GILROY
– The city of Gilroy is the only community in Santa Clara County
that doesn’t belong to a countywide agency that buys and protects
open space, but city leaders may revisit that stance in coming
months if it’s apparent the move could reap some local
benefits.
GILROY – The city of Gilroy is the only community in Santa Clara County that doesn’t belong to a countywide agency that buys and protects open space, but city leaders may revisit that stance in coming months if it’s apparent the move could reap some local benefits.
While they’ve made no decisions yet, the City Council met with officials from the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority Monday night to learn more about that agency and the potential requirements and benefits involved in supporting it.
The authority is an independent public agency formed to preserve and maintain open space and habitat areas and public recreation lands within Santa Clara County.
It is funded by an annual assessment on properties within its jurisdiction, which includes Morgan Hill, Campbell, Milpitas and San Jose. Other Silicon Valley communities are covered by a different open space district.
The Council can vote to offer its political support to the authority by voting to join, but to start collecting assessment money from Gilroy property owners the agency would have to hold an election here. Previous assessments were run through mail-in property owner elections with a simple majority required for passage.
When the Gilroy City Council put the issue of joining the authority before voters for an advisory vote through November 1993’s Measure O, 57.7 percent of the 4,912 voters who cast ballots voted not to join.
However, city officials are now eying the authority to play a potential role in the mitigation of certain farmland in the wake of the city’s new overall land-use blueprint, the General Plan.
That document, which will guide city land-use policy for the next 20 years, includes controversial plans to bring the 660 acres east of Gilroy Premium Outlets into the city’s 20-year growth boundary for potential campus industrial development.
A special policy included in the plan requires the city to implement a conservation and open-space easement program requiring one-for-one replacement or reimbursement for the loss of prime farmland. Officials see the Open Space Authority as a potential recipient of cash or land yielded by the program.
Although details were sketchy, authority officials said tentatively Monday they thought their agency would accept Gilroy-granted land donations even if the city wasn’t a member of the authority.
Some councilmen also believe supporting the authority could help improve the city’s rocky relations with the Local Agency Formation Commission or LAFCO.
Formed in 1963 to combat urban sprawl in California, LAFCO is an independent agency with the power to reject any municipal or private annexation requests – including the controversial 660-acre industrial campus. LAFCO has claimed in the past that the city’s plan violates agency policy and the terms of a special agricultural conservation compact.
“LAFCO would certainly see Gilroy’s participation in this open space partnership as a plus,” Councilman Charlie Morales said.
There could be other benefits for Gilroy as well, authority officials said. Under a special matching program, the city would keep a certain amount of the income generated within its boundaries to use for parklands if an assessment is started here. For example, authority staff have said Morgan Hill has had the option for approximately $94,000 a year in such funding.
“Essentially, it’s your money,” said authority board member and Morgan Hill resident Alex Kennett.
However, officials may want to learn the outcome of a lawsuit against the authority before proceeding with a decision to join.
In late 2001, voters narrowly approved a ballot measure that hiked the annual property assessment for single-family property owners from $12 to roughly $32. Commercial property owners’ fees rose by $20 per fifth-acre.
But the Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Association – which opposed the measure – and several property owners sued, arguing the votes needed to defeat it were submitted but not properly counted and disagreeing with the simple majority threshold.
The authority still collects the money, but has decided not to use it until the matter is decided. A hearing on the litigation is slated for September, and authority stafff said it could be a year or two before a decision is handed down.
The timing of a verdict could affect how quickly the city gets involved because the city could end up facing the same legal question, cautioned City Administrator Jay Baksa.
Mayor Tom Springer agreed that issue is important and that more details from legal counsel are necessary.
“The last thing we’d want to see is a lawsuit against us,” he said.
Council decided Monday to schedule another study session for the fall to address unanswered questions and explore the issue in more detail.
