SUSTAINING AGRICULTURE:
SANTA CLARA LAFCO’s EXPERIENCE
August 31, 2007
CALAFCO CONFERENCE
Sacramento
1
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
2
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)
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
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
7
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
8
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.
9
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.
10
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)
11
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
12
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
13
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
14
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 inlieu fees
15
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
16
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
17