New initiative designed to direct development, but critics claim
it will hurt those it’s intended to help
Morgan Hill – A group of local environmentalists will soon begin collecting signatures for an initiative they claim will prevent Santa Clara County from becoming another Los Angeles and will preserve the farms and ranches that once defined the area, while critics assert that it punishes those very businessmen and women.
The proposal, which was written by Robert Gerard a retired Stanford University law professor who has passed similar initiatives in Alameda and San Mateo counties, would amend the county’s general plan to severely limit development and restrict the size of structures on lands zoned for large-scale agriculture and ranchlands and hillsides in unincorporated areas of the county.
It could affect the hillsides from Milpitas to Gilroy and land east of Gilroy and Morgan Hill to the Santa Cruz Mountains.
If voters approve the measure, which the group plans to place on the November ballot, landowners and developers would only have the authority to build structures on 160-acre – or larger – parcels of hillside or ranchlands. Currently the minimum parcel size for all county lands is 40 acres.
Under the proposal, the minimum parcel size in areas designated as large-scale agriculture would remain 40 acres. Structures 10,000 feet and less would be permitted. Otherwise buildings or homes could not exceed 2 percent of the parcel’s area or 20,000 square feet, whichever is less.
The County Board of Supervisors would have the authority to increase the square footage size to a maximum of 40,000 square feet if “proven indispensable for specified permitted uses or may increase as necessary for agriculture.”
Michele Beasley, South Bay field representative for Greenbelt Alliance, said the initiative will ensure that residents who exit city limits will still have a place to hike and enjoy the natural settings of their surroundings.
“It’s amending the Santa Clara County resolution to preserve the high quality of the land and to have a balance between our rural land and our urban lands,” she said. “This is just a way to say ‘Hey, development should occur within our cities.’ ”
And currently the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors have the authority to accept or reject proposals that aren’t covered in the city’s zoning plans and will help to preserve the farmland and ranches that once defined the area, said Beasley.
When asked if farmers and ranchers are likely to oppose a proposal that would further restrict their private property rights Brian Schmidt, an advocate for the Committee for Green Foothills, said he expects some resistance but only from those who want to sell rather continue the family business.
But Jenny Derry, executive director of the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau, said Schmidt’s assumption is “absolutely false.”
“Whether they want to keep farming or not is not the issue,” she said. “The issue is one of land-use and land value.”
Derry said for most farmers and ranchers their land is their retirement package and to advocate for a proposal that enacts more zoning restrictions would be detrimental to their livelihoods. Also, the limitations on square footage may restrict agricultural businesses from building large structures such as a processing plant.
Derry said she was particularly incensed that the group who penned the proposal never contacted her to discuss it in advance, particularly since the Farm Bureau and environmentalists have been working closely together toward common goals. She became aware and read the initiative for the first time Thursday.
“I do think that Santa Clara County does have a very strong plan and the Board of Supervisors has been very consistent and the restrictions that are in place have done a good job of keeping development out of the rural area,” she said.
But environmentalists, such as Schmidt, see this proposal as another step to avoid sprawling trophy homes circling the valley.
“It’s keeping in mind that smart growth means growing up, not out,” he said.
