Candidates’ Q&A #3 of 6

/

In an effort to keep Gilroy voters informed, GGS has invited the 2024 candidates for Mayor and City Council to answer a series of questions on quality-of-life issues. Thank you all who participated, for your willingness to share your thoughts with our community!

QUESTION 3: How do you feel about the Builder’s Remedy being applied to two development applications in Gilroy? Did you know that using the Builder’s Remedy allows developers to avoid following our General Plan, avoid an environmental assessment (EIR), and avoid mitigation measures for environmental damage? The City Attorney and City Council have stated that this law does not apply to Gilroy because we DO have a Housing Element that was substantially approved before the state’s deadline. Do you support this response to the current lawsuit by a developer who thinks they ARE entitled to use the Builder’s Remedy law? 

ANSWERS:

  • A3: The City of Gilroy has treated these two applications the same way every development application is treated. Once an application is complete, it proceeds through the development process, which includes an analysis of environmental and other impacts that may need to be mitigated.

    For more info from this candidate, visit: https://marieblankley.com/

  • A3: Builders Remedy (BR) was put into place because of many years of bad housing policy at every level of government from city to state. Yes, I do understand that BR allows developers to avoid general plans and environmental review. While I feel strongly about having local control, Builders Remedy is also forcing cities to recognize that there is a need for housing and that they must play some role in fixing this huge, statewide problem, which is a good thing. If cities do not meet their obligations for housing, then I understand the need for BR as a tool, when appropriate.

    It would be impossible for me to comment on the specifics of a lawsuit or what the city attorney says or has said. My thought on this particular project however is that I believe there is room for common ground instead of going to litigation so quickly. Gilroy needs housing. Gilroy also has a desperate need for deferred community development and public safety needs as well as economic development to boost its tax base. This area, currently deemed industrial, could be considered infill. If the developer could offer significant community development assistance, I'd rather haggle over a zoning change and the potential for needed community development assistance, rather than if BR applies. In this particular case I think there is room for common ground, all while increasing our housing supply, creating economic opportunities, and improving much needed community development.

    For more info from this candidate, visit: https://www.gregbozzo4mayor.com/

  • A3: This issue has been a difficult one for me to decide on because of the severe lack of LI/VLI/ELI housing in Gilroy, and the lack of political appetite from the Council majority to seek or approve any remedial measures towards this. I support the development being proposed by 10 South, but not the one being proposed at Hecker Pass, as they are very different. Although they are based on the same premise, that we did not submit our housing element on time, we should not group them together for approval. 10 South has documented proof from the state that our housing element was not completed on time. 

    I don't believe we should waste hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to fight a lawsuit against something that is much needed in that area. The property on Las Animas Ave has been vacant for decades. Despite the zoning that this area has been designated, it is still a neighborhood and it deserves parks, road improvements and housing for our families.

    For more info from this candidate, visit: https://www.rebeca4gilroy.com/

  • A3: As part of the Planning Commission, I worked on Gilroy's Housing Element, so I’m fully behind the city's stance on the Builder’s Remedy issue. Our Housing Element was substantially complete before the state’s deadline, meaning this law shouldn’t apply here. Allowing developers to sidestep the General Plan and environmental reviews is not something I support. Running a grassroots campaign, I’m focused on achieving the best results for Gilroy, ensuring responsible development that benefits our entire community, not special interest groups.

    For more info from this candidate, visit: https://www.stefanie4council.com/

  • A3: I like most others, am not privy to enough information, nor do I have access to the  legal expertise or counsel, to render any judgement on these specific situations. That said, my opinion in general is that the recent evolution of the use of the Housing Element by the state of California has now gone too far in terms of taking too much local control away from cities like Gilroy.

    For more info from this candidate, visit: https://fugazzi.com/

Candidate ZACH HILTON responded, declining the invitation. Candidates KELLY RAMIREZ and FRED TOVAR did not respond.

QUESTION 1 | QUESTION 2 | QUESTION 3 | QUESTION 4 | QUESTION 5 | QUESTION 6