The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) filed suit Wednesday in Santa Clara County Superior Court against the city of Gilroy, saying that the city broke the law when it approved the annexation of 721 acres of farmland as part of a planned 4000-home development. It asks a judge to stop the city from moving forward on the plan.
The suit contends that the approval of the project was “improper“ and that “Gilroy violated CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) in numerous ways.”
LAFCO is a state-mandated agency with a local board that oversees growth in the county,
The suit says that the city didn’t fairly consider impacts such as water; is using agricultural land when there is enough other land in the city on which to develop; and hasn’t addressed needs for more police and fire services.
The pleadings note that the “site consists of largely prime agricultural land and that the City wants to include these lands in its [Urban Service Area] even as the City has substantial amounts of land within its current boundaries that are vacant or underutilized.”
LAFCO believes in the suit that “Gilroy failed to identify and adequately analyze” impacts of the project.
The agency asks the court “To set aside certification of the EIR,” and to rescind all actions related to its approval.
LAFCO contends that “the Final EIR concedes that there is a “shortfall of water supply” for the Project which relies, in part, on the ‘provision of recycled water” which is not part of the City’s Recycled Water Master Plan.’ ”
“The EIR fails to provide a discussion of the effects of changes to the environment from the construction of new police office space and to include, to the extent possible, recommendations as to any mitigation needed to address the significant impacts of such a new police office.”
“The uncertain status of the 2040 General Plan update undermines the adequacy of the EIR’s entire analysis of cumulative impacts of the Project.”
According to the suit, the city failed to conduct sufficient environmental review for the project despite the fact that the project has the potential to cause a number of foreseeable direct and indirect potentially significant impacts. These include, but are not limited to, those described above and the following: impacts to aesthetics, agriculture, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, water resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gases, hazards, health risks, land use and planning, minerals, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, utilities, cumulative impacts to the above, growth inducing impacts, and other types of environmental impacts, including both construction-related and operational impacts.
“LAFCO has incurred and will incur substantial attorneys’ fees and litigation costs because ofRespondents’ unlawful acts. …LAFCO is entitled to be reimbursed for its attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Mayor Perry Woodward said he’s not surprised by the suit and thinks the city and LAFCO can negotiate a compromise.
“We will work with LAFCO to make sure their concerns are addressed,” he said. “When you have two public agencies, they will work together to find common ground.”
Woodward, a proponent of the plan on a now evenly divided city council, said such suits are common in big developments and factor into why it takes so long to build in California.
“We’ve been saying all along that this will take 10 to 15 years. This isn’t a short-range project. We will have a discussion with LAFCO and if we can find a middle ground, then we will move forward.”
