Ukiah and Mendocino County Real Estate

It is seen less as the denial of a building permit (and associated revenues) and more of compliance with the terms of a contract.  The intent of the Act has been to assist agriculture by reducing the tax burden on those who maintain qualifying agricultural operations.  Unfortunately, the program has been abused by some who enjoy the benefits without holding their end of the deal, which is to maintain an ag operation for at least a 10 year period.  By allowing non-ag related development on Williamson Act contracted land, the County would be condoning a breach of those contracts.

The Board of Supervisors has directed the recently (about a year ago) formed Resource Lands Protection Committee (RLPC) to review the all Ag Preserve (as well as TPZ) related items.  RLPC is comprised of a representative from PBS, the County Assessor, Agricultural Commissioner and County Counsel.  We have been meeting on a weekly basis focusing mainly on reviewing the reporting statements to ensure each of the contracted properties are in compliance.  Part of this necessarily entails the interpretation of the County Code and State laws where the Williamson Act is concerned.

The Williamson Act has remained more or less consistent on the building restrictions.  However, it is the County that is given discretionary authority as to how restrictions should apply locally.  Having said that, the state can conduct (and has conducted) audits to ensure that non-compliance is held to a minimum which could include penalties as they have in the past.

Any structure may be permitted as long as it is compatible with the agricultural operation and is “incidental” to that operation.  The building permit applicant would probably be asked to sign a statement understanding that the building is subject to the Ag Preserve provisions.  The application would also be checked against the recently provided reporting statements to ensure an ag operation exists on the property.  If one doesn’t, then the structure would not be allowed unless the applicant can demonstrate in good faith that they are striving to become compliant (e.g. building fencing, grazing leases have been provided, etc.).  Otherwise, they would be required to apply for an immediate cancellation, which are extremely rare and under most circumstances unsupportable by PBS.

Section 22.08.020 talks about the creation of preserves and how “Property within the County…may be incorporated into agricultural preserves, and property within any agricultural preserve may be further restricted by contracts between the County…and the owners of said property…”  The section goes on to discuss minimum acreages and such, but the bottom line is that an “Ag Preserve” in and of itself is basically a qualifying region within which property may be placed under a Williamson Act contract.  The language appears to have been lifted from the California Government Code Section 51230, although the state law has probably been revised over time, and the County Code probably hasn’t kept up for the most part.  It seems that in our County the terms Ag Preserve and Williamson Act contract have been used interchangeably through the years which, according to the State Department of Conservation, happens in other counties as well.  It can and does add to some confusion though, especially where multiple property owners combine under one contract which has occurred traditionally so that the 100 acre minimum “Ag Preserve” threshold could be met.  In any case, the minimum sizes the state will recognize are 40 acres for a Type II (grazing) contract and 10 acres for a Type I (row crop) preserve.

It was decided by the Board to issue a moratorium on all new applications for ag preserve. The Board also decided to issue non-renewal notices for land not in compliance with the Williamson Act.