Laserfiche WebLink
JUL-06-1993 16:33 FROM LAND CONSERUATION SAC TO 912094683163 P.02 <br /> STATE OF CAUFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govwmor <br /> OEPARTMENT Of CONSERVATION <br /> OFFICE OF LAND CONSERVATION <br /> 801 K STREET, MS 13.71 <br /> SACRAMENTO, CA 95814.3528 <br /> (916) 3244859 <br /> FAX (916) 327-3430 <br /> July 6, 1993 <br /> Mr. William Sousa, Chairperson <br /> Board of Supervisors <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> 222 E. Weber Avenue, Room 701 <br /> Stockton, CA 95202 <br /> RE: Williamson Act Contract Cancellation Application <br /> (Buckeye Ranch Project) <br /> Contract Number: 75-C1-111 <br /> APN Number: 003-060-01, 02 ; 003-100-01 and 05 <br /> Dear Mr. Sousa: <br /> The Department of Conservation is responsible for monitoring <br /> farmland conversion on a statewide basis and also administers the <br /> California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act. We are providing <br /> comments to inform the Board of Supervisors of our concerns <br /> regarding the proposed tentative cancellation of 870 acres of <br /> land enrolled in a Williamson Act contract. Buckeye Ranch <br /> Limited Partnership is seeking to cancel a Williamson Act <br /> contract in effect on 336.5 acres of land to enable the <br /> development of a private 18-hole golf course, a private <br /> equestrian center, and 26 single-family residences. The site is <br /> located approximately five miles from Lodi, the nearest urban <br /> area. <br /> With regard to the proposed cancellation of the Williamson <br /> Act contract, it is important to note that the California Supreme <br /> Court has stated that cancellation is reserved for unusual, <br /> "emergency" situations (See Sierra Club v. City of Ha and (1981) <br /> 28 Cal. 3d 840, 852-853) . Also, the Attorney General has found <br /> "cancellation impermissible except upon extremely stringent <br /> conditions" (62 Ops. Cal.Atty.Gen. 90,92 (1979) ) . The individual <br /> findings set forth in Government Code Section 51282 must be read <br /> in light of Sierra Club v. City of Hayward, and must be applied <br /> strictly in light of the constitutional footing of the Act. <br /> We note that there has been no showing that the objectives <br /> sought by these cancellations could not be accomplished through <br /> completion of the normal, and preferred, nonrenewal process <br /> currently underway. Also, it does not appear that an emergency <br /> exists which would compel immediate cancellation. <br /> TOTAL P.02 <br />