SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUL-06-1993 16:25 FROM LAND CONSERVATION SAC TO 912094683163 P.02 Mr. William Sousa July 6, 1993 Page 2 From the very beginning of the Williamson Act program the ability to terminate a Williamson Act contract was meant to be severely limited. The designers of the 1965 legislation intended that the nonrenewal process, with its nine-year phase out period, be the preferred method of terminating a Williamson Act contract. The immediate contract termination possible under cancellation was to be used only in rare circumstances (see, Land in the Balance: The Williamson Act. Benefits, Options, Alvin D. Sokolow, University of California, Part 1, Page 22, 1989) . Speaking for the State Supremo Court in Sierra Club V. City of Hayward ( (1981) 28 Cal.3d 840, 852) Justice Mosk stated that: The Legislature recognized that in rare instances unforeseen events might require the release of land from its contractual restriction before that restriction lapses by its own terms. The Legislature declared, however, that cancellation of Williamson Act contracts is permissible 'only when the continued dedication of land under such contracts to agricultural use is neither necessary nor desirable for the purposes of (the Act) . ' The cancellation provisions were included 'as a means of dealing with strictly emergency situations where the public interest no longer dictates that the contract be continued. . . ' . "The Act is intended to preserve open space land. But if those with an eye toward developing such land within a few years are allowed to enroll in contracts, enjoy the tax benefits during their short holding period, then cancel and commence construction on a showing that their land is ripe for needed housing, the act would simply function as a tax shelter for real estate speculators. The Legislature's findings clearly spell out its intent, and nowhere among them appears a motivation to subsidize those who would subdivide. On the contrary, the overwhelming theme of the legislation is the need to preserve undeveloped land in the face of development pressures." The California Supreme Court concluded that cancellation is improper if the objectives served by cancellation could be served by nonrenewal and that cancellation is reserved for unusual, "emergency" situations (Sierra Club) . The Court stated that "there must be substantial evidence that awaiting the normal termination of the contract would fail to serve the purposes that purport to justify the cancellation" (Hayward, at 855 emphasis added) . In order for the Board to approve this cancellation, there must be substantial evidence in the record to explain why an "emergency" exists at the present time. Otherwise, the law