Politics

Every city in Santa Clara County has a policy banning single-use plastic bags, except Gilroy, which has favored economy over ecology.

Daniel Harney, 40, was appointed by six City Council members on Jan. 25 to fill the vacancy left when Mayor Don Gage retired and Councilman Perry Woodward filled his seat. He was chosen over seven highly qualified applicants to serve for 10 months. Harney thinks he will run for election to the office for the following four years. He was sworn in and started to serve immediately after being appointed.

As the local public relations professional behind the 247-megawatt Panoche Valley solar project and the No on Measure J campaign, which failed to stop a citizen-led effort to ban fracking in San Benito County in 2014, Kristina Chavez Wyatt is no stranger to controversy.

After what may have been the quickest job interview ever, Daniel J. Harney was selected at Monday’s City Council meeting to fill the seat left vacant following the resignation of former mayor Don Gage.

On Monday, Gilroy joined a growing number of jurisdictions across the state that have banned the cultivation of marijuana.In a unanimous vote—with no discussion from the dias or objection from the public—the City Council passed a new zoning ordinance which prohibits the cultivation, processing, delivery and dispensing of marijuana within city limits.The ordinance, which was introduced at a Planning Commission session in December and had its final reading at the council meeting on Monday, makes no distinction between the cultivation of marijuana for commercial and personal use.The state’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and Senate Bill 420, known as the Medical Marijuana Program Act (adopted in 2003) allows an individual, a qualified patient, a primary caregiver, or a member of a legal cooperative to possess a specified amount of marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation.In 2010, Gilroy passed an ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries.A trio of bills, known as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown in October, establishing a regulatory framework and licensing authority for the state’s rapidly growing medical marijuana industry. In response, cities and counties across the state have been scrambling to put their own regulations on the books in order to maintain local control.The rush was prompted in part by a March 1 deadline for local zoning rules that the author of the Assembly bill now says was a mistake.According to the city’s reading of the legislation, under AB 243, “if a local agency does not have an ordinance in effect by March 1, 2016, that either expressly prohibits or expressly regulates the cultivation of medical marijuana, the California Department of Food and Agriculture will be the sole licensing authority for such uses, and may issue such permits for locations within Gilroy.”In a press release, Assemblymember Jim Wood (D-Healdsburg) said, “Nobody intended to give local lawmakers such a short timeline to develop regulations for an industry as complex as medical cannabis.”Wood introduced a bill last week that would remove the March 1 deadline and delete the authorization of local jurisdictions to prohibit the cultivation, storage, manufacture, transport, provision or other activity by patients and caregivers otherwise exempt from state regulation. On Monday, AB 21 as amended passed the state Senate and will go on to the Assembly and then to the governor for his signature. Gov. Brown has said he supports the deadline “fix.”Yet it seems no legislative action can come soon enough to impede the banning trend that is sweeping the state. California Norml, the state’s largest advocacy group pushing for marijuana reform, estimates that nearly 160 jurisdictions have put bans on the books or are considering bans on commercial and/or personal marijuana cultivation.In unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County, commercial cultivation of marijuana is banned. The Patient and Caregiver Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance regulates cultivation by three or fewer qualified patients and primary caregivers for the patient’s personal medical use and prohibits distribution.“There is a wave of communities looking at banning cultivation, which is an unfortunate side effect of regulations,” said Mike Adams, a grower from Nurturing Seed Farms in Mendocino County.Adams was part of a panel discussion on cannabis at the EcoFarm conference in Pacific Grove on Friday. The well-attended panel was the first of its kind for the agricultural conference, which focuses on sustainable, organic and ecological farming techniques.Adams sees the cultivation of cannabis as an opportunity for small-scale farmers to bolster their revenue and gird them from the risk of operating a small farm. He said that with small-scale farming you are “basically taking a vow of poverty.”Calling cannabis the “number one cash crop,” Adams said in his eight years in California he can confidently say that cannabis growers are doing financially better than those growing kale.Yet, with the trend of cultivation bans sweeping the state, it is hard to predict how things will pan out for people interested in growing cannabis.Since 2004, when SB 420 established the medical marijuana program in the state, a patchwork of municipal ordinances has popped up as local jurisdictions attempted to address key issues like land use and public safety. Most ordinances dealt primarily with dispensaries and brick and mortar stores, not cultivation.All that changed with the signing of MMRSA. While most of the provisions of the law do not fully take effect until 2018, the rush by local jurisdictions to put their own regulations on the books has left growers, industry watchers and patient advocates in a state of shock.In an open memo to local governments, medical marijuana patient advocacy group, Americans for Safe Access, stated that banning the personal and commercial cultivation of medical cannabis since the adoption of the MMRSA is “an unnecessary step that is harmful to patients and may deprive the cities and counties of the proven benefits of regulation: reduced crime, fewer complaints, greater clarity for all stakeholders (especially law enforcement), tax revenue, and more.”Researchers from cannabis industry investment firm The ArcView Group found that the U.S. market for legal cannabis grew 74 percent in 2014 to $2.7 billion, up from $1.5 billion in 2013. According to the Washington Post, the cannabis industry will be worth $35 billion by 2020.    

 Four-year Gilroy resident and eBay executive, Daniel J. Harney, was selected to fill the city council seat left vacant by the resignation of former Mayor Don Gage in December at tonight’s city council meeting. After nearly two hours of discussion with questions from the council and comments from the public, Harney received the four votes needed from the six-member council to beat out the other seven applicants to garner his place on the dais. He beat seven other applicants. An eighth,  Harvard-educated lawyer, James Foy, dropped out of the running. Harney will serve out the 10-months left of Gage’s term. During his interview in front of the council, Harney said he and his wife, who is a nurse at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital in Palo Alto, moved to Gilroy from Morgan Hill in 2011 with their children in part because of the city’s “sense of heritage” and focus on “smart growth.” When he lived in Morgan Hill, Harney served on the Board of Directors for the homeowners association of Creekside Village. When asked by Councilmember, Dion Bracco what sets him apart from the other applicants, Harney said he had a vision for Gilroy that he believes is shared by a lot of new people coming into the city and as a “Gen-Xer” has a strong connection with the rising “millennial” demographic. He wants to see a vibrant downtown with a variety of things to do.As a member of the city council, Harney will have to serve on a number of committees and commissions. He said he would like to serve on the VTA or transportation committees.Harney said his primary goals during his short term on the council is to work with his fellow council members to fill leadership positions in city hall, including a new city administrator and to make budget expenditure decisions.Harney said he intends to run for a permanent seat on the council during November elections.After receiving the oath, Harney took his place on the dais for his first action as council member. In a unanimous vote, Council member Peter Leroe-Munoz was selected as Mayor Pro Tempore.   

The mix of applicants for the vacant Gilroy City Council seat reflects a merging of old and new Gilroy. Nine candidates for the 10-month appointment include several familiar longtime politicians and a few new residents who are Silicon Valley executives with experience at Google, eBay and Sun Microsystems.There are also two former council members, three current or former planning commissioners and former chairpersons of the Housing Advisory Committee and the Historical Heritage Committee seeking the seat vacated by Perry Woodward when he became mayor Jan. 4. Most of the applicants said they would consider running for the seat after the 10 months are up.The candidates, profiled briefly below, will be interviewed by the current council on Jan. 25 in an open session, and the new council member will be appointed right afterward. The application deadline was Jan. 15.Robert Dillon has lived in the city for 31 years, served on the council from 2001-2005 and 2007-2012. He was also a library commissioner and served on the editorial board of the Dispatch.In his application, he described high-speed rail as a “continual thorn in the city’s side,” and said his priorities are hiring a new city administrator, carefully crafting the general plan, which outlines the city’s future, and continuing the “downtown renaissance.”He said he was probably not interested in serving past the 10-month term, but added, “I wouldn’t say never.“I believe I have demonstrated my abilities in past council matters to parse and apply common sense to difficult decisions.”Toby Echelberry, who has been a business manager for companies including Anritsu, Toshiba and Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, said his main concern is economic development in the city.“In order to grow a true balanced community, we need more than hundreds or thousands of new homes,” he said, adding that “there needs to be more of a push to bring more employment of not only retail, but all commercial.”He said the city needs to sell businesses on growing here rather than having people commute to work hours away. A father of three, one in high school, one in middle school and one in elementary school, his application focuses on reducing Gilroy’s homeless population, preventing domestic violence and improving schools by eliminating gangs, bullying and drugs.“Gilroy is not only where I reside, a city I shop in, but it is my home and my future,” he wrote. He would run for the council seat after this term, he said.Joan Lewis was a planning commissioner for eight years and is a South Santa Clara County Fire District commissioner and vice president of the Gilroy Historical Society.“I feel the biggest issue facing GIlroy at this time is jobs. We need to bring good paying jobs to our residents so they don’t have to commute out of Gilroy.”She’s also concerned about poor roads and growth. “We should continue to promote infill projects and use master plans and strategic plans for larger projects,” she wrote. “Lastly, we should educate and encourage our residents to shop locally to keep our tax dollars here in town.”She said she could only commit to serving this term.Daniel J. Harney, who works at eBay, moved to Gilroy from Morgan Hill in 2011 to raise three kids in a place that focuses on “families, safe neighborhoods and good schools.“In many ways I represent the past, present and future in Gilroy,” he said in his application, adding that he supports maintaining a “cherished small town community” and knows that it will grow significantly.He favors bringing businesses to the unused industrial park in town and adding hotels and tourist venues to the downtown area.“I think it is also important to state that I do not have any other political aspiration such as county or state politics,” he wrote. His wife is a nurse at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital in Palo Alto.Daniene Marciano, who retired as director of community-based educational options for the Santa Clara Unified School District, has been a Gilroyan for 11 years and is the niece of former Santa Clara councilwoman Aldyth Parle.“I want to make a difference in planning the future of GIlroy,” she said in her application. She has managed a $5 million school district budget, worked as a liaison between the district and the Santa Clara City Council and been a consultant at Sun Microsystems.Her husband has owned the Checkered Flag Classic Car dealership downtown for 10 years.Current planning commissioner and former city councilman Paul Kloecker voted against the proposed 721-acre development north of Gilroy because he said it was too much and too soon. A Gilroy fixture, Kloecker was on the City Council for 12 years, on ABAG also for 12 and served on the library board, the Caltrain to Gilroy Planning Task Force, the building code appeals committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission, to name a few.“I am therefore ready to rather immediately be a contributing council member needing little or no ‘learning curve.’”Tom Fischer, a retired plumber who has lived in Gilroy for 40 years, is a member of the Planning Commission and has served as its chair and vice chair.“The key issues facing the city today are: growth and revitalizing the downtown,” he wrote. “How fast we grow, where we grow and how orderly that growth occurs will help determine how successful the downtown becomes.”He was on the commission when it voted unanimously to reject the planned 721-acre development north of town. Downtown, he said, is his top priority.Harvard Law School graduate James Fay is CFO for View, Inc., a Milpitas firm that makes glass that can be adjusted over the Internet, to make windows more environmentally efficient. He’s lived in Gilroy for a decade and said his business background will help him manage executive issues.His priorities include attracting businesses and jobs; improving the downtown; enhancing infrastructure and balancing the small community heritage with modernization and development.“My professional background, critical thinking, problem solving and track record of execution illustrate that I can be a very valuable contributor to the council and city,” he wrote.Insurance auditor Thomas Baer said his extensive fiscal background can help Gilroy resolve some of its major problems. A resident of Gilroy for two years, he’s worked for the California Casualty Management Company in San Mateo since 1981 most recently as Director of Internal Audit. He’s done cost-benefit analyses, monitored corporate staffing and been in charge of privacy.His major issues include growth, downtown, water use, jobs and city pensions.“I believe I should be appointed because I have the time, I do not have an agenda and I hope my financial background, ability to bring people together, ability to sell my ideas and project management skills will complement the many skill sets already on the council.”

Overwhelmed by public criticism and two lawsuits, the developers of the biggest housing project in Gilroy’s history have pulled their application to take more time to sell it to the public.

Overwhelmed by public criticism and two lawsuits, the developers of the biggest housing project in Gilroy's history have pulled their application to take more time to sell it to the public.

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.