HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - July 12, 2005 SSCITY OF LODI
INFORMAL INFORMATIONAL MEETING
"SHIRTSLEEVE" SESSION
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2005
An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday,
July 12, 2005, commencing at 7:00 a.m.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Council Members — Hansen, Johnson, Mounce, and Mayor Beckman
Absent: Council Members — Hitchcock
Also Present: City Manager King, City Attorney Schwabauer, and City Clerk Blackston
B. TOPIC(S)
B-1 "Report on City of Lodi Centennial"
With the aid of an overhead presentation (filed), Jennifer Perrin, Deputy City Clerk, reported
that the 100"' anniversary date of the incorporation of the City of Lodi is on December 6,
2006. The primary focus of the City's centennial year celebration will be on Lodi's rich
history and community pride. Outside organizations, businesses, and civic groups will be
encouraged to endorse the centennial theme as part of their events in 2006. Ms. Perrin
suggested that a tree be planted at Lodi Lake on Arbor Day 2006 with a plaque marking the
dedication. The City Clerk's Office will promote contests encouraging school age children
to learn about Lodi's history. All departments will be asked to create a centennial event
unique to their functions in the City. A one -day open house of all City facilities is planned.
Jackie Taylor, Deputy City Clerk, suggested that an informal ad hoc committee be formed
as a volunteer base to begin gathering ideas, information, and materials. A January 2006
kick-off event will be held to announce plans for the year and unveil centennial banners on
City Hall. Centennial souvenirs may be sold on a break-even basis or as a fundraising tool.
It is suggested that at the first City Council meeting each month, birthday cake be offered
to those in attendance and announcements of upcoming events be made. In addition, a
display could be arranged in the Carnegie Forum of historical photos and memorabilia
focusing on City departments and their evolution in technology and service. Following the
December 6, 2006, City Council meeting and reorganization, the traditional City -hosted
reception could be expanded to a grand finale centennial celebration to include a birthday
cake with 100 candles. This would also be a good opportunity for group photos of past and
present council members and mayors. A centennial Web site, designed and maintained by
the City Clerk's Office, would feature a calendar of events, links to other information, and
post -event photos.
Council Member Hansen recommended that the Wall Dogs mural painting event planned for
Memorial Day weekend 2006, be incorporated in the centennial celebration. He suggested
that, rather than planting one tree, 100 trees be planted throughout the City on Arbor Day.
He cautioned against committing money toward the purchase of souvenirs for sale.
B-2 "Agricultural Land Mitigation Plans"
Joseph Wood, Acting -Community Development Director, reported that, typically,
Agricultural Land Mitigation Plans begin with a General Plan policy establishing the
program framework. An area is targeted for which it is desired to establish the set aside,
and a mechanism to enact the program is established. Generally, there is use of a
transferable development right or a conversion to preservation ratio. Many cities have a
simple ratio of "one acre used equals one acre conserved land" set aside. Some cities
Continued July 12, 2005
have also estimated a per acre fee. In the city of Livermore, for every acre developed, an
acre is set aside and for every unit developed on the land, another acre is set aside. If an
in -lieu fee is established, the value of the transferable development right would need to be
estimated through an economic study. Most cities estimate $3,000 to $6,000 per acre as
a base fee. Another issue is determining who will purchase the easements, e.g. the
developer, the city, or a land trust. Some agencies establish a right to farm ordinance,
preserving rights and abilities of agricultural interests, and providing for buffers between
residential development and agricultural space. Mr. Wood emphasized the importance of
making sure there is a viable interest in farming the land. In addition, it would be important
to obtain commitment from developers of the two major annexations underway to participate
in the future agricultural mitigation plan.
Council Member Hansen recommended that a ballot initiative related to this matter be
considered. He did not want to wait for the General Plan update to make progress on an
agricultural land mitigation plan. Fb felt that the most effective way to preserve land was
the "acre per acre" concept.
Mayor Beckman noted that he serves on the Habitat Conservation Plan board for the San
Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). It has found that there are very few property
owners willing to put a conservation easement on their land. SJCOG recently paid 80% of
the fair market value for land on which it placed a habitat conservation easement. The
Central Valley Farmland Trust is active in four counties and is also having difficulty seeking
farmers willing to put agricultural land conservation easements on their property. The cities
of Manteca, Lathrop, and Tracy all have ordinances related to this issue; however, they
have not yet set a fee amount.
Council Member Mounce recommended that if a sales tax measure is placed on the ballot
it should include a value that citizens will have to pay to create a greenbelt. Ms. Mounce,
Mayor Beckman, and Council Member Hansen voiced support for having the City Attorney
research options for drafting a ballot measure for agricultural land mitigation.
Mr. King advised that Council should first determine what it wants on the ballot. He offered
the following to consider: 1) would the "acre for acre" concept stymie development,
2) identify an area to acquire that everyone pools into, 3) identify property for which
developers and the community each pay an amount to acquire, and/or 4) should the
Greenbelt Task Force review this matter.
Council Member Mounce noted that the Chamber of Commerce had previously presented
an idea that the wine grape community supported. She suggested combining their idea
with having developers participate "acre for acre", along with citizens contributing an
amount. She felt that a Shirtsleeve Session to further define the issue and options would
be helpful.
Council Member Johnson suggested a quarter cent sales tax measure devoted toward
public safety, which would, in turn, free up City funds for other services.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
00 Pat Patrick, President of the Chamber of Commerce, pointed out that important
questions to be answered are: 1) where is Lodi going in the future, 2) what does the
City want to preserve, and 3) why. He emphasized that away needs to be found to
keep the orchards and vineyards profitable around Lodi. A plan needs to be formulated
that addresses economic development and continued revitalization of the downtown
area. He noted that Armstrong Road is a "strip," not a separator, and asked what it
would do for Lodi in the long-term economically. He questioned whether the Greenbelt
Task Force would be the appropriate body to pursue these matters, as it has not met
since last November.
2
Continued July 12, 2005
Mayor Beckman reported that three proposals will be made at the next Greenbelt Task
Force meeting from landowners along Armstrong Road.
oo Jeffrey Kirst voiced support for the Chamber of Commerce's program. He reminded
Council that there must be a balance for the development community that allows for
affordable housing, as well as other economic development in the community for
business.
C. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
None.
D. ADJOURNMENT
No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 a.m.
ATTEST:
Susan J. Blackston
City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM B-02
CITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
,m
AGENDA TITLE: AG Land Mitigation Plans
MEETING DATE: July 12, 2005 (Shirtsleeve Session)
PREPARED BY: Community Development Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Information only.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: There have been a number of cities throughout our region that are
in the process of developing or have already developed Ag Land
Mitigation Plans as of late. From the information that has been
gathered, there are three cities, Livermore, Gilroy, and Brentwood,
that have similar urban/ag issues as Lodi, that have either adopted or are in the process of adopting
similar plans. From my discussion with other local agencies that have been reviewing this subject in
preparing their plans, these three cities have been the focus of their review.
Livermore has two programs; one for South Livermore, the other for North Livermore. Gilroy's program
was adopted in May of 2004, so they've not yet implemented very much of the program yet. Brentwood's
program has not yet been adopted, but they have recently gone through a very thorough committee
process, which provides a very comprehensive background report that flushes out all of the issues
related to ag mitigation programs.
Very generally, each community has established a requirement that allows ag lands to be converted to
urban uses if a specified amount of additional ag land is put under a permanent conservation easement.
For Gilroy, the ratio is one-to-one; one acre must be put under conservation easement for each acre
converted to urban uses. The proposed Brentwood program is the same.
However, in South Livermore the requirement is more rigorous. In addition to requiring one acre under
easement for each acre developed, it also requires that an additional acre be put under easement for
each dwelling unit built. The South Livermore program has been completely implemented, resulting in
about 1220 units, 460 acres developed, and 1950 acres put under conservation easements that the
property owner, local land trust, and the City are a party to. For North Livermore, a voter initiative
established a transferable development rights (TDR) program.
From the information provided through our planning consultant, TDR programs seem to be the best
mechanism for preserving ag land if the area to be preserved is outside the corporate limits or Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB). TDRs also serve as a good tool because they address the takings issue by
giving the ag owner a means to sell his right to develop, even it he's not designated for urban
development, and still maintains full ownership and operation of his property as a farm. Many
communities around the country use TDRs in this manner.
APPROVED:
Blair King, City Manager
Generally, the AG land mitigation programs all seem to function in the same manner, as follows:
• General Plan policy is established to provide ag mitigation program framework.
• Areas allowed for conversion to urban uses are identified and the areas intended for preservation
are identified.
• The mechanism to enact the program is established, typically being the use of TDRs, but may
simply be the conversion to preservation ratio.
• If an in -lieu fee is going to be established, the value of the TDR or an acre of ag land is
established (via economic study). The in -lieu option seems to be debated a bit because while it is
helpful to the developer to know what his upfront costs will be, the actual fee established may not
be adequate to purchase the easement because the property owner may not think the city's
determined value of his development right is large enough to be financially attractive.
• Determine who will go out and purchase the easements (e.g., developer, city, land trust)
• Determine who will be a party to the easements.
• Establish a right to farm ordinance if ag uses will operate near sensitive users (e.g., residences,
schools).
The issues to be considered in Lodi's effort to establish an Ag Mitigation Plan are too numerous and
complex to be covered in this Staff Report or one informational meeting. However, there are a number of
models that can be used and the comprehensive report compiled by Brentwood provides an excellent
outline of the pertinent issues that will need to be addressed in order to establish such a plan.
While the development of a comprehensive Ag Mitigation Plan will be part of the pending General Plan
Update, it is recommended that we begin to review and address these pertinent issues through our
Greenbelt Task Force. Furthermore, our contact with the San Joaquin County Administrators regarding a
Greenbelt/Community Separator provides an ideal opportunity to encourage the County's participation in
this effort, as any program established by a city jurisdiction can only be strengthened by the County's
effort to mitigate loss of ag lands as well.
Finally, while the update of our General Plan is expected to take place over the next 18-24 months, there
are of course two major annexations underway and the development that will occur in those will have a
major impact to the local agricultural base. It is crucial at this point to have the developers of those
projects commit to participate in the ag mitigation plan that will be developed.
Joseph Wood
Acting -Community Development Director
cc: Planning Staff