HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12011987 - T.9 87 25400,
RECORDING REQUESTED BY: DEC 4 - 1987
Contra Costa County ECORDED AT REQUE OF
Y D�-
0
EC
WHEN RECORDED RETURN AT qDO'CLOCK 87� M.
BOARDTO
SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORD§ y
J,R. OISSON
COUNTY RECORDER fv
FEE $
vrr
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Re: Tentative Cancellation of CERTIFICATE OF
Land Conservation Contract TENTATIVE
No. 22-69 between Contra CANCELLATION
Costa County and Jerry (Gov. Code §51283 . 4)
Bettencourt, dated February
25 , 1969 , Pertaining to
Property Identified as
Assessor ' s Parcel Nos.
220-060-008 and 260-060-011
I am the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for Contra
Costa County, California. The Board of Supervisors by
Resolution No. 87/ 704 adopted on December 1, 1987 , granted
tentative approval for cancellation of the land conservation
contract between the County of Contra Costa and the below
named landowner. /
Name of Landowner Requesting Jerry Bettencourt
Cancellation: 3641 Camino Tassajara Rd.
Danville, CA 94526
Real Property For Which Legal Description Attached
Contract is Cancelled: Hereto as Exhibit "A"
-1-
P
O
U
A Certificate of Cancellation of Contract will be —.�—..
issued and recorded at such time as the following conditions Ci
and contingencies are 'satisfied:
N
(1) Payment in full of the cancellation fee due under
Government Code §51283, which fee is $40 , 529 . 00. Unless said
fee is paid within one year from the recording of this Certificate
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 §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 (or
the Town of Danville if annexed) .
Dated: December 1 , 1987 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors
By -�'�
J anne 0. Maglio
Deputy Clerk
-2-
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCEL ONE:
a
a
Portion of the West 1/2 of Section 31, and the West 1/2 of the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 31, Township 1 South, Range 1 East,
Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, more particularly described
as follows:
—rte
c-�
Beginning at the intersection of the West line of said Section
31 with the center line of the County Road leading from Tassajara
to Danville; thence from said point of beginning north along iUD
the west line of said Section 31 to a point distant thereon
10. 96 chains South from the Northwest corner of said Section 31;
said point being on the South line of the parcel of land
described in the deed to B.A. Silva recorded January 29, 1912,
Book 178, Deeds, page 41; thence East along the South line
of said Silva Tract, parallel with the North line of said
Section 31, 41. 08 chains to the Southeast corner of said Silva
Tract; thence North along the East line of said Silva Tract,
parallel with the West line of said Section 31, 10 . 96 chains to the
North line of said Section 31; thence East along the North
line of said Section 31 to the Northeast corner of the West
1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section ' 31; thence South along
the east line of the west 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section
31 to the Southeast corner of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4
of said Section; thence West along the South line of the West
1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 31 to the Southwesterly
corner of said West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section;
thence South along the East line of the West 1/2 of said Section
31, 21. 30 chains, mor or less, to the center of the County Road;
thence along the center of said County Road, as follows: South
37° 15 ' West 4 . 21 chains; North 77° 45 ' West 7. 21 chains; North
660 15 ' West, 1. 52 chains; South 84° 45 ' West, 15. 90 chains;
South 690 30 ' West, 3. 99 chains, South 791 West, 4. 02 chains; and
thence North 840 15 ' West, 5. 46 chains to the point of beginning.
Excepting From Parcle One: The parcel of land conveyed in the
deed to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, recorded May 27, 1977,
in Book 8350, Page 91, Official Records.
PARCEL TWO:
Portion of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31, Township 1 South,
Range 1 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, described as
follows
EXHIBIT "A"
Page Two
Beginning on the north line of said southeast 1/4, distant a
thereon north 89° . 33 ' east, 1330. 80feet.from the northwest
corner of said southeast 1/ 4; thence from said point of
beginning, south 890 33 ' west, along said north line, CD
1330 . 80 feet; thence south 2° 30 ' east, 1405 . 80 feet to the
center line of the old County Road known as Camino Tassajara;
thence along said center line as follows: North 48° east, TV
99 . 66 feet; north 530 30 ' east, 99 . 66 feet; thence 490 15 '
east, 120. 12 feet, and north 89° 52 ' 30" east, 1030. 15 feet
to a line drawn south 00 22 ' 15" east, from the point of
beginning; thence north 00 22 ' 15" west, 1211. 23 feet to
the point of beginning.
Excepting From Parcel Two: That portion thereof lying south
of the north line of the Old County Road referred to in said
Parcel Two.
TAE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CON'T'RA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on December 1, 1987 by
the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak
NOES: None
0
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: BETTENCOURT RANCH: )
Approving Tentative )
Cancellation for a ) RESOLUTION NO. 87/704 —
portion of Land ) (Gov. C. Section 51200
Conservation Contract ) et seg. )
22-69 ( 1299-RZ) )
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES
THAT:
On January 21, 1969 the landowners of the Bettencourt Ranch
entered into a Land Conservation Contract with the County of
Contra Costa in accordance with the California Land
Conservatory Act (Government Code Section 51200 et seg. ) .
On November 7, 1986, Braddock and Logan in concert with the
landowner Jerry Bettencourt, filed a petition for
cancellation of the enforcement contract covering
approximately 324 acres, pursuant to Government Code Section
51280. The subject property is located on the north side of
Camino Tassajara in the Danville area and is identified as
Assessor ' s Parcel Numbers 220-060-008 and 011.
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 $40, 529 (which is
12-1/2% of the cancellation valuation of the subject
property) .
One of the reasons that the landowners have petitioned for
tentative cancellation at this time rather than awaiting,
final approval of the general plan amendment and
preliminary development plan is that new state legislation
has been adopted which changes the method of calculating
cancellation fees. The new law goes into effect on January
1, 1988. Under the new formula, cancellation fees would be
substantially higher. All those fees go directly to the
State of California and the County does not benefit directly
from these fee increases. Such increases in fees paid to
the State of California may result in less money being
available for local exactions and public improvements
associated with eventual development of the contracted land.
A Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was
prepared on this cancellation and circulated for comments; a
copy is attached along with correspondence received on it.
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 22-69, subject to the
following conditions and contingencies being satisfied:
Resolution No. 87/704 ��
1. Payment in full of the 'cancellation fee due under
Government Code Section 51283 , which fee is $40,529
(Contract 22-69) . 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 O
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 (or the City of Danville if annexed) . �
If\J
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.
JWC:vpl I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
c•bdrsl.frm an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
Orig. Dept. : Community Development ATTESTcD: 'm-1&- -li /,FofZ
cc: Assessor PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
Auditor-Controller of Supervisors and County Administrator
Clerk of the Board
County Counsel 9 9J
Director, Community Development y�— —�— .Deputy
Public Works Dept.
Treasurer-Tax Collector
Thiessen, Gagen & McCoy
Danville Planning Department
Clerk-Recorder
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS BY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE §§51200, ET SEQ. ;
CANCELLATION OF LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT Q
DATED FEBRUARY 25, 1969 (WILLIAMSON ACT) o
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County specifically
find as follows :
1. Mr . Jerry Bettencourt owns certain lands consisting of
approximately 324 acres, located to the east of
Blackhawk Road and north of Camino Tassajara Road in an
unincorporated area of Contra Costa County, within the
sphere of influence of the Town of Danville. The
subject property is further identified by Assessor
Parcel Numbers 220-060-008 and 011 .
2 . Mr . Jerry Bettencourt and Mrs . Rose Bettencourt entered
into a Land Conservation Contract, dated February 25 ,
1969 (Contrast) , with the County of Contra Costa,
(County) pursuant to the California Land Conservation
Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) (Government Code §§51200 ,
et seq. ) . The Contract carried a 10-year original .term
and was effective the last day of February 1969 .
Pursuant to Government Code §51244, the Contract
provides for an automatic renewal of one year on the
last day of February of each succeeding year , unless a
Notice of Nonrenewal is filed.
3 . The Bettencourts have owned the subject property since
1951 . Since that time they have utilized the property
-1-
.7..
for cattle grazing and for growing hay and grain. Such
uses were guaranteed pursuant to the Contract . In
1981 , fundamental land use decisions were made for the
Tassajara Valley pursuant to County Board Resolution
2218-RZ . The Bettencourt property was included within
the Stage III-A Area as the next general area for urban
development following the Canyon Lakes project . During
the early 1980 ' s owners and optionees of the property
surrounding the Bettencourt property requested and
obtained General Plan Amendments allowing for
residential developments on the adjacent parcels. .�
O
4 . Mr . Bettencourt, who now lives alone, and is the sole
-v
c-�
property owner , optioned the property to Braddock &
N
Logan Associates in 1986 . On August 22, 1986 , Braddock
& Logan, on behalf of Mr . Bettencourt , filed and served
a Notice of Nonrenewal with regard to the Contract .
Pursuant to such Notice of Nonrenewal, the Contract
will expire by its own terms no later than the last day
of February, 1996 .
5. On August 22, 1986 Braddock & Logan also submitted a
request for a . General Plan Amendment . The Board of
Supervisors has : authorized such General Plan review of
the site. A conceptual site plan consistent with said
General Plan Amendment has been submitted to Contra
Costa County for preliminary review and comments . Its
impacts will be analyzed in the environmental review
-2-
process for the General Plan Amendment . The site plan,
attached as Exhibit "i" , constitutes the proposed
"alternative use" of the site for the purposes of this
cancellation. It contemplates generally low density
single family residential units, public and private
open space and child care.
6 . The Town of Danville in recently adopting the Danville
2005 General Plan identified similar land uses for the gyp.
Bettencourt property.
7 . A Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance
has been prepared on this cancellation and circulated
i
for comments . It includes the Notice of Preparation,
Initial Study of Environmental Significance,
Justification for Negative Declaration, and Darwin
Myers Associates Analysis for Initial Study. A Draft
Environmental Impact Report on the proposed General
Plan Amendment is currently being circulated.
8 . As specifically stated in findings 9 through 15 , 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 Government
Code §51282 (a) ( 2 ) and (c) ( 1 ) ( 2 ) .
9 . Government Code §51282( c) states that cancellation of
the Williamson Act contract is "in the public interest"
if the two listed findings are made .
-3-
( 1) The first finding is that other public concerns
substantially outweigh objectives of the
Williamson Act .
( i ) The objectives of the Williamson Act are
found, at Government Code §51220 (a)-( e) . Such
objectives include the following: '
(a) The preservation of agricultural
land is necessary to the conservation of the
State ' s economic resources, and for food for
the nation; a
o
(b) The agricultural work force is
vital to sustain agricultural productivity,
and there exists a need to provide housing
for such work force;
(c) The discouragement of premature and
unnecessary 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 developxent
patterns which unnecessarily increase the
costs of community services to community
residences;
(d) In a rapidly urbanizing society,
lands have a definite public value as open
space; and
-4-
(e) Land within a scenic highway or
wildlife habitat area has a value because of
its scenic beauty in view of a highway, or
because of its value as a wildlife habitat.
10 . Objective (a) above, concerns preservation of
agricultural land because such is necessary for the
a
conservation of the State ' s economic resources, and for
food for the nation. Preservation of this particular �
property will not, however , conserve economic
resources, or food for the nation. As represented by N�
Mr . Jerry Bettencourt, the property currently contains
approximately 40 cattle. The property is also used to
grow hay and grain on approximately 150 acres of the
total 324 acres contained on the subject property. As
a Notice of Nonrenewal has been filed on the subject
property, the Williamson Act will be cancelled by its
own terms in February of 1996 thus limiting the future
agricultural production of this property to a short-
term period. Thus, the agricultural benefit of ,this
land consists of the existence of 20 cows and 20
calves, and nominal hay and grain production, for the
next 9 years . Any contribution of the property as a
food source for the nation, let alone the local .
community, is negligible at best .
11 . Objective (b) , above, addresses the need to provide
housing for our agricultural work force . Currently,
-5-
'Y
there are two structures on the property. The property
has never been utilized as agricultural housing or
housing for a work force. Therefore, the cancellation
of the Williamson Act contract will not diminish the
availability of agricultural housing .
12 . Objective ( c) , above, refers to discouragement of
premature and unnecessarily early conversion of
agricultural land. The objective states that dis-
couragement of such early conversion will in turn limit
a discontiguous urban development patterns, which
• o
unnecessarily increase the cost of community services o
to the residences. The development of the subject C:)
property does not conflict with this objective. First ,
this property is surrounded by Blackhawk, the Shadow (V
Creek development ( 429 units approved) , the Ujdur 00
property ( zoning approval pending for 110 units) , Vista
Tassajara (.240 units approved) , and Tassajara Ranch
( 850 units approved) . To the west are the Morgan
Property ( 213 units approved) , the Blackhawk commercial
project and the Sycamore Valley Specific Plan
(approximately 1, 700 units under construction) . To the
south is Shapell West Branch ( 668 units approved) . See
copy of attached "Agricultural Preservation
Cancellation Map" , Exhibit "2 . " This is truly an
infill property, merely filling in the "hole in the
donut" . It completes a circle of planned, orderly
-6-
development, not discontiguous patterns of urban
growth. It does not result in premature conversion of
agricultural property to residential use. Community
services are extended in an orderly fashion.
Therefore, no significant increase in costs of
community services to existing community residences
o.
0
will occur . ,�-
13 . Objective (d) above, states that agricultural lands f
have a. definite public value as open space. In this
instance, the most significant open space on the N�
property will be preserved through the development
process. The remainder of the current open space will
" -ro
be lost only for a few years through 1996 given the
infill nature of the property. It would be inefficient
-r and inappropriate to bypass such property with
utilities and other service infrastructure to the Crow
Canyon Corridor area. Given the amount of open space
being retained in the various approved projects in the
area, preservation of this entire property in , the
middle of an urban area as open space seems
unnecessary.
14 . Objective (e) refers to the preservation of lands
within a scenic highway or wildlife area. Cancellation
of the Contract will not be inconsistent with this
objective, because the Bettencourt property is not
located within a scenic highway or wild life area .
-7-
Furthermore, open space will be preserved through the
development piocess, similar to other projects in the
area.
15 . Based on the foregoing, the Board concludes that this
cancellation is not inconsistent with any of the five
objectives of the Williamson Act .
16 . Even assuming some inconsistency between this cancella-
tion and any of the objectives of the Williamson Act,
the public concerns that will be promoted by this
cancellation outweigh any such negative impact
0
cancellation might have on the objectives to be
furthered by Williamson Act contracts .
17 . First, the proposed development will provide needed -ICY
housing to the central Contra Costa County area. The
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
published the document entitled, Growth Trends ( 1987 ) ,
as part of its comprehensive County General Plan
program. The Growth Trends study sites several
significant statistics as prepared by the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) : as follows :
( 1 ) The Bay Area Region will grow by over 1 million
people between the years 1985 and 2005 (page 15 ) ;
( 2 ) Approximately 35, 000 new housing units are needed
in Contra . Costa County between 1985 and 1990 ;
29 , 000 units will be needed between 1990 and 1995 ;
28, 000 units will be needed between 1995 and 2000 ;
-8-
V3
and 12 , 500 units will be needed during the first
five years of the 21st century. Cumulatively,
through the year 2005, 104 , 500 housing units will
be needed in Contra Costa County to meet antici-
pated demand.
It is evident that the subject land is needed for
housing. That housing need outweighs any objectives of g
0
the Williamson Act that may arguably be fulfilled by
-{s
the Contract as described in Paragraphs 9-15 . C:D
18. Second, the public benefits in improving the �
Bettencourt Curve section of Camino Tassajara Road are CNJI
substantial . The Bettencourt Curve is a very dangerous
section of Camino Tassajara Road on which there have
been numerous, documented injury and non-injury traffic
ia..
accidents. The advantages to public safety in a
realignment of the Bettencourt Curve and related road
sections on Camino Tassajara Road compel an early
termination of the subject Contract . Realignment of
the roadway would be a direct violation of the Contract
in that some agricultural use would be eliminated.
With the approved Shadow Creek project and the
Blackhawk Phase IV project under construction and other
projects, traffic along the Bettencourt Curve is
estimated to soon be 14 , 600 daily trips ( see July 1986
Crow Canyon Corridor Transportation Study by TJKM
Transportation Consultants ) . That study identifies a
-9-
baseline traffic volume of 2 , 000 vehicle trips per .day
currently traversing the Bettencourt Curve. The TJKM
study projects a 7305 increase in traffic volume across
that dangerous section of road. Cancellation of the
Contract will promote the quickest possible elimination
of such a dangerous section of roadway. The public
safety objectives in realigning Camino Tassajara at the
Bettencourt Curve outweigh the continued preservation
of the Bettencourt property under Williamson Act
contract .
19 . A third overriding public concern is the participation
C)
in the construction of the Crow Canyon Corridor traffic
improvements. Pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers �
Agreement Concerning Tassajara Area Transportation
Improvement Fees approved by the Contra Costa County N
C-r-1
Board of Supervisors on April 28, 1987 , and the Town of
Danville and City of San Ramon, incorporated herein by
reference, the Bettencourt property is to participate
along with the. Shapell West Branch project , Mo,rgan
property, Tassajara Ranch, Vista Tassajara, Shadow
Creek and the Ujdur project in twenty-one local traffic
improvements . The importance of these traffic
improvements to accommodate the approved development
with the Crow Canyon Corridor and otherwise is
documented in the 1986 and 1987 TJKM Transportation
studies for the Crow Canyon Corridor .
-10-
If the Bettencourt project does not go forward, then
the buyers of other homes in the Crow Canyon Corridor
will be ultimately responsible for a significant higher
m
traffic improvement fee. Furthermore, the realignment
of the Bettencourt Curve will be more expensive without ]
cancellation. It is not in the public interest to have
additional fees charged to new homeowners because the
Bettencourt property is not contemplated for W
development until after 1996 . As noted in Growth
Trends 1987 on page 81, the lack of affordable housing
continues to be a County dilemma. The public benefit
in terms of contribution to transportation improvements
following a cancellation outweighs the objectives of
. ' the Williamson Act in maintaining continued nominal
agricultural use of the Bettencourt property.
20 . The fourth and final public concern which outweighs the
objectives of the Contract on the Bettencourt property
isthe effectuation of the Danville General Plan.
Consistent with State law, the formation and implemen-
tation of a general plan is in the public interest .
While Contra Costa County is now in the middle of a
County-wide review and update of its General Plan, in
addition to a separate study of the General Plan for
the Bettencourt property, the Town of Danville has
already updated its General Plan. The Bettencourt
property while still within the unincorporated area of
-11-
Contra Costa County and therefore under the juris-
diction of Contra Costa County is, nevertheless, within
the sphere of influence of the Town of Danville and has
properly been included within the General Plan for the
Town of Danville. In particular, the Danville General
Plan states that within the Tassajara Special Concern
Area the Bettencourt property is designated for a
combination of low density, single-family, residential
dwelling units as well as public and semi-public open
space and child care. Residential development on the
site is planned to consist of relatively large single-
c
family lots with a maximum of 470 units. This General
Plan, recently enacted by the Town of Danville,
therefore, suggests that the public interest will be
served by residential use of this property. As noted N
previously, the objectives of the Williamson Act are at
most minimally met by the Contract . The fulfillment of
the public interest as evidenced by the General Plan
outweighs the objectives of the Williamson Act as
applied to the Contract .
21 . For each of the reasons set forth in the foregoing
paragraphs 16-20, the Board of Supervisors hereby finds
that the public interest of the citizens of the
Tassajara Valley, the surrounding communities and
Contra Costa County as a whole, are better served by
the cancellation of the Contract than it would be by
-12-
the marginal furtherance, if any, of the objectives of
the Williamson Act through the continuation of the
Contract through 1996 .
22 . A second necessary finding for cancellation of a
Contract pursuant to the public interest is that there g
0
be no proximate non-contracted land, which is both �
available and suitable for the use to which it is �
4�_
-v
proposed that contracted land be put or , alternatively,
N
development of the contracted land would provide more
contiguous patterns of urban development than develop-
ment of proximate non-contracted land.
23 . Taking this requirement as a two-step analysis , the
first finding that must be made is that no proximate
non-contracted land is both available and suitable for
the use proposed on the contracted land.
As shown on Exhibit "2" , the Bettencourt property is
surrounded by lands which are currently fully
developed, or approved for development as described in
Paragraph No. 12 . Currently, construction is pending
on approximately 800 more units in the Blackhawk
development north of the Bettencourt property. The
Crow Canyon Corridor projects comprise approximately
2, 400 residential units plus commercial and retail
development .
-13-
study. Only properties that would result in
discontiguous development might be considered
available. To the extent that any other parcels are
m
available, they are much smaller in size and the nature
of such parcels do not provide even a remotely similar '0
C31
type of project .
24 . Additionally, a finding must be made that development r\)
CJ1
of the contracted land would provide more contiguous
patterns of urban development than development of
proximate non-contracted land. As exemplified in
Exhibit "2" and as noted in previous paragraphs, the
proposed site is an infill of residential development .
As such, it provides for a more continuous pattern of
urban development than proximate, non-contracted lands ,
even if available, to the east, south and southeast .
25 . 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.
26 . Prior to this action giving tentative approval of
Williamson Act cancellation, 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 Government Code §51283 , has
certified to the Board the cancellation value of the
-15-
A
land for the purposes of determining the cancellation
fee. Such fee is an amount equal to 12-1/2% of the
cancellation value of the property. Such fee has been
determined and certified by the County Auditor to be
the sum of $
27 . Conditions contained in the Certificate of Tentative
Cancellation that must be met prior to final
cancellation shall include:
( 1) Payment in full of the fees described above,
together with a statement that unless the fee is
paid, or a Certificate of Cancellation of Contract
is issued within one year from the date a
recording of the Certificate of Tentative
x
Cancellation, such fee shall be.-recomputed as of
the date of notice described in Government Code
-c
§51283 . 4 (b) ; The fee may be paid prior to
N
condition ,( 2) hereunder being satisfied and such
payment and determination of its amount shall be
irrevocable; and
( 2) The landowner shall obtain approval for a planned
unit district zoning and 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 (or
the Town of Danville if annexed) ; and
-16-
( 3 ) Any significant impacts identified in the EIR for
the General Plan Amendment shall be mitigated,
addressed by a statement of overriding
consideration, or otherwise addressed consistent
with CEQA prior to final cancellation of the 4�"
C
contract . fil
c�
28 . The Board recognizes that the objectives to be served
TV
by cancellation could not have been served by non- p
renewal at any earlier time. The objectives of the
immediate cancellation are to provide housing in
anticipation of future needs as well as to contribute
to financing of the infrastructure improvements
necessary to accommodate the existing approved develop-
1, ment within the area. Cancellation at this time will
insure that such money will become immediately
available and- will insure that housing for future needs
will be available.
29 . The Board additionally finds that the current landowner
could not have predicted the change in circumstances
which has resulted in the proposed cancellation . The
Contract was approved in 1969 ; well before development
within the Crow Canyon Corridor was foreseeable to a
rancher such as Jerry Bettencourt . While development
of the Blackhawk subdivision was anticipated in the
late 1970 ' s the preservation of the Hanson Lane/
Edmondston Ranch area and Bettencourt ' s property, among
-17-
others, as agricultural areas remained reasonable in
light of Blackhawk ' s unique stance geographically in
relation to other development and the continued
policies of agricultural preservation in the area . It
is only within the last few years that development has
extended from the Town of Danville out through the
Sycamore Valley to Blackhawk Road. It was only in
August, 1986 that the Shadow Creek project on the
Edmondston property was approved and it became apparent
that development of this area adjacent and east of the
Bettencourt property would proceed. Until such time as
the development within the Sycamore Valley proceeded
and the Shadow Creek development was approved, removal
0
U
of the Bettencourt property from the- Contract arguably
may have been considered premature and growth- O
Cil
inducing . Therefore, cancellation is appropriate at
this time and the property owner should not be cN
penalized in any manner for the timing of his CO
petition.
30 . The Board recognizes that under Government Code
§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
-18-
i
Board 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
o.
its negligible contribution as a food source to the
nation and to the local community. While the required p
findings allowing consideration of agricultural
economics might be made, this cancellation is based N
upon other reasons set forth herein and not upon the
landowner ' s desire, understandable as it may be, to
realize a financial gain.
31 . The Board finds that compliance with the nonrenewal
process resulting in expiration of the Contract in 1996
will interfere with the County ' s and the Town of
Danville ' s orderly development in —the Crow Canyon
Corridor , and will defeat other purposes served by the
cancellation— It is further appropriate in order to
secure the contribution of the Bettencourt project to
the costs of the traffic improvements within the Crow
Canyon Corridor .
32 . The Board recognizes that Article VIII , Section 8 of
the California, Constitution requires that Williamson
Act Contracts be "enforceably restricted" and that
contracts which can be cancelled without the proper
findings required by law conflict with the conservation
policies of such constitutional provisions ; however ,
the Board finds herein that all the . findings required
-19-
by law can be made and have been made herein.
Therefore, this cancellation is not accomplished
through denial ' of required findings but is made in full
compliance and recognition of all required restrictions
in the Williamson Act.
33 . The Board recognizes that the nonrenewal process is the
intended and general vehicle for termination of
Williamson Act contracts . Additionally, the Board
appreciates that early termination is to be utilized
only in extraordinary situations. For the reasons
stated previously, pursuant to public interest, and as
set forth in the findings herein, such extraordinary o
x.
circumstances exist for this infill property.
34 . The Board herein finds that continuation of the CJ1
-�
Contract is neither necessary nor desirable. Timely c
development of the Bettencourt property will allow for 07)
completion of the Stage-III urban area and the
project ' s valuable contribution to overall
infrastructure improvements .
35 . The Board finds that the Williamson Act provisions have
not been utilized as a tax shelter for real estate
speculators . As noted previously, the extensive
pending development of the Tassajara Valley in
particular in the Crow Canyon Corridor was not fully
realized until the last few years . Additionally, the
adjacent and easterly Edmondston Ranch property was not
-20-
removed from the Williamson Act until early fall of
1986. A Notice of Nonrenewal was filed on the
Bettencourt property at approximately the same time as
cancellation was granted for the Edmondston property.
As such, this property was held until such time as it
became clear development was appropriate for this
x.
property and was not held for excessive periods as a 0
tax shelter for real estate investors. Jerry
c-�
Bettencourt has been a rancher , not a developer or real N
estate investor .
36 . The Board of Supervisors hereby approves the Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance as providing
sufficient environmental review under CEQA for this
conditional tentative cancellation. The analysis,
findings and conclusions set forth in the Negative
Declaration and related documents) identified in
Paragraph No. 7 are incorporated herein by reference as
though set forth at length hereunder in further support
of the cancellation of the Contract .
-21-
O
cow
. aMw dook
i
r Q OC�t7C? fJf?,�?
d0�? a' ,�Q;t
, 1 i P
:�,le.
`\,\� "�..+' C l 1{ t- + {��-`��_�/�✓/ \�\\ "'�1� 9Ct �- jQ t Er. \lr t� ~.� y i' f
�" �f u� i � �f �: tt "�� Q �{ � �11�;N*(t z�,�;� _ (t IAJI '• } ��Q-' ,� 7 Mn in.ni� ,1 ..
/{
,� �•�,.'},< ;^r/.'" � a � -Q d �' !i+ t�tl .� . �,, r ,, �/ ,, � r , a��t2 \� • ' f'�''1
1 �iu3 A C
, i i t rz ' �t 1 ltll Ly e , x
r � � _•s.'• -�_ � ?N
'
Y � {
d\ -\a
Oc
�� .c d�� y'` `�•(.�,, l-. > ,. ,:/4:-fid, Q�r 0, 0
..1v t� , j,: _(j
pr�io�" _j
Q- ti 1. '•, T
`a 114�Ja° xc6 �i �. 7
�. -T 0�,� 1t � !' \, �) ..IIT �1
l l I ,
�� C�3 �'{�j �;.'.,
osim
v -n�,b4 � l��`ti:, '', ' r ,;•°'`fit ,` ��� —
o \9,�Q 6wo z IQ"0,
IN ' _
/n
1 f .
ou-
�/�) �\{yy��J��/./��'/�`. ♦ `-,,. rS�r_` i PAPKn+li �'} y1I• +�/ 1
.V^�..
(� V /i!SE01KE\I4M SA4\AT IDEA.'J--„i��Y� .•/. �
Kl•—_-'-
•"t.aatu-`a` g11E BEGT180
AND LOOAN N
RRAOOOCK A L04MEN� PLN
14
AL D N
�uw X11
taPq USE SUNY'>'0.Y pEgCENt OP S. gt{O`NN
(qi Pl.PLAEs iCttE: A
P= Road
l €: amino TassAmendment
` 1 Qian�
Open SNra` 0.Ecraetionl 17 Genera
,,,WC l n Soto 119 COUnt`/fVie r1 87•SR
ftp}V�Og Regio % 11
3 --..,.../'
ent,on 5�€Drat 62 •� �\ll/'y�.ra►i'�
get
pemitY lots 100 �f`{ll Uv
yd Sln9ta 324
gtreeta focal
Boor 14054P6 264
Aft
`......, - matin-
.
ir
f
• I / R 4 J
\ '' • / .... ria- �, ,i,.\� Q Y� �ti '� �' ' I ' ' >
•1 'iii \ Y h i0 � ' .`t \ � i
w
—
.. [{{ N
O. i\ ice , \ > •O t-. .. ';WQ � . J
CD
CD
J
Q w \. W
C C w
CD
ui
Lu
Lu
Lu
Lu
Q '
•� J Z N �.; 4 .S
�• P � i i'; `i U fes_![ w 'YW ,i� W
+>T Y
J
6
_fin: _ _:.. N / `L:.r.—' \-O {{�� o0 1••
•tom ..`� .. e � Z < � � d
EXHIBIT
END Of DOCUMENT