City’s farmland preservation policy
– the only one of its kind – could serve as a model for Santa
Clara County
Gilroy – Regional land use officials have cleared the way for a 250-unit housing project in south Gilroy that will serve as the first test of the city’s farmland preservation policy –  the only one of its kind in Santa Clara County.
In the process, the Local Agency Formation Commission, an agency that wields veto power over annexation requests, provided a glimpse of how tough a preservation policy it would expect the county’s 14 other cities to adopt.
On Wednesday, LAFCO officials voted unanimously to redraw the Urban Services Area line in south Gilroy to include 27 acres along Luchessa Avenue. The vote frees local leaders to bring the county land within city borders and sets the stage for a development proposal that includes 220 single family homes, 30 apartments, and 80,000 square feet of commercial space.
According to LAFCO staff, the development would create 51 jobs and bring in more than 800 residents.
But for agency commissioners, the bigger issue centered on the city’s Agricultural Mitigation Policy, which requires landowners to preserve an acre of farmland for every acre of tillable land they develop.
The Barberi family, owners of the Luchessa Avenue land, have agreed to pay fees into a preservation fund to “mitigate” the loss of the farmland – an alternative allowed under the city’s policy.
While Gilroy officials swell with pride over the regulation, LAFCO staff and officials are a little less awestruck.
In particular, the agency raised concerns about the timing of mitigation, in this case the payment of fees. Reading from a staff report, LAFCO Executive Director Neelima Palacherla urged commissioners to require developers to pay the fees at the time of annexation, while the city’s policy calls for payment when the project receives final approval – potentially two years after the annexation date. In the first instance, LAFCO retains enforcement power over the city’s agricultural mitigation policy. In the latter, enforcement is left in the hands of city leaders.
Palacherla also called for commissioners to prevent any reduction in the amount of land that must be preserved under the development agreement with Barberi. She worried that a clause in the agreement would allow further reductions as the city carved out additional sections for roads, sidewalks and other public-use areas that do not require mitigation under the city’s preservation policy.
“(Those conditions) almost seem punitive and appear to be a break from past practices,” said Santa Clara County Supervisor Pete McHugh, an alternate to LAFCO who sat in on the proceedings. “It almost speaks to a lack of trust.”
The strained relationship between LAFCO and Gilroy is no secret. Local leaders have accused the agency in the past of placing greater restrictions on the city’s growth than elsewhere in the county, while LAFCO officials have said the city simply failed to meet its standards. In the last year, local leaders have sought to mend the relationship by offering commissioners and LAFCO staff a tour of land the city hopes to annex in coming years.
“Once upon a time when I became mayor, one of my first goals was to establish better relations with LAFCO,” Gilroy Mayor Al Pinheiro said to commissioners. “We feel the conditions speak to what you said – it sounds like there’s not that trust.”
Pinheiro assured the commission that Gilroy would follow through on the enforcement of its policy.
As part of the unanimous vote in favor of annexation, five commissioners allowed the fees to be paid at the time of project approval. They attached a condition, however, requiring city leaders to pass a resolution guaranteeing that mitigation would take place, regardless of who develops the parcel. They also required guarantees against reductions in the amount of land that must be preserved.
Richard Barberi has struggled for seven years to bring his property into the city limits so he can develop. The land, which LAFCO staff insists remains suitable for agriculture, has lain fallow for three years while homes and businesses cropped up around it. Most recently, the city has begun constructing a sports park on the southern edge of the property.
Barberi said he still has not “digested” the import of the commissioners’ vote, but he continued to bristle at LAFCO staff.
“The whole bottom line as far as I’m concerned is trust, between LAFCO staff and the city of Gilroy,” he said. “It appears to me that micro-management is LAFCO staff’s intention. They need to be reined in.”
During the meeting, Barberi pointed out that the family agreed to a contract binding it to comply with the farmland preservation policy.
“We’ve been there for years and years,” he said. “Our word is our bond. Period.”
But such assurances do not satisfy environmental advocates, who favored the proposal to require preservation measures at the time of annexation.
Brian Schmidt, an advocate for the Committee for Green Foothills, also hoped LAFCO would adopt tighter definitions than Gilroy on how mitigation money must be spent, and how soon it must be used.
“Money in the bank does not preserve farmland,” he told commissioners.
He hoped LAFCO would plug such “loopholes” in coming months as it develops its own agricultural mitigation policy. The agency, expected to rely heavily on Gilroy’s model, is likely to pressure the county’s 14 other cities to adopt a policy based on its own. The final form could have a major impact, for instance, on how much farmland San Jose will have to preserve as part of plans to develop the 7,000 rural acres that make up Coyote Valley.
Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage, who chairs the LAFCO commission and once served as Gilroy’s mayor, held up the city’s preservation policy as a good model for LAFCO. Unlike the agency’s staff, he felt the enforcement of the policies should be left up to local leaders. He also expressed hope that the agency would ease some requirements that have slowed development in Gilroy and other areas.
“LAFCO’s got to start cooperating with some of these cities,” he said.
