Predominantly Urbanized Redevelopment Project Area

In reviewing a trial court's determination as to whether a redevelopment project area was predominantly urbanized, County of Riverside v. City of Murrieta (1998) found "the meaning of urban is not fixed, objective, or easily ascertainable." County of Riverside cited with approval Honey Springs Homeowners Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1984) 157 Cal. App. 3d 1122, 1141 203 Cal. Rptr. 886, which concluded " 'whether a residential development is urban or rural therefore, must be determined by evaluating factors relating to the varying characteristics of individual projects.' " (Accord, County of Riverside, supra, at p. 622.) Among the many factors considered probative by the Honey Springs court included: "density, surrounding development, proximity to or potential of becoming an incorporated area, existing public facilities, water availability in the region, steepness of natural slope, minimum parcel sizes, availability of public transit, ability to cluster housing to preserve open space, height of buildings, on-site sewage capacity, landscaping, lighting, space between structures, proximity of employment centers, preservation of open space easements, size of area to be served by commercial facilities, the attractiveness of commercial facilities to regional travelers, . . . the size of signs.. . . lot size, length and width of paved streets, amount of traffic generated, presence of commercial or industrial development, presence of urban infrastructures (i.e., public water supply, sewer, fire, police, schools, and attendant facilities), and the general impact of the proposed development on . . . scenic, recreational, wildlife or agricultural values." (Honey Springs Homeowners Assn. v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 157 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 1141-1142; accord, fn. omitted, County of Riverside, supra, 65 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 622-623.)