“If we don’t do something about it, there will be no prime ag land left to protect.”
— Jim Poore Stanislaus County’s Planning Commission chairman
MODESTO — Stanislaus County’s Planning Commission voted unanimously Thursday in favor of revising the county’s agricultural plan, despite a few complaints from landowners and developers.
The 8-0 recommendation came after the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors on April 17 rejected an incomplete draft version of the agricultural element to the county general plan.
Commissioners, who also endorsed that previous draft, reaffirmed their support of the revised plan Thursday, saying it would help preserve agriculture from encroaching development.
“If we don’t do something about it, there will be no prime ag land left to protect,” commission Chairman Jim Poore said.
Changes ahead
The new draft version of the ag element, which has not been revised since 1992, removes a requirement in the rejected draft for agriculturally zoned land to have “agricultural viability” for certain parcel splits. Supervisors said that term was too ambiguous. The new draft instead contains language that opposes residential development on agricultural parcels.
It also adds details about required agricultural buffers and setbacks, changes requirements for building on parcels smaller than 20 acres in rural areas and further defines requirements regarding state Williamson Act contracts. The Williamson Act provides tax breaks for landowners who keep their property for rural uses.
However, it was a requirement for farmland mitigation in the new version that stoked the ire of a building representative and business park developer.
Builders would need to permanently protect an acre of farmland for every acre of agricultural land they use. To do this, project developers could buy conservation easements, pay an in-lieu fee or use “mitigation credit banking.” Under the latter scenario, developers who buy more acres than needed to meet the ag mitigation requirement could sell the excess land to other developers to help them meet the requirement. Anyone with a project of 20 or more acres would have to buy easements.
Builders take aim
Keith Schneider, vice president of Keystone Corp., described the one-to-one mitigation measure as “the most misguided and egregious proposal I’ve seen in my 25 years of business.”
Keystone already faces challenges in attracting industry, he said, and the mitigation measure would create further challenges.
Though Keystone would not be affected by the ag element because it is within the city of Patterson, Schneider said during a break in the meeting that it may set a precedent as the city revises its general plan. It also could hurt future development in communities such as Westley and Grayson, he said.
Kevin Stone, a spokesman for the Building Industry Association of Central California, said the in-lieu fee amount — 35 percent of the average price per acre for five comparable land sales — was arbitrary and that farmland mitigation was unnecessary.
He cited statistics that Stanislaus County had about 835,000 acres in production in 2006, generating about $2.1 billion in farm-related revenue versus 794,000 acres and $1.2 billion in 1996.
“I find it incredibly difficult to support a measure that’s purpose is to mitigate a crisis that lacks a crisis to mitigate,” Stone said.
However, the figures Stone cited do not take into account that most of the increase in acreage is in tree crops planted in the foothills, said Wayne Zipser, executive manager of the Stanislaus County Farm Bureau. Unlike the valley soil, that land can produce only a handful of crops, and there is no possibility for groundwater recharge, as there is on the valley floor.
Showing support
Advocates of the ag element also offered their share of statistics.
Mike Darnell, California policy director of the American Farmland Trust, cited statistics from a study produced by his group indicating that 81 percent of Stanislaus County’s development on farmland from 1990 to 2002 was on prime farmland. No other county in the Central Valley had developed such a high percentage of high-quality farmland, he said.
Sierra Club representative Brad Barker cited that same study as he advocated for the ag element’s approval.
“What kind of legacy do we have if we’re the worst in protecting farmland of all the counties in the Central Valley?” Barker asked.
Meanwhile, Commissioners Arsenio Mataka and Allen Layman both noted that most of the development of prime farmland happened within cities’ sphere of influence and was outside of the county’s control. Mataka cited a statistic from a county staff report, which indicated that of 383 acres converted from farmland to other uses in unincorporated areas in the past seven years, 234 were for the Keystone Pacific Business Park, which is now in Patterson’s city limits.
Last-minute decisions
In addition to touting the merits of the overall ag plan, the planning commission discussed whether to increase the height of required fencing from 6 to 8 feet. After learning that an 8-foot barrier would require a building permit, they settled on a six-foot fence with a vegetative screen to prevent pesticide spray drift. The element would require a 150-wide buffer for most nonfarming projects next to ag land, and a 300-foot wide buffer for people intensive uses, such as churches and sports fields.
Commissioners also opted not to adopt last-minute language proposed by the Central Valley Farmland Trust, which county counsel said was mostly technical in nature.
Future uncertain
The element will next be forwarded on to the board of supervisors for rejection or adoption. Supervisor Jim DeMartini, who attended Thursday’s meeting but did not speak, said he thought the proposed changes would address most of the other supervisors’ previous concerns by filling in previously incomplete portions.
The proposed plan also encourages marketing boards, supports the expansion of export and direct-marking programs, supports safe and adequate farmworker housing and maintains current air quality, water and soil policies.
“There is a down side,” Commissioner Ray Souza said before voting in favor of the element. “We’re all going to lose some property rights, but at the same time, we are going to protect our farmers’ rights.”
To reach Jonathan Partridge at the Irrigator, call 892-6187 or e-mail him at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed