Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 96-10.3 RESOLUTION NO. 96-1 o. 3 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPROVING TENTATIVE CANCELLATION OF A WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2085 1 SARATOGA HILLS ROAD WHEREAS, The Community Foundation is the owner of certain real property located at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga, California, commonly known as Nelson Gardens (hereinafter referred to as "the Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is currently subject to a "Williamson Act Contract," recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County on May 19, 1971, pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, otherwise known as the Williamson Act; and WHEREAS, The Community Foundation has petitioned the City of Saratoga for cancellation of its Williamson Act Contract with respect to the entire Property, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 51280-51287 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed altemative use of the Property is to subdivide the same into nine lots for the construction upon each lot of a single ramfly residence; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the requested cancellation was conducted by the City Cotmall on February 7 and February 21, 1996, with notice thereof being given as required by Government Code Section 51284, at which time any person interested in the matter was given a full opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered the staff report and oral and documentary evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to the requested cancellation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has certified an Environmental Impact Report CEIR") and has adopted findings pursuant to the Califomia Environmental Qualit), Act CCEQA") finding that the requested cancellation, with the adoption of mitigation measures, will have no significant impact upon the environment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga as follows: I. Pursuant to Government Code section 51282(a)(2) and (c), the City Council hereby finds that the requested cancellation is in the public interest. The City Council bases this finding on the following supporting findings: A. The City Council finds that other public concerns which favor the requested cancellation substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act, as they apply to the Property. In fact, the Property really does not meet the Williamson Act's objectives. Due to the Property's small size, its relatively constrained topography, lack of suitable soils, the incompatibility of agricultural use with surrounding residential uses, and the cost of conservation and irrigation due to the site's topography, the City Council finds that there are no reasonable, economically sustainable, agricultural uses to which the Property can be put. (See EIR, pp. 7-4 to 7-5, App. G; Eisenman, corr. (11/16/95), Engstrom, corr. (11/17/95).) The Property does not constitute "prime agricultural land," an "agricultural preserve," a "scenic highway corridor," a "salt pond," a "submerged area," a "wildlife habitat area," or a "managed wetland area," as such terms are defined in Section 51201 of the Government Code, and thus does not fall within any of the categories of land which the Williamson Act is primarily intended to preserve. Section 51222 of the Government Code only states that it is in the public interest to retain agricultural lands under Williamson Act contracts where such lands include at least 10 acres of prime land or 40 acres of non-prime land. While a small apricot orchard was once on the Property, this use was abandoned approximately a quarter century ago. Since then, the Property has not been put to any productive use. The financial infeasibility of operating and maintaining the Property for agricultural use (or, for that matter, for any open space use) is further evidenced by the fact that ownership of the Property was relinquished by the Nature Conservance and the California State Parks Foundation. Absent cancellation, it is probable that the Property will continue to remain in its current abandoned and unproductive state. On the other hand, the City Council finds that there will be substantial public benefit if cancellation is approved. The Community Foundation is a non-profit organization established for charitable purposes. The proceeds to be received by the Foundation from its intended sale of the 2 Property would generate $60,000 to $70,000 a year of income, which will be utilized for the conduct of its charitable activities, both in Saratoga and throughout Santa Clara County, including in connection with providing job training, and in connection with providing housing, thereby providing a substantial benefit to the public. In addition, a specific public benefit will be derived by the City of Saratoga and its residents as a result of the offer by the Foundation to donate a substantial portion of the sale proceeds to the City's park development fund (an estimated $585,000). These funds are in addition to any park- in-lieu fees the City may receive from development of the Property and are sorely needed by the City to develop parks currently owned by the City, but which the public has been unable to utilize due to lack of development. By virtue of these contributions, the Property can be put to an alternative use in a manner that will promote and enhance the recreational and open space facilities within the City. Additional public benefits from the proposed cancellation would include helping the City to provide its fair share of regional housing, avoiding the adverse impacts (including pesticides and pollutants) agricultural use would have on surrounding residents, and the additional jobs and local revenue which would be provided from improvement of the Property. B. The City Council finds that there is no noncontracted land proximate to the Property which is both available and suitable for the use to which the Property is being put. The City has conducted a land use survey of all non-contracted vacant parcels of land within the City and have found only three properties arguably "suitable" for the use proposed for the Property. (See EIR, pp. 7-5 through 7-7.) However, neither these parcds, nor any of the other vacant parcels within the City (of which there are only a few) are available to the Property owner or the developer for the development project proposed for the Property. Indeed, the developer contacted owners of numerous other vacant parcels in land, and each indicated that they were unwilling to sell their property for development. Many already have development projects of their own. (See Navid, corr. (2/7/96); Chima, corr. (2/5/96); Pinn, corr. (2/6/96); Galeb, corr. (2/7/96); compare Kennedy, corr. (2/I/96), p. 9.) One member of the public identified Kevin Moran Park as being an available and suitable alternative. The City Council finds that an established public park within the City is not suitable for development. Such development would be inconsistent with the City's General Plan and other City policies calling for the preservation, maintenance, and 3 improvement of existing public parks. Furthermore, for this reason, the City is presently unwilling to make available for development any such park, including Kevin Moran Park. While not critical to this finding, the City Council notes that a chief objective of cancellation is to remedy the current condition of the Property, which, because of the Williamson Act, has been abandoned, unproductive, and not used for agricultural purposes for about 25 years. By definition, development of some other site would not accomplish this objective. The City finds this to be a separate and independent ground for making the above finding. II. Pursuant to Govemment Code section 51282 (a)(1) and (b), the City Council hereby finds that the requested cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act. The City Council bases this finding on the following supporting findings: A. The City Council finds that the requested cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served pursuant to Section 5 1245. This finding is based on the fact that the Community Foundation's predecessor-in-interest delivered to the City a notice of non-renewal of its Williamson Act Contract, thereby indicating its intention to terminate such contract whether or not a cancellation is approved by the City Council. The Foundation has reaffirmed this intention. (See Draft EIR, p. 4.1-16.) B. The City Council finds that the requested cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. This finding is based on the fact that no adjacent lands are in agricultural use. Rather, the Property is surrounded by fully developed residential neighborhoods. (See Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-7, 4.1-9, 4.1 - 17 .) C. The City Council finds that the requested cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City's General Plan. The General Plan, when it was adopted in 1960, originally designated the Property for residential use. While this designation was changed to "Agriculture" in 1971, the property has not actually been put to agricultural use since that time. The City Council has thus again amended the General Hun to again designate the Property for residential use, in particular Residential-Very Low Density 4 (R1-40,000) and Residential-Medium Density (R1-12,500). This designation is consistent with the original intent of the General Plan and of the applicable Area "B" Guidelines for Area Development in the General Plan (which call for single-family detached residential units in this area). Moreover, such cancellation would further the goals of the Open Space element, as the property owner is paying $585,000 into the City's Park Development Fund for the acquisition and/or development of recreational open space, and as the Property itself has been dosed to the public for years and is not designated for open space uses in the General Plan. Further, such cancellation would not be in conflict with various policies in the Open Space Element and Conservation Element calling for the preservation of agricultural use and discouraging cancellation of Williamson Act contracts. These policies are intended to protect agriculturally productive uses. Preserving non-productive lands held in Williamson Act contracts is not the intent of these policies. As already discussed, productive agricultural operations are not reasonably feasible on such a small parcel surrounded by urban residences. (See EIR, pages 4.1-10 through 4.1-13 and Response to Comments Nos. E-2, E-6, E-12, and E-14.) D. The City Council finds that the requested cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development, as the Property is already surrounded by residential neighborhoods and wifi be developed in a manner consistent with surrounding development. E. The City Council finds that there is no noncontracted land proximate to the Property which is both available and suitable for the use to which the Property is being put, for the reasons set forth in Section I(B). III. The City Council finds that either the findings and determinations set forth in Section I, or those set forth in Section II, each independently provide justification for, and warrant, approving the requested cancellation. The City would so approve such cancellation based solely on the findings and determinations set forth in Section I, or based solely on the findings and determinations set forth in Section II. IV. Thus, the City Council hereby tentatively approves cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract relating to the property owned by the Community Foundation, located at 2085 1 Saratoga Hills Road, subiect to the conditions and requirements set forth below. V. A certificate of final cancellation of said Williamson Act Contract shall not be recorded until the following conditions and requirements have been fulfilled: (a) Tentative and final subdivision map approval shall have been granted by the City, pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed as a waiver, relinquishmerit or restriction upon the City's right to impose conditions, requirements, dedications and exactions in connection with the granting of subdivision map approval. (b) The Community Foundation shall pay in full the amount of the cancellation fee computed under the provisions of Section 5 1283 of the Government Code, which the County Assessor has certified to be $133,700. In the event such fee is not paid within one year from the date of recording the certificate of tentative cancellation, the fee shall be recomputed as of the date on which the City receives notice from the Foundation that all of the conditions set forth herein have been satisfied. (c) The Community Foundation shall have ful~lled its agreement to contribute a sum of money to the City of Saratoga upon approval of a tentative subdivision map, for deposit into the City's Park Development Fund, the specific amount of which to be determined by the number of single family residential lots approved for subdivision of the Property based upon the following formula: - 9 parcels = $585,000 - For each parcel less than 9 total, $64,000 shall be deducted from the amount of $585,000. VI. The conditions and requirements set forth in Paragraph V above shall be satisfied within twelve (12) months of the date of this Resolution, or within such additional period of time as may be allowed by further resolution of the City Council; otherwise, this Resolution shall be null and void. 6 VI. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record in the Office of the Recorder for Santa Clara County, Ca/ifomia, a certificate of tentative cancellation, in accordance with the provisions of Section 51283.4 of the Government Code. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Coundl of the City of Saratoga held on the 21st day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Burger, Moran, Tucker, Wolfe and Mayor Jacobs NOES None ABSENT: None Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk J:\WPDXMNRSVqX273XRES96XACTCANCL