Through interviews with land trusts, open space districts and agricultural preserves, NorthBay biz takes a look at land, brand and growth in the North Bay.
Making ripples
It was in the 1960s when open land in the North Bay suddenly faced development head-on. First came a plan to turn Kent Island in the Bolinas Lagoon, a wildlife treasure and wonder of tranquility, into a 1,500-boat marina with accompanying heliport, restaurants, hotel and housing—complete with toll bridge. The proposal galvanized the locals into action and, with the help of the Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Canyon Ranch and the Marin Conservation League, they purchased the land and defeated the plan—and they boast about their victory to this day.
Up the coast, on Tomales Bay, a similar plan would have created another marina and a whole new town of 125,000 people. Horrified residents, who prized the beauty and tradition of their farms and open space, also fought the plan and won.
There are stories all over Marin, says Huey Johnson, who was California Resource Secretary in those days, and who founded The Trust for Public Land, and later, the Resource Renewal Institute, which works today to preserve lands in perpetuity. Johnson is quick to remind, whenever someone comes in breathless and happy after a glorious walk though the fields along the coast or in the headlands, “Somebody fought for every one of those lands.”
Agriculture trumps development
Locals fought in Napa County, too, in the late ’60s. But their debate wasn’t so much over an immediate catastrophe, but between a vision and a principle. Some argued that preserving the valley as an agricultural paradise capable of producing unique and world-class wines was a better way forward than paving it over for short-term profit and houses. Others, looking at their own ledgers and not scouring the horizon for signs of barbarian hoards, argued that limiting landowners’ rights was tantamount to socialism. The Napa Valley Register, in an “Ag Preserve” anniversary article on April 20, 2008, quoted John Daniel, former Inglenook Winery owner, as calling the proposal to preserve agricultural land, “un-American and socialistic.” Had his view prevailed, the Napa Valley as we know it today, with the iconic wines and lifestyle and open landscape and forested hillsides would, most likely, not exist. If you listen to almost anyone in the Valley talk about the “Ag Preserve,” they’ll mention the “paved-over” Silicon Valley and say, “Is that what they wanted?”
Maintaining agricultural character
It’s certainly not what Chiles Valley organic vineyard owner Volker Eisele wanted. He came from Germany via UC Berkeley to settle permanently in the Napa Valley in 1971. He and his wife, Liesel, then graduate students, supported the Agricultural Preserve. To him, it was a natural choice, as he has a culturally imbedded respect for the nature of land. He explains the tough decisions the locals had to make back in the ’60s in cultural and financial terms.
“The real deep issue,” he says, “is that Americans aren’t ready to understand that houses shouldn’t be built on farmland. Land is too precious. Land is in very limited supply. Nobody in Europe would entertain building on agricultural land. You can’t.” He also understands that some land owners, who don’t want to see full-scale development, still want the right to sell a portion of their land for their own economic security. “But,” he says, “that’s counterproductive.”
The problem is, should a few acres of farmland be sold at high prices for housing, those prices would become the “comparables” that determine neighboring land values, ultimately driving the price of agricultural land so high the landowners could be forced out, and the valley would end up like, well, Silicon Valley.
Recognizing this, and understanding the special economic and cultural value of Napa Valley’s agricultural character, state legislators in 1965 passed the California Land Conservation Act (called the Williamson Act, for its author) enabling boards of supervisors to contract with landowners to keep the land in agricultural use in return for a property tax benefit. This led the way, after a local debate as contentious and momentous as the recent one over health care, toward the creation of the Napa County Agricultural Preserve, the first of its kind in the country. This, explains Eisele, was just a start. Subsequently, through a progression of adjustments, the valley floor lot size restrictions on subdivision went from 20 acres minimum to the current 40 acres, with the hillside minimum set, since 1993, at 160 acres.
“So the protection we have,” says Eisele, “is really a regulatory protection. Whether the land will truly stay in agriculture depends on the willingness of people to continue farming.” Feeling the population tsunami sucking the sand from under his feet even now, he wants stricter regulation to firmly protect the already protected lands, and an overall plan to manage the valley against the pressures of growth.
[Editor’s note: Recently, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger cancelled $27.8 million a year in subsidies to California counties that have contracts under the Williamson Act. The impact on future farming and open space in the North Bay remains to be seen.]
Land trusts and open space districts
Each of the three North Bay counties enjoys similar blessings of weather, nature, landscape, biodiversity and agricultural bounty. And each continues to experience the pressure of more and more people wanting to settle in and enjoy the paradisiacal quality of life—which their presence en masse would change.
To help preserve their respective counties’ scenic landscapes, the Sonoma Land Trust and the Land Trust of Napa County, both formed in 1976, work to protect natural, agricultural, scenic and open land by a variety of means, including land acquisition, easements, outreach and educational programs. Neither claims to be an advocacy group; rather, they work to acquire and preserve the lands they can and to help educate the public, whose appreciation of the land is central to their mission.
Marin Agricultural Land Trust (MALT), formed in 1980 by a coalition of farmers, ranchers and environmentalists, works to ensure the 150-year-old tradition of family farming in Marin can continue in perpetuity by making sure the land is protected and available for agricultural uses. This, explains Elisabeth Ptak, associate director of MALT, isn’t only a service to landowners, but to the public as well. “Quality of life is a public benefit,” she says. “Out here, you see, appreciate and love it. Two and a half million people come to Point Reyes National Seashore every year. And they often don’t understand that what they’re experiencing as they drive through is farmland. The inspiration, the beauty, the wildlife habitat are all public benefits of protecting farmland.”
Having your cake and eating it too
In an industrial park in Novato, landowner Crawford Cooley presides behind a vast shiny desk facing a wall on which hangs a big topographical map flanked by two eye-catching black-and-white photographs. The one on the left is recognizable as the Marin-side tower of the Golden Gate Bridge, standing alone, in empty space. The other, shot from the air, shows a blurry mob of people crossing the just-completed bridge, with little airplanes circling above.
“I was in that crowd,” he says, smiling. “I was 11 years old.” His father, who was a San Francisco lawyer and lover of the outdoors, began accumulating the first part of the property depicted on the map in 1910. The 19,000-acre Cooley Ranch is now the largest tract of land on which the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District holds an easement. Cooley, who owns ranches in both Marin and Sonoma counties, had been on the board of MALT since soon after its creation and was a member of the Sonoma advisory committee, which recommended the formation of the Sonoma District.
Cooley’s first interest in completing a conservation easement with the Sonoma District was to maintain the Cooley Ranch as it is. With increasing land values, this was becoming a more difficult problem. The resulting easement was a combination of a significant gift to the District and a purchase by the District. The result is that the land is protected from development in perpetuity.
Reflecting on the success of the Open Space District, Cooley says he thinks the main reason it was successful is that, unlike Marin County, Sonoma County had very little park land or protected agricultural lands at a time of huge urban growth. “People felt a desire to preserve,” he says, “and the district made that possible by purchasing easements representing the development rights of the property. So landowners can get some money out while retaining their properties. The District also made significant outright park land purchases.”
Fourth-generation Sonoma dairyman Robert Camozzi agrees with the principle and the practice. “We think the key to surviving here is to keep the land open,” he says. For him, the Open Space District does that. “We think it’s a very good tool that matches what we do.” The voters of Sonoma support the District with a $0.025 sales tax, so even though now, as with all other organizations and businesses, it feels the down times, it’s still doing well.
Part of its plan is to create large blocks of preserved land to maintain the integrity of agriculture, habitat and landscape. “We have to respect agriculture,” Camozzi says. “Everything from the bees, to the cows, to the vegetables. It’s all part of a puzzle. When that’s broken, people aren’t going to understand. When the food isn’t available, what are people going to eat?”
Anne Teller, whose late husband, Otto, was one of the founders of the Sonoma Land Trust, knows about good eating and raises fine organic vegetables, fruits and flowers on her Oak Hill Farm, which is protected by an easement with the Sonoma Land Trust. At the end of a busy Tuesday afternoon, she sits in front of The Red Barn, where locals come all summer and into the fall to select from a rich array of fresh organic produce. Simply to drive up the lane through the great old oaks into the farm to get your food is an experience of communion with the culture of land that makes Sonoma living special. “If you like a good life and hard work, great food, good company and a sense of satisfaction—not a rich bottom line, but a sustainable bottom line—it’s really a good life.” She sits tall and straight, and speaks with the frankness and energy of someone who works the land. “I think Sonoma County’s return to agriculture shows that caring and land stewardship is a way to save the county. Thanks to the interest in local produce, grapes, olives, artisinal cheeses and organic meats, land in Sonoma will be preserved to grow basic commodities.”
Her property is preserved in perpetuity, and she’s able to enjoy it, take care of it and keep the community well supplied with her famous fare. She knows how special that is. “I just returned from the Peninsula, which used to be appealing,” she says. “Now it’s frenetic. Totally paved over. No boundaries.”
No growth or slow growth, it’s on the way
All three counties are predominantly anti-growth, but the demand for housing and development are constantly increasing. While the Napa “Ag Preserve” is a local stamp of cultural identity and intention, it cannot completely protect the Napa County landscape from development encroachment, says Volker Eisele. “We have close to 10,000 parcels in Napa County grandfathered in, where you can build houses,” he says. “Think about this: If those 10,000 houses are built, and each house has an average occupancy of two and a half people, that’s 25,000 more people in the unincorporated area. It’s insane. It’s a losing battle. You cannot democratize the land.”
According to Supervisor Diane Dillon, that’s what the state is asking the counties to do. “State law requires every region to have zoned appropriately so housing can be built,” she says. “The Department of Finance comes up with the number of what the population will be and what the housing requirements will be, and it throws the number at the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and then ABAG has to figure out how to divvy up the number within the area. It’s contentious, because nobody likes the requirements.” Its rationale, she explains, is that if you’re going to have job growth, which is desirable, you’re going to need to have housing growth. So each region has to take its fair share.
“So the decision is,” says Ralph Benson, executive director of the Sonoma Land Trust, “do you spread out the development and ruin the landscape? Or do you protect the landscape and concentrate the development?” For him, it’s really not a question. “People come here for the landscape—golden hills, oak woodlands, redwoods and all of the things we’re working to protect for another generation.” The cities of Sonoma County have urban growth limits, and the county works to maintain agriculturally zoned “community separators,” which may be protected by easements or purchased by the Open Space District, or donated to the Land Trust. “Years from now,” he says, “people will love living in Santa Rosa because they have Taylor Mountain, which the Open Space District has protected forever.”
“In the case of Marin County,” says Crawford Cooley, “the zoning is so strict in terms of conversion of agriculture to other uses, it just isn’t happening. In Marin’s case, there’s a tendency to say it’s going to occur in small ‘in-holdings,’ which haven’t been developed or haven’t been densely developed—in downtown areas, for example—and any time it’s proposed, the neighbors don’t want it. So the end result is Marin really isn’t satisfying the state housing requirements. It’s the original anti-growth county.”
Jean Hasser, principal planner for the City of Napa, acknowledges that builders are frustrated by communities that limit housing. Still, it’s been the will of the voters to-date to keep urban development within the urban line. “We’ve certainly had a broad base of representatives, including environmental representatives, work with us during our general plan housing element updates, and it’s been a strongly held goal to do infill housing within the urban limit line. As outlying vacant lands become more scarce, we’re looking at mixed-use developments and to grow more up in our core areas to stay within the urban line.”
What happens when the “housing element” numbers exceed the availability of unprotected land? Is protected land vulnerable?
“Yes,” says Napa County District Three Supervisor Diane Dillon. “ But the Napa County Board of Supervisors staff provided a report listing 10 recommendations, the first of which is to try to change state law. After that, the strategy is to look at Napa Pipe, an area of industrial land south of the city where housing could go in over [the course of] 20 years.” And after that, the concern remains.
“My personal philosophy,” says Dillon, “is that we need to protect agricultural land in this county and in this state, because it’s a precious commodity. It’s a finite item. I believe our goal should be not to pave over a single acre of agricultural land. Ours is a particular treasure. We have the microclimate and soils that produce world-class wine. We also have a treasure of natural beauty here in Napa County. So to even conceive of paving over agricultural land is shortsighted at best. You can always think of a reason why this year it might be a good thing, but we need to bear in mind the long view.”
“When people come to a place like the Napa Valley,” says Joel Tranmer, CEO of the Land Trust of Napa County, and whose father was one of its founders, “they say, ‘God, this is really an amazing place; why is it so beautiful?’ And the reason is that the local people take care of it.” He and the others point out that maintaining the culture of a place is important and a generational thing. The decisions people make today will affect their children and grandchildren. “So how can you help? Become involved: join, volunteer, donate easements, donate money. Basically, what we’re doing is taking care of our own neighborhood. Because if we don’t, it’ll someday be asphalt and houses, like the Santa Clara Valley.”
Ten Strategies for Napa’s Housing Future
Short of changing state law to exempt Napa County from all housing requirements, no single strategy will minimize the county’s housing problem over the long term. Therefore, the Napa County staff is recommending to the Board of Supervisors that the county implement all of the following 10 strategies, recognizing that most involve ongoing active participation by the board as well as staff. The following is a condensed version of the board’s list:
1. Continue to seek changes in state law to reduce or eliminate Napa County’s unincorporated RHNA allocations in the future and facilitate transfer agreements between the county and its cities.
2. Continue to participate in regional planning. It’s critical that staff and elected officials participate in MTC’s Strategic Communities Strategy planning process and ABAG’s RHNA methodology process.
3. Implement 2009 housing element programs. It’s critical that Napa County be seen as a jurisdiction that’s willing to do its part, implementing programs within the 2009 Housing Element Update and facilitating development on sites it identifies for multifamily housing.
4. Comply with annual reporting requirements. It’s critical that Napa County comply with annual reporting requirements, providing HCD with a detailed summary of dwelling units permitted and constructed and the status of programs included in the 2009 Housing Element Update.
5. Pursue transfer agreements. The county should seek to negotiate contractual agreements with American Canyon, Napa and Calistoga that could be forwarded to ABAG as the basis of transfers at the appropriate time during the next housing cycle.
6. Four simultaneous paths for the Napa Pipe site. Using the Napa Pipe site to meet a significant portion of the county’s FHNA allocation in the current cycle and two future cycles has sufficient merit that the Board of Supervisors agreed to process Napa Redevelopment Partners’ application to amend the county’s General Plan in March 2007. The county is pursuing four parallel paths, only one of which will be pursued to successful conclusion.
7. Leverage the Affordable Housing Fund to get “credit” for units built. The county should be using its Affordable Housing Fund consistent with programs in the 2009 Housing Element Update, and to generate new affordable units by the end of the current RHNA cycle in 2014.
8. Use county-owned land. The county should actively seek out one or more pieces of county-owned property that could be offered to a nonprofit developer to construct affordable housing.
9. Partner with other agencies and organizations. The county already enjoys partnership arrangements with nonprofit organizations such as Fair Housing Napa Valley, and has historically partnered with nonprofit affordable housing developers that obtain funding from the county’s Affordable Housing Fund. These types of arrangements should be perpetuated and expanded.
10. Collaborate with city representatives on a plan for the distribution of housing county-wide, laying the foundation for a “subregional” approach to the next RHNA allocation. Napa County should enter into a comprehensive planning process with the cities to determine if agreement can be reached on a long-term plan for the location of multifamily housing in the county as a whole.
