Laserfiche WebLink
288 <br /> <br /> Ms. Karen Wilson, 8078 Palomino Drive, stated that it would <br />be illegal for Council to cancel the Williamson Act because it had <br />not considered all the possibilities. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br />public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes asked Mr. Roush what Council could legally do <br />regarding the Williamson Act. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that to cancel the contract, Council would <br />have to make the findings that the site would provide a "more <br />contiguous pattern of urban development than other proximate non- <br />contracted land." <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes inquired if it would be necessary to go through a <br />further explanation should Council make the findings, per <br />Government Code Section 51282. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that Mr. MacDonald had provided some <br />proposed findings which have been included in the Staff Report and <br />some supplemental findings were handed out earlier to the <br />Councilmembers. He recommended that if Council decides to cancel <br />the Williamson Act and agrees with the findings, it should <br />incorporate those findings into the Resolution. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired what staff meant by a "more contiguous <br />pattern of urban development." <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush explained that in order to cancel the Williamson <br />Act contracted land, Council would have to determine that there is <br />no other suitable non-contracted property available for <br />development. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that this statement was paraphrased from <br />the state law which says that the property for cancellation has to <br />be contiguous with existing development. Staff has determined <br />this to be true. The second part states that if the property is <br />contiguous to the City, the Williamson Act may be cancelled and <br />the property developed before another piece that is also <br />contiguous to the City if the property creates a more contiguous <br />pattern of urban development. This could mean a logical sequence <br />of development which makes sense from the traffic, road and <br />utility patterns. It is a factual rather than a legal <br />determination. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes indicated that he was opposed to widening <br />Foothill Road to four lanes at this time. He suggested that the <br />developer dedicate the land and landscape it and put the money <br />toward the road with the provision that if it is not used after a <br />certain period of time, it could be used for other traffic <br />mitigation projects in the area. He also recommended that a <br />condition of approval be put on all properties being developed <br />west of Foothill Road that they would be included in an assessment <br /> <br />- 12 - <br /> <br />6-19-90 <br /> <br /> <br />