GROWING CONCERNSBALANCING THE NEEDS OF AGRICULTURE AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT

Lecture for Dr. HandyEnvironmental Science and Policy

May 26, 2016

1

PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT

2

Yolo County’s challenge is that it is situated between two rapidly growing metropolitan areas. Increased development pressure is especially strong along the Interstate 80 corridor, which links the Bay Area to the Sacramento region.

Napa County is a global leader in wine making, which creates strong development pressure from around the world for winery, tourism, and residential development. The strongest pressure is on land best suited for vineyard development.

VISIONS

2

The general objective of the Yolo County General Plan is to guide development of the unincorporated area toward the most desirable future possible. The highest and best use of land within Yolo County is one that combines minimum urbanization with the preservation of productive farm resources and open space amenities. – 1958.

The intent of the Napa County General Plan is to ensure the long-term protection and integrity of agriculture and open space areas and to concentrate development in existing urban areas. --1983

2

POLICIESBoth the Yolo and Napa County General Plans include policies that:

• Concentrate compact, high density urban growth in existing cities and towns.

• Require agricultural mitigation and promote private conservation easements.

• Establish agricultural buffers internal to new development projects, or compensate farmers for loss of productivity.

• Maintain large parcel sizes within the agricultural zones and strict requirements regarding the division of farmland.

• Promote use of the Right-to-farm ordinance.

2

• Over the past 20 years, the unincorporated population in Yolo has grown a total of 11.6%, (compared with a statewide rate of 23.1%.

• During the same time, the unincorporated population in Napa shrank by -7.9%.

• Since 1992, more farmland in both counties has been lost to wetlands development than has been converted to urban use.

• About 20% of each county is preserved through public ownership and/or conservation easements.

• In Yolo, 95% of all residents live on 10% of the land.

• In Napa, 95% of all residents live on 5% of the land.

OUTCOMES

HOW DO FARMERS SEE THE CITIES?

• High property values make it hard for new farmers to get started or expand operations

• Urban uses result in higher assessment of farm land, which create increased property taxes that often can’t be paid with low value crop prices

• Increased trespassing, vandalism, and theft from neighboring residents

• Sensitive uses restricts the ability of farmers to spray pesticides and herbicides

• Pets from nearby residential areas damage or kill livestock

• Canals and sloughs are attractive nuisances to children, increasing liability

• The cumulative loss of agriculture, reduces the economic viability of support industries.

2

HOW DO CITIES SEE THE FARMERS?

• Noise from harvesting equipment, crop dusters, planting, farm workers and other agricultural activities seem excessive for nearby residents

• Livestock, decomposing green waste, and farm activities create unpleasant odors

• Plowing, field leveling, and harvesting creates dust, which create breathing difficulties.

• Spraying of pesticides and herbicides creates concerns about exposure to hazardous materials

• Night operations create light and noise at times when residents are sleeping

• Livestock and agricultural activities attract pests, such as flies, gnats and mosquitoes

• Uncontrolled storm water runoff causes localized flooding.

3

4

5

7

STRATEGIES AGRICULTURAL BUFFERS

GREENBELTS

PASS THROUGH AGREEMENTS

PUBLIC INITIATIVES

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

AGRICULTURAL MITIGATION

WILLIAMSON ACT

RIGHT TO FARM ORDINANCE

RURAL HOUSING CLUSTER

AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS

HABITAT CONVERSION

8

AGRICULTURALBUFFERS

Agricultural buffers are lands set aside to permanently protect agriculture from adjoining urban development.

The width and uses of buffers vary depending on the jurisdiction.

• Some, like Kern or Ventura Counties, have no minimum width.

• Others, like the Delta Protection Commission or San Luis Obispo County, recommend widths of 500 to 1,000 feet.

• Most jurisdictions that use buffers require a range from 100 to 500 feet, including Yolo County.

The reason for this range is related to safety concerns regarding pesticide application. Spraying in the proximity of sensitive sites, including residences occupied by humans, roads, and waterways, is restricted by State law:

9

14

15

16

GREENBELTS A greenbelt is a band of agriculture, parks, and/or open

space that surrounds a community to limit urban growth

Greenbelts were first proposed for London in 1935. They were soon used by the New Deal in the construction of Greenbelt MD, Greendale WS, and Greenhills OH.

Greenbelts are enforced through a variety of measures, including growth boundaries, general plans and zoning, and conservation easements

Greenbelts have several purposes:

Provide convenient access for residents to large tracts of open space and locally produced food

Create separations that encourage the distinct character of individual communities

Limit the amount of buildable area to provide incentives for in-fill and higher density development

Increase municipal service efficiency 17

18

19

PASS-THROUGH AGREEMENTS

Tax-sharing contracts between Cities and a County, that may include land use provisions to modify the County’s development review process within the city planning areas.

Davis:

The City has 30 days to indicate whether a proposed use within the County is consistent with the Agreement. If the County approves any Urban Development, payments may be terminated.

West Sacramento:

The County is required to notify the city of any urban development proposals within the planning area. In addition, infrastructure within the planning area must conform to city standards.

20

PUBLIC INITIATIVESMeasures J and P (Napa County)Enacted in 1990, Measure J prohibits any County zoning changes until the year 2020 without a 2/3 majority vote. This gives the public final approval on whether agricultural land should be converted to other uses. Measure J was reaffirmed by a 5-2 vote of the California Supreme Court in 1995. In 2008, voters renewed this process (Measure P) for 50 years.

Measure J (City of Davis)Passed in 2000, Measure J mandates voter approval for changes in land use within the planning area. Most notably, it requires voter approval for the conversion of farm lands into urban use outside the City limits. Developments within other jurisdictions (e.g., Yolo County, Solano County, or UC Davis) do not require voter approval.

20

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

• A voluntary contract that pays land owners to limit the type and amount of development on their property, while retaining private ownership.

• Generally held by non-profit organizations, such as the American Farmland Trust, Ducks Unlimited, Trust for Public Land, and Nature Conservancy.

• May be required as a part of the development review process or may be entirely voluntary by the land owner.

• Binding on all future owners of the property, unless released by the holder of the easement.

• Terms are flexible and vary greatly, depending on the site conditions, needs of the owner, needs of the non-profit, and local government requirements.

• Allows the owner to retain all other legal rights to use the property not otherwise limited under the easement.

22

23

23

AGRICULTURALMITIGATION

Where farmland is lost due to development, an equal amount of farmland is required to be protected through a permanent conservation easement.

Primarily concentrated in California, it is rare throughout most of the country.

Usually required at a 1:1 ratio, although the City of Davis and Yolo County require a 2:1 ratio.

Farmland to be protected must have similar or better soils and access to irrigation. Mitigation sites generally must also be located near the development

Sometimes, smaller projects may be allowed to pay a fee instead of the conservation easement. The money goes to assist non-profit organizations secure easements.

Agricultural easements may or may not be alllowed to “stack” with habitat easements.

24

25

26

27

28

WILLIAMSON ACT• State law adopted in 1965 that allows cities/counties

and private land owners to voluntarily enter into contracts to limit the type and amount of development in return for reductions in property tax assessments.

• Protects both farmland and open space, although the uses allowed within contracted lands vary between local jurisdictions.

• Contracts are for a minimum 10-years and automatically renew annually. Farmland Security Zones have a minimum 20-years. Contracts can be immediately cancelled, but the process is difficult and expensive.

• 54 of the 58 counties (and 7 cities) currently participate in the Williamson Act program. Nearly half of all of the farmland in California is under contract.

• Cities and counties are no longer reimbursed by the State for the loss of property tax generated by the Williamson Act program.

29

30

30

RIGHT TO FARM ORDINANCE

No agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof, conducted or maintained on agricultural lands for commercial purposes, and in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards, as established and followed by similar agricultural operations in the same locality, shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, due to any changed condition in or about the locality, after the same has been in operation for more than three (3) years if it was not a nuisance at the time it began.

…no action, alleging that an agricultural operation has interfered with private property or personal well-being, shall be maintained unless the plaintiff has sought and obtained a decision of the agricultural grievance committee…

31

RURAL HOUSING CLUSTER ORDINANCE

Allows land owners to voluntarily reconfigure existing development rights to concentrate potential homes sites into one area and preserve the remaining farm land within one large parcel. Home sites may be sold off individually. The remaining farm land is placed into a permanent conservation easement

People who wish to live in the country can still do so, on adjoining small lots that limit impacts to surrounding agriculture. Meanwhile, the productive farm land is aggregated into parcels large enough to provide economies of scale. Without the development rights, the price of the farm land is affordable to farmers wanting to establish new operations or expand existing ones

This concept also encourages shared sewer and water facilities, reducing impacts to the quality and quantity of the aquifer. It also improves the efficient delivery of government services such as roads, fire, sheriff, emergency response, and postal delivery. 32

RURAL HOUSING CLUSTER ORDINANCE

32

Applications must include one existing legal parcel that is between 5 and 20 acres under active cultivation; and one existing legal parcel that is at least 40 acres, with a majority of land consisting of prime agricultural soils.

The “agricultural remainder” parcel must be equal to at least 85% of the total acreage of the original total ownership. The maximum number of home site lots created can not be more than the number of existing legal parcels.

Ancillary units may be allowed on clustered home site parcels only if environmental health and other standards can be met, including the establishment of an adequate agricultural buffer. Second units are limited to no more than 1,200 square feet.

It is estimated that the ordinance would be applicable to approximately 1,000 agricultural parcels, or about 15% of all parcels in the unincorporated area.

33

EXISTING CONDITIONSEleven legal parcels, recognized through Certificates of Compliance, vary from 10 to 80 acres in size. A single entity owns all eleven parcels. Nine of the eleven parcels are currently undeveloped. All are prime farmland and are actively cultivated.

34

STATUS QUOEach of the nine undeveloped parcels has a home built upon it, placed wherever the owner decides (subject to setbacks). This eliminates the ability to do any aerial spraying on the eight undeveloped smaller parcels to the west. Without the Ag Cluster Ordinance, this is the likely ultimate outcome.

34

CLUSTERED SUBDIVISIONEight of the undeveloped parcels are merged and re-subdivided, creating eight 2.5-acre home site parcels and one 140-acre remainder that is placed into a permanent conservation easement. The three other parcels could have also been included in the clustered subdivision, if the owner so desired.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTSAgricultural Districts are designed to protect and promote farming within distinct areas that share a common market or identity. Yolo County has established an existing Agricultural District in the Clarksburg region, and provided for the future creation of two other districts in the CapayValley and the Dunnigan Hills. The basis for each district is its American Viticulture Area (AVA).

Capay Valley:• Organic farming• Outdoor recreation (hiking, rafting, camping)• Historic downtowns• Cache Creek Casino and Resort

Clarksburg:• Wineries and wine tasting• Historic mill site • River and Delta tourism

Dunnigan Hills:• Almonds, walnuts, and olives• Eco-tourism potential

35

36

36

HABITAT CONVERSION

40

Response to concern about the conversion of farmland to habitat that is being developed in response to impacts created outside of the County, for the following reasons:

• The conversion of farmland to habitat affects the feasibility of agricultural infrastructure, changes drainage patterns, restricts spraying, and increases crop losses due to foraging.

• The conversion of farmland for aquatic species can eliminate habitat for species such as the Swainson’shawk, giant garter snake, and migratory waterfowl.

• Habitat conversion within the Yolo Bypass can disrupt flood protection and complicate efforts to maintain and restore its conveyance capacity.

• Mitigation projects reduce the assessed value of land, which reduces local property tax revenues, and further jeopardizes the County’s ability to provide public service.

• Out-of-County mitigation can be implemented through private agreements without County review.

Past policies to protect agriculture have worked well over the past quarter century, relying on a stable balance of interests.

• The County needs agriculture to keep farming profitable and to prevent Napa from being absorbed into the metropolitan region.

• The Cities need agriculture to attract visitors for their growing hospitality businesses.

• Agriculture and the Cities need the County to preserve the rural landscape, and ensure that growth can be supported.

• Agriculture and the County need the Cities to provide hotels/ restaurants for visitors, and provide housing/services for workers.

But these policies are under threat from changes in demographics, housing, tourism, and traffic.

PAST POLICY

1990 2015 2040Population 111,017 142,301 163,269White 80.6% 53.3% 40.9%Hispanic 14.6% 34.7% 44.2%Asian/Pacific Islanders 3.1% 7.4% 9.9%

Multi-Racial N/A 2.2% 3.2%Black 1.1% 1.9% 1.5%American Indian 0.6% 0.4% 0.4%

Napa has grown 28% since 1990, but will only grow 15% in the next 25 years.

By 2060, Hispanics will make up 49% of the Napa population. Whites will make up 34%.

DEMOGRAPHICS

1990 2015 2040Population 111,017 142,301 163,269Ages 0-4 6.9% 5.3% 5.3%Ages 5-17 16.6% 15.8% 14.6%Ages 18-24 9.3% 10.0% 8.1%Ages 25-44 31.4% 24.5% 25.4%Ages 44-64 19.7% 27.1% 23.4%Ages 65 + 16.0% 17.3% 23.2%

DEMOGRAPHICS

In 1990, there were 1.5 children for every senior citizen. There are 1.2 children per senior in 2016.

By 2040, there will be 1.2 seniors for every child. In 2060, there will be 1.7 seniors per child.

Immigration has accounted for 37% of all population growth in Napa since 1987.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Over the last 25 years, the Napa Valley has added:

• 30,000 new residents;• 26,000 new homes;• 21,000 new jobs;• 800,000 more tourists annually; and • 230 new wineries.

DEMOGRAPHICS

In the next 25 years, the Napa Valley will add:

• 21,000 more residents; • 6,070 new homes; • 18,890 new jobs.• 12,000 new registered vehicles; and• 150 new wineries.

DEMOGRAPHICSOver the last 25 years, the Napa Valley has added:

• 30,000 new residents;• 26,000 new homes;• 21,000 new jobs;• 800,000 more tourists annually; and • 230 new wineries.

Pressures are more intense in Napa today than they were in 1990.

Currently, the highest quality vineyards are appraised at $400,000 to $500,000/acre. While as farmland, this is incredibly valuable (farmland in Yolo County may go as high as $15,000/acre), it does not compare to raw land in the Bay Area that has been designated for development.

Walnut Creek (2015): $1 millionDublin (2014): $1 millionFremont (2014): $3 millionSan Jose (2014): $4 millionPeninsula (2014): $5 million

It would take more than 100 years for a land owner growing Napa Valley cabernet to equal the profit of a typical 6-unit housing development, located on that same acre.

HOUSING

COUNTY MEDIAN HOME PRICENOVEMBER – 2015

San Francisco $1,323,860San Mateo $1,195,000Marin $1,180,900Santa Clara $965,000Contra Costa $758,930Alameda $736,870Napa $678,570Sonoma $541,380Solano $355,510

By Bay Area standards, Napa County is considered affordable.

HOUSING

We have enough homes for our local employees.

Jobs(Nov -2015)

Homes(2015) Ratio

American Canyon 9,800 6,072 1.61Calistoga 2,700 2,320 1.16Napa 39,700 30,374 1.31St. Helena 2,800 2,839 0.99Yountville 1,200 1,291 0.93Unincorporated 14,000 12,363 1.13TOTAL 70,200 55,259 1.27

Ideal jobs/housing balance is 1.5 jobs/homeWe need an additional 12,689 jobs to balance.

HOUSING

•• Nov. 2015MedianHome Price

Income Needed

2014 Median

HouseholdIncome

American Canyon $458,600 $78,721 $81,955

Calistoga $617,500 $106,014 $52,131Napa $532,100 $91,349 $64,058St. Helena $1,048,500 $180,020 $78,421Yountville $757,500 $130,070 $65,568Napa County $539,000 $92,547 $70,925

But homes are not affordable for the people who work in Napa County.

(Assumes 10% down, 4% interest rate, and 30-year loan)

HOUSING

Total Number ofHousing

Units

Occupied Housing

Units

Vacant Units

Vacancy Rate

American Canyon 6,072 5,741 331 5.5%Calistoga 2,320 2,020 300 12.9%Napa 30,374 28,349 2,025 6.7%St. Helena 2,839 2,455 384 13.5%Yountville 1,291 1,083 208 16.1%Napa County 12,363 9,633 2,730 22.1%Total 55,259 49,281 5,978 10.8%

HOUSING

(Sources: Department of Finance)

Second and vacation homes take houses out of the available inventory for local workers.

Number ofHousing

Units (2015)

Number of Housing

Units(2040)

New Units

American Canyon 6,072 7,890 1,818Calistoga 2,320 2,370 50Napa 30,374 33,410 3,036St. Helena 2,839 2,830 0Yountville 1,291 1,280 0Napa County 12,363 13,020 657Total 55,259 60,800 5,551

(Sources: Association of Bay Area Governments)

We need to add nearly as many homes ascurrently exist in the City of American Canyon.

HOUSING

City TOT 2013 – 2014 Fiscal Year Rank

% of 13-14 General

RevenuesNapa $15.2m #19 23.5%Yountville $6.3m #47 69.5%Calistoga $4.5m #65 52.1%St. Helena $1.7m #134 11.5%American Canyon $1.2m #160 3.9%

Tourism is important to local municipal revenues.

(Source: State Controller’s Office)

TOURISM

Total County

Los Angeles $433.4m

San Francisco $310.1m

San Diego $226.6m

Orange $226.1m

Santa Clara $96.3m

Riverside $72.8m

San Mateo $72.3m

Monterey $54.9m

Alameda $53.5m

Napa $39.4m

(Source: State Controller’s Office)

It’s less important to the County

TOURISM

UnincorporatedCounty

2014 TOT

% ofBudget

Monterey $19.9m 1.9%

Los Angeles $15.6m 0.1%

Placer $12.0m 1.7%

Mariposa $11.6m 10.4%

Sonoma $11.0m 0.8%

Napa $10.5m 2.2%

San Luis Obispo $8.0m 1.6%

Santa Barbara $7.5m 0.9%

Santa Cruz $5.5m %

Although Napa ranks high statewide in annual TOT

2 of the 11 largest local employers in 2016 are wine or tourism related. 5 are government.

Employer No. Employees Industry

Veterans Home 1,500 - 6,000 Government

Napa County 1,000 - 5,000 Government

Napa State Hospital 1,000 - 5,000 Public Hospital

Napa Unified 1,000 - 5,000 Public School

Queen of the Valley 1,000 - 5,000 Hospital

Pacific Union College 1,000 - 5,000 Private School

Napa Valley College 500 - 1,000 Public School

Owens Corning 500 - 1,000 Manufacturer

Silverado Resort 500 - 1,000 Hotel

Treasury Wine 500 - 1,000 Winery

Walmart 500 - 1,000 Department Store

(Source: State Employment Development Department)

TOURISM

Industry Nov. 2015 2040

Leisure/Hospitality 17.0% 15.8%

Beverage Products 14.2% 13.4%

Government 13.6% 12.5%

Private Education/Health Care 13.4% 12.4%

Trade 14.0% 13.7%

Professional/Business 9.0% 12.1%

Construction/Manufacturing 7.7% 6.5%

Farm 4.6% 6.1%

Financial/Information Technology 3.7% 4.5%

Other 2.9% 3.0%

TOTAL 75,500 86,500

36% of employees in Napa work in either the agricultural or tourism industries. Over a third of new jobs will be

in either farming or tourism.

(Source: Caltrans, Employment Development Department)

TOURISM

TRAFFICNearly a third of traffic is people living in other counties

going to and from work.

(Sources: Napa County Transportation Agency, Napa County General Plan)

TRAFFIC

TRAFFIC

TRAFFIC

(Source: Napa County General Plan)

Traffic will get worse by 2030 (areas in red show congestion).

2005 2030

1990, when the WDO was adopted, may seem like a long time ago. Here is what else was happening in 1990:

• George H. W. Bush was President;• The Dow Jones was at 2,700;• Gold was under $400/ounce;• The USSR and East Germany both existed; • Nelson Mandela was released from prison;• The World Wide Web was in beta testing;• The top movie was “Home Alone;”• The Oakland A’s were in the World Series;• Joe Montana played in the Super Bowl;• Napa Cabernet grapes sold for $1,600/ton;• The median home price in Napa was $350,000.

2040 is as far in the future as 1990 was in the past.

CONCLUSION

40

David Morrison, DirectorNapa County Planning, Building, and Environmental Services Departmentdavid.morrison@countyofnapa.org

(707) 253-4805

THANK YOU