Politics

A split city council rejected the idea of a medical marijuana

Heavy winds knocked down trees all over Gilroy and sent crews out to stop the hazards. On Friday, by 3 p.m. 6,800 customers were without power in Gilroy, according to PG&E.

The man who has vowed to recall Mayor Al Pinheiro for allegedly

Americans love a good redemption story, and Gilroyans are being asked to draft a new version of this parable by electing Craig Gartman to City Council in November.One of eight candidates who are vying for three council seats, Gartman served on the council before, from 2001 to 2010. However, it is not his long tenure on the dias—Roland Velasco has served longer—that is raising eyebrows among Gilroy’s electorate, but his misdemeanor grand theft conviction in 2011.Gartman did not want to speak on the record about the conviction for illegally withdrawing money from a local Memorial Day parade committee, which he chaired.Reports from 2011 said the majority of a special fund was used for Memorial Day activities, but a two-year investigation by the District Attorney’s office found that Gartman had misused a portion of those funds, totalling $8,632.00.Gartman was ordered by the court to perform 200 hours of community service and to pay restitution, which he satisfied in December 2011. He also received two years court probation.Gartman paid $6,500 to the Gilroy post of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, in addition to a previous payment of $2,500 in November 2010.The monies were paid to the VFW because the parade fund was pretty much defunct by that time, according to a former prosecutor on the case.Gartman’s community service was completed at the Goodwill of Silicon Valley.For Gartman today, this episode is in the past and he wants Gilroyans to focus on his ideas for the city he represented first on the Planning Commission, then for nine years on the City Council.“I want to talk about issues that are important to the election,” said Gartman, who advocated for the Sunrise fire station and the sidewalk repair program when he was last on the council, during an interview outside Fifth Street Coffee in downtown Gilroy.Among those issues are increasing communication between the council and the electorate, prioritizing more infill, small-scale development and bringing ideas to Gilroy that he gleaned from other communities in which he has lived.“I would love to see Gilroy get into the 20th century [sic] with a lot of the automation that is available via the internet,” said Gartman, explaining that residents should be able to use technology to do things such as easily report a pothole or a city light that has gone out.Being off the council and living elsewhere—Gartman returned to Gilroy in 2014 after moving with his family for his wife’s job to Portland, Maine, then to Dallas—has also given him a unique perspective on the relationship between a city council and the community it represents.“I know what happens when you do policy and plans,” said Gartman, who more recently has been able to observe and appreciate the community’s side.Recalling the furor that erupted over the 721-acre Rancho Los Olivos housing proposal that was approved by City Council last December after it had been rejected by the Planning Commission, Gartman said while he understands the frustration of those who started the urban growth boundary campaign, he does not support Measure H.“Encasing the city for 20 years is dangerous,” he said, “Because you are very limited in what you can do.” He said the measure, which allows for open space, schools, affordable housing, and an allotment of 50 acres per year of general industrial to be brought into the boundary or redesignated, is too restrictive.“You are kind of tying your hands,” he said. Plus, he added, holding an election to get the boundary amended by voters would cost the city each time.Gartman would like to see the Downtown Specific Plan updated, which was adopted while he was on the council in 2005, and get the city to prioritize small-scale development and infill.“We need to establish what that policy is and pass it down to the community development department so when someone wants to develop five or less housing units, they get fast-tracked. We’ve had fast-track before and it worked real well.”He added: “Local developers hire local plumbers, electricians, tradesmen, to come in and do the work. Where large developments from big corporations bring people in from all over California.”Overall, Gartman said he wants to bring his ability to listen to all sides of an issue to a third term on the council.“Someone needs to be on the council who is actually turning an ear to the people,” he said.

Opponents of a PG&E substation in rural Gilroy or Morgan Hill have picked up powerful allies in their fight against the big utility, including growers and wineries.Santa Clara County District 1 Supervisor Mike Wasserman said for the first time Monday that he’s opposed to the five rural sites on PG&E’s list of eight possible locations in his district.And while the county has no jurisdiction over PG&E sites—that’s up to the California Public Utilities Commission—the utility is required to consult with the county, whose view the PUC can consider.PG&E says the substation and new transmission lines are needed to keep up with power demands in the region and that they continue to review all sites. The preferred site and two alternatives will be picked in February and will be announced publicly by the end of March, a spokesperson for the utility said.Residents near sites on Sycamore Avenue and Day Road and three on Watsonville Road in South County have banded together to oppose the rural locations.They cite serious safety, well water quality and environmental concerns, including the potential impact on sensitive riparian habitat and at least one federally protected species, the steelhead trout.The county’s agricultural community appears unanimous in its opposition, too, along with a conservation group, Coastal Habitat Education and Environmental Restoration, or CHEER.Cheer formed a legal defense fund, hired a lawyer to oppose PG&E and has raised thousands of dollars for the battle, which it says it will take to federal court if necessary.“I am recommending against these five sites for the numerous environmental reasons I stated previously,” Wasserman said in an emailed response Monday to the Dispatch.Opponents of the rural sites have argued that only three locations in the city of Morgan Hill, including existing PG&E facilities should be considered, but Wasserman said that “At this time” he is not recommending any other sites.“County staff conducted an initial screening and numerous analyses are on-going and for all we know, more information may come forward and more sites might ultimately be considered by PG&E.” Wasserman said.Wasserman is half of a two-member committee of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors reviewing the substation matter.Called the Housing, Land Use, Environment and Transportation Committee, or HLUET, it recently received a staff report recommending that only the more urban Morgan Hill sites be considered. Staff recommended that the committee forward its recommendation to the full board for consideration.David Cortese, president of the board of supervisors, is the other HLUET committee member. He said Tuesday that the matter will now go directly to the whole board, following cancellation of HLUET’s Jan. 19 meeting because its members attended the funeral of a mutual friend.The next full board meeting is Monday, Feb. 6.Asked if he supports the staff recommendation, Cortese said in an emailed response, “Not sure yet. Would like to hear public testimony.”Reaction among PG&E critics to Wasserman’s position was swift and positive.“That is great news, I welcome his support [and] I am greatly encouraged by this,” said Nigel Peacock of Gilroy.Peacock is part of a residents’ steering committee convened at a Jan. 13 meeting at Kirigin Cellars winery of about 50 opponents of a substation at any of the five rural country sites.Kirigin owner Dhruv Khanna is another steering committee member.“I applaud supervisor Wasserman on his position,” Khanna said, adding, “PG&E should expand use of its existing [Morgan Hill] substation.”Use of the southern locations would be “the most destructive of the environment,” with the destruction more severe the further south the site, he said.In the meantime, the board of directors of the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau has unanimously agreed that the substation should not be built anywhere near the region’s wine trail.And the county’s wineries have weighed in, registering their opposition in a Jan. 5 letter to PG&E and cc’d to Wasserman.Wasserman helped create the Santa Clara County Wine Trail, the South County lop of which winds through the area and along each of the rural roads cited, including the bucolic and historic Redwood Retreat Road west of Gilroy.“We are very concerned, in particular about some of the sites along Watsonville Road,” said Wineries of Santa Clara Valley president Karen Seeker of Seeker Vineyards in San Martin. The group represents 27 wineries.“A substation would have big impact not only on our wineries but also the overall nature and beauty of that area,” she said Tuesday.

A representative with the California High-Speed Rail Authority announced at the Aug. 26 Rotary Club meeting that the organization partnered with the City of Gilroy to plan for the Garlic Capital's very own station—preferably located downtown.

With no incumbents qualifying for three seats on the Gilroy Unified School District Board of Education, the nominating period for candidates who wish to run in the Nov. 5 election was extended to the end of the day Aug. 14.  According to an unofficial list...