The Modesto Bee

DRAWING THE LINES: STANISLAUS COUNTY SEEKS INPUT ON GENERAL
PLAN'S AG ELEMENT

By JOHN HOLLAND
Last updated: November 03, 2007

Stanislaus County officials want to hear, once again, about how to protect farming in a region with a growing number of people.

The county is seeking public comments on the latest proposal for updating the general plan's agricultural element.

The element now in place was adopted in 1992. Work on an update started in 2005, but the Board of Supervisors rejected it in April.

The latest version, aimed at easing the board's concerns, will go before the county Planning Commission next month and eventually to the supervisors.

The general goals are the same in the 1992, 2005 and 2007 versions: Keep most development in or near cities, and keep ag-related businesses -- including produce stands and nut hullers -- in rural areas. Protect water, soil and other resources vital to crops and livestock.

The latest update, like the 2005 version, would tighten the rules in three key ways:

Restrictions would be added on "ranchettes" -- rural home sites that are much larger than city lots but too small for commercial farming.

Developers would have to provide buffers between new projects and adjacent farmland in unincorporated areas.

For projects built on farmland, they would have to preserve farmland of similar value elsewhere in the county.

This last proposal continues to be opposed by the Building Industry Association of Central California. Steve Madison, executive vice president of the Modesto-based group, said the county's farm production has continued to grow even with the increasing population.

"It's fairly obvious that more ag land has come into production than has been urbanized," he said. "I'm not sure what needs to be protected."

Under the proposal, the farmland would be preserved via a developer's purchase of a conservation easement on another property. The owner of that property would receive a payment in exchange for keeping the land in farming.

The 2005 draft referred to ranchettes as lacking agricultural "viability," meaning they did not make enough money from crops or livestock. A board majority in April objected to that term, on the grounds that the county should not interfere with the economic decisions of landowners.

The latest version puts less stress on viability but does have guidelines for assuring that rural parcels are mainly for agriculture, said Angela Freitas, a senior planner for the county.

Supervisor Jim DeMartini, who voted for the update in April and since has helped tweak it, said the ranchette problem is a big one. He said much of the recent opposition to a planned almond huller west of Modesto came from residents of small rural parcels nearby.

"We're trying to curtail any new parcel splits just for (rural) home sites unless it has some kind of agricultural enterprise on it," he said.

In the latest draft, the proposed buffers between farms and new development would be at least 150 feet wide. The previous version merely said the distance would be worked out in the future.

No homes could be built within the buffers, but they could be used for roads, drainage, landscaping and a few other purposes.

Bee staff writer John Holland can be reached at jholland@modbee.com or 578-2385.