Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board introduces agricultural-mitigation ordinance to protect prime farmland, amid heavy public comment
Summary
Staff introduced an Agricultural Lands and Operations ordinance that would require mitigation when General Plan-designated farmland is converted; the draft proposes up to 3:1 mitigation for prime/statewide/unique farmland (1.5:1 for grazing), prefers perpetual conservation easements, and uses in-lieu fees only as a last resort; the board voted to introduce the ordinance and continue refinement.
The Solano County Board of Supervisors introduced an ordinance to add an agricultural mitigation program to county code, aiming to preserve productive farmland when land-use changes are proposed.
Matt Walsh and James Vuzick of Resource Management described the draft ordinance’s key elements: applicability to general-plan amendments, rezones and certain infrastructure permits; mitigation ratios pegged to the Department of Conservation’s farmland mapping categories (proposed 3:1 for prime/statewide/unique farmland, 1.5:1 for grazing); a preference that mitigation occur through perpetual agricultural conservation easements; a good-faith requirement that applicants pursue easements and, if unsuccessful, allow in-lieu fees or alternative mitigation only as a backstop. Walsh summarized the core policy: "Projects that convert prime farmland... will be required to mitigate at a 3-to-1 ratio," and staff recommended sending the ordinance to the board for introduction and further public review.
Public commenters and local stakeholders were sharply engaged. Supporters including the Solano County Farm Bureau and Solano Land Trust urged codifying protections and using perpetual easements; speakers from cities and the development community urged more time for consultation and questioned the proposed 3:1 ratio as unusually high relative to other jurisdictions. Dixon’s city attorney urged postponement to consult partner cities; several farmers asked that soils currently farmed without irrigation receive equal consideration. Board members requested clarifications on definitions (prime farmland versus grazing, how in-lieu fees would be calculated and held, and whether easements must be perpetual), and some supervisors asked for more time to refine language.
Chair Mashburn moved to introduce the ordinance by title, with adjustments that the board will continue to refine; the motion passed 5-0. Staff will return with edits and continued stakeholder outreach through the Land Use and Transportation Committee and public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board. The ordinance’s introduction starts the formal public- hearing track; any future approval will occur after further environmental and legal review as appropriate.
