ARROYO GRANDE 77 City officials want to know if residents wish to continue preserving the city/s farmland and, if they do, how the city should go about it.

Those answers are needed before Aug. 14, when a six-month moratorium that blocks the conversion of prime farmland into housing tracts will expire.

A two-hour agricultural workshop last week was the city/s attempt to find some answers.

Supporters of city Ordinance 536, which created the moratorium, critics and several local farmers, including Howard Mankins, Tom Runnels and Jim Dickens, met in council chambers for a workshop titled "Impact of Conversions of Agricultural Lands," moderated by Teresa McClish, assistant city planner, and Jim Bergman, planning intern.

During the meeting, Jeff Garcia, field representative for the nonprofit American Farmland Trust, described the trust/s buy-out program.

Since it began in February, the moratorium has been one of the town/s more controversial issues. Critics charge that it was designed to block two housing projects then in pre-permit stages, something three of five City Council members and Community Development Director Rob Strong deny.

Strong told workshop participants that many residents feel it is the open space and some 300 acres of farmland that give Arroyo Grande its unique character. A survey, taken prior to implementing the moratorium, indicated many residents would like to keep the land in the hands of farmers who want to farm.

But there are problems. Land prices are high and farmers are often tempted to sell to developers.

The workshop outlined ways preservationists can compete 77 if voters are willing to pay the price, Strong said. Farmland can be removed from the market by legislation or can be purchased by the city. Farmers can sell development rights only through such programs as the American Farmland Trust, and such programs as the Williamson Act can protect land with tax incentives.

The basic premise of the meeting was that the city is eager to preserve the farmland within its boundaries. The question is how to go about it. McClish said that comments from those who packed the council chambers will provide guidance.

Otis Page, a community watchdog who has opposed the moratorium since its beginning, said with the high cost of farmland, the settlement paid by private trusts could not compensate land owners. Farmers who want to sell to developers should have that right, he added.

Howard Mankins, who owns 350 acres behind Chumash Park in Pismo Beach, said he prepared his land for avocados, but even with a buffer, housing on his boundary presented problems for his use of sprays and wind machines.

"I/ve watched this valley disappear acre by acre," he said.

Conservation tools such as right-to-farm ordinances (Arroyo Grande has one), subdivision regulations, buffer zones and zoning were described.

"As a conservation tool, zoning is ineffective," said Ella Honeycutt, a local environmental activist.

The city/s interest in preserving its rural image antedates the moratorium. Financed by a grant from the California State Coastal Conservancy, in 1991 the city developed a Coordinated Agricultural Support Program, updating it in /96 and /97. CASP continues to provide background for the city/s efforts.

Workshop findings will be discussed again at a Planning Commission meeting at 6 p.m. June 17 in the City Council Chambers.

* Staff writer Bob Behme can be reached at 489-4206, Ext. 5014, or by e-mail at bbehme @pulitzer.net.

June 5, 2003