The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors held a series of public hearings on requests to amend or reissue separate contracts under the Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act of 1965), approving multiple parcel-specific contracts and preserving actions while leaving one contested application open for further staff work and a continued hearing.

Bernadette Sisson, associate planner, presented a set of applications by multiple landowners seeking separate Williamson Act contracts for portions of larger existing contracts. Staff's recommendation across these matters was generally to determine each project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the open-space easement/contracts exemption (staff cited CEQA section 15317), to amend existing agricultural preserves to remove the subject property and create a new preserve that is contiguous to the applicant's ownership, rescind the parcel from the existing contract and reissue a single contract for the subject property within the newly established preserve.

For a series of properties (Langford, Root family, Forest House Ranch LLC, Allens, Copers, Silvas, Johnson, Custer and others), the board accepted staff recommendations and moved to approve the contract amendments and preserve changes. Bernadette Sisson presented each applicant's facts, including parcel acres, locations (examples include north and east of Montague; south and west of Gazelle on Gazelle Road; north of Big Springs on Machado Lane; southeast of Etna on Highway 3) and intended ongoing commercial agricultural use, typically livestock grazing and/or hay production.

One application drew extended discussion. An application from a parcel owner identified in staff materials as Mr. Breeden (original contract referenced as belonging to the Freeden family in historic records) for a 52.06-acre portion of a large, historic Williamson Act contract did not meet staff's soils-equivalency requirement. Sisson said staff used the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) web soil survey to calculate soil-class equivalency and that the parcel did not reach the class-1/2 equivalency threshold staff requires to approve a separate contract. Sisson also said the board would need to consider agricultural-preserve contiguity and county guidelines that include minimum parcel-size requirements.

Board members pressed staff on the soil classification process, irrigation assumptions, and whether curtailments or changing water availability might unfairly influence the soil classification and eligibility. Supervisors asked whether irrigation or land-improvement steps could change the classification and whether the NRCS mapping is updated to reflect on-the-ground improvements. Staff noted that irrigated acres are treated differently in the calculation and that verifying improvements outside NRCS mapping could involve additional documentation and expense for landowners.

Because of the dispute, at least one supervisor said the case should be continued rather than denied. Staff outlined the consequences of a nonrenewal (if the board adopted staff's recommended denial), including an appeal right and a nine-year property-tax rollback to full tax rates beginning with a nonrenewal effective date (staff said the earliest effective date would be Jan. 1, 2026).

The board did not approve the separate contract for the contested parcel at the meeting. Instead, after debate the board reopened the hearing and voted to continue the Breeden parcel hearing to the second meeting in September to give staff time to prepare options, including staff's recommended nonrenewal resolution and an alternative staff-prepared contract that would reflect any additional information the property owner provides. The continuation passed on an affirmative vote with supervisors recorded as in favor.

Sisson told the board she and staff are also reviewing multi-owner preserve issues and working with other property owners who have remaining portions of the historical large contract to process separate contracts where the parcels meet county criteria. Several other applicants at the same hearing were cleared to proceed with new single-parcel contracts based on staff's soils, acreage and use calculations.

Board members asked staff to include in the continued staff report: the percentage of the parcel actually under commercial agricultural use, detailed NRCS soil-equivalency calculations and whether irrigation or verified improvements could change the eligibility finding. The board expressly directed staff to return with options and to ensure consistent application of county guidelines across similar cases.