Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05051987 - T.11 RECORDED AT REQUEST OF Recording requested by Contra Costa County When recorded, -Mail to: MAY 2 2 1987 Clerk - Board of Supervisors Al L, McBrien Administration Building CONTRA STA TYRECARDS 651 Pine Street Jb R. OLSSON Martinez, CA 94553 COUNTY RECORDER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Re: Cancellation of Land ) CERTIFICATION OF CANCELLATION Conservation Contract ) OF CONTRACT #3-76 (1971-RZ) ) (Gov. Code Section 51283.4 State of California ) ss: CERTIFICATE County of Contra Costa ) I am the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County. The Board by Resolution No. 87/265 adopted on May 5 , 1987 , granted approval for cancellation of the land conservation contract between the County of Contra Costa and the below-named landowner applicable to the below described real property. Name of Current Owner: Seal Beach Business Center, Inc. c/o Richland Development Corporation 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 1009 Pleasant Hill , CA 94523 This real property is described as follows: The north 1/2 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 8, the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 8, and Lots 5 and 6 in Section 8, Township 1, South, Range 1 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. Assessor's Parcel No. 193-190-018 and 193-190-019. Date: May 5 , 1987 ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County. Adm' "strator..:,_ By - • Dep 'y Cler LTRX/3-76.RD BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Caft Harvey E. Bragdo Director of Co ityDment CoslaDATE: Co 1�}�March 20, 198 �J�11 tl�SUBJECT; Approving Cancellatind ) RESOLUTION NO. 87/265 Conservation Contrac1971-RZ) ) (Gov. C. Sec. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) B BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION The Board. of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: On February 10, 1976 the landowners of APN 193-190-003 Susan Kruzi ., Dyke 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 December 20, 1983 the Board of Supervisors approved the tentative cancellation of the contract pursuant to Section 51282.1 of the Government Code, the so-called "window" method of cancellation. The Board of Supervisors subsequently authorized cancellation following payment of required cancellation fees and approval of development projects. The cancellation of the contract pursuant to the "window" method was recorded on January 29, 1987. To provide further legal assurance on the contract cancellation, on January 26, 1987 the present property owner, Seal Beach Business Center filed another cancellation petition. This petition was submitted pursuant to the "conventional"method of cancellation, Section 51282 of the Government Code. The subject property consists of approximately 160 acres and is located at the east end of Royal Oaks Drive in the Alamo area. The County Assessor has determined that because cancellation fees were previously paid on the prior Board cancellation action, that no additional cancellation fees are due. The required findings associated with the review of this petition are presented in Exhibit A (attached) . The Board hereby grants approval for cancellation of Land Conservation Contract #3-76 pursuant to Section 51282. Y< CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON - May 5, 1987 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X The Chairwoman opened the public hearing and no one appeaing in opposition, the public hearing was closed. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Resolution No. 87/265 granting approval for cancellation of Agricultural Preserve Contract #3-76 (1971-RZ) is ADOPTED. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 5 ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN, cc: ATTESTED May 5 , 1987 PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR - M382/7_83 13Y _ -v .DEPUTY 2. The Board hereby determines, and certifies to the County Auditor-Controller that no additional cancellation fees are required for this cancellation approval.. The Board directs the Clerk of the Board to file with the County Recorder a Certificate of Cancellation pursuant to Government Code Section 51283 . 4(a) . Orig. Dept. : Community Development cc: County Assessor County Auditor-Controller County Recorder Clerk of the Board County Counsel Community Development Treasurer-Tax Collector Richland Development Corp. 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 100 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 LTRVIII/3-76.RD I EXHIBIT A FINDINGS BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 51200 - 51298, CANCELLATION OF LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT DATED FEBRUARY 10, 1976 (WILLIAMSON ACT) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County specifically finds as follows: 1. The SEAL BEACH BUSINESS CENTER, INC. owns certain lands consisting of approximately one hundred sixty (160) acres, located at the east end of Royal Oaks Drive in the Alamo area, further identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 193-190-003 (hereinafter subject property) . 2. SUSAN KRUSI DYKE entered into a Land Conservation Contract (#3-76) dated February 10, 1976 (Contract) , with the County of Contra Costa. The Contract was executed pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) (Government Code Section 51200, et seq. ) . The Contract was made effective the last day of February, 1976, and carried a ten (10) year original term. Pursuant to Government Code Section 51244, the Contract provided for an automatic renewal of one year from the last day of February of each succeeding year, less Notice of Non-renewal was given. 3. Having acquired legal title to the subject property from Susan Krusi Dyke, the Noah Company filed a Notice of Non-renewal of Contract on May 28, 1982. The Noah Company concurrently filed a Petition for Cancellation of Land Conservation Contract. Under the terms of the Notice of Non-renewal , the Contract will expire no later than March 31, 1992. Ownership of the subject property was later conveyed to the Seal Beach Business Center (current landowner) . 4. Detailed proposals for alternative uses (Development Plan Application) and Tentative Subdivision Map Approval (for Subdivision No. 6703) were then submitted to Contra Costa County on January 28, 1986. Approval for both requests was granted by the Board of Supervisors on August 12, 1986. Applications for modifications to the Contra Costa County General Plan and rezoning of the subject property were filed in furtherance of the Land- owners proposed alternative residential and permanent open space land uses. The General Plan was amended on December 20, 1983 by Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 83-1259. Rezoning Ordinance No. 84-25 was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on June 12, 1984, providing for the alternative use proposed. 2. 5. Pursuant to Resolution No. 83-1259 dated December 20, 1983, the Contra Costa. County Board of Supervisors approved the Tentative Cancellation of the Agricultural Preserve Contract applicable to the subject property. On December 18, 1984 the amount of $133,727 was paid to the County in cancellation fees in compliance with the tentative approval . Upon finding that all conditions attached to the tentative cancellation had been satis- fied, and in addition, that: (a) the cancellation and alternative use will not result in discontinuous growth, and (b) the cancell.ation and alter- native use will be consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan, the Board of Supervisors granted Final Cancellation on January 13, 1987. This cancellation, however, set forth findings consistent with Government Code Section 51282.1. Certain constitutional questions have been raised with respect to certain provisions of Section 51282.1 in recent California court cases. Thus, despite the fact that more than 180 days have elapsed since the Board's action granting Tentative Cancellation pursuant to Section 51282.1 without the filing of a legal challenge, the landowner has elected to file a separate petition for cancellation under the provisions of Government Code Section 51200 - 51298. The subject petition, dated January 26, 1987 (Petition) , is in support of an alternative use identical to that authorized by the prior , Cancellation and entitlement actions. The Petition may be approved by the County of Contra Costa, pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Government Code Section 51282 and other applicable provisions of the Williamson Act. 6. As specifically stated in Findings 8 through 12, as 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 Section 51282 (a) (1) and (b) (1) - (5) . 7. The Cancellation is for land on which Notice of Non-renewal has been served pursuant to Government Code Section 51245. Government Code Section 51245 requires that a Notice of Non-renewal 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 March of each year. The Landowner's predecessor in interest filed a timely Notice of Non-renewal , dated May 18, 1982. Such Notice will cause the Contract to expire no later than March 31, 1992. 8. The subject property is bounded along its entire northerly and westerly property lines by the Roundhill Country Club Estates and Roundhill North subdivisions, improved under R-15 and R-20 County Zoning. The existing Whitegate Estates subdivision, developed under P-1 County zoning adjoins the westerly boundary of the subject property, while additional existing residential development is located proximate to its southerly boundary, along Alamo Glen Drive, in the County's R-20 zoning district. 3. The subject property is, therefore, with the exception of several smaller parcels adjoining portions of its south and east boundaries, surrounded by developed residential properties. The Contra Costa County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance currently authorize development of the southwest 27 acres of the subject property (adjoining Roundhill ) for low density residential construction, while calling for preservation of the remaining 133 acres as permanent open space to be acquired by the East Bay Regional Park District for public parks and recreational usage. The only nearby property now under Williamson Act Contract, the Humphry parcel , adjoins the existing Whitegate Estates development along its entire north and east boundaries, and adjoins other existing residential develop- ment to the south on Monte Sereno Drive. The Humphry parcel is located east of the subject property, adjoining the 133 acres proposed for acquisi- tion by the East Bay Regional Park District for permanent open space, parks and recreation uses. It is, therefore, apparent, based on the relationship of surrounding existing residential development and proposed park lands, that the Humphry parcel would not be removed from agricultural use because the Williamson Act Contract was cancelled on the subject property. Further, Government Code Section 51282 (b) (2) requires that the Cancella- tion is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agri- cultural use. In light of the presence of existing residential development surrounding the subject property, as well as other residential development north, east and south of the only other nearby property currently under Williamson Act Contract, the withdrawal of the subject property in and of itself is not likely to result in the withdrawal of said nearby property from its contract. Moreover, the physical relationship of proposed resi- dential development on the subject property (as shown on the approved Tentative Map and Development Plan) , to the Humphrey parcel is not likely to affect its withdrawal from agricultural use because of the location of 133 acres of proposed intervening Park lands, including regional park trails. These intervening proposed park lands include a ravine and ridge running the length of the Humphrey parcel 's westerly boundary, assuring an insulation of agricultural uses on the Humphry parcel from proposed alternative residential uses on the subject property. Any subsequent cessation of agricultural uses on the Humphry parcel would be based on factors other than the withdrawal of the subject property from Contract. Such a decision, should it occur, would be the result of an independent judgment by the landowner based on a variety of factors, including the economic viability of agricultural uses in comparison to alternative uses. Despite the progressive extension of residential development north, south, east and west of the Humphry parcel over a number of years, the owner has declined to exercise his right to pursue an alter- native urban land use designation. In fact, neither the May 28, 1982 Notice of Non-renewal , nor the Tentative Cancellation of the Contract on the subject property ordered by the Board of Supervisors on December 20, 1983 have prompted the initiation of similar actions with respect to the Humphry parcel . Therefore, it is clear that the actual cancellation of the 4. Contract on the subject property, as a continuation of its development process, is of no effect on the decision of the Humphrey parcel owners whether to continue agricultural use of their property. 9. Cancellation of the Contract is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the County's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for the following, among other reasons. The predecessors in interest to the Landowner, the SEAL BEACH BUSINESS CENTER, filed a proposal for alternative use on May 28, 1982. Concurrent with that proposal was an application for Williamson Act Cancellation pursuant to Government Code Section 51282.1. The Landowner then filed applications for amendment of the General Plan, Development Plan Approval and Tentative Subdivision Map Approval . By Resolution No. 83-1259 the General Plan Amendment reflecting the alternative use plan was accepted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the Tentative Cancellation - was approved. On June 12, 1984 the Board of Supervisors adopted ordinance 84-25 reflecting the proposed alternative uses and including a finding of consistency beween these uses and the General Plan. On August 12, 1986 the Board 'of Supervisors granted approval to Development Plan 3009-86 and Tentative Map No.6703, again confirming their acceptance of the proposed alternative use, based in part on additional findings of consistency with the amended General Plan. Cancellation of the Contract is, therefore, in support of an alternative use which has already been found to be consistent with applicable provisions of the Contra Costa 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 developed. The proposed project area, which encompasses 27 of the 160 total acres, is contiguous to a major urban development. Access and utilities would be provided to the project via an incremental extension of existing stubbed services. As such, the proposed project clearly will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. Additionally, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, when it granted Williamson Act Cancellation 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 increased growth and development of the area. 11. There is no proximate non-contracted land which is both available and suit- able for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put for the following, among other reasons. As stated in Finding Nos. 8 and 10 above, the subject property is nearly surrounded by lands which are developed or are in the process of develop- ing. Despite increased housing demand brought on by local employment production, very little land remains available for housing in the Alamo 5. area, and in particularly, along the Stone Valley Road Corridor. As an infill project, the proposed housing development has been designed utilizing the lower 17 percent of a large, hilly parcel , to produce lots of a size and configuration similar to those contiguous to the south and west. Of the very few remaining properties in this area, all are either much smaller in size, under Williamson Act Contract or physically unsuitable to accommodate a housing project. 12. As specifically stated in Finding Nos. 13 and 14, set forth below, the Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract is in the public interest, pursuant to Government Code Section 51282 (a) (2) and (c). 13. The objectives of the Williamson Act are set forth generally in Government Code Section 51220. The objectives set forth at Government Code Section 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 used for any agricultural purposes at the present time. Accordingly, the contribution of the subject property as a food source for the nation, let along the local community, is nonexistent. Similarly, the objective at Government Code Section (e) addresses lands designated as a scenic highway, or wildlife habitat, as such lands are specifically defined at Government Code Section 51201 (i ) and (j) . The current use of such lands does not affect these goals. The objective at Government Code Section 51220 (c) states that the discour- agement of conversion of agricultural lands is a matter of public interest, "and will be a benefit to urban dwellers in that it will discourage urban development patterns which unnecessarily increase the cost of community services to community resident". As stated above, we find the cancellation of the Contract will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban develop- ment. The subject property is nearly surrounded by existing or nearly completed housing developments, and is better characterized as an infill site, in particular with respect to the north side of Stone Valley Road, rather than an extension of urban development. The objective in Government Code Section 51220 (d) states that in a rapidly urbanizing society, agricultural lands have a definite public value as open space. We find that the proposed cancellation includes an alternative land use plan which is supported by the Contra Costa County General Plan in calling for the permanent preservation of five-sixths of the site (133 acres) , thereby helping to achieve this objective. This property is to be acquired by the East Bay Regional Park District for park and recreational purposes, and would facilitate public access via a regional trail system to : Mt. Diablo. • J 6. 14. There is no proximate non-contracted 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 alter- native use of land. Such proposal has listed the governmental agencies known by the Landowner to have permit authority related to the proposed lternative use. 16. Prior to the Board's action giving this approval , the County Assessor determined that no additional cancellation fees are required with this approval insofar as the fee payment requriement was satisfied with the prior Board approval . 17. Based on the requirements of Government Code Section 51282 (f) , Section 20181 of the Public Resources Code has been found to be inapplicable to this "project". Pursuant to the authority of Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087, and Section 15153 (c) of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR prepared for the Stone Valley Ridge General Plan Amendment (30-81SR) has been used as part of an Initial Study to document the conclusion that the subject "project" will not have a significant effect. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration has been prepared and is incorporated herein by reference. 18. The Board of Supervisors recognizes that the objectives to be served by cancellation would not have been predicted or served by non-renewal at any earlier time. Such objectives can be served only by cancellation now. Cancellation now will ensure that the monies will become available at an earlier date for the traffic improvements and other public benefits associated with the Alamo 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. 19. The Board of Supervisors 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 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 of Supervisors is aware of this consideration, but 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. While the required findings to consider agricultural economics might be made, this cancellation is based upon the reasons set forth and not upon the Landowner's desire, under- standable as it may be, to realize financial gain. RD/aa 2/12/87 LTRX/Seal .RD