HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 21-070 cancellation of Williamson Act, Marshall LaneRESOLUTION NO: 21-070
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL FOR THE
CANCELLATION OF A WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT
APPLICATION NUMBER: WIL19-0001
18500 & 18520 Marshall Lane (APNs 397-02-110 and 397702-111)
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2019, an application was submitted by John Bellicitti Trustee &
ET AL (owner) and 18500 Marshall Ln, LLC (applicant) requesting to subdivide two parcels
totaling 9.8 acres (net) located at 18500 & 18520 Marshall Lane into nine lots ranging in size from
40,098 square feet to 51,248 square feet. The project would also create a new private road accessed
off of Marshall Lane, which would serve all the parcels within the subdivision. The applicant is
requesting a re -zoning of 18500 Marshall Lane from Agriculture to Residential, R-1-40,000, and the
relocation to the City's Heritage Orchard an existing historic barn that was constructed in about
1870. 18500 Marshall Lane is zoned Agricultural (A), and 18520 Marshall Lane is zoned R-1-
40,000. Both lots have a General Plan Designation of Residential Very Low Density.
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing, the cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract that
applies to the property and was originally entered in 1972.
WHEREAS, the property is no longer used for agricultural purposes and a notice of non -
renewal of the Williamson Act contract was filed in 2018.
WHEREAS, based on the information provided by the Santa Clara County Assessor, the
City Council finds that the cancellation fee is $2,450,000 for 18500 Marshall Lane and $306,250.00
for 18520 Marshall Lane, and certifies to the Santa Clara County Auditor the amount of the
cancellation fee.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code § 51282(b) the City Council has made each of
the following findings for the reasons stated:
1. The cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served pursuant
to Government Code §51245.
The Notice of Non -renewal of Land Conservation Contract was recorded on December 11 ,
2018, as Document No. 24079928, Official Records of the County of Santa Clara.
2. That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from
agricultural use.
There are no agricultural uses within a quarter mile, and only one agricultural use occurring
within a half mile.
Resolution 21-070
Page 2
3. That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable
provisions of the county or city general plan.
The proposed alternative use is subdivision into 9 parcels each at least 40,000 square feet
and subsequent residential development of those parcels. The City of Saratoga's General
Plan designation for the subject site is Residential Very Low Density, which, pursuant to the
City's Land Use Element, permits a maximum density of 1.09 dwelling units per acre. The
proposed alternative use is therefore consistent with the General Plan both in type of use and
density.
4. That cancellation will not result in discontinuous patterns of urban development.
Cancellation of the California Land Conservation Contract between the City of Saratoga and
Isabelle Bellicitti recorded on February 14, 1972, as Document No. 41 92662, in Book
9702, Pages 75 through Page 83 of the Official Records of the County of Santa Clara will
not result in discontinuous patterns of urban development because the subject property is
surrounded by urban development (residential and an elementary school) for a significant
distance on all sides.
5. That 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, or, that the development of
the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development of
proximate noncontracted land.
Under the Williamson Act, the alternative property must be "both available and suitable." In
order to be "suitable" ("the salient features of the proposed use can be served by land not
restricted by contract") for the alternate use proposed for the subject site — a subdivision for
the development of nine lots for single family residential use - the land must be of sufficient
size that the applicable zoning would permit the subdivision of the land into nine parcels of
at least 40,000 square feet each for residential use.
In order to be "available", the parcel must be for sale; a vacant parcel whose owner will not
sell it cannot reasonably be considered available for development. There is a high
concentration of preexisting urban development in the area that severely limits any option
for the applicant to purchase non -contracted land within even a one mile radius of the
proposed project site. The applicant conducted a search of properties within the area of the
subject site as shown on Exhibits 1 and 2 to this resolution. which were prepared by the
applicant and independently reviewed by the City Council. Nearly all of the acreage within a
one -mile radius of the subject site is already developed.
The applicant thoroughly evaluated the nine vacant (or underdeveloped - such as a large
acreage parcel with a single older home on it which might be demolished to make way for a
subdivision and redevelopment of the property) non -contracted properties located within a
one -mile radius of the proposed project site to determine whether any were both suitable and
available for the development of 9 large -lot residential properties as proposed by the
applicant for the subject site.
Resolution 21-070
Page 3
With respect to availability, only one of the non -Williamson Act properties, is available for
sale. See Exhibits 1 and 2 - Parcel 7. This parcel is not suitable for the reasons discussed
below. Additionally, the Bellicitti family owns a parcel that is subject to a Williamson Act
contract (and hence is disqualified from consideration under Section 51282) approximately
one half mile from the subject parcel (see Exhibits 1 and 2 — Parcel 10).
With respect to suitability, only one of non -contracted properties is potentially suitable for
the development of 9 large lot single family homes (see Exhibits 1 and 2). The most
common deficiency (shared by all but one of these properties) is size - they are too small to
accommodate a 9 parcel large lot residential subdivision under their applicable zoning.
Parcels 1-4, 8 and 9 all have one acre (40,000) General Plan and zoning designations and are
all either approximately one or two acres - so each could accommodate at most either one or
two homes. Parcel 5 has the same one acre (40,000) designation and at 3.63 acres could
accommodate at most three homes. The zoning of Parcel 6 requires 9000 square foot lots --
subdivision of its 1 .95 acres would yield at most seven single family homes after
consideration of internal roadways, and that product type would not match the acre lot home
site product type proposed for the subject site. Another deficiency of Parcel 6 is the 1 .95
acres assumes an assemblage of the two parcels, but one of the two parcels is not for sale.
Parcel 7 is of sufficient size that it might yield 9 40,000 sf lots (though more likely a smaller
number due to its heavy forestation, challenging access, infrastructure issues including
potential lack of adequate utility main lines (sewer and storm), public right of way and
consideration of internal roadways). These factors make parcel 7 an unsuitable alternative
for the project site.
In summary, there are very few non -contracted parcels within a one -mile radius of the
subject site, and even ignoring their unavailability, only one is even potentially but unlikely
suitable for the 9 large lot single family home residential subdivision proposes as the
alternative use for the subject site.
As reflected on Exhibit 1, every non -contracted parcel suitable for development of single
family homes within a one mile radius of the subject site is, like the subject site surrounded
on all sides by urban development. Consequently development of single family homes on
the subject site would provide at least an equivalently contiguous pattern of urban
development compared to any of the sites identified on Exhibit 1, and if the development of
more parcels adjacent to each other is considered "more contiguous", then the subject site
offers a more contiguous pattern of development because it offers the opportunity to develop
9 contiguous parcels.
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant,
and other interested parties and recommended approval of the cancellation of the Williamson Act
contract.
WHEREAS, on October 6, 2021 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the
subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other
interested parties.
Resolution 21-070
Page 4
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines
and resolves as follows:
The City of Saratoga City Council affirms the findings set forth above and grants tentative approval
of the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts for the properties located at 18500 & 18520
Marshall Lane subject to applicant's compliance with the requirements of Government Code section
51283.4.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga City Council on this 6th day of October
2021 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS BERNALD, FITZSIMMONS, KUMAR, MAYOR ZHAO
NOES: VICE MAYOR WALIA
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Yan Zhao, Mayor
ATTE T:
�—� Date
Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk
11
AZ4
Resolution 21-070
Page 6 EXHIBIT 2
Analysis of Suitability of Vacant/Underdeveloped Properties
Nine Non -contracted properties vacant or underdeveloped within a 1 mile radius of the subject property
1. 397-14-013: 14208 Short Hill Court, Saratoga
.99 acres
GP/Zoning: RVLD/R-1-40,000
Current Use: Vacant
Availability: Not for Sale — Not Available
1.A. 397-14-014: 14156 Short Hill Court, Saratoga
.98 acres
GP/Zoning: RVLD/R-1-40,000
Current Use: Dated residence
Availability: Not for Sale — Not Available
These two parcels are owned by the same owner. Assembled, the land would
accommodate only 2 large -lot single family homes and is therefore would be too small
to fit the use proposed for the subject site. — Not suitable
2. 397-01-050: 14171 Chester Avenue, Saratoga
.99 acres
GP/Zoning: RVLD/R-1-40,000
Current Use: Vacant
Availability: Not for Sale — Not Available
2.A. 397-01-047: 14045 Apricot Hill, Saratoga
.97 acres
GP/Zoning: RVLD/R-1-40,000
Current Use: Dated residence
Availability: Not for Sale — Not Available
These two parcels are owned by the same owner. Assembled, the land would
accommodate only 2 large -lot single family homes and is therefore would be too small
to fit the use proposed for the subject site. — Not suitable
3. 397-02-109: Allendale Avenue, Saratoga
.92 acres
GP/Zoning: RVLD/R-1-40,000
Current Use: Vacant
Availability: Not for Sale — Not Available
This parcel would accommodate only 1 large -lot single family home and is therefore too
small to fit the use proposed for the subject site. — Not suitable.
Resolution 21-070
Page 7
4. 397-05-009: Sobey Road, Saratoga
1.04 acres
GP/Zoning: RVLD/R-1-40,000
Current Use: Vacant
Availability: Not for Sale — Not Available
4.A. 397-05-010: 18510 Sobey Road, Saratoga
1.00 acres
GP/Zoning: RVLD/R-1-40,000
Current Use: Dated residence
Availability: Not for Sale — Not Available
4.6. 397-05-011: 18510 Sobey Road, Saratoga
1.00 acres
GP/Zoning: RVLD/R-1-40,000
Current Use: Dated residence
Availability: Not for Sale — Not Available
These three parcel are owned by the same owner. Assembled, the land would
accommodate only 3 large -lot single family homes and is therefore would be too small
to fit the use proposed for the subject site. — Not suitable
5. 403-22-016: 14076 Quito Road, Saratoga
3.63 acres
GP/Zoning: RVLD/R-1-40,000
Current Use: Vacant
Availability: Not for Sale — Not Available
This parcel would accommodate only 3 large -lot single family homes and is therefore
too small to fit the use proposed for the subject site. — Not suitable.
6. 403-13-005: W. Hacienda Avenue, Campbell
.95 acres
GP/Zoning: Low Density Residential (less than 4.5 dua)/R-1-9
Current Use: Vacant
Availability: Not for Sale — Not Available
6.A. 403-13-004: 1631 W. Hacienda Avenue, Campbell
1.00 acres
GP/Zoning: Low Density Residential (less than 4.5 dua)/R-1-9
Current Use: Dated residence
Availability: Not for Sale — Not Available
2
Resolution 21-070
Page 8
These two parcels are owned by the same owner. Assembled, while the land would
accommodate at most seven single family homes on 9000 square lots pursuant to the
applicable zoning (taking into consideration necessary roadways which reduce the land
available for lots), it would accomodate only 2 large -lot single family homes and is
therefore would be too small to fit the use proposed for the subject site. — Not suitable
7. 397-05-028: 14521 Quito Road, Saratoga
11.01 acres
GP/Zoning: RVLD/R-1-40,000
Current Use: Vacant
Availability: For Sale Technically Available, but not financable because seller will not
agree to condition sale on obtaining approval of subdivision.
This parcel is of sufficient size that it might yield ten 40,000 sf lots (though more likely a
smaller number due to its heavy forestation, challenging access, infrastructure issues
including potential lack of adequate utility main lines (sewer and storm), public right of
way and consideration of internal roadways). — Potentially suitable.
8. 397-05-103: Sobey Road, Saratoga
.92 acres
GP/Zoning: RVLD/R-1-40,000
Current Use: Vacant
Availability: Not for Sale — Not Available
This parcel would accommodate only 1 large -lot single family home and is therefore too
small to fit the use proposed for the subject site. — Not suitable.
9. 397-04-086: Spring Brook Lane, Saratoga
1.04 acres
GP/Zoning: RVLD/R-1-40,000
Current Use: Vacant
Availability: Not for Sale — Not Available
9.A. 397-04-087:19136 Spring Brook Lane, Saratoga
1.08 acres
GP/Zoning: RVLD/R-1-40,000
Current Use: Dated residence
Availability: Not for Sale — Not Available
These two parcels are owned by the same owner. Assembled, the land would
accommodate only 2 large -lot single family homes and is therefore would be too small
to fit the use proposed for the subject site. — Not suitable
Resolution 21-070
Page 9
10. 397-01-071: Chester Avenue, Saratoga
11.83 acres
GP/Zoning: RLVD/A(Agriculture)
Current Use: Agricultural
Availability: Not for Sale — Not Available
These two parcels are subject to an existing Williamson Act contract and therefore do
not qualify as "non -contracted" pursuant to Section 51282. — Subject to WA Contract
4