Rules revisited for preserving Stanislaus farmland

Questions about valuing farmland when it’s swallowed by sprawl will resurface Wednesday in the latest dispute between development and agriculture.

The issue sparked when Patterson, which has been growing far more rapidly than any other Stanislaus County city, in the fall pitched a farmland preservation policy considered inadequate by agricultural advocates. Although Patterson has assumed the role of lightning rod in this dispute, the outcome could ripple far beyond as the building industry revives.

Much of the controversy centers on fees that some cities charge developers when they want to replace farmland with houses or businesses. Such money would be used to permanently preserve farmland in other locations.

In 2012, the Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission adopted rules requiring that cities, when they want to grow, have some sort of farmland preservation policy such as so-called in lieu or mitigation fees. Options include voter-approved urban limits.

The recession slowed growth in these parts and the rules have been tested only twice. Last year, Modesto said developers must set aside 1 acre of farmland elsewhere for every acre sacrificed in the 84-acre Woodglen annexation. And Patterson in late 2013 dangled the promise of 10,000 jobs to secure a 1,119-acre annexation for Jeff Arambel and KDN Enterprises’ West Patterson Business Park.

Meanwhile, anticipating that building eventually would ramp up, most cities came up with ways to comply with LAFCO’s farmland-preservation rules:

▪ In two growth areas, Oakdale leaders decreed that builders would mitigate farmland loss at a rate of 1 agricultural acre for every acre developed. Hughson doubled that goal, requiring 2 acres of farmland easements for every developed acre.

▪ Newman voters approved an urban limit that’s supposed to restrict growth until 2040, and Modesto’s voters in November will confront a similar ballot restriction proposed by controlled-growth advocates.

▪ Turlock leaders said they won’t consider new growth proposals until prior developments are 70 percent complete, while Waterford is exploring establishing a greenbelt between that city and Modesto.

Patterson leaders, responding to a suggestion by the Building Industry Association, proposed charging mitigation fees of $2,000 per acre. Critics heaped scorn, saying easements around Modesto are costing $8,000 to $10,000 an acre and noting that some farmland is selling for more than $30,000 an acre. The Central Valley Farmland Trust, a nonprofit managing such easements, said the average Stanislaus going price is $7,100 per acre.

LAFCO staff also challenged the idea, noting that Patterson leaders, when submitting the Arambel application, had valued farmland at $3,500 to $15,000 per acre.

Patterson leaders several times delayed voting on the policy and have yet to adopt it. But the issue surfaced in December at LAFCO; commissioners asked their staff to analyze how to arrive at fair fee amounts, and wanted more information on cities’ traditional growth rates.

A new report says some agencies, such as Stanislaus County and Hughson, require that fees amount to no less than 35 percent of the average price paid in five comparable land deals, plus a 5 percent endowment, and suggests that LAFCO consider a similar rule.

In the past 10 years, Stanislaus’ nine cities expanded a combined 33 percent, led by Patterson’s growth rate of more than 135 percent. Waterford was next at 44 percent, and other cities ranged down to Newman, which has added no acreage since 2004.

The LAFCO meeting begins at 6 p.m. Wednesday in the basement chamber at Tenth Street Place, 1010 10th St., Modesto. For details, go to www.stanislauslafco.org/info/PDF/Staff%20Rpts/AgMemo.01282015.pdf. Commissioners also are expected to begin recruiting a replacement for executive officer Marjorie Blom, who is retiring.

This story was originally published January 24, 2015 at 7:32 PM with the headline "Rules revisited for preserving Stanislaus farmland."