Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout098-87RESOLUTION 98-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE DANVILLE TOWN COUNCIL GRANTING THE TENTATIVE CANCELLATION OF A LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT AVAILABLE TO THE MAGEE DIABLO RANCH PROJECT SITE, MAKING FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE TENTATIVE CANCELLATION, AND ESTABLISHING CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHICH MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL CANCELLATION OF THE CONTRACT WHEREAS, the Diablo Ranch Development Company has filed an application for cancellation of a Land Conservation Contract dated February 6, 1970 which is recorded on Page 326, et. seq. Book 6080, in official records of Contra Costa County; and WHEREAS, the application for cancellation was filed in accord with all applicable laws which govern the filing of such applications; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request for cancellation of the Land Conservation Contract; and WHEREAS, the Town staff has presented substantial factual evidence regarding the proposed cancellation; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has considered all public testimony and information presented with regard to the proposed cancellation. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: . The Town Council of the Town of Danville hereby adopts the findings as contained in Exhibit A of this resolution in support of the cancellation of the subject Land Conservation Contract. · The certified cancellation valuation of the land as submitted by the County Assessor of Contra Costa County is established at $4,256,479, and the cancellation fee, at 12-1/2 percent of the cancellation valuation is hereby established at $533,185· This fee shall be paid as a condition of tentative cancellation of the Land Conservation Contract and shall be paid in the manner and at the time required by applicable provisions of Sections 51200 et. seq. of the Government Code. · The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certificate of tentative cancellation as required by Section 51283.4 of the Government Code. . Tentative cancellation of the contract is based upon the alternative use plan approved by the Town Council through adoption of Ordinance 125. Final cancellation of the contract shall occur as provided in Section 51283.4 of the Government Code. The Town reserves all rights provided in Section 51283.4 of the Government Code to execute a certificate of withdrawal of the tentative approval of the cancellation if the landowner fails to obtain all permits necessary to commence the project under the approval granted through the adoption of Ordinance 125. . The Contract remains in effect for portions of land not a part of the subject property for which cancellation was requested: that is, property now owned by Jerome Magee, identified as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 202-050-041, 202-050-042, 202-050-047, 202-050-049, 202-050-050 and 202-050-051· BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Town Council of the Town of Danville hereby grants approval of the tentative cancellation of the Land Conservation Contract applicable to the Magee Diablo Ranch project site (Assessors Parcels 215-070-002 and 215-080-010) subject to all findings, terms and conditions set forth in this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ~fh day of October, 1987 by the following vote: AYES: Lane, May, Offenhartz, Schlendorf NOES: None ABSTAIN: N 0n e ABSENT: Kennett Mayor EXHIBIT A FINDINGS BY TOWN COUNCIL OF DANVIT.T~ PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 51200 ET. SEQ.; CANCELT~TION OF LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT DATED FEBRUARY 6, 1970 (WILLIAMSON ACT) The Town Council of the Town of Danville specifically finds as follows- · The Diablo Ranch Development Company (hereinafter Landowner or Applicant) owns certain lands consisting of approximately five hundred ninety (590) acres, located south and west of Blackhawk Road in Danville, further identified as Assessor's Parcel Nos.215-070-002 and 215-080-010(hereinafter property)· · Mr. Jerome Magee and Mr. Harry H. Magee, predecessors in interest to the Landowner, entered into a Land Conservation Contract dated February 6, 1970, (Contract), with the County of Contra Costa, pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) (Government Code Sections 51200, et seq.), effective the last day of February, 1970 effecting assessors Parcel Numbers 202-050-041, 202-050-042, 202-050-047, 202-050-049, 202-050-050, 202-050-051, 215-070-002 and 215-080-010. The Contract carried a ten year original term. Pursuant to G.C. Section 51244, the Contract provides for an automatic renewal of one year on the last day of February of each succeeding year, unless Notice of Nonrenewal was given· · The contract land was subsequently divided between Jerome H. Magee and Mr. Harry H. Magee· Mr. Harry H. Magee then filed a Notice of Nonrenewal of Land Conservation Contract, dated September 16, 1981, and recorded September 17, 1981, at Page 947, Book 10493, official records of Contra Costa County for Assessor's Parcel Numbers 215-070-002 and 215-080-010· Under the terms of the Notice of Nonrenewal and of the Contract, the Contract will expire automatically no later than February 27, 1991. · The Town of Danville and the Landowner have succeeded to all rights and obligations of Contra Costa County and Mr. Harry H. Magee, respectively, under the contract· ~ A proposal for alternative use has been submitted to the Town of Danville. The proposed use is single family residential low density, one to three units per acres (135 acres) and General Open Space (455 acres). Pursuant to Resolution No. 118-83, dated November 7, 1983, the Town of Danville amended the city's General Plan with respect to the subject property, providing for single family residential low density, one to three units per acre (135 acres) and General Open Space (455 acres)· · · · As specifically stated in Findings 8-12, set forth below, the cancellation of the Contract with respect to the subject property is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act, pursuant to G.C. Section 51281(a) (1) and (b)(1)-(5). The cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Nonrenewal has been served pursuant to G.C. Section 51245. Such section requires a Notice of Nonrenewal to be filed by the Landowner at least ninety (90) days prior to the renewal date. The renewal date of the Contract is the last day of February of each year. The Landowner's predecessor in interest timely filed a Notice of Nonrenewal, dated September 16, 1981. Such Notice will cause the Contract to expire automatically no later than February 27, 1991. Cancellation of the Contract is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use for the following, among other reasons: The proposed project is nearly surrounded by lands which are currently developed, or projected to be developed in the near future. The Blackhawk development area is adjacent to the property to the north· The Blackhawk and Saddleback developments are adjacent to the property to the east. The Sycamore Valley Specific Plan properties lie to the south of the property. Companies who own properties in the Sycamore Valley Specific Plan have received entitlements for developments and some work has commenced toward project construction· The property owner owning adjacent Williamson Act agricultural land to the west (Parcel Nos. 202-050-052, 202-050-042), Mr. Jerome Magee, has evidenced an intent to keep such lands in agricultural use. He has not to date submitted a notice of nonrenewal with regard to such lands. Further, the Landowner has agreed as part of the subject Petition for Cancellation to preserve approximately 455 acres of the total 590 acres as open space. Such commitment will be secured by the Town of Danville, by requiring the Landowner to dedicate all or a portion of such lands to the Town, or to a public agency, for open space. -2- The development proposal contains a buffer of open space around its borders to the west and to the south. In such manner, the proposed project creates a continued margin of open space, from west to east, from the Jerome Magee property through the property and then southeast through the buffer of open space on the north side of the Sycamore Valley. This buffer helps insure that the current cancellation will not cause the adjacent Jerome Magee Ranch lands to cancel its contract. · Cancellation of the Contract is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Town General Plan. The Applicant's Alternative Land Use Plan is the Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan PUD 85-5, which proposes single family residential use, 1-3 units per acre, and open space, consistent with the General Plan. 10. Cancellation of the Contract will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development for the following, among other reasons: The property is nearly surrounded by lands which are currently fully developed, or projected to be developed in the near future· The Blackhawk development area is adjacent to the property to the north. The Blackhawk and the Saddleback developments are adjacent to the property to the northeast, and due east, and the Sycamore Valley Specific Plan properties lie to the south· All urban services are available to the property. 11. There is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put for the following, among other reasons: As stated in Finding No. 9 and 11, above, the property is nearly surrounded by lands which are currently developed, or are projected to be developed, in the near future. The applicant through submittal of the petition for cancellation has made a thorough and extensive review and search for proximate, noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for residential use as proposed by the applicant, and finds that no such lands are available and suitable· The review has extended beyond merely contiguous and adjacent lands, and includes all lands within the general area of the current site. The Town has reviewed the information submitted and concurs with the conclusions of the study. -3- Starting to the west of the property, the 154-acre parcel (202-050-052) and the 40-acre parcel (202-050-042) owned by Magee Investment, Inc. is subject of a Land Conservation Contract under the Williamson Act. Such land is "contracted," and is unavailable; the owner has not evidenced an intent to develop such property. Also to the west are the Woodcreek and Diablo Creek projects. Final maps have been approved, and the property is currently being developed. Further to the west is the Rassier parcel (226 units). The tentative map has been approved and final map approvals are now pending. Still further to the west is the core area of the Town, which is for the most part fully built-out. To the southwest and south are Signature Properties Wood Ranch properties. With regard to these properties and the other Sycamore Valley properties within the Sycamore Valley Specific Plan (approximately 1,700 units), developers have received final map approvals, and significant construction has begun. Further to the south is the Canyon Lakes property. Approximately 2,000 units in this area are currently under construction. Also to the south are the Crow Canyon Corridor Extension Area, Morgan Property (213 units); Shapell West Branch (668 units); Tassajara Ranch (850 units); Vista Tassajara (240 units); and Shadow Creek (429 units.) These projects, as others in the Crow Canyon extension area, have received General Plan amendments as well as rezoning and tentative map approvals. To the southeast is the Bettencourt property, the Ujdur parcel, and the Hanson lane parcels. The Bettencourt property, the only one of comparable size, is now under contract; however a Notice of Nonrenewal has been filed, as well as an application for a General Plan Amendment, contemplating future rezoning to planned unit development for low density residential use. Lands further to the south of the Bettencourt property are within the area designated by the County as lands which will remain in their current, open space/agricultural designations pursuant to 2218 RZ rezoning actions. Such lands are thus not presently "available" for residential use. To the south and southeast are the Gale Ranch and Gumpert Ranch. These areas are under Williamson Act Contract and are also within the 2218 RZ area. To the east of the site lies the existing Blackhawk homes. Further to the north and northeast are Blackhawk lands on which a further 800 homes are currently under construction. -4- f',, The Town recognizes that the subject parcel is the last significant parcel in the area "available" (without present development entitlement) for single family residential use or a comparable use as proposed by the Applicant. The project allows for a significant number of single family homes, with average lot sizes of approximately 18,000 square feet, integrated with large amounts of preserved open space. Other nearby possible project sites, as referenced herein, even if available, do not allow for the preservation of such amounts of open space, and would not provide for the lot size proposed. Further, development of such land, even if possible, would require a higher density project (which is not allowed by current General Plan designations and zonings) and would result in less preservation of open space. Such a project would further not be able to support the large amount of traffic fees for the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as referenced hereunder. The Town has identified 3 smaller sites to the west which are not currently within the Williamson Act, and do not have current development entitlements. However, such sites, even if available to the applicant for development, and even if combined, would provide only a fraction of the units (69 maximum) provided for through this application, and would not provide a project even remotely similar to that proposed. Such 3 sites are as follows: a. Jerome Magee site (Parcel Nos. 202-050-047, 202-050-049). This site consists of approximately 66 acres. Under the new General Plan, the site is designated "rural residential" which allows 1 unit for 5 acres, or a maximum of 13 units. The site is steep, and it is unclear whether 13 maximum units could be put on the site. The zoning is A-2. be Magee Investment, Inc. parcel (Parcel Nos. 202-100-017,202-100-018, and 202-100-019). This site consists of approximately 132 acres in 3 separate parcels. Under the new General Plan, the site is designated "rural residential", which allows 1 unit for 5 acres, for a maximum of 26 units. However, approximately two-thirds of the property is affected by the major ridgeline ordinance, which may decrease the amount of allowable units on the site. C. Plummer site (Parcel No. 202-100-020). This site consists of approximately 30 acres. The new General Plan shows approximately 5 acres of such site as single family, medium density, and the remaining 25 acres as "Rural Residential", for a maximum unit count of approximately 30 units. However, the Sycamore Valley Specific Plan further restricts development on this property to a maximum of 25 units. -5- In order for the applicant to utilize such properties, even if such properties were available and for sale, General Plan amendments would have to be obtained. Further, even if such properties were allowed to develop at the maximum levels, which is extremely doubtful, the maximum allowable units would be a total of 69. Further, economically feasible access to at least one of the parcels will be difficult. The Council finds that utilization of these 3 sites, even if combined, would not be feasible for the applicant. Even if such parcels, or other nearby parcels, were determined to be feasible, the nature of such parcels would not provide even a remotely similar type of project. 12. As specifically stated in Findings 14 and 15, set forth below, the cancellation of the Contract is in the public interest, pursuant to G.C. Section 51282(a) (2) and (c). 13. Other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act for the following, among other reasons: The objectives of the Williamson Act are set forth generally at G.C. Section 51220. The objectives set forth at G.C. Section 51220(a) and (b) recognize the importance of agricultural lands in order to preserve our food sources, and as areas to house our agricultural work force. The subject lands are utilized for minimal cattle grazing, which is of marginal economic utility. We note in this regard that cattle grazing has become much less economically viable since 1970, when the Contract was orginally executed. Any contribution of the property as a food source for the nation, let alone the local community, is negligible at best. Similarly, the objective at Section 51220(e) addresses lands designated as a scenic highway, or a wildlife habitat, as such lands as specifically defined at G.C. Section 51201(i) and (j). The current use of such lands is not related to such objectives. The objective at Section 51220(c) states that the discouragement of conversion of agricultural lands is a matter of public interest "and will be of benefit to urban dwellers in that it will discourage discontiguous urban development patterns which unnecessarily increase the costs of community services to community residents." As stated above, the Town Council finds that the cancellation of the Contract will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. The property is adjacent to similar urban development on three sides. Adjacent agricultural open space will be further protected by the open space buffer proposed as part of the project, which will be protected, through dedication of such lands. -6- The objectives in Section 51220(d) state that in a rapidly urbanizing society, agricultural lands have a definite public value as open space. We find that the proposed cancellation, coupled with the commitment of the majority of the project area to open space, helps to achieve this objective. The proposed development will result in substantial financial contributions to the Capital Improvement Program of the Town of Danville. The specific improvements to be addressed by the proposed development, described in the Conditions of Approval for PUD 85-5, will cost over three million dollars. Prohibiting cancellation will delay the construction of important and necessary capital improvements. The proposed development will provide needed housing in the Danville area, which is identified in the document entitled Growth Trends (1987), which was published by the Contra Costa Community Development Department as part of the Comprehensive County General Plan Revision Program. The Growth Trends study sets forth the following statistics as developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG): a. The Bay Area region will grow by over one million people between the years 1985 and 2005 (page 15); b. Approximately 35,000 new housing units are needed in Contra Costa County between 1985 and 1990; 29,000 units are needed between 1990 and 1995; 28,000 units are needed between 1995 and 2000; and 12,500 units are needed during the first five years of the 20th Century. Cumulatively, through the year 2005, in Contra Costa County, 104,500 units will be needed to meet anticipated demand. This Council finds that in this case and under this particular circumstance, the need for housing, and the preservation of the majority of the land as open space, outweigh the interests of the public as a whole in the value of this land for agricultural use and open space. The loss of agricultural and open space land is nominal because the subject proposal will retain the great majority of the property as open space that may be utilized for agricultural purposes in conjunction with other adjoining agricultural land. The applicant will be dedicating 455 out of the 590 acres (approximately 80%) of the lands as permanent open space. -7- 14. The Council finds that based upon consideration of the Findings set forth herein, the public interest in the near term construction of the capital improvement program improvements, the need for housing, and the securing of open space substantially outweigh the benefits of retaining the lands in the Williamson Act. 15. The landowner's petition has referenced and incorporated a specified alternative use of the land. The landowner has also listed the governmental agencies known by the landowner to have permit authority related to the proposed alternative use. 16. The Council recognizes that the objectives to be served by cancellation could not have been served by part at any earlier time. Such objectives can be served only by cancellation now. Cancellation now will insure that monies will become available for projects under the capital improvement program; such projects should be completed as soon as possible in the interests of the health, safety and welfare of the community. Furthermore, cancellation now, contingent upon dedication of 455 acres out of 590 acres as open space, will secure said lands as open space for the future. 17. The Council finds that the current or previous landowner could not have predicted the change in circumstances which has resulted in the proposed cancellation. As stated, Harry Magee, the previous landowner, placed the property under contract in 1970 and applied for tentative cancellation in 1981. Such application for cancellation was made because of rapid development of the area which occurred during the years 1970-1981. Since 1981, further rapid development has occurred, virtually surrounding the cancellation area. This unpredictable, rapid development justifies the current application for cancellation. The Council finds that cancellation is warranted hereunder without regard to the current development value of the property. 18. The Council recognizes that under Government Code Section 51282(d), the uneconomic character of an existing agricultural use shall not by itself be sufficient reason for cancellation of the contract. The uneconomic character of the existing use may be considered only if there is no reasonable or comparable agricultural use to which the land may be put. The Council is aware of this consideration, but it does not need to consider the uneconomic character of the agricultural use now in existence except to recognize its negligible contribution as a food source to the nation, or to the local community -8- While the required findings to consider agricultural economics might be made, this cancellation is based upon other reasons as set forth herein and not upon the landowner's desire to realize a financial gain. 19. The Council finds that allowing for the runout of the contract in 1991 will interfere with the Town's orderly development, and will defeat other purposes served by the cancellation. The Town finds it necessary to secure monies now for the Capital Improvement Program, including roads serving the project. 20. The Council recognizes that Article XIII, Section 8, of the Constitution requires that Williamson Act contracts be "enforceably restricted" and that contracts cancelled without proper findings as required by law conflict with the conservation policies of such constitutional provisions; however, the Council finds herein that all of the findings required by law can be made and have been made herein. 21. The Council recognizes that the cancellation process is the intended and general vehicle for termination, and that early termination is to be utilized in extraordinary situations. For the reasons stated herein, as set forth in the findings herein, such extraordinary situation exists. 22. The Council herein finds that continuation of the Contract is neither necessary nor desirable. Prohibiting cancellation will merely allow continued use of the property for grazing purposes for approximately four more years. 23. The Council finds that the Williamson Act provisions have not been utilized as a tax shelter for real estate speculators. The original applicant for cancellation, Harry Magee, was a rancher of long standing in the community. He filed a Notice of Nonrenewal for cancellation in 1981, after a rapid rise in development around his property. The subsequent applicant purchased the property from Harry Magee's widow after notice was filed and application for cancellation was filed. 24. The findings of the Town Council in certifying the EIR through adoption of Resolution 97-87 are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth hereunder to the extent relevant to this cancellation. arep3a -9-