HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail from Bob Evans regarding the Ag Mitigation OrdinanceSweeney, Kathleen
From: Bob Evans [robertwevans @hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 11:31 AM
To: Sweeney, Kathleen
Subject: Letter to Supervisors on AMO
Attachments: county AMOargumentsagainst.docx
Kathleen,
The attachment is a letter concerning the draft AMO that is on the agenda to be discussed at tomorrow's
Board meeting. Please forward to the Supervisors, Paul Hahn and staff where appropriate. Please do so at
the earliest.
If it would be faster for me to send it direct to each individual Supervisor, please call me and I will send it
immediately. I do not check my email regularly so a phone call would get my attention quicker.
Thank you,
Bob Evans
530 520 5054
-�� r5
I am opposed to this Ag Mitigation Ordinance because it is yet another attack on our citizens' personal
property rights. Property rights are under attack from all sided by government agencies, and this is one
more example of our own county government wanting to have a say on what a farmer can do on, or
with their property.
I do understand the desire to preserve our rich alluvial valley soils for farming, but this desire should
not trump the principle of individual property rights; especially in the absence of significant evidence
that our valley farms are being lost to developers for commercial use. Since the Green Line was
established over four decades ago, there have been no significant developments built in the valley west
of Chico. Why should we believe that another ordinance to protect farmland from developers is
suddenly needed now?
I do acknowledge that large tracts of valley farm land have been converted away from farming - though
not by businesses or developers. Environmental groups are the only groups that I am aware of that
have converted significant acreage of prime valley soil out of farming.
Please consider the following arguments as it relates to this specific AMO. 1. The process that led to
this ordinance was flawed. 2. This AMO does not fulfill its intended purpose, that of protecting
agriculture farm land for farming.
First, a couple of definitions that the AMO omitted.
1. Stakeholder: According to the Merriam- Webster Dictionary — 1. A person or company that has
invested money in something; 2. One who is involved in or affected by a course of action.
2. Agriculture: According to the Merriam- Webster Dictionary — The science , art, or practice of
cultivating the soil, producing crops, and raising livestock.
According to the Cambridge Dictionary — The practice or work of farming.
According to the Oxford Dictionary — The science or practice of farming including the
cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide
food, wool and other products.
These are important definitions and they represent what the common person believes these words to
mean.
The Process; From the very first stakeholder meeting favoritism of one group over another was evident.
Despite the fact that the word "developer" has appeared in every draft of this ordinance (with exception
of this current one), and despite the fact that commercial and home developers are the only groups
singled out to pay mitigation fees, they were not invited to the initial stakeholders' meeting. They only
learned of the meeting through third parties who knew that this AMO would have a significant cost
impact to them. Obviously, since they are singled out to pay mitigation fees, they are by definition a
major stakeholder. From day one they should have been invited to a seat at the table.
Since this AMO mentioned almost exclusively developers and their requirement to pay mitigation fees,
it is enlightening to note that other groups who are never mentioned in the ordinance, and who are not
directly impacted by the loss of farmland, and who are not subjected to mitigation fees, would be on the
invitation list to the stakeholder meeting. Specifically I am speaking of Butte Environmental Council.
Inviting environmental groups and not developers to be key players in drafting this ordinance gives the
appearance that one group is being given influence over an ordinance that they are not a part of, while
another group, a group who obviously is being significantly impacted by the AMO, is shut out. The
county must not be a participant in a process that only represents one side of an issue.
The Ag Mitigation Ordinance: This ordinance does not protect farm land as its title suggests. In a
nutshell, this ordinance's method of protecting agriculture land is by charging exorbitant mitigation fees
to parties who would convert Ag land to other uses. In all the previous drafts the language actually
singles out developers, by naive, as the only group that should be charged these exorbitant fees. Yet,
as stated earlier, developers are are a minor player when it comes to converting our rich valley farm
lands to other uses. Environmental groups have converted thousands of acres, much more than
developers, of prime farm land out of cultivation. Yet, environmental groups continue to get a free
pass in this ordinance. There are no mitigation requirements on conversions of farm land to habitat
restoration projects.
The ability of conservation groups to get around the mitigation requirements is counter to the
advertised intent of the AMO; that being to preserve prime Ag. land for farming. It is also counter to
the intent of Butte County's General Plan. The General Plan specifies under, Article 4 - Agriculture
Zones, Section 24 -12, paragraph A — Agriculture (AG): "Permitted uses include crop cultivation,
animal grazing, stock ponds, and agricultural processing. More intensive agricultural activities, such as
animal processing, dairies, hog farms, stables, forestry and logging, and mining and oil extraction, are
permitted with approval of a Conditional Use Permit."
Despite the General Plan's this clear definition of allowable uses, thousands of acres of converted farm
land to habitat restoration projects remain zoned as AG. This is the mechanism by which a free pass is
being given to allow environmental groups to continue to convert farm lands away from productive
cultivation while avoiding any and all mitigation requirements under this proposed AMO.
Allowing habitat restored projects to remain zoned as Ag. presents other problems for Butte County. 1.
Butte County no longer has accurate records of just how much agricultural land is still being actively
farmed. 2. When these habitat restored preserves are eventually sold to state or federal agencies, as
many are, this land is eliminated from the Butte County's tax roles.
Recommendation: Farmers I have talked to do not like this AMO. They feel it is yet one more attack
on their personal property rights. They would like it eliminated.
Developers I have talked to do not like this AMO. They feel that it unjustly singles them out for
mitigation when there are other entities that have taken much more Ag land out of cultivation. They
would like the AMO eliminated.
Since farmers and developers are the two main stakeholders, and since they both want the AMO to be
eliminated, I recommend the same. Reject this AMO.
Other recommendations: At the very first opportunity to amend that current General Plan, I
recommend that the zoning code for agricultural lands that have been taken out of cultivation and
turned into habitat restoration projects be changed to more appropriate code. Natural Resources is a
much more appropriate code for habitat acreage. In fact, when you consider the definitions of
agriculture, converting active farm lands away from the cultivation of crops to habitat restoration is
actually ant - agriculture.
Bob Evans