SU0006899 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I Mr. John Funderburg Jahua:ry 15, 2008 Page 4of 5 Nl;oreover, the paramount `intelest' involved is the preservatEon of land tri agricultural production ,"I'n providing for cancellation, tl e -egislature has recognized;thd relevaricts of other interests, such as houing,_needed services=,environmen#al protection'throu'gh z „ p develo ed uses economic rowth ah g nd employment .However it must be shown that open space objectives, e'xpiiditiy and'unequivocaliy protected by tt e act; "are . F substaatially outweighed by otlier'public:concerns befote"the'cancellati6 c`ari be dde ned `in.the publicinterest."' 'Sierra Club, 28 Cal,3d at 857 Based'on information provided, this proposed cancellation'appears to be primarily in;the interest of the landowner. It is not conclusively..demonstratod tFiat this cancellation outweighs the concerns..of preserving open space land ands'rotecting the.enviro'iinient The'Department tecomrriends`that airy additlonal info•r'met 0h in suppert.-of the'public interest rationale be added to the record.' Nonrenewal As a .general rule, land should''be withdrawn from Williamson Act contract:through the nine-year nonrenewal process. The California Supreme Court reiterated that cancellation is allowed "only in the most extraordinary circumstances." Sierra Club, 28 Cal.3d at 853. To pass constitutional muster, a restriction must be enforceable in the face of imminent urban development, and may not be terminable merely because such development is desirable or profitable to the landowner. Lewis v. City of Hayward, 177 Cal. App.3d 103, 113 (1988). Providing contracting landowners an expectation that they can retain tax benefits from participation in the Williamson Act until development to urban uses is imminent, and an expectation that immediate contract termination would then be available; is inconsistent with the clearly articulated finding of the Court in Lewis. Based on the information provided to date, it is the Department's conclusion that the petition lacks substantial supporting evidence to permit the Board to reasonably find that it can cancel the contract based upon required findings. Further, nonrenewal of remainder parcel may be necessary due to potential conflict with minimum parcel size requirements after homesite cancellation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed cancellation. Please provide our office with a copy of the Notice of the Public Hearing on this matter ten (10) working days before the hearing and a copy of the published notice of the Board's decision within 30 days of the tentative cancellation pursuant to Government Code section 51284. Additionally, we request a copy of the Board's findings pursuant to Government Code section 51282, (