BAREC Property Land Use
The State of California has surplussed the Bay Area Reasearch and Extension Center (BAREC). It's sale has opened up a question of the best way to ultilize that property and there are two competing concepts, both with Green credentials.
“Development Proposal” combines park, affordable senior apartments and single family housing.
“Save BAREC” proposal retains much of the land in open space and agricultural use.
Development Proposal Green Benefits
Save BAREC Proposal Green Benefits
What problem are we trying to solve?
Save BAREC Endorsement
State of California has surplussed the BAREC property
Two proposals for using the land – both GREEN
The following are notes and comments that describe the problem. At the end, I suggest some ideas for local action and list some of the documents that I reviewed for this report.
The effort to “Save” BAREC brings forward one of the problems of civic environmental policy There are two competing solutions and both have validity, depending on the way that you define the problem or rather which problem you are trying to solve. The task that I have undertaken is to place the questions in the proper context so that the Santa Clara County Green Party can either confirm its action supporting the effort to SAVE BAREC or to reconsider that support after examining alternatives that were not discussed at the March General Meeting.
The competing solutions are variations on a debate that is well documented in William Shutkin's book “The Land That Could Be.” In discussing environmental programs in suburban New Jersey, Shutkin devotes space to the conflicting goals of maintaining open space and providing affordable housing. As Shutkin points out, it is difficult to have both unless there is an abundance of land.
BACKGROUND:
The State of California has shut down the operations of the Bay Area Research and Extension Center (BAREC). Given the current state budget, this decision is not reversible.
AGRICULTURAL SOLUTION:
Things that the Save BAREC organization needs.
For all of the community interest that it has generated, the SAVE BAREC organization does not yet have more than a good list of alternative uses for the BAREC property. While their intentions are good, they will probably fail unless they can come up with a complete proposal package that:
identifies all of the players and the extent of their commitments;
identifies the sources of funds for the purchase of the land from the State;
and, ensures both the City of Santa Clara and the State of California that these proposals make economic sense.
The most recent public input meeting documented by the City of Santa Clara found that the citizens in the area want “open space and only open space.” (Minutes of the January 15, 2003 public input session.)
HOUSING SOLUTION:
The City of Santa Clara has one of the worst jobs:housing ratios in Silicon Valley.
Still, it feel that it is making great progress on the issue. In fact, according to City's current issues page on their WWW site:
“Santa Clara was one of only seven jurisdictions in the nine-county Bay Area to receive an "honor roll" rating, the highest possible, for its efforts to provide housing. The "San Francisco Bay Area Housing Crisis Report Card" was published by the Non-Profit Housing Association, the Greenbelt Alliance, and the Nine County Housing Advocacy Network. It examined the 40 largest and fast-growing cities and counties in the region and rated them on 105 different elements related to meeting the housing crisis. Unsatisfactory grades were given to 72% of the jurisdictions.“
Other Concerns:
There are several related issues that are happening at the same time and serve to demonstrate the overall severity of the problems that the SAVE BAREC organization is addressing. They also point to a continued need to focus on the questions of affordable housing and a reform of the system by which the State of California funds its City and County governments.
UC Cooperative Extension: The State of California runs a series of Extension Service programs. The statewide programs listed at the end of this document. Santa Clara County has full support for the 4-H Youth Development Program, an Expanded Food and Nutrition Program, the Master Gardener Program as well as a Small Farm Adviser and a Resources (Rangeland and Water) Adviser.
These programs are all under scrutiny as part of the budgetary process. While the programs are run by the State of California, the funding for their housing, secretarial services and other support comes from the county. These programs are not mandated by the State, but the counties can choose to participate or not. However, they can not chose the programs that they need but rather have to buy into all of the programs or not get any.
Since these are not mandated, Santa Clara County is seriously considering to opt out of the Cooperative Extension Services Programs. The only significant support is coming from the parents of 4-H Club youth, which numbers a little over 600 in the county.
As the last agricultural acreage disappears from Santa Clara County, these programs need to be continually re-evaluated. The current budget crisis is forcing the issue before anyone really wanted to deal with it.
Coyote Valley Development: The City of San Jose is in the public input phase of a new Coyote Valley Specific Plan. One major objective is driving the direction of the plan, and that is the fact that San Jose sees itself as the bedroom community for other Silicon Valley Cities (Palo Alto, Mountain View, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale).
San Jose ranks near the bottom of the list when ranking the cities in Santa Clara County on the basis of a jobs:housing ratio. Only Morgan Hill, Saratoga, Monte Sereno, Los Altos and Los Altos Hill rank lower. Conversely, Santa Clara ranks at the top of the list and, during the period from 1995-2000 increased that ratio at a rate that was over 4 times the county average.
The City of San Jose intends to place approximately 50,000 jobs in Coyote Valley and to provide housing for only 85,000 residents. The overall effect will be more sprawl as new workers in Coyote Valley will seek housing that is generally to the South of the site. This plan, driven primarily by the revenue implications of new business development vs. residential development, will only increase the severity of the problems that we currently have, too much traffic, too much air pollution, too little time with families and a marked decline in social capital.
The implication of all of this is that there is true “green” benefit in any project that provides more housing within those cities with the worst jobs:housing ratios.
ACTIONS:
A review of available options in the City of Santa Clara finds that the BAREC property is unique. No other property South of 101 can better fit the needs for either open space or affordable housing.
I believe that the Santa Clara County Green Party needs to decide what level of involvement that it plans to have in local policy development. The case can be made that an increased involvement can bring increased interest in the Party, as long as it can be effective in achieving local goals.
In the specific issue of the proper use of the BAREC property, being effective means doing more than just giving an endorsement to one or the other of the competing proposals. The best solution is one in which both Green outcomes are possible, having affordable housing in the sections of the community where the use of public transportation is a reasonable option and, at the same time, preserving open space and providing some base for urban agriculture.
The GP local needs to think about organizing itself to be an effective voice in local issues. Just as the Green Issues Working Group is attempting to work through some of these questions on the State or National level, a mirror of that emphasis can actually bring the local GP into prominence in Santa Clara County.
The Santa Clara County Local should also find a way to input into any effort to revise the funding of local (County and City) jurisdictions so that it does not award economic development while penalizing those jurisdictions that invest in the development of adequate housing to support increases in industrial and retail employment.
Sources:
4th Annual Regional Sustainability Forum: Resources for Achieving Sustainable Development September 22, 2003
2003 Silicon Valley Environmental Index: Silicon Valley Environmental Partnership
City of Santa Clara BAREC Reuse Planning Principles: 02/04/03
City of Santa Clara PLANNING COMMISSION January 15, 2003
Valley Village Retirement Community: Joint Planning Commission Study Session
2nd Neighborhood Outreach Meeting For the Reuse and Development of the Bay Area Research Extension Center (BAREC) MINUTES
ABAG study of Regional Housing Need from last mandated update to jurisdictions General Plan Housing Element. (2001)
California Center for Land Recycling Special Report (May 2002)
San Francisco Bay Area Housing Crisis Report Card: Greenbelt Alliance. June 2002.
Santa Clara County Planning Office Report: Jobs / Housing Rations Santa Clara County and its Cities – 2000.
Santa Clara County Planning Office Report: 2001, 2002, 2003 Population & Housing Esitmates for Santa Clara County
PLANNING & INSPECTION DEPARTMENT: City of Santa Clara FACT SHEET - JULY 2003
General Plan, City of Santa Clara
Posted by at April 6, 2004 09:00 AM