The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About019-88 BEFORE THE TOWN COUNCIL OFTHE TOWN OF DANVI?3m In the Matter of: ) Rescinding Resolution No. 13-86, ) RESOLUTION NO. ~i~ the Town's Previous Approval of a ) Land Conservation Contract With ) Regard to the Approximately ) 135-acre mShort Ranchn Located ) Southeast of the Camino Tassajara/ ) Sycamore Valley Road Intersection ) (APN's 202-100-017-5, 202-100- ) 018-3, and 202-100-019-1) ) ) On February 20, 1986 the Town Council approved Resolution No. 13-86, approving the entering into of a land conservation contract with Magee Investment Company with regard to the approximately 135-acre "Short Ranchm located southeast of the Camino Tassajara/Sycamore Valley Road intersection (APN's 202-100-017-5, 202-100-018-3, and 202-100-019-1) pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act, Government Code section 51200 and following. That resolution was approved at the request of the property owner; On March 17, 1986, the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 87 rezoning the same property from A-2 General Agricultural District to A-4 Agricultural Preserve. The land conservation contract was never recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office and, consequently, the property owner has not received any adjustment in property values for taxation purposes under the Land Conservation Act provisions; On September 3, 1987, Jerome Magee, President of Magee Investment Company, advised the Town by letter that, because of the failure to record, he was rescinding the contract and rescinding his authority for the Town to record the contract; The Town has no interest in recording the contract if it is not in the property owner's interest to do so; and The Town wishes to rescind its earlier approval of the land conservation contract and to return the land to the A-2 (General Agricultural) zoning district. NOW, THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Danville RESOLVES that: Page I of Resolution No. 19-88 1. Resolution No. 13-86 approving the entering into of a land conservation contract with Magee Investment Company is rescinded and the Town staff is directed to cancel and not to record the contract. 2. Concurrently with this action, the Council intends to rezone the subject property from the A-4 (Agricultural Preserve) to the A-2 (General Agricultural) district. (Reference is made to Ordinance No. 130 ). This resolution shall take effect on the same day that Ordinance No. 130 takes effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on March 7 , 198~ by the following vote: AYES: Greenberg, Lane, Ritchey, Schlendorf NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ~ i ~ ~l C~ MAYOR ATTEST: ' % ~ / CITY CLERK aj cp14 Page 2 of Resolution No. 19-88 Memorandum to Bruce Dobiles October 21, 1987 Page Three Please call if you have any questions. JR: , encl. cc: Joe Calabrigo Eddie Peabody - Michael Davis Nancy Ortenblad EXHIBIT A FINDINGS RZ 88-1 Short Ranch FINDINGS The Town Council has determined that the following Findings exist in support of RZ 88-1: 1. The change proposed substantially complies with the general plan. 2. The agricultural use of the site is compatible with the land use district within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts. ajcp14 MAGEE INVESTMENT COMPANY " D ! S)6 CJia. D[COW'T LUI~IIL O_~'O_'!l · OmKL.AND, CAL.JFO~NIA ~ ! S September 3, 1987 Town of Danville 510 La Gonda Way Danville, CA 94526 I Dear Town of Danville~ Magee Investment Company executed a Land Conservation Contract with the City of Danville, Resolution No. 13-86, dated March 17, 1986, which was intended to bring our property, Parcels A, B & C of MS 152-77, under the terms of the Williamson Act. We delivered this contract to the Town for acceptance, execution and recordation. Under California Government Code, Section 51248, the Clerk of the Board or Council is obligated to record the contract within 20 ' days of execution. We have just received information that the contract was never recorded. Under California Revenue & Taxation Code, Section 430.5, the contract must be recorded for the benefits # ; of the Williamson Act to be effective. Since the Town's obligations were never entirely performed and the basic consideration was never realized, the contract is ineffective and null and void. To the extent the contract ever had any effect, we rescind and deem it terminated by the Town's failure to perform. You are no longer authorized to record the contract. We shall hold the Town responsible for damages resulting from any such recordation. Very truly yours, MAGEE INVESTMENT COMPANY Received this -~'~ day of September, 1987 TOWN OF DANVILLE /7 B y f ;-,' ,-/' P.M. EXHBIT C October 21, 1987 MEMORANDUM TO: Bruce Dobiles Danville Planning Department FROM: Charles J. Williams, Town Attorney Judith A. Robbins RE: Magee Agricultural Preserve Contract. This responds to your September 28, 1987 memo. You posed several questions regarding the failure to record the Magee Agricultural preserve contract. Factual Background On February 20, 1986 the Town Council approved Resolution No. 13-86 approving the entering into of a land conservation contract with regard to the Magee "Short Ranch" located southeast of the Camino TassaJara/Sycamore Valley Road intersection (approximately 135 acres, APN's 202-100-017-5, -018-3 and -019-1). The Council also rezoned that property from A-2 General Agricultural District to A-4 Agricultural Preserve. (Ordinance No. 87, March 17, 1986) The Land Conservation Act (or Williamson Act, Government Code 11200 and following) requires that the clerk of the Council record a copy of the land conservation contract with the county recorder within 20 days after the city enters into such a contract with the landowner. (Government Code §51248) Recording is necessary before the tax benefits become available. (Revenue and Taxation Code 1430.5) The contract was never recorded. On September 3, 1987, the Town received a letter from Jerome Magee, President of Magee Investment Company, advising the Town that the contract was never recorded and the tax benefit not received. Because of that, Mr. Magee states, "the contract is ineffective and null and void. To the extent the contract ever ._ had any effect, we rescind and deem it terminated by the Town's failure to perform. [paragraph] You are no longer authorized to record the contract. We shall hold the Town responsible for damages resulting from any such recordation." Joe Calabrigo has advised me by telephone that the Town has no particular interest in reserving this land as agricultural Memorandum to Bruce Dobiles October 21, 1987 Page Two preserve, that the original decision to do so was made solely at the property owner's request, and that the owner is now contemplating development of the property. I Ouestions Presented ... To summarize, you ask whether the Town acted improperly in not recording the contract and, if so, whether it is liable to the owner for lost tax benefits or other damages. You also ask whether the Town may now record the contract. The Land Conservation Act designates the city clerk as the person responsible for recording the contract and requires recordation within 20 days. Because the contract was signed by Magee Investment Company on February 5, 1986 and approved by the Council on February 20, it should have been recorded on March 2, 1986. Because Mr. Magee's letter does not raise the issue of liability for failure to record (but only liability for recording now), we have not researched the effect of not recording for the 1986-87 tax year or what damages may have been incurred. We think liability to the Town is unlikely under various theories including the owner's own failure to raise the issue for 18 months (from March 2, 1986 through September 3, 1987) and the current benefit to the owner in being able to develop if the property is not restricted. We think it is inappropriate for the Town to now record the contract. This opinion would be different had the contract been part of some project conditions of approval or other entitlement, but we understand from Joe that is not the case. Consequently, it is reasonable under the circumstances for Mr. Magee to request rescission of the contract. If the Town agrees not to record the contract, and we understand from Joe the Town has no particular interest in recording now, two steps are necessary: 1. rezoning the property back from A-4 to A-2 in the usual rezoning process; and 2. having the Council formally rescind its earlier resolution approving the contract. A draft resolution for this purpose is attached. EXHIBIT D NEGATIVE DECLARATION LEAD AGENCY: Town of Danville NAME OF PROJECT: Magee Rezoning PROJECT DESCRIPTION: RZ 88-1: Rezoning 135 + acre Short Ranch from A-4 (Agricultural Preserve) to A-2 (General Agriculture) ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: None Identified MITIGATION MEASURES: None Identified DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration The Initial Study was prepared by the Planning Department, Town of Danville. Copies of the Initial Study may be obtained at the Town offices located at 510 La Gonda Way, Danville, California 94526. %TTEST: Joseph A. Calabrigo, Chief of Planning aj cp14