SAN MARTIN
– Roughly two percent of the properties that take advantage of a
state property-tax relief program for agriculture in Santa Clara
County may eventually have to withdraw because they don’t appear to
meet its intent.
SAN MARTIN – Roughly two percent of the properties that take advantage of a state property-tax relief program for agriculture in Santa Clara County may eventually have to withdraw because they don’t appear to meet its intent.
After a months-long investigation, the county’s Planning Department has recommended that approximately 69 of the 3,100 county parcels currently participating in the Williamson Act not be included in a revised set of special boundary areas that are the first step toward qualifying for the program.
But the great majority of the properties that currently take advantage of the tax breaks – mostly larger tracts in the Santa Clara Valley’s east and west hills that are zoned for agriculture, hillside uses or ranching – are recommended to be within those key boundaries.
Farm advocates – who see the program as a crucial tool for agriculture’s viability – say so far that they’re pleased with the results of the revised boundary map.
“Really it makes it possible for pretty much anybody who needs to and who has a viable agriculture or open space use to get into the Williamson act,” said Jenny Mitdgaard Derry, the Farm Bureau’s executive director.
The draft recommendations are part of the county’s effort to retool its local Williamson program to better align it with the intent of the state law.
Landowners who sign the decade-long, voluntary Williamson Act contracts pledge to use their property for agricultural production or certain open space or recreational uses.
In exchange, their property is taxed at its assessed value for farming or open space, rather than its full market potential for development. The resulting tax breaks can range between 20 and up to 70 percent in some cases.
Sixteen million acres – or about half of the state’s farmland – is under the Williamson contract, including more than 300,000 acres in Santa Clara County or about 40 percent of the county’s total land area.
But a county study and subsequent state audit conducted identified several inconsistencies between the law and the county’s implementation, such as ranchettes and subdivisions that receive the tax breaks but do not appear to have the necessary amount of active commercial agriculture needed to qualify.
Last week’s draft recommendations, released to the Housing, Land Use, Environment and Transportation committee chaired by District 1 County Supervisor Don Gage, takes aim at such properties by reworking the special areas that are used to administer the act.
A property has to be in one of the boundary areas to qualify for the program, although it must then meet other requirements after that first step as well.
Although the boundary areas are officially called “agricultural preserves,” county officials said they’re not restrictive like a greenbelt. A landowner’s zoning is not changed or restricted if they are in a preserve area but choose not to participate in the voluntary Williamson program.
“You will have properties that are not in a preserve (now) that will be in a preserve, but it changes nothing for them,” said county Planning Director Ann Draper.
In the past, the boundaries were generally assembled in more of a piecemeal fashion as properties were added or removed from the act – but they’re supposed to be in place before a property is considered.
Under state law, properties that don’t qualify to be in a preserve will go into “nonrenewal,” where their Williamson benefits would expire at the end of nine years.
In South County, the properties that may not qualify for the preserve areas fall mainly in the Paradise Valley area southwest of Morgan Hill, the Watsonville Road/Hecker Pass area and property along state Highway 152 near the Casa De Fruta orchard park. There are also sites in San Jose and Los Gatos.
The affected properties either didn’t have compatible zoning with the state law, lack propert commercial agricultural activity or are in an urban-service area, where they are expected to develop within the next five years, planners said.
“It’s not a pet or a private garden,” Draper said of the commercial ag requirement.
However, those property owners will be able to submit evidence that they do have commercial agriculture that qualifies.
It will be important for the county to be flexible, Derry said. For example, a property owner could conduct ranching, but their cattle might not show up in aerial photos.
“We’re very happy the Williamson Act is being strengthened because it really bodes well for the long-term health of it,” Derry said. “At the same time ag is a very diverse business and there are a lot of ways to do it, so we’re hoping the county will keep an open mind on that.
“The supervisors have said they will, so at the moment it seems very positive.”
Meanwhile, the county has already adopted some other changes meant to tighten the program here.
Property owners applying to enter the act now have to answer updated, specific questions about how their property meets state requirements. Proposals that don’t have an agricultural use won’t be accepted, and those proposing open space or recreational uses will have to meet specific measures, planners said.
Meanwhile, once in the act, owners will have to establish and prove suitable agriculture on their property before they can develop other land uses there that the state deems compatible with farming or ranching.
The county is slated to hold a special hearing in August to discuss the changes. A specific date is still forthcoming.
