Home / Archive / Yuba/Sutter: Forging Ahead
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Regional Focus: August 2008
Forging Ahead
General plan updates to focus on bringing jobs and a balanced economy
Story by Mark Larson
During the recent housing boom, many Sacramento workers bought real estate in Yuba and Sutter counties, looking for bigger homes, cheaper land and a quality of life that can only be found outside the metro area. But with the current housing slump and soaring gas prices, those same wage earners now have another problem: expensive commutes.
Some residents have been hit with foreclosures, while others are looking for higher paying jobs. And, locals note, if there were more high-paying jobs in Yuba and Sutter counties, they wouldn’t have to leave the area to work. Economic development officials agree, adding that better paying jobs would lead to a stronger economy.
Landing those jobs is just one of the many long-term goals that Yuba and Sutter planners are working on, in early efforts to update their general plans. Though these promise to be arduous, multiyear tasks, officials aren’t deterred from the additional challenges of balancing agriculture and development, and better flood protection.
Agriculture is the main economic engine in both counties, and economic development officials say preserving its footprint is essential. But an overarching challenge they face is crafting future harmony between agriculture and economic dividends from new commercial and industrial development, which are key drivers of jobs.
As these planning efforts forge ahead, there are signs that better economic times are ahead for local farmers. After struggling through down markets for the past decade, local rice farmers and other growers in the region see signs the slump has bottomed out. Now, as vendors in the rising international demand for food, farmers have optimism for a recovery.
And while economic developers want to bring more high-paying jobs to the area by luring manufacturing and high-tech, there’s agreement among diverse business and environmental interests that those sectors should be in designated areas, buffered from farming activity and environmentally sensitive areas like the Sutter Buttes.
Steve Brammer, chief operating officer of the Yuba-Sutter Economic Development Corp., which works to bring jobs to the area, serves on advisory committees for the general plan updates of both Yuba and Sutter counties.
“Both counties are concerned with identifying space for industrial parks,” says Brammer, “so when the economy starts to bloom again, we’ll be ready.” Among the potential businesses to attract are high-tech farm equipment manufacturers and other high-tech companies. Key to solving that problem, he says, will be getting basic water, sewer and other utilities in designated areas to accommodate incoming business.
Both counties want housing, commercial and industrial development to take place on an “infill basis,” of already developed areas, adds Brammer, with housing buffered from farms, as well as commercial and industrial uses.
“The whole idea is to maintain a high quality of living. We don’t want to lose the agricultural flavor of either community,” says Brammer, referring to Yuba City and Marysville.
In fact, that rural feel is a selling point of the area, adds Brammer, one that has been used in Sacramento: It is a drive away from many appealing destinations. But this version doesn’t have the urban congestion of Sacramento.
Charlie Mathews Jr. is a fifth-generation rice farmer and an adviser on the Yuba County general plan update. His goal is to make sure the plan preserves farmland as it tries to frame future growth.
“It’s difficult,” he says. “When you buy a house in Yuba County, you have a right to farm. But you have to keep agriculture and urban uses as separate as you can. We make dust, and we make noise when we’re out there. That’s tough on people who move in from cities.”
Mathews says the county has recognized the economic value of its agriculture base connected to the world economy. “The downside is the state is starting to look here at air and water quality issues, and that may have a big effect on agriculture,” he says.
But as a longtime farmer, Mathews touts agriculture as a consistent economic producer for the county. “It produces something every year,” he says. “You build a house; it’s a one-time event.”
The past 10 years have been a struggle for area farmers, he says. “There has not been growth, it’s just been barely sustaining itself.” And over the past three years costs have risen. The high cost of fuel and the threat of drought are two big wild cards. “Who knows where that’s going to end up?”
However, this year there has been a turning point and increase in farm commodity prices, as the international demand for food increases. “That helps plan a bright future for us,” Mathews says.
As for future housing in the county, Mathews says, it should be planned near existing water and sewer infrastructure and out of floodplains. Floodplains, he notes, are in prime farming areas.
Darin Gale, of the North State Building Industry Association, is an adviser on the Yuba County general plan update. He says Yuba County has had development outside of incorporated areas, while Sutter County has kept its development within the infrastructures in Yuba City and Live Oak.
Mitigation requirements for building on agricultural land will be necessary for the Yuba plan update, Gale says. Other areas require builders to provide acre for acre, alternative agricultural land to replace any they’ve built upon. One question, says Gale, is whether any land used for mitigation, to replace lost farm acreage, could be outside the county.
“Historically [Yuba] County hasn’t done anything” on the land mitigation issue, says Gale, but state law requires it to protect farmland. He notes that agriculture production continues to increase in the county. Given the increased production, there may be future pressure for farmland development in the county from demand for additional housing, commercial and industrial development. Gale doesn’t see the foothills as much of a potential for future development. “As you move up out of the floodplain, the land really isn’t that great,” Gale says. “Really all it’s good for is grazing.”
Another issue Gale sees is what brings about a jobs-to-housing balance. He sees new housing as the first step. “Business really follows the rooftops,” he says. “Antigrowth people say you need to bring business before you bring homes. But Raley’s isn’t going to move in until you bring X amount of houses.”
Plumas Lakes, a housing development in Yuba County west of Highway 70 and 30 miles north of Sacramento and Roseville, has an estimated 17,000 entitled home lots, and about 3,000 have been built. Sixteen different homebuilders have offerings there. Another five homebuilding projects, which are planned, would add another 10,000 lots.
In Sutter County, the major development approved in November 2004 was Measure M — a commercial, industrial and residential development plant called Sutter Pointe. The plan was the result of a grass-roots effort to bring jobs to Sutter County and was overwhelmingly approved by voters as a strategic plan for the region.
The 7,500-acre site, folded in with the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, calls for 2,900 acres for a buildout of 17,500 residential units. At capacity, the project would support an estimated 39,000 residents. Another 3,600 acres is specified for commercial and industrial parks. Doug Libby, planner for Sutter County, says the project is undergoing environmental review and could be put before supervisors for approval by the end of the year.
But new state flood insurance requirements for the Yuba City area, says Gale, are dampening the building market there, aside from influences from the imploded mortgage industry. “They’re in a flood zone,” he says. “That requires insurance and restricts building. It makes it very hard to get any type of [construction] financing.”
One issue in Sutter County centers on the ability to subdivide agricultural land into ranchettes, an option that began in 1996 but was put on hold by the county last November. Planner Libby says the move came from concern that it allowed too much farmland to be converted to residential development. Whether the practice will be resumed will be determined in the county’s general plan update, he says.
While Gale says the Building Industry Association doesn’t have a position on the issue, he believes unprofitable farmland can be developed to help farmers support their operations.
The updated general plan for Yuba County, says Gale, is likely to promote business and job growth. “They have not seen the boom in business growth,” he says. “I think they’re going to set up policies with more emphasis on a jobs-to-homes balance along Highway 65. Yuba County is in a great position.”
But he predicts a couple more years of residential growth is necessary before any critical mass of commercial development, such as a large retail strip center, can be lured. It would also be necessary to consolidate special districts for parks, water, sewer and fire protection, to cut the cost of delivering such services to incoming commercial and industrial firms.
Cory Wilkins, executive director of the Middle Mountain Foundation, a nonprofit land trust encompassing the Sutter Buttes, says a common problem faces both counties. “It’s the balance of economic development with the preservation of agriculture and open space,” Wilkins says.
Although agriculture is the dominant industry in both counties, he says, “Unfortunately, agricultural lands and open space have been sacrificed for decades.”
Wilkins cites Plumas Lakes as an example. “It’s really a model of bad development,” he says. “It’s built on a floodplain, and they spent millions to build a new levee to protect it. It’s built out in the middle of nowhere, with no support services, no commercial development. It’s typical leapfrog type stuff.” Foreclosures there haven’t helped matters, he adds.
Yuba County is “a little bit more pro-development” than Sutter County, which has more farmland, says Wilkins. Like several others, he says housing and commercial development should be kept separate from agriculture to avoid the dust and noise emanating from farm operations.
“For the most part, we all realize that we’re all willing to work toward that end — a good balance,” Wilkins says.
