Exhibit “B”
Public Correspondence Received
From: [email protected]
To: Paul Bernal
Subject: Ag Preservation Ordinance
Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:38:59 PM
Good Afternoon Paul,
I attended the March 5, 2023 presentation on the Ag Preservation Ordinance and reviewed the ordinance and would like to offer the following comments:
First, Section 18.04.060 (C)(1)(b) states that the property can be excluded if it either hasn't been farmed for four consecutive years or is not on the soil list.
My first reading was that
use of the word "either" is confusing.
Perhaps it should say "one of both of the following."
I
would also like to know whether the Director can make this decision based on information submitted, or if it must go to the Department of Conservation.
It would be clearer if there
was a description of when the Department of Conservation would be required to concur.
b. Acreage that may be designated as prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance on the most recent Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) map published by the California Department of Conservation but does not meet either of the following standards. Documents demonstrating compliance with either or both standards, shall be submitted to the Director for evaluation and determination, which may include concurrence from the Department of Conservation.
1. Land Use. The land is not currently and has not been used for irrigated agricultural production for a minimum of four consecutive calendar
years.
2. Soils. The soil type is not listed on the Soil Candidate Listing for Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance for Tulare
County, as maintained by the Department of Conservation for
purposes of the FMMP.
Second, the current Department of Conservation Farmland Finder maps have not been updated since 2018. They are supposed to be updated every two years, so in using these maps, without additional consideration for exclusions, is relying on outdated information.
Perhaps there should be another mechanism if those maps are outdated.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed ordinance.
Darlene Mata
March 27, 2023
Paul Bernal
Community Development Director
City of Visalia
315 East Acequia Avenue
Visalia CA 93291
Re: Comment letter on Draft Agricultural Preservation Ordinance_02_24_2023, presented to Visalia City Council on March 6, 2023
Dear Mr. Bernal,
The Central Valley Partnership is dedicated to achieving social, racial, environmental and economic justice in the San Joaquin Valley. We recognize land use policies as an important aspect of our mission, especially related to farmland preservation, infill development and the promotion of smart growth principles.
On March 6, 2023, the Visalia City Council received a staff presentation and provided direction on a draft Agricultural Preservation Ordinance (APO) to implement an Agricultural Mitigation Program as outline in its General Plan Policy LU-P-34. While the overall draft APO is sound, there are a few provisions that are cause for concern as they present potential loopholes or are vague enough to threaten effective implementation.
Here are a few of the most noteworthy concerns that we identified:
Article 1. Program Requirements
Section 18.04.060 Applicability
C. Exclusions
1. Farmland Designation
Subsection b1. Land Use – The policy related to “exclusions” from a Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance under this section appears to allow deference to Visalia’s Community Development Director for “evaluation and determination” related to whether the farmland may be in compliance with the California Department of Conservation’s assessment of prime farmland. Of particular concern is subsection #1b1, which appears to allow for exclusion if, “The land is not currently and has not been used for irrigated agricultural production for a minimum of four consecutive calendar years.”
By appearing to allow exclusion for lands that have been fallowed is not sufficient to negate the need for them to be included for mitigation for their loss. Even more problematic, such an exemption opens a loophole for landowners to stop irrigating a few years prior to plans to develop land as an attempt to avoid mitigating for the loss of these farmlands. Even without irrigation, the productive capacity of the soils is still present, and some fallowing practices can even improve the productive capacity of farmland.
In any case, such an exclusion of these non-irrigated lands for a mere four years is not warranted and threatens the integrity of the overall policy.
Article 3. Methods of Preservation
Section 18.04.080 Acquisition of Agricultural Conservation Easement B. Eligibility of Land for Easement
1. “The preserved land shall be located in the southern San Joaquin Valley, with preference afforded to preserved land located within 10 miles of the City limits.” During the presentation of the draft APO, some city council members questioned whether the 10 mile preference for preserving land be given, some seemed to prefer land that was outside of Tulare County. Ideally, such a preference will be retained and emphasize farmland preservation of properties that are proximate to the threatened farmlands located near urbanized centers just outside their spheres of influence. This distinction – of mitigating for the development value of land as well as for its soil characteristics – is also vitally important to establishing the conservation easement value of the farmland being mitigated for under the future APO. At the least, it makes sense that Visalia should seek to make investments in farmland preservation available to Tulare County farmers first and as a priority.
Section 18.04.090 Payment of In-Lieu Fee
B. Determination of Fee
This section of the draft APO is unclear. Already with the in-lieu fee being determined on a case- by-case basis there is a heightened need for specificity and policy direction, which is attempted in subsection #1: “The purchase price of an agricultural conservation easement, which shall equal 35 percent of the average price per acre of three comparable lands as confirmed through submittal of an appraisal report prepared by a licensed appraiser…”
This definition of comparable lands needs clearer definition, particularly associating it with similar soil quality of the farmland being lost to developed, and with the establishment of a mitigation value that accounts for the proximity of farmland in relationship to proximity to the city. In order to purchase agricultural conservation easements of similar characteristics to farmland that is being lost to development, the value of these farmlands needs to account for their higher valuation due to urbanized pressure. In turn, it will be possible to mitigate for like properties to the farmland being consumed.
The Visalia Agricultural Preservation Ordinance of 2023 is a starting point from which future, more robust policies can be enacted in coming years. Given that the establishment of an Agricultural Mitigation Program on a 1:1 ratio of one acre of preserved land for each acre of converted land as a benchmark, it roughly equates to the loss of fifty percent of all farmland in the region. Such losses of farmland threaten the economic and ecological integrity of the region.
With Southern California as a cautionary example, we hope that the city’s APO policy can be strengthened in future years. It is also important that this current policy be established with strong foundations so that it may be emulated by other cities in Tulare County, a task that will also be addressed in subsequent general plan advocacy at those municipalities.
Sincerely,
Daniel O’Connell
Executive Director
Central Valley Partnership
From: Skip Moss
To: Paul Bernal
Subject: Draft Agricultural Preservation Ordinance Comments Date: Monday, March 27, 2023 10:11:06 PM
Attachments: image001.png
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Mr. Bernal,
We would like to provide comments on the City of Visalia’s Draft Agricultural Preservation Ordinance (“Ordinance”). Natural Resources Group, Inc. is a local company, headquartered in Clovis, CA, that provides mitigation to help offset impacts to many different resources, including losses of farmland.
First, we would like to commend the City on taking an important step in helping to preserve the San Joaquin Valley’s rich agricultural heritage.
In reviewing the City’s proposed ordinance, we wanted to share a couple of thoughts as a mitigation “practitioner”, with decades of experience helping project proponents fulfill their mitigation requirements.
Location of Mitigation: The Ordinance in Article 3, Sect. 18.04.080, B.1, states that a preference be afforded to preserved land located within 10 miles of the City limits. Locating the preservation proximally to the lost resource may help the City achieve open space buffers between neighboring communities, but the implementation of geographic restrictions (even preferences) should be implemented with caution. Geographic restrictions often cause the price of preservation within those area to increase. This is because lands within this boundary will immediately be perceived as having additional value or a lack of supply (or perceived lack of supply) will drive price increases that are not in keeping with regional pricing trends. If the price to implement the Ordinance begins to inhibit the ability for the City to achieve other public goals, then it may be difficult for the City to achieve its objective of finding “balance”.
The preserved farmland should ideally be located in areas that fulfill the Ordinances other objectives; protecting the regional economy and protecting agricultural lands from urban encroachment.
In-Lieu Fee Program: In-Lieu Fee Programs (“ILF”) are a common tool used to offset impacts when more common approaches (like easement acquisition) are difficult or infeasible. The less than 20-acre threshold for participation in the ILF (Article3, Sect. 18.04.090, A.1) would allow smaller projects to mitigate, where they might have difficulty finding a willing seller of such a small acreage easement. The criteria described in Article3, Sect. 18.04.090, A.2, provide a relief mechanism when a project proponent is having difficulty sourcing preservation opportunities. Both conditions for using the ILF highlight why ILF programs can be very difficult to successfully implement. ILF’s effectively transfer the liability for finding suitable ag preservation from the project proponent, to the City – but the circumstances that created the need for the ILF, may then be encountered by the City as it looks to protect land with the collected fees. ILF programs, especially those implemented by cities and counties, often struggle to acquire sufficient lands to fulfill their commitments. If regional land values are appreciating, the fees collected are almost immediately insufficient to meet those commitments – especially if acquisition lags fee-collection for any significant amount of time.
ILF’s are a valuable conservation tool, but programs like “farmland mitigation banks” may fulfill a similar role and not expose the City to the liability of having to implement the preservation.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the City of Visalia’s Draft Agricultural Preservation Ordinance. We would be happy to answer any questions the City might have, or provide specific examples related to the comments above. We look forward to working with the City in its ongoing effort to protect the San Joaquin Valley’s agricultural heritage.
Thank you,
~Skip Moss
President l Natural Resources Group, Inc.
Richard “Skip” Moss
Natural Resources Group, Inc.
559.804.9833
[email protected]
www.natural-resources-group.com
February 2023
Visalia Municipal Code
Title 18. Agricultural Land Preservation
QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
18.04.090 (B)3. Payment of In-Lieu Fee, Determination of Fee:
The term “perpetuity” with respect to this provision is tied to the lifetime of the easement. If the term “perpetuity,” on the other hand, applied to the life of the easement--“a restriction making an estate inalienable perpetually or for a period beyond certain limits fixed by law,” i.e., for as long as the easement exists, then, the provisions for monitoring, administering and enforcing the easement would terminate upon expiration of the easement. For the purpose of clarification, therefore, the Ordinance needs to specify whether qualified easements must be permanent or if they may be merely long term.
18.04.060 (B)3. Applicability, Exemptions, Prior Compliance:
Are such projects exempt because a previous project on the site either had obtained an agricultural easement still in effect or paid an in-lieu fee? Please explain and provide examples of projects on sites that have demonstrated compliance
18.04.060 (C)1.b.1&2 Applicability, Exclusions, Farmland Designation, Land Use and/or Soils:
Why should the ordinance exempt projects proposed on prime farmland that have for any reason been out of production for four years or longer? Isn't fallowed land generally more productive than land planted every year? Why exclude any land suitable for agriculture regardless of its history? Has the City identified such land within its Urban Development Boundaries? Why not require the Director to request validation of a claim of exemption on the basis of soil type?
18.04.060 (C)2 Applicability, Exclusions, Project Type or Use:
What are the justifications for prioritizing each of the specified project types over the value of farmland preservation?
*Affordable Housing
*Agricultural processing Isn't off-site food/fiber processing considered an industrial use? *Agricultural buffers Please explain this kind of project, the likely proponents, locations & legal instrument used to converted farmland into “permanent” vegetation. *Public facilities
*Roadways Please give examples of roadway projects and potential applicants. Do these include streets internal to subdivisions?
18.04.080(B)1. Acquisition of Agricultural Conservation Easement, Eligibility of Land for Easement:
Why shouldn't easements be located within a city's sphere of influence, since the City's objective is to preserve farmlands from the effects of urban encroachment? Isn't this provision assuring the encroachment of urban development far beyond the City's urban development boundaries? Certain members of the Council expressed an interest at the second public workshop in assuring unincumbered urban encoachment by exporting its preservation responsibilies far beyond any conceivable future development planning area.
18.04.080(D)1. Acquisition of Agricultural Conservation Easement, Approval of Easement:
Isn't there potential for abuse if the responsibility for reviewing the form of easements for consistency is delegated to a private party?
18.04.110 (A)1.b. Compliance Review:
I don't understand this provision: Is the project applicant who is eligible to pay an in-lieu fee able to break ground within three years of making an in-lieu fee payment or not until three years or less have passed after making such payment? When is the obligation satisfied “if the in-lieu fee is [not] used to acquire an agricultural conservation easement?”
There needs to be provisions in the ordinance to retroactively subject projects to its requirements which are located in Tier II and which were unlawfully approved in violation of the Agricultural Preservation Mitigation Measures in the City’s General Plan. The ordinance should also include an appendix containing the list of those projects which is made available for public review prior to adoption by the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Don Manro
523 North O Street
Tulare CA 93274
427 South Garden Street - Visalia, California 93277
tel: 559.738.0211 - fax: 559.622.9477
[email protected] - www.sequoiariverlands.org
March 24, 2023
Paul Bernal, City Planner
The City of Visalia
315 E. Acequia
Visalia, CA 93291
Re. Visalia Municipal Code Title, 18 Agricultural Land Preservation, Chapter 18.04 Agricultural Land Preservation Program
Dear Mr. Bernal,
Sequoia Riverlands Trust (SRT) is a California Nonprofit Corporation public benefit corporation that has protected more than 43,300 acres of natural lands across the southern San Joaquin Valley through the establishment of nature preserves and of conservation easements on agricultural and other working lands. As an accredited land trust, SRT holds 75 conservation easements on approximately 26,000 acres of land—mainly working farms and ranches—as well as ten deed restrictions on 4,100 acres in and around the Carrizo Plain. SRT respectfully submits the following comments to the proposed Draft Agricultural Preservation Ordinance as submitted to the City Visalia Council on March 6, 2023, for your consideration;
Article 1. General Provisions
Section 18.04.020 Purpose and Intent
• SRT suggests the City of Visalia (City) consider including the option for the purchase of credits in an Agricultural Land Mitigation Bank as an acceptable form of mitigation.
Section 18.04.050 Definitions
• SRT suggests including a definition for Agricultural Land Mitigation Bank.
Article 2. Program Requirements
Section 18.04.070 Preservation Requirements
• B. Methods of Preservation
o SRT suggests including purchasing credit in an Agricultural Land Mitigation Bank as an acceptable requirement.
Article 3. Methods of Preservation
Section 18.04.080 Acquisition of Agricultural Conservation Easement
• B. Eligibility of Land for Easement
o SRT suggests that the applicant be the entity to certify in writing. The qualified entity does not have a contractual obligation or any protection.
• C. Terms of Easement
o 5. SRT suggests narrowing this requirement to any and all financial liens or financial encumbrances shall be subordinated to the conservation easement.
It would put an undue burden on the Landowner to obtain subordination for easement holders.
o 11. SRT suggests the City sign the Conservation Easement stating that it has satisfied the Agricultural Preservation Ordinance and is accepted to form.
• Additional term:
o SRT suggests the City consider allowing for Secondary Dwellings or Farm worker housing. Various Grant programs funded through, The California Department of Conservation for the protection of Agricultural lands require the conservation easement allow provide for this. For reference and consideration we have included the following as contained in the Round 9 Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Protection Program Draft Guidelines:
Additional Requirements and Considerations
Single Family Residences, Secondary Dwelling Units, and Farm Worker Housing
Each single-family residence reserved in the deed is limited to a maximum living area that is consistent with grantee’s policies, local building codes, and the surrounding neighborhood. The residence must not significantly impair the conservation purpose of the deed.
The California Legislature has enacted numerous policies to address the state’s shortage of housing, particularly affordable housing. Easements funded through this program shall not prohibit either secondary dwelling units or farmworker housing. Any easement restrictions on these dwellings cannot be more restrictive than California Government Code section 65852.2 or California Health and Safety Code section 17021.6, respectively.
Section 18.04.090 Payment of In-Lieu Fee
• A. Eligibility of In-Lieu Fee
o 2. b. & c. The applicant should be the entity required to certify in writing. The qualified entity does not have a contractual obligation or any protection.
• B. Determination of Fee
o 1. SRT suggests clarification as to what land is being appraised. Is the land subject to development the land required to be appraised as conserved with an agricultural conservation easement?
• C. Fee Approval and Remittance
o SRT suggests clarifying the transaction referred to in the sentence “Approval shall occur prior to transaction”.
• D. Use of Fee
o SRT suggests the reference to agricultural easement be revised to refer to conservation easements in plural.
Article IV Monitoring and Compliance
Section 18.04.100 Qualified Entity
• D. Monitoring and Reporting
o SRT suggests that this more generally require the qualified entity to conduct annual monitoring for compliance with easement conditions. The qualified entity shall submit their annual monitoring report on their usual form to the City before February 1 of the year. The report will also include a reporting of the stewardship endowment monies held, and any In-Lieu Fees for the purpose of meeting the requirement of this Ordinance.
Section 18.04.110 Compliance Review
• A. 1 b.
o Please clarify this paragraph.
Sequoia Riverlands Trust thanks you for your time and consideration. We look forward to working with the City of Visalia to protect and preserve our valuable agricultural lands, and please feel free to reach out to us for further consultation on this ordinance or on agricultural conservation easements in general.
Sincerely,
Logan Robertson-Huecker, PhD
Executive Director
737 North Ben Maddox Way • Visalia, CA 93292 • (559) 732-8301 • (559) 732-7029 FAX E-mail: [email protected] • Web: www.tulcofb.org • Join Farm Bureau: www.joinfb.org
March 24, 2023
City of Visalia Council Members
Attn: Paul Bernal
315 E. Acequia Avenue
Visalia, CA 93291
Dear Council Members, and Mr. Bernal:
Tulare County Farm Bureau is a tax exempt, non-governmental membership association representing more than 1,100 farmers and ranchers in Tulare County. We have long held the belief that agriculture mitigation is not a real solution for the protection of farmland. Easements held in perpetuity with the changing landscape of our industry, and particularly the uncertainty of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) laws creates significant concerns about how to implement an Ag Preservation Ordinance.
The face of California agriculture is changing rapidly. The industry is under constant threat, with onerous laws and regulations adding complexity and uncertainty to a landowner in determining their best practices for farming and remaining a viable business. Low commodity prices coupled with increasing labor costs, water costs, governmental regulations, and supply costs are contributing factors that makes farming risky and unpredictable. Whether the City re-initiates an agriculture preservation ordinance or not, these are facts, and the industry is having to make difficult choices about land use, in light of those issues. This clouds the discussion around whether agriculture mitigation in fact helps or hinders the long term preservation of farmland. The City of Visalia knows this well, and firsthand, with their own involvement in farming and land holdings of walnuts and pecans.
As much as weather is a variable, farming itself and commodities prices are cyclical too and dependent on a variety of factors. It should be acknowledged by the City and staff, that many of these changes are out of the hands of the landowners and farmers to control. One year they may be able to farm and the next they cannot. The City Council and it’s staff need to incorporate flexibility be able to make changes to the ordinance as the realities of farming changes year to year. Tulare County Farm Bureau is committed to helping ensure viability for farmers and ranchers, but protecting their ability to farm is under constant threat. It seems like an overburdensome request to preserve every acre of farmland within Tier II and III, when farmers are currently trying to simply preserve their livelihoods. Contemplating the need to permanently set aside land for preservation of farming, when other farmland may be idled or their ability to farm extinguished is challenging. President Dwight D.
Eisenhower once said, “Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you’re a thousand miles from the corn field.” Often times we see outside interests seeking to influence the ag preservation policy who have little to no knowledge of what it takes to make a farm and the land profitable.
In speaking with a local land appraiser, they offered, that the size of a property plays a key role in its ability to produce enough agricultural goods and services to constitute the economic feasibility of that property. In the local Tulare County market, parcels less than 20 acres in size have a different highest and best use than that of a 100-acre property. Properties under 20 acres are desirable in the market for rural residential development.
Rural residential properties tend to sell for higher prices than larger properties because the buyers are not purchasing these properties based on their agricultural income producing ability, but for their residential desires.
When it comes to farming, efficiencies are gained when the cost can be divided over a larger acreage. Small properties do not have this luxury and are not truly capable of producing enough income on a stand-alone basis to cover the basic input costs associated with farming. Therefore, small farms are not usually considered economically viable farming units. If a property that small is not considered economically viable, then why
TULARE COUNTY FARM BUREAU
Mission: to promote and enhance the viability of Tulare County agriculture.
should it be required to be preserved in perpetuity for agriculture? In order to preserve agriculture, it should first be determined that it is considered viable for agriculture. Consideration should be given to only preserving true agricultural properties, and not rural residential properties. Although there is not an industry standard on size, feasibility for production is usually much larger than 20 acres.
The following summary statements provide our suggested changes to the draft APO:
- The acreage threshold for mitigation should be set at 20 acres or more, a 5-acre project should not trigger the mitigation requirement. If preserved land should be a minimum of 20 contiguous acres in size, then 20-acre minimum should be standardized across the draft. - The 10-mile radius from town is not reasonable, it will unlikely be possible to locate land of suitable type to be sufficient to comply with the ag mitigation requirements. We recommend removing the 10-mile language.
- Considering the significant changes that SGMA is implementing now, requiring multiple sources of water for agriculture production will be a speculative and untenable situation that may result in the land not being farmable. It should be noted, that SGMA is changing agricultural land uses quicker than the State Dept. of Conservation’s FMMP can even track, and farmers are already having to fallow lands that lack sufficient water.
- The stipulations for using the in-lieu fee should be the same as the mitigation requirement, that it can be applied to land within the 5-county region identified. A landowner should be able to opt in to the in-lieu fee choice without having to incur additional costs to prove that an attempt has been made. - After consultation with local appraisers, the 35% of average price of three comparable parcels referenced under Determination of Fee seems arbitrary and unsupported. Easements are valued based on what rights the property owner is forfeiting. Depending on the location of the easement and the likelihood of development, an easement could cost anywhere from 5% to 50%, with most transactions closer to the lower end. The 35% seems to be an artificial number that could increase costs unnecessarily and hinder economic development for the City of Visalia.
- Utilizing the in-lieu fees solely for acquiring agricultural conservation easements burdens all Tulare County farmers. Instead, draft language should be modified or in-lieu fees earmarked to help the existing farmers to continue farming within the City’s urban development boundaries or sphere of influence. The entire purpose and intent of the Agricultural Land Preservation Program is to preserve prime agricultural land and what better way to do that than by assisting those who are farming. In-lieu fees should be used to help existing farmers within the City’s Sphere of Influence, to provide abatement and clean up services for trash dumping, rural crime, nuisance, trespass, and other challenges that exist for farmers at the edge of urban development.
Tulare County Farm Bureau was founded in 1917, right here in Visalia. We are a non-profit organization made up of agricultural producers in Tulare County who understand farming and ultimately rely on its success.
Our organization wants nothing more than to preserve prime farmland and continue to produce high-quality crops that provide food and fiber to more than 90 countries throughout the world, however, we feel strongly that this new ordinance is not helping to accomplish that goal. If you want to better understand the challenges facing farmers, specifically Visalia area farmers, please don’t hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
Tricia Stever Blattler
Executive Director