Laserfiche WebLink
Item No. 6 <br /> PC: 6-18-92 <br /> ZR-92-10 <br /> Page 4 <br /> agricultural resources. The conversion also does not encourage the continued utilization of th t <br /> agricultural resource. <br /> Principle No. 5: <br /> Further fragmentation of agricultural land outside of areas designated for urban expansi n <br /> will be permitted only In areas designated for rural residential development. <br /> The project site is located outside of the Stockton Urban Area and is designated as Agriculture <br /> on the General Plan. It is not shown or planned for urban or rural residential uses on either the <br /> current or draft maps of the General Plan 2005. The latter designates the site as A/G (General <br /> Agriculture), with an accompanying zone of AG-40. <br /> INTENT OF AGRICULTURAL ZONES: <br /> The Planning Title, which implements the General Plan designation of Agriculture, states the intent of the <br /> AL (Limited Agriculture) zone in Section 9-4000.1(b): <br /> The AL zone Is established to recognize and preserve areas that contain existing <br /> concentrations of small-scale agricultural i operations and dwellings. <br /> The intent of the AG (General Agriculture) zone is contained in Section 9-4000.1(a) of the Planning Title: <br /> The AG zone is established to preserve agricultural lands for the continuation of commercial <br /> agricultural enterprises. <br /> The area proposed for reclassification is characterized by commercial agricultural enterprises rather than <br /> by existing small-scale agricultural operations (refer to the attached Land Use Maps). Approval of the <br /> project would be inconsistent with the intent of both the AG and AL zones by disrupting an area of <br /> existing commercial agricultural enterprises and by establishing a new area of small-scale agriculti ral <br /> parcels. <br /> ARE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY: <br /> Public Opposition: <br /> Two letters (see Attachment A) from property owners in the vicinity were received in responsil to <br /> the referral of the application. Both of these individuals are opposed to the proposal on the <br /> grounds of loss of agricultural land and its potential disruption of agricultural practices in the area. <br /> As a part of the analysis included in the project's Initial Study, staff concluded that the amount <br /> of land involved in the project, 19.94 acres, did not constitute a significant conversion of prime <br /> agricultural farmland. Staff's analysis concluded that the proposal would result in the disru ion <br /> of the agricultural resources of the site as well as agricultural operations in the area see <br /> 'Agricultural Disruption'). <br />