County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development Planning Office

county Government Center, East Wing, 7th Floor 70 West Hedding Street san Jose, California 951Jo-J705 (408) 299-5770 FAX (408) 288-9 I 98 www.sccplanning.org

August 22, 2016

Mayor Sam Liccardo and Council Members City of San Jose 200 East Santa Clara Street SanJose, CA 95112

Re: Council Agenda Item 4.3: Resolution of Consent County Urban Agricultural Incentive Zone Program Honorable Mayor and Council Members:

The Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development strongly supports the City of San Jose's efforts to establish an urban agriculture incentive zones program. The Department believes urban agriculture would be beneficial for San Jose and its residents, including those areas under County jurisdiction and within the San Jose urban service area.

As the Department has previously expressed, the resolution adopted by the City on November 17, 2015 consenting to the establishment of urban agriculture incenive zones within the urban service area of the City has practical complications that effectively preclude the County from implementing its program in these areas. Although the County commends the City for resolving the issues regarding inventoried vacant housing sites, there remain certain other problematic conditions which are still included in the resolution that the Council will consider on August 23. Attached is the previously submitted summary of concerns.

Consequently, the Department urges the Council to continue the hearing and to direct to staff prepare a revised resolution that, at a minimum, eliminates the most problematic of the resolution's qualifiers:

• lc, Annexation: Urban agricultural activity does not meet the project type threshold for city annexation provided under § 5.20.070 of the County Zoning Ordinance. The suggested application to properties "within 300 feet of the City boundary," is also inconsistent with the more conditional and nuanced proximity requirements of § 5.20.070. The County's regulations follow the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Division 3, Title 5, Section 56000 et. seq. of the California Government Code).

Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, s. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey v. Smith

Additionally, qualifiers le (small animals), and lb (general plan conformance), remain problematic and therefore should also be eliminated. As detailed in the attached summary, each may hinder participation in the program, may pose implementation and enforcement challenges, and may necessitate follow-up Board action to amend the County's adopted UAIZ resolution, map, and/ or zoning regulations.

In June 2015, the County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of consent to allow the establishment of urban agricultural incentive zones programs within each eligible city. The wording is simple, and unconditional. It is excerpted below.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, that in accordance with AB 511, the Board approves the establishment by ordinance of Urban Agriculture lncentive Zones, consistent with the requirements of AB 511 , in the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sutmyvale.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa

The Department believes that an equally simple, unconditional consent by the City is most appropriate, as it would be more conducive to successful implementation.

Please understand that the County has zoning regulations in place to responsibly accommodate urban agriculture on urban unincorporated lots countywide as a principally permitted (by right) activity-without requiring consent from cities. The issue at hand is simply whether a tax incentive program to encourage such activity on small numbers of vacant unincorporated lots can move forward. Without a workable resolution of consent, the County's program cannot move forward.

Thanks very much for this opportunity to provide input.

Sincerely,

Kirk Girard Director, Department of Planning and Development

cc: Supervisor Ken Yeager Supervisor Mike Wasserman Rob Eastwood, Planning Manager James Reilly, Associate Planner Office of the City Clerk

2

SJ RESOLUTION CRITERIA COUNTY COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

1 Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones shall not be established in areas that are outside the City of San José’s Urban Service Area (“USA”) and/or Urban Growth Boundary (“UGB”).

Adopted (County) UAIZ map limits zones to within city urban service areas. There’s no land outside urban service areas where a UAIZ can be established.

County zoning districts where urban agriculture is provided for include R1, R1E, RHS, R1S, R3S, R2, R3, CN, CG, OA, ML, and MH. These are urban districts, largely confined to urban service areas.

2 Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones shall be established only in areas and for parcels where the land use designation under the City of San José General Plan supports agriculture or urban agriculture use, including but not limited to Open Hillside, Lower Hillside, Rural Residential, Residential Neighborhood, and Neighborhood/ Community Commercial.

It’s not clear where San Jose General Plan speaks to urban agriculture.

Would be useful to see where, on the adopted County map, there may be a conflict.

3 Parcels that are identified as available adequate sites for housing in the Housing Element Inventory of the City of San José General Plan Housing Element certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development shall not be included within an Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone.

Seeking additional clarification from HCD on larger issue of possible conflict.

Only one of the housing element inventory parcels shown on the memorandum maps is eligible for annexation (0 Central Way). All five

others are ineligible for annexation, should not have been included in City inventory for housing element.

4 In compliance with the Santa Clara County Code of Ordinances, including but not limited to Section 5.20.060 (City General Plan Conformance), Section 5.20.070 (Properties Subject to Annexation), and Section C1-52 (Properties Subject to Annexation).

For parcels that are within 300 feet of any boundary of the City of San José, the County shall complete or require the completion of a Contiguity/Annexation Statement form and refer the proposal for the UAIZ incentive and contract for such parcels to the City of San José for the City’s determination as to whether the proposed use will require annexation.

Current annexation laws don’t support what this is intending to do. Urban agriculture, planting crops on vacant/ blighted lot is allowed by right—i.e. no use permit, subdivision, new house, rezoning threshold to trigger annexation.

Arcane wrinkle in state and county annexation law: 300-foot rule applicable in Burbank (island), not applicable in Alum Rock (pocket).

SJ RESOLUTION CRITERIA COUNTY COMMENTS/ CONCERNS

5 The production, cultivation, growing and harvesting of marijuana shall be prohibited in the Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone.

County regulations expressly prohibit cultivation of marijuana. Intent language of AB 551 would separately preclude marijuana cultivation.

Sec. B26.5-3. Marijuana cultivation-prohibited.

A. Outdoor cultivation of marijuana is prohibited in the unincorporated area of the county.

B. Indoor cultivation of marijuana is prohibited in the unincorporated area of the county.

C. This section shall not apply to cultivation of medicinal marijuana by a qualified patient or primary caregiver at any residence on a legal parcel where the qualified patient or primary caregiver resides, provided that the cultivation is performed in strict compliance with the regulations of this division and applicable state law.

6 The raising of livestock (except poultry for egg laying), fur-bearing animals and dairy-producing animals shall be prohibited in the Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone.

Testimony at the hearings included an incorrect statement that the County would allow dairies and raising of goats on urban lots. Only limited small animal husbandry allowed.

Small Animals – Limited. Not to exceed a total of twelve (12) of any of the following small animals: rabbits, guinea pigs, chicken and fowl, and similar species as approved by the zoning administrator.

Roosters, peafowl, guinea fowl, geese or quacking ducks are not allowed.

Stakeholders had requested we consider broadening to allow goats and sheep. We declined to include that in our effort.

Accepting this criterion would require that the County change UAIZ ordinance/ contract language, etc, and possibly zoning ordinance language regarding animals.

August 22, 2016

San Jose City Council

200 E. Santa Clara

San Jose, CA 95113

RE: San Jose City Council Meeting 8/23/16

Agenda Item 4.3 – Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones in Unincorporated Santa Clara

County

Dear Mayor Liccardo and Council Members,

On behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, I am writing to offer the organization’s

comments regarding the adoption of Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones (UAIZ) within

unincorporated Santa Clara County. Provided that the county’s housing inventory is not

negatively impacted, the Leadership Group supports the idea of an UAIZ as it allows for the

development of underutilized land parcels to provide benefits to both landowners and

community members alike.

The Silicon Valley Leadership Group, founded in 1978 by David Packard of Hewlett-Packard,

represents more than 400 of Silicon Valley’s most respected employers in issues, programs and

campaigns that affect the economic quality of life in Silicon Valley, including energy,

transportation, education, housing, health care, tax policies, economic vitality and the

environment. Leadership Group members provide nearly one out of every three private sector

jobs in Silicon Valley.

Urban agriculture provides health, environmental, and community development benefits to city

residents. Due to the current housing crisis, it is important to be sensitive toward housing

inventory when determining which land parcels would be eligible to be an UAIZ. The

Leadership Group recommends that the City of San Jose maintain documentation and verify

annually in a report to Council that approved UAIZ sites will not impact the City’s commitment

to meet the Regional Housing Need Allocation or the City’s Housing Element. This will ensure

that UAIZ can be established without any negative repercussions for overall housing stock.

We praise the City of San Jose Planning Staff for their work and consideration. We look

forward to working with the City of San Jose to adopt UAIZs within Santa Clara County. If you

have any questions, please contact Don Tran, Associate for Community Development and

Health Policy, at dtran@svlg.org or (408)501-7854.

Sincerely,

Carl Guardino

President & CEO

2001 Gateway Place, Suite 101E San Jose, California 95110

(408)501-7864 svlg.org

CARL GUARDINO

President & CEO

Board Officers:

GREG BECKER, Chair SVB Financial Group

KEN KANNAPPAN, Vice Chair Plantronics

JOHN ADAMS, Secretary/Treasurer Wells Fargo Bank

TOM WERNER, Former Chair SunPower

AART DE GEUS, Former Chair Synopsys

STEVE BERGLUND, Former Chair Trimble Navigation

Board Members: MARTIN ANSTICE

Lam Research SHELLYE ARCHAMBEAU

MetricStream, Inc. ANDY BALL

Suffolk Construction GEORGE BLUMENTHAL

University of California, Santa Cruz JOHN BOLAND

KQED CHRIS BOYD

Kaiser Permanente BRADLEY J. BULLINGTON

Bridgelux HELEN BURT

Pacific Gas & Electric DAVID CUSH

Virgin America CLAUDE DARTIGUELONGUE

BD Biosciences CHRISTOPHER DAWES

Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital MICHAEL ENGH, S.J. Santa Clara University

TOM FALLON Infinera Corporation

BRANT FISH Chevron Corporation

HANK FORE Comcast

TOM GEORGENS NetApp, Inc

KEN GOLDMAN Yahoo!

RAQUEL GONZALEZ Bank of America

DOUG GRAHAM Lockheed Martin Space Systems

LAURA GUIO IBM

JAMES GUTIERREZ Insikt

JEFFREY M. JOHNSON San Francisco Chronicle

GARY LAUER eHealth

ENRIQUE LORES HP

MATT MAHAN Brigade

TARKAN MANER Nexenta

KEN MCNEELY AT&T

STEVEN MILLIGAN Western Digital Corporation

KEVIN MURAI Synnex

JES PEDERSON Webcor

KIM POLESE ClearStreet

MO QAYOUMI San Jose State University

VIVEK RANADIVÉ TIBCO

STEVEN ROSSI Bay Area News Group

ALAN SALZMAN VantagePoint Capital Partners

RON SEGE Echelon Corporation

ROSEMARY TURNER UPS

RICK WALLACE KLA-Tencor JED YORK

San Francisco 49ers Established in 1978 by

DAVID PACKARD

THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO

COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT SHERMAN SEVENTH DISTRICT

Dear City of San Jose Planning Department,

I am writing to clarify that the San Diego City Council passed our Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone

Ordinance on February 29, 2016. Although the ordinance has technically passed, it is currently awaiting

the second reading until the County of San Diego has passed their resolution. The program will be

located in the Office of Economic Development. The City currently estimates the County resolution to be

passed by November 2016 and the second reading of the City ordinance to occur the following week.

I am excited to see the benefits that this ordinance will provide for the City of San Diego. The General

Plan for the City of San Diego is based around a City of Villages concept. It is important for each area to

have access to fresh food. This ordinance will help address communities that are currently food deserts.

In addition, it will provide relief for areas that have blighted lands. This will help increase property

values and improve community character. I am encouraged to hear that other cities are following our

example such as Los Angeles. I would encourage the City of San Jose to pursue this policy as well.

Further, I have received word that San Jose is concerned about the possible impacts to affordable housing

sites. In our analysis, we did not foresee any conflict between utilizing sites on an interim basis until

projects are planned and permitted. In fact, the City of San Diego saw this program as a complement to

our affordable housing dilemma. It provides property owner’s a tax break as they proceed through the

entitlement process, which can help catalyze their pursuit of a housing project. Additionally, the City of

San Jose can draft language that includes further incentives for those affordable housing sites. This

program is about activating idle land, not preventing future development.

I am excited to see the full implementation of the Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone Program and the

benefits it will bring to the City of San Diego. I would encourage the City of San Jose to pursue enacting

a similar policy.

Sincerely,

Scott Sherman

San Diego City Councilmember- District 7

September 12, 2016 Mayor Sam Liccardo and City Councilmembers City of San Jose 200 E. Santa Clara St. San Jose, CA 95113 Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: On behalf of SPUR, I am writing in support of the revised resolution that would provide the City’s consent to the establishment of the Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone (UAIZ) in certain unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. SPUR supports the resolution so that the county can move forward implementing its urban agriculture incentive zone. As we highlighted in our 2012 report, Public Harvest, urban agriculture provides numerous benefits to cities. Access to land and land tenure, however, are significant obstacles to its expansion in the Bay Area. The county’s Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone will allow property owners in the unincorporated areas of the county to receive a property tax reduction in exchange for committing their land to urban agricultural use for at least five years. The Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone will help address both those obstacles by providing landowners with an incentive to allow urban agriculture projects on their land for set periods of time. We specifically support the revisions to the resolution that have removed mention of any potential conflict between the UAIZ and the Housing Element Inventory. As Planning Staff mentioned in their memo, this issue has been resolved through communication with the state Department of Housing and Community Development. We also hope that any remaining issues that the County has raised that would further delay the UAIZ going into effect can be resolved expeditiously. Additionally, we are pleased that the Planning Department has hired new staff to implement the Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone within San Jose itself. For property owners to see the benefit of the incentive, time is of the essence. Contracts must be signed by the end of this year if property owners are going to see the tax savings in 2017. We urge the Council to ensure that implementation can move forward as quickly as possible in the next month so that projects seeking to take advantage of the incentive can submit their applications and have them reviewed before the end of the year. We appreciate your consideration of SPUR’s comments. If we can answer any questions or provide any additional information about our position, please let me know. Sincerely,

Eli Zigas Food and Agriculture Policy Director

Planning office* P'annin£ ar>d Development

70 VVe^»(?-w£T,'!?®nf Cen(er> East Wing, 7th Floor

^^unty of Santa Clara 5^rtme™ Of PJannina r^.

Clara

70 West Hedding Strew'6"" &)St Wing' 7,h Floor

ca»fomia ssno-i705

September 13, 2016

Mayor Sam Iiccardo and Council Members City of San Jose 200 East Santa Clara Street San Jose, CA 95112

Re: Council Agenda Item 4.2: Resolution of Consent County Urban Agricultural Incentive Zone Program

Honorable Mayor and Council Members:

To follow up on my August 22,2016 letter on the resolution of consent, the Department of Planning and Development is pleased that constructive dialog has occurred between the City Attorney's Office, and the County Office of County Counsel. Specifically, the annexation clause, Item lc on the draft resolution, has been re-worded to the County's satisfaction.

Our overall sentiments expressed in the August 22 letter regarding the City's approach to the resolution remain. We again request that Item le of the resolution, relating to limited small animal husbandry, be stricken. It remains problematic for effective implementatiojn of the County program, and is inconsistent with the intent of AB 1881 (see attached). In addition, it is inconsistent with the City's own policies that accommodate neighborhood agriculture and limited small animal husbandry.

Thanks very much for this opportunity to provide input.

Six—1-

Kirk Girard Director, Department of Planning and Development

cc: Supervisor Ken Yeager Supervisor Mike Wasserman

,ard of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese Ken Yeacer <? inc—,* cimM-•unty Executive: Jeffrey v. Smith " Yea8er> S. Joseph Simltian

From AB 551

CHAPTER 6.3. URBAN AGRICULTURE INCENTIVE ZONES

r r •^S c aP r shall be known, and may be cited, as the ^fnAnCUltUre Incentive Zones Act 51040.1. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the

public interest to promote sustainable urban farm enterprise sectors m urban centers.

The Legislature further finds and declares the small-scale, active production of marketable crops including, but not limited to, foods, flowers, and seedlings, in urban centers is consistent with, and furthers, the purposes of this act

From City of San Jose Municipal Code

. io.200.796-Mortuary, without funeral services. 20.200.800 • Neighborhood business chstrtct >

20.200.798 - Neighborhood agriculture. % » fil 0

"Neighborhood agriculture' means a use that occupies less than one acre for the production of food or horticultural crops to be harvested,

sold or donated or foifcmmal husbandry?" compliance with Title 7 of this Code. Neighborhood Jgr&ulku/tf use may be a principal or an accessory use on a site, value-added products, where the primary ingredients of the product are grown and produced on-site, are included as a part of this

use. Limited sales and donation of fresh food and/or horticultural products grown on site may occur on site as a part of a neighborhood

agriculture use, subject to the provisions of Part 9 of Chapter 20,SO, if applicable. Sales, pick-ups. and donations of fresh food and horticultural

products grown on-site are also considered a part of a neighborhood agriculture use, subject to the provisions of Part 9 ofjQyeleJtaSfi, if applicable.

(Ord 29011.)

23 290 ** Mutuary. witnout funeral ser vices. 20.200.800 - Neighborhood district. >

September 13,2016

Honorable Sam Liccardo San Jose City Hall 200 E. Santa Clara St, 18th Floor San Jose, CA 95113

Dear Mayor Liccardo,

We, the undersigned organizations, are in full support of creating Urban Agriculture Incentive Zones (UAIZs) under state law AB551 in San Jose by September 30,2016.

UAIZs are ranked as one of the top legislative priorities for 2016, and there have already been too many delays in passing this law. Urban agriculture on vacant lots provides huge benefits to the community, including reducing crime and blight, increasing local food security, and bringing the community together. San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, and Santa Clara County have all passed UAIZ ordinances, and no barriers remain for San Jose to enact its own ordinance.

We need UAIZs by September 30, 2016 to take advantage of the current momentum and energy around urban agriculture:

• Applications must be approved by City and County agencies before the end of the year in order to receive the tax incentive, which means a law must be in place well before December 2016 for applications to sign up on time

• This is a turnkey project: The County has already made a model ordinance and application packet, and Garden to Table created a composite version combining San Francisco, Santa Clara County, and Sacramento's ordinance/applications, tailored to San Jose's regulatory code; The Open Space Authority is interested in funding new projects; four project creators have been identified who are ready to build; vacant land owners have expressed interest

• Residents are being evicted or forced to move because of high rents, thus losing both their homes and a stable source of healthy food;

• The HCD has submitted an official letter stating that there is no conflict because UAIZs and the housing element inventory;

Increased food access and safety are fundamental building blocks to creating healthy neighborhoods.

We urge you to take action ensure a vote before the City Council of a UAIZ ordinance before September 30, 2016 to increase urban agriculture and improve health and safety in San Jose

Sincerely,

Jamie Chen La Mesa Verde Organizing Manager Sacred Heart Community Service

Marc Landgraf External Affairs Manager Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority

Case Swenson President Barry Swenson Office

Michael Gross Director of Sustainability Zanker Recycling

Ryan Sebastian Founder and Owner Moveable Feast

Cayce Hill Executive Director Veggielution

Alrie Middlebrook Executive Director California Native Garden Foundation

Camille Llanes-Fontanilla Executive Director Somos Mayfair

Zach Lewis Executive Director Garden to Table

Erin Healy Director of Healthy Eating The Health Trust

Eli Zigas Food and Agriculture Policy Director SPUR

Josh Levine and Troy Smothermon Founders Start Organic

Raul Lozano Executive Director Valley Verde

Jennifer Thomas President San Jose Teachers' Association

Beverly Bachoo Owner Yoga, Ayurveda, and You

Miki Walker Director Discovery Charter School

Owner Breathe Los Gatos

Sheila Barry University of California Cooperative Extension

Dayana Salazar Executive Director CommUniverCity San Jose

Leslie Gray Professor Department of Environmental Studies and Sciences

Vanessa Bonilla Fresh Approach

Rebecca Jepsen Realtor Alain Pinel Realtors

Julie Hutcheson Legislative Advocate Committee for Green Foothills

Veronica Reis, PhD Psychologist

Lorien Neargarder, C-TAYT Founder and Organizer Pose 4 a Purpose Yoga Festival