SU0006899 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. John Funderburg January 15, 2008 Page 3of5 5) 7h to: is no avaifabf and suitablq.-pr axRfMte noncontracted land or:.the„�s :piroposed on'the contracted. land. s The petition lacks documentation to,support a firid�ng#hat there is`no proximate, noncontracted sand which is`both available and.su�table fo'r the proposed use: Please note the California Supreme Court.poihtedly stressecl'fhat; The purposes of the Williamson Act iegiiire'tliatj"proximate" not be construed to unreasonably limit the search for suitable noncontracted lana. It would serve no purpose of the 'act to reject unrestricted property sc perfectly suited to till.the needs addressed by the proposal simply because that property is not in the immediate wicinity,of the restricted land. In fact, rider sorh&circumstances land severai miles frenal the proposed development.site may be.near enough to serve the same purposes. We therefore hold that "proximate” property means property close enough to the restricted parcel to serve as a practical alternative for the proposed use. Sierra Club v. City of Hayward, 28 Cal.3d 840, 861 (1981). The Department recommends that all additional information regarding the availability and suitability.of proximate non-contracted lands for this use be added to the record. This should include an..analysis of other non-contracted:-properties within a several-mile radius of this site, and an analysis of why they are not available for the proposed alternative use:_'' See S erra.:C/ub;28-.Cal:3d''at:862 (requiring the determi hation-of. salient.features of a proposed project as relevant to making a proximate land analysis),. Such information in the record will help assure that this cancellation will meet statutory requirements and avoid future challenges. Cancellation is in the Public Interest For the cancellation to be in the public interest, the Board must make findings with respect to all of the following, (1) other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act and (2) that there is no,proximate noncontracted land which is available and suitable for the use proposed on.the c;oni:racted land or.that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted land. Our comments above in section (5) have already addressed the proximate lands issue. In order to find that "other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act," the California Supreme Court has directed that the County must consider the interest of theublic p as a whole in the value of the land for open space and agricultural use. Though the interests of the local and regional communities involved are also important, no decision.regarding the public interest can be based exclusively on their parochialism.