Agenda packet — Gilroy City Council, January 10, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

January 7, 2022 4:35 PM City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Page1 MAYOR Marie Blankley

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Rebeca Armendariz
Dion Bracco
Zach Hilton
Peter Leroe-Muñoz
Carol Marques
Fred Tovar

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA

CITY OF GILROY

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
7351 ROSANNA STREET
GILROY, CA 95020
REGULAR MEETING 6:00 P.M.

MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2022
**AMENDED**

CITY COUNCIL PACKET MATERIALS ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE AT www.cityofgilroy.org AGENDA CLOSING TIME IS 5:00 P.M. THE TUESDAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING

Due to COVID-19, it is possible that the planned in-person meeting may have to change to a virtual meeting at any time and possibly on short notice. Please check the City of Gilroy website at http://gilroyca.iqm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx for any updates to meeting information.

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Persons wishing to address the Council are requested, but not required, to complete a Speaker’s Card located at the entrances. Public testimony is subject to reasonable regulations, including but not limited to time restrictions for each individual speaker. A minimum of 12 copies of materials should be provided to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council and Staff. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. The amount of time allowed per sp eaker may vary at the Mayor’s discretion depending on the number of speakers and length of the agenda.

Written comments on any agenda item may be emailed to the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] or mailed to the Gilroy City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by the City Clerk’s Office by 1 p.m. on the day of a Council meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to or at the meetin g and available for public inspection with the agenda packet located in the lobby of Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street prior to the meeting. Any correspondence received will be incorporated into the meeting record. Items received after the 1 p.m. deadline will be provided to the City Council as soon as practicable.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Governors Order N -29-20, the City will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the meeting at (408) 846-0204.

If you challenge any planning or land use decision made at this meeting in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing held at this meeting, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please take notice that the time within which to seek judicial review of any final administrative determination reached at this meeting is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
01/10/2022 Page2
A Closed Session may be called during this meeting pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) if a point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the City on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City.

Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available with the agenda packet on the City website at www.cityofgilroy.org subject to Staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE GILROY OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public.

Commissions, task forces, councils and other agencies of the City exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people's review.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN

GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE, TO RECEIVE A FREE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE

OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION STAFF AT (408) 846-0204

I. OPENING
A. Call to Order

1. Pledge of Allegiance

2. Invocation

3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda

4. Roll Call
B. Orders of the Day
C. Employee Introductions
II. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Proclamations, Awards and Presentations
III. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
01/10/2022 Page3 PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE

AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Council on matters within the Gilroy City Council’s jurisdiction but not on the agenda. Persons wishing to address the Council are requested to complete a Speaker’s Card located at the entrances and handed to the City Clerk. Speakers are limited to 1 minute each. The amount of time allowed per speaker may vary at the Mayor’s discretion depending on the number of speakers and length of the agenda. The law does not permit C ouncil action or extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Council action is requested, the Council may place the matter on a future agenda.

Written comments to address the Council on matters not on this agend a may be e-mailed to the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] or mailed to the Gilroy City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by the City Clerk’s Office by 1:00pm on the day of a Council meeti ng will be distributed to the City Council prior to or at the meeting and available for public inspection with the agenda packet located in the lobby of Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, prior to the meeting. Any correspondence received wil l be incorporated into the meeting record. Items received after the 1:00pm deadline will be provided to the City Council as soon as practicable. Written material provided by public members under this section of the agenda will be limited to 10 pages in hard copy. An unlimited amount of material may be provided electronically.

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
01/10/2022 Page4 IV. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco – Gilroy Sister Cities Association (alternate), Santa Clara Co.

Library JPA, SCVWD Joint Council-SCRWA-Board Water Resources Committee, South County Regional Wastewater Authority Board, Street Naming Committee

Council Member Armendariz – ABAG (Alternate), CalTrain Policy Group, Gilroy Downtown Business Association Board (alternate), Gourmet Alley Ad Hoc Committee, Historic Heritage Committee, Santa Clara Co. Library JPA (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board (Alternate), Street Naming Committee, VTA Committee for Transit Accessibility (Alternate)

Council Member Marques - Gilroy Downtown Business Association Board, Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors, Gourmet Alley Ad Hoc Committee, Historic Heritage Committee (Alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board, South County Regional Wastewater Authority (Alternate)

Council Member Hilton – Gilroy Economic Development Partnership, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board, South County United for Health, Visit Gilroy California Welcome Center Board

Council Member Tovar – Economic Development Corporation Board, Gourmet Alley Ad Hoc Committee, Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission, Santa Clara Co.

Expressway Plan 2040 Policy Advisory Board, SCVWD Water Commission (alternate), South County Joint Recycled Water Advisory Committee, South County Regional Wastewater Authority Board, Street Naming Committee, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team (alternate), VTA Committee for Transit Accessibility

Council Member Leroe-Muñoz - ABAG, CalTrain Policy Group (alternate), Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board of Directors, Economic Development Corporation Board, Gilroy Youth Task Force, SCVWD Water Commission, Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board, South County Youth Ta sk Force Policy Team, VTA Mobility Partnership, VTA South County City Group (alternate), VTA Policy Advisory Committee (alternate)

Mayor Blankley - Cities Association of Santa Clara Co. Board of Directors (alternate), Gilroy Economic Development Partnership, Gilroy Sister Cities Association, Gilroy Youth Task Force (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, SCVWD Joint Council-SCRWA-Board Water Resources Committee, South County Joint Recycled Water Advisory Committee, South County Regional Wastewater Authority Board, VTA Board of Directors Alternate, VTA Mobility Partnership, VTA Policy Advisory Committee, VTA South County City Group
V. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED ITEMS

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
01/10/2022 Page5 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made by a member of the City Council or a member of the public. Any person desiring to speak on any item on the consent calendar should ask to have that item removed from the consent calendar prior to the time the Council votes to approve. If removed, the item will be discussed in the order in which it appears.

1. December 6, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes

2. December 13, 2021 City Council Special Meeting Action Minutes

3. Claim of Westwood Inv., LLC (The City Administrator recommends a “yes” vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial of the claim) VII. BIDS AND PROPOSALS

1. Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application's AS21-13 and TM 21-02 for 6970 Camino Arroyo Development Project.

1. Staff Report: Kraig Tambornini, Senior Planner

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

Award a contract to EMC Planning in the amount of $169,049.00 for preparation of an initial study/mitigated negative declaration for Planning Application AS 21 - 13 and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents.

2. Approval of a Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget Amendment Increasing Appropriations in the Amount of $63,502 and Award of a Contract to Burkett's Pool Plastering Inc. for a Base Bid amount of $280,457, with a contingency of $28,045 for the Christopher High School Activity Pool Re - Plaster, Project No. 22-ASD-271.

1. Staff Report: Walter Dunckel, Facilities Superintendent

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:
a. Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending the FY 22 budget to transfer $63,502 from Capital Projects Fund (400) to Fa cilities Fund (651) and appropriate the related expenditure for the Pool Replaster project.
b. Award a contract to Burkett's Pool Plastering Inc. for the base bid price of $280,457 for the Christopher High School Activity Pool Re-plaster, Project No. 22-ASD-271, establish a contingency of up to $28,045 (10%), and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents.

VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
01/10/2022 Page6 IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1. Streamline Consolidation of the City's Boards and Commissions

1. Staff Report: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

Council:
a) Adopt A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Consolidating the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, Historic Heritage Committee, and the Street Naming Committee, and Placing Their Associated Board Functions Under the Authority of the Planning Commission. b) Motion to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading. c) Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of G ilroy Consolidating the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Placing Their Associated Board Functions for Infrastructure Planning and Development Review Under the Authority of the Planning Commission, and the Associated Board Functions for Education and Encouragement Activities Under the Authority of the Parks and Recreation Commission.

X. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS

1. Consideration of Authorizing Virtual Meetings Pursuant to Section 54953 of the Brown Act for Council and all Boards and Commissions

1. Staff Report: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

Adopt Resolution authorizing virtual meetings pursuant to Section 54953 of the Brown Act for Council and all Boards and Commissions.

2. Accept the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for Fiscal Year-Ended June 30, 2021

1. Staff Report: Harjot Sangha, Finance Director

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

Accept and file report.

XI. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
A. Covid-19 Update
B. Status of In-Person Council Meetings
C. City-wide Road Repairs Due to Recent Inclement Weather XII. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
XIII. CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
01/10/2022 Page7 MEETING DATES
FUTURE MEETING DATE:

JANUARY 2022
24* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.

FEBRUARY 2022
7* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
15* Special Meeting - Council Retreat - 6:00 p.m.
28* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.

MARCH 2022
7* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
21* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.

*meeting is webstreamed and televised

CITY OF GILROY I CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Thai Nam Pham, CMC, CPMC I City Clerk
7351 Rosanna Street I Gilroy, CA 95020-6197
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (408) 846-0204 I www.cityofgilroy.org
January 10, 2022
TO : Mayor Blankley
City Counciimembers
FROM: Thai Nam Pham, CMC, CPMC
RE: Public Comment — Items Not on Agenda
Attached is email correspondence received in the City Clerk's Office for items Not on the Agenda on the following topics:
• Reach Codes
• El Camino Real Mission Bell
cc: City Administrator
City Attorney

Thai Pham
From: Maria Aguilar <
Sent: Sunday, January 9, 2022 11:04 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: EXTERNAL - Public comment: January 10th city council meeting ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

I recently attended, via zoom,
a presentation by the County of Santa Clara Climate Roadmap 2030. I was taken aback to learn that all the cities in the county have an all electric Reach code or natural gas ban except for Gilroy. It seems to me that our city needs to do it's part in attaining the goal of 100% carbon free electricity, thereby protecting the health of our residents from emissions. Perhaps all new construction should not be approved unless they comply with reach code guidelines.

Thank you
Maria Aguilar
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Anne Bybee
From: Mimi S <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 3:48 PM
To: City Clerk; Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques
Cc: [email protected]; Kanyon Sayers -Roods
Subject: EXTERNAL - Please reject a symbolic Mission bill marker on Public land in Gilroy ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear Gilroy City Clerk, Mayor and Honorable City Council members, Hello my name is Michelle Spreadbury. As a resident of Gilroy's neighboring community of San Jose, I am contacting you to respectfully ask that you kindly consider to be on the right side of history and take action to please prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy.

On a personal note, I took part this past year in the Mission bells symposium at Santa Cruz Mission. There was a lot of shocking information from the Indigenous leaders and scholars about our shared brutal California Mission history.

That symposium and more information is found on the RemoveTheBells.org website. I hope you will have some time to look at the useful *bipartisan links and resources on this website.

Finally, we should not romanticize or celebrate this brutal history of California. Erecting a new mission bell would be a stain on our entire region.

I respectfully ask you to respect the calls of our Indigenous communities and neighbors.

So please act to prevent this mission bell from being installed.

Thank you for reading my message.

Sincerely,
Michelle "Mimi" Spreadbury
San Jose, Orchard City Indivisible Environmental Justice working group 1 Anne Bybee
From: Aleksandra Wolska <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 4:05 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: EXTERNAL - Saying NO to the mission bell
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments. clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear Thai Pham,
This letter is in supports the effort to say NO to a new mission bell in Giloryl May it not happen.

May all the mission bells come down in time.
live in Santa Cruz and am a part of conservation efforts on the coastal Cascade Ranch, which attempts to restore the indigenous habitat of the area. As such, I am also a supporter of Native American rights and proper representation of indigenous issues in the public arena.The new mission bell proposal, when viewed in the context of the brutal history of colonization in CA, glorifies oppression of native people by commemorating the atrocities of missionary efforts. It is an insult to the contemporary Tribes as well as to anybody who wishes for justice, equality and living in harmony with all people.

Please let's not make it happen.

Sincerely,
Dr. Aleksandra Wolska
Founder and Artistic Co -Director of Theater Between
Santa Cruz, CA
1 Anne Bybee
From: Brien Sparling <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 2:41 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: EXTERNAL - Do not install the El Camino Real Mission Bell marker iCAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links. or responding to this email.

I am Brien Sparling, an amateur historian, regular shopper in Gilroy and resident of nearby Royal Oaks community.

Tonight's Board motion to erect a new marker commemorating El Camino Real is ill-advised and hurtful to the descendants of the indigenous tribes. Personally I enjoy the connotations of California's mission era past, but I cannot ignore the huge cost of our colonization in indigenous lives and culture lost. Since the El Camino Bell marker holds a specific symbolism to indigenous leaders, and these leaders have asked that the markers not be installed, I believe Gilroy Council should not allow the installing of the marker.

Thank you,
Brien Sparling
Sent from Mall for Windows
i

Anne Bybee
From: Natalie Olivas <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 2:04 PM
To: Council Member Carol Marques; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Fred Tovar; Mayor Marie Blankley; City Clerk Cc: [email protected]
Subject: EXTERNAL - Stop New Mission Bells
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Hello, my name is Natalie Olivas. As a resident of Gilroy's neighboring community of Watsonville, I am contacting you to ask you to stand on the right side of history and take action to prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy.

Simply put, the mission bell is a symbol of the enslavement and attempted genocide of Indigenous people in California, a symbol that glorifies the dehumanization, destruction, and erasure of the first peoples of our state. We should not romanticize or celebrate this brutal history. Erecting a new mission bell would be a stain on our entire region.

I ask you to respect the calls of Indigenous communities and act to prevent this mission bell from being installed.

Natalie Olivas (she/her/ella)
Regeneracion Community Organizer
Regeneracion Pajaro Valley Climate Action
Regeneracion - Action Climatica del Valle de Pajaro
www. regenerationpajarovalley.orq
1 Anne Bybee
From: Jan Guffey <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 1:49 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: EXTERNAL - No on Bell on Monterey
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

I strongly oppose the construction of a Mission Bell on Monterey Street. Mission bells are symbols of enslavement of indigenous peoples in the California Mission system, and the attempted destruction of indigenous cultures that began in that time period. We must move into the 21st century by recognizing the wrongs that were done in the past, and not glorify them. Sincerely, Jan Guffey
i

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

FOUNDATION
Northern
California
Transmitted via Electronic Mail
January 10, 2022
Marie Blankley, Mayor
[email protected]
Fred Tovar, Mayor Pro Tempore
[email protected]
Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member
[email protected]
Dion Bracco, Council Member
[email protected]
Zach Hilton, Council Member
[email protected]
Peter Leroe-Munoz, Council Member
[email protected]
Carol Marques, Council Member
[email protected]
Thai Pham, City Clerk
[email protected]
Re: Installation of El Camino Real Mission Bell Marker
Dear Mayor Blankley and Members of the Gilroy City Council, The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California ("ACLU NorCal") submits this letter to urge the Gilroy City Council to reconsider the decision to erect a new mission bell marker along the El Camino Real. The mission bell is a symbol of the enslavement ana attErnpted genocide of Indigenous people in Califomia that glorifies the dehumanization, destruction, and erasure of the first peoples of our state. While it is "fitting and appropriate that the occasion of the City's 150`h Anniversary be memorialized," we should not romanticize nor celebrate this brutal history and the ongoing impact it has on Indigenous communities today.) We join the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band and others to call on the Gilroy 150th Committee, the Gilroy Arts and Culture Commission, and the Gilroy City Council to bring people together towards healing, celebrate the Gilroy City Council, Resolution Approving The Installation Of An El .Camino Real Bell And Plaque In Downtown Gilroy To Commemorate The 150`h Anniversary Of The Incorporation Of The City Of Gilroy (Sept 21,.2020).

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Abdi Soften' • BOARD CHAIR Farah Brelvl SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE: 39 Drumm St. San Francisco. CA 94111 FRESNO OFFICE: PO Box 188 Fresno, CA 93707 • SACRAMENTO METRO OFFICE: PO Box 189070 Sacramento, CA 95818 TEL (415) 621-2493 • FAX (415) 255-1478 • TTY (415) 863-7832 • W W W. A C L U N C.O R G

Gilroy City Council

Page 2 of 4 ends

diverse and resilient history of the City of Gilroy, and create a public installation that welcomes all.

ACLU NorCal acknowledges that we exist on the occupied territory of over one hundred tribes and that this land has been stewarded by Indigenous people since time immemorial. Further, we recognize that Indigenous peoples continue to suffer from historic injustices as a result of colonization and dispossession of lands, people, culture, languages, and resources. ACLU NorCal supports and defends the rights of all Native American peoples to self-determination and to the retention of specific and unique cultural and religious traditions and practices.' Through this work, we aim to support Indigenous communities —and follow their lead —as they strive to uphold their sovereignty, dignity, and autonomy. We are honored to submit this letter in support of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band and take inspiration in their tireless efforts to seek healing for Indigenous and non -Indigenous peoples in our region.

Since the time of contact, powerful local, state, and federal institutions and governments have endeavored to completely erase Indigenous peoples by' engaging in brutal violence -and erasing history. California's treatment of its original inhabitants was shockingly violent, and the mission system was a particularly horrific part of this. Between 1769 and 1834, approximately 150,000 California Indians died as a direct result of the mission system, many of whom were worked to death building and maintaining the twenty-one missions. Those who fought back were often beaten, tortured, and killed. Of those children born into the mission at Santa Cruz alone, over 75% died before the age of five. The ringing of mission bells, used to call Indigenous slaves back to the missions after a day's work in the fields, is a reminder to indigenous peoples that they were subjugated to the priests and the missions. In stark contrast, these bells are held up as a celebration and commemoration —perpetuating the myth that mission life was peaceful, that missions sought the betterment of the Indigenous population, and that the Native American peoples were cared for.

Culture, heritage, and history are critically important pieces of our identities, how we define ourselves; and our place in society. Symbols, images, andwords give meaning to everything around us including how we see ourselves and our own place in the world. Images that glorify colonial -settler myths and obscure- the realities of our collective history perpetuate intergenerational trauma and cause real harm to us all. Created in the early 1900s to promote local tourism, encourage visitation to the missions, and celebrate a distorted- version of history the El Camino Real bell markers promote the myth of the mission -obfuscating the impact of historical and intergenerational trauma on Indigenous peoples.; Tellingly, the City' of Gilroy Arts- and 2 ACLU NorCa1 Board of Directors, Res. No, 2021-06-24A, Resolution in Support of Nationwide ACLU Indigenous Justice Initiative (June 24, 2021),. available at https./[. www.aclunc org/sitesidefault/files7FOUNDATION%20RESOLUTION%20supporting e%20indigenous%20jusrice%20FINA4
L%2006.2.21.pdf.
3 Elias Castillo, A Cross of Thomes (Craven Street Books, Apr. 1, 2017).

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Abdl Soltani • BOARD CHAIR Farah Brelvl SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE: 39 Drumm St. San Francisco. CA 94111 FRESNO OFFICE: PO Box 188 Fresno. CA 93707 • SACRAMENTO METRO OFFICE: PO Box 189070 Sacramento. CA 95818 TEL (415) 621-2493 • FAX (415) 255-1478 • TTY (415) 863-7832 • W W W.AC LU N C.O R G

Gilroy City Council

Page 3 of 4 ends

Culture Commission Staff Report proposing the installation of a mission bell makes no mention of the Indigenous people of Gilroy or the treatment of those people at the missions.4 Today, local governments, governmental agencies, private businesses, landowners, schools, and sports teams throughout the state of California are reckoning with our long -obscured past and taking the necessary steps to end ongoing harm of symbols like the mission bell. Localities are taking meaningful steps to rectify those harms by building relationships with Tribes and 'Indigenous, communities, acknowledging and rematriating the land, and acting as partners in illuminating the history and resilience of Indigenous peoples in California.

In 2019, Governor Newsom issued an apology to California Native American Peoples "for the many instances of violence, mistreatment and neglect California inflicted." As a part of that apology, the Governor announced the creation of a Truth and Healing Council to document the testimonies and experiences of California's Indigenous peoples and work with the state to recommend steps towards healing.5 Statues that glorify Junipero Serra, Christopher Columbus,6 and the Missions have been removed. Public lands and privately -owned places —like Palisades Tahoe and Sue -Meg State Park —are being re -named to wipe derogatory and racist names from our map or to return to the names they were once called by ancestral inhabitants! And cities and universities are reinoving mission bells, recognizing the ongoing harm they cause to our communities.9
4 City of Gilroy Arts And Culture Commission, Staff Report re Gilroy 150th Committee El Camino Real Bell Project (Sept. 8, 2020).
5 Exec. Dep't State of Cal., Exec. Order N-15-19 (June 18, 2019), available at:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/6.18.19-Executive-Order.pdf . 6 Kim Bojorquez, Gavin Newson signs law to replace Sacramento Junipero Serra statue with monument for tribes, THE SACRAMENTO BEE (Sept. 24, 2021), available at:
https://www.sacbee . com/news/p olitics=government/capitol-alert/artic1e254079163.html. 7 Daniela Blei, San Francisco's 'Early Days' Statue Is Gone. Now Comes the Work of Activating Real History, SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE (Oct. 4, 2018), available at:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/san-francisco-early-days-statue-gone- now-comes-work-activating-real-history-180970462/.
$ CAL. DEP'T OF PARKS AND RECREATION, Sue-meg State Park, available at:
https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=417 (last accessed Jan. 10, 2022); Palisades Tahoe, The name is new. The legend continues. Welcome to Palisades Tahoe:, available at:
https://www.palisadestahoe.corn/new-name (last accessed Jan. 10, 2022). 9 REMOVE THE EL CAMINO REAL BELLS, available at: https://removethebells.org/; Letter from Valentin Lopez, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Chair, to the Gilroy City Council (Jan. 10, 2022), availableat:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1 ELIXdTBeMIPR9IDHg14CI8wXufMikd_g/view?fbclid=IwAR3 Fbx-FWYdP-rwB_ProJUakyvcKf-oVQzPhG9gbkBj-M6LeMOJSuOPocFo American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Abell Solteni • BOARD CHAIR Farah Brelvi SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE: 39 Drumm St. San Francisco. CA 94111 FRESNO OFFICE: PO Box 188 Fresno. CA 93707 • SACRAMENTO METRO OFFICE: PO Boa 189070 Sacramento. CA 95818 TE L (415) 671-2493 • FAX (415) 255-1478 • TTY (415) 863-7832 • W W W. A C LU N C.0 R G

Gilroy City Council

Page 4 of 4 ends

Symbols like the mission bellimmunize us to violence and genocide and continue the erasure and invisibility of our Indigenous communities. Instead of contributing to a false narrative that glorifies violence and obscures the truth of our shared history, the City of Gilroy has an opportunity towork alongside Indigenous communities to contribute to the creation of a new narrative —one that speaks to the strength, resiliency, diversity, and leadership of Native American communities in the region. We urge the Gilroy City Council to heed the call of your constituents, the call of history, and the call to live up to your own values and reconsider your decision to erect a mission bell at its January 10, 2022 meeting.

Sincerely,
Tedde Simon
Indigenous Justice Advocate
ACLU Foundation of Northern Califomia
[email protected]
�
Valentin Lopez
[email protected].

Liberties Union of Northern California
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Abdi Soltent • BOARD CHAIR Farah Bralvi SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE:39 Drumm St. San Francisco, CA 94111 FRESNO OFFICE: PO Box 188 Fresno. CA 93707 • SACRAMENTO METRO OFFICE: PO Box 189070 Sacramento, CA 95818 TEL (415) 621-2493 • FAX (415) 255-1478 • TTY (415) 863-7832 • W WW.A CLUNC.ORG

Anne Bybee
From: Moria Merriweather http://deeep.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/11/GlobalConference2014 BayosSpeech.pdf) "The Biggest Pandemic: Twice as many people died in 2020 of heart disease (690,882) as from COVID-19 (345,323).

This doesn't even include another 159,150 who died from stroke and another 106,106 from diabetes (mostly type 2), which have the same risk factors as heart disease. While Covid-19 is an airborne disease, and cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes are predominantly lifestyle and food -borne diseases, it would be wise for the CDC and HHS to put at least as much effort into preventing these chronic conditions as Covid-19." --Dean Ornish, M.D. I Founder & President, Preventive Medicine Research Institute; Clinical Professor of Medicine, UCSF, quoted from https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778234 1 Anne Bybee
From: Ana Victoria Fortes <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 1:11 PM
To: City Clerk; Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques
Cc:

Subject: EXTERNAL - No El Camino Real Mission Bell Markers In Respect of Indigenous Communities
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Elected Officials of Gilroy:

Hello my name is Ana Victoria Fortes. As a resident of Gilroy's neighboring community of Oakland, on the unceded territory of the Ohlone peoples, I am contacting you to ask you to stand on the right side of history and take action to prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy. Simply put, the mission bell is a symbol of the enslavement and attempted genocide of Indigenous people in California, a symbol that glorifies the dehumanization, destruction, and erasure of the first peoples of our state. We should not romanticize or celebrate this brutal history. Erecting a new mission bell would be a stain on our entire region. I ask you to respect the calls of Indigenous communities, especially the Amah Mutun peoples, and act to prevent this mission bell from being installed.

Respectfully,
Ana Victoria Fortes
1 Anne Bybee
From: Jenny <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 12:58 PM
To: City Clerk; Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar, Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques
Cc: Jenny Redfern
Subject: - EXTERNAL - Please do not erect another mission bell marker CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

To the Gilroy City Council,
As a resident of Gilroy's neighboring community, Morgan Hill, I'm joining our indigenous local communities to ask you to stand on the right side of history and prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy.

A marker with the history of our native peoples, such as the Amah Mutsun, would be more appropriate. The mission bell symbolizes only the conquerors, who enslaved and dehumanized the native peoples they encountered. We should not romanticize this brutal history with mission bells symbolizing the structures the natives were forced to build.

Please respect the calls of indigenous communities and act to prevent this mission bell replica from being installed.

Best wishes,
Jenny R. Redfern
t

Anne Bybee
From: Nassim Nouri <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 12:35 PM
To: Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques; City Clerk Subject: EXTERNAL - Please prevent the installation of a new mission bell ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear honorable Gilroy Mayor and Councilmembers,
My name is Nassim Nouri and I am contacting you to urge you to stand on the right side of history and take action to prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy.

We should not romanticize or celebrate this brutal history. Erecting a new mission bell would be a stain on our entire region.

I ask you to please respect the calls of Indigenous communities and act to prevent this mission bell from being installed.

Thank you,
Best regards,
Nassim Nouri
Councilmember, the Green Party of Santa Clara County
1 Anne Bybee
From: Penelope Hughes <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 12:19 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: EXTERNAL - Opposition to the installation of Catholic mission bells in Gilroy CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

My name is Penelope Anne Hughes, my husband and two adult sons have Cherokee and Choctaw heritage and are enrolled in the Cherokee Nation.

We live in neighboring Castro Valley.

I am contacting you to ask you to take the necessary action to prevent a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy and any other symbols of genocide and racism from being installed in Gilroy.

The mission bell is a symbol of the enslavement and the nearly successful genocide of Indigenous people in California; a symbol that glorifies the dehumanization, destruction, and erasure of the first peoples of our state. The installment of a new mission bell would continue the romanticism and celebration of this dark, brutal side of our history.

I ask you to respect the calls of Indigenous communities and their supporters and act to prevent this mission bell from being installed in Gilroy. Please stand on the side of truth and justice.

Respectfully,
Penelope Anne Hughes
i

Anne Bybee
From: Greg SeaLion Cotten <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 11:57 AM
To: City Clerk; Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Carol Marques; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz
Cr [email protected]
Subject: EXTERNAL - What were the Missions really like? Read Vatican quotes - No more bells, please
ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Leaders of Gilroy,
The days of romanticizing the California Mission system are over. Don't take my word for it, please read the below quotes from the Vatican Archives - otherwise the source is cited. "My motive for fleeing [Mission San Francisco] was that my brother died on the other shore, and when I cried for him at the mission they whipped me. Also the alcade Valeriano hit me with a heavy cane for having gone to look for mussels at the beach without Raymundo's permission." - Homobono A Spanish inquiry directed by California Governor, Don Diego. July 21, 1797. "...I would like to inform you of the many abuses that are commonplace [in the California missions]. The manner in which the Indians are treated is by far more cruel than anything I have ever read about. For any reason, however insignificant it may be, they are severely and cruelly whipped, placed in shackles, or put in stocks for days on end without even a drop of water."
- Father Antonio De la Concepcion Horra assigned to head Mission San Miguel wrote almost upon arrival in 1798
Saint Junipero Serra: "Father of the California Missions" The utmost goal of the Missions (and leader Junipero Serra) was to baptise and to ensure that upon death those souls, if kept from sin, ascended to heaven. Joy, pain, and suffering were simple artifacts of earthly existence, the thing that mattered more than anything, was that Indians ascended to heaven upon death.

The words of Saint Junipero Serra:
"...the spiritual side of the missions is developing most happily. In [Mission]San Antonio there are p� P 9 PP� Y•
simultaneously two harvests at one time, one for wheat, and one of a plague among the children who are dying."
- Junipero Serra's letter to superior Fr. Pangua in Mexico City, July 24, 1775 1 "... two or three whippings which Your Lordship may order applied to them... "If your lordship does not have shackles, with your permission they may be sent from here (Carmel Mission). I think the punishment should last one month."
—Junipero Serra's letter to Spanish commander Moncada to punish a group of 4 Indians who tried to escape Carmel Mission several times, dated July 31st, 1775 We can not free the Indians, relinquish directing their future, or give up the authority to use punishment. "...spiritual fathers should punish their sons, the Indians, by blows... Saints don't seem to be any exception to the rule... Saint Solano gave directions for his Indians to be whipped...I do not see by what law or reasoning (my Indians) should be exempt [from being whipped]."
• Junipero.:Serra's response to
• Spanish Governor Neve's request: free the Indians, give them legal representation, and stop • whipping them, dated January 7, 1780
San Francisco Mission (Dolores) in 1797 a red hot iron to burn crosses into the faces of a group of men, women, and children who tried to escape the mission. (Changing Image Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1984)
Native responses to an inquiry directed by California Governor Don Diego. The below native statements were given to Spanish soldiers who answered the question "why did you leave Mission San Francisco?" "My wife and daughter died, and on five separate occasions Father Danti ordered me whipped because I was crying. For this reason I fled." - Tibucio
-- "My motive for fleeing was that my brother died on the other shore, and when I cried for him at the mission they whipped me. Also the alcade Valeriano hit me with a heavy cane for having gone to look for mussels at the beach without Raymundo's permission." - Homobono
-- "My mother, two brothers, and three, nephews died, all of hunger. I left so I would not die also." - Liborato Carmel Mission 1786 French Admiral Jean -Francois Laperouse describes the scene : some natives in shackles and stocks, fetid squalor, and wrote it was no different than the slave plantations he visited in the Caribbean where the Franciscan policies toward the Indians was "reprehensible' adding they beat Indians for violations that in Europe would be considered insignificant.

Mission Indians fate was "worse than that of slaves."
— Spanish Governor Neve 1779 (San Francisco Historical Society, 1971) Mission San Fernando 1815
The captured leader of a group of Indians that escaped the mission had his feet and legs bound, then the skin of newly slaughtered calf tightly wrapped around him and sewn shut. He was tied to a post and left to suffocate under a hot sun that slowly shrank the calf skin.
2 —as witnessed and reported by Russian Seal Hunter Vassili Tarakanoff held in Mission San Femando for several years interviewed for Hubert Bancroft's History of California.

Mission Santa Cruz 1812
Father Quintana was hated by Indians because of his penchant for flogging them freely. He fashioned a horsewhip tipped with iron barbs to use against the Indians. He was soon assassinated. Those responsible were sentenced to 50 daily lashes for 9 days and life sentence of hard labor. — Noted in "The Assassination of Padre Andres Quintana by the Indians of Mission Santa Cruz in 1812." Lorenzo Asisara
By 10 years old mission children were considered laborers and assigned daily work. It's noted that many of the children were suffering from hernias.
— French Navy Captain Jean Laperouse, leader of a major scientific expedition and his doctors. as noted in Population of the California Indians; Cook
The El Camino Bells are the Confederate Statues of California - and are coming down. They are an artifact of selling California to those in the East. Please do not raise thisbell and perpetuate the glorification and the rornanization of this oppressive and brutal enslavement system. Cities are taking them down, citizens are taking them down.

I request you not only not put up any more bells but that you support the removal of ALL El Camino Bells on public lands.

Respectfully,
Greg Cotten
Marine Biologist and founding member of Friends ofJuristac 3 Anne Bybee
From:

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 11:46 AM
To: Council Member Fred Tovar
Cc: City Clerk; Amuh Mutsun Tribe
Subject: EXTERNAL - No Mission Bell for Gilroy
ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments. clicking links, or responding to this email.
"Hello my name is Julie Kowalewski Ward and I am a resident of Gilroy's neighboring community of Santa Cruz County. I am contacting you to ask you to stand on the right side of history and take action to prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy.

I was raised Catholic, but I do not support this part of our history. All mission bells should be removed. I ask you to respect the calls of Indigenous communities and act to prevent this mission bell from being installed." Julie Kowalewski Ward

1 Anne Bybee
From:

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:55 AM
To: City Clerk; Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques
Cc:

Subject: EXTERNAL - Please Don't Erect a Mission Bell in Gilroy i
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear Council Members,
As a resident of Gilroy's neighboring community of Hayward, CA, and as a supporter of the Amah Mutsun, I am contacting you to ask you to stand on the right side of history and take action to prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy.

The mission bell is a symbol of the enslavement and attempted genocide of Indigenous people in California, a symbol that glorifies the dehumanization, destruction, and erasure of the first peoples of our state. We should not romanticize or celebrate this brutal history. Erecting a new mission bell would be a stain on our entire region.

I ask you to do the right thing -- respect the calls of Indigenous communities, and act to prevent this mission bell from being installed.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Lucretia Whitener
i

Anne Bybee
From:

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:25 AM
To: Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques; City Clerk Cc: Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
Subject: EXTERNAL - NO NEW MISSION BELLS
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Greetings. My name is Beth Ogilvie. I live in the SF Bay Area. I've been studying the history of California with a focus on the catastrophic impact of Europeans on the Native peoples. This catastrophe began with the Missions. The missions enslaved thousands of Indigenous people, treated them brutally, and directly or indirectly caused the death of 150,000.

To memorialize this horrific time in our history with a mission bell would be unconscionable. It would send a message to the world that we the people of California are either unforgivably ignorant of our horrific history or shockingly indifferent to the suffering of so many people. We need to work toward healing the sins of the past, not glorifying them.

I ask you to respect the calls of Indigenous communities and act to prevent this mission bell from being installed.

Sincerely
Beth Ogilvie
Member, Peace and Justice Action Team
Starr King Unitarian Universalist Church, Hayward
1 Anne Bybee
From: Rename Squaw Valley <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:00 AM
To: City Clerk; Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques
Cc: Tedde Simon Subject: EXTERNAL - Support to ask Gilroy not to install a new mission bell ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear Mayor Blankley and Council Members,
Humbly and respectfully we write to you to reconsider your intent to erect a new El Camino Real Mission Bell.

Not one American Presidency has addressed the primary problem of Indigenous people. The primary problem plaguing American tribal groups isn't civil rights, social integration, or even honoring treaties. It's that the United States has never corrected the legacies and burdens of genocide and slavery. Before genocide was carried out by the state of California, the Doctrine of Discovery not only permitted, but demanded, the subjugation of Indigenous peoples, void of any rights, opportunities or privileges under the Mission system.

Missions redistributed 100% of what they saw as "natural resources," including land, water, flora and fauna, and slave labor. Business and trading were integral to this, and "rights" of those subjugated did not exist. In a nation of a race spaced society, it is what you own and control that determine your equal opportunities, rights, and privileges. As such, California remains the largest populated state in the union of Non -Federally Acknowledged tribes. Acknowledge the continued indigenous existence of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band and respect their wishes.

For over a half a century, continued lack of Federal Acknowledgement for most tribes petitioning for recognition is not only symptomatic of a broken system, but its continued awareness, prevailing disregard of its state, and insistence as the only means of Federal tribal acknowledgement, amounts to genocide through 1 beauracracy. Without Federal Acknowledgement America continues to tell individuals like myself and our tribes that we are anything but Native American until we have provided bona fide evidence from the United States only approved resources i.e. anthropologist and government officials. Honor our indigenous population, the first Californians, who continue to be disregarded, by hearing the calls for healing from the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band and respect their wishes.

Matthew 7:12 is the golden rule and very much applicable as these bells memorialized the rhythm of life for all who lived at the christian missions, slaves included. They announced when it was time to go to church, time for breakfast, lunch and dinner, time for work, or time for rest, unless you were Indigneous - An Indian, A Native American. Those bells also rang for funerals, but did they ring for our people? For the mass graves? The bells are a symbol of intergenerational trauma of our indigenous communities and both their sight and sound are traumatic triggers for many tribal members.

The pope in 2018 has publicly offered his voice to help amplify the call for healing within indigenous communities around the world - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay4pAAtx0wM&t=19s Here, locally, the Fresno Diocese very much personifies the Pope's request, standing by our side, amplifying our calls to heal our indigenous communities.

Please join the City of Santa Cruz and resolve to remove all El Camino Real bell markers from public property and respect the calls from the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band to heal our indigenous communities.

Collectively we can better decide how to spend the allocated funds for these bells for an endeavor that will promote inclusiveness, welcome new residents, and live up to the Gilroy City "Vision" that "promotes Gilroy as a community for all."
God Bless
Roman C. Rain Tree
Rename S-Valley (Fresno, County) Coalition Chair
(
2 Anne Bybee
From: toni bauer <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:50 AM
To: City Clerk; Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques
Cc:

Subject: EXTERNAL -
ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

To: The Gilroy City Council
RE: Consideration of erecting a Mission Bell on Monterey Road Dear Members,
Please do not approve the addition of this mission bell.

These bells began as a tourism advertising, marketing and promotional real estate strategy to idolize the Mission Period.

They subvert the full truth of the indigenous history of the Mutsun and Awaswas peoples. Some may have since attached religious significance to these decorations, but it must be remembered that they also represent repression, religious subjugation and genocide to many. What is horrifyingly apparent is the nearly complete eradication of tribal culture and religion within the last 250 years of Western colonialization. Opposing this bell would be a significant gesture to the Amah Mutsun and could show a genuine desire to address the lack of awareness that is embedded in our community.

There is a growing recognition among many in the spiritual community that the history of the first nations people who stewarded this land for millenia must be learned and honored. The Amah Mutsun understood the complex system of stewarding the land, fauna and flora; for example, their methods of controlled burns. How many of us are fluent in the culture and history of the people that stood here for at least 15,000 years? How many of us are even aware that their descendents continue to steward this land today? Failing to open our minds and change our perceptions further perpetuates these shameful activities. We have a long journey of introspection and action in order to right these injustices.
would encourage the council to deny the approval of the bell, and to act proactively, commit funding and resources into promoting the true history of this area —in the words of the Amah Mutsun—and to recommend a complete history be taught in our schools and at our historic sites. Even though the history of the western treatment of tribal people is abhorrent, it is a disservice to our children to continue a myth of false reality. I challenge you to add your voice and position to encourage Gilroy and neighboring communities to take down the bells and educate our communities.

Let us not only do this one thing. Let us heal.

Antoinette Bauer Smedberg
Director, Wisdom Center of Santa Cruz
1 Anne Bybee
From:

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:32 AM
To: Mayor Marie Blankley
Cc: Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques; City Clerk; Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Subject: EXTERNAL - Please support all your citizens and do NOT install the mission bell CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Mayor Blankley,Council Members Tovar, Armendariz, Bracco, Hilton, Leroe-Munoz, and Marques, I urge you to reconsider installing an El Camino Mission Bell in your city of Gilroy. And take a longer look to discover a symbol for yourupcoming celebration that represents all your citizens.

Chair Valentin Lopez of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band has offered to join you with the Gilroy members of their tribe to create a vision that represents the truth of the history of the Missions and the lives of all your citizens.

I hope you will take this opportunity to go forward in your city acknowledging the true history of the missions and a vision of hope and inclusion.

In community,
Colleen Cabot, member
First Unitarian Church of San Jose

Anne Bybee
From: Liz Milazzo , , ,
, , ,

Cc:

Dear Mayor Blankley, Mayor Pro Tempore Tovar and Council Members Armendariz, Bracco, Hilton, Leroe_Munoz and Marques,
I am writing to sincerely request that the City not erect a replica of the Spanish Mission bells. I attended two days of public events last August, held in Santa Cruz, to tell the true history of the California missions, and to remove the last of the Mission bells from public spaces in Santa Cruz. These bells represent the destruction of indigenous culture, spirituality and traditional knowledge. The bells were used to regulate the daily life of California Indians forcibly brought to the Missions and enslaved there. Chairman Valentin Lopez, other members of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, and representatives of many Native California Tribes spoke to the intergenerational trauma felt today when seeing or hearing the Mission bells, a symbol of the brutality and genocide their ancestors suffered.

We have much work to do to tell the real truth of California history, and begin to find a path to reparations and healing. I grew up in California, and know now that I learned a whitewashed version of Mission history in the 4th grade.

Our towns and communities continue to tell the history of California through the lens of settler colonialism, ignoring 10,000 years of history. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Mutsun people and all the indigenous peoples of California who stewarded these beautiful and productive landscapes for thousands of years. Every aspect of our current day towns and communities depends on this past and present stewardship of the Earth. Refraining from installing the Mission bell would be a sign of respect to the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band.

Sincerely,
Liz Milazzo

1 Anne Bybee
From: Stacie Wolny <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:31 AM
To: City Clerk; Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques
Subject: EXTERNAL - No new mission bells
ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links. or responding to this email.

I've heard that the city of Gilroy has plans to install a mission bell as part of its sesquicentennial, and I'm writing to ask you to soul -search, reconsider and change direction. The glorification of California missions is a horror of continuing to whitewash their brutality against the Indigenous people of this land. That is not something we should celebrate, but is something that we should face up to, apologize for, learn from, and begin to make amends for. Other communities are finally removing their mission bells for this very reason, which is long past due.

The very fact that a new mission bell is even being considered shows how unfortunately far we have to go to even acknowledge the genocidal history of the place we live. "Gilroy" as it is now wouldn't exist if land hadn't been stolen from its original people, ancestors of the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, who lived here for thousands of years (and we think that 150 years is a long time, try 10,000...) before being cruelly decimated by those missions.

If you're commissioning a piece that celebrates Gilroy, please work with the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band to create something that heals, not hurts. Something that not only acknowledges the recent invader history of this place, but respects the deep history of its first people, and the very land itself that Gilroy sets upon.

Something that speaks the truth, and helps us *all* move a step forward *together*, which is what a celebration of community should be.

Thank you.

Stacie Wolny
a white lady in nearby Campbell CA

Anne Bybee
From: Katherine McCamant <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:11 AM
To: City Clerk
Cc:

Subject: EXTERNAL - Mission bell
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments. clicking links, or responding to this email.
"Hello my name is Katherine McCamant. As a resident of Gilroy's neighboring community of Santa Cruz, I am contacting you to ask you to stand on the right side of history and take action to prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy.

Simply put, the mission bell is a symbol of the enslavement and attempted genocide of Indigenous people in California, a symbol that glorifies the dehumanization, destruction. and erasure of the first peoples of our state. We should not romanticize or celebrate this brutal history. Erecting a new mission bell would be a stain on our entire region.
1 ask you to respect the calls of Indigenous communities and act to prevent this mission bell from being installed." Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad
1 Thai Pham
From: rooney farris <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:50 AM
To: Council Member Carol Marques; City Clerk; Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz Cc:

Subject: EXTERNAL - Opposing new mission bell
U
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments. clicking links, or responding to this email.

Hello,
My name is Rooney Farris. As a resident of Gilroy's neighboring community of Santa Cruz, I am contacting you to ask you to stand on the right side of history and take action to prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy.

Erecting a new mission bell would be a stain on our entire region.

I ask you to respect the calls of Indigenous communities and act to prevent this mission bell from being installed.

Sincerely,
Rooney
i

Thai Pham
From: Jacqueline Tuttle <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:49 AM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz;
Subject: EXTERNAL - Don't erect a new mission bell
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
"Hello my name is Jackie Tuttle. As a resident of Gilroy's neighboring community of Santa Cruz, I am contacting you to ask you to stand on the right side of history and take action to prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy.

I'm not sure why the lovely and growing city of Gilroy would choose to erect a new mission bell when most surrounding communities have removed their mission bells.

Thank you for taking my comment.

Jackie Tuttle

Thai Pham
From:

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:46 AM
To: Victor Sin; City Clerk; Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques Subject: EXTERNAL - El Camino Real Mission Bell Marker
' CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tempore, and Councilmembers,
My name is Victor Sin. As a resident of Gilroy's neighboring community of San Jose and a volunteer leader with the ACLU Santa Clara Valley chapter, I am contacting you to ask you to stand on the right side of history and take action to prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy. Simply put, the mission bell is a symbol of the enslavement and attempted genocide of Indigenous people in California, a symbol that glorifies the dehumanization, destruction, and erasure of the first peoples of our state. We should not romanticize or celebrate this brutal history. Erecting a new mission bell would be a stain on our entire region. I ask you to respect the calls of Indigenous communities and act to prevent this mission bell from being installed.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Respectfully,
Victor Sin
1 Anne Bybee
From: William Ware <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:13 AM
To: City Clerk; Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques
Subject: EXTERNAL - Please Do Not Install A Mission Bell Marker i
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear Gilroy City Council members,
I am imploring you to stand on the right side of history and take action to prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy.

I ask you to respect the calls of Indigenous communities and act to prevent this mission bell from being installed. This will make native people and other people of color, like myself, feel that municipalities care about them.

Please do not erect a mission bell marker,
Will
William Ware (he/him)
M.Sc. Fellow in Coastal Science & Policy (2020-22)
- Please do not feel obligated to reply during non -work hours -

Anne Bybee
From: Brett Garrett <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:03 AM
To: City Clerk
Cc:

Subject: EXTERNAL - Please cancel new mission bell
ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear City Clerk and members of City Council,
I am disappointed to learn that the City of Gilroy has been making plans to install a new mission bell.

Last year I attended a ceremony in Santa Cruz, recognizing that city's decision to remove all of its mission bells from city property. I listened to many Indigenous speakers describing the bells as painful reminders of the enslavement and torture that their ancestors endured under the California mission system.

Please work with Indigenous leaders to learn more, and to educate others, regarding the tragic and shameful events of the past. Please cancel the proposed new bell.

Sincerely,
Brett Garrett

Thai Pham
From: Jennifer Astone <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:44 AM
To: City Clerk; Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar Cc: [email protected]
Subject: EXTERNAL - Prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell in Gilroy ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear City Clerk Thai Pham, Mayor Marie Blankly and Mayor Pro Tempore Fred Tovar, Hello my name is Jennifer Astone.

As a resident of Gilroy's neighboring community of Aptos, I am contacting you to ask you to stand on the right side of history and take action to prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy.

Please respect our Indigenous relatives and restore a dialogue towards reconciliation that can be healing for all. Our Indigenous communities have much to teach us and ways to guide us to be in better balance with our land, the animals and the ecosystem.

I ask you to respect the calls of Indigenous communities and act to prevent this mission bell from being installed.

Sincerely yours,
Jennifer Astone

Jennifer Astone
+nhvw.iciaptos.com

she/her/hers (Why Pronouns Matter)

INTEGRATED
y,. CAPITAL

INVESTING
Skin up for my newsletter here
Living and working on the unceded territory of the Awaswas / Ohlone Peoples of Aptos, California, represented today by the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
1 CITY OF GILROY I CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Thai Nam Pham, CMC, CPMC I City Clerk
7351 Rosanna Street I Gilroy, CA 95020-6197
Email: thai.phamPcityofgilroy.org
Phone: (408) 846-0204 I www.cityofgilroy.org
January 10, 2022
TO : Mayor Blankley
City Councilmembers
FROM: Thai Nam Pham, CMC, CPMC
RE: Public Comment
Agenda Item IX. 1 — Streamline Boards and Commissions
Attached is email correspondence received in the City Clerk's Office regarding Agenda Item IX. 1 from the following individuals:
•
•
Joanne Fierro
Maria Aguilar
cc: City Administrator
City Attorney

Anne Bybee
From: Joanne Fierro
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 3:22 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: EXTERNAL - Reduction of Boards and Commissions CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments. clicking links. or responding to this email.

Please read at 1/10/2022 meeting
Mayor and council members I want to ask you to postpone any decision on eliminating any boards or commissions until the COVID restrictions are lifted and we can see if participation returns. By eliminating 5 now that will take away 20 or more opportunities for citizen participation in city government.

Thank you
Joanne Fierro
1 Anne Bybee
From: Maria Aguilar <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 3:44 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: EXTERNAL - On the agenda Jan 10th consolidation of committees CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments. clicking links. or responding to this email.

At present I don't believe that this is the right time to consolidate committees the last two years have produced unprecedented challenges for many of us. I belong to various organizations and because of covid we have experienced a vast reduction of participants. Perhaps, this should be tabled for the end of this year. We need to give residents time to sign up for committees our city needs diversified input to represent the needs of our residents, it's their city and their voices should be given the opportunity to be heard.

Thank you
Maria Aguilar
Seat from Yahoo Mail on Android
1 Thai. Pham _
From: Leah Helper <
Sent: Saturday; January 8, 2022 8:33 AM
To: City Clerk; Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Toyer; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques
Subject: EXTERNAL - mission Bells are not appropriate for a modern California community CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear City Clerk, Mayor, and City Council,
I have been a Gilroy resident for 31 years. I taught History including California History at Gavilan College for most of those years, and it is no longer acceptable for California cities like Gilroy to romanticize and cover over the brutal history of the mission system as it impacted California native peoples. Teaching about the genocide involving murder, rape, theft, and other violence is very important; celebrating that genocide by honoring and forefronting the symbol of the Spanish violators is morally and municipally wrong.

We are on unceded native land. It was won by conquest. We are very lucky we have descendents of the Amah Mutsen and other groups allive and well to help us understand the extent of the losses, and the path to restoring at least some of the dignity, land, and sovereignty of native peoples and nations. It is imperative that we listen to these descendents, and respect their voices.

Please do not introduce this symbol of hatred into Gilroy as if it were something to be honored.

Leah Halper
1 Thai Pham
From: sheila carrillo <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:51 AM
To: Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; City Clerk; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques Subject: EXTERNAL - Mission Bells represent our SHAMEFUL HISTORY i
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

To: Gilroy City Council,
It is an affront to the Ahmah Mutsen tribal members and a blight on the City of Gilroy to even have a conversation about erecting a mission bell monument at a time when monuments to racism and genocide are being torn down all over the country. I attended the heart -wrenching precedent -setting bell removal ceremony in the City of Santa Cruz, and I urge you to dismiss the racist plan to install a bell signifying the heinous treatment of our indigenous population and instead hold educational forums about the true history of the mission period.

Sheila Carrillo
1 Thai Pham
From: Smith, Kimberly <
Sent: Saturday, January 8, 2022 1:17 PM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Council Member Zachary Hilton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Public Comments for Items NOT on the Agenda Jan. 10, 2022 ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

To Whom It May Concern:

Please add the following letter into the public record.

Thank you
Dear Council Members,
My name is Kimberly Smith, and I have been teaching English courses at Gavilan College for more than 20 years.
write to encourage a no vote regarding the proposed installation of an El Camino Real Mission Bell in Gilroy.

Such markers cause material harm to our communities. They disregard the pain and suffering the mission period caused for Amah Mutsun people, as well as create and maintain a distorted historical picture, one that particularly damages the lives of young scholars and writers, who need to be grounded in truth in order to realize their full potential as citizens of our world.

The El Camino Real bells obscure the violence that came with Spanish settlement in California, a time that was then followed by the also wretchedly violent Mexican and Anglo periods. Erasing these important parts of California history dangerously lessens the knowledge required to best care for the land and our futures. For such historical distortions show up in how we envision our relationship to this place and how we choose to take care of it for ourselves and our children. Our choices will affect generations to come, but until we know our history, we cannot face our future with integrity, whole-heartedness, and well-being.

The Amah Mutsun people continue to work toward sharing their history, so they may heal from it, and that we may also all be lifted from our faulty understandings of where we are, where we have been, and where we might yet arrive.

As you surely know, last year Gavilan College celebrated its centennial. One hundred years of educating people is certainly an accomplishment. In that we can take pride.

The Amah Mutsun people lived on this land for 11,000 years and their connection to it must also be realized and celebrated. The installation of a mission bell, however, would work against that goal and does so in a particularly dismissive and harmful manner.
i

Such a dismissal damages both recipient and perpetrator because it distorts the consciousness and hearts of all it touches, which is why in my role as educator I particularly beseech you to avoid this harm and work toward closeness and understanding with the Amah Mutsun.

Honoring their request to reject an El Camino Real Mission Bell is an important step in forming that life - affirming connection.

Best,
Kimberly Smith
English Instructor
Gavilan College
2 Thai Pham
From: Angelee Dion <
Sent: Saturday, January 8, 2022 4:42 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: EXTERNAL - No new mission bell in Gilroy
ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear Thai Pham,
am writing to you today to express my sincere hope that you will rescind your decision to install a mission bell in the city of Gilroy. We are living in a time of reckoning for the true, brutal history of this nation and this state. In our region, this includes acknowledging the near -genocide of the native inhabitants by Spanish colonizers and Catholic missionaries.

We can't undo the past, but we can stop sweeping the truth under the rug, which only perpetuates oppression and harm to us all. We can show respect to the descendants of these original inhabitants (represented by the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band) by acknowledging the truth now. By acknowledging that despite the loss of home, culture, languages, spirituality, family, and traditional knowledge, the AMTB is working hard to re- establish its ancient lifeways and teachings in order to fulfill their obligations to their creator to care for all living things.

Please do not perpetuate the illusion of a peaceful and beneficent mission system in the face of what we know to have been true. Please do not continue to disrespect and ignore the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band and other Indigenous Californians who have persevered despite the tragic history wrought on

them by the missionaries. Please envision a kinder and more appropriate symbol with which to mark the sesquicentennial of Gilroy.

Thank you for your time and your consideration,
Angelee Dion
(a concerned Santa Cruz neighbor)
2 Thai Pham
From: Peter Gelblum <
Sent: Saturday, January 8, 2022 5:35 PM
To: City Clerk; Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques
Subject: EXTERNAL - Do NOT erect a new mission bell
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, Councilmembers, and City Clerk:

As a resident of Gilroy's neighboring community of Boulder Creek in Santa Cruz County, I am contacting you to ask you to stand on the right side of history and take action to prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy. Simply put, the mission bell is a symbol of the enslavement and attempted genocide of Indigenous people in California, a symbol that glorifies the dehumanization, destruction, and erasure of the first peoples of our state. We should not romanticize or celebrate this brutal history. Erecting a new mission bell would be a stain on our entire region. I ask you to respect the calls of Indigenous communities and act to prevent this mission bell from being installed.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,
Peter Gelblum
Boulder Creek

Thai Pham
From: Kaleo Kaluhiwa <
Sent: Sunday, January 9, 2022 9:41 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: EXTERNAL - Public comments on items not on agenda for January 10 ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear members of the Gilroy city council,
I am writing to you today to express my
sincere hope that you will rescind your decision
to install a mission bell in the city of Gilroy. We
are living in a time of reckoning for the true, brutal
history of this nation and this state. In our region,
this includes acknowledging the near -genocide of
the native inhabitants by Spanish colonizers and
Catholic missionaries.

We can't undo the past, but we can stop
sweeping the truth under the rug, which only
perpetuates oppression and harm to us all. We
can show respect to the descendants of these
original inhabitants (represented by the Amah
Mutsun Tribal Band) by acknowledging the truth
now. By acknowledging that despite the loss of
home, culture, languages, spirituality, family, and
traditional knowledge, the AMTB is working hard
to re-establish its ancient lifeways and teachings
in order to fulfill their obligations to their creator to care for all living things.

Please do not perpetuate the illusion of a
peaceful and beneficent mission system in the

face of what we know to have been true. Please
do not continue to disrespect and ignore the
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band and other Indigenous
Californians who have persevered despite the
tragic history wrought on them, in part, by the
Mission system.

Please envision a kinder and more appropriate
symbol with which to mark the
sesquicentennial of Gilroy.

Thank you for your service to our community and
your consideration,
Kaleo Kaluhiwa
2 Thai Pham
From: Emma Hartung <
Sent: Sunday, January 9, 2022 2:36 PM
To: City Clerk; Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques
Subject: EXTERNAL - Please stand with Indigenous peoples & say no to El Camino Real bell ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear Gilroy City Council,
As a resident of Gilroy's neighboring community of San Jose, I am contacting you to ask you to stand on the right side of history and take action to prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy.

Best,
Emma Hartung
San Jose, CA
1 Thai Pham
From: Dan Daniels <
Sent: Sunday, January 9, 2022 2:42 PM
To: City Clerk; Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques
Subject: EXTERNAL - Please Do Not Erect El Camino Real Mission Bell in Gilroy Vicinity ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Greetings:

I understand Gilroy is proposing to install its own El Camino Real mission bell. I am contacting you to ask you to stand on the right side of history and take action to prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy. Simply put, the mission bell is a symbol of the enslavement and attempted genocide of Indigenous people in California, a symbol that glorifies the dehumanization, destruction, and erasure of the first peoples of our state. We should not romanticize or celebrate this brutal history. Erecting a new mission bell would be a stain on our entire region. I ask you to respect the calls of Indigenous communities and act to prevent this mission bell from being installed.

Respectfully submitted,
Mrs. Daniels
I.

Thai Pham
From: Lin Colavin <
Sent: Sunday, January 9, 2022 6:07 PM
To: City Clerk; Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques
Subject: EXTERNAL - Please Respect our Indigenous Neighbors.

ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
"Hello my name is Lin Florinda Colavin . As a resident of Gilroy's neighboring community of Santa Cruz. I am contacting you to ask you to take action to prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy.

Thank you for your consideration.

Lin Florinda Colavin
Santa Cruz, California.
1 Thai Pham
From: Steve Palmisano <
Sent: Sunday, January 9, 2022 8:08 PM
To: City Clerk
Cc:

Subject: EXTERNAL - No new mission bell in Gilroy
ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links. or responding to this email.

Dear members of the Gilroy City Council,
am writing to you today to express my sincere hope that you will rescind your decision to install a mission bell in the city of Gilroy. We are living in a time of reckoning for the true, brutal history of this nation and this state. In our region, this includes acknowledging the near -genocide of the native inhabitants by Spanish colonizers and Catholic missionaries.

We can't undo the past, but we can stop sweeping the
truth under the rug, which only perpetuates oppression
and harm to us all. We can show respect to the
descendants of these original inhabitants (represented by the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band) by acknowledging the truth now. By acknowledging that despite the loss of home,
culture, languages, spirituality, family, and traditional knowledge, the AMTB is working hard to re-establish its ancient lifeways and teachings in order to fulfill their obligations to their creator to care for all living things.

Californians who have persevered despite the tragic
history wrought on them by the missionaries. Please
envision a kinder and more appropriate symbol with which to mark the sesquicentennial of Gilroy.

Thank you for your time and your consideration,
Steve Palmisano
2 Thai Pham
From: Celia Babcock <
Sent: Sunday, January 9, 2022 8:23 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: EXTERNAL - mission bell
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments. clicking links. or responding to this email.

Dear Thai Pham,
Recently I traveled on Highway 101 and greatly enjoyed the beautiful hillsides with oak trees and cloudy skies with rainbows. I noticed many mission bells along and the way and each time I saw one it broke my heart. The mission bells remind me of the horrific treatment of the Indigenous people and how hard its been for the remaining people to recover from the trauma. How hard it is to for us the white people, the perpetrators to overcome our history. The fact that the mission bells are there to increase tourism takes away from any meaningful purpose.

What if there was a marker to give thanks to the Indigenous people who lived here for thousands of years, caring for and protecting the land that is so beautiful? Maybe it would be a group of trees, Native plants and a notice that the Earth is here for all people plants animals to live together.

Something nurturing and enlivening. Gilroy could to this! Thank you so much for your consideration.

Celia Hursey Santa Cruz

Thai Pham
From: Benny Drescher <
Sent: Sunday, January 9, 2022 10:27 PM
To: City Clerk; Mayor Marie Blankley
Subject: EXTERNAL - Prevent Mission Bell Violence
ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, licking links, or responding to this email.

Hello my name is Benny Drescher. As a resident of Gilroy's neighboring community Sants Cruz, I am contacting you to ask you to stand on the right side of history and take action to prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy.

We should not romanticize or celebrate this brutal history. Erecting a new mission bell would be a stain on our entire region.

I ask you to respect the calls of Indigenous communities and act to prevent this mission bell from being installed.

Thank you,
Benny Drescher

Thai Pham
From: Peter Klotz -Chamberlin <
Sent: Sunday, January 9, 2022 10:46 PM
To: City Clerk; Council Member Fred Tovar
Subject: EXTERNAL - Mission bell in Gilroy would be a mistake ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email_
Dear Mayor Pro Tempore Tovar,
I encourage you to vote against a proposal to install a mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy. The Indigenous people in our communities deserve public recognition that our cities and state and missions removed Indigenous people from the land, and forced them to give up their heritage. It would be a profound mistake to honor missions. These religious institutions played a direct role in removing Indigenous people from their lands, working them to death to build and maintain the missions, and beating and killing Indigenous people when they resisted.

We need to uncover this history, listen to the Amah Mutsun and other Indigenous people from California, tell their stories, not continue symbols and histories that glorify institutions that sought to erase Indigenous people and Indigenous nations from society and the land.

Mission bells symbolize the enslavement of Indigenous people in the California Mission system. The El Camino Real bell markers were created in the early 1900s to promote tourism and to celebrate a distorted version of history — one that glorifies and romanticizes the brutal mission era that sought to erase Indigenous people altogether. • Over 75% of children born into the mission system at Santa Cruz died before the age of 5. • Indigenous people were worked to death building and maintaining the 21 missions. • If they resisted, they were beaten, tortured —or killed. • The ringing of the mission bells was used to call Indigenous slaves back to the missions from a day's work in the fields, a reminder that they were subjugated to the priests and the missions. • Between 1769 and 1834, approximately 150,000 California Indians died as a direct result of the mission system.

Also, it is a violation of the separation of church and state if the city were to honor one religion's history. Our residents come from many histories.

Even while Indigenous people in Gilroy compose a small minority of residents, I hope the majority of residents and council members will listen and honor their calls to cease honoring symbols of oppression against Indigenous people.

Thank you,
Peter Klotz -Chamberlin

1 Thai Pham
From: sheila carrillo <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:51 AM
To: Mayor Marie Blankley; Council Member Fred Tovar; Council Member Rebeca Armendariz; City Clerk; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Peter Leroe-Munoz; Council Member Carol Marques Subject: EXTERNAL - Mission Bells represent our SHAMEFUL HISTORY ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Sheila Carrillo
1 Thai Pham
From: Gregory Bondi <
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:34 AM
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: EXTERNAL - Public Comments on Items NOT on Agenda for January 10, 2022 Meeting ICAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear City Clerk of Gilroy
Hello my name is Gregory Bondi. As a resident of Gilroy's neighboring community of Santa Cruz, I am contacting you to ask you to stand on the right side of history and take action to prevent the erection of a new El Camino Real mission bell marker in downtown Gilroy.

Sincerely,
Gregory Bondi

NAME: CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKER'S CARD Individual public comment is limited to 3 minutes per agenda item PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (tCNJe used to call you to the podium) ~3~t-~·\ (Jc\ \ \ V t i '--; .--. ' . ) ~ Email/Mailing Address: \){:__.=f\'\~f_; :')-Q__ t\,,,-\ (_) , L'\ S7: (Optional, to be used if request is made that staff respond back to you) --z 0 AGENDA ITEM(S): NUMBER_~---------------TITLE -----------------NUMBER TITLE _________________ _ Please complete this card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item discussion. Completion of this speaker's card is voluntary. All persons may attend th.is meeting and speak regardless ifa card is completed or not. When your name is called, please approach the podium, and after receiving recognition from the presiding officer, speak directly into the microphone ..

CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKER'S CARD Individual public comment is limited to 3 minutes per agenda item PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium) NAME: 0_~ C10 9vL)--I I c_ l Email/Mailing Address: Vt/ I;/ / 2 J §1 ?~L •· c:_· vVV\. (Optional, to be used ifrequest is made that staff respond back to you) I i 1 /0 / / ) ~/ AGENDA ITEM(S): NUMBER ·-r . ) --~~--------------TITLE -------------------NUMBER -----------------TITLE ------------------Please complete this card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item discussion. Completion of this speaker's card is voluntary. All persons may attend this meeting and speak regardless if a card is completed or not. When your name is called, please approach the podium, and after receiving recognition from the 1w~siding officer, speak directly into the microphone.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKER'S CARD Individual public comment is limited to 3 minutes per agenda item PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium) ' /;, / ; NAME: //·. · , ,, ') .,.,---i V ''\ ~ ' ,-\ !:~\ -.-. ~ .. ii 7 Email/Mailing Address: 1.'::t _.!., -·• .· -;·-'; ·· ,:_, , ,:_ (' ( . : · ,·1 .,-_ ~-(Optional, to be used ifrequest is made that staff respond back to you) ~) 8 ('> i . AGENDAITEM(S): NUMBER .·LI,/ I..'.,, ~~~-----------------TITLE ---------------------NUMBER -----------------TITLE ------------------Please complete this card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item discussion. Completion of this speaker's card is voluntary. All persons may attend this meeting and speak regardless if a card is completed or not When your name is called, please approach the podium, and after receiving recognition from the presiding officer, speak directly into the microphone.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKER'S CARD Individual public comment is limited to 3 minutes per agenda item PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium) NAME. .-.. r . -·\ °' .. • ,. 1. i ,l ~i !... · ~ t \ t· ._;.. -~ -_ ~ \· 1 "t . · Email/Mailing Address: 1 fJ; , ,. 1 , , · , \ •• , · \ \. •. : < : .· (Optional, to be used if request is made that staff respond back to you) ~. -~ AGENDA ITEM(S): NUMBER lf\L\ , \: ',1 \ i..__ '... , •' · ·~: ~~-•· \ i TITLE -. ..J.....J .' ! (tl1 ~I -----~--------------NUMBER TITLE -----------------Please complete this card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item discussion. Completion of this speaker's card is voluntary. All persons may attend this meeting and speak regardless if a card is completed or not. When your name is called, please approach the podium, and after receiving recognition from the presiding officer, speak directly into the microphone.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKER'S CARD Individual public comment is limited to 3 minutes per agenda item PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium) NAME J,'I I ~n /:;zh~~~ Email/Mailing Address: f _ I D'u _vM (Optional, to be used if r pond back to you) AGENDA ITEM(S): NUMBER ~'f v-k~L0 ~--t--! ) TITLE H -', NUMBER -----------------TITLE -----------------Please complete this card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item discussion. Completion of this speaker's card is voluntary. All persons may attend this meeting and speak regardless if a card is completed or not. When your name is called, please approach the podium, and after receiving recognition from the presiding officer, speak directly into the microphone.

;0~ \ _) .i ~../ CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKER'S CARD Individual public comment is limited to 3 minutes per agenda item PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium) NAME: . · ·.'.-e:c."' (~~: :t\-e \'" _) Email/MailingAddress: C· ,:>1...; l,5;J,.,. ~11-\-2 ~ . , . \,,,\ <,~-\.. (Optional, to be used ifrequest is made that staff respon ack.lto you) 1=-~\ / \ AGENDA ITEM(S): NUMBER l1~ \:...\.......•• \) • C-L,: I•·\,;~'-~, \T TITLE ,;_/ l ..• ------------------NUMBER -----------------TITLE t.· I ('i_, v~'-\ ""-G Qt., L \ Bf\\ Please complete this card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item discussion. Completion of this speaker's card is voluntary. All persons may attend this meeting and speak regardless if a card is completed or not. When your name is called, please approach the podium, and after receiving recognition from the presiding officer, speak directly into the microphone.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKER'S CARD Individual public comment is limited to 3 minutes per agenda item PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium) .. -. 7D NAME: _, -'------'"', \; Email/Mailing Address: ------------------------(Optional, to be used if request is made that staff respond back to you) AGENDA ITEM(S): NUMBER ________________ _ ,-.. \ ....... ., "'':-' \" ~ ., ,··...:.,; TITLE ---~----------------=-:r '-'' \.., NUMBER -----------------TITLE ------------------Please complete this card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item discussion. Completion of this speaker's card is voluntary. All persons may attend this meeting and speak regardless if a card is completed or not. When your name is called, please approach the podium, and after receiving recognition from the pref.iding officer, speak directly into the microphone.

J(_ ', '. \ . l \. CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKER'S CARD Individual public comment is limited to 3 minutes per agenda item PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium) ~} ~/ NAME: f . ~ -i i . t . . . __ Email/Mailing Address: ------------------------(Optional, to be used ifrequest is made that staff respond back to you) AGENDA ITEM(S): NUMBER -----------------.j A .._ TITLE --~--7~-,-+--------------NUMBER -----------------TITLE ------------------Please complete this card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item discussion. Completion of this speaker's card is voluntary. All persons may attend this meeting and speak regardless if a card is completed or not. When your name is called, please approach the podium, and after receiving recognition from the presiding officer, speak directly into the microphone.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKER'S CARD Indiv:c: ·al public comment is limited to 3 minutes per agenda item ~\ PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium) NAME: ;Jc44 Gu{fc-:2 Email/Mailing Address: ....,-,-,,./, j.rt'-(Optional, to be used if r ck to you) ~,~ . .' ,.,-..,. / L J --c· ., I ~~LL AGENDA ITEM(S): NUMBER!I eJJb-C C'Ov>'\.i,,Vte'~ I 1 t., n~ ) '"--·-----· ~:;;-TITLE ---------------NUMB E R~~~-c 1~' -----------c·ort5ot1d~ TITLE ~oa eds . . Please complete this card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item discussion. Completion of this speaker's card is voluntary. All persons may attend this meeting and speak regardless if a card is completed or not. When your name is called, please approach the podium, and after receiving recognition from the presiding officer, speak directly into the microphone. ____ /

~-CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKER'S CARD Individual public comment is limited to 3 minutes per agenda item PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium) \. l . li ,' NAME: t--·'\,(\.,·.;\( (,/(,\ .. , ... Email/Mailing Address: ------------------------(Optional, to be used if request is made that staff respond back to you) --AGENDA ITEM(S): NUMBER ___ J _____________ _ TITLE I th ( i (~ l,. L I i'\ I) l( I \ ~-NUMBER. ________________ _ TITLE -----------------Please complete this card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item discussion. Completion of this speaker's card is voluntary. All persons may attend this meeting and speak regardless if a card is completed or not. When your name is called, please approach the podium, and after receiving recognition from the presiding officer, speak directly into the microphone.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKER'S CARD Individual public comment is limited to 3 minutes per agenda item PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium) NAME: . /] 1 Cl [t Cf _s Roel (\\9 \AC?::-Email/Mailing Address: _____________________ _ (Optional, to be used if request is made that staff respond back to you) AGENDA ITEM(S): NUMBER ~ -------------------! . I I TITLE \ '-\ I ) ' i -~ ,,__:_ (; ;. ) 'I'(\-( I ) \ NUMBER --------------------TITLE ------------------Please complete this card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item discussion. Completion of this speaker's card is voluntary. All persons may attend this meeting and speak regardless if a card is completed or not. When your name is called, please approach the podium, and after receiving recognition from the presiding officer, speak directly into the microphone.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKER'S CARD Individual public comment is limited to 3 minutes per agenda item PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium) r /. -r ( NAME• !/ ( f' I.,'/( /L (1, ,'1 (,·I • \, V .._ .., \.. Email/Mailing Address: /'/ .· , -_ / _ ,., ~ ,,_ ,_. (Optional, to be used ifrequest is made that staff respond back to you) ' -7 AGENDA ITEM(S): NUMBER -----------------TITLE --------------------NUMBER '~.--·~ I 1!,c:_ 'I Ii. · .... , CC,, l)n lei\\------------------TITLE -----------------Please complete this card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item discussion. Completion of this speaker's card is voluntary. All persons may attend this meeting and speak regardless if a card is completed or not. When your name is called, please approach the podium, and after receiving recognition from the presiding officer, speak directly into the microphone.

~-NAME: CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKER'S CARD Individual public comment is limited to 3 minutes per agenda item PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium) ( l ( i ( fc \_ --,---., "\ (1.1 '\ ( I Email/Mailing Address: ------------------------(Optional, to be used ifrequest is made that staff respond back to you) AGENDA ITEM(S): NUMBER __ ··+f_:r_ ' ',_·1 ! I I :, 1-(_ ( I I ) 1(3" ) / s ~, ( ) j NUMBER -----------------TITLE ------------------Please complete this card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item discussion. Completion of this speaker's card is voluntary. All persons may attend this meeting and speak regardless if a card is completed or not. When your name is called, please approach the podium, and after receiving recognition from the presiding officer, speak directly into the microphone.

,..__ ----~',.__ ... / \ CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKER'S CARD Individual public comment is limited to 3 minutes per agenda item PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium) NAME: ~~:.r:.{1., )c✓l"\ '.-,T,,r,v, J L J --/--\ -t---\ i -, ' \ . ·---;,' ... __ --Email/Mailing Address: _<_-~~....,\~C:_--+--~~-------~------------(Optional, to be used if req AGENDA ITEM(S): NUMBER / X ~ / ~--~--------------, ; , ( 1 TITLE ,/ ' / , , r-,t -£.,_ ) 1 r--~-,<. ,·-./\. : ' "·'.\ , ' ·-J ' ...; ,, r..:tJ '.·\'-'\_i",..,.-,_ ;,(: \ r __,,; v' NUMBER -----------------TITLE _________________ _ Please complete this card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item discussion. Completion of this speaker's card is voluntary. All persons may attend this meeting and speak regardless if a card is completed or not. When your name is called, please approach the podium, and after receiving recognition from the presiding officer, speak directly i1111 the microphone.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKER'S CARD Individual public comment is limited to 3 minutes per agenda item PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium) f} /4") j / NAME: :to,... C-1 /,! rL 7 • , Email/Mailing Address: llr f < .. i ) TITLE ~ cJ S':4-/'?',,... ,,,C_,~,./ / NUMBER TITLE -----------------Please complete this card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item discussion. Completion of this speaker's card is voluntary. All persons may attend this meeting and speak regardless if a card is completed or not. When your name is called, please approach the podium, and after receiving recognition from the presiding officer, speak directly into the microphone.

q ., . /1'· .. ;./,./ ,·, , .. / ' I 1-·: , . ( ~ \ /-/ .( i.. r' ; / ,'. 1 ... j ' i '~. ) / , I ) . ' / l' (.__ / ) ,.. -:'-/'-'-'· -' ! . . ·'\·'--CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKER'S CARD ,, l c I I ( Individual public comment is limited to 3 minutes per agenda item (.. ,; ) . . 1 I ( II I PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium) NAME:~ t .,, l-1.·t-i./:i. •• , , -1,... ·.11' Email/Mailing Address: \ ;,1 A ; ,~1:;'..,'L), _; --,(_ i, j ,:< ... t l'! ( 6r~ ,--:A,.,.,01 ,!.1/(oti., , G..:':'V'i (Optional, to be used if request is made that staff respond lSack to you) AGENDA ITEM(S): NUMBER r; --------------------[' . -;-., . TITLE r't.? I l J... 0 c;t,,:) r 0-f 1 ,, /: NUMBER --------------------TITLE ------------------Please complete this card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item discussion. Completion of this speaker's card is voluntary. All persons may attend this meeting and speak regardless if a card is completed or not. When your name is called, please approach the podium, and after receiving recognition from the presiding officer, spf 1k directly into the microphone.

j ... __ .,,. f CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKER'S CARD ,,l~ "1 t.1 '\ Individual public comment is limited to 3 minutes per agenda item .. i i, i~ _ , __ _ '---' PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME CLEARLY (to be used to call you to the podium) NAME: . '.,t,,,,, I ·, ~; ~ l-Email/Phone Number: --------------------( O p ti on a I, to be used if request is made that staff respond back to you) AGENDA ITEM(S): NUMBER _______________ _ TITLE 1 · _,, ~) I I ·; ~ j . j NUMBER --------------TITLE ----------------Please complete this card and present it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the agenda item. Completion of this speaker's card is voluntary_ All persons may attend this meeting and speak regardless if a card is comoleted or not When your name is called, please approach the podium, and after receiving recognition from the presiding officer, speak directly into the microphone.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING SPEAKER'S CARD Individual public comment is limited to 3 minutes per agenda item PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium) NAME:"--, -,·. ~-/ ··"v i • I ' ,,. I ~ ---------------------------Email/Mailing Address: ______________________ _ (Optional, to be used if request is made that staff respond back to you) AGENDA ITEM(S): NUMBER -----------------\ TITLE j _ i 1 i i '·~ "-... ·-. l) '/) r 1 \:t I NUMBER -----------------TITLE -----------------Please complete this card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the agenda item discussion. Completion of this speaker's card is voluntary. All persons may attend this meeting and speak regardless if a card is completed or not. When your name is called, please approach the podium, and after receiving recognition from the presiding officer, speak directly into the microphone.

6-4n
T NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium)

PLEASE P
AGENDA ITEM(S):
o
i
o 0
o
o-d 0
U ;? 0
..,
o El 0
U .DA
O O
U
bQ
ct ••-•1
.- •bil ,
el En
U 0,
pa44 d s+ d
,0
C A ..
fi
-.
p ¢' c O
S i.b
H •a a •
.., ''d U
y O
CD
W U 0
H U cz C
41 "Ed' O
0 H H
o ct
cci 4-1
a)
P. • 0) 0)
►�
al i
4-4 } "c

U (I)U O
_-(
.0-dd ct
a)c�
U c
o Q. a)
a0i
ao

PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME CLEARLY (to be used to call you to the podium) 0 E
Z
a)
O
CL

"C O U
Y -a Q. N
L a N La
ca co
E 0 4)
U c = 0 Q
°° Q
s 0a 0�+ a CO U
�� a)c
a) = a
o -6 En
Iri.L N a)N
-o a
a ° C.) a)
�ea E
Y
CO E O
v Q (0 "-
N N C c
`t O
2 o . - O> C
.co c O
cy
Q° -
E a) o N U
v E a)
a) 0o -
co
cDm E. U
o.. .N

PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium) L
z
5 o
o -
c/a cn
b
U
V
mr0.1 CI)
O
v
y
P� 0
O
4-4
O
•
•
0 U
bA .
•
•
N O
U
Nam+
ct
ct• o
•-
� • U
4 - a)
0C3
O
CSai 4:1U
cn
O
a) • bA
T
U
.-4
a)
czt
x-.

O
N

In 1769_n Spain begs � •cupying what
is now'California. Franciscan padres
supervised the constructionof 21
missions to convert the California Indians to
Raman Catholicism and teach them European
agriculture and trade. The military established
four presidios (forts) to protect the new colonies.
_7 Travel between thesettlements was difficult due to
the great distances and rough terrain. ,Establishing a
connecting road system was vital to the Spanish
success., The Native Californians had developed . routes to their hunting, gathering and trade ;areas: The roads and routes varied with the seasons. The Spanish
followed and expanded these existing routes to link the missions, presidios, and pueblositowns). Sonie of these routes became the Royal Road, today's El Camino Real.

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item Title: December 6, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: January 10, 2022
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: City Clerk
Submitted By: LeeAnn McPhillips
Prepared By: LeeAnn McPhillips

Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization

☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
☐ Promote Economic
Development
Activities

☐ Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All

☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION

Attachments:

1. Draft Minutes December 6 2021

6.1 Packet Pg. 8

1 City Council Meeting Minutes
12/6/2021
City of Gilroy
City Council Meeting Minutes
December 6, 2021

I. OPENING
A. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Mayor Marie Blankley.

1. Pledge of Allegiance
Council Member Leroe-Munoz led the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. Invocation
None.

3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
Interim City Clerk McPhillips reported that the agenda was posted on Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 4:52 p.m.

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Marie Blankley Mayor Present 5:20 PM
Rebeca Armendariz Council Member Absent
Dion Bracco Council Member Present 5:10 PM
Zach Hilton Council Member Present 5:11 PM
Peter Leroe-Muñoz Council Member Present 5:13 PM
Carol Marques Council Member Present 5:11 PM
Fred Tovar Council Member Present 5:13 PM
B. Orders of the Day
C. Employee Introductions
City Administrator Forbis introduced the following new employees:

Thai Pham, City Clerk

Crystal Zamora, Program Administrator
II. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations
None.

III. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL
Mayor Blankley opened the public comment period. The following individuals provided public comments:

Kristin Brown
Paul Brown
Beatrice Macias
Petra Macias
Ron Kirkish

6.1.a
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Draft Minutes December 6 2021 (3611 : December 6, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes)

2 City Council Meeting Minutes
12/6/2021
Dori Prado

There being no further public comment, Mayor Blankley closed public comment.

City Attorney Faber made a brief statement at the close of public comment: The Gilroy City Council does not have control over whether a Council Member steps down or stays on Council.

IV. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco - no report.

Council Member Hilton – reported on Visit Gilroy and the review of the Strategic Marketing Report for quarter ending September 30, 2021; also reported on Silicon Valley Clean Energy and a pilot program to provide fifty portable electric batteries to residents dependent upon medical devices which go down in a power outage.

Council Member Leroe-Munoz - no report.

Council Member Marques – reported that there was a very nice tree lighting and parade this past Saturday evening in the downtown; also recommended the Holiday Lights show at Gilroy Gardens which is available through New Year’s.

Vice Mayor Tovar - no report.

Mayor Blankley – no report; will include some comments related to Cities Association when Item IX C. is discussed.

V. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
Council Member Tovar - requested discussion of a second Downtown Paseo; City Council provided support to place on future agenda.

Council Member Marques - requested report on homeless encampments and meth use. Jimmy Forbis - fielded comments and question on this item and offered to give a verbal report at next meeting focused on the problems around Gilroy Prep School; Council Member Tovar asked that report cover the full city rather than just one specific area. City Council provided support to place on a future agenda.

VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)
Mayor Blankley opened the public comment.

No public comments regarding consent calendar items.

Mayor Blankley closed public comment.

6.1.a
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Draft Minutes December 6 2021 (3611 : December 6, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes)

3 City Council Meeting Minutes
12/6/2021
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES: Blankley, Bracco, Hilton, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Rebeca Armendariz
A. Approval of a Notice of Acceptance of Completion for the FY21 Citywide Pavement Maintenance Project No. 21-PW-260 and Approval of a Final Contract with Teichert & Son, Inc in the Amount of $2,965,305.92 A motion was made to approve the notice.

B. Acceptance of an Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant for $16,732 and Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Approving a Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget Amendment A motion was made to accept the grant and adopt the resolution.

Enactment No.: Resolution No. 2021-65
C. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 27 of the Gilroy City Code, Article VI "Water Supply Shortage Regulations" Authorizing the Public Works Director to Make Changes to the City of Gilroy Watering Schedule as Needed

Enactment No.: Ordinance No. 2021-05
D. Second Reading and Adoption of An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Amending Gilroy City Code Chapter 12 to Add a New Article VI, Entitled Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, to Chapter 12 of the Gilroy City Code to Implement the Requirements of SB 1383

Enactment No.: Ordinance No. 2021-06
E. 10-18-21 City Council Meeting Minutes
A motion was made to approve the minutes.

F. 10-25-21 City Council Study Session Minutes
A motion was made to approve the minutes.

G. 11-1-21 City Council Meeting Minutes
A motion was made to approve the minutes.

H. 11-15-21 City Council Meeting Minutes
A motion was made to approve the minutes.

VII. BIDS AND PROPOSALS
None
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Project Garlic Industrial Subdivision (Panattoni Development) Mitigated Negative Declaration and Request for Industrial Planned Development Approval for Warehouse, Distribution Facility and Commercial Use of Property at the Northeast Corner of Pacheco Pass Highway and Camino Arroyo (File No.s Z 20-07, AS 20-21, TM 20-07, CUP 20-02 and GPA 20-01) Item withdrawn by Applicant. No continuance.

6.1.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Draft Minutes December 6 2021 (3611 : December 6, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes)

4 City Council Meeting Minutes
12/6/2021
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.

Michelle Nelson commented on this project.

Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.

Possible Action:

Staff and the Planning Commission analyzed the proposed project and recommend the City Council:
a) Adopt, by resolution, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the project with findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
b) Adopt a resolution to approve General Plan Amendment GPA 20-01 amending the Mobility Element Figures M-1 and M2 for the project;
c) Motion to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading;
d) Introduce an ordinance to approve Z 20-07
Commercial/Industrial Planned Unit Development Zoning
Amendment;
e) Adopt a resolution to approve Architectural and Site Review AS 20-21 for the site planned unit development plan and buildings, with findings and conditions; and
f) Adopt a resolution to approve Tentative Parcel Map TM 20 -07, with findings and conditions.

The applicant requests a second continuance to January 2022.

Staff recommends continuance to January 24, 2022.

IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There were no Unfinished Business items listed.

X. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
A. Gilroy Zoning Code Update Progress Report
Staff report provided by Senior Planner Kraig Tambornini.

Council Members asked questions of staff (Bracco, Hilton).

Mayor Blankley opened the public comment period.

No public comment.

Mayor Blankley closed public comment.

6.1.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Draft Minutes December 6 2021 (3611 : December 6, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes)

5 City Council Meeting Minutes
12/6/2021
Possible Action:

Accept report.

Council provided unanimous support to receive the report with no objections.

B. Discussion on Renter Protection Policies
Staff report provided by Senior Management Analyst Bryce Atkins.

Item returning as item was on legislative agenda of Council with budget.

Council asked questions of staff (Blankley, Leroe-Munoz, Bracco).

Mayor Blankley opened the public comment period.

No public comment.

Mayor closed public comment.

A motion was made by Council Member Leroe-Munoz, seconded by Council Member Bracco, to take no action on the item. The motion was carried by the following vote:

RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
SECONDER: Dion Bracco, Council Member
AYES: Blankley, Bracco, Hilton, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Rebeca Armendariz
C. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Supporting the "Brand-Huang-Mendoza Tripartisan Land Use Initiative" to Amend Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California to Make Zoning and Land Use Community Affairs, and Not of State Interest
Staff report provided by Senior Management Analyst Bryce Atkins.

No questions of staff.

Mayor Blankley spoke about SB 9 and discussion ensued between the Council Members.

Mayor Blankley opened the public comment period.

Ron Kirkish commented on this item.

There being no further public comment, Mayor closed public commen t.

6.1.a
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Draft Minutes December 6 2021 (3611 : December 6, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes)

6 City Council Meeting Minutes
12/6/2021
Possible Action:

Consider the adoption of a resolution supporting the initiative to amend the California Constitution to make zoning and land use a local affair.

RESULT: APPROVE [5 TO 1]
MOVER: Dion Bracco, Council Member
SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES: Marie Blankley, Dion Bracco, Peter Leroe-Munoz, Carol Marques, Fred Tovar
NAYS: Zach Hilton
ABSENT: Rebeca Armendariz
D. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Overview
Community Development Director Karen Garner provided staff report.

Council questions of staff (Blankley).

Mayor Blankley opened the public comment period.

No public comment was given.

Mayor closed public comment.

Possible Action:

Receive report and provide direction to move to two-year cycle.

RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Carol Marques, Council Member
SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES: Blankley, Bracco, Hilton, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Rebeca Armendariz
E. Status Report Regarding City Cyber Security Assessment, Cyber Resilience Program, and Implementation Plan
Staff report provided by IT Manager Scott Golden.

Council questions and comments of staff (Leroe-Munoz, Tovar, Marques).

Mayor Blankley opened the public comment period.

No public comment was given.

Mayor closed public comment.

6.1.a
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Draft Minutes December 6 2021 (3611 : December 6, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes)

7 City Council Meeting Minutes
12/6/2021
Possible Action:

Receive report.

RESULT: APPROVE [5 TO 1]
MOVER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
SECONDER: Carol Marques, Council Member
AYES: Blankley, Bracco, Hilton, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques
NAYS: Fred Tovar
ABSENT: Rebeca Armendariz
XI. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
Council Chambers Modernization Project - City Administrator Forbis provided a brief update on project.

A. Gilroy Crime Update
City Administrator Forbis provided an introduction of this item.

Police Chief Pedro Espinoza provided a Gilroy Crime Update report.

Council asked questions of staff (Leroe-Munoz, Tovar, Blankley, Bracco).

Mayor Blankley opened the public comment period.

Public Comments:

Cheryl Parks and Ron Kirkish commented on this item.

There being no further public comment, Mayor closed public comment.

B. Sharks Ice Update
City Administrator Forbis provided a status update on the Sharks Ice project. City still discussing terms with the Sharks. City hopes to return to Council in January with a further update.

XII. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
There was no City Attorney’s Report.

XIII. CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney announced the closed session.

No public comment.

Adjourned to closed session at 7:38 p.m.

A motion was made by Council Member Lero e-Munoz, seconded by Council Member Tovar, to stay in Closed Session. The motion was carried by the following vote:

6.1.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Draft Minutes December 6 2021 (3611 : December 6, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes)

8 City Council Meeting Minutes
12/6/2021
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Peter Leroe-Munoz, Council Member
SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES: Blankley, Bracco, Hilton, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Rebeca Armendariz

Reportable Action: None
A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54957 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.11 (2); Employee Name/Title: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator

1. Public Comment on Closed Session Items

2. Adjourn to Closed Session

ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION
Report of any action taken in Closed Session and vote or abstention of each Councilmember if required by Government Code Section 54957.1 and Gilroy Code Section 17A.13 (a); Public Report of the vote to continue in closed session if required under Gilroy Code Section 17A.11 (5)

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Blankley adjourned the meeting at 8:42 p.m.

MEETING DATES

FUTURE MEETING DATES

DECEMBER 2021
13* Special Meeting - 6:00 p.m.

JANUARY 2022
10* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
24* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.

FEBRUARY 2022
7* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
28* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.

MARCH 2022
7* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
21* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.

* meeting is web streamed and televised

/s/ LeeAnn McPhillips
Administrative Services/HR Director/Risk Manager

6.1.a
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Draft Minutes December 6 2021 (3611 : December 6, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes)

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item Title: Action Minutes of the December 13, 2021 City Council Special Meeting.

Meeting Date: January 10, 2022
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: City Clerk
Submitted By: Thai Pham
Prepared By: Thai Pham

Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization

☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
☐ Promote Economic
Development
Activities

☐ Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All

☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends to approve the Action Minutes.

Attachments:

1. Action Minutes

6.2 Packet Pg. 17

DRAFT1
City of Gilroy
City Council Special Meeting Minutes
December 13, 2021
I.OPENING
A.Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Blankley.

1.Pledge of Allegiance
Council Member Armendáriz led the pledge of allegiance.

2.Invocation
None.

3.City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
City Clerk Pham declared the posting of the agenda.

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Marie Blankley Mayor Present
Rebeca Armendáriz Council Member Present
Dion Bracco Council Member Present
Zach Hilton Council Member Absent
Peter Leroe-Muñoz Council Member Present
Carol Marques Council Member Present
Fred Tovar Council Member Present
B.Orders of the Day
There were none.

C.Employee Introductions
City Administrator Jimmy Forbis introduced Andrea Yanez, new Permit Technician, Lisa Hernandez, new Office Assistant, and Cindy McCormick, promoted to Customer Service Manager from Senior Planner.

II.CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A.Proclamations, Awards and Presentations
There were none.

6.2.a
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Action Minutes (3603 : 12/13/2021 City Council Special Meeting Action Minutes)

DRAFT

City Council Special Meeting Minutes
December 10, 2021

Page 2 of 6 ends

III. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL
Mayor Blankley opened the public comment period.

The following speaker spoke on items not on the agenda:

Teresa Perez requested an update on the timeline of the installation and implementation of the equipment that will allow hybrid meetings for members of the public to participate via online. She also requested an update on the South County Youth Task Force.

Being no further public comment, Mayor Blankley closed public comment.

1. Annual Presentation from the Personnel Commission
Personnel Commissioner Catherine Cummins provided a presentation about the board's annual accomplishments.

Council accepted the report.

IV. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco had no report.

Council Member Armendáriz reported on the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority noting the board is working to reach its gas reduction goals and replace power from Diablo Canyon set to close by 2026. She also noted that she attended the Historic Heritage Commission and that they are continuing to work on the work plan. She notified about two upcoming events: a health fair at the Neon Exchange on January 14th, and a Fentanyl Town Hall on January 18th at Old City Hall at 6 P.M.

Council Member Marques reported on the Downtown Business Association noting that they were able to provide power to some of their buildings and they should be online in June at the latest. She also reported that new street benches from Jeff Orth were installed on the west side of Monterey Road between 5th and 6th Street.

Council Member Tovar had no report.

Council Member Leroe-Muñoz had no report.

Mayor Blankley reported that the Gilroy Sister Cities Association is still engaging with Takko Machi, Japan, via Zoom. She also reported that Cities Association of Santa Clara had a one-on-one meeting with the upcoming chairperson for 2022, San Jose Vice Mayor Charles "Chappie" Jones, who shared his three priorities are local control, elected officials use of social media, and matters of racial and social justice.

V. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
None.

6.2.a
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Action Minutes (3603 : 12/13/2021 City Council Special Meeting Action Minutes)

DRAFTCity Council Special Meeting Minutes
December 10, 2021

Page 3 of 6 ends

VI.CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)
Mayor Blankley opened the public comment.

No public comment was provided.

Mayor Blankley closed public comment.

A motion was made by Council Member Bracco, seconded by Council Member Leroe-Muñoz, to approve the consent calendar. The motion was carried by the following vote:

RESULT: APPROVE [5 TO 1]
MOVER: Dion Bracco, Council Member
SECONDER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
AYES: Blankley, Bracco, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar
NAYS: Rebeca Armendáriz
ABSENT: Zach Hilton

1.Appointment of Peter Leroe-Muñoz to Position of Mayor Pro Tempore for 2022
A motion was made to approve the appointment.

2. Mayoral Appointments of Council Members to Serve in Regional Representative Seats and Seats on Local Boards and Committees A motion was made to approve the appointments.

VII.BIDS AND PROPOSALS
There were no Bid and Proposals listed.

VIII.PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no Public Hearings listed.

IX.UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1.Streamline Consolidation of the City's Boards and Commissions Senior Management Analyst Bryce Atkins gave the staff presentation and responded to Council Members questions.

Mayor Blankley opened the public comment period.

Gary Walton commented that consolidating the boards and commissions may not be the best path forward and requested Council Members talk to committee members in ways to improve the recruitment and retention process.

Patricia Bentson recommended that Council not to follow staff's recommendation for Parks and Recreation Committee to meet quarterly. She also stated that the committee can also take on the development review and thereby inherit all of the duties of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission.

6.2.a
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Action Minutes (3603 : 12/13/2021 City Council Special Meeting Action Minutes)

DRAFT

City Council Special Meeting Minutes
December 10, 2021

Page 4 of 6 ends

Carolyn Schimandle hoped that items currently being worked on by the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission will continue to be worked on after the consolidation process.

Vanessa Ashford agreed with Mr. Walton that city staff should receive feedback from current and past committee members.

Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.

Possible Action:

Council:
a) Adopt A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Consolidating the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, Historic Heritage Committee, and the Street Naming Committee, and Placing Their Associated Board Functions Under the Authority of the Planning Commission.
b) Motion to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading. c) Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Consolidating the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Placing Their Associated Board Functions for Infrastructure Planning and Development Review Under the Authority of the Planning Commission, and the Associated Board Functions for Education and Encouragement Activities Under the Authority of the Parks and Recreation Commission. d) Direct all boards and commissions, except the Planning Commission, to meet on a quarterly basis, not to exceed quarterly meetings without compelling reasons as determined by the respective board chair and appointed staff liaison.

A motion was made by Mayor Blankley, seconded by Council Member Bracco, to approve Actions A, B, and C. The motion failed by the following vote:

RESULT: FAILED [3 TO 3]
MOVER: Marie Blankley, Mayor
SECONDER: Dion Bracco, Council Member
AYES: Marie Blankley, Dion Bracco, Peter Leroe-Muñoz
NAYS: Rebeca Armendáriz, Carol Marques, Fred Tovar
ABSENT: Zach Hilton
A motion was made by Council Member Tovar, seconded by Mayor Blankley, to continue this item in January with staff providing information on committees’ attendance, resignation, and the frequency of the meetings from 2021. The motion was carried by the following vote:

6.2.a
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Action Minutes (3603 : 12/13/2021 City Council Special Meeting Action Minutes)

DRAFT

City Council Special Meeting Minutes
December 10, 2021

Page 5 of 6 ends

RESULT: CONTINUE THE ITEM [5 TO 1]
MOVER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER: Marie Blankley, Mayor
AYES: Blankley, Bracco, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar
NAYS: Rebeca Armendáriz
ABSENT: Zach Hilton
X. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS

1. Update by City Attorney on Recent Housing Legislation (Including SB9) Presentation: Andrew L. Faber, Esq., City Attorney
City Attorney Faber gave the staff presentation and responded to Council Member questions.

2. Gilroy Senate Bill 9 Objective Design Standards Policy Senior Planner Cindy McCormick gave the staff presentation and responded to Council Members questions.

Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.

Gary Walton encouraged Council to raise the standards on the Objective Design Standards to improve neighborhoods.

Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.

Possible Action:

Staff recommends that the City Council:
a) Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy adopting the Gilroy SB9 2-Unit Residential Objective Design Standards Policy; and RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Rebeca Armendáriz, Council Member
SECONDER: Dion Bracco, Council Member
AYES: Blankley, Armendáriz, Bracco, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Zach Hilton

Enactment No.: Resolution No. 2021-67
b) Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy adopting the Gilroy SB9 Residential Lot Split Objective Design Standards Policy RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Rebeca Armendáriz, Council Member
SECONDER: Dion Bracco, Council Member
AYES: Blankley, Armendáriz, Bracco, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar ABSENT: Zach Hilton

Enactment No.: Resolution No. 2021-68

6.2.a
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Action Minutes (3603 : 12/13/2021 City Council Special Meeting Action Minutes)

DRAFTCity Council Special Meeting Minutes
December 10, 2021

Page 6 of 6 ends

3.1st Quarter Update on the City's Departmental and Legislative Work Plan City Administrator Jimmy Forbis gave staff presentation and responded to Council Members questions.

Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.

No public comment was provided.

Council received the report.

XI.CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS

1.Update on Sidewalk Assessment Project
No report was given.

2.Update on Illegal Activity at Unhoused Encampments
Police Chief Espinoza provided an update on the item and responded to Council Members questions.

Mayor Blankley opened public comment.

Vanessa Ashford wanted to reiterate that out of the work plan discussed in Chief Espinoza's update to Council, very few resources were attainable to those experiencing homelessness.

Mayor Blankley closed public comment.

Council received the report.

3.Presentation of 2021 City Accomplishments
A video presentation was provided.

XII.CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
There were no City Attorney's Reports listed.

XIII.CLOSED SESSION
There were no Closed Session items listed.

ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P.M.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gilroy. /s/Thai Nam Pham
Thai Nam Pham, CMC, CPMC
City Clerk

6.2.a
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Action Minutes (3603 : 12/13/2021 City Council Special Meeting Action Minutes)

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item Title: Claim of Westwood Inv., LLC (The City Administrator recommends a “yes” vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial of the claim)
Meeting Date: January 10, 2022
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Human Resources Department
Submitted By: LeeAnn McPhillips
Prepared By: LeeAnn McPhillips

Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization

☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
☐ Promote Economic
Development
Activities

☐ Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All

☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the recommendation from Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA) and/or legal counsel, this claim is recommended for rejection.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on the recommendation from Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA) and/or legal counsel, the following claim is submitted to the City Council for rejection at the January 10, 2022 meeting:

• Claim of Westwood Inv., LLC

Attachments:

6.3 Packet Pg. 24

1. Claim for Westwood Inv LLC

6.3 Packet Pg. 25

6.3.a
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Claim for Westwood Inv LLC (3594 : Claim of Westwood Inv., LLC)

6.3.a
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Claim for Westwood Inv LLC (3594 : Claim of Westwood Inv., LLC)

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item Title: Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application's AS21-13 and TM 21-02 for 6970 Camino Arroyo Development Project.

Meeting Date: January 10, 2022
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Planning Division (Planning Commission Meetings) Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Kraig Tambornini
Kraig Tambornini

Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization

☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
 Promote Economic
Development
Activities

☐ Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All

☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION
Award a contract to EMC Planning in the amount of $169,049.00 for preparation of an initial study/mitigated negative declaration for Planning Application AS 21 -13 and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents.

BACKGROUND
On July 28, 2021, Temple Gilroy LLC submitted applications for zoning approvals to develop a 10.11-acre site at 6970 Camino Arroyo which is located on the east side of Camino Arroyo, south of Highway 152 and east of US 101 (File no. AS 21-13 and TM 21-02). This property is in the Gilroy Crossings Commercial/Industrial - C3/M2 PUD (Phase II).

7.1 Packet Pg. 28

The project requires environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, staff initiated the process to select a consultant to prepare the necessary CEQA document.

On September 17, 2021, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was published to the current City list of on-call environmental planning consultants, with proposals due October 14, 2021. A total of five proposals were received, all exceeding $100,000.00, which required the RFP to be republished for general submittal by any interested environmental consultant. The second submittal deadline closed November 19, 2021 with no additional submittals received.

On December 3, 2021, a notice of intent to award the contract was published selecting EMC Planning as the environmental consultant. No protests were received by the December 10, 2021 deadline, allowing staff to proceed with the next step to request City Council award of the contract.

ANALYSIS
The Request for Proposal identified the City’s desire to retain services of a qualified environmental consultant to complete environmental review for the proposed major development project, which includes a gas station, drive through food service, two hotels and future medical and industrial development as a later phase.

The five proposals were received from CSG Consultants, EMC Planning, First Carbon, Stantec, and SWCA, which are all on the City list of qualified environmental consultants.

The proposals ranged in scope from preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration to more conservative Environmental Impact Report review, if needed. Proposed budgets ranged from $153,681 to $330,315. The median bid amount was $160,000. All bids included the same traffic analysis scope of work from Hexagon, in the amount of $79,975.00.

The proposals were scored in accordance with the City Purchasing Policy with the following ranking:

1. EMC Planning

2. First Carbon Solutions

3. Stantec

4. SWCA

5. CSG Consultants
EMC Planning was identified as having greater familiarity with the project, and adequate scope necessary for CEQA compliance. EMC Planning was determined to provide the most efficient, expedient and cost-effective environmental documentation for the project.

The cost of the proposal is $153,681.34. The proposed contract amount includes a 10% contingency, for a total contract amount not to exceed $169,049.10. In addition to funding of the contract, the applicant will also be required to pay a City administrative

7.1 Packet Pg. 29

fee. The total cost to pursue work would be $192,101.70, which covers the contract amount, contingency and City administrative fee.

ALTERNATIVES
1) Award the contract to FirstCarbon or Stantec, the next two highest scoring bidders.

Staff does not recommend this option primarily given the ability of EMC to complete the project review with the most efficiency and understanding of the project area. 2) Reject all proposals. Staff does not recommend this option as this would delay processing of the project.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The cost of the environmental review will be fully funded by the ap plicant prior to execution of the contract. This will include the required 15% administrative fee that covers staff time to manage the contract and review the environmental documents. The administrative fee is charged based on the initial contract amount, without the contingency fee included.

CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, award a contract to EMC Planning in the amount of $169,049.50, including a $15,368.13 contingency, for preparation of the environmental document for zoning applications As 21-13 and TM 21-02, and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents .

NEXT STEPS
Upon Council’s approval, funds will be requested from the applicant in the total amount of $192,101.70 to cover the contract amount, contingency and administrative fee. Once funds are received the contract will be executed.

Attachments:

1. EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal

7.1 Packet Pg. 30

Proposal
Camino Arroyo Development Project
Initial Study/MND
File No. AS 21-13 and TM 21-02
22-RFP-CDD-467

October 14, 2021

Prepared by
EMC Planning Group

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

Prepared for
C ity of G ilroy
Carina Baska, Senior Management Analyst
7350 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
Prepared by
EMC P lanninG G rouP in C.
301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C
Monterey, CA 93940
Tel 831.649.1799
Fax 831.649.8399
Teri Wissler Adam, Senior Principal
[email protected]
www.emcplanning.com
October 14, 2021

CITY OF GILROY
Camino Arroyo Development Project Initial Study/MND
ProposalProposal
FILE NO. AS 21-13 AND TM 21-02

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

Table of Contents

1.0 Setting .......................................................................................................1

2.0 Project Description .................................................................................1

2.1 Tentative Subdivision Map ..................................................................................1

2.2 Architectural and Site Review ..............................................................................1

2.3 Applicant-Submitted Technical Reports...............................................................2

3.0 Past Planning Actions and Environmental Review Relevant to the Proposed Project ......................................................................................2

4.0 Approach- CEQA Guidelines §15183 ......................................................3

5.0 Scope of Work ...........................................................................................6 Task 1 Management/Consultation/Meetings ...................................................6 Task 2 Research ...............................................................................................6 Task 3 Transportation Analysis (Hexagon) .....................................................7 Task 4 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Evaluation .........7 Task 5 Biological Resources Analysis .............................................................10 Task 6 Cultural and Tribal Resources ............................................................12 Task 7 Environmental Noise Assessment .......................................................12 Task 8 Administrative Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration..........................................................................12 Task 9 Public Review Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ........12 Task 10 Public Notices and Document Distribution .......................................12 Task 11 Response to Comments/Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .................................13 Task 12 Public Hearings and Notice of Determination ...................................13

6.0 Budget and Schedule .............................................................................13 Attachments
Attachment A Transportation Analysis Scope of Work
Attachment B Environmental Noise Assessment Scope of Work

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

EMC Planning Group Inc. 1Camino Arroyo Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposal

1.0 Setting
The 10.18-net acre project site is located at the south of Pacheco Pass Highway (SR 152) and east of Camino Arroyo, within the city limits of Gilroy. Although the project site was historically in agricultural production, it has been fallow for years.

The property is surrounded by SR 152 to the north, Holloway Road to the south, undeveloped property designated General Industrial and Commercial to the east, and Camino Arroyo and the Gilroy Crossing Shopping Center (Regency Commercial Center) to the west.

The project site has a general plan land use designation of General Industrial. The property is zoned Regency/Newman Center PUD on the Gilroy Zoning Map.

2.0 Project Description
The Camino Arroyo Development Project, File No. AS 21-13 and TM 21-02 (proposed project) includes subdividing 10.18 acres into five (5) lots, and Architectural and Site Review for development on four (4) of the lots.

2.1 Tentative Subdivision Map
The applicant proposes to subdivide APN 841-070-049 into the following lots:
 Lot 1 0.825± acres
 Lot 2 1.313± acres
 Lot 3 2.061± acres
 Lot 4 1.933± acres
 Lot 5 4.026± acres

2.2 Architectural and Site Review
The applicant is proposing development of the five lots in three phases, as follows. Architectural and Site Review is not proposed for the last phase at this time; however, anticipated development of that phase will be evaluated in the initial study, as development of the third phase is reasonably foreseeable.

Proposed development is summarized in the following table.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

EMC Planning Group Inc. 2Camino Arroyo Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposal
Development Summary
Phase/Lot Project Square Footage or
Rooms
Phase 1a
1 Drive-thru Burger King 2,600 sf
2 Gas Station (8 pumps)
Car Wash
Convenience Store
8 pumps
1,152 sf
2,880 sf
Phase 1b
3 Residence Inn (4-story)112 rooms
82,568 sf
4 Holiday Inn Express (4-story)88 rooms
67,780 sf
Phase 2 (Future - No ASR Applications)
5 Medical Facility (4-story - Treatment/Outpatient Only) Industrial Warehouse (1 story)
79,928 sf
15,000 sf
SOURCE: Site Plan, 6/30/2021; Tentative Subdivision Map, 3/12/2021; RFP Questions and Answers

2.3 Applicant-Submitted Technical Reports
The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report addressing Phases 1a and 1b. No other technical reports are anticipated from the applicant.

3.0 Past Planning Actions and Environmental Review Relevant to the Proposed Project
The 10.18-acre project site was included in the Regency Centers Project, for which an EIR was prepared and certified in December 2002. The current project site was identified as a Phase II parcel, with possible future development as hotel/retail/restaurant/industrial site. The City subsequently approved a development agreement, tentative map, zone change, and architectural site review for the regional shopping center known as Gilroy Crossing, subsequently developed and located immediately west of the project site and Camino Arroyo. Although the 2002 EIR addressed environmental impacts associated with future development of the current project site, no development application was submitted and therefore, considered.

In November 2020, the City of Gilroy adopted the Gilroy 2040 General Plan, for which EMC Planning Group prepared the EIR.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

EMC Planning Group Inc. 3Camino Arroyo Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposal

4.0 Approach- CEQA Guidelines §15183
Assuming the proposed project is consistent with the development densities established in the general plan and zoning, this environmental analysis will focus on examining whether there are project-specific significant effects that may be peculiar to the project or the project site in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15183, which states:
(a) CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site [emphasis added]. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.
(b) In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located,
(2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent,
(3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.
(c) If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

EMC Planning Group Inc. 4Camino Arroyo Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposal
(d) This section shall apply only to projects which meet the following conditions:
(1) The project is consistent with:
(A) A community plan adopted as part of a general plan, (B) A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a
particular density of development, or
(C) A general plan of a local agency, and
(2) An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan.
(e) This section shall limit the analysis of only those significant environmental effects for which:
(1) Each public agency with authority to mitigate any of the significant effects on the environment identified in the EIR on the planning or zoning action undertakes or requires others to undertake mitigation measures specified in the EIR which the lead agency found to be feasible, and
(2) The lead agency makes a finding at a public hearing as to whether the feasible mitigation measures will be undertaken.
(f) An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. The finding shall be based on substantial evidence which need not include an EIR. Such development policies or standards need not apply throughout the entire city or county, but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is located, or within the area subject to the community plan on which the lead agency is relying.

Moreover, such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan or any community plan, but can be found within another pertinent planning document such as a zoning ordinance. Where a city or county, in previously adopting uniformly applied development policies or standards for imposition on future projects, failed to make a finding as to whether such policies or standards would substantially mitigate the effects of future projects, the decision-making body

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

EMC Planning Group Inc. 5Camino Arroyo Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposal
of the city or county, prior to approving such a future project pursuant to this section, may hold a public hearing for the purpose of considering whether, as applied to the project, such standards or policies would substantially mitigate the effects of the project. Such a public hearing need only be held if the city or county decides to apply the standards or policies as permitted in this section. (g) Examples of uniformly applied development policies or standards include, but are not limited to:
(1) Parking ordinances.
(2) Public access requirements.
(3) Grading ordinances.
(4) Hillside development ordinances.
(5) Flood plain ordinances.
(6) Habitat protection or conservation ordinances.
(7) View protection ordinances.
(8) Requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as set forth in adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations.
(h) An environmental effect shall not be considered peculiar to the project or parcel solely because no uniformly applied development policy or standard is applicable to it.
(i) Where the prior EIR relied upon by the lead agency was prepared for a general plan or community plan that meets the requirements of this section, any rezoning action consistent with the general plan or community plan shall be treated as a project subject to this section.
(1) “Community plan” is defined as a part of the general plan of a city or county which applies to a defined geographic portion of the total area included in the general plan, includes or references each of the mandatory elements specified in Section 65302 of the Government Code, and contains specific development policies and implementation measures which will apply those policies to each involved parcel.
(2) For purposes of this section, “consistent” means that the density of the proposed project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan, community plan or

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

EMC Planning Group Inc. 6Camino Arroyo Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposal
zoning action for which an EIR has been certified, and that the project complies with the density-related standards contained in that plan or zoning. Where the zoning ordinance refers to the general plan or community plan for its density standard, the project shall be consistent with the applicable plan.
(j) This section does not affect any requirement to analyze potentially significant offsite or cumulative impacts if those impacts were not adequately discussed in the prior EIR. If a significant offsite or cumulative impact was adequately discussed in the prior EIR, then this section may be used as a basis for excluding further analysis of that offsite or cumulative impact.

5.0 Scope of Work
The initial study will evaluate the environmental impacts associated with development of the proposed project, using the Gilroy 2040 General Plan EIR, as well as Regency Centers Property EIR, as may still be applicable. The proposed tasks are presented below.

Task 1 Management/Consultation/Meetings
This task includes coordinating staff, general management and administration, providing CEQA consultation for client, and managing subconsultants.

This task also includes attendance at three meetings with City staff and one meeting with Caltrans (all either virtually or in the City of Gilroy).

Task 2 Research
This task includes a thorough review of the application materials and review of the following plans and documents, as applicable to the proposed project:
 Gilroy 2040 General Plan;
 Gilroy 2040 General Plan EIR;
 Regency Centers Property EIR;
 City of Gilroy Municipal Code;
 City of Gilroy 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (anticipated to be adopted in October 2021);  City of Gilroy 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (anticipated to be adopted in October 2021); and  Environmental documents prepared for project in the vicinity including but not limited to, Project Garlic Initial Study/MND and UNFI Warehouse and Distribution Facility EIR.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

EMC Planning Group Inc. 7Camino Arroyo Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposal
Task 3 Transportation Analysis (Hexagon)
Hexagon Transportation Consultants will conduct a transportation analysis for the proposed project.

The scope of work is included in Attachment A.

The scope of work in Attachment A notes the General Plan network improvement to extend Cameron Boulevard north to Marcella Avenue at Leavesley Road, and south to the extension of Luchessa Avenue.

However, Project Garlic, on the north side of SR 152, proposes to eliminate the extension at SR 152 through their site to Gilman Road. If the Project Garlic proposal is approved, the scope of work would be modified accordingly, but would not result in a change to the budget.

Task 4 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Evaluation

4.1 Emissions Modeling
Run the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) to calculate the change in criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions based on the proposed land uses, the model’s construction defaults, and information from the transportation analysis. Construction and operational emissions will be modeled.

The following tasks will be completed:
 Review the project description and information to identify proposed sources of criteria air pollutants and GHGs and to develop the model data inputs.  Up to five model runs (unmitigated and mitigated) will be conducted to quantify the criteria pollutants and GHG emissions during construction and operations of the overall project, and to quantify as needed, GHG emissions generated by operations by phase;  Assumptions, methodology, and modeled results will be presented in a technical memorandum for use as an appendix to the initial study;
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data generated by CalEEMod serves as a general proxy for the magnitude of transportation fuel consumption. The VMT data from CalEEMod will be input into the Emissions Factors (EMFAC) model to quantify the transportation fuel demand for all planned and anticipated development. The modeled fuel demand results will be presented in an appendix to the initial study;

4.2 Air Quality
The proposed development of each parcel and the project as a whole would result in an increase in criteria air pollutant emissions during construction and operations. The proposed project may also result in construction-related air quality impacts; however, because no sensitive receptors are located within 1,000 feet of the project site, receptor exposures and associated health risks during construction will be discussed qualitatively, consistent with air district guidance.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

EMC Planning Group Inc. 8Camino Arroyo Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposal
The following tasks will be completed:
 Conduct a consistency analysis for each land use to determine if the proposed project is consistent with the applicable air quality management plan;
 Describe the physical and climatological characteristics of the air basin, existing air pollutant conditions, and health effects of air pollutants;
 Review current air district documents, policies, and regulatory requirements applicable to the proposed project;
 Compare modeled air pollutant emissions results to air district’s impact thresholds to determine if the proposed project would result in significant impacts from criteria air pollutant emissions;  Identify any project sources of hazardous air pollutants or odors, as well as any existing or planned nearby sensitive receptors that could be affected; and
 Present mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.

4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction and operation of uses on each individual parcel and the project as a whole will generate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). GHG emissions would be quantified based on the modeling scope identified in Section 4.1 above.

Two different thresholds of significance could be employed to evaluate the significance of impacts for the project as a whole and/or for individual parcels. The choice will depend on the outcome of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis prepared by Hexagon, the methodology of which is discussed in the transportation analysis scope presented in Attachment A. The VMT analysis is a substitute measure of a project’s mobile source GHGs. If the VMT impact from developing the entire site and/or an individual parcel is less than significant, mobile source GHG emissions can be omitted from the project/ parcel GHG emissions inventory. In this case, the balance (non-mobile source) emissions can either be evaluated against a service population threshold or a mass emissions threshold. We would employ whichever threshold imposes a lower mitigation burden on each developer.

An efficiency-based GHG threshold of significance would be derived for the buildout year of the four parcels that current have active applications with the City. A second efficiency threshold would be developed for the two parcels for which specific development is not currently proposed, with an assumed buildout year of 2030. Mitigation for these two parcels would provide the flexibility to define an earlier buildout year (and less stringent) threshold of significance. Where a mass emissions (bright line) threshold may be a more advantageous approach, it will be based on the air district’s prior CEQA guidance for the year 2020, with the threshold scaled down to reflect deeper emissions reductions needed to meet the state reduction target for the year 2030.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

EMC Planning Group Inc. 9Camino Arroyo Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposal
For development on individual parcels that exceeds the applied threshold of significance, mitigation will be proposed in the form of a GHG reduction plan. The reduction plan will call for each developer to maximize on-site emissions reductions in an effort to reduce emissions to below the threshold of significance. Where doing so is not feasible, the option to purchase GHG emissions offset credits will be provided to reduce the impact to less than significant.

The following tasks will be completed:
 Briefly summarized the applicable climate change policy and regulatory setting;  Develop efficiency-based thresholds of significance for the four parcels proposed for development and another for the remaining two parcels. Calculate a mass emissions threshold for projects with less-than-significant VMT impacts and for these parcels, determine whether the efficiency threshold or mass emissions threshold creates the lowest mitigation burden;  Calculate the service population associated with proposed/planned development on each parcel for parcels where the service population threshold will be utilized;  Present CalEEMod results as may be modified by applying GHG reductions that accrue to state legislative/regulatory actions;
 Compare the service population-based project emissions to the efficiency threshold (or mass emissions threshold as appropriate) to determine impact significance; and  Present mitigation to reduce significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.

4.4 Energy
Energy will be required to construct and operate the development planned for each parcel. The three primary sources of energy consumption will be fuel use in vehicles traveling to and from the project site, natural gas, and electricity in buildings. Energy demand from the cumulative planned development will be calculated and reported. Parcel specific information will not be necessary because the thresholds of significance for energy impacts are qualitative and development for each parcel will be required to comply with uniformly applied regulations and to reduce GHG emission via measures that also reduce energy demand.

The following tasks will be completed:
 Report energy demand from on-site use of natural gas and electricity at buildout of the proposed project based on the modeled CalEEMod results;
 Identify transportation fuel demand result from cumulative development based on EMFAC results;  Present thresholds of significance based on the CEQA Guidelines;  Identify regulatory requirements that would reduce energy demand from future development;

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

EMC Planning Group Inc. 10Camino Arroyo Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposal
 Describe energy demand reduction that would occur with implanting mitigation measures for GHG impacts, if any;
 Identify energy impacts; and
 Present mitigation measures to reduce energy consumption, if necessary.

Task 5 Biological Resources Analysis
Based on a preliminary review of project plans, site photographs, and aerial photographs, the proposed project site is a parcel (APN 841-70-149) of flat land dominated by annual grassland. A review of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) shows there are no wetland features on the project site.

According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2021), there are a number of special- status species with the potential to occur within the project area, including:

Plants
 Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii)  Hoover’s button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri)  Loma Prieta hoita (Hoita strobilina)
 Most beautiful jewelflower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus)  Pink creamsacs (Castilleja rubicundula var. rubicundula)  Prostrate vernal pool navarretia (Navarretia prostrata)  Saline clover (Trifolium hydrophilum)
 San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana)
Wildlife
 American badger (Taxidea taxus)
 Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
 California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)
 California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense)  Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus)
 Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)
 Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
 White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus)

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

EMC Planning Group Inc. 11Camino Arroyo Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposal
This evaluation will assess potential habitat present for special-status species in the area and recommend mitigation measures for the protection of biological resources. If suitable habitat is identified, recommendations may also include the need for additional specific or protocol-level surveys to be conducted during an appropriate time of year.

The following scope of work includes tasks to conduct a reconnaissance-level biological survey and prepare a section addressing biological resources in an Initial Study.

5.1 Research
Compile and review available project information, including preliminary site plans and aerial photographs. Conduct a review to determine the special-status species that have been recorded as occurring within the general project vicinity based on current database searches of CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered Species Program, the USFWS NWI; and other biological studies conducted in the vicinity of the project site, including the studies prepared for the Project Garlic project north of SR 152.

Review the project Habitat Plan application and access the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Geobrowser to determine the fee zone and any surveys or other requirements that may be necessary.

5.2 Reconnaissance-level Field Survey
Complete a reconnaissance-level field survey to (1) identify and map the principal plant communities; (2) assess the potential for special-status species and their habitats, wildlife movement corridors, potentially jurisdictional wetlands and waterways, regulated trees, and other significant biological resources to occur; and (3) identify and map any observed locations of special-status species and/ or habitats. Plant and wildlife species observed during the survey will be recorded in field notes. Any special-status species observed will be reported to the CNDDB in compliance with CDFW permit requirements, after the information is provided to the client.

5.3 Initial Study Section
Prepare the biological resources section of the Initial Study, describing existing habitats and plant and animal species found on the project site, and the occurrence of and/or potential for special-status species and their habitats. If needed, one or more figures will be prepared to illustrate habitat types and the location(s) of special-status species occurring on or in the vicinity of the project site. Potential impacts to biological resources will be identified, and mitigation measures will be provided to minimize potential impacts when possible.

Note: Focused surveys for specific plant and/or animal species are not included in this proposed scope of work. The presence or absence of certain species can be determined during the reconnaissance-level site assessment. If appropriate habitat for other sensitive species is observed during the site assessment,

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

EMC Planning Group Inc. 12Camino Arroyo Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposal
species-specific surveys may be required (i.e., surveys for annual plants not in bloom at the time of the reconnaissance-level survey, protocol-level surveys for special-status wildlife species, etc.). Species-specific survey requirements will be determined based on the results of the reconnaissance-level site assessment.

Task 6 Cultural and Tribal Resources
This scope of work does not include another archaeological survey, as surveys have been conducted in the past on this site, as well as properties in the vicinity, with negative results. However, this task includes obtaining an updated records search from the Northwest Information Center to determine if any sensitive resources have been discovered in the vicinity since the previously surveys were conducted for this project site. This records search may also assist the City with Tribal Consultation in accordance with SB52 and CEQA.

Task 7 Environmental Noise Assessment
WJV Acoustics will conduct an environmental noise assessment for the proposed project. The scope of work is included in Attachment B.

Task 8 Administrative Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepare the administrative draft initial study and mitigated negative declaration and provide two (2) paper copies and one (1) electronic version in Word format to the City for review and comment.

Task 9 Public Review Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Revise the administrative draft initial study based upon City staff comments and prepare the public review initial study and mitigated negative declaration. Provide two (2) paper copies and one (1) electronic copy for City staff to upload to the City website.

Task 10 Public Notices and Document Distribution
Prepare a draft notice of intent, draft notice of completion, and draft OPR summary form for review and comment by City staff.

Prepare final notices and file, along with the initial study and mitigated negative declaration, electronically with the State Clearinghouse.

This scope assumes City staff will arrange for publishing the notice of intent with the Dispatch and posting with the County Clerk.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

EMC Planning Group Inc. 13Camino Arroyo Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposal
Task 11 Response to Comments/Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Prepare a draft response to comments and final mitigated negative declaration, if necessary, for review and approval by the City. One electronic proof copy will be provided. Upon receipt of the City’s comments, our firm will prepare the final response to comments for incorporation into the staff report and use by the decision-makers.

A draft and a final mitigation monitoring and reporting program will be prepared.

Task 12 Public Hearings and Notice of Determination
Project manager will attend two public hearings to answer questions on the mitigated negative declaration and CEQA process.

Prepare notice of determination to be filed with the County Clerk and State Clearinghouse.

6.0 Budget and Schedule
The proposed budget and schedule are presented on the following pages.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

TaskStaffSenior Principal PrincipalAssociate Planner Principal BiologistAssociate BiologistGraphicsProduction ManagerAdmin./ ProductionBilling Rate (Per Hour) $250.00 $225.00 $150.00 $190.00 $130.00 $95.00 $125.00 $115.001. Management/Consultation/Meetings 20.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 32.0 $6,660.002. Research 2.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 $2,000.003. Transportation Analysis 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 $650.004. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy 0.0 66.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.0 $14,850.005. Biological Resources 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 36.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 42.0 $5,630.006. Cultural and Tribal Resources 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 $300.007. Environmental Noise Assessment 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 $300.008. Administrative Draft IS/MND 16.0 0.0 52.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 4.0 2.0 90.0 $14,050.009. Public Review Draft IS/MND 4.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 22.0 $3,380.0010. Public Notices and Document Distribution 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 $715.0011. Response to Comments/Final MND/MMRP 8.0 2.0 8.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 $4,030.0012. Public Hearings and NOD 8.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 $2,150.00Subtotal (Hours)60.0 68.0 96.0 6.0 38.0 20.0 8.0 9.0Total Hours Total CostSubtotal (Cost)$15,000.00 $15,300.00 $14,400.00 $1,140.00 $4,940.00 $1,900.00 $1,000.00 $1,035.00305.0 $54,715.00Additional CostsProduction CostsTravel CostsPostal/DeliverablesMiscellaneous (NWIC Records Search and CNDDB)Administrative Overhead 10%TotalSubconsultant FeesHexagon Transportation ConsultantsWJV AcousticsSubconsultant Overhead 10%TotalTotal CostsNOTE: This proposal is valid for 90 days$79,975.00$8,850.00$153,681.34$8,882.50$97,707.50$550.00$1,258.84$114.44$294.40$200.00$100.00 Camino Arroyo Development Project IS/MND BudgetEMC Planning Group Inc.Total CostTotalHours7.1.aPacket Pg. 48Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA

Activity NameStart Date Finish Date31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26Nov 2021 Dec 2021 Jan 2022 Feb 2022Mar 2022 Apr 2022 May 2022 Jun 202231 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26Authorization to Proceed11/1/21 11/1/21Research11/1/21 11/30/21Draft Transportation Analysis11/1/21 1/24/22City Staff Review1/24/22 2/4/22Final Transportation Analysis2/4/22 2/11/22AQ/GHG/Energy1/24/22 2/11/22Biological Resources11/8/21 12/17/21Environmental Noise Assessment11/8/21 12/17/21Admin Draft IS/MND10/11/21 2/25/22City Staff Review2/28/22 3/11/22Public Review IS/MND3/14/22 3/25/22Noticing and Distribution3/28/22 4/1/2230-day Public Review Period4/4/22 5/5/22Response to Comments/Final MND/MMRP5/5/22 5/20/22Public Hearings6/1/22 6/30/22123456789101112131415Camino Arroyo Development Project IS/MNDSchedule7.1.aPacket Pg. 49Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-13)

ATTACHMENT
Transportation Analysis Scope of Work

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

October 7, 2021
Ms. Teri Wissler Adam
EMC Planning Group
301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C
Monterey, CA 93940
Subject:Proposal to Prepare a Transportation Analysis for the Proposed Gilroy Square Development at 6970 Camino Arroyo in Gilroy, California Dear Ms. Wissler Adam:

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare a transportation analysis for the proposed Gilroy Square development in Gilroy, California. The project site is located at 6970 Camino Arroyo and consists of an undeveloped 10.18-acre site.The project site is bounded by Pacheco Pass Highway (SR 152) to the north, Camino Arroyo to the west, Holloway Road to the south, and undeveloped land to the east.It should be noted that the project site, along with the parcel south of the project site to Holloway Road, was evaluated with potential development as Phase II of the Regency Centers Gilroy Crossing shopping center project in 2002 (Regency Centers Traffic Impact Analysis, by Hexagon). The Regency Centers Phase I project is located in the southwest corner of the Camino Arroyo/Pacheco Pass Highway intersection, across the street from the project site, and is completed and occupied (Gilroy Crossing shopping center).

The proposed project would be developed in three phases with the following land uses:

Parcel 1A –a 16-fueling positions gas station with a 2,880-square-foot (s.f.)convenience store and 1,152- s.f. car wash; a 2,600-s.f.fast-food with drive-thru restaurant (Burger King) Parcel 1B –a 112-room 5-story hotel (Residence Inn)and an 88-room 4-story hotel (Holiday Inn Express) Parcel 2 –a 79,928-s.f. medical facility (treatment/outpatient only) and a 15,000-s.f. industrial warehouse Access to the project site would be provided via three existing driveway openings along Camino Arroyo and one along Holloway Road. Additionally, a fourth driveway is proposed along Camino Arroyo, north of the Camino Arroyo/Gilroy Crossing intersection.

This scope of services was developed by Hexagon staff based on our knowledge of City of Gilroy traffic study requirements. The City of Gilroy has not yet reviewed the scope of work below. Therefore,upon their review, City staff may request changes to the scope of work or additional work elements not included in our proposal.

Roadway Network
Under the current roadway network, all access to the project sites is provided via Pacheco Pass Highway.

In order to provide a secondary access route to the project site, a connection from the project area to the south would be required.

The recently adopted City of Gilroy 2040 General Plan includes roadway improvements throughout the city that will support the projected growth associated with buildout of the General Plan. Some of these planned improvements would directly affect the project area by changing travel patterns. Planned roadway network improvements in the project area include:

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

Ms. Teri Wissler Adam
October 7, 2021

Page 2 of 9 ends

The extension of Luchessa Avenue from its current terminus point at Rossi Lane eastward to connect to the future Cameron Boulevard extension.
The extension of Cameron Boulevard to the north to connect to Marcella Avenue at Leavesley Road and to the south to connect to the Luchessa Avenue extension. The extension of Rossi Lane from its current terminus point at Luchessa Avenue northward to connect to Holloway Road.

The planned new roadway connection between Luchessa Avenue/Rossi Lane and Holloway Road would provide a second access route to/from the project site area to/from the south and southwest parts of Gilroy.From conversations with City staff, this planned new roadway connection should be constructed parallel to/west of Camino Arroyo/Venture Way and the existing UNFI building,and connect to Luchessa Avenue at its planned extension rather than at Rossi Lane.

Therefore, this study will evaluate operations of the proposed project under the current roadway network and assuming the construction of a new roadway providing a direct connection between Luchessa Avenue and Holloway Road (referred to hereafter as the Luchessa/Holloway connection).The Luchessa/Holloway connection, as described above, would replace the Rossi Lane extension to Holloway Road assumed in the General Plan roadway network. Additionally, implementation of the Luchessa/Holloway connection will require an evaluation of roadway traffic conditions and a General Plan Amendment.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our proposed scope of services was developed by Hexagon staff based on our understanding of the project and our knowledge of the City’s traffic study requirements. The purpose of the traffic analysis is to satisfy the requirements of the City of Gilroy, Caltrans, the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and CEQA. The study will determine the traffic impacts of the proposed project on the transportation network in the vicinity of the site.

Historically, traffic impact analysis has focused on the identification of traffic impacts and potential roadway improvements to relieve traffic congestion that may result due to proposed growth based on delay. However, with the adoption of Senate Bill (SB) 743 legislation, effective July 1, 2020, public agencies are required to base transportation impacts on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rather than congestion and delay metrics, such as Level of Service (LOS), as the measurement for CEQA transportation analysis. The change in measurement is intended to better evaluate the effects on the state’s goals for climate change and multi-modal transportation. In adherence to SB 743, the City of Gilroy is currently developing the framework for new policies based on the implementation of VMT as the primary measure of transportation impacts. Therefore, the effects and impacts to the transportation network as the result of the implementation of the proposed project will be evaluated based on VMT.

However, the City of Gilroy currently uses LOS as their adopted methodology for the evaluation of the effects of new development and land use changes on the local transportation network. In addition, the City is still required to conform to the requirements of the VTA, which establishes a uniform program for evaluating the transportation impacts of land use decisions on the designated CMP Roadway System.

Therefore, in addition to the evaluation of VMT, this transportation study also will include roadway capacity analyses, based on level of service,to evaluate the effects of the proposed project on the citywide transportation system, including intersections, freeway segments, and freeway ramps. The level of service analysis is presented to determine conformance to General Plan transportation policies. However, the determination of project impacts per CEQA requirements is based solely on the VMT analysis.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

Ms. Teri Wissler Adam
October 7, 2021

Page 3 of 9 ends

VMT Evaluation Methodology and Criteria
Pursuant to SB 743, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released the current CEQA Guidelines Update in late 2018, which proposes VMT as the replacement metric for LOS in the context of CEQA. While OPR emphasizes that a lead agency has the discretionary authority to establish thresholds of significance, the Final Guidelines suggests criteria that indicate when a project may have a significant, or less than significant, transportation impact on the environment. In accordance with CEQA, all proposed projects are required to analyze transportation as a component of environmental review using average trip length per resident and/or per employee as metrics (total VMT for retail/commercial projects).

The City of Gilroy draft guidelines for the evaluation of transportation impacts based on VMT are based on OPR’s technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures, contained in their Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA document, dated December 2018. Thus, for the purpose of this analysis, a comparison of the citywide VMT (or baseline VMT) versus the project’s VMT is made to determine the effects of the proposed project on VMT. The VMT analysis will utilize OPR’s recommendation of a net increase in total VMT from baseline conditions as the threshold to identify potential VMT impacts for commercial/retail projects and 15 percent (%) below baseline conditions as the threshold to identify potential VMT impacts for employment projects.

The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)VMT Evaluation Tool was developed to streamline the analysis for development projects in Santa Clara County, however, it has the capability to analyze only the most common land uses consisting of residential, office, and industrial land uses. For non-residential or non- office projects, very large projects, or projects that can potentially shift travel patterns (such is the case of the project), the City’s TDF Model,or other City-approved method,can be used to determine project VMT.

Thus,the CEQA VMT analysis will be completed utilizing the City of Gilroy Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) model.Total VMT will be calculated for the commercial/retail portion of the project and VMT per employee for the employment components of the project.

If a project is found to have a significant impact on VMT, the impact must be reduced by modifying the project to reduce its VMT to an acceptable level (below the identified thresholds of significance), mitigating the impact through multimodal transportation improvements, implementing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures, and/or by establishing a trip cap.

Roadway Capacity Analysis
For conformance with City of Gilroy General Plan transportation policies, the project will be required to complete an analysis of the effects of project traffic on the local transportation system, or a roadway capacity analysis. The roadway capacity analysis will include the evaluation of intersections based on delay/level of service. A roadway segment analysis also will be completed to evaluate the effect of the Luchessa/Holloway connection on operations along other roadway in the project area.

Preliminarily, we estimate a need to include up to 20 intersections, 8 roadway segments, 6 freeway segments, and two freeway interchanges. The study intersections will be evaluated during the weekday AM and PM peak commute hours and the Saturday peak-hour.The study freeway segments will be evaluated during the weekday AM and PM peak hours only.The list of study facilities will be finalized in coordination with City staff. Additional study facilities will require authorization and additional budget.

The study intersections, roadway segments, freeway segments, and freeway ramps we have identified are listed below.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

Ms. Teri Wissler Adam
October 7, 2021

Page 4 of 9 ends

Study Intersections
AM PM Sat
1 Monterey Street and Tenth Street 05/07/19 09/05/19 09/07/19 2 Alexander Street and Tenth Street 11/05/19 11/05/19 09/28/19 3 Chestnut Street and Tenth Street 05/07/19 05/07/19 09/07/19 4 US 101 SB Ramps and Tenth Street 05/07/19 05/07/19 09/07/19 5 US 101 NB Off-Ramp and Pacheco Pass Highway 05/07/19 05/07/19 09/07/19 6 Camino Arroyo and Pacheco Pass Highway 05/07/19 05/07/19 11/07/20 7 Silacci Way and Pacheco Pass Highway 11/05/20 11/05/20 11/07/20 8 Cameron Boulevard and Pacheco Pass Highway 11/20/19 11/05/20 11/07/20 9 Gilroy Foods and Pacheco Pass Highway 11/05/20 11/05/20 11/07/20 10 Holsclaw Road and Pacheco Pass Highway 01/23/18 01/23/18 11/18/17 11 Frazier Lake Road and Pacheco Pass Highway 01/23/18 01/23/18 11/18/17 12 Monterey Street and Luchessa Avenue 11/05/19 09/05/19 09/07/19 13 Automall Parkway and Luchessa Avenue N/A N/A N/A
14 US 101 SB Ramps and Monterey Road 03/27/18 09/05/19 09/07/19 15 US 101 NB Off-Ramp and Monterey Road 03/27/18 09/05/19 09/07/19 16 Camino Arroyo and Gilroy Crossing 11/23/18 11/23/18 11/18/17 17 Camino Arroyo and Holloway Road 11/23/18 11/23/18 11/18/17 18 Luchessa/Holloway Connection and Holloway Road (Future)Future Future Future 19 Luchessa/Holloway Connection and Luchessa Avenue (Future)Future Future Future 20 Rossi Lane and Luchessa Avenue (Future)Future Future Future Available Count Dates
Study Roadway Segments

1.Camino Arroyo, between SR 152 and Holloway Road

2.Holloway Road, west of Camino Arroyo

3.SR 152, between US 101 and Camino Arroyo

4.Tenth Street, between Chestnut Street and US 101

5.Luchessa Avenue, between Rossi Lane and Luchessa/Holloway Connection (Future)

6.Luchessa Avenue, between Automall Parkway and Rossi Lane

7.Luchessa Avenue, between Monterey Road and Automall Parkway

8.Monterey Road, between Tenth Street and Luchessa Avenue Study Freeway Segments

1.US 101, between SR 25 and Monterey Road

2.US 101, between Monterey and Pacheco Pass Highway

3.US 101, between Pacheco Pass Highway and Leavesley Road

4.US 101, between Leavesley Road and Buena Vista Road

5.US 101, between Buena Vista Road and Masten Avenue

6.US 101, between Masten Avenue and San Martin Avenue
Study Freeway Ramps

1.US 101 at Tenth Street

2.US 101 at Monterey Road
Study Scenarios
The key transportation facilities will be evaluated for the following study scenarios:

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

Ms. Teri Wissler Adam
October 7, 2021

Page 5 of 9 ends

Existing Conditions : Existing traffic volumes on the existing roadway network.

Background Conditions: Existing + approved developments on the existing roadway network.

Background + Project Conditions: Existing + approved developments + project trips on the existing roadway network.

Background + Project Conditions + Luchessa/Holloway Connection*: Existing + approved developments + project trips with traffic pattern changes associated with the proposed Luchessa/Holloway connection.

Cumulative + Project Conditions + Luchessa/Holloway Connection*: Existing + approved developments + potential developments + project trips with traffic pattern changes associated with the proposed Luchessa/Holloway connection.
2040 General Plan No Project Conditions: Year 2040 General Plan buildout traffic volumes without the project on the General Plan roadway network (including the planned Luchessa Avenue and Rossi Lane extensions to Cameron Boulevard and Ho lloway Road, respectively). 2040 General Plan + Project Conditions: Year 2040 General Plan buildout traffic volumes + project trips on the General Plan roadway network (including the planned Luchessa Avenue and Rossi Lane extensions to Cameron Boulevard and Holloway Road, respectively). 2040 General Plan + Project Conditions + Luchessa/Holloway Connection: Year 2040 General Plan buildout traffic volumes + project trips on the General Plan roadway network (with the proposed Luchessa/Holloway connection).
* The Gilroy 2040 General Plan TDF model will be utilized to obtain 2040 General Plan conditions traffic volumes without and with the project under the planned and proposed roadway network.

Scope Tasks
The tasks to be included in the roadway capacity analysis are described below.

1.Site Reconnaissance. The physical characteristics of the site and the surrounding roadway network will be reviewed to identify existing roadway cross-sections, intersection lane configurations, traffic control devices, and surrounding land uses.

2.Observation of Existing Conditions.Existing traffic conditions will be observed in the field in order to identify any operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service.

3.Data Collection. Available traffic count data at most of the study intersection is two or more years old and therefore, is considered outdated. For this reason, new AM, PM, and Saturday peak-hour intersection turn-movement traffic counts will be collected at 14 of the 17 existing study intersections (see list of intersections). Because current traffic conditions on the roadway network may be consider atypical due to the unprecedented conditions caused by the Covid19 pandemic, collected traffic count data will be compared to available pre-pandemic traffic co unts and 2020 counts to determine if the new 2021 counts are representative of what should be current traffic conditions, and/or to derive a growth factor to be applied to the available/new counts. A total of 42 new peak-hour counts will be collected at the study intersections.

In addition, 24-hour mechanical (tube) counts will be collected for a minimum of three consecutive days (including Thursday,Friday, and Saturday)along the study roadway segments (8 segments).

The final number of study intersections and procedure to obtain existing traffic count data will be determined in collaboration with City staff.

4.Evaluation of Existing Conditions. The existing traffic conditions at the study intersections will be evaluated with the Santa Clara County CMP level of service methodology, TRAFFIX, using current conditions peak-hour traffic volumes.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

Ms. Teri Wissler Adam
October 7, 2021

Page 6 of 9 ends

5.Evaluation of Background/Approved Conditions. Traffic volumes from approved developments will be added to the existing peak-hour volumes to obtain traffic volumes for background conditions. A list of approved projects (including size, use, and location) will be obtained from the City of Gilroy Planning Division for this task. Improvements associated with approved developments will be assumed as directed by the City of Gilroy. Intersection levels of service under background conditions will be evaluated using the CMP methodology.

6.Site Traffic Projections. Based on the proposed development size and land uses, site-generated traffic will be estimated using the appropriate vehicular trip generation rates published in the latest edition of ITE’s Trip Generation. The trip estimates also will account for applicable trip reductions, such as pass-by and mixed-use reductions.

7.Trip Distribution and Assignment. The directional distribution of site-generated traffic utilized in the 2002 Regency Centers TIA will be reviewed and updated to reflect changes in the project description, anticipated service areas, proposed site access points, existing and future roadway network, travel patterns, and relative locations of complementary land uses in the area. Additionally, a trip distribution pattern for project traffic with the Luchessa/Holloway connection will be developed based on information obtained from the City’s TDF model. The site-generated traffic will be added to the roadway network based on the directions of approach and departure discussed above.

8.Evaluation of Background + Project Conditions. Project-generated traffic will be added to background traffic volumes to yield traffic volumes under background + project conditions. This scenario will assume the existing roadway network. Background plus project conditions will be evaluated for all three proposed development phases separately and collectively to identify the effect each phase would have on the adjacent roadway network.Intersection levels of service under project conditions will be evaluated using the CMP methodology.

9.Evaluation of Background + Project Conditions +Luchessa/Holloway Connection. This scenario assumes the proposed Luchessa/Holloway connection would be implemented providing a second access route to/from the project site.Traffic pattern changes associated with the Luchessa/Holloway connection will be developed using the Gilroy TDF model and applied to background traffic volumes.

Project-generated traffic (with the Luchessa/Holloway connection) will be added to the redistributed background traffic volumes to yield traffic volumes under background plus project conditions with the Luchessa/Holloway connection. All three proposed development phases will be evaluated separately and collectively to identify the effect each phase would have on the adjacent roadway network. This scenario will identify the effect of providing a second access route on traffic operations with the project on the surrounding roadway network.

10.Evaluation of Cumulative Plus Project Conditions +Luchessa/Holloway Connection. This scenario represents traffic conditions with buildout of the proposed project as well as all other approved and potential projects in the area on the future roadway network, including the proposed Luchessa/Holloway connection. This scenario will identify the project’s contribution to the need for the second access route (Luchessa/Holloway connection).

11.Evaluation of General Plan Conditions. A level of service analysis under 2040 General Plan conditions without and with the project will be conducted. The General Plan scenarios will evaluate traffic conditions under the 2040 General Plan Buildout conditions on the planned roadway network (including the planned Rossi Lane extension between Luchessa Avenue and Holloway Road)without the project and compare them to traffic conditions with the proposed project, as evaluated in the recently completed General Plan update. Traffic volumes for General Plan conditions will be obtained from the City’s traffic demand forecasting model. Intersection levels of service under General Plan conditions will be evaluated using the CMP methodology.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

Ms. Teri Wissler Adam
October 7, 2021

Page 7 of 9 ends

12.Evaluation of General Plan Conditions + Luchessa/Holloway Connection.This scenario will evaluate General Plan with project conditions with the proposed Luchessa/Holloway connection.The Luchessa/Holloway connection would replace the planned Rossi Lane extension as it is coded in the Gilroy General Plan TDF model. This scenario will identify the effect of the proposed change in the planned roadway network on General Plan traffic conditions.

13.Roadway Segment Analysis. Future conditions along each of the studied roadway segments will be evaluated using average daily traffic (ADT)volumes (obtained from new tube counts and from the TDF model)to identify the potential traffic pattern changes associated with the proposed Luchessa/Holloway connection and its effects on the planned roadway network.

14.Signal Warrant Analysis.The need for future signalization of the unsignalized study intersections will be evaluated on the basis of the Peak Hour Warrant (Warrant 3 –Part B) in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The warrant will be evaluated using peak-hour volumes for all study scenarios.

15.Freeway Segment Analysis. Freeway level of service will be determined in accordance with the Santa Clara County CMP guidelines for freeway analyses. The analysis will include evaluation of AM and PM peak-hour freeway conditions for existing and project conditions. Deficiencies to freeway segments caused by the project, if any, will be identified.

16.Freeway Ramp Analysis. Existing traffic volumes at the study freeway ramps will be obtained from the existing traffic count data. Field measurements of existing vehicular queues and ramp meter rates will be completed and supplemented with previously collected data at the study freeway ramps. The freeway ramp analysis will evaluate the effects of project traffic on traffic volumes and queue lengths at the study freeway ramps.

17.Evaluation of Vehicle Queue. For selected locations specified by City staff and/or where the project is projected to add a significant number of turning traffic, the adequacy of existing storage at turn pockets will be assessed by means of comparison with expected maximum vehicle queues.

18.Site Access, On-Site Circulation, and Parking Analysis. A review of the project site plan will be performed to determine if adequate site access and on-site circulation are provided and to identify any access or circulation issues that should be improved. This will include a quantitative analysis of the anticipated traffic volumes at the site’s driveways, as well as a qualitative analysis of the proposed site access and site layout. The review will be based on the site’s overall anticipated trip generation and consider the following: sight distance, vehicle queuing at site access intersections and on-site, traffic control requirements, driveway locations and alignment, on-site layout and circulation, and pedestrian access and circulation. Additionally, the proposed parking supply on the site will be compared to City parking requirements and documented in the traffic report.

19.Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Facilities. A qualitative analysis of the project’s effect on transit service and bicycle/pedestrian circulation in the study area will be conducted. Bicycle and pedestrian circulation will be reviewed for consistency with the City’s General Plan, the Bicycle/Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and the Complete Streets Policy. Connectivity between the project site and the adjacent land uses,as well as pedestrian circulation within the project area, will be reviewed and possible improvements identified, if necessary.

20.Description of Impacts and Recommendations. Based on the results of the above analyses, deficiencies to the roadway network as the result of the site-generated traffic will be identified.

Recommendations will be formulated that identify the locations and types of improvements or modifications necessary to mitigate significant project impacts. Improvements could include street

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

Ms. Teri Wissler Adam
October 7, 2021

Page 8 of 9 ends

widenings, lane additions, changes in lane usage, addition of traffic signals, or modifying existing traffic signals.

21.Reports. Our findings and recommendations will be summarized in an administrative draft report for review by the City Transportation Engineer. Hexagon Transportation Consultants will respond to editorial comments on the administrative draft and prepare a draft report for review by the environmental consultant and/or City Planning staff. Comments received on the draft report will be addressed and a final traffic report will be developed.

22.Response to Comments. Hexagon will assist the City and the environmental consultant in responding to comments on the traffic section of the EIR. The fee estimate includes up to 16 hours of Hexagon staff time to responding to EIR comments.

23.Meetings. Our cost estimate includes Hexagon staff attendance at up to three meetings with City and/or project team in connection with the project. In addition, budget has been allocated for attendance at one meeting with Caltrans in connection with the project.Additional meetings will require authorization and additional budget.

24.Public Meetings. Our cost estimate includes Hexagon staff attendance at two public meetings (one Planning Commission meeting and one City Council meeting) in connection with this project.

Additional meetings will require authorization and additional budget.

ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Any work not specifically referenced in the above Scope of Services—for example,analyzing a different project description, analyzing additional intersections or scenarios, analyzing different phases of development, attending additional meetings, and providing engineering drawings or cost estimates for mitigation measures—shall be considered additional services.Additional services will require additional budget and time.

TIME OF PERFORMANCE
We are prepared to start work on this project immediately upon notice to proceed. Barring any unforeseen delays, the administrative draft report will be submitted twelve weeks after (1) authorization to proceed, (2) receipt of all requested project information from the project applicant, and (3) receipt of all data provided or required by the City.The draft and final reports will each be delivered one week after receipt of all respective review comments.

COST OF SERVICES
The cost for services rendered under this agreement (VMT evaluation and Work Items 1 through 24 associated with the roadway capacity analysis), as outlined above, will be billed on a time and expenses basis, not to exceed $79,975, which includes $9,525 in data collection.Billing will be conducted monthly, on a percent complete basis.Additional Services shall be provided upon authorization and, if requested, will be billed separately. This price quote is good for 30 days and assumes that all project-related activities will be completed within one year. Extended project schedules will require additional budget for project administration.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

Ms. Teri Wissler Adam
October 7, 2021

Page 9 of 9 ends

We appreciate your consideration of Hexagon Transportation Consultants for this assignment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.

Gicela Del Rio, T.E.

Senior Associate

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

ATTACHMENT
Environmental Noise Assessment Scope of Work

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

Aviation Noise Studies ꞏ Community Noise ꞏ Architectural Acoustics ꞏ Environmental Noise Assessments

113 N. Church Street, Suite 203 ∙ Visalia, CA 93291∙ (559) 627-4923

1529 (Camino Arroyo Development Project, Gilroy)

October 4, 2021

Teri Wissler Adam
Senior Principal
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C
Monterey, California 93940

RE: ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT, CAMINO ARROYO DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT, GILROY, CALIFORNIA

Dear Ms. Wissler Adam:

Based upon the information you have provided, WJV Acoustics, Inc. (WJVA) is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare an environmental noise assessment for the above‐referenced project.

Following is a description of our proposed scope of services, fee and schedule for completion.

Scope of Services:

1. Conduct a project site inspection to evaluate the acoustical characteristics of the project site and surrounding area, note the locations of nearby noise‐sensitive receptors and identify existing noise sources in the project area. Conduct ambient noise monitoring at representative locations throughout the project vicinity that could have potential noise‐related conflicts as a result of the proposed project. It is anticipated that continuous 24‐hour ambient noise measurements will be conducted at up to two (2) locations using automated noise monitors and that short‐term sampling of ambient noise levels will be conducted at up to four (4) additional sites.

2. Analyze potential project‐related changes in roadway traffic noise exposure along roadways near or adjacent to the project site. Calculations will be performed using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model and traffic data to be obtained from the project traffic engineer or other sources as may be appropriate. Compare project‐related changes in traffic noise exposure to applicable City of Gilroy noise level standards and other thresholds of significance.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

Teri Wissler Adam
Senior Principal
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.

October 4, 2021

Page 2 ends

1529 (Camino Arroyo Development Project, Gilroy)

3. Evaluate potential noise impacts from the project including 1) noise levels from existing noise sources as they may affect the proposed development, and 2) noise levels resulting from development of the project as they may affect existing and proposed noise‐sensitive uses in the project area.

4. If available, review the construction plans for the proposed hotels to determine the outdoor‐to‐indoor noise level reduction (NLR) that would be expected from the proposed building. Recommend additional sound attenuation measures if required for compliance with the applicable City of Gilroy and California Building Code (CalGreen) interior noise level standards. Alternatively, calculate the required NLR of the hotel façade if construction details are not available at the time the analysis is prepared.

5. Quantify noise and vibration levels that would likely occur during construction of the project as they could affect nearby existing or planned noise‐sensitive receptors. Identify nearby existing or planned noise‐sensitive receptors that could be subjected to noise or vibration levels in excess of applicable noise standards or CEQA thresholds as a result of the project construction.

6. Prepare recommendations for noise mitigation as may be required to reduce significant noise impacts to less‐than‐significant. Significance will be based on City of Gilroy noise standards and the CEQA Guidelines criteria. Identify any significant project‐related noise impacts that cannot be reasonably mitigated.

7. Prepare a written technical report summarizing the methods, findings and recommendations of the study. The report and associated exhibits will be formatted to facilitate incorporation into the CEQA documents being prepared for the project.

Fee:

WJVA proposes to provide the services described above for a total fee of $8,850, including expenses. Attendance of meetings or hearings, if required, would be subject to additional charges based upon the enclosed Fee Schedule plus expenses. Full payment for services rendered will be due upon submittal of the completed report.

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

Teri Wissler Adam
Senior Principal
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.

October 4, 2021

Page 3 ends

1529 (Camino Arroyo Development Project, Gilroy)
Schedule For Completion:

Work will be scheduled for completion in compliance with the overall project schedule. It is anticipated that the noise study will be completed within 30 days after receipt of all necessary maps, traffic data, project information and the notice‐to‐proceed.

We are looking forward to the possibility of working with you on this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (559) 627‐4923 or [email protected] if you have any questions or would like additional information.

Sincerely,

WJV ACOUSTICS, INC.

Walter J. Van Groningen
President

WJV:wjv

Enclosure: Fee Schedule

7.1.a
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: EMC Planning - Camino Arroyo Subdivision Proposal (3602 : Award of Contract for CEQA Review of Planning Application AS21-

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item Title: Approval of a Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget Amendment Increasing Appropriations in the Amount of $63,502 and Award of a Contract to Burkett's Pool Plastering Inc. for a Base Bid amount of $280,457, with a contingency of $28,045 for the Christopher High School Activity Pool Re-Plaster, Project No. 22-ASD-271.

Meeting Date: January 10, 2022
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Administrative Services
Submitted By: LeeAnn McPhillips
Prepared By: Walter Dunckel
Walter Dunckel

Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization

☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
☐ Promote Economic
Development
Activities

☐ Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All

 Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION
a. Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending the FY 22 budget to transfer $63,502 from Capital Projects Fund (400) to Facilities Fund (651) and appropriate the related expenditure for the Pool Replaster project. b. Award a contract to Burkett's Pool Plastering Inc. for the base bid price of $280,457 for the Christopher High School Activity Pool Re -plaster, Project No. 22-ASD-271, establish a contingency of up to $28,045 (10%), and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents.

7.2 Packet Pg. 64

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City maintains the Christopher High School Activity Pool as part of a shared use agreement with Gilroy Unified School District. The cost of repairs and maintenance of the Activity Pool is solely the City’s responsibility. The Activity Pool was built in 2011 and opened in 2012. Re-Plastering is required every 10 to 15 years, and we have been experiencing plaster issues for a few years. These plaster issues could cause the pool to be shut down by the Santa Clara County Health Department if not addressed. As areas of the pool’s plaster crack, the City has been required to perform temporary repairs. Temporary repairs are no longer an option and resurfacing is required at this time.

BACKGROUND
In June of 2021 Council approved a budget item to resurface the Activity Pool for an amount of $245,000, which was the engineer’s estimate for this project at that time. In November 2021, staff issued an advertisement for bids for the project. In December, staff received one bid. Burkett’s Pool Plastering Inc. submitted a bid in the amount of $280,457.

ANALYSIS
Staff advertised bids on November 5, 2021 and were opened on Wednesday, December 1, 2021. The City received a single bid from Burkett’s Pool Plastering Inc. with a base bid of $280,457. The bid exceeds the engineer’s estimate by 14%.

At this time, staff does not believe rebidding the project will result in additional or lower bids. Also, the work needs to proceed for the City intends to operate the Activity Pool this summer.

ALTERNATIVES
Council may reject staff’s recommendation and not award the bid. As mentioned above, the plaster has ongoing issues that temporary repairs are no longer sufficient to address.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The base bid is $280,457 and staff recommends including a 10% contingency of $28,045, for a total allocation of $308,502. Council appropriated funds in the amount of $245,000 on June 7, 2021, with the adoption of the biennial budget within the Facilities Fund (651). Staff recommends the remaining balance of $63,502 to be covered by the Capital Project Fund (400) which has adequate fund balance to fully fund the project.

The budget amendment will authorize the transfer of $63,302 from Capital Projects Fund (400) to the Facilities Fund (651) and appropriate the additional expenditure in the Facilities Fund (651).

7.2 Packet Pg. 65

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to amend the budget for resurfacing the activity pool ($63,502) to appropriate $308,502 for this project for the reasons cited above.

CONCLUSION
Staff requests City Council’s approval of a contract with Burkett’s Pool Plastering Inc. for the Christopher High School Activity Pool Re-Plastering Project No. 22-ASD-271, establish the appropriate project contingency, and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents. The contingency amount is intended to account for unforeseen conditions or necessary field changes in the scope of work during the resurfacing process. If the contingency is not needed, it will not be expended.

Attachments:

1. Draft Budget Amendment Resolution - CHS Activity Pool Resurfacing Project Jan 2022

7.2 Packet Pg. 66

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY
AMENDING THE ADOPTED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 TO APPROPRIATE $63,503 FROM CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND (400) AS TRANSFER OUT TO FACILITIES FUND (651) AND INCREASE THE

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS IN FACILITIES FUND (651) BY $63,503 FOR THE CHRISTOPHER HIGH SCHOOL ACTIVITY

POOL RESURFACING PROJECT

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a budget for the City of Gilroy for the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 on June 7, 2021; and

WHEREAS, City Staff has prepared and submitted to the City Council, in the staff report dated January 10, 2022, a proposed amendment to said budget for Fiscal Year 2021-2022. The purpose of such amendment is to appropriate $63,503 from Capital Projects Fund (400) as a transfer out to Facilities Fund (651) and increase the revenue and expenditure appropriation in Facilities Fund (651) by $63,503, for the Pool re-surfacing project.

WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully examined and considered the same and is satisfied with said budget amendments.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. The City Council does hereby find, determine, and resolve that all of the foregoing recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. Approval and Authorization. The City Council does further resolve, order and/or direct as follows:

a. That the City’s previously adopted Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget, as the same has been amended to date, is hereby further amended; and

b. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the City’s Finance Director, who is hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to implement the terms of this Resolution pertaining to the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget of City.

Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Draft Budget Amendment Resolution - CHS Activity Pool Resurfacing Project Jan 2022 (3585 : CHS Activity Pool Resurfacing

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Gilroy at its meeting held on this 10TH day of January 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:

Marie Blankley, Mayor

ATTEST:

Thai Nam Pham, City Clerk

7.2.a
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Draft Budget Amendment Resolution - CHS Activity Pool Resurfacing Project Jan 2022 (3585 : CHS Activity Pool Resurfacing

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item Title: Streamline Consolidation of the City's Boards and Commissions Meeting Date: January 10, 2022
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Jimmy Forbis
Bryce Atkins

Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization

☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
☐ Promote Economic
Development
Activities

☐ Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All

☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION
Council:
a) Adopt A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Consolidating the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, Historic Heritage Committee, and the Street Naming Committee, and Placing Their Associated Board Functions Under the Authority of the Planning Commission. b) Motion to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading. c) Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Consolidating the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Placing Their Associated Board Functions for Infrastructure Planning and Development Review Under the Authority of the Planning Commission, and the Associated Board Functions for Education and Encouragement Activities Under the Authority of the Parks and Recreation Commission.

9.1 Packet Pg. 69

BACKGROUND
At the December 13, 2021 Regular Council Meeting, as directed to Council, staff returned to Council for approval of the full streamline option, with the modification to retain the Youth Commission. The full history of this item is contained in the December 13, 2021 Council staff report, attached to this agenda item. At the December 13, 2021 meeting Council directed staff to return to Council with some follow-up information to consider the consolidation approach to the City’s boards and commissions.

INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION
Below is the data in question for consideration of the consolidation.

Number of boards comparison of cities with similar general tax revenues for 2020, including Hollister and Morgan Hill
Entity Name
Total Taxes -
General Revenues Boards FTEs
FTE to
Board
Ratio
Hollister $ 24,735,393 6 193 32
Morgan Hill $ 28,463,397 4 183 46
Camarillo $ 39,086,937 5 147 29
Jurupa Valley $ 39,348,889 3 65 22
Campbell $ 39,654,505 9 193 21
Whittier $ 39,941,838 17 486 29
La Habra $ 40,121,603 7 265 38
South Lake Tahoe $ 40,507,469 7 195 28
San Ramon $ 40,795,810 14 278 20
La Mesa $ 40,860,802 13 263 20
Poway $ 41,350,363 3 228 76
Norwalk $ 42,505,668 10 269 27
Gilroy $ 42,560,015 13 258 20
Gardena $ 42,732,414 10 423 42
La Quinta $ 43,753,786 5 86 17
Brea $ 44,088,008 6 352 59
Merced $ 44,104,438 9 507 56
Emeryville $ 45,042,890 10 170 17
Monterey $ 45,463,003 9 427 47
Hemet $ 45,920,828 6 303 51
Woodland $ 46,607,332 10 317 32
National City $ 46,878,982 9 331 37
Cathedral City $ 47,796,502 8 199 25
Average $ 42,855,385 9 275 34

9.1 Packet Pg. 70

This table uses data from the State Controller’s Office listing California cities with the next ten higher and lower general tax revenues. Board numbers came from each city’s website, excluding joint power authority boards, Council-only boards, and former redevelopment agency boards. Full-time equivalents (FTEs) came from their latest, posted adopted budgets. The average number of boards for the comparis on cities is nine.

Number of board members removed due to the number of absences in 2021 In 2021, there were five members removed from commissions and committees for absences. It should be noted that most meetings held in 2021 were conducted virtually.

By board, below are the numbers:
• Arts and Culture Commission – two members
• Physically Challenged Board of Appeals – two members
• Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee – one member Total absences
Over the span of 2021, the total number of documented absences was 63. Of these, 32 were documented as excused, while the remaining 31 were marked as unexcused.

Below is a breakdown of the absences by type and board.

Board Excused
Absences
Other
Absences
Total
Absences
Arts and Culture Commission 3 7 10
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission 3 0 3
Building Board of Appeals 0 0 0
Historic Heritage Committee 2 5 7
Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization
Committee
2 5 7
Library Commission 2 2 4
Open Government Commission 1 2 3
Parks and Recreation Commission 4 1 5
Personnel Commission 6 1 7
Physically Challenged Board of Appeals 1 0 1
Planning Commission 5 2 7

9.1 Packet Pg. 71

Board Excused
Absences
Other
Absences
Total
Absences
Street Naming Committee 0 0 0
Youth Commission 3 6 9
TOTAL 32 31 63

Number of board vacancies and recruitments in 2021
At the beginning of the year with the annual call for applicants heard on the January 4, 2021 Council Meeting, the following vacancies and applications were considered, with no recruitments for the Street Naming Committee nor the Youth Commission:

Board Seats Applicants
Arts and Culture Commission 2 1
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission 3 6
Building Board of Appeals 2 0
Historic Heritage Committee 2 4
Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee 2 8
Library Commission 2 1
Open Government Commission 3 4
Parks and Recreation Commission 2 4
Personnel Commission 1 4
Physically Challenged Board of Appeals 1 0
Planning Commission 3 10
Street Naming Committee N/A N/A
Youth Commission N/A N/A

Since the annual recruitment process, there were additional calls for applicants due to resignations or removals, a total of seven rounds including the Youth Commission’s annual recruitment. Below is the list of recruitments and applications heard by Council:

1. February 1st Council Meeting – continued recruitments due to no or limited applicants in the annual process:

9.1 Packet Pg. 72

o Pre-existing Vacancies
▪ Arts and Culture Commission – one applicant for one seat ▪ Building Board of Appeals – three applicants for two seats ▪ Library Commission – three applicants for one seat
▪ Physically Challenged Board of Appeals
o Additional vacancies
▪ Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (2 new vacancies) – four applicants for two seats

2. April 5th Council Meeting – vacancy on Planning Commission. Used remaining seven applicants from annual recruitment, no separate recruitment conducted

3. May 17th Council Meeting – one new vacancy on Parks and Recreation Commission for a member who relocated. Four applications for one seat.

4. August 16th Council Meeting – five new vacancies, one resignation and four members dismissed due to excessive unexcused absences.
o Resignation
▪ Library Commission – one applicant for one seat
o Unexcused Absences
▪ Arts and Culture Commission – one applicant for one seat ▪ Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee – one applicant for one seat
▪ Physically Challenged Board of Appeals – one applicant for two seats

5. September 20th Council Meeting – one new vacancy on Planning Commission – one applicant for one seat

6. October 4th and 18th Council Meetings – Youth Commission regular recruitment – nine applicants for five seats (fifth seat realized and appointed at the meeting on October 18th)

7. November 15th Council Meeting – three vacancies
o Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee – four applicants for one seat
o Open Government Commission – two applicants for one seat o Physically Challenged Board of Appeals – no applicants for one seat –

9.1 Packet Pg. 73

rolled into new year’s annual recruitment process
Although there were seven recruitments, the number of Council interactions for these recruitments were greater. Each recruitment initiates with a Council action, typically on consent calendar, to open the recruitment for the vacant seat(s). Council then typically conducts an interview with candidates, then at a later meeting appoint selected residents to the vacant seat(s). 20 agenda items relating to board recruitments were brought to Council in 2021.

Historical number of boards in Gilroy
In a review of the City Clerk records, the furthest back identifiable data on boards is the adoption of the Charter in 1960, where four commissions were established. Since then, boards have been added throughout the years. The dates are from enacting ordinances, or recorded minutes. The Street Naming Committee enactment could not be found, so the earliest found reference in minutes was used.

Year Number
of Boards
1960 4
1971 5
1976 6
1984 7
1990 8
1995 10
2000 11
2005 12
2008 13
2009 14
2014 15
2019 13

The boards have been increasing, but not decreasing until the first consolidation in 2019.

Board meetings in 2021
Below is a table showing the board meetings that were held in 2021. The column for meetings scheduled include regular meetings and special meetings called by the board.

Some boards pre-plan to go “dark” for certain months, which is why some are less than the 12 monthly meetings contained in the Charter. The column for meetings cancelled are those that were not held as planned. Cancellations can be for several reasons including lack of business, lack of quorum, a rescheduled meeting, or a special meeting where the need or reason for the meeting no longer existed.

9.1 Packet Pg. 74

Board Meetings
Scheduled
Meetings
Held
Meetings
Cancelled
Arts and Culture Commission1 11 10 1
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission 12 9 3
Building Board of Appeals 0 0 0
Historic Heritage Committee 12 8 4
Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization
Committee
13 9 4
Library Commission 5 5 0
Open Government Commission 5 3 2
Parks and Recreation Commission2 11 10 1
Personnel Commission 12 5 7
Physically Challenged Board of Appeals 4 1 3
Planning Commission 16 12 4
Street Naming Committee 0 0 0
Youth Commission 8 8 0

Boards’ staff time consumption in 2021
Below are the estimates from the staff liaisons regarding the number of hours of staff time that were given to each board and commission. As staff does not document eac h hour of every staff members’ work, these are estimates. Those with special notes are identified below the table.

Board Staff
Hours
Arts and Culture Commission 165
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission 103

1 ACC had 10 regular meetings scheduled, but one was cancelled and was rescheduled to a special meeting.
2 PRC had scheduled 10 regular meetings, but added a special meeting pertaining to Pic kleball, which was cancelled before being held. This committee’s regularly scheduled meetings were all held.

9.1 Packet Pg. 75

Board Staff
Hours
Building Board of Appeals 2
Historic Heritage Committee 54
Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee 287
Library Commission 25
Open Government Commission Data not
Available
Parks and Recreation Commission 200
Personnel Commission 65
Physically Challenged Board of Appeals 24
Planning Commission 234
Street Naming Committee 0
Youth Commission 120

1. Open Government Commission. The staff that had supported the Open Government Commission meetings is no longer with the City. There are no estimates currently for time staff spends in support of this commission.

2. Planning Commission. Planning Commission hours are purely time preparing for and attending meetings. Unlike other boards, Planning Commission is a discretionary board and has significant work generated from project applicants.

The work on the projects themselves in review and preparation for the meetings are not included in this estimate but are significant.

3. Street Naming Committee. This committee meets only as needed and has not had a meeting in 2021.

Reduction in staffing
During and due to the pandemic, the City had to reduce staffing throughout the City.

Pre-pandemic, the City’s authorized full-time staffing for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 was 284 positions. In the Fiscal Year 2021-22 adopted budget, the City’s authorized staffing is 258, a decrease in staffing by 9%. While the budget authorized additional positions, the amended staffing for Fiscal Year 2020 -2021 after the start of the pandemic reduced staffing to 246 full-time positions. Staff is currently conducting recruitments and will be continuing to recruit for positions throughout the year. However, this means that the full staffing of 258 has not yet been reached. Currently there are 233 full-time staff

9.1 Packet Pg. 76

employed, an effective reduction of 18% from the pre-COVID 2021 authorized staffing, and current staffing is 10% below the authorized staffing for FY22 . With fewer staffing, and many of these reduced positions being office and management staffing, there is more tasks that each remaining staff member must take on, creating less capacity to serve in support of the boards and commissions.

CONSOLIDATION PLAN
As a summary of the plan contained in the previous staff report, the proposal is to consolidate four boards as identified below, and move their functions to other commissions:

1. Historic Heritage Committee – move duties to Planning Commission.

2. Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee – move duties to Planning Commission.

3. Street Naming Committee – move duties to Planning Commission.

4. Bicycle Pedestrian Commission – move infrastructure planning and development review duties to the Planning Commission, and the education and encouragement duties to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

The consolidated boards would have six months to wind down their operations and transition the work to the commission inheriting their duties. The implementation plan for each board will be unique, and developed between the chairs and staff liaisons, coordinating with their equivalents in the inheriting commission. The implementation plans and updates would be shared with the City Council via e-mail updates on the progress of any consolidations approved by Council.

ALTERNATIVES
Council may choose to accept, reject, or modify the staff recommendation.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
No cost increases are anticipated from this action. There will be some cost savings, but the amount is not known at this time. There will be more significant staff time and resource savings, as other work can be performed with the staff time and resources saved from the number of board and commission meetings being reduced.

CONCLUSION
With the consolidation of the four Commissions the demand for Commissioners and staff will be reduced. It will reduce the number of commissioners that would need to be recruited, as well as reducing City resource consumption and staff time, which will be made available for other tasks that are assigned to the staff liaisons and board secretaries.

9.1 Packet Pg. 77

NEXT STEPS
Depending upon Council’s action(s), staff will bring back the second reading and adoption of the ordinance for the consolidation of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission.

Staff will also commence collaboration with each of the staff liaisons to the Commissions to start the transition planning process, as well as preparing the remaining Commissions to undertake any new functions assigned to them.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Any action undertaken by Council will be relayed in the City’s community engagement messaging, as well as updates as the functions transition from one Commission to another. The December 17, 2021 staff report was transmitted to all board members on December 22, 2017, advising the City’s board members that they will also receive this staff report when finalized.

Attachments:

1. Draft Resolution - Committee Consolidation

2. Draft Ordinance - Bicycle Pedestrian Commission

3. Streamline Consolidation Staff Report - December 13, 2021

9.1 Packet Pg. 78

Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 1 of 2 January 10, 2022

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF GILROY CONSOLIDATING THE HOUSING AND

NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE,

HISTORIC HERITAGE COMMITTEE, AND THE STREET

NAMING COMMITTEE, AND PLACING THEIR

ASSOCIATED BOARD FUNCTIONS UNDER THE

AUTHORITY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

WHEREAS, the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, Historic Heritage Committee, and the Street Naming Committee are the three committees in operation out of the combined thirteen (13) boards, commission, and committees for the City; and

WHEREAS, the City’s current thirteen (13) boards, commissions and committees, each require extensive staff support, whether or not the body has a full membership, business to conduct, or is able to achieve a quorum for its meetings; and

WHEREAS, the City Council initiated a future Council agenda item on September 13, 2021 for an agenda item to staff to create a more efficient and effective structure for the City’s boards and commissions; and

WHEREAS, on November 15, 2021, staff presented a report with options that had been developed as of that time. At that meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with the full streamline option of consolidating the City’s boards, committees and commissions, and return to Council on December 13th with an agenda item to adopt the consolidation; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to consolidate the City’s Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, Historic Heritage Committee, and the Street Naming Committee with the Planning Commission.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Gilroy as follows:

1. The Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, the Historic Heritage Committee, and the Street Naming Committee are hereby scheduled to be consolidated to the Planning Commission, effective June 30, 2022, or such earlier time as determined by the committees.

2. City staff is to wind down and transfer the activities of these committees in an expeditious manner which shall be completed no later than June 30, 2022, and as of the date of each such transfer, the terms of all sitting members of each respective committee shall come to an end.

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Draft Resolution - Committee Consolidation (3619 : Commission Consolidation)

Resolution No. 2022-XX Page 2 of 2 January 10, 2022

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January 2022, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:

Marie Blankley, Mayor

ATTEST:

Thai Nam Pham, City Clerk

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Draft Resolution - Committee Consolidation (3619 : Commission Consolidation)

Ordinance No. 2022-XX Page 1 of 2 January 24, 2022

ORDINANCE NO. 2022-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF GILROY CONSOLIDATING THE BICYCLE

PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION AND PLACING ITS

ASSOCIATED COMMISSION FUNCTIONS FOR

INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

REVIEW UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE PLANNING

COMMISSION, AND THE ASSOCIATED COMMISSION

FUNCTIONS FOR EDUCATION AND ENCOURAGEMENT

ACTIVITIES UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE PARKS
AND RECREATION COMMISSION.

WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy currently has a total of thirteen (13) boards, commissions and committees, each requiring extensive staff support, whether or not the body has a full membership, business to conduct, or is able to achieve a quorum for its meetings; and

WHEREAS, the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission is one of the City’s Commissions which are not required pursuant to the Gilroy City Charter; and

WHEREAS, City Council initiated a future Council agenda item on September 13, 2021 for an agenda item to staff to create a more efficient and effective structure for the City’s boards and commissions; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires to consolidate the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission with the duties being consolidated with either the Planning or Parks and Recreation Commissions, based on the subject matter jurisdiction.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION I

The Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (Commission) is scheduled to be consolidated.

Ordinances Nos. 2009-03 and 2018-14, which established the Commission will be repealed in their entirety and no longer in effect after June 30, 2022, or such earlier time as determined by the Commission.

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Draft Ordinance - Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (3619 : Commission Consolidation)

Ordinance No. 2022-XX Page 2 of 2 January 24, 2022

SECTION II
City staff are to wind down and transfer the activities of this Commission in an expeditious manner which shall be completed no later than June 30, 2022, and as of the date of such transfer, the terms of all sitting Commissioners shall come to an end. The functions and duties shall be transferred to the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission, in a manner to maximize efficiency and effectiveness within the associated subject matter jurisdiction of each Commission.

SECTION III
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION IV
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. The City Clerk is hereby directed to publish this Ordinance or a summary thereof pursuant to Government Code Section 36933.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY this 24th day of January, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:

Marie Blankley, Mayor

ATTEST:

Thai Nam Pham, City Clerk

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Draft Ordinance - Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (3619 : Commission Consolidation)

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item Title: Streamline Consolidation of the City's Boards and Commissions Meeting Date: December 13, 2021
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Bryce Atkins

Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization

☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
☐ Promote Economic
Development
Activities

☐ Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All

☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION
Council:
a) Adopt A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Consolidating the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, Historic Heritage Committee, and the Street Naming Committee, and Placin g Their Associated Board Functions Under the Authority of the Planning Commission. b) Motion to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading. c) Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Consolidating the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Placing Their Associated Board Functions for Infrastructure Planning and Development Review Under the Authority of the Planning Commission, and the Associated Board Functions for Education and Encouragement Activities Under the Authority of the Parks and Recreation Commission.

9.1 Packet Pg. 18

9.1.c
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Streamline Consolidation Staff Report - December 13, 2021 (3619 : Commission Consolidation)

d) Direct all boards and commissions, except the Planning Commission, to meet on a quarterly basis, not to exceed quarterly meetings without compelling reasons as determined by the respective board chair and appointed staff liaison.

BACKGROUND
At the September 13, 2021 regular meeting of the Gilroy City Council, Council provided direction – as part of a future agenda item request – for staff to bring back recommendations for a more effective structure to the City’s boards, commissions, and committees (collectively, the “Commissions”). The impetus for the agenda item is the repeated recruitments for new members to the Commissions due to many departures and attendance issues of various Commission members. An example of previous Commission restructuring included the consolidation and elimination of the Public Arts Committee and the Housing Committee as stand-alone committees. That consolidation reduced the total number of Commissions from 15 to 13.

There are currently five Commissions that are established in the City Charter. All other Commissions were established either through an ordinance, resolution, or other authorization of the City Council.

At the November 15, 2021 regular City Council meeting, Council directed s taff to return with an agenda item for potential approval of the full streamline option. Since the direction, it has been determined that retaining the Youth Commission is desirable for the youth to engage the City through this commission.

ANALYSIS
Staff has prepared a resolution and an ordinance for adoption that would reduce the City Commissions from thirteen to nine and reduce the frequency of meetings to reduce burden on Commission members and City resources. The only change from the original streamline option is that the Youth Commission would remain intact.

As presented previously, modified with the Youth Commission remaining intact, and meetings being held quarterly except for the Planning Commission would be as outlined below.

1. Planning Commission (inherit duties of Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee; Historic Heritage Committee; Bicycle Pedestrian Commission’s infrastructure planning and development review functions, and the Street Naming Committee). The same reports and information th at would be included in the presentation to the former Commissions would be incorporated in the Planning Commission staff reports.

2. Personnel Commission – No change from Charter; meeting quarterly.

3. Library Commission – No change from Charter; meeting quarterly.

9.1 Packet Pg. 19

9.1.c
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Streamline Consolidation Staff Report - December 13, 2021 (3619 : Commission Consolidation)

4. Arts and Culture Commission – No change from Charter; meeting quarterly.

5. Parks and Recreation Commission (inherit the duties of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission’s education and encouragement functions) – meeting quarterly.

6. Youth Commission – No change; meeting quarterly.

7. Open Government Commission – No change.

8. Building Appeals Board – meet as needed.

9. Physically Challenged Appeals Board – meet as needed.

It should be noted that numerous opportunities exist for board members/commissioners whose board/committees have been consolidated. Remaining boards and commission typically have numerous vacancies and the number of representatives on certain boards/commissions could potentially be expanded.

Implementation
The resolution and ordinance, while being adopted and introduced (respectively) this evening, are designed in a manner to allow up to six months for implementation to wind down and subsequently transfer the consolidated duties. Implementation will involve City staff and Commission members coordinating the changes that are proposed, through the staff liaisons. By approaching the implementation individually with each of the Commissions, a smoother transition is likely for each individual Commission.

Some Commissions have very detailed workplans and are in-progress on activities to complete one or more items in the workplan. The additional time to continue operating would allow the Commissions to potentially wrap up some of their workplan items before the consolidation is completed. Additionally, the time would allow for the opportunity to see if there are vacant seats on other Commissions that may be of interest to those who are in a Commission being consolidated. Other Commissions may not have pending activities and may be able to consolidate at a faste r rate. The timeframe is to allow flexibility to treat each Commission uniquely in their consolidation.

ALTERNATIVES
Council may choose to accept, reject, or modify the staff recommendation.

9.1 Packet Pg. 20

9.1.c
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Streamline Consolidation Staff Report - December 13, 2021 (3619 : Commission Consolidation)

CONCLUSION
With the consolidation of the four Commissions, and the reduction in the frequency of meetings for the remaining Commissions, the demand on Commissioners and staff will be reduced. It is believed that this will help reduce the burden on Commissioners, making service on our Commissions more appealing and sustainable for interested residents. It will also reduce City resource consumption and staff time, which will be made available for other tasks that are assigned to the staff liaisons and board secretaries.

NEXT STEPS
Depending upon Council’s action(s), staff will bring back the second reading and adoption of the ordinance for the consolidation of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Any action undertaken by Council will be relayed in the City’s community engagement messaging, as well as updates as the functions transition from one Commission to another.

Attachments:

1. DRAFT Resolution - Committee Consolidation

2. DRAFT Consolidation Ordinance - Bicycle Pedestrian Commission

9.1 Packet Pg. 21

9.1.c
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Streamline Consolidation Staff Report - December 13, 2021 (3619 : Commission Consolidation)

RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF GILROY CONSOLIDATING THE HOUSING AND

NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION COMMITTEE,

HISTORIC HERITAGE COMMITTEE, AND THE STREET

NAMING COMMITTEE, AND PLACING THEIR

ASSOCIATED BOARD FUNCTIONS UNDER THE

AUTHORITY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Gilroy as follows:

1. The Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, the Historic Heritage

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: DRAFT Resolution - Committee Consolidation (3572 : Boards and Commissions Consolidation)9.1.c Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Streamline Consolidation Staff Report - December 13, 2021 (3619 : Commission Consolidation)

RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX
Committee, and the Street Naming Committee are hereby scheduled to be consolidated to the Planning Commission, effective June 30, 2022, or such earlier time as determined by the committees.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of December, 2021 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

___________________________
ATTEST: Marie Blankley, Mayor

_________________________
Thai Pham, City Clerk

9.1.a
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: DRAFT Resolution - Committee Consolidation (3572 : Boards and Commissions Consolidation)9.1.c Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Streamline Consolidation Staff Report - December 13, 2021 (3619 : Commission Consolidation)

-1- 4891-7643-1621v1
JH\00000999
ORDINANCE NO. 2021-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF GILROY CONSOLIDATING THE BICYCLE

PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION AND PLACING ITS

ASSOCIATED COMMISSION FUNCTIONS FOR

INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

REVIEW UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE PLANNING

COMMISSION, AND THE ASSOCIATED COMMISSION

FUNCTIONS FOR EDUCATION AND ENCOURAGEMENT

ACTIVITIES UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE PARKS
AND RECREATION COMMISSION.

WHEREAS, the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission is one of the City’s Commissions which are not required pursuant to the Gilroy City Charter; and

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS.

SECTION I

The Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (Commission) is scheduled to be consolidated.

SECTION II

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: DRAFT Consolidation Ordinance - Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (3572 : Boards and Commissions Consolidation)9.1.c Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Streamline Consolidation Staff Report - December 13, 2021 (3619 : Commission Consolidation)

-2- 4891-7643-1621v1
JH\00000999
City staff are to wind down and transfer the activities of this Commission in an expeditious manner which shall be completed no later than June 30, 2022, and as of the date of such transfer, the terms of all sitting Commissioners shall come to an end. The functions and duties shall be transferred to the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission, in a manner to maximize efficiency and effectiveness within the associated subject matter jurisdiction of each Commission.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY this 10th day of January, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:

_______________________________
Marie Blankley, Mayor
ATTEST:

LeeAnn McPhillips, City Clerk

9.1.b
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: DRAFT Consolidation Ordinance - Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (3572 : Boards and Commissions Consolidation)9.1.c Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Streamline Consolidation Staff Report - December 13, 2021 (3619 : Commission Consolidation)

0 0
0 0
Z1
0 a
z
0 ,o 0
., 0 O
H o
U 0
0 V •° o b
rg° O
v� U
E
rn
U -
›., 'o an
o 2 -
> O
c e� up • U Q,
.o �J °; N O
.0 0 .0 ;-,1-4
0 4O�+ 8 "CS
C CZ O
trs•CT— 0o E ',
a �,
'd O
U
cep
P:1 W W W Vd . N
N HHcu O
En 4-1 H H › 41 cd
1�0��c
b`D CD ~ �N �, 4-1
to-0w ; °—
° Q'4
0 z 0'
W ...

AG
ct
N
C.)> N
ch
.0 El
'd Cd
0 a
0 y
ao

4 PLEASE PRINT NEATLY (to be used to call you to the podium) a 2
o
o b
A • 0
v)
t.
"RI irj
O a)
CJrciti
• A
G�, o
0 0
by
0 0
a)
br)• (1-.
•o
�
a.) O
0 N
cc; a)
CC^
O 0
1b
Ct
O
CC3 (7)
O
U
cip 0
• bD
a4
f., b
.4
7 U a)
,-0
•
a)
E

5. 0
0 O
u
0 a)
0 a
z/
Ei

PLEASE P
W
AGENDA ITEM(S): NU
a
w
PI
H ▪ a)v o
c co � H ,
cd
23 • R. � N
C A-,
'' U O
"Cet O . -4
0ca N
rA -
a) ▪ U
✓ �Q., Q)
ril ',E 5
a) ccn

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item Title: Consideration of authorizing virtual meetings pursuant to Section 54953 of the Brown Act for Council and all Boards and
Commissions
Meeting Date: January 10, 2022
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Jimmy Forbis

Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization

☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
☐ Promote Economic
Development
Activities

☐ Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All

☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution authorizing virtual meetings pursuant to Section 54953 of the Brown Act for Council and all Boards and Commissions.

BACKGROUND
On March 4, 2020, the Governor of the State of California (“Governor”) issued a Proclamation of a State of Emergency due to COVID-19. Such proclamation remains in effect, as are the facts, circumstances, and emergency under which it was issued.

On March 17, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-29-20 allowing local legislative bodies to hold meetings via teleconference and to make meetings accessible electronically without it constituting a violation of the open meeting laws found in the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Sections 54950 et seq., “Brown Act”).

10.1 Packet Pg. 91

On March 16, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-17 ratifying the City Administrator as Director of Emergency Services Proclamation dated March 13, 2020.

Since the enactment of the Executive order, local legislative bodies in California have been able to hold public meetings by “teleconference” (a term that includes video conferencing) without complying with all the Brown Act requirements for teleconference meetings, as follows:
• Giving notice of each teleconference location from which, a member would by participating in a public meeting and specifically identifying each teleconference location in the meeting notice and on the agenda, including the full address and room number;
• Assuring that each teleconference location is accessible to the public; • Allowing members of the public to address the body at each teleconference location;
• Posting agendas at all teleconference locations; and
• During teleconference meetings, at least a quorum of the members of the local body must participate from locations within the boundaries of the territory over which the local body exercises jurisdiction.

In March 2020, staff transitioned holding public meetings via WebEx, and eventually to Zoom for all City meetings. Remote meetings have allowed the City Council, City Council Committees, and the City’s community advisory bodies to continue to conduct City business from the safety of their individual locations. The usage of remote technology for public meetings over has allowed the City to ensure the public’s continued access to meetings while also ensuring the public’s safety.

On June 11, 2021, the Governor issued Executive Order N -08-21, which, among other things, rescinded his prior Executive Order N-29-20 and set a date of October 1, 2021, for public agencies to transition back to public meetings held in full compliance with the Brown Act.

In August 2021 the City Council, City Council Committees, and the City’s community advisory bodies returned to in-person meetings as the positive rate of Covid-19 cases had decreased nationwide and continued to do so for several months.

ANALYSIS
Due to the recent rise in COVID-19 cases, including due to the Omicron variant, the City is concerned about protecting the health and safety of attendees. This concern is heightened given that even fully vaccinated people have contracted the Omicron variant, that people may have and transmit the virus before knowing they are infected and/or if they are asymptomatic, that meetings of City legislative bodies often last several hours, and that City meeting facilities are limited in space with seats close together.

10.1 Packet Pg. 92

Subsequent to the above-mentioned Executive Order issuance, and because of the Delta variant surge in California back in late summer 2021, the legislature took action to extend the COVID-19 exceptions to the Brown Act’s teleconference requirements, subject to additional safeguards. AB 361, signed by the Governor on September 16, 2021, allows a local agency to continue to use teleconferencing without complying with the Brown Act provisions above in any of the following circumstances:
• The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.
• The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote whether, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.
• The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

The City meets the requirements to hold meetings remotely in order to ensure the health and safety of the public if:
• The Santa Clara County Health Officer has issued various health orders and updates designed to slow the spread of COVID-19 (including variants thereof) such as vaccinations, quarantines, face covering requirements, and social distancing recommendations designed to protect public health. • The Santa Clara County Health Officer is strongly recommending teleconferenced meetings as those meetings present the lowest risk of transmission of SARS-CoV- 2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and further recommends social distancing and face masking of all attendees.

AB 361 also provides that, if the state of emergency remains active for more than 30 days, a local agency must make the following findings by majority vote 30 days after it first implements the bill’s exemptions to the Brown Act teleconferencing rules and every 30 days thereafter to continue using them:

(A) The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency.
(B) Any of the following circumstances exist:
(i) The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.

10.1 Packet Pg. 93

(ii) State or local officials continue to impose or recommend m easures to promote social distancing.

The City will have to put an item on the agenda once every 30 days to make findings regarding the circumstances of the emergency and vote to continue using the law’s exemptions.

The stated aim of AB 361 is “to improv e and enhance public access to local agency meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic and future applicable emergencies, by allowing broader access through teleconferencing options” consistent with Executive Order N-29-20. The bill sunsets as of January 1, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
None.

Attachments:

1. Draft Resolution

Attachments:

1. Draft Resolution

10.1 Packet Pg. 94

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX 4894-1564-7497v1
ALF\04706083
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF GILROY MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATING

TO THE EXISTING STATE OF EMERGENCY CAUSED BY
THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND DETERMINING AS A

RESULT OF THE STATE OF EMERGENCY THAT CITY

COUNCIL MEETINGS AND MEETINGS OF OTHER CITY

LEGISLATIVE BODIES SHALL BE HELD BY

TELECONFERENCING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54953(E)
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, the Governor issued a proclamation of a state of emergency pursuant to Government Code Section 8625, relating to the respiratory illness known as COVID-19, which is caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2; and WHEREAS, the Governor’s proclamation remains in effect; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the existence of a pandemic due to the global spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020, the Director of Emergency Services issued a proclamation declaring the existence of a local emergency within the City relating to COVID-19, and on March 16, 2020, the City Council adopted a resolution ratifying the declaration of local emergency; and
WHEREAS, since August 2, 2021, an order of the Santa Clara County Public Health Officer has been in effect requiring the use of face coverings indoors by all persons; and WHEREAS, despite progress in addressing the pandemic, not all eligible individuals are fully vaccinated, and new, more virulent variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are spreading in California and throughout the world; and
WHEREAS, to date, Santa Clara County has had nearly 190,000 reported cases of COVID-19, and nearly 2,000 residents of the County have died of the illness; and WHEREAS, as of January 6, 2022, the Santa Clara County Health Department reported a seven-day rolling average of 1,918 new COVID-19 cases per day; and WHEREAS, since Thanksgiving, the statewide seven-day average case rate has increased by over 800 percent, and the number of COVID-19 hospitalized patients has increased by over 150 percent; and
WHEREAS, this surge is being driven by the recent emergence of the Omicron variant, which early data suggests is more transmissible than the Delta variant; and

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Draft Resolution (3621 : Authorizing Virtual Meetings)

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX 4894-1564-7497v1
ALF\04706083
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2022, the Governor issued Executive Order N-1-22, which extends from January 1, 2022, until April 1, 2022, the date by which state bodies may continue to meet by teleconferencing; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and in particular because of the recent surge in cases caused by the Omicron variant, continuing to hold in-person meetings of the City Council and of the City’s other legislative bodies would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees;
WHEREAS, AB 361, which was signed into law on September 16, 2021, amended Government Code Section 54953 to authorize local legislative bodies to determine by resolution to conduct meetings by teleconferencing during proclaimed public health emergencies, and any such resolution must be reaffirmed every thirty (30) days to continue in effect;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT,

1. The City Council finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. Beginning on the date following the date of the adoption of this resolution, the City Council and the City’s other legislative bodies shall meet by teleconferencing. Such meetings shall be conducted according to the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 54953(e)(2).

3. This resolution shall be of no further force and effect on February 9, 2022, unless prior to that date the City Council reconsiders this resolution and finds that either of the following circumstances exists:
a. The state of emergency relating to COVID-19 continues to directly impact the ability of the members of the City Council and of the public to meet safely in person; or b. State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:

Marie Blankley, Mayor
ATTEST:

Thai Pham, City Clerk

10.1.a
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Draft Resolution (3621 : Authorizing Virtual Meetings)

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item Title: Accept the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for Fiscal Year-Ended June 30, 2021
Meeting Date: January 10, 2022
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Finance Department
Submitted By: Harjot Sangha
Prepared By: Harjot Sangha

Strategic Plan Goals
 Develop a Financially
Resilient Organization

☐ Ensure Neighborhood
Equity from City
Services
☐ Promote Economic
Development
Activities

☐ Promote Safe,
Affordable Housing for All

☐ Maintain and Improve
City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION
Accept and file report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Accept and file the audited Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR)1 for the fiscal year-ended June 30, 2021 (FY21).

ANALYSIS

1 The Government Finance Officers Association has changed the title and abbreviation from the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), to the title and abbreviation used in this report.

10.2 Packet Pg. 97

Following the close of each fiscal year on June 30th, the City’s external auditors conduct an audit of the City’s financial records and assist in the compilation of the ACFR.

The objective of external financial reporting is to ensure accountability. The goal of a financial statement audit is to provide users with a reasonable assurance from an independent source that the information presented in the statements is reliable. The audit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 202 1 (FY21) and was recently completed by The Pun Group, LLP (Auditor), Certified Public Accountants. The firm was engaged in 2020 and issued the FY20 ACFR. FY21 is the second year of the three -year term.

In conjunction with the annual audit, the City prepares the ACFR to comply with the requirements to receive the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting administered by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). The Certificate of Achievement is a prestigious national award recognizing conformance with the highest standard for preparation of state and local government financial reports. The City’s ACFR has received this award for the previous seven fiscal years and believe the current report continues to conform to GFOA’s highest standard.

As a result of their annual independent audit of the City’s financial records and statements, the Auditor has rendered an unmodified (“clean”) opinion, the optimal opinion issued by independent auditors, on the City’s financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021.

A detailed analysis of the City’s financial position as of June 30, 2021 is included in the ACFR attached to this staff report (Attachment 1). In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, the auditors also identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting and provide recommendations to City management on correcting these deficiencies.

Summary of highlights are as follows:
• Citywide: The City’s overall net position decreased by $3.2 million from prior fiscal year (FY20) primarily due to change in net investment in capital assets. • General Fund:
o Revenues: The general fund actual revenues of $55.9 million were $4.6 million more than the prior year primarily in the areas of property related tax revenues, building permit, and plan check and inspection related revenues. A key item of note is the $5.5 million of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding the City received during the fiscal year was subsequently recorded as unearned revenue at June 30, 2021 as expenditures related to those funds are programmed in FY 22 and onwards.

10.2 Packet Pg. 98

o Expenditures: The general fund actual expenditures of $51.0 million were $5.1 million less than the prior year, a result of the fiscal recovery plan instituted by the City Council during the year. From a budgetary perspective, during the fiscal year, the actual expenditures were $3.6 million less than the amended budget due to savings in personnel related expenses and conservative departmental spending practices. o Fund Balance: The fund balance (ACFR purposes) in the general fund increased by $4.6 million to $19.6 million from the prior year, which represents 38% of actual FY21 expenditures.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There are no direct fiscal impacts to receiving and filing the ACFR. The audit provides Council and other stakeholders with the assurance that the City is meeting its obligation for producing financial reports that are presented fairly and accurately. Annual financial audit is part of the Finance Department’s annual workplan, thus the resources and costs associated with the audit and preparation of the report are included in the adopted budget.

Attachments:

1. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report as of June 30, 2021

10.2 Packet Pg. 99

City of Gilroy
California
Year Ended June 30, 2021
Annual Comprehensive
Financial Report

INTRODUCTORY

SECTION

City of Gilroy
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

Table of Contents

Page

INTRODUCTORY SECTION (Unaudited)

Letter of Transmittal ...................................................................................................................................................... i Elected Officials & City Staff ....................................................................................................................................... v Organizational Chart .................................................................................................................................................... vi Map ............................................................................................................................................................................. vii GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting ............................................................... viii

FINANCIAL SECTION

Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements ......................................................................................... 1

Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Required Supplementary Information) (Unaudited) ......................... 5

Basic Financial Statements:

Government-Wide Financial Statements:

Statement of Net Position .............................................................................................................................. 18 Statement of Activities ................................................................................................................................... 20

Fund Financial Statements:

Governmental Fund Financial Statements:

Balance Sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 27 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet
to the Government-Wide Statement of Net Position ......................................................................... 28 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balances ................................................................................................................ 29 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances to the Government-Wide Statement of Activities ...................................................................................................................... 30

Proprietary Fund Financial Statements:

Statement of Net Position ........................................................................................................................ 32 Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position ............................................................ 35 Statement of Cash Flows ......................................................................................................................... 36

Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements:

Statement of Fiduciary Net Position ........................................................................................................ 41 Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position ..................................................................................... 42

Notes to the Basic Financial Statements ........................................................................................................... 47

City of Gilroy
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

Table of Contents (Continued)

Page
FINANCIAL SECTION (Continued)

Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)

Schedule of Changes in the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios– Last Ten Fiscal Years CalPERS Miscellaneous Plan ........................................................................................................................ 92 CalPERS Safety Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 94

Schedule of Plan Contributions - Pension – Last Ten Fiscal Years CalPERS Miscellaneous Plan ........................................................................................................................ 96 CalPERS Safety Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 98

Schedule of Changes in the Net OPEB Liability and Related Ratios – Last Ten Fiscal Years ...................... 101

Budgetary Comparison Schedules
General Fund ................................................................................................................................................ 102

Notes to the Budgetary Comparison Schedules ................................................................................................ 105

Supplementary Information:

Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual:

Public Facilities Impact Capital Projects Fund ............................................................................................ 108

Nonmajor Governmental Funds:

Description of Nonmajor Governmental Funds ........................................................................................... 109 Combining Balance Sheet ............................................................................................................................ 111 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances .................................... 119 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual:

Gas Tax Special Revenue Fund ............................................................................................................. 127 Pavement Management Special Revenue Fund ..................................................................................... 128 Public Safety Grants Special Revenue Fund ......................................................................................... 129 Prop 172 Sales Tax Special Revenue Fund ........................................................................................... 130 Community Development Block Grant Special Revenue Fund ............................................................ 131 Rehabilitation Loans Special Revenue Fund ......................................................................................... 132 Housing Trust Fund Special Revenue Fund .......................................................................................... 133 Community Facilities District Special Revenue Fund ........................................................................... 134 Measure B Special Revenue Fund ......................................................................................................... 135 Vehicle License Fee Special Revenue Fund .......................................................................................... 136 Los Arroyos Fund Special Revenue Fund ............................................................................................. 137 CalHome Funds Special Revenue Fund .............................................................................................. 138

City of Gilroy
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

Table of Contents (Continued)

Page

Supplementary Information (Continued):

Nonmajor Governmental Funds (Continued):

Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual (Continued):

Capital Projects Fund ............................................................................................................................ 139 BANS 2009 Financing Capital Projects Fund ....................................................................................... 140 Traffic Impact Capital Projects Fund .................................................................................................... 141 Storm Drains Capital Projects Fund ...................................................................................................... 142 Utility Undergrounding Capital Projects Fund ...................................................................................... 143 Street Trees Development Capital Projects Fund .................................................................................. 144 Sewer Development Capital Projects Fund ........................................................................................... 145 Water Development Capital Projects Fund ........................................................................................... 146 Bank Interest Capital Projects Fund ...................................................................................................... 147 Gilroy Community Library Capital Projects Fund ................................................................................ 148 Refunding Lease 2010 Debt Service Fund ............................................................................................ 149 2013 Refunding Bond Debt Service Fund ............................................................................................. 150 Gilroy Community Library Debt Service Fund ..................................................................................... 151 CA Energy Commission Loan Debt Service Fund ................................................................................ 152

Internal Service Funds:

Combining Statement of Net Position.......................................................................................................... 154 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position .............................................. 156 Combining Statement of Cash Flows ........................................................................................................... 158

Fiduciary Funds:

Combining Statement of Fiduciary Net Position ......................................................................................... 162 Combining Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position ...................................................................... 164

City of Gilroy
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
For the Year Ended June 30, 2021

Table of Contents (Continued)

Page

STATISTICAL SECTION (Unaudited)

Description of Statistical Section Contents ............................................................................................................... 169

Financial Trends:

Net Position By Component - Last Ten Fiscal Years ............................................................................................ 170 Changes in Net Position - Last Ten Fiscal Years .................................................................................................. 172 Fund Balances of Governmental Funds - Last Ten Fiscal Years ........................................................................... 176 Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds - Last Ten Fiscal Years ........................................................ 178 Revenue Capacity:

Sales Tax by Category - Last Ten Fiscal Years ..................................................................................................... 180 Sales Tax Rates - Last Ten Fiscal Years ................................................................................................................ 182 Principal Sales Tax Producers – Last Fiscal Year and Nine Years Ago ................................................................ 183 Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property - Last Ten Fiscal Years ................................. 184 Assessed Value of Property by Use Code - Last Three Fiscal Years .................................................................... 185 Direct and Overlapping Property Tax Rates - Last Ten Fiscal Years .................................................................... 186 Principal Property Taxpayers – Last Fiscal Year and Nine Fiscal Years Ago ...................................................... 188 Property Tax Levies, Tax Collections, and Delinquency - Last Ten Fiscal Years ................................................ 189 Debt Capacity:

Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type - Last Ten Fiscal Years ............................................................................... 190 Ratio of General Bonded Debt Outstanding - Last Ten Fiscal Years .................................................................... 192 Schedule of Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt ................................................................................................ 193 Legal Debt Margin Information - Last Ten Fiscal Years ....................................................................................... 194 Revenue Bond Coverage - Wastewater System - Last Ten Fiscal Years .............................................................. 196

Demographic and Economic Information:

Demographic and Economic Statistics – Last Ten Fiscal Years ........................................................................... 198 Principal Employers – Current Year and Seven Years Ago .................................................................................. 199

Operating Information:

Full-Time Equivalent City Government Employees By Function/Program – Last Ten Fiscal Years ................... 201 Operating Indicators by Function / Program – Last Ten Fiscal Years ................................................................... 202 Capital Assets By Function – Last Ten Fiscal Years ............................................................................................. 204

CITY
ADMINISTRATOR’S
OFFICE
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020

Telephone (408) 846-0202
Facsimile (408) 846-0500
http://www.ci.gilroy.ca.us

January 4, 2022

To the Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council and Citizens of Gilroy:

The City of Gilroy’s (City) Charter requires that the City publish a complete set of audited financial statements for each fiscal year. This report is published to fulfill that requirement for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021. This Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) is submitted for your information and review. The information contained herein has been provided to allow the reader to gain an understanding of Gilroy’s financial activities. Management assumes full responsibility for the completeness and reliability of the information contained in this report. The Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) is included to assist the reader in its review of the City’s financial statements. It provides a roadmap for the financial statements and related notes.

To provide a reasonable basis for making these representations, management of the City has established a comprehensive framework of internal controls that is designed to both protect the government’s assets from loss, theft or misuse and to compile sufficient reliable information for the preparation of the City’s financial statements in conformity with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Because the cost of internal controls should not outweigh their benefits, the City’s comprehensive framework of internal controls has been designed to provide reasonable, rather than absolute assurance that the financial statements will be free from material misstatements. Management is committed to maintaining the City’s internal controls to adequately safeguard assets; and to provide reasonable assurances of proper recording of financial transactions.

The Pun Group LLP, Certified Public Accountants, have issued an unmodified (“clean”) opinion on Gilroy’s financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2021. The independent auditor’s report is located at the beginning of the financial section of this report. The MD&A immediately follows the independent auditor’s report and provides a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis of the basic financial statements. The MD&A complements this letter of transmittal and should be read in conjunction.

Profile of the government
The City is the southernmost city in Santa Clara County, and is located approximately 25 miles south of San Jose and approximately 75 miles south of San Francisco. Gilroy sits at the crossing of U.S. Highway 101 and State Highway 152. The City was first incorporated in 1870 and became a charter city on January 8, 1960. Per the California Department of Finance’s annual demographic’s report for 2021, as of January 1, 2021, the City had a population estimate of 56,599.

Situated between the Diablo and Santa Cruz mountains in the Santa Clara Valley, the City experiences mild temperatures, while missing most of the coastal fog. The agricultural growing season ranges from 300 to 350 days a year. Over the past few decades, the City has been transitioning from an agricultural economy into a light industrial- and services-based economy.

ii
The City operates under the Council-Administrator form of government. The seven City Council members, including the Mayor, are elected-at-large to four-year terms in alternate slates of three elected every two years, and the Mayor being elected every four years. The City Council appoints the City Administrator who heads the executive branch of the government, implements City Council directives and policies, and manages the administrative and operational functions through the department directors. The City Administrator appoints the department directors with the exception of the City Clerk and the City Attorney, which are appointed by the City Council.

The budget of the City is a detailed operating and capital improvement plan that identifies estimated costs and activities as related to estimated revenues. The City Administrator submits to the City Council a proposed biennial budget for all funds and the Council then proceeds to make any changes to the proposed budget it deems necessary. Before adopting the proposed budget, the Council holds a public hearing. After the conclusion of the public hearing the Council may further make revisions to the proposed budget. Thereafter the Council adopts the budget with revisions, if any.

The City provides municipal services including police and fire protection, community and economic development, recreation activities, parks and street maintenance, water and sewer utilities and general City administration. Natural gas and electricity are provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Water service is provided by the City. Wastewater is collected and treated by the South County Regional Wastewater Authority. Recycling and solid waste disposal services are provided in the City by Recology South Valley.

Economic Setting
Gilroy’s economy has been dominated by agriculture and its related industries (food processing, etc.) since the 1800s. However, the growing influence of Silicon Valley and regional population growth have resulted in significant changes in the local economy during the past twenty years.

The economic boom in Silicon Valley which began in the early 1990s had profound impacts on the local economy, resulting in significant increases in home prices and land values as well as significant decreases in local unemployment. The covid-19 pandemic has fueled a crisis in the housing market, sending demand and prices for homes soaring to all-time highs in an already supply tight market. Gilroy is benefitting economically from this trend.

Today, Gilroy’s economy is diversified into non-agricultural commercial and industrial activities such as light manufacturing, wholesale operations, automobile sales, and large retail centers. The Gilroy Outlets, Auto Mall area, and retail developments east of Highway 101 have put the City on the map as a regional retail destination and helped strengthen the City’s tax revenues.

Manufacturing and wholesale/distribution operations take advantage of Gilroy’s proximity to Silicon Valley and easy access to Highway 152, leading to Interstate 5 and the Central Valley.

Development and Construction Activity
Prior to the 2008 economic recession, local real estate development and construction industries experienced a high demand for new residential, commercial, and industrial development.

Although limited by the City’s Residential Development Ordinance (RDO), new housing construction saw a surge of activity, as RDO allocations approved in earlier years were built out.

Housing developments in the northwest quad, north-central Gilroy, and Eagle Ridge area brought new households to the City, many residents of which commute to work in the north county area.

Construction activity was also high in the southeast industrial area.

iii
The covid-19 pandemic had an impact on development activity. While much economic activity stalled during the initial shelter-in-place order, permitting and construction activity in Gilroy resumed in the summer of 2020 and has been steady since. Coupled with historic low interest rates, the residential market has continued to remain robust and demand has outpaced the supply of both new and existing housing inventory, causing an increase of approximately 15% to 18% in year-to-year housing prices as of June 2021.

One of the most active residential development areas in Gilroy is Glen Loma Ranch. This 392- acre master planned area is located between Santa Teresa Boulevard and the Uvas Creek corridor and when completed, will include approximately 1,600 residential units, 145 acres of parks and open space, and a trail system linking the various neighborhoods. Commercial development along the First Street, Leavesley and Tenth Street corridors provides millions of square feet of retail and professional services space to the City.

Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) Financial Results
The City ended FY21 with an operating loss, resulting in a change in net position of $3.2 million.

In the General Fund, the revenues for FY21 were lower than budgeted, primarily due to less Sales Tax revenue, Plan Check and Inspection revenue, and Building Permit revenue.

Expenditures were also lower than budgeted primarily due to personnel and departmental savings. The revenues exceeded the expenditures by $4.9 million, before transfers ($0.1 million), resulting in a net increase in fund balance for the General Fund of $4.8 million.

Revitalization and Capital Improvements
Commercial development in certain corridors in Gilroy has added millions of square feet of retail and professional services space to the City. Downtown revitalization efforts have helped attract new businesses to the area, has retained existing businesses, and created a core area of antique stores, specialty shops, and restaurants. Restored historic buildings also add to the downtown’s character, including the Old City Hall and the Train Depot. However, some vacant storefronts persist and the City is focusing additional efforts at revitalizing these spaces. Within the past decade major projects including the Downtown Streetscape, the Camino Arroyo Bridge, the New Gilroy Library, and the Aquatics Center at Christopher High School have been added as significant assets to the community.

The City’s capital improvement plan (CIP) provides a 5-year window of projects to be completed within the CIP horizon. The financial health of the capital improvement funds have improved over the last few years as a result of new development.

Long-term financial planning and major initiatives
The City’s general fund balance as of June 30, 2021 was $19.6 million. In June 2017, City Council adopted a general fund reserve policy of retaining a general fund reserve equal to 20% of annual general fund expenditures. The policy also adopted a separate economic stability reserve that is used only for limited purposes, at 10% of general fund expenditures.

During FY21, the City was still impacted by the ongoing covid-19 pandemic but began to experience economic recovery. During the year, the City implemented a fiscal recovery plan and as part of the plan the City also implemented long-term expenditure adjustments to address a known structural imbalance. These measures were made to ensure that the City maintained its’ long-standing fiscal health for years to come and to this point have achieved the desired results.

iv
Award and Acknowledgements
The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Gilroy for its annual comprehensive financial report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020. This was the seventh consecutive year that the City achieved this prestigious award. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, the City had to publish an easily readable and efficiently organized ACFR that satisfied both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable program requirements.

A Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting is valid for a period of one year only. We believe that our FY21 ACFR continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Program’s requirements and we are submitting the FY21 ACFR to the GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate.

The preparation of this report would not have been possible without the skill, diligence, and commitment of the entire staff of the Finance Department, and specifically Finance Manager Rosemary Guerrero. We wish to thank all government departments for their assistance in providing the data necessary to prepare this report. Credit also is due to the Mayor and the City Council for their continuing support for maintaining the highest standards of professionalism in the management of Gilroy’s finances and prioritizing the goal of financial sustainability.

Respectfully submitted,

Jimmy Forbis
City Administrator

V
City of Gilroy
Elected Officials & City Staff
As of Fiscal Year-End - June 30, 2021

ELECTED OFFICIALS
Marie Blankley Mayor
Fred Tovar Mayor Pro Tempore
Dion Bracco Council Member
Carol Marques Council Member
Peter Leroe-Muñoz Council Member
Rebeca Armendariz Council Member
Zach Hilton Council Member

CITY STAFF
Jimmy Forbis City Administrator
Andrew Faber City Attorney (Berliner Cohen, LLP)
LeeAnn McPhillips (Interim) City Clerk
LeeAnn McPhillips Administrative Services and Human Resources Director/Risk Manager Karen Garner Community Development Director
Harjot Sangha Finance Director
James Wyatt Fire Chief
Pedro Espinoza Police Chief
Daryl Jordan Public Works Director

ORGANIZATION CHART Gilroy CommunityCity CouncilCity AttorneyCity AdministratorCommunity DevelopmentPublic WorksAdministrative ServicesFinancePoliceFireCity Clerkvi

vii

viii

FINANCIAL

SECTION

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT

To the Honorable Mayor and the Members of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Gilroy, California

Report on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, the discretely presented component unit, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of City of Gilroy, California (the “City”) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2021, and the related notes to the basic financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents.

Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements

Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Auditors’ Responsibility

Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.

Opinions

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, the discretely presented component unit, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City, as of June 30, 2021, and the respective changes in financial position, and, where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 200 E. Sandpointe Ave., Suite 600, Santa Ana, California 92707 Tel: 949-777-8800 • Fax: 949-777-8850
www.pungroup.cpa
3939352 Pun & McGeady_L_final.pdf 2 1/14/14 3:48 PM

To the Honorable Mayor and the Members of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Gilroy, California

Page 2 ends

Gilroy City CouncilJanuary 10, 2022

Gilroy City Council
January 10, 2022