Commission rejects cities’ demands, OKs farmland formula

The fight against urban sprawl notched a narrow victory Wednesday, despite objections from seven of Stanislaus County’s nine cities.

The 3-2 vote by leaders of a growth-guiding agency simply defined one way cities can choose to help preserve farmland, but was seen by cities as an affront to their land-use authority.

The decision set a formula for figuring how much money cities can charge developers when paving over farmland for houses or other buildings. The money can be banked to eventually buy farm conservation easements somewhere else in the county, preserving one agricultural acre for each one developed.

The Modesto City Council called a special meeting earlier Wednesday to confront the formula, already opposed by Ceres, Riverbank, Oakdale, Patterson, Newman and Waterford. The issue divided Modesto leaders, who decided on a 4-2 vote to join the others; Mayor Garrad Marsh and Councilwoman Jenny Kenoyer voted “no,” and Councilman Tony Madrigal was absent.

The debate before the Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission was just as spirited Wednesday evening. “We don’t need to get into a divisive, rancorous debate,” said Tom Hallinan, an attorney representing several cities. He urged commissioners to table the matter and allow staff members to talk out differences with city and county administrators.

Several city managers approached the rostrum to formally object to the proposed formula. Some asked for a delay, and some said the methodology would artificially drive up values. “You’re putting a gun to the head of the developer, forcing him to buy something. That’s not a free market,” said John Beckman, chief executive officer of the Building Industry Association of the Greater Valley.

Commissioners voting with the majority said cities, all of which agreed with an underlying farmland preservation policy when LAFCO approved it in 2012, apparently misunderstood aspects of Wednesday’s amendment.

For example, cities can choose other means of saving farmland, such as having voters adopt urban limits. Newman did just that last year, and Modesto voters soon will confront such an initiative.

LAFCO is composed of two elected officeholders from cities and two from the county, plus one person representing the public at large. Currently, the latter is Brad Hawn – a former Modesto councilman.

Hawn favored a delay, as requested by the seven cities, and Turlock Councilwoman Amy Bublak was even more strongly in the cities’ corner. Opposing were county Supervisors Jim DeMartini and Terry Withrow.

But the other city representative – Matt Beekman – is mayor of Hughson, one of the two cities that did not oppose the formula; the other was Turlock. Hughson’s formal anti-sprawl policy, requiring that builders pay to set aside two agricultural acres for each acre developed, is considered among the most progressive in these parts.

Beekman said Wednesday’s vote was merely LAFCO’s attempt to provide guidance on appropriate pricing, and he sided with DeMartini and Withrow. The formula requires fees equal to 35 percent of average prices in five comparable land sales, plus a 5 percent endowment. Currently, that’s about $7,305 per acre.

“We’re not trying to gouge any developers out there,” DeMartini said. “If they can get (land) for nothing or a low amount, that’s fine – just show us how you do it. If you don’t like it, do something else.”

This story was originally published March 25, 2015 at 9:32 PM with the headline "Commission rejects cities’ demands, OKs farmland formula."