An increased mitigation ratio: The new base mitigation ratio will be 2:1 or 3:1 (for prime farmland), depending on whether the Board selects Option 1 in subsection (c)(1) of the ordinance (described below) or Option 2. Mitigation occurring in close proximity to the sphere of influence of a city or in other designated priority conservation areas--including the "greenbelt" between Woodland and Davis--will be eligible for a reduced (1:1) ratio.

An emphasis on conserving farmland at risk of conversion: The ordinance eliminates the prior requirement that mitigation occur within two to four miles of the project site, instead requiring generally that all mitigation occur within two miles of the sphere of influence of a city or of the town of Esparto. The ordinance allows the Board to designate additional areas for conservation by resolution, and to specify whether such additional areas are priority conservation areas (for mitigation at a 1:1 ratio).

Limitations on exemptions for public projects: The ordinance restricts application of the existing exemption for public projects that generate revenue, require a case-by-case analysis of whether the exemption should apply in light of economic considerations and project viability.

Reduced barriers to mitigation banking: By eliminating the two and four-mile radius requirement, the ordinance should ease an existing barrier to the establishment of mitigation banks. The ordinance also includes language allowing a project proponent to sell "credits" if it conserves more acreage than required to discharge a mitigation obligation.
 

A raised cap on payment of in lieu fees: Though in lieu fees remain a "last resort" for mitigation, the ordinance allows projects of up to 20 acres (increased from five) to pay an in lieu fee. This is recommended as a means of addressing the difficulty a small project proponent would otherwise face in discharging a mitigation obligation. It is expected that reducing barriers to mitigation banking, as noted above, will result in few (if any) in lieu payments.
 

Earlier versions of the ordinance also included language that adjusted the mitigation ratio upward if a project's residential component did not achieve density targets included in the General Plan. This language has been removed from the proposed final version included as Attachment A, but can be included via amendment down the road if desired.
 

During a July 7, 2015 presentation on the ordinance, the Board of Supervisors provided direction on several key issues. Staff have included changes that attempt to respond to Board direction. The main changes are as follows:
 

An exemption for solar projects that preserve the agricultural productive capacity of the project site: This language appears in the definition of "agricultural use," and is intended to exempt solar projects from mitigation if the agricultural capability of the project site is not substantially diminished by the project. This will likely to apply only in rare instances where a project site is suited only to grazing and other agricultural uses that can continue unimpaired by a solar project.

Two options for mitigation ratios: Subsection (c)(1) of the ordinance includes two options for base mitigation ratios. Option 1 provides for a 3:1 base ratio for projects that convert prime farmland (now defined in the ordinance), while Option 2 provides for a 2:1 base ratio irrespective of farmland quality. As with all prior versions of the ordinance, mitigation land must be of equal or better value than the farmland converted.

A modified, partial exemption for medium-sized (2.5 to 30 acres) solar projects: Language exempting solar projects from the increased ratio has been revised to apply only to medium sized solar projects; small projects do not require mitigation under the County's solar ordinance. This language is included for discussion purposes in subsection (c)(3) of the ordinance, and can be removed if desired. [Note: While the Board referred to large solar projects during the July 7 discussion, staff believe that medium-sized projects are the intended focus of the partial exemption.]

Two options for the location of conservation: As in prior versions of the ordinance, mitigation must be located within two miles of the sphere of influence of a city or of the town of Esparto. Reflecting Board interest in discouraging the conservation of prime farmland, the ordinance now includes two options for locating easements.  A map showing the two-mile buffer areas is included as Attachment D. Option 1 allows projects that primarily convert prime farmland to mitigate at a 1:1 (rather than 3:1) ratio only if an easement is located within 0.25 mile of a city sphere of influence. Projects that primarily convert non-prime land can mitigate at a 1:1 ratio within 1 mile of a sphere. Option 2 eliminates the prime/non-prime distinction and allows all projects to mitigate at a 1:1 ratio within one mile of a city sphere.
 

Mitigation near unincorporated towns, with the exception of Esparto, has been entirely eliminated from the ordinance, in part because of questions about its conservation value and also because the Board can designate additional conservation areas--including areas near towns--for conservation by resolution.  However, staff recommends that mitigation be allowed within a two-mile conservation area around the Esparto Community Services District Sphere of Influence because Esparto is the one unincorporated town that has a full range of public services (sewer, water, drainage) and could see significant development activity in the future (three large subdivisions were approved in 2007 and will be required to mitigate before they can be constructed).  The town of Esparto is surrounded by prime farmland.  In addition, allowing mitigation around Esparto will comply with several General Plan policies which "Reinforce the growth boundaries for each community through appropriate mechanisms including greenbelts, buffers, conservation easements and other community separators" and which "Encourage the coordinated placement of agricultural conservation easements on land most threatened by development, particularly those lands located close to cities and unincorporated communities." 

In preparing these changes, staff made various judgment calls on how to best balance the policy considerations expressed by the Board of Supervisors. If the changes described above do not fully reflect an acceptable approach, staff will revise the ordinance and return to the Board for further discussion.

2. CEQA Compliance.

Adoption of the proposed ordinance may constitute a “project” under CEQA and, consequently, it is necessary the appropriate level of environmental review. This office believes that adoption of the ordinance is within the scope of at least three exemptions:
 

CEQA Guidelines Section 15307: This exemption applies to actions by regulatory agencies for protection of natural resources, including actions that “assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment.” The proposed ordinance does precisely what Section 15307 requires and, though increased conservation, will help maintain existing resource values and protect the overall environment.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15308: This exemption applies to actions by regulatory agencies for protection of the environment, including actions that “assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment.” It is thus virtually identical to Section 15307 and applies to adoption of the ordinance for the same reasons.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3): This is often referred to as the "common sense" or general rule exemption, which applies where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. This exemption applies for the same reasons that the exemptions in Sections 15307 and 15308 apply. Put simply, the proposed ordinance provides for increased conservation and other changes intended to improve the efficacy of the County's approach to mitigating the conversion of farmland. The protection of farmland and its associated habitat and open space values contributes to the protection of existing biological resources and other aspects of the environment.
 

Finally, the proposed ordinance has been prepared in accordance with the General Plan for reasons described in the public review version of the report by Hausrath Economics Group (Attachment C).