LAFCO members have come to their senses by establishing advisory
agricultural mitigation policies rather than mandates for our
cities
sion for Santa Clara County have come to their senses by establishing advisory agricultural mitigation policies rather than mandates for cities.
The agency, whose mission is to oversee municipal boundaries and orderly growth, began considering strict farmland preservation policies last August, which would have, among other things, imposed a rigid preservation rule: one acre of farmland would have to be purchased for every acre developed.
LAFCO’s proposal set hard deadlines for mitigation and made the status of previous preservation mandates a key consideration in new annexation requests.
What LAFCO called “timing and fulfillment of mitigation” had many cities, landowners, developers and even some environmentalists concerned that it violated the law and conflicted with mitigation policies already in place in Gilroy and Morgan Hill.
But thanks to LAFCO board members Don Gage, our elected Santa Clara County Supervisor, and Susan Vicklund-Wilson, the agency has revised the policies making them more flexible by removing the time frame within which mitigation must occur, and by removing LAFCO’s approval of a project on the condition that mitigation has been fulfilled.
The changes make cities responsible for overseeing proper mitigation when development occurs.
Gilroy has reached consensus on its own set of agricultural preservation policies and Morgan Hill is working to implement a greenbelt program. Both cities can now relax and consider the LAFCO policies as guidelines and not hard, inflexible rules.
LAFCO has faced political reality and taken a reasonable course – changing its stance after listening to the communities which will be most affected.
LAFCO must stay within its purview and work with the cities to develop preservation policies that are both realistic and beneficial. In so doing the agency must be mindful that the City Councils are the elected representatives who speak for the people, not those appointed to the LAFCO board.
The agency is a check and balance for rampant growth and leapfrog development. While that is an important role, it is not and should not be considered the ultimate authority. That should rest with those elected.
As long as LAFCO understands and respects that premise, the future should be one of well-planned cities that are not strangled by a zealous agency unwilling to consider reasonable growth.
