Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose Williamson Act cancellation for North Tustin parcel; board takes no action
Summary
Dozens of neighbors urged the Board of Supervisors to deny a petition to cancel a Williamson Act agricultural restriction on an 11‑acre North Tustin parcel, citing CEQA, lack of a specific alternative use and expired appraisals; county counsel said the board has discretion and conditions include payment of a cancellation fee within one year of assessor valuation.
A large turnout of North Tustin residents opposed a petition to cancel a Williamson Act contract covering an 11‑acre parcel on Cornell Road, telling the board that the property’s trees, wildlife and neighborhood character should be preserved.
Speakers — many of whom live adjacent to the Miller Estate property — argued the applicant’s petition lacked a specific alternative use required by Government Code 51282(e), said the assessor’s valuation used to compute cancellation fees was out of date and warned that tentative cancellation could lead to piecemeal development without adequate CEQA review. Several speakers urged the board to let the contract expire naturally rather than advance cancellation.
Zeb Law, estate attorney for the trust that filed the petition, told the board the application met staff criteria and that the petition’s proposed alternative was to remove the agricultural restriction; he said trustees had formed a trust and that the family had received offers over the years. Law said cancellation alone would not immediately produce development because separate planning approvals would still be required.
County counsel Nicole Walsh explained the statutory process, saying that "the level of specificity required in a proposal for a specified alternate use shall be determined by the board as necessary" and that, if the board tentatively agreed to cancel, conditions would include payment of the cancellation fee based on assessor valuation within one year of the assessor’s certification. Walsh said the assessor’s valuation in the file was dated November 2023 and that the board has discretion to deny the petition.
After extended public comment and questions about statutory compliance and valuation timing, the board took no motion and did not vote on the petition at the hearing. Chair Wagner said neighbors interested in preserving the site could pursue a purchase or other agreement with the owners; several supervisors said the community had leverage now to negotiate protections before the contract would expire in five years.
