News
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Sign up for Email Updates
CGF In the News
Press Inquiries
Past Articles
Calendar

The Spirit of Infill
 
by Brian Schmidt

From time to time, and twice this year, the Committee for Green Foothills has seen proposals to change land use designations intended to allow more development on the basis that the change constitutes infill. We don’t automatically oppose infill proposals, as they can make land use planning more consistent and reasonable, but we do need to examine them carefully based on their merits.

Wise infill proposals
The best argument for infill is when land under county jurisdiction is entirely surrounded by land under city jurisdiction. The land almost certainly will develop to city standards someday. Rather than waste government resources sending the county sheriff to serve the area when the city police could do so, it should be annexed. Another reasonable example of infill occurs when a parcel is almost but not completely surrounded by more intense land uses, say a small agricultural parcel surrounded by rural residential development on three sides.

Questionable infill proposals
Unfortunately, though, we often see developers use infill as a way to justify questionable development proposals. Developers seem to view any border between land designations as an excuse for “infill” as they define it — an excuse to expand the area where increased development is allowed.

A proposal recently before Santa Clara County — a lot along Watsonville Road south of Morgan Hill where the landowner has asked for re-designation from limited-development Hillside to more-intense Rural Residential, used the infill argument in its proposal. Although some inappropriate development exists in nearby areas, most of the surrounding Watsonville Road area is undeveloped.

How to evaluate proposals using infill arguments
So what should the County do in the Watsonville Road case and in other cases using infill as a basis for increased development? Some criteria that the County should consider in examining developers’ infill proposals to see if they meet the spirit of infill include:

Inequity – is the current zoning designation grossly unfair when compared to neighbors? Infill is warranted when a parcel is surrounded by parcels with more intense development designations. By contrast, the Watsonville parcel is surrounded by Hillside- and Agriculture-designated property.

Inevitability – is the area destined for other land use? Infill is warranted if most of the surrounding lands have been developed. In many situations, though, like the Watsonville Road parcel, a mix of development exists, where some parcels are overdeveloped and some are not. An important part of land use planning is not to imitate past mistakes with present ones. If the area has mixed use but is not wholly developed, the change in land use is not inevitable.

Contiguity – does changing the designation make land use types more compact or more intertwined? Infill is warranted if most of the surrounding lands have the same designation. The Watsonville parcel, for example, only borders Rural Residential designations for about 37% of its length, so changing its designation would actually have the net effect of making land use designations more intertwined. The problem is shown by the effect on a neighboring parcel that now only borders Rural Residential on one side for 31% of its length. If the change occurs, this parcel would border Rural Residential on two sides for 40% of its length and become a new target for development.

Uneconomic – we often see the “farming is dead” argument used for changing agriculture designations, although farming still seems to carry on. Infill is warranted if most of the surrounding lands have been developed. In many situations, though, like the Watsonville Road parcel, a mix of development exists, where some parcels are overdeveloped and some are not. An important part of land use planning is not to imitate past mistakes with present ones. If the area has mixed use but is not wholly developed, the change in land use is not inevitable.

What makes best policy
As a general rule, if there is no legal or ethical obligation to allow the applicant’s request for increased development, the county needs to look at what makes best policy. In only one or possibly two areas of Santa Clara County jurisdiction — the Stanford core campus and possibly in San Martin — can one reasonably claim that more development should occur there, and not just inside city limits. For these reasons, the infill policy should be adhered to very carefully.

Published Fall 2007 in Green Footnotes.

Page last updated December 18, 2007.