1

SUSTAINING AGRICULTURE:SUSTAINING AGRICULTURE:SANTA CLARA LAFCO’s EXPERIENCESANTA CLARA LAFCO’s EXPERIENCE

August 31, 2007CALAFCO CONFERENCE

Sacramento

2

Why Protect and Preserve Agricultural Lands?

• Every minute of every day, America loses 2 acres of farmland to development

• Every year on an average, California loses over 15,000 acres of valuable farmland to urban development

3

Why Protect and Preserve Agricultural Lands?

• Within the last 20 years, Santa Clara County has lost over 11,000 acres

• Less than 39,000 acres of agricultural lands with high quality soils remain in Santa Clara County (that is less than 5% of total land within the county)

4

Why Protect Agricultural Lands?

Irreplaceable and non-renewable resource. These lands are our legacy and they:

• Provide local and regional fresh food supplies, reduce dependence on foreign products, conserve energy

5

Why Protect Agricultural Lands?

• Maintain/ create unique community character, provide open space and wildlife habitat, support area’s tourism industry

• Contribute to the local economy and add to the quality of life of a community

6

What’s So Special About Agriculture at the Urban Edge?

• More than 75% of America’s fruits, vegetables and dairy products are produced on urban edge farms that are threatened by sprawling development

• In California, 70% of ALL food agricultural food production occurs on the urban edge or is urban influenced

7

What’s Sprawl Got To Do With It?

Urban development, sphere of influence expansions, and service extensions can disrupt the conditions necessary for agriculture leading to:

• Land use conflicts and increasing calls for regulation

• Land speculation which drives up the price of farmland

• Impermanence which causes disinvestment in agriculture

8

What Can LAFCOs Do?

• Help educate local agencies, organizations, and the community on the importance of urban edge agriculture

• When approving proposals adjacent to agricultural lands, encourage local agencies to adopt measures to protect adjoining agricultural lands, to prevent their premature conversation and to minimize potential urban edge conflicts

• When reviewing environmental documents, review and comment on the analysis of impacts to agriculture based on definitions and codes within CKH Act

• Conversion of prime agricultural land should be a last resort and in some cases may not be appropriate

• Adopt policies aimed at mitigating the negative impacts to agricultural and open space lands

9

Development of Santa Clara LAFCO’s Agricultural Mitigation Policies

Purpose Of The Policies

• To provide guidance to property owners, potential applicants and cities on how to address agricultural mitigation for LAFCO proposals.

• To provide a framework for LAFCO to evaluate and process in a consistent manner LAFCO proposals that involve or impact agricultural lands.

10

Development of Santa Clara LAFCO’s Agricultural Mitigation Policies

Diverse Group Of Stakeholders

• Cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill and San Jose, the County of Santa Clara, the County Farm Bureau, Santa Clara Valley Water District,

• Gilroy Chamber of Commerce, the Coyote Housing Group, the Home Builders Association of Northern California

• Silicon Valley Land Conservancy, Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District

• Friends of Coyote Valley Greenbelt, Committee for Green Foothills, Greenbelt Alliance, Sierra Club

• Property owners, developers, concerned citizens, etc.

11

Development of Santa Clara LAFCO’s Agricultural Mitigation Policies

Process Used to Develop the Policies

• LAFCO Planning Workshop and discussion of LAFCO’s role in protecting and preserving agricultural lands (Feb. 2006)

• LAFCO directed staff to develop agricultural mitigation policies (April 2006)

• Staff researched existing policies and practices of other LAFCOs and jurisdictions and considered Santa Clara LAFCO’s experience on this issue

• Staff Developed and Circulated a First Draft of Policies for Comment (August 2006)

12

Development of Santa Clara LAFCO’s Agricultural Mitigation Policies

Process Used to Develop the Policies

• Four Stakeholder Workshops/Presentations on Draft Policies (2 Held in South County) + presentation to a local Chamber of Commerce

• LAFCO forms a Two-Commissioner LAFCO Subcommittee on Agricultural Mitigation and 2 Subcommittee Meetings are held in South County to discuss the policies and take comments

• Four LAFCO Meeting/Hearings (Oct. 2006 – April 2007)

• Draft Policies revised 4 times in response to stakeholder concerns

13

Issues: Authority to Adopt Mitigation Policies

• Policies are recommendations on acceptable mitigation

• Variations may be considered with appropriate support/justification

• LAFCO will not require or condition an approval on specific mitigation for a proposal impacting agricultural lands

• LAFCO may deny a proposal if the application will not result in orderly growth and development based on LAFCO’s policies.

• Cities are encouraged to adopt similar mitigation policies

14

Issues: Definition of Prime Agricultural Land

• LAFCO will use the CKH Act’s definition of “Prime Agricultural Land” when considering impacts

• Fallow lands must meet CKH Act’s definition of “Prime Agricultural Land” (based on soil class/rating, feasibility of irrigation, and recent productivity)

• LAFCO will not use the LESA Model. The Model does not fit existing agriculture or agricultural trends in Santa Clara County

15

Issues: Type of Mitigation

• 1:1 mitigation recommended with 3 options

• Mitigation lands within Santa Clara County

• Mitigation with similar type of lands (soil class/rating, etc.)

• No exemptions for lands used to support a development (e.g. public roads, private roads, sidewalks, etc.)

• In-lieu fee methodologies should have provision to adjust fees to reflect land values at the time of payment of in-lieu fees

16

Issues: Enforceability of Mitigation

• Plan for Mitigation and Mitigation Agreement between property owner, city and ag. conservation entity should be provided to LAFCO

• Agreement should be recorded against the property, upon LAFCO approval of the project

• Annual reports on the status of the mitigation should be provided by the city to LAFCO

• Annual reports on the use of the in-lieu fees should be provided by the agricultural conservation entity to LAFCO

• Mitigation should be fulfilled before city approves final map, issues grading permit or building permit

17

Development of Santa Clara LAFCO’s Agricultural Mitigation Policies

The Results So Far

• LAFCO Unanimously Adopts Agricultural Mitigation Policies (April 2007)

• Catalyst for Cities to Develop Their Own Mitigation Policies

• Catalyst for Open Space Districts and Organizations to consider their Potential Role in the area of Agricultural Preservation within Santa Clara County

• So far, LAFCO has NOT Received any Proposals that are Affected by the Policies