Last Thursday our representatives on the Planning Commission had the opportunity to preserve roughly 54 acres of prime farmland as recommended by staff. As described in earlier posts, Patterson’s consumption of farmland is amongst the highest in the entire central valley.
To a certain extent we can sympathize with the applicant who correctly stressed the fact that much larger developments (the villages and keystone) got a free pass and were allowed to develop without mitigating the irreversible loss of farmland. The whole rational that allowed the Villages to pass on mitigation is somewhat deceptive. The council created the need for affordable housing by not adhering to their housing element. They casually approved the development of expensive homes that no one working locally could truly afford. Put another way, the council created the problem in which the Villages sought an exception for. How this was allowed to take place is beyond topic of this post.
It’s time for the city to put or shut up. We are continually told by our elected officials that our neighbor to the south is a demon for sucking up all of our precious farmland. Yet, through the general plan update process they are likely to pave over just as much land. The most egregious part of this whole debacle is that the city has absolutely no plans to mitigate this significant loss of farmland. The giant to the south is at least obligated to preserve an acre in perpetuity for each acre they develop.
So who is really destroying our quality of life?
The solution:
The city of Patterson should immediately begin the process of implementing an agricultural mitigation ordinance. Until the city sets forth an official ordinance that has some teeth, we will continue to see developments like the one recommended on Thursday, where Staff recommends ag mitigation, and the commission or council succumb to developers by taking the condition off the table.
An agricultural ordinance can help with encroaching industrial developments — Greenbelts.
The Agricultural Buffer Experience - www.greatvalley.org
If an Ag mitigation ordinance were in place before the Villages and Keystone, we would have had enough money/land to create a 1000 acre buffer between our south boundary and West Park. However, our elected officials have sat on their hands and avoided the issue for the past few years in fear of being disciplined by the development community. It won’t be long before we are surrounded by huge industrial zones. If we don’t act now, the same mistake that was made on the south boundary will continue on the west, north and east sides of town. As it stands right now, it appears the two giants will collide at Marshall Road.
Instead of building Walker Ranch to abut industry, an ag ordinance could have provided the resources needed to provide a significant greenbelt. Supervisor Demartini has already laid down the foundation for such an ordinance (residential conversion), other organizations are more than willing to assist with the process (except the BIA of course).
We’re sick and tired of elected officials preaching the need to preserve farmland, yet doing nothing to further that goal. Several workshops intended to educate elected officials and community members about ag mitigation have been overlooked by our city. We sadly believe that most city council members cannot even explain the concept. We deserve better.
Fred Ross
William Johnston said,
April 3, 2009 @ 8:50 AM
I was kind of confused about the reasons the commission gave to allow this guy to develop without purchasing another 54 acres of easment. Ron West said,”“We need to start getting big buildings,” because industry typically uses less water than agriculture. Is he suggesting that since industry takes up less water than ag, we should just build over it, without mitigation? Or did he mean industry is just a better use?
Save Farmland said,
April 3, 2009 @ 1:11 PM
Hello Patterson:
If you’re interested in learning more about Ag Easements, please see this link.
http://www.valleyfarmland.org/easements.htm
Yolo County said,
April 3, 2009 @ 11:32 PM
Awesome farmland conservation advocacy. This link documented our farmland mitigation principles, take a look when get a chance.
Yolo
http://agfuturesalliance.org/files/YAFA%20Mitigation%20Principles.pdf
Stop The Madness said,
April 3, 2009 @ 8:12 PM
Listed below are the quotes from Mr. West. Why would anyone be surprised. That is what happens when developers and their representatives are put in positions of power over land use decisions. Keep in mind Mr. West makes his living helping developers pave over as much farmland as possible. He naturally is going to hate anything that tries to protect agricultural land. The whole reason Mr. West landed in Patterson was to help Kaufman and Broad build homes in Patterson. Mr. West hates ag. Mitigation. He hates it as much as a health conscious vegetarian would hate a double beef whopper placed in front of him.
A majority of the commission agreed with Garcia, and Commissioner Ron West led the charge.
“We need to start getting big buildings,” he said, because industry typically uses less water than agriculture.
Simpson reaffirmed staff’s position that the ag mitigation should be included, and commissioners bantered about the point of having the rule if it keeps getting waived. Ultimately, at least four of the commissioners were fine with removing the requirement.
“I agree with Mr. Garcia,” West said.
Listed below is an excerpt from today’s Modesto Bee’s opinion. It seems Patterson is starting to generate a lot of bad publicity when it comes to growth.
Patterson not only has grown quickly, but its leaders appear to favor much more growth, in spite of its high foreclosure rate and water supply problems. We urge Patterson residents to start asking hard questions about whether they really want to continue down this path.
The Patterson Irritator said,
April 3, 2009 @ 11:12 PM
We couldn’t make this stuff up, inside the mind of West:
Mr. West stated that he was working with Jeff Arambel & Kenny & Larry Buehner on the west side of the city……He said, “Think big and think about changes that haven’t been envisioned.” He feels we should “capture” both sides of the freeway and don’t let the county have it. — GPAC Meeting Notes on August 8, 2007.
We wouldn’t want to burden old pals with menacing mitigation talk, would we?
big red said,
April 6, 2009 @ 10:37 PM
Glad to see your not leaving us Fred. I’m still waiting for a post about the councilmembers financial disclosure. Don’t you think the council is already working on a mitigation ordinance?
Stop The Madness said,
April 7, 2009 @ 8:02 PM
Big Red,
Ag Mitigation is only as good as those that wish to enforce it. If exemptions are continually granted than it is not worth much. Keep in mind that the devil is in the details. If the ag. land doesn’t state where the land must be preserved or that the land must be of equal importance, then what you will end up seeing is developers purchasing swamp land in the middle of nowhere that is worth nothing and using it as mitigation. Meanwhile all of the farmland around Patterson gets eaten up.
big red said,
April 7, 2009 @ 10:20 PM
Stop,
If the city set up an in lieu fee to mitigate, wouldn’t it make sense to focus on certain areas to maximize the effect of the ordinance?
big red said,
April 17, 2009 @ 6:07 PM
Where would we want to preserve? The south border is rapidly vanishing, we could buffer the river i guess.
Stop The Madness said,
April 20, 2009 @ 7:47 PM
Big Red,
The City’s general plan document I looked at shows a greenbelt along the river. Why would that be? Because that would be the first place to flood and therefore the place most difficult to develop, in a floodplain. I think the proposed general plan boundaries run to Elm Avenue so there is not a whole lot of room left to the river either. Also, the soils that far east of the city are not the best soils regardless. Some of the best soils run to the north and south towards the airbase. It would make sense to use land south of Elfers as ag mitigation instead of annexing all the way to Marshall Road to create a buffer between the airbase and the city for numerous reasons. Plus, the soils west of 33 to Marshall are excellent. The same could be said of the soils North of and Northeast of the City. All prime Class I soils.
Mayor Keller wanted some sort of control over northern growth when he was mayor. But he received no support. A reliable source informed me he contemplated another run for Mayor but was advised against it.
2010voter said,
April 21, 2009 @ 9:40 PM
David Keller was a wonderful Mayor. He would be a breath of fresh air.
Exclamation! said,
April 22, 2009 @ 7:05 AM
David Keller lasted 2 years and he was far from great! He was more concerned with building a $5 million dollar City Hall and downsizing fire stations instead of increasing public safety and building community centers that the community could benefit froml! He even made a comment to the public stating so!!! Let me see if I can remember his comment……oh yeah…..”I am sure glad we built this City Hall before that fire station and community center.” Idiot!!!
The Patterson Irritator said,
April 22, 2009 @ 8:45 AM
Did anyone take a look at the title of this post, “Agricultural Mitigation and Greenbelts”? Please try to stick to the post topic, if a David Keller forum is needed we will be happy to provide one.
2010voter said,
April 22, 2009 @ 8:53 AM
No need for a forum. I just think Mr. Keller possesses something that sorely lacking from our representatives, integrity. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion. Apparently others have a real problem with Mr. Keller, I’ve seen more good from him than bad. Again, a unique quality around city hall.