GILROY
– The much-dredged controversy over farmland preservation in
this agriculture-turned-retail town may have a happy ending.
GILROY – The much-dredged controversy over farmland preservation in this agriculture-turned-retail town may have a happy ending.
The city is paying roughly $2,000 to $3,000 to a consulting firm that will determine how much environmental work must be done if City Council passes a farmland preservation bill as is. The amount is chump change in comparison to the $50,000 to $100,000 city officials once thought they’d have to pay.
“I’m being optimistic, but we’re hoping to take care of this swiftly,” Planning Division Manager Bill Faus said.
When a Council-appointed special task force developed a farmland preservation policy that bent certain rules outlined within the city’s General Plan, officials figured the entire document would need to – for a second time – pass muster under California’s stringent environmental laws.
Instead, the city’s lawyers now say only one part of the General Plan would need tinkering. And, the Monterey-based firm Denise Duffy and Associates could come back as early as next week with a report that says only a nominal amount of environmental review, if any, would need to be done.
“We’re having them take a look at what we’d have to do (with the environmental impact report) to make sure we’re legal,” Planner Cydney Casper said.
In a worst case scenario, the city would have to pay its consultants, staff and lawyers up to $100,000 to redraft and recirculate the environmental impact report. At that point, farmland interests – from open space advocates to developers – would comment on the revised document.
In a best case scenario, the city has to do virtually nothing, other than begin implementing its new farmland preservation policies.
Faus said the reason for his optimism stems from research by another consulting firm the city hired, EMC Planning Group. The Monterey-based company claims Gilroy’s plan to preserve agriculture mirrors several other cities’ preservation laws.
“When you put together a plan like this you need to look at precedents,” Faus said. “This plan has that.”
In other words, City Council would not be going out on a limb by approving the bill.
At first, officials figured the farmland preservation bill would trigger the costly environmental work because it contradicted a key component of the General Plan. The city’s General Plan spells out three ways a developer – who converts agricultural land into homes or businesses – can preserve farmland elsewhere.
The three options are:
• Purchase at fair market value an equal amount of farmland elsewhere and donate it to a land trust.
• Purchase the development rights (which is less than fair market value) on an equal amount of farmland, donate those rights to a land trust and let the farmer continue to work the land.
• Pay an impact fee that gets donated to a land trust which can later purchase and preserve farmland. The fee would be based on the cost of development rights, not fair market value.
Language in the city’s General Plan states that the purchase price for options two and three must be equivalent to the first option. However, the task force felt this was unfair and impractical, thus triggering the ire of certain open space and farmland advocates.
Faus defended the city’s recent spending of money on consultants.
“Any time you interpret a part of the General Plan in a way that may be a deviation from the original intent, you need to proceed cautiously,” Faus said. “Taking this step was a very sound decision on our part.”
At least one councilmember said his decision will be made regardless of cost when the bill comes before City Council May 3.
When asked how much a $50,000 to $100,000 price tag would have on his decision, Councilman Bob Dillon said, “None.”
“If it takes a few bucks to do this right, then I’m willing to do that,” Dillon said.
