Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Farmland Mitigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tulare BPU backs staff plan to use city-owned farmland and an in-lieu fee for mitigation
Summary
The board accepted staff recommendations to expand farmland mitigation options, including establishing an in-lieu fee and using roughly 546 acres of city-owned farmland south of the wastewater plant for conservation easements in perpetuity; the board noted limits to its leasing authority and asked for future oversight steps.
The Board of Public Utilities accepted a staff report recommending revisions to the city’s farmland mitigation program, including evaluating an in-lieu fee and the possible placement of conservation easements on city-owned farmland south of the wastewater treatment plant.
Staff told the board the city adopted a farmland mitigation ordinance in 2020 and that applicants converting agricultural land for urban uses have had difficulty finding privately held conservation easements that meet the ordinance’s requirements. To address that problem, staff presented a report by NBS evaluating an in-lieu fee and ways the city could use funds to place conservation easements either on city-owned farmland the city does not need for future utility uses or to acquire land for easements.
Staff identified approximately 546 acres of city-owned farmland south of the wastewater treatment plant as potentially eligible for the farmland mitigation program. The presenter noted that the city charter grants the board authority to lease lands under its control for terms not exceeding five years, but conservation easements would keep land farmland in perpetuity and therefore extend beyond the board’s leasing authority.
Staff described current farming arrangements: the city has agreements with farmer Ron Clark to farm city-owned parcels and receives a portion of the proceeds (meeting transcript: "we get 20% of the profit"). Staff said some parcels adjacent to the treatment plant serve as buffers, that the city provides effluent water for farming and that moving forward the city could place easements on land it will continue to farm.
Board members pressed for clarifications about permissible uses. City staff and the community development director said land encumbered by the farmland mitigation easements must remain farmland and cannot be converted to parks, sports fields or other non-farming uses while under the easement. Staff explained the urban development boundary aligns roughly with Enterprise Street and that the city’s 2014 general plan projects growth through 2035; LAFCO would have to approve annexations beyond the boundary.
Staff said the in-lieu fee approach aims to provide applicants with a faster, lower-cost alternative to locating a private-sector conservation easement. They said the city is not pursuing profit and would instead aim to cover expenses. The presenters acknowledged possible objections: private easement vendors could see the city as a competitor, and strict environmentalists could oppose any approach that makes development easier.
A board member moved to accept the staff report; another seconded. The motion passed.
Votes at a glance - Item 6.2: Accept staff report and direction to pursue farmland mitigation options including evaluating an in-lieu fee and use of city-owned farmland (as described). Outcome: approved (vote recorded as “aye; opposed: none” in transcript; no roll-call tally provided).
