Unaffordable land stunts farming - yet another reason to fight sprawl

Good article in the Mercury News:

Unaffordable land stunts new generation of small farmers in California

PESCADERO -- In 2005, would-be farmers Nancy Vail and Jered Lawson spotted an old barn along Highway 1 that would make a good produce stand, along with 13 acres of prime coastal property, available for $1.25 million. They jumped at the chance to buy it.

"We were incredibly lucky," Vail said. "It's a lot of money, but it's actually pretty good."

Indeed, Vail and Lawson, who operate Pie Ranch, a nonprofit educational farm on the edge of the Pacific Ocean, were lucky to find land to farm.

They are part of a new and growing generation of farmers who aspire to deliver locally grown organic food to their communities but can't usually afford the land to do so.

Access to land is the main impediment to beginning farmers and ranchers today, said Reggie Knox, Central Coast coordinator for California FarmLink, a nonprofit that works to preserve family farming and conserve farmland in California.

"Small farmers like to be close to urban areas," said Knox, who has a long waiting list of people who are looking for affordable farmland. "Land values are going up around all the urban areas, so it's harder to get into land."

...

But even though the amount of California farmland in production has been falling for decades, and the average California farmer is now 58 years old, the latest agricultural census reveals another trend: The number of small farms -- 49 acres or less -- in the state has grown by more than 4,000 since 2002.

Many of these operations are founded by people in their 20s and 30s for whom earning a profit may be secondary to their real goal of producing wholesome, seasonal food and teaching others about farming.

...

Most farm program graduates won't be as fortunate as the founders of Pie Ranch, who turned to the Peninsula Open Space Trust to help them buy the first 13-acre parcel and the old barn. The farm produces many ingredients found in a pie, such as eggs to strawberries. It connects high school kids to the land and sells produce in the old barn.

The Peninsula Open Space Trust applied a conservation easement to the land to prevent development. Pending a capital campaign, Pie Ranch will soon own the land outright.

...

"This is part of a larger vision of a sustainable agriculture corridor from San Francisco down through Santa Cruz," Vail said. "We need to have more farmers, and they need to be able to access land and make a living and pull it off. We can't be the only ones doing that."

This is yet another reason to fight sprawl:  only where land is clearly delineated as urban or rural is there a chance for farmers to buy land for its intended agricultural and ranchland use.  It can be done, but strong policies against sprawl are necessary to foster the growth of small, urban-edge farms.

-Brian

CGF opposes redesignating land to facilitate overdevelopment in South County

(We sent this letter to the Santa Clara County Planning Commission last week.  -Brian)

June 30, 2010

Santa Clara County Planning Commission

            Re:  CGF support for the County staff position on Planning Commission July 1, 2010 meeting Agenda Item 11, recommending rejection of application for formal processing

Dear Commissioners;

I regret that I may not be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting discussing the Pickett General Plan Amendment Proposal, but as we also stated in 2007, the Committee for Green Foothills continues to oppose the proposal, and the current proposal does not change any important issue that constituted adequate reason for rejecting the proposal three years ago.

The staff report describes several reasons for rejecting the application, both now and in 2007.  Related to the 2007 discussion, I would like to correct the record contained in the staff report:  it correctly states that I spoke on behalf of CGF in opposition to the project, but also states that I supported "conversion of lands to rural residential if the property is 35 percent or more surrounded by rural residential."

I am attempting to obtain the audio recording for that meeting, but at the least, the record does not describe what I intended to say.  Proposals like this one, where a minority of adjacent land is Rural Residential, should be rejected.  Proposals where even a majority of adjacent perimeter land is Rural Residential may also be inappropriate, and only where a substantial majority, such as three out of four sides, may be appropriately considered infill under some circumstances.

The applicant's proposal for what constitutes "infill" actually leads to a logical contradiction.  As can be seen on the parcel maps for the area, parcels with a large variety of sizes and shape are adjacent to one another.  If infill is only allowed where a substantial majority of adjacent perimeter is Rural Residential, then there will soon be a condition where the infill has "infilled" and no other parcels qualify for consideration.  If, on the other hand, the County uses the applicant's very different, proposed criteria of a minority of adjacent land being sufficient to justify changing designation, then the "infill" will actually expand consistently outward.  Instead of infilling holes, the applicant's rationale will lead to outward expansion, in direct contradiction to the purpose of infill.

Take the applicant's own example, where approximately one-third of their parcel number 77611001 borders Rural Residential property.  Changing this parcel's designation means that other neighboring parcels will have similar or greater percentages of perimeter shared with Rural Residential and appropriate for re-designation – parcels 77929027 (small parcel to the east), 77926003, 75619032 (already at equivalent percentage), 75619036, and 77612008.  These parcels, once re-designated, would justify changing the designation of still other parcels in an outward expansion that includes parcels 77929028, 75619031, 75619006, and 77612012, and those parcels would justify still more re-designations.  This is just in the immediate vicinity of the applicant, but their argument logically applies to any parcels anywhere in the County that border Rural Residential land.

The problem with the applicant's argument is not that it may someday take us down a "slippery slope" of accepting ever-smaller percentages for justifying re-designations.  Rather it is the applicant's own principle without any further deterioration that justifies outwardly expanding "infill".

Committee for Green Foothills has seen too many instances where past environmental mistakes have been used by developers to justify arguing for new mistakes.  We urge the Planning Commission to avoid a repeat of that process, and to recommend rejection of this application.

Please contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Opposition to Santa Clara County General Plan Amendment Proposal

(CGF sent the letter below to the Santa Clara County Planning Commission. -Brian)

June 30, 2010

Santa Clara County Planning Commission

            Re:  CGF support for the County staff position on Planning Commission July 1, 2010 meeting Agenda Item 11, recommending rejection of application for formal processing

Dear Commissioners;

I regret that I may not be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting discussing the Pickett General Plan Amendment Proposal, but as we also stated in 2007, the Committee for Green Foothills continues to oppose the proposal, and the current proposal does not change any important issue that constituted adequate reason for rejecting the proposal three years ago.

The staff report describes several reasons for rejecting the application, both now and in 2007.  Related to the 2007 discussion, I would like to correct the record contained in the staff report:  it correctly states that I spoke on behalf of CGF in opposition to the project, but also states that I supported "conversion of lands to rural residential if the property is 35 percent or more surrounded by rural residential."

I am attempting to obtain the audio recording for that meeting, but at the least, the record does not describe what I intended to say.  Proposals like this one, where a minority of adjacent land is Rural Residential, should be rejected.  Proposals where even a majority of adjacent perimeter land is Rural Residential may also be inappropriate, and only where a substantial majority, such as three out of four sides, may be appropriately considered infill under some circumstances.

The applicant's proposal for what constitutes "infill" actually leads to a logical contradiction.  As can be seen on the parcel maps for the area, parcels with a large variety of sizes and shape are adjacent to one another.  If infill is only allowed where a substantial majority of adjacent perimeter is Rural Residential, then there will soon be a condition where the infill has "infilled" and no other parcels qualify for consideration.  If, on the other hand, the County uses the applicant's very different, proposed criteria of a minority of adjacent land being sufficient to justify changing designation, then the "infill" will actually expand consistently outward.  Instead of infilling holes, the applicant's rationale will lead to outward expansion, in direct contradiction to the purpose of infill.

Take the applicant's own example, where approximately one-third of their parcel number 77611001 borders Rural Residential property.  Changing this parcel's designation means that other neighboring parcels will have similar or greater percentages of perimeter shared with Rural Residential and appropriate for re-designation – parcels 77929027 (small parcel to the east), 77926003, 75619032 (already at equivalent percentage), 75619036, and 77612008.  These parcels, once re-designated, would justify changing the designation of still other parcels in an outward expansion that includes parcels 77929028, 75619031, 75619006, and 77612012, and those parcels would justify still more re-designations.  This is just in the immediate vicinity of the applicant, but their argument logically applies to any parcels anywhere in the County that border Rural Residential land.

The problem with the applicant's argument is not that it may someday take us down a "slippery slope" of accepting ever-smaller percentages for justifying re-designations.  Rather it is the applicant's own principle without any further deterioration that justifies outwardly expanding "infill".

Committee for Green Foothills has seen too many instances where past environmental mistakes have been used by developers to justify arguing for new mistakes.  We urge the Planning Commission to avoid a repeat of that process, and to recommend rejection of this application.

Please contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Not letting the "Interchange to Nowhere" force additional sprawl in Coyote Valley

The San Jose General Plan Task Force talked about backloading development in North Coyote Valley and east Evergreen. I'm actually writing this during the meeting and will soon have my very short chance to comment.

Unfortunately there was one objection to backloading which couldn't be more wrong but I won't have time to address.  One person said that the state spent money building infrastructure in Coyote Valley, so it would be wrong not to promote development there.

What I would say, if I had time, would be to say that the state spent money widening Highway 101 and on building the Bailey Avenue/Highway 101 Interchange.  Widening Highway 101 was done for many reasons for better or worse and isn't dependent on developing Coyote Valley.  The commenter may appreciate Highway 101's widening, without needing to support development of Coyote Valley.

The Bailey Interchange, however, could probably be known better as the Interchange to Nowhere - a massive, expensive construction designed to funnel tens of thousands of non-existent commuters to non-existent jobs in Coyote Valley.  A significant portion of the useable lifetime of the structure has passed and will pass for no reason with no justified use - think of the actually useful things that could have been done with that money.  The Interchange to Nowhere isn't a reason to double down on a mistake; it's a glaring example of why sprawl is a gigantic waste of taxpayer money.

Wrap-up: CGF comment letters on Gilroy sprawl applications

(Going through files I remembered two comment letters we wrote on the now-defeated Gilroy sprawl applications that hadn't been posted here. I'm adding them below. -Brian)

Committee for Green Foothills' continued opposition to all Gilroy Urban Service Area expansions

10/1/2009

Dear Planning Commission members,

I regret that a scheduling conflict prevents me from attending tonight's Planning Commission meeting, but I wish to reiterate in this letter the Committee for Green Foothills' continued opposition to the three USA proposals from Wren, Lucky Day, and Shapell. We believe these are unwise proposals that should not be considered until the City actually needs them - approvals now will just tie the hands of future Planning Commissions years down the road that will have a much better idea of what best fits the needs of the broader community.

Equally important, any approval of one or all of these projects right now would be a violation of CEQA for the reasons spelled out in the numerous, highly detailed and critical comment letters. The Shapell project in particular is in CEQA violation for similar reasons as the others, particularly climate impacts, and failed to prepare even as much as the inadequate DSEIR found with the other two projects.

We urge you to reject the projects, give a negative recommendation to the City Council, and preserve the opportunity for outward development, if the City needs it in the future, to be used only when necessary and according to a design that can be better determined at that time.

Please contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian Schmidt

-----------

October 19, 2009

Gilroy City Council

Dear Mayor Pinheiro and Councilmembers:

The Committee for Green Foothills opposes the Wren and Lucky Day USA Projects (Projects) that are to be considered at tonight's City Council meeting. The City of Gilroy cannot legally approve these projects due to violations of the California Environmental Quality Act, and we urge the Council to reject both projects due to the legal flaws and due to the projects' simply being bad for the City. (We understand the Shapell/Thomas proposal has been withdrawn, and we oppose it for identical reasons). Please note that the Committee retains all legal options to stop the projects if the City does approve them in violation of CEQA.

Climate change impacts dealt with inadequately.

As stated in previous letters and throughout the record for these Projects, the City's failure to establish a threshold of significance for climate change impacts and failure to determine whether impacts from the Projects are significant are violations of CEQA. Those violations remain unchanged in the FSEIR. In particular, the failure to acknowledge the impacts' significance means the City decision, if it approves the Projects, lacks the legally-required statement of overriding considerations and findings of infeasibility for alternatives or mitigations.

The FSEIR does contain a number of changes from the DSEIR that fail to mitigate climate change impacts or, even if they could change those impacts, constitute substantial new information that require recirculation of a revised DSEIR.

The changed Climate Change Program "mitigation" does not mitigate the Projects' impacts because neither the Projects nor subsequent development at the Projects are required to comply with the Climate Change Program. The Program as written also contains flaws that allow significant climate impacts:

• Timing. The requirement to "prepare" a Climate Action Plan within 36 months does not mean "adopt" the Plan with 36 months.

• Targets versus requirements. The Plan is to reference AB 32 levels for greenhouse gas emissions for its "targets," without saying those targets are mandatory requirements.

• Consistent versus not-to-exceed. The Plan will establish targets that are "consistent" with AB 32 but does not specify whether exceeding the targets by some percent could be consistent. The City may end up with a Plan that it might deem consistent with AB 32 while allowing excess emissions that could constitute significant impacts under CEQA.

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan applicable to these Projects does not include mandatory requirements for compliance with AB 32 or any other proposed significance threshold under CEQA. Furthermore, and unlike the discussion of the Climate Change Program which said the Program "will include" the listed components, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan "could include" the listed components, leaving open the possibility that any of the listed components could be excluded despite being feasible mitigations that might reduce the Projects' impacts. Eliminating all net increases in greenhouse gas emissions from the Projects is a mitigation that could have been applied here, but the failure to do so without findings of the mitigation's infeasibility violates CEQA.

Finally, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan does not include any standard to eliminate climate change impacts from the Projects entirely, or even to reduce emissions by any measureable amount. While both the Climate Change Program and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan are improvements over the status quo, as implemented here they do not eliminate the significant climate change impacts from the Projects.

The Committee stands by our other criticism of these Projects, and urges the City to reject them.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Great news from Gilroy - last two remaining sprawl proposals defeated

(I just wanted to put a link to this Gilroy Dispatch article, and we'll add more later. -Brian)

Article:

Citing uncertainties over environmental reports, the council voted 4-3 - with Council members Dion Bracco, Bob Dillon and Craig Gartman dissenting - against two annexation requests that would eventually lead to residential development. Gillmor's Lucky Day Ranch application proposed the incorporation of 285 hilly acres straddling Burchell Road north of Hecker Pass Highway for up to 193 homes and 244 acres of open space and parks - just a sliver of the applicant's original proposal to annex 2,014 pristine acres stretching up to the Corde Valle Golf Course in San Martin. The council also rejected a separate application from Wren Investors to annex 48 acres near Christopher High School for up to 430 dwellings.

Environmentalists, rural residents and county representatives encouraged the rejections by arguing that at least 2,100 additional residents, about 4 percent of Gilroy, will tax the city's stressed school and emergency services. That many new residents could cost the county and Gilroy hundreds of thousands of dollars over a 10-year period, according to staff projections that considered property and sales tax revenues against city and county expenses on the hypothetical residents.

"We've just gone through a huge budget crisis and are looking to hire more police (officers) and (firefighters) just to catch up," Council member Peter Arellano said. "I'm not looking forward to trying to find another amount of money to catch up with these developments."

Opponents also stressed that Gilroy - which has exceeded its self-imposed growth limit - already has enough vacant land to develop 3,500 homes over the next 11 years, according to conservative city estimates. They also decried the projects' preliminary environmental reports as lacking carbon footprint analyses and avoiding scenarios based on an exact number of homes. Other residents had simpler concerns about the region's tranquility.

Sprawl effect from San Jose planning scenarios

San Jose has the following scenarios in its proposed General Plan for future growth:

Scenario K - 339,530 new jobs and 158,970 new dwelling units (1.0 J/ER) (Jobs:Employed Resident ratio)

Scenario E - 360,550 new jobs and 135,650 new dwelling units (1.1 J/ER)

Scenario C - 346,550 new jobs and 88,650 new dwelling units (1.2 J/ER)

Scenario J - 526,000 new jobs and 88,650 new dwelling units (1.5 J/ER)

Generally accepted figure is that residences will have an average 1.7 people who are employed full time (or the equivalent of full time when multiple people employed part time are counted). Scenario J has a massive imbalance of housing and jobs. The 88,650 residences will provide housing for 151,000 employees and their families, while the 526,000 new employees will actually need 309,000 residences. The outcome then is that 158,000 residences will have to be built, somewhere, to accommodate these people. Most likely they'll be built in Central Valley, and those employees will be commuting. How this fits the City's claim to be planning for compact development is less than clear.

-Brian

Earth to Google: Reduce, Reuse, Redeploy

(The following is a guest blog post written by CGF Intern Laurel Smith. We hope to follow up on these issues in the coming months. -Brian)


For the past 14 years NASA has controlled Moffett Field and kept it within federal jurisdiction, thus subjecting all new development to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NASA requires 7 million dollars each year to maintain the site, and rents space to agenda-fitting private businesses to carry the cash inflow. One such qualified business is Google, who is willing and able to dish out $3.7 million a year for a plot of Moffett land. Google and NASA began their relationship three years ago when the NASA Research Park was establishing new partnerships; today the two superpowers have a very strong bond as they collaborate on revolutionary projects such as Google Earth.


In June, NASA got Google’s signature on a 40-year lease that has the option of being extended up to 90 years. See NASA’s press release here. The lease grants 42.2 acres of “underdeveloped” land to the company, which will be used to build 1.2 million square feet of office space. Google already has 2 million square feet of office space in the area, and constitutes the biggest employer in Mountain View. The project will bring 4,000 new people to the city, and with that comes employee housing, fitness facilities, dining rooms, conference halls, childcare centers, and the potential for a bridge over Stevens Creek.


The project has been undertaken by William McDonough + Partners, an architecture firm known for their environmental sustainability. Construction will include 13 buildings, and will take place in 3 phases, starting in 2013, and following with stages in 2018 and 2022. All construction and permits will be overseen by NASA, who is acting as a city would if the project were taking place within municipal boundaries. NASA will be responsible for approving the design, and completing regular inspections of the project. Google will also be building parking garages, and outdoor recreation facilities and parks for all of NASA’s inhabitants to use. Further, the project will require basic amenities such as roads and a sewage system, which on their own take a heavy toll on the land and existing environment.


Primary concerns regarding this project are issues of environmental welfare, housing, transportation, and taxation. (See a great article from San Francisco Gate here.) Northern Santa Clara County currently has more jobs than available housing, and this imbalance can only tip further with the new Google campus. With 4,000 new employees in the area, speculation arises as to where everyone will live, what the new population will contribute to traffic, and what role the new roads and sewage systems will have on the fragile ecosystem. Google will be constructing and running the whole operation in what they claim to be a cutting-edge, environmentally sound way, but this may not be the most earth friendly option.


What Google seems to have overlooked is that there are millions of square feet of unoccupied and available office space within miles of the planned construction site. Just minutes past the Moffett exit along highway 237, one can’t help but notice the abundance of vacant office buildings decorated with “For Lease” and “For Sale” signs. These empty structures could easily be modified to suit the needs of Google, but instead the company has chosen to create anew. The company could spare itself the millions of dollars in Moffett rent, development costs, and mitigation efforts by purchasing the already existing space where roads, plumbing, and basic infrastructure are already in place. Such locations could then be maintained in the greenest way possible, and could be used to preserve Google’s progressive image. We might not be in a position to stop Google from pursuing the establishment of this new campus, but we can certainly put pressure on the company. Hopefully this will lead Google to mitigate more than is required by NEPA, and to thoughtfully consider a fuller realm of options in its future endeavors.

CGF opposes inappropriate hillside San Jose development

(CGF sent the following short letter to the San Jose Planning Commission, supporting staff's recommendation to reject the proposed hillside development in San Jose's Evergreen District. More information is available here. -Brian)


Dear Planning Commission members,

The Committee for Green Foothills agrees with City Staff recommending denial of a developer's proposal to rezone hillside land in the Evergreen District from a quasi-public designated use to residential development. Any one of the many reasons staff have provided for why this proposal is a bad idea. Intensified development that would push into the 15% slope is a bad precedent, which may actually be the reason for the proposal.

We would only add to the staff comments that the proposal, if not rejected at this point, would definitely require an EIR. The conflict with existing land use policies constitute one reason for an EIR, but the loss of valuable open space, much of which could be conserved with the current use designation, and the visual impact on the neighborhood and on thousands of people driving by on Highway 101, also would be significant environmental impacts.

We urge the Commission to reject this project.

Please contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,
Brian Schmidt
Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills

San Jose on Time Magazine in the year 2040

I participated in a preliminary planning meeting for the planned update of San Jose's General Plan. These updates are due every 15 years, and starting now makes it possible to make the 2009 deadline.

I emphasized four points:

• The General Plan should control Specific Plans, so the Coyote Valley Specific Plan should not be approved before the the General Plan is revised. After the revision is complete, the City can revisit whether it should go forward with Coyote Valley.
• There are thousands of acres of City jurisdictional land outside of the Urban Service Area where the City has no plans for development. Current residential zoning is completely inappropriate and an invitation to sprawl. The City should either de-annex these lands, reverting them to County control, or should redesignate them as "Open Space."
• The review should examine how much of the City's industrial land has been rezoned to other uses. Given the City's constant reference to the lack of employment in the City as a reason for expanding into Coyote Valley open space, the City should examine whether that lack of employment is a self-inflicted wound.
• The City's Riparian and Wildlife protection policies have loopholes that have been repeatedly exploited. The City should do a "Best Practices" comparison between its policies and those found in other cities, and update its policies to reflect the best found elsewhere.

Also as part of the process, City Staff asked us to imagine that San Jose was the cover story in a Time Magazine issued in 2040 for being the "best-managed" American city, and then describe the magazine's cover. This is what I gave them:

Time Magazine
Earth Day, 2040

San Jose: Wildlife City

From the “Everglades of the West” to hiking trails among the mountain wildflowers of Coyote Ridge, San Jose has promoted urban access to wildlife. Can other cities copy its protection of urban river steelhead, and migration corridors for Tule Elk?

Let's hope it becomes true!

-Brian

Santa Clara Valley Water District and global warming

At the latest meeting of the Water District's Environmental Advisory Commission, the District's staff guided us through eleven long-term strategic challenges they anticipate. Number three was global warming. Three concerns in particular threaten their work: first, rising sea levels threaten the aging levee system in South San Francisco Bay. Much of San Jose is actually below sea level due to overpumping of ground water in past decades, so the threat is further enhanced.

Second, rising sea levels mean saltwater intrusion into water tables in the Bay-Delta region, reducing the amount of local groundwater available. And third, rising temperatures mean more precipitation in the Sierras will fall as rain instead of snow, depriving us of some of our snow-pack water reservoirs. These are only some of the impacts they could have mentioned.

All the more reason to fight climate-destroying sprawl.