City of Gonzales
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor Rios and City Council
DATE: April 3, 2023
FROM: Taven Kinison Brown, Community Development Director THROUGH: Trevin W. Barber, City Manager
SUBJECT: Ordinance No.2023-136 Agricultural Resource Mitigation
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
• Receive the staff report;
• Open the public hearing to receive and consider public comment; • Close the public hearing and;
• Introduce, waive reading, and read by title only Ordinance No. 2023-136, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gonzales adding new Chapter 12.150 – Agricultural Resource Mitigation to Title 12 – Zoning Regulations, Part 5, Regulations Applying in All Districts (Attachment 3).
BACKGROUND
In March of 2014, the City of Gonzales and the County of Monterey entered into a Memorandum of Agreement dated March 25, 2014 (“2014 MOA”) (Attachment 1) that requires that these two entities work cooperatively on common planning, growth, and development issues in the City of Gonzales. The 2014 MOA came about as the City and County were negotiating how to expand the City’s Sphere of Influence into the lands east of the developed town. Broadly, when cities negotiate and expand their Sphere of Influence, they can later apply through LAFCo (the Local Agency Formation Commission) to expand their city limits into those anticipated growth areas. The LAFCo brokered incorporation process will shift most all municipal responsibilities from the County of Monterey to the City of Gonzales (excepting Health Department responsibilities, for example). Such processes account for the expenses of municipal and utility and infrastructure costs that will be borne by the city among other duties and AGENDA
ITEM
10 responsibilities as it assumes responsibility for new city territories.
The 2014 MOA demonstrates basic agreements with the County regarding future planning, growth and development issues in and around the City of Gonzales. In Section 6 of the 2014 MOA, Agricultural Land Conservation Program, the City agreed to implement an Agricultural Land Conservation Program for development of land within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary/Sphere of Influence (UGB/SOI).
Several years later, approximately in 2019, the City of Gonzales gathered and convened an Agricultural Committee to advise the City Council; comprised of two City Council members, the Community Development Director, a representative for agriculture, a representative of an agriculture conservation/preservation organization (Monterey County Agricultural Land Trust), a representative of the building industry/development community, a representative of the County Agricultural Commissioner's Office, and the Monterey County Third District Supervisor. City staff met with the Agricultural Committee on numerous occasions to develop the city’s mitigation program and has met with the Monterey County Agricultural Land Trust, County Planners and the Monterey County Agricultural Commission and has discussed agricultural mitigation with local development interest who wish to develop in the new city areas once they are incorporated into City limits.
City staff, with help of the Agricultural Committee in August of 2022 and again in February of 2023, further refined and gave detail to how the City would implement an Agricultural Resource Mitigation program by drafting: “An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The City Of Gonzales Adding New Chapter
12.150 - Agricultural Resource Mitigation To Title 12 – Zoning Regulations, Part 5 Regulations Applying In All Districts.”
Following a duly noticed public hearing and taking public testimony on March 13, 2023, the City of Gonzales Planning Commission recommends that the City Council implement the agreements of the 2014 MOA to create an Agricultural Land Conservation Program by adding new Chapter 12.150 to Title 12 – Zoning Regulations, Part 5 Regulations Applying In All Districts - Agricultural Resource Mitigation, for the City of Gonzales (Attachment 2).
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED
While not purporting to be an exhaustive list, staff has included a characterization of comments received from the Agricultural Land Trust, the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, the Housing and Community Development Department of the County of Monterey, development interests such as Pembrook, and concerned citizens. These comments have come upon the Planning Commission’s consideration March 13, 2023, and since.
Agricultural Land Trust
At several junctures, staff has met or spoken with the Executive Director of the Agricultural Land Trust (AGT) and has invited conversations and involvement. In fact, the Agricultural Land Trust is one of the seven seated parties on the City of Gonzales’s Agricultural Committee. Staff is not aware of AGT concerns with the present draft of the Ordinance before Council, but the AGT Executive Director has expressed concerns with earlier draft considerations and the general context of other valley cities engaged in agricultural resource protection, such as the City of Soledad. In earlier years, the City had received encouraging support in its mitigation efforts from the AGT, including a formulary in-lieu fee calculation to be applied per housing unit upon certificate of occupancy. The present Executive Director though has now indicated that the earlier in-lieu fee calculations are insufficient. Additionally, the Executive Director takes issue with development interests trying to propose and secure “equivalent” agricultural lands on their own. In expressing these concerns, it appears to staff that the Executive Director may prefer that agricultural resource mitigation in Monterey County and cities be moderated by his office.
As discussed ahead in the REVIEW AND ANALYSIS, the City of Gonzales’s new Ordinance 12.150 engages these matters.
Agricultural Commissioner’s Office (ACO)
The City’s draft ordinance has matured and has been refined from earlier drafts that the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office commented on. Staff has characterized the basic concerns of the Agricultural Commissioner’s office below:
• Ratios. The ACO recommends a 2:1 ratio for Prime Farmlands and 1.5:1 for Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance. • Agricultural Buffers. The ACO prefers clear and specific language that 200 feet be required for buffers.
• The County’s Ag Mitigation Program (Draft) requires proof of Good Faith Effort with definition making not less than two attempts to purchase an ag conservation easement at the appraised market value. County ACO recommends the same strategy.
• The ACO’s office asked what acreage was anticipated to be exempted from mitigation for affordable housing. The County AGO recommends all areas of loss (to) farmland mitigated with no minimum size (exempted).
• The ACO questioned several definitions. What does physical conversion mean and what is the definition of protected soils?
• The ACO questioned whether a 5-mile radius of the City to find comparable mitigation land was too restrictive. This may be too restrictive of an area to find conservation land.
As discussed ahead in the REVIEW AND ANALYSIS, the City of Gonzales’s new Ordinance 12.150 engages these matters.
County Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) • HCD concurs with the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office’s comments on the City’s Draft Ag Mitigation Ordinance.
As discussed ahead in the REVIEW AND ANALYSIS, the City of Gonzales’s new Ordinance 12.150 engages these matters.
Development Interests (Pembrook Development - Received 03/22/2023) Suggested language adjustments, inclusions or deletions from Pembrook Development include:
• Revising the first sentence of Section 11.150.040A to read “The City shall require agricultural mitigation as a condition of approval of any development project or discretionary land use approval that proposes conversion of prime agricultural land or agricultural land of statewide importance to a non-agricultural use, regardless of the land use designation or zoning applicable to the land.”
• Because alternative mitigation is permitted by the Ordinance, we recommend striking the last clause of Section 12.150.010H which suggests that all conversion will be mitigated by the acquisition of agricultural mitigation easements.
• Section 12.150.040B4 permits the payment of in-lieu fees as mitigation for the conversion of agricultural land. We recommend making two revisions to this Section. o First, we recommend revising the first sentence of this Section to read “A development project may pay a fee to the City in an amount equivalent to the cost to provide and maintain an agricultural mitigation easement equivalent to the amount of land converted by the development project, in perpetuity.” Adding this language not only creates consistency with the language used in Sections 12.150.040D4 and D5, but it avoids any question of the in-lieu fees being 1:1 mitigation.
o Second, and more importantly, the last sentence of this Section states that the “Fees inlieu will be collected by the City and used for city-sponsored programs in support of agriculture.” As we believe this alternative is likely to be used for most development, we want to make sure that the City is not challenged on what “city-sponsored programs in support of agriculture” the in-lieu fees will be used for. As you know, in King and Gardiner Farms, LLC, v. County of Kern et al., (2020) (45 Cal.App.5th 814), the Court concluded that open-ended measures that fail to commit to specific mitigation is not effective mitigation for a project's conversion of agricultural land. So as to avoid this result, we recommend that the following clause be added to the last sentence: “including without limitation the acquisition of agricultural mitigation easements.” I believe this is the City's intent for use of the in-lieu fees, at least at this time. If the City determines that other options exist which mitigate the impact on agriculture, it should create a written policy/program to implement the mitigation, so as to avoid the effect of the foregoing case.
• Section 12.150.040D2 exempts the obligation to mitigate land which is being converted for a public use. We request that the City consider inserting it into this list, agricultural buffers. • Section 12.150.060C states that the acreage of land acquired for an agricultural mitigation easement must consist of “the same acreage” of land converted. We recommend revising the acreage requirement to “not less than” the acreage of land converted. First, it may be extremely difficult to find the “exact same acreage” of agricultural mitigation easement land. Second, the City has provided for the collection of mitigation credits which will only happen if the acreage of agricultural mitigation easement land acquired is greater than that which is required. Given the goal is to create as many agricultural mitigation easements as possible, it does not make sense to reject an agricultural mitigation easement simply because the total acreage is more than required to mitigate the land being converted.
• Section 12.150.080 presently requires that all mitigation proposed by an applicant be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. We recommend that Subsection 12.150.080A be revised to exempt the payment of in-lieu fees and Subsection
12.150.080C be revised to reflect issuance by the City of a letter stating that mitigation is complete as the result of payment of in-lieu fees. So that it is clear when mitigation is complete by the payment of in-lieu fees, we also recommend that the second sentence of Subsection
12.150.080D2 be revised to read “However, if the applicant purchases mitigation credits, pays an in-lieu fee, or elects to seek approval of an alternative mitigation option, mitigation shall be deemed complete when the City provides the applicant with a letter indicating that mitigation is complete.”
As discussed ahead in the REVIEW AND ANALYSIS, the City of Gonzales’s new Ordinance 12.150 engages these matters.
Concerned Citizen:
On Monday March 27, 2023, concerned citizen Mike Novo shared the below history, comments, and suggestions. Mr. Novo speaks from his present involvement with the Agricultural Land Trust of Monterey, as well as his many years of participation with the Monterey County Planning Department and professional interactions with the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, farmers, property owners and citizens of the County.
• The City of Gonzales, while we were crafting the MOU between the County and the City, agreed that we should have a single ordinance draft for the Salinas Valley (County and Cities). The City actually was going to take the lead, but that never happened. The County’s ordinance is pretty far along and has significant input through public meetings, including the Ag Advisory Committee. The city should craft this ordinance to be consistent with all the others in the Salinas Valley and should participate in the County effort. They have yet to finalize a concept for annexations, so now is the time to work with them.
• Timing of mitigation should occur early. The cost should come off the balance sheet relating to the purchase from the landowner to the developer. The cost of ag mitigation should come off the land value, so less value for the landowner. If you push it off to later in the process, it will be on the books of the developer and drive up the cost of housing, which is the opposite of what everyone is trying to achieve.
• The City needs to keep in mind that the agricultural economy is what drives the County economy and, therefore, the City’s as well. The cities need to be very cognizant of preserving this economy, which provides jobs, related businesses, service, and retail businesses, etc. • The value/cost of the mitigation must be established in real time with the mitigation occurring. The value must be established by an appraiser who has experience in valuing agricultural easements (speculative value of ag land). And that appraisal must be done at the time the mitigation is occurring.
• CEQA requires all feasible mitigation. It is feasible to mitigate for farmland loss through conservation easements. That is proven over and over. Any funds used for non-agricultural preservation purposes, such as supporting education, should at most be a small proportion of the mitigation, and better would be supplemental to preserving ag land. • Mitigation ratios recommended by the Ag Advisory Committee is 2:1 for prime land. I support reducing that ratio to 1:1 for land that would form the urban edge of the city.
As discussed ahead in the REVIEW AND ANALYSIS, the City of Gonzales’s new Ordinance 12.150 engages these matters.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The Analysis and Review section ahead has been organized according to the following conventions:
• Introduction To The Structure And Provisions Of The New Ordinance. • Response To Comments Received, with staff responses and suggestions. • The Environmental Determination.
• Anticipated Benefits of New Ordinance 12.150
Introduction To The Structure And Provisions Of The New Ordinance.
The draft ordinance is organized with recitals up front (often referred to as, “the Whereases”) that tell the foundation, reasoning and need for the new legislation. Following the recitals, the draft ordinance itself (new City Code) is introduced in a format very close to how it will appear in the municipal code, as below:
CHAPTER 12.150 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE MITIGATION
12.150.010 - Purpose and Findings
12.150.020 - Title of Ordinance
12.150.030 - Definitions
12.150.040 - Mitigation Obligation
12.150.050 - Reserved
12.150.060 - Requirements for Agricultural Mitigation Easements
12.150.070 - Requirements for Qualified Entities
12.150.080 - Approval and Completion
12.150.090 - Miscellaneous
This draft agricultural resource mitigation ordinance (Attachment 2) represents the culmination of efforts anticipated in the City’s 2010 General Plan, the 2014 MOA with the County of Monterey, staff work, and the several year’s efforts of the City of Gonzales Agricultural Advisory Committee and Planning Commission. With respect to all parties and interests to date, several of the notable features of the ordinance are called out below. The draft ordinance:
• Defines relevant definitions used in the document.
• Describes when the ordinance comes into play for a development project. (Conversion of Land). • Describes what mitigation is available to implement. (Required Mitigation: 5 options) • Describes who is responsible for mitigation. (Development Project Applicants) • Describes exemptions (Very Low and Low-Income housing, Public Uses, and City Projects) • Describes how mitigation may be calculated, purchased in-lieu, or negotiated. • Describes the quality and character of appropriate mitigation and proximity to the City of Gonzales.
• Describes the qualifications to be an entity trusted with agricultural mitigation and monitoring. • Describes approval and completion of mitigation.
The Planning Commission has recommended the adoption of the attached Draft Ordinance (Attachment 2) in full. Staffs presentation to the City Council will review key components of the draft ordinance but not every page.
Response to Comments received.
Of the public comments as described above, these can be characterized by several recurring concerns and issues:
• Appraisals and the determination of value for Development Restrictions/ Agricultural Easements.
o The City will be developing an in-lieu fee calculation we can adopt that is indexed according to trade and trend norms and then proscribe a dollar figure when developers propose to impact protected agricultural lands with non-agricultural development. We intend for this “calculation determination” work to include a subcontracted specialist in agricultural appraisal. Such an In-lieu fee (Agricultural lands impact compensation) once determined will later be grouped with updates to the City’s Impact Fee schedule reviewed and approved biennially by City Council. Land areas set aside for exempted affordable housing types or public uses as described in the ordinance are not required to mitigate.
• Consistency with the County’s consideration of requiring 2-acre to 1-acre (2:1) ratio and 1.5- acre to 1-acre ratios for differing grades of protected agricultural lands. o Agricultural Mitigation ratios are already built into the 2014 MOA with the County of Monterey and agreed upon by both parties. There is no need to modify the proposed Agricultural Resource Mitigation Ordinance Section 12.150. • Agricultural Buffers.
o Agricultural buffers are already built into the 2010 City f Gonzales General Plan and there is no need to modify the proposed Agricultural Resource Mitigation Ordinance Section 12.150. New Developments under review, subject to the interface with existing and continued agricultural uses are required to demonstrate an agricultural buffer. Such buffer areas that continue agricultural uses and other described uses identified for public purposes in the ordinance will not be required to mitigate. • Prime Soils vs all agricultural lands.
o The request to clarify applicability to Prime Farmlands and Farmlands of Statewide Importance is noted. The City purposely broadened the applicability (and dropped the specificity of “Prime, etc.) to include all agricultural lands, to be unambiguous.
Additionally, within the City’s Sphere of Influence and anticipated growth boundaries, there really aren’t any marginal soils.
• How In-lieu fees are to be used by the City of Gonzales. o The new ordinance and the 2014 MOA speak to how the City can and will use fees in-lieu of development interests securing easements themselves. ▪ Per Section 12.150.040 B 4 of the draft new ordinance, in-lieu fees will be collected and deposited into the Agricultural Impact Mitigation Fund. Fees inlieu will be collected by the City and used for city-sponsored programs in support of agriculture.
▪ Per the 2014 MOA negotiated 10 years ago with the County:
□ Section 6.3.6 Any agricultural mitigation fees assessed and collected by the City pursuant to its Agricultural Land Conservation Program may, in the City's sole discretion and reasonably acceptable to the County, be applied to activities designed to preserve and promote agriculture and the agricultural industry in the Greater Gonzales Area, including but not limited to:
a. Scientific research for addressing agriculture's needs (e.g., food safety). Entities applying for research funding could include universities, colleges, research think tanks, nonprofits, industry/business, government, and schools;
b. Increased agricultural educational programs in the Gonzales Unified School District;
c. Purchase of permanent agricultural buffers to alleviate potential physical conflicts between existing or planned agricultural uses (either within or outside the UGB/SOI and urban land uses planned within the UGB/SOI;
d. Economic programs developed to expand markets for local agricultural products;
e. Programs promoting careers in agriculture;
f. Contributions to non-profit associations dedicated to agricultural education, promotion, or preservation.
g. Funds for the acquisition of agricultural easements outside the City UGB/SOI.
• Requested Edits to the Ordinance
o 12.150.010 H – Purpose and Findings.
▪ A comment was made by Pembrook Development (above) that this Purpose and Finding Statement #H. appears to suggest that all agricultural conversion will be mitigated by the acquisition of agricultural mitigation easements. They suggest striking the last sentence, “This Chapter mandates that mitigation.” ▪ Staff concurs because the ordinance is written with 5 options for development interests to choose from. Revised 12.150.010 H – Purpose and Findings would now read:
□ “To balance these competing public purposes, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the people of the City to allow some conversion of agricultural land to proceed, but to also require that such conversion be accompanied by mitigation that provides increased protection for other, comparable agricultural land proximate to the City.” o 12.150.040 B 4 Pay a fee in-lieu of preserving agricultural land. ▪ A comment was made by Pembrook Development above that 12.150.040 B permits the payment of in-lieu fees as mitigation for the conversion of agricultural land equivalent to the cost to provide and maintain an agricultural easement in perpetuity. Pembrook suggests that this would negate the ability of the City to collect additional mitigation fees and credits to build the Mitigation Bank anticipated in the Ordinance. Pembrook suggests that two changes be made. Staff concurs that the City should be allowed and equipped to collect additional mitigation fees if offered and that final language in the ordinance should not be an impediment to such.
▪ Staff offers the following minor and non-consequential edits to now have Section
12.150.040 B 4 Pay a fee in-lieu of preserving agricultural land read:
□ “A development project may pay a fee to the City in an amount equivalent to the cost or greater to provide and maintain an agricultural mitigation easement in perpetuity.”
▪ Additionally, Pembrook’s concern that using fees to have the city secure agricultural easements should be clearly specified. Staff’s response is that such a use of City collected in lieu fees have already been specified and agreed to in the 2014 MOA as describe herein and above for:
□ c) Purchase of permanent agricultural buffers to alleviate potential physical conflicts between existing or planned agricultural uses (either within or outside the UGB/SOI and urban land uses planned within the UGB/SOI; and
□ g) Funds for the acquisition of agricultural easements outside the City UGB/SOI.
o 12.150.040 D 2 – Exemptions.
▪ A comment was made that Section 12.150.040 D2 describes that land which is being converted for a public use, as described, exempts the obligation to mitigate for those uses. The request is to consider inserting into this list, agricultural buffers.
▪ While staff sees merit in this consideration, and that agricultural buffers may include the public land uses described as exemptions for schools, parks trails, etc., not all agricultural buffer proposals that could be considered need to have such public purposes. Potentially a corporate yard, or street right of way, or some other land use convention that does not compromise the continued adjacent agricultural uses could be proposed.
▪ Staff believes adding “agricultural buffers” to these exemptions in 12.150.040 D2 may confuse matters for situations where a buffer stays in private hands and is not public. No change is recommended.
o 12.150.060 C REQUIREMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL MITIGATION EASEMENTS.
▪ A request above was that, “Section 12.150.060C states that the acreage of land acquired for an agricultural mitigation easement must consist of “the same acreage” of land converted. We recommend revising the acreage requirement to “not less than” the acreage of land converted.”
▪ Staff concurs and support the following minor and non-consequential edits to now have Section 12.150.060 C read.
□ “C. Agricultural mitigation easements shall be comprised of the type and quality of soil comparable to the agricultural land converted and shall consist of a minimum of the same acreage of land converted and may include more.
o 12.150.080 A, C, and D - APPROVAL AND COMPLETION
▪ A request above was that Section 12.150.080 A, C, and D that presently requires that all mitigation proposed by an applicant be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council, be revised to exempt the payment of in-lieu fees and Subsection 12.150.080C be revised to reflect issuance by the City of a letter stating that mitigation is complete as the result of payment of in-lieu fees.
▪ Staff believes the present language in 12.150.080 A, C and D to be sufficient and does not recommend modification.
□ Agricultural Mitigation will be fleshed out with each tentative map proposed and such maps pass through both the Planning Commission and City Council.
□ Following a tentative map approval by the City Council, applicants are charged with completing mitigation and the conditions of approval necessary to satisfy a ministerial approval of a Final Map at the City Council.
□ When agricultural mitigation has been completed to the satisfaction of the City (staff now) through either of the 5 options or combinations thereof, the City will issue a letter indicating that mitigation is complete.
In looking forward to the Alternatives available to the City Council, the Council may 1) act to approve the Ordinance as recommended by the City of Gonzales Planning Commission (Attachment 2), or 2) may approve the minor and non-consequential clarifications and adjustments to the Ordinance that staff has presented responding to Public Comment and review (Attachment 3).
Should the Council wish to explore broader changes not considered by the Planning Commission, the Council may continue the item and return the draft Ordinance to the Planning Commission for them to engage broader policy or technical matters. Such an action may frustrate the City’s Specific Plan development interests and delay the processing of environmental review and could constrain conversations between Pembrook Development and potential builders.
The Environmental Determination.
Significant environmental consideration for impacts to Agricultural resources have transpired over the course of the City’s General Plan process in 2010, the negotiations with County in 2014 as embodied in the MOA and since. This ordinance is implemented at a programmatic level for impacts to agriculture, which have had CEQA review under the 2010 General Plan EIR, the 2014 MOA and the Sphere of Influence Amendment Environmental Addendum, and these documents are hereby incorporated and included by reference (Attachment 4). Furthermore, none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 are applicable to the proposed ordinance.
Additionally, the proposed Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) on the grounds that it can be seen with certainty that the proposed Ordinance will not have a significant, adverse effect on the environment, and implements requirements already mandated by law. Supplementally, the city further finds and determines that the proposed Ordinance is also subject to a Class 8 Categorical Exemption per CEQA Guidelines Section 15308, as it consists of actions taken by the City as a regulatory agency, as authorized and mandated by State law (and the 2014 MOU), to assure the protection of the environment through enhanced requirements for the conversion of protected agricultural resources.
Anticipated Benefits of New Ordinance 12.150
❖ Passing the ordinance follows through on our commitment to Monterey County in our joint Memorandum of Understanding Agreement to ensure the landscape of the Salinas Valley continues to support agriculture through City-centered growth. ❖ Gonzales has taken a leadership role in becoming the first Salinas Valley jurisdiction to have its own local agricultural mitigation ordinance and is an active participant in Monterey County’s efforts to adopt a similar measure.
❖ Adoption of the ordinance codifies the City’s commitment to ensure agriculture remains our key economic driver, while allowing for much needed residential and commercial growth to occur in our City.
❖ The ordinance strengthens our commitment to Monterey County LAFCo that the City is in keeping with LAFCo policies to ensure the protection of farmland as we move forward on our annexation projects.
❖ The ordinance has been crafted with significant public participation and involvement, bringing together community stakeholders with important perspectives on the needs of the region. ❖ This step is a major commitment of the City of Gonzales to preserve and protect significant prime agricultural lands surrounding our community while ensuring the availability of the City to meet its State-mandated housing demands.
❖ This ordinance ensures that the City prioritizes the development of affordable housing in its future growth plans, including farmworker housing by exempting it from these requirements. ❖ Gonzales is the home of significant agricultural support facilities that provide many local jobs to our residents. Preservation of local agriculture will support our local businesses and improve our local economy.
❖ Our ordinance recognizes the valuable importance of the support infrastructure such as the cooler, processing and packaging facilities required to ensure the viability of the agriculture industry as a whole.
❖ Adoption of the ordinance will support local education efforts in Gonzales for agriculture programs, such as those addressed in Section 6.3.6 of the 2014 MOA with the County:
o Any agricultural mitigation fees assessed and collected by the City pursuant to its Agricultural Land Conservation Program may, in the City's sole discretion and reasonably acceptable to the County, be applied to activities designed to preserve and promote agriculture and the agricultural industry in the Greater Gonzales Area, including but not limited to:
▪ Scientific research for addressing agriculture's needs (e.g., food safety). Entities applying for research funding could include universities, colleges, research think tanks, nonprofits, industry/business, government, and schools; ▪ Increased agricultural educational programs in the Gonzales Unified School District;
▪ Purchase of permanent agricultural buffers to alleviate potential physical conflicts between existing or planned agricultural uses (either within or outside the UGB/SOI and urban land uses planned within the UGB/SOI; ▪ Economic programs developed to expand markets for local agricultural products; ▪ Programs promoting careers in agriculture;
▪ Contributions to non-profit associations dedicated to agricultural education, promotion, or preservation.
▪ Funds for the acquisition of agricultural easements outside the City UGB/SOI.
Explain the Recommendation and How it Supports the Vision Gonzales will continue to be a safe, clean, family-friendly community, diverse in its heritage, and committed to working collaboratively to preserve and retain its small-town charm.
Explanation: Adoption of an Ordinance adding new Chapter 12.150 – Agricultural Resource Mitigation to Title 12 – Zoning Regulations, Part 5, Regulations Applying in All Districts, will facilitate the continued primacy of agricultural land uses in the City and region, while reducing financial impediments to providing affordable new housing in the City’s expected new incorporation areas.
Explain how the Recommendation Directly Implements the Mission The City Council and staff of the City of Gonzales will realize our Vision by providing the leadership, commitment, and resources necessary to provide excellent services that enhance the quality of life of our diverse community.
Explanation: While this is an Ordinance about agricultural resource mitigation, and it does provide for such, the City is moving forward boldly by exempting those land areas to be laid out and constructed with Very Low Income Housing and Low Income Housing (30% of residential Unit counts in new maps) as well as exempting those areas to be configured for public uses in keeping with the City’s focus on health in all policies and providing new and necessary amenities for our citizens, old and new.
City services will be delivered in a cost-effective, respectful, and friendly manner to ensure the safety and well-being of the residents and the promotion of business, recreational, housing and employment opportunities in an environmentally sustainable manner.
Explanation: Conventions of the 2014 MOA negotiated with the County of Monterey 10 years ago, and the conventions of New Ordinance 12.150 allow great flexibility in how the City may use in-lieu fees to implement an Agricultural Land Conservation Program for development of land within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary/Sphere of Influence.
Strong fiscal policies allow us to provide appropriate infrastructure for:
• Public Safety X Yes No N/A
• Housing X Yes No N/A
• Recreation X Yes No N/A
• Environment X Yes No N/A
• Education X Yes No N/A
Explanation: Refer to the explanation written above for the Vision and Mission.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may wish to:
1) Adopt the recommended Ordinance as forwarded by the Planning Commission, Attachment #2; or
2) Adopt the modified and enhanced Ordinance as improved through public comment and staff edits, Attachment #3; or
3) Should the Council wish to explore broader changes not considered by the Planning Commission, the Council may continue the item and return the draft Ordinance to the Planning Commission for them to engage in broader policy or technical matters.
BUDGET IMPACT
Staff will be requesting a small contract through the City Council to perform the agricultural appraisals necessary to establish an appropriate and indexed fee in-lieu of agricultural easement mitigation.
Once adopted and implemented and should a development interest wish to deposit/pay fees in lieu of securing actual and immediate agricultural easements on comparable property, the City will need to configure an Agricultural Impact Fund in keeping with General Plan Implementing Action COS 4.3.3, structured to purchase agricultural easements on lands shown on the Land Use Diagram as adjacent to but outside the General Plan Growth Area boundary. Such fund will also be the repository the City may draw from to further the activities designed to preserve and promote agriculture and the agricultural industry in the Greater Gonzales Area as described in the 2014 MOA with the County of Monterey
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council:
• Receive the staff report;
• Open the public hearing to receive and consider public comment; • Close the public hearing and;
• Introduce, waive reading and read by title only Ordinance No. 2023-136, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gonzales adding new Chapter 12.150 – Agricultural Resource Mitigation to Title 12 – Zoning Regulations, Part 5, Regulations Applying in All Districts (Attachment 3).
Attachments:
1. 2014 MOA w/ the County of Monterey
2. Ordinance No. 2023-136 as recommended by Planning Commission
3. Ordinance No. 2023-136 as enhanced through public review and clarified
4. Hyperlinks for CEQA References
5. Proof of Publication