HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09161986 - T.6 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on September 16, 1986 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson and Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: EDMONSTON RANCH: Approving Tentative ) RESOLUTION NO. 86/562
Cancellation for a Portion of Land ) (Gov. C. Sec. 51280
Conservation Contract 12-70 (1427-RZ) ) et. seq. )
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT:
On January 13, 1970 the landowners of the Edmonston Ranch entered into a Land Conservation
Contract with the County of Contra Costa in accordance with the California Land
Conservation Act (Government Code Section 51200 et seq. ) .
On July 23, 1986 Dame Construction Company, Inc. filed a petition for cancellation of a
portion of that contract, covering approximately 196 acres of the 240 acre area subject to
the contract, pursuant to Government Code Section 51280. The subject property is located
on the north side of Camino Tassajara, 300 feet east of Hansen Lane in the Tassajara area
and is identified as Assessor's parcels #220-070-002, 220-070-004, and 220-090-001.
The County Assessor has determined the full cash value of the subject property as though
it were free of the contractual restriction, and has certified to the Board the
cancellation valuation of the subject property for the purpose of determining the
cancellation fee.
The Board hereby determines, and certifies to the County Auditor-Controller, that the
amount of the cancellation fee which the landowner must pay the County Treasurer as
deferred taxes upon cancellation is $32,239 (which is 12-1/2% of the cancellation
valuation of the subject property) .
The required findings associated with the review of this petition are presented in Exhibit
A (attached) .
The Board---hereby grants tentative approval for cancellation of Land Conservation Contract
12-70, only as to the parcels identified above, subject to the following conditions and
contingencies being satisfied:
1. Payment in full of the cancellation fee due under Government Code Section 51283,
which fee is $32,239 (portion of Contract 12-70) . Unless said fee is paid
within one year from the recording of this Resolution, or a Certificate of
Cancellation of Contract is issued within said time, this fee shall be
recomputed as of the date of the landowner's Notice of Satisfaction of
Conditions and Contingencies (Government Code Section 51283.4(b)) .
2. The landowner shall obtain approval for a Planned Unit District Preliminary
Development Plan within one year of the date. of tentative cancellation, with a
possible one year extension at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors.
2.
The Board directs the Clerk of the Board to file with the County Recorder a Certificate of
Tentative Cancellation pursuant to Government Code Section 51283.4(a) .
{
The Board also requests the Treasurer-Tax Collector to notify the County Assessor and
Community Development Department of the payment of cancellation fees on this tentative
approval action.
I hereby certify that thfo is a true and correct copy of
an action takon and entered on tho rninates of the
BCaM Of supe Ears on t�datlelsllhowqn.
ATTESTED:
PNfL BATCti CLOR, Clark oS the Board
Of Svpervicors and Count•, Administrator
Orig. Dept. : Community Development
OL-cc: County Assessor By Deputy
County Auditor-Controller
County Counsel
County Recorder
Treasurer-Tax Collector
Director of Community Development
Clerk of the Board
Public Works Department
Thiessen, Gagen & McCoy
Steven Mel Iema
P177z
t
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 51200-51298; CANCELLATION OF
LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT DATED JANUARY 13, 1970
(WILLIAMSON ACT)
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County specifically
finds as follows;
1. The DAME' CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. (hereinafter
Landowner) owns an option to purchase certain lands consisting
of approximately one hundred ninety-six (196) acres, located
north of Camino Tassajara Road in Danville, further identified. '
as Assessor ' s Parcel Nos. 220-070-002, 220-070-004, and 220-090-
010 (hereinafter subject property) .
2. The EDMONDSTON FAMILY TRUST entered into a Land
Conservation Contract dated January 13, 1970 (Contract) , with
the County of Contra. Costa. The Contract was executed pursuant
to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act)
(G.C. §§51200 , et seq. ) . The . Contract was made effective the
last day of February, 1970, and carried a ten (10) year original
term. Pursuant . to G.C. §51244, the Contract provided for an
automatic renewal of one year . from the last. day of January of
each succeeding year , unless Notice of Nonrenewal was given.
3. The EDMONDSTON FAMILY TRUST filed a Notice . of
Nonrenewal of Land .-Conservation Contract dated October 28,
1981. Mr. Sid Corrie and , the . EDMONDSTON FAMILY TRUST further
filed a. Request . :to : Cancel Land Conservation Contract : .dated
Apri 6, _1982. ,.Under the terms of the Notice of Nonrenewal,. ' the.
Contract-will expire - no later .-than February 28, 1991.
4. A proposal for alternative use was submitted to Contra
Costa County. Pursuant to County Resolutions 84-697 and 84-783
Contra Costa County amended the County General Plan with respect
to the subject property to provide for the alternative use
proposed.
5. Pursuant to Resolution 84-698 dated November 27, 1984,
the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approved a
tentative cancellation of the agricultural preserve contract
with respect to the Contract and the subject property. Such
Tentative Cancellation, however, set forth findings consistent
with G.C. §51282.1. Certain constitutional questions have been
raised with respect to certain provisions of Section 51282.1 in
recent California cases. Thus, the Landowner has filed a
separate Petition to Cancel Land Conservation Contract, dated
July 23, 1986, (Petition) . The Petition may be approved by the
County of Contra Costa, pursuant to the guidelines set forth in
G.C. §51282, and other applicable provisions of the Williamson
Act.
6. As specifically stated in Findings 8 through 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. 951282 (a) (1) and (b) (1)- (5) .
7. The Cancellation is for land on which Notice of
Nonrenewal has been served pursuant to G.C. §51245. G.C. 951245
requires that a Notice of Nonrenewal to be filed by the
Landowner at least ninety (90) days prior the renewal date. The
-2-
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 October 28, 1981. Such Notice will`
cause the Contract to expire no later than January 31, 1991.
8. Cancellation of the Contract is not likely to result in
the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use for the
following, among other reason.
The proposed project and subject property is nearly
surrounded by lands which are currently fully developed, or are
developing. The Blackhawk community is adjacent to the subject
property to the north and to the east. The Blackhawk commercial
area is currently under construction to the west. The final
residential phase of Blackhawk is currently under construction
to the east. The Sycamore Valley area, which is approved for
development and currently under construction, lies to the
west. To the south is the intersection of Camino Tassajara and
the Crow Canyon Road Extension. This area is authorized for
development pursuant to the North Dougherty Hills General Plan _
Amendments. It is therefore apparent, based on the surrounding
development, that the property adjacent to the subject property
would not be removed from agricultural use because the
Williamson Act Contract was cancelled on the subject property.
Further, G.C. 551282 (b) (2) requires that the
Cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent
lands from agricultural use. In light of the residential land
uses surrounding the subject property, the Blackhawk commercial
-3-
lk
development and _ the final residential phase currently under
construction, the approved development currently under
construction in the Sycamore Valley area, and the General Plan
Amendments for the North Dougherty Hills, the withdrawal of the
subject property in and of itself is not likely to result in the
withdrawal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. While there
is Williamson Act Contract encumbering the Bettencourt property
to the west, if agricultural uses are halted on that land or any
nearby land, such cessation of agricultural uses is based on
factors other than the withdrawal of the subject property.
Additionally, the decision to continue agricultural uses is an
independent decision of each landowner. Despite development
that has occurred or is pending around the Bettencourt property
and the opportunity to obtain an urban land use designation. on
said property, the owner has declined to do so. Therefore, it
is clear that the actual cancellation of the Contract on the
subject property, as a continuation of its development process,
is of no effect on the decision of Bettencourt whether to _
continue agricultural use of his property. Such a decision
rests on a variety of factors, including the economic viability
of agriculture as compared to alternative uses. Because of the
independent nature of the Cancellation decision, any cessation
of agricultural use on adjacent parcels to the west or south
would not be the result of- Williamson Act Cancellation on the
subject property, but instead would be the result of the
landowner' s own reasoned decision, dependent on factors beyond
-4-
just the withdrawal of the subject property from agricultural
preserve.
9. Cancellation of the Contract is for an alternative use
which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
County' s General Plan for the following, among other reasons.
The predecessors in interest to the Landowner, the
EDDIONDSTON FAMILY TRUST and Mr. Sid Corrie, filed a proposal for
alternative use in April of 1982. Concurrent with that proposal
was an application for Williamson Act Cancellation as well as
General Plan Amendment. By Resolution Nos. 84-697 and 84-783
the General Plan Amendment reflecting the alternative use plan
was .accepted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.
By Resolution No. 84-698 the Board accepted the Williamson Act
Cancellation on the property. As such, cancellation of .the
Contract is for an alternative use which is consistent with the
applicable provisions of the County General Plan.
10. Cancellation of the Contract will not result in
discontiguous patterns of urban development for the following, _
among other reasons.
The subject property is nearly surrounded by lands
which are currently fully developed, under construction or
projected to be developed in the near future. The proposed
project is adjacent to developed, urban property. The proposed
project will clearly not result in discontiguous patterns of
urban development. Additionally, the Board of Supervisors of
Contra Costa County, when it granted Williamson Act Cancellation
-5-
under the now defunct "window provisions, " specifically found
that the cancellation of alternative use will not result in
discontiguous patterns of urban development. These findings of
1983 would be . even more correct in the present situation,
considering the increase growth and development of the area.
11. There is no proximate noncontracted land which is both
availability 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. 10, above, the subject
property is nearly surrounded by lands which are currently
developed, or are projected to be developed in the near
future. The Blackhawk properties, the Sycamore Valley
properties and the North Dougherty Hills properties have or will
be developed by other corporations or parties with other
projects and are unavailable for this project. All other
proximate lands are either subject to a Williamson Act Contract
or fully developed or committed to development in the County. _
12, As specifically stated in Findings Nos. 13 and 14, set
forth below, the Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract is
in the public interest, pursuant to G.C. §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. §51220. The objectives set forth at G.C.
-6-
§51220 (a) and (b) recognize the importance of agricultural lands
in order to, preserve our food sources, and as areas to house
agricultural work force. The subject lands are not utilized for
any agricultural purposes at the present time. Accordingly, the
contribution of the subject property . as a food source for the
nation, let alone the local community, is nonexistent.
Similarly the objective at §51220 (e) addresses land.s
designated as a scenic highway, or wildlife habitat, as such
lands are specifically defined at G.C. 551201 (i) and (j) . The
current use of such lands does not affect these goals.
The objective at §51220 (c) states that the
discouragement of conversion of agricultural lands is a matter
of public interest, "and will be a benefit to urban dwellers in
that it will discourage discontiguous urban development patterns
which unnecessarily increase the cost of community services to
community residents. " As stated above, we find that the
cancellation of the Contract will not result in discontiguous
patterns of urban development. The subject property is nearly _
surrounded by active or planned development and is better
characterized as an infill site, in particular with respect to
the north side of Camino Tassajara rather than an extension of
urban development.
The objective in 951220 (d) states that in a rapidly
urbanizing society, agricultural lands have a definite public
value as open space . We find the proposed cancellation coupled
with a commitment to open space under the General Plan
-7-
Amendment, in particular as to the portion of property within
the Williamson Act south of Camino Tassajara is not affected by
this Cancellation, helps to achieve this objective. To the
extent that the stated objectives of the Williamson Act are not
achieved by cancellation of the Contract, we nevertheless find
that other public concerns outweigh such objectives. First, the
proposed development will result in financial contributions to
necessary road improvements in the San Ramon Valley area.
Second, the proposed development will provide needed housing in
the Danville/San Ramon area.
14. There is no proximate noncontracted land which is both
available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed that
the contracted land be put. Our finding hereunder is the same
as set forth under Finding No. 11, above.
15. The Landowner ' s Petition has referenced and
incorporated a specific alternative use of the land. Such
proposal has , listed the governmental agencies known by the
Landowner to have permit authority related to the proposed _
alternative use.
16. Prior to its action giving this tentative approval, the
County Assessor determined the full cash value of the land as
though it were free of the contractual restrictions. The County
Assessor, pursuant to G.C. §51283, has certified to the Board
that the cancellation value of the land for the purposes of
determining cancellation fee. Such fee is an amount equal to
12 1/2% of the cancellation value of the property; such fee has
-8-
.
been determined and certified to the County Auditor as being $_
$32,239
17 . Conditions contained in the Certificate of Tentative
Approval that must be met prior to final cancellation will
include:
a. Payment in full amount of the fee described above,
together with a statement that unless the fee is paid, or a
Certificate of Cancellation of Contract is issued within one (1)
year from the date of the recording of the Certificate of
Tentative Cancellation, such fee shall be recomputed as of the
date of Notice described in G.C. 351283 .4 (b) ;
b. The Landowner shall obtain all discretionary
permits necessary to commence the project and project approval
shall be conditioned upon mitigating all significant impacts
identified in the General Plan Amendment and project EIR or a
finding of overriding consideration.
18. Pursuant to G.C. .351282 (f) , if the provisions of Public
Resources Code 321081 are found to be applicable to the
cancellation of the subject Contract, then the the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Hanson Lane General Plan
Amendment is deemed to be an environmental impact report
relating to this "project. " Such EIR was accepted by the County
Board of Supervisors on December 18, 1984 , by Resolution
84/683. The "Project" . being subject to the EIR, is deemed to
include Cancellation of the subject Contract. All "significant
effects' as set forth in the referred EIR will be mitigated or
-9-
l
• voided, or findings of overriding consideration shall be made ,
as a contingency to general approval of the development plan as
required by P.R.C. 321081. ' The Board circulated a Notice of
Intent to use a previous Environmental Impact Statement on July
18, 1986. The comment period for such Notice expired September
.8, 1986. The Board now accepts such EIR as complete for this
Cancellation.
19. The Board recognizes that the objectives to be served
by cancellation could not have been predicted or served by
nonrenewal at any earlier time. Such objectives can be served
only by cancellation now. Cancellation now will insure that the
monies will become available at an earlier date for the traffic
improvements and other public benefits . associated with the Crow
Canyon Corridor Extension Area. It is a project that should be
completed as soon as possible in the interest of the health,
safety and welfare of the community.
20 . The Board recognizes that under G.C. 351282 (d) , the
uneconomic character of an existing agricultural use shall not
by itself be sufficient reason for cancellation of contracts.
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 Board is aware of this
consideration, but does not need to consider the uneconomic
character of the agricultural use now in existence except to
recognizes its negligible contribution as a food source to the
nation, or to the local community. While the required findings
-10-
to consider agricultural economics might be made, this
cancellation is based upon the reasons set forth and not upon
the Landowner ' s desire, understandable as it may be, to realize
financial gain.
-11-
EXHIBIT A
I'k(UPERTY DZSCRIPTION
PARCEL ONE
Parcel C, Map of Record of Survey, filed May 12, 1966, Book 42
Licensed Surveyors Map, page 33, Contra Costa County Records.
EXCEPTING FROM PARCEL ONE: That portion thereof conveyed to
R.C. Force in deed recorded February 24, 1948, Book 1175,
Official Recgrd s, page 271.
PARCEL TWO
Parcel B, map of Record of Survey, filed May 12, 1966, Book 42
Licensed Surveyors Maps, page 33, Contra Costa County Records.
EXCEPTING FROM PARCEL TWO: That portion thereof conveyed to
R.C. Force in the deed recorded February 24, 1948, Book 1175,
Official Records, page 271.
PARCEL FOUR
Parcel Al Map of Record of Survey, filed May 12, 1966, Book 42,
Licensed Surveyors Maps, page 33, Contra Costa County records.
A.P. NO: 220-070-002, 220-070-004 , 220-090-001
t
s
•} C V
OCT 61986 6 16957 r.-=CORDED AT REQUET OF
86 1'76012
Recording requested by Contra Costa County
SES' 2 6 198 A
When recorded, Mail to Clerk AT I� O'CLOCK / M.
Board of Supervisors CO!�TRP.
CO,
COUNT RECORDS
County Administration Bldg. �.R. OISSQ
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553 ctt
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
w
Q) Re: Tentative Cancellation of a
�
Portion of Land Conservation ) CERTIFICATION OF TENTATIVE W
a Contract 12-70 (1427-RZ) ) CANCELLATION
(Gov. Code Section 51283.4)
U State of California )
ss: '._MTIFICATE)
�4 - County of Contra Costa )
010
U N
°,� I am the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County. 'The Board by
Resolution No. 86/562 adopted on September 16, 1986, granted tentative approval
�+ m for cancellation of the portion of the land conservation contract between the"'
tr ro Q „County of Contra Costa and the below-named landowner applicable to the below-
4, described real property.
b •�
b Name of Current Owner: Edmonston Family Trust, et al
o x 4644 Springwood
U W Concord, CA 94521
$4w
a, ° Name of Landowner Requesting Dame Construction Company
r_ o Cancellation
o This real property is described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated
� .0 herein by this reference.
a�
r. 4J A Certificate of Cancellation of Contract will be issued and recorded at such
E -, time as the following conditions and contingencies are satisfied:
oEn (1) Payment in full of the cancellation fee due under Government Code
10 v Section 51283, which fee is $32,239 (portion of Contract 12-70). Unless said
E fee is paid within one year from the recording of this Certificate, or a
E Certificate of Cancellation of Contract is issued within said time, this fee
E-' a shall be recomputed as to the date of the landowner's Notice of Satisfaction of
Condtiions and Contingencies (Government Code Section 51283.4(b)) .
r,MP AT REDO OF
OCT616 M
AT .- 0CL0C
CONTRA COST COUNT RECORDS
J.R.
COUNTY RECORDER
FEE S
(2) The landowner shall obtain approval for a Planned Unit District
preliminary development plan within one year of the date of tentative
cancellation, with a possible one year extension at the discretion of the Board
of Supervisors.
Date: September 16. 1986
c
0
ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and County W
Administrator
01.
Q
By0-tv T
Dep Clerk 40
rV
LTR.VI