Members of the Local Agency Formation Commission for Santa Clara
County have come to their senses by establishing advisory
agricultural mitigation policies rather than mandates for
cities
Members of the Local Agency Formation Commission for Santa Clara County have come to their senses by pushing advisory agricultural mitigation policies rather than mandates for cities.
The agency, whose mission is to oversee municipal boundaries and orderly growth, began considering last August strict farmland preservation policies, which would have, among other things, imposed the rigid preservation of one acre of farmland for every acre developed.
LAFCO’s proposal set hard deadlines for mitigation – such as purchasing farmland elsewhere – and made the status of previous preservation mandates a key consideration in new annexation requests. What LAFCO called “timing and fulfillment of mitigation” had many cities, landowners and developers concerned it was overstepping its authority and conflicting with mitigation policies already in place in cities like Gilroy and Morgan Hill.
But now, thanks to LAFCO members Don Gage and Susan Vicklund-Wilson, the agency has revised the policies making them more flexible. The agency removed the time frame within which mitigation is needed to occur and eliminated LAFCO’s approval of a project on the condition that mitigation is fulfilled. The changes will now make cities responsible for overseeing proper mitigation when development occurs,.
We urge Morgan Hill to adopt city ordinances indicating it will ensure the fulfillment of mitigation when it approves such projects or gives permits for such developments. The city should also annually report to LAFCO on the fulfillment of its mitigation responsibilities.
We hope Morgan Hill planners will adopt policies that are flexible but which keep the public interest first.
Morgan Hill should also educate the community about the location of such lands outside the city urban service areas that may be subject to mitigation if proposed developments are considered for them.
Gilroy has reached consensus on its own set of agricultural preservation policies and Morgan Hill is working to implement a greenbelt program. Both cities can now relax and consider the LAFCO policies guidelines and not hard, inflexible rules.
We commend LAFCO for being reasonable enough to change its stance and for having ultimately listened to the majority of stakeholders who opposed the original proposed mitigation policies. We hope the cities now act with the same decency by sharing with LAFCO their mitigation policy proposals for review.
We admire and respect LAFCO’s ultimate mission which is the preservation of agricultural lands to urban development. When cities propose to expand their urban service areas they should be subject to LAFCO’s scrutiny in how prime agricultural lands will be protected. We urge LAFCO to work with Morgan Hill and Gilroy as they continue to develop their policies and programs to reach consensus on this important issue.
