Politics

Gilroy insurance executive Annie Palmer was startled out of a deep sleep at 1:30 a.m. recently when she heard something outside her Hannah Street window that sounded like a thousand bumble bees.It was a hot night and she had the window open.“I was really frightened,” she said. “I had no idea what it was.” She went outside with a flashlight and saw that it was a drone. She tried following it, but lost it.The same day—but at 10:30 p.m.—it was outside her window again. This time she called the Gilroy Police Department, where an officer first told her there was nothing they could do about it, but then, realizing it was so late at night that it was disturbing the peace, told her they’d look into it.She never heard back, but the following afternoon, while she was gardening, the drone was back again.This time, she took action.“I felt violated,” Palmer, 58, said. “It was really creepy. I felt like I had to hide in my house. It was definitely a violation of my privacy.”So, she followed the drone and found its owner on a street with a laptop computer piloting the device. He told her the drone had no camera, so she shouldn’t feel bothered.But she was. So were plenty of her neighbors who felt they were violated by this drone pilot.They filed complaints with the police and with Mayor Perry Woodward, who brought it up at the last City Council meeting and asked city staff to research what laws they can pass to protect the rights of residents, while possibly allowing drones to still fly.“They are fun to fly,” said Woodward in an interview. He is also a commercial pilot and an attorney and has long considered the problem of what he calls a technology in its “Wild West” phase. “I’ve flown them. But I don’t want to see someone flying one outside my daughter’s window. There has to be a balance.”Santa Clara County’s Open Space Authority has banned piloting drones from its parks. Los Angeles has classified drones with model airplanes, limited their use to daylight hours and forbidden them from flying more than 400 feet high, which is beyond the pilot’s ability to see them, making them dangerous to people on the ground. It also requires drones to stay away from hospitals and schools.In a proposed ordinance, Phoenix has asked for drones to be illegal if they are filming in a way that violates privacy.Hermosa Beach has passed legislation to require drone operators to have permits and stay 25 feet away from people.Woodward asked city staff to look into what’s being done in other cities and come up with a report for the council. Then, it would go to public hearings so they can hear from drone supporters and opponents and come up with city laws that will represent residents’ needs.He said he’s received many complaints about violations of privacy and concerns for safety of people on the ground.Police spokesman Sgt. Jason Smith said the department has its hands tied because there aren’t yet laws about drone use.“So in essence, we have to weigh the circumstances of a call involving a drone to see if it violates any of the laws that are currently in place,” he said. “For instance, under the right circumstances, the penal code sections for being a public nuisance or a peace disturbance might apply.”He added that “the department  would have to determine if the act of flying the drone met the criteria for a law violation (and there is not yet a drone-specific law); the person would have to be willing to sign a citizen’s arrest; and we would have to identify the pilot of the drone and further investigate his/her intentions.”

In what will surely make an interesting closed session of the Gilroy City Council on Jan. 19, not one, but two lawsuits have been filed against the city regarding its controversial annexation plan involving 721 acres north of Gilroy.A group of Gilroy property owners, who had tried to develop housing south of Gilroy have sued to stop the city from pursuing the northern project. They said they were told not to pursue their plans and then found that the city approved the other big project.Ken Kerley and Daniel Fiorio's suit challenges the City Council’s Dec. 7 decision to approve the 721-acre project and certify the environmental impact report (EIR), without first analyzing and mitigating potential environmental impacts, arguing such actions are “unlawful under CEQA [California Environmental Quality Act] and California planning and zoning laws.”LAFCO, the state-mandated agency tasked with controlling urban sprawl, also filed a lawsuit on Jan. 13 at the Santa Clara County Superior Court, which argued the city broke the law when it approved the annexation of 721 acres of farmland as part of a planned 4,000-home development.The landowners’ lawsuit further attests the city council’s approval of the project causes the city’s general plan to be “internally inconsistent,” in violation of state planning and zoning laws.Both suits also name the project’s investors and landowners, including Martin Limited Partnership, Wren Investors LLC, and Mark Hewell.Like the first suit, this one asks the court to not allow this land to be annexed by the city.Kerley and Fiorio are no strangers to City Hall. In July 2013 they were part of a consortium of landowners that submitted their own application to amend the city’s Urban Service Area to encompass approximately 150 acres in the unincorporated south Gilroy neighborhood district (called South Gilroy USA Proposal in the lawsuit), where the two own property.The petitioners allege in the lawsuit that in January 2014, city staff provided them with an evaluation of the South Gilroy USA Proposal and advised them to withdraw their application and not to resubmit until after the city adopted its 2040 general plan, which was then underway. The petitioners followed the recommendation and withdrew their application five days later.In July 2014, the city accepted Martin Limited Partnership’s application to add 721 acres into the city’s USA boundary even as the city was still developing its 2040 general plan, contrary to the advice allegedly given to the landowners behind the 150-acre south Gilroy proposal.Approval of the 721-acre project is “premature and should await adoption of the 2040 general Plan,” the lawsuit states.The general plan was approved by the City Council on Jan. 4, clearing the way for an environmental review and final reading sometime this summer.        

Four of five supervisors today rejected a proposal that would

Neil Kitchens, a Republican candidate who ran an unsuccessful campaign for the 30th District State Assembly seat in 2018, has been charged with five counts of election fraud. Kitchens pleaded not guilty at an arraignment June 27 in Monterey County Superior Court, according to court...

A dozen girls squealed with a mixture of disgust and delight as

Gilroy native Pasquale Greco may not have much political

After a neck-and-neck race, prosecutor Jeff Rosen edged out his

GILROY—Dave and Fran Cunningham were surprised to learn that, after opening a letter from the Gilroy Police Department on Aug. 21, misdemeanor warrants were out for their arrest over the unsafe condition of a downtown building they invested in.

A Superior Court judge handed down a divisive ruling Tuesday

GILROY—Gavilan College trustees unanimously approved reconfiguring an “underutilized portion” of the Child Development Center to centralize office space for employees currently housed across campus.