GILROY
– If a special task force on farmland preservation has anything
to say about it, the city will spend up to $100,000 on
environmental work to make developers and farmland owners
happy.
GILROY – If a special task force on farmland preservation has anything to say about it, the city will spend up to $100,000 on environmental work to make developers and farmland owners happy.
The group is recommending a more flexible approach than what is laid out in guidelines approved by the city two years ago. If City Council approves the discrepancy next month, a new environmental impact report must be written, costing up to $100,000 in legal and consulting fees, the city says.
Specifically, developers will be able to choose one of three ways to pay for their impacts to agriculture. When farmland outside the city’s boundaries gets turned into residential or commercial property, developers can:
• buy, and preserve, an equal amount of farmland elsewhere,
• buy only the development rights associated with an equal amount of farmland elsewhere,
• pay a fee based on the price of development rights, so a land trust can purchase farmland elsewhere.
The three options can cost vastly different amounts, making conservationists worry that developers may repeatedly choose the cheapest one. When mitigation is cheap, development can peak – a prospect that is hard to swallow for residents who demanded a tough farmland preservation policy when City Council approved future industrial development on 660 acres of pristine farmland.
“I like the idea of having three options, but it’s been my understanding those three options would be equal in cost,” said Connie Rogers, a former City Council member who is part of a group called Save Open Space Gilroy. “I recognize there needs to be compromise, but I hope we can save farmland without recirculating the (environmental impact report).”
The city’s guidelines for farmland preservation, which the task force is turning into formal policy, say the value of each option should be based on the fair market values of ag land. Fair market rates can range from $9,000 to $40,000 an acre, according to research by the city and the Open Space Authority.
Several weeks ago, the city’s attorney determined the costly environmental impact report would have to be redone if the city allowed mitigation options to cost less than fair market value.
“That would open a Pandora’s box that was such a difficult five-year process the first time around,” Rogers said.
Task force members Wednesday night, however, remained undeterred by the cost. Several members say they want to deliver a policy to City Council that can realistically preserve farmland while being fair to farmland owners and the people who want to develop that land.
They claim it is unfair to drive up the cost of development to a point where developers cannot afford to buy farmland outside Gilroy.
“A lot of these farmers’ lands are like their 401Ks,” task force member Kip Brundage said. “We don’t want something that is going to hurt them.”
Brundage is a supporter of option two – buying development rights – because it pays farmers for a portion of their land and it allows them to continue farming. By selling development rights, farmers agree never to build homes or businesses on their property, but they continue to own – and if they so choose – farm the land.
“Isn’t this about preserving ag land?” Brundage asked the group Wednesday night.
Brundage then proposed a one-sentence alternative to the group’s multi-page preservation policy.
“For every ag acre you develop, you have to buy development rights on another ag acre,” Brundage said.
The suggestion received some positive feedback, but the group ultimately followed Chairman Richard Barberi’s recommendation to continue their ongoing work. Barberi encouraged the group to meet one more time, March 24, and respond to the concerns and questions City Council and various interest groups have raised regarding the group’s first attempt at a preservation policy.
The group submitted that policy in October 2003.
“Let’s try to answer these questions, and if we can’t, let’s take our original plan back to City Council and let them deal with it,” Barberi said.
City Council and the task force will have a joint workshop April 12 to discuss the group’s rewritten policy.
