Of importance to note is that conceptually this alternative may offer a solution of satisfying housing needs and maintaining agricultural production in the area; however, realistically this would be difficult to implement because the study area is owned by a number of private entities which may not want to participate in this kind of use of the area. 4.4 LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USE OF THE STUDY AREA This alternative assumes a lower density residential use of the study area. The zoning would be RR -100 (Rural Residential with 100,000 square foot minimum lot size), or RR -200 (Rural Residential with 200,000 square foot minimum lot size). With RR -100 zoning, 151 residences could be accommodated on 410 acres, assuming 15 percent of the area would be used for streets. With RR -200 zoning, 80 residences could be accommodated on 410 acres, assuming 10 percent of the area would be used for streets. Either of these alternatives would also require a General Plan Amendment and rezoning. Development of the study area at the density allowed under RR -100 or RR -200 would allow more land to be available to adequately support individual water wells and septic systems than if the area were to be developed at RR -65. The traffic, air quality, and noise impacts of both densities would be correspondingly reduced in comparison to the buildout of the site at RR -65. However, land use impacts would be similar in that prime agricultural soils would be lost and the compatibility impacts between residential and agricultural uses would still be an issue, although as lot sizes increase, these impacts become less significant. 4-2