The SEQ is an issue which should have been settled three years ago but some will not let the issue rest - which might be a good thing.
Do not confuse the SEQ with residential development in agricultural lands. No residential was planned, contrary to popular belief.
The SEQ included 215 acres of land for sports, recreation, and leisure uses – and also a Catholic High School. These were recreation opportunities for the community’s children and economic development opportunities as well as a location for a high quality high school.
The proposed high school and ballfields would be located near the freeway so that traffic would not be directed into our community.
Do not forget that the SEQ was an extremely honorable effort to protect agricultural lands that no one else has done since – except the City of Morgan Hill itself is still trying and is succeeding in doing.
I have often said that the city of Morgan Hill’s application to LAFCO for the SEQ and the “opposition’s” are two sides of the same coin.
Both claim they want to protect agricultural lands but have two different approaches. Morgan Hill wanted to take an active approach and the “opposition” wanted to have more discussions. We have now waited and lost at least eighty five acres in the process and the “discussions” have yet to take place.
The opposition did not trust that the City of Morgan Hill was not on a land grab trip for residential development because they oppose development in open space and agricultural lands, me too - unless there is a huge public benefit.
Initially, I was not convinced the city’s SEQ plan was the right approach to saving agricultural lands. I asked and asked and finally ended up in a meeting with Morgan Hill’s City Manager Steve Rymer.
Rymer told the whole story in a way I hadn’t heard before and was finally swayed. One of the reasons was the “Stay Ahead” provision that stated any development proposed within the SEQ had to have an equal sized agricultural conservation easement in place before any construction was started.
The City of Morgan Hill had just adopted their Agricultural Lands Preservation program. I helped write it as a planning commissioner and it adopted the standard of one-for-one preservation of ag lands for every acre of development in ag lands. An agricultural conservation easement meant that any land it was applied to could never, ever be developed with anything more than one residence for the owner’s occupation and any farm related structures. An easement “runs with the land” in perpetuity.
It also stipulated that easements first be located within the SEQ’s “Agricultural Priority Area”.
See Agricultural Lands Preservation Program, you might be impressed: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/CAPP_MorganHill_AgLandsPreservProgram_20141105.pdf
The reason the SEQ application made sense to me is easily understood by looking at portions of eastern San Martin where there are hundreds of two to five acre, sometimes larger, parcels developed without any of the type of regulations you would normally find in Morgan Hill. Regulations like design complimenting the neighboring homes, vehicle parking, maintenance, and on…
Please understand that every lot in the county has a development right for a single residence even if it is zoned agricultural - you can see what it could looks like in east San Martin.
There are some details that stood out to me:
· At the time the families were under patriarchal influence and there were fewer parties to negotiate with. Since that time and on into the future the land will become the property of heirs that have less interest in farming and will have the incentive of selling farm land for residential estate development. Simply put the land will be broken up into smaller chunks and sold one by one. It is happening now.
· Farming works best in larger chunks of land. Some say that at least eighty acres are necessary to make a living off the land and not consider it a hobby. The SEQ encouraged the formation of these large chunks of land.
· The LAFCO application effort included two hundred fifteen acres of land that would be available for two separate applications of possible development, none of it residential. Around forty acres for the proposed Catholic High School and the rest included acreage planned for future sports, recreation, and leisure uses. Note: again, no land designated for residential development was included in the application.
· The LAFCO application included the proposed Morgan Hill “ballfields” on about twenty five acres of land. The Puliafico family indicated they had a forty acre park planned.
· That “Stay Ahead” provision.
Note: I attended an “opposition” meeting where they stated the “Stay Ahead” provision did not have to be adhered to and when I arose to object was basically told to shut up and this was “their meeting”. What was their fear? I stopped respecting at least one member of the “opposition”.
Some groups are still using the SEQ as a rallying cry against development in farmlands which I have always supported - but under the banner of the City of Morgan Hill’s SEQ.
My comments to the LAFCO commissioners from the LAFCO meeting minutes of March 11, 2016 where the application was subsequently denied:
“John McKay, Chairperson, Morgan Hill Tourism Alliance, informed that he is a member of the City Planning Commission, and the interim president of the Morgan Hill Downtown Alliance. He expressed support for the SEQ project and stated that he is opposed to the building of new homes in the unincorporated areas. He stated that the proposed sports facility will bring visitors to the City, and that the proposal will benefit farming. He informed that the City has taken a leadership role.”
Opposition’s position on the SEQ. Remember: many feel the City’s SEQ plan is the opposite side of the same coin of the “opposition’s” regarding environmental concern, growth control and farmland preservation. Please see the environmental concern’s legislative advocate’s comments here:
https://www.greenfoothills.org/advocate-julie-hutcheson-in-the-news-seq/
Of interest regarding LAFCO and a Grand Jury Report, includes the City of Morgan Hill (see pp 24):
http://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2018/Continuity%20Report%20FINAL.pdf
There had been extensive public meetings regarding the SEQ with the community, farmers, and environmental groups starting around 2010. The parties with “expertise” mentioned in one of the “oppositions” comments about their meetings must not include our local farmers who were overwhelmingly in support of the SEQ effort.
The City of Morgan Hill has progressed and started protecting farmlands without the assistance of the State which certain “opposition” said would be necessary to create the conservation easements. We are the regional leader in the fight to preserve farmlands.
It has been repeated until I turned blue in the face – the SEQ application was not about establishing residential development! It was about having control over any residential development that might take place if lands had been brought in. The application also provided for ballfields for our children and economic development opportunities in an area that borders the freeway. This offers great access without bringing visitors into the middle of town and creating more traffic. Also an unfortunate truth is that too much of the farm land in the area had not been farmed in a long time, some areas decades. One mentioned possible alternative location for ballfields would bring visitors into far corner of our town and appears to be needed for a water retention basin for the planned flood control project.
58% of agricultural land converted to other uses takes place in the county. Morgan Hill would have made sure that if it did happen – well into the future beyond any horizon I’d likely be alive to see – it would be regulated to Morgan Hill’s higher development standard.
Please note that I am in support of “clustering” of homes if it gets to the point that I do see residential development in my lifetime in the SEQ. Clustering would take the right to build that single residence from several properties and put them in one location, thereby leaving large swaths of land with no residences at all!
A development of five - 5 plus acre sites at the end of Trail Drive is an example of why we should control development near Morgan Hill. These 5,000 square foot homes, with multiple tenants in a home, are the bane of the Jackson Meadows neighborhood.
Over 30 cars routinely parked on the street, driveways and yards. Visible from the road and Jackson Meadows. This would not have happened if in control of Morgan Hill.
So, there you have it. The SEQ in under 1,5 M words… (BTW: M= 1,000)
