Policies strongly recommending cities preserve one acre of prime
farmland for every acre paved over and that give developers a
flexible time period to pay mitigation fees were unanimously
adopted by a regional land-use agency Wednesday.
San Jose – Policies strongly recommending cities preserve one acre of prime farmland for every acre paved over and that give developers a flexible time period to pay mitigation fees were unanimously adopted by a regional land-use agency Wednesday.
Last month, the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission removed a controversial three-year deadline it had initially suggested for developers to pay mitigation fees. It also added language to emphasize the policies would be “advisory” in nature.
“These policies promote orderly growth,” said Michelle Beasley, a spokeswoman for the Greenbelt Alliance. “If cities in California continue paving over farmland, then where will we end up?”
LAFCO is one of many agencies with power over city and county land use and issues of annexation. Each of the state’s 58 counties have a LAFCO. The agencies were established by California’s legislature in 1963 to reduce urban sprawl.
Since April 2006, the commission has focussed on strengthening its mandate to protect open space, focussing on generations-old farmland surrounding Gilroy, Morgan Hill and south San Jose.
In general, land owners and cities are less welcoming of the policies, which challenge the authority of local jurisdictions over how they grow. The policies recommend cities preserve one acre of prime farmland for every acre paved over after urban service areas are expanded.
The definition of “prime” farmland is still under debate. Such land could include open areas that could be farmed and should be preserved. LAFCO staff will provide a clarification on that definition in May for the board to consider.
David Bischoff, Morgan Hill’s former community development director who now works part-time for the city, applauded LAFCO for the revisions but remains skeptical of the one-to-one-acre preservation standard. Such preservation, he argued, might be financially difficult for many developers. Furthermore, Anne Mudge, a land-use attorney for the Coyote Housing Group, said agricultural mitigation should be allowed anywhere in the county.
LAFCO’s policies recommend preservation occur within cities’ spheres of influence.
Melissa Hippard, director of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club, said she wants cities to embrace agricultural mitigation rather than push it to other parts of the county.
“We don’t want to pave over everything,” Hippard said, adding she feels South County’s aesthetics include its remaining open areas. “I really hope cities follow LAFCO’s leadership in developing their own policies.”
Gilroy established farm preservation policies in recent years and Morgan Hill expects to have a draft of a similar strategy ready this summer.
Supervisor Don Gage, a LAFCO commissioner, said the agency’s policies are not “perfect” but he said it’s time to move on.
“These points can be argued back and forth forever,” Gage said. “It’s time to move forward.”
The commission noted it would be possible to revisit the policies in the future to make amendments. Gage supports agricultural mitigation outside of cities’ spheres of influence.
Supervisor Blanca Alvarado, also on the LAFCO board, said the policies are a milestone for a county that’s changed in recent decades from a thriving agricultural region to an industrial hub.
“Every time I go down to Coyote Valley I am struck by its beauty,” Alvarado said. “We’re seeing more and more of the open lands disappear into other uses in the Bay Area.”
LAFCO’S AG MITIGATION POLICIES
The conversion of prime agricultural lands as cities expand their boundaries should provide one of the following mitigations at no less than a one-to-one-acre ratio:
-
The acquisition and transfer of ownership of agricultural land to an agricultural conservation entity for permanent protection.
-
The acquisition and transfer of agricultural conservation easements to an agricultural conservation entity for permanent protection.
-
The payment of in-lieu fees to a conservation entity to fund the acquisition of agricultural lands or conservation easements. The fees should be sufficient to cover the cost of administering, managing, monitoring and enforcing the conservation easements as well as promoting agricultural uses on the mitigated lands.
