Agenda packet — Gilroy City Council, May 5, 2025 (part 2 of 4)

475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422
703.276.1100 • [email protected]

Page 15 ends

Appendix C – Rules & Regulations
Explanation of Applicable Rules and Regulations
The FCC has set forth guidelines in OET Bulletin 65 for human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Specific regulations regarding this topic are listed in Part 1, Subpart I, of Title 47 in the Code of Federal Regulations. Currently, there are two different levels of MPE - General Public MPE and Occupational MPE. An individual classified as Occupational can be defined as an individual who has received appropriate RF training and meets the conditions outlined below. General Public is defined as anyone who does not meet the conditions of being Occupational. FCC and OSHA Rules and Regulations define compliance in terms of total exposure to total RF energy, regardless of location of or proximity to the sources of energy.

It is the responsibility of all licensees to ensure these guidelines are maintained at all times. It is the ongoing responsibility of all licensees composing the site to maintain ongoing compliance with the FCC Rules and Regulations. Individual licensees that contribute less than 5% MPE to any total area out of compliance are not responsible for corrective actions.

OSHA has adopted and enforces the FCC’s exposure guidelines. A building owner or site manager can use this report as part of an overall RF Health and Safety Policy. It is important for building owners/site managers to identify areas in excess of the General Population MPE and ensure that only persons qualified as Occupational are granted access to those areas.

Occupational Environment Explained
The FCC definition of Occupational exposure limits apply to persons who:
• are exposed to RF energy as a consequence of their employment; • have been made aware of the possibility of exposure; and • can exercise control over their exposure.

OSHA guidelines go further to state that persons must complete RF Safety Awareness training and must be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment.

In order to consider this site an Occupational Environment, the site must be controlled to prevent access by any individuals classified as the General Public. Compliance is also maintained when any non-occupational individuals (the General Public) are prevented from accessing areas indicated as Red or Yellow in the attached RF exposure diagram. In addition, a person must be aware of the RF environment into which they are entering. This can be accomplished by an RF Safety Awareness class, and by appropriate written documentation such as this Site Compliance Report.

All T-Mobile employees who require access to this site must complete RF Safety Awareness training and must be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment.

Page 184 of 699 ends

475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422
703.276.1100 • [email protected]

Page 16 ends

Appendix D – General Safety Recommendations
The following are general recommendations appropriate for any site with accessible areas in excess of 100% General Public MPE. These recommendations are not specific to this site. These are safety recommendations appropriate for typical site management, building management, and other tenant operations.

1. All individuals needing access to the main site (or the area indicated to be in excess of General Public MPE) should wear a personal protective monitor (PPM), successfully complete proper RF Safety Awareness training, and have and be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment.

2. All individuals needing access to the main site should be instructed to read and obey all posted placards and signs.

3. The site should be routinely inspected and this or similar report updated with the addition of any antennas or upon any changes to the RF environment including:
• adding new antennas that may have been located on the site • removing of any existing antennas
• changes in the radiating power or number of RF emitters

4. Post the appropriate NOTICE, CAUTION, or WARNING sign at the main site access point(s) and other locations as required. Note: Please refer to RF Exposure Diagrams in Section 3.1 to inform everyone who has access to this site that beyond posted signs there may be levels in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. In addition to RF Advisory Signage, a RF Guideline Signage is recommended to be posted at the main site access point(s). The signs below are examples of signs meeting FCC guidelines.

5. Ensure that the site door remains locked (or appropriately controlled) to deny access to the general public if deemed as policy by the building/site owner.

6. For a General Public environment the five color levels identified in this analysis can be interpreted in the following manner:

Page 185 of 699 ends

475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422
703.276.1100 • [email protected]

Page 17 ends

• Gray represents areas predicted to be at 5% or less of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public can access these areas with no restrictions. • Green represents areas predicted to be between 5% and 100% of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public can access these areas with no restrictions.
• Blue represents areas predicted to be between 100% and 500% of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public should be restricted from accessing these areas.
• Yellow represents areas predicted to be between 500% and 5000% of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public should be restricted from accessing these areas.
• Red represents areas predicted to be greater than 5000% of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public should be restricted from accessing these areas.

7. For an Occupational environment the five color levels identified in this analysis can be interpreted in the following manner:
• Gray represents areas predicted to be at 1% or less of the Occupational MPE limits. Workers can access these areas with no restrictions. • Green represents areas predicted to be between 1% and 20% of the Occupational MPE limits. Workers can access these areas with no restrictions. • Blue represents areas predicted to be between 20% and 100% of the Occupational MPE limits. Workers can access these areas assuming they have basic understanding of EME awareness and RF safety procedures and understand how to limit their exposure.
• Yellow represents areas predicted to be between 100% and 1000% of the Occupational MPE limits. Workers can access these areas assuming they have basic understanding of EME awareness and RF safety procedures and understand how to limit their exposure. Transmitter power reduction and/or time-averaging may be required.
• Red represents areas predicted to be greater than 1000% of the Occupational MPE limits. These areas are not safe for workers to be in for prolonged periods of time. Special procedures must be adhered to, such as lockout/tagout or transmitter power reduction, to minimize worker exposure to EME.

8. Use of a Personal Protective Monitor (PPM): When working around antennas, Sitesafe strongly recommends the use of a PPM. Wearing a PPM will properly forewarn the individual prior to entering an RF exposure area.

Keep a copy of this report available for all persons who must access the site. They should read this report and be aware of the potential hazards with regards to RF and MPE limits.

Additional Information
Additional RF information is available at the following sites:
https://www.fcc.gov/general/radio-frequency-safety-0
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibilitydivision/radio-frequency-safety/faq/rf-safety OSHA has additional information available at:
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/index.html

Page 186 of 699 ends

475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422
703.276.1100 • [email protected]

Page 18 ends

Appendix E – Regulatory Basis
FCC Rules and Regulations
In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted regulations for evaluating the effects of RF exposure in 47 CFR § 1.1307 and 1.1310. The guideline from the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology is Bulletin 65 (“OET Bulletin 65”), Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, Edition 97-01, published August 1997. Since 1996 the FCC periodically reviews these rules and regulations as per their congressional mandate.

The FCC has reviewed these rules and regulations beginning in 2019 and have finalized their review in May 2021 with the US Court of Appeals.

FCC regulations define two separate tiers of exposure limits: Occupational or “Controlled environment” and General Public or “Uncontrolled environment”. The General Public limits are generally five times more conservative or restrictive than the Occupational limits. The General Public limits apply to accessible areas where workers or the general public may be exposed to Radio Frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields.

Occupational or Controlled limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and where those persons exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure.

An area is considered a Controlled environment when access is limited to these aware personnel. Typical criteria are restricted access (i.e. locked or alarmed doors, barriers, etc.) to the areas where antennas are located coupled with proper RF hazard signage. A site with Controlled environments is evaluated with Occupational limits.

All other areas are considered Uncontrolled environments. If a site has no access controls or no RF hazard signage it is evaluated with General Public limits.

The theoretical modeling of the RF electromagnetic fields has been performed in accordance with OET Bulletin 65. The Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits utilized in this analysis are outlined in the following diagram:

FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)
Plane-wave Equivalent Power Density

0.01 0.1
1 10
100
1000
0 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Frequency (MHz)
Power Density (mW/cm2
)
Occupational
General Public

Page 187 of 699 ends

475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422
703.276.1100 • [email protected]

Page 19 ends

Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure (MPE)
Frequency
Range
(MHz)
Electric
Field
Strength (E)
(V/m)
Magnetic
Field
Strength
(H) (A/m)
Power
Density (S)
(mW/cm2
)
Averaging Time |E|2,
|H|2 or S (minutes)

0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6

3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/f2)* 6
30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6
300-1500 -- -- f/300 6
1500-
100,000
-- -- 5 6
Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure (MPE) Frequency
Range
(MHz)
Electric
Field
Strength (E)
(V/m)
Magnetic
Field
Strength
(H) (A/m)
Power
Density (S)
(mW/cm2
)
Averaging Time |E|2,
|H|2 or S (minutes)

0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30

1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/f2)* 30
30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30
300-1500 -- -- f/1500 30
1500-
100,000
-- -- 1.0 30
f = frequency in MHz *Plane-wave equivalent power density

Page 188 of 699 ends

475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422
703.276.1100 • [email protected]

Page 20 ends

Appendix F – Safety Plan and Procedures
The following items are general safety recommendations that should be administered on a site by site basis as needed by the carrier.

General Maintenance Work: Any maintenance personnel required to work immediately in front of antennas and / or in areas indicated as above 100% of the Occupational MPE limits should coordinate with the wireless operators to disable transmitters during their work activities.

Training and Qualification Verification: All personnel accessing areas indicated as exceeding the General Population MPE limits should have a basic understanding of EME awareness and RF Safety procedures when working around transmitting antennas. Awareness training increases a worker’s understanding to potential RF exposure scenarios. Awareness can be achieved in a number of ways (e.g. videos, formal classroom lecture or internet-based courses).

Physical Access Control: Access restrictions to transmitting antennas locations is the primary element in a site safety plan. Examples of access restrictions are as follows:
• Locked door or gate
• Alarmed door
• Locked ladder access
• Restrictive Barrier at antenna (e.g. Chain link with posted RF Sign) RF Signage: Everyone should obey all posted signs at all times. RF signs play an important role in properly warning a worker prior to entering into a potential RF Exposure area.

Assume all antennas are active: Due to the nature of telecommunications transmissions, an antenna transmits intermittently. Always assume an antenna is transmitting. Never stop in front of an antenna. If you have to pass by an antenna, move through as quickly and safely as possible thereby reducing any exposure to a minimum.

Site RF Exposure Diagram(s): Section 3 of this report contains RF Diagram(s) that outline various theoretical Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) areas at the site. The modeling is a worst-case scenario assuming a duty cycle of 100% for each transmitting antenna at full power. This analysis is based on one of two access control criteria: General Public criteria means the access to the site is uncontrolled and anyone can gain access. Occupational criteria means the access is restricted and only properly trained individuals can gain access to the antenna locations.

Page 189 of 699 ends

wast, Wa
SF54025A
Coverage Plots HAO) br cD) co) ~ 3 BECO Cc id 8 oO =— <b) a+ O k-
=
1 | T-Mobile Confidential
SF54025A
Coverage Plots
401 1st Street
Gilroy, CA

Page 190 of 699 ends

ra eoree : - aa . ‘ : se
; rs thantelli. Drrwel Mare) ‘B
sjena Drive al
C ‘gameona MA a
ee a pee wet ; Maria Way =z,
Ros Kelley ls Carid Way Elementany, 5 2
a! Lawrence Orvg Arnold Driv:

Br Ways a
‘ose al Gary Street fi Shenwand Drive
Howard Mie, So 5 o FS on 5} re en Bnve. ; iS Bact <
ted ary, Horsch Way | 3
at UnAverue — : J < fereet ? ni drive = Hy a i Se ot at mi 3 f ; y Dive i = E Ta Paloma v4

2. = ¢ r co % Be Brcerrirot the : E
= a} CA 152
a .u i
aa Gavilan z
iS} D Hilis Memorial
3 Park = 2 = =s3 Count Marte Belo. Orie
s a
Ortega Ciné.

Raciénda Drive Beaatuan & : fd Streep Ys rd Street” 7 | # ey on Siete. Sw Seen? © Pane ae te sae Bel a Sy S en) Fh: eS ai ie lh La g = iE ng eae Tl tage Ie a Bo ty sem ee 2 ry 15 = al San Miguel Streets... Pa = a : ego and aa &. t | at ~ e i Byors Sue eT 2 " pet. Parga tive
Clark Way,
4G/5G: 4G_2100_CBSL_RSRP 0
{0 iac: -95dBm < RSRP Prediction
IBR: -100dBm < RSRP < -95dBm n hid 4 d SF54025A Coverage In-Vehicle: -108dBm «< RSRP < -100dBm With 60° HB Outdoor: -115d8m < RSRP < -108dBm

om Pierce Strect 4 \

{eo
IBC: -95dBm < RSRP
IBR: -100dBm < RSRP < -95dBm

South Valley.

Iii.

School:

Y Sanne we
Population
(Population)
22,895 19,437 2,393
In-Vehicle: -108dBm < RSRP < -100dBm 1,065
Outdoor: -115dBm < RSRP < -108dBm 0e=+00

- sorts: - 5 Sem
6 co 4 i. Mantel Drew
Siena Drive “ owe 4 ‘Bamona May. ou wane Bhs Marna Maety, Akeley Rou Keley a Caria Way Elementary 3
g Lawrence Oreve Pray a ernie cngeial al Gary Street
Hewes Mien, é = en Onve. "i Sia: Beil Foy Placa
tres Pay Hoesch Way
ur Avenue — —— pe WEIBUTO Aves

2. = ri drive = Bi z 2 = h c = A S :3 - De oF Ee 2 |€ oe Se ea 4a Bz!
s 5 a 2
jot | CA 152 a Se a, ,
o BE hills Memorial =
5 Park = Ly = bss Court Mante Bello Orive ve
Ortega Circle
Racienda Delve .
ms s 7 = ET O Street rect a 5 a 3rd Street é 3 ie GS Pam e es S ep) ion ae q Sage 2 a = 2 fi 3 San Miguel Strecs® s > ra eae
3 Aves a Byars SuecT oe Fd
Pe S Hersmiant Dy.
0 : 752" 400m =~ Clark Way,
. Tharw = = o "
tanec
Pierce Street \
cs 2 ae
Wren Avenue
anuony TAM
ita Theresa Dry
Miller Avenue
Sai
4G/5G: 4G_2100_CBSL_RSRP 1
I isc: -95dBm < RSRP
IBR: -100dBm < RSRP < -95dBm
|| In-Vehicle: -108dBm < RSRP < -100dBm
||

Outdoor: -115dBm < RSRP < -108dBm

South Iaigible Valley. School.

Gg & % 3 oe \.
“ eet 4 & a
4 4 s, 4 * & e f Xe
o z o
& ft & =
g ie "A Rak: oe Bos
oo & i ano a Old Gilroy Stree®. 4 2
Ks =z ® wee ES & no " 5 ace S
i @ wy Oa 5 an e ain nh A
SF54025A L2100 Coverage – 60’RC
SF54025A L2100 Coverage – WITHOUT THE SITE SF54025A L2100 Coverage – WITH THE SITE SF54025A SF54025A

Page 191 of 699 ends

ee, Sate J «io u : a5 ey evs ! we , cal thantelli. Drrwel Manreiy Fa i Siena Drive 2 . Ve —
e PamMon a ; uy a } Los! Audimels hans ¥ = ) we Maria Wty) * Pork Axel t osanertey | Carid Way, Elemerit@ns 5 1 eI 8 Lawrence Orv Arnold Drnat:

BT ila i ‘a 5 Gary Streot 2 Sherwaud Drive
Howecth Ave, 20 bo (~ ene Maced fea eur atrcta BCA Be i tfc Peary, Hoesch Way ! a “tS
uriAvenue.__ Welburn Ay, ?
ra = =] Betyists ni drive = % f = sald ‘ ; s 3 hi | & 4 i South Valley. Dive es Fi 5 ‘a Paloma Viet Rina i = 3 2 is a ¥ ak f = % x Schoo te it By por rote cs = Et cerrito a =
= =| CA 152 —i u iu i
aa Gavilan z 6 hills Memoria! cia 5 Park Span S e Fi *
as Court Marte Belo. Orie es tye %
Ortega Cirle & ee e s, Sari a e aie, ty ¥ % ae eka Bopleyect Ei rete Paes 2 anarreer 6 3rd Street | e =
€ ie ate = a ‘i a << = o Pn, 5) s te pel ey ret = 5 asetan ae 5 4 S Sere eer ” # mu my, SL ) S = J 3 wy Se ft = is} « s we Ab z Ss bn, 5 re & Bones 3 2 = q 4 ‘ y Ean Miguel Strect 2 = exe 4% Old Gilroy Street & Re, LP, Cage ere = = Gu & Ns 9 ny ed ES a ti ee 2 5. A Byars Suter \ % tt Auer mo Paes 4 ‘ = A . e a 4 aah 5 2 wok m 4 + om Hersman Dye, . . Peery alll SE : eet wee Ly # Ls " i eee a ihe wet 3 om, J ha eh m ) af Satay ps aes we

4G/5G: 4G_2100_CBSL_RSRP 0
{0 iac: -95dBm < RSRP
IBR: -100dBm < RSRP < -95dBm
|| In-Vehicle: -108dBm < RSRP < -100dBm
HB Outdoor: -115d8m < RSRP < -108dBm

ra S00 z == 4 “ a
oe Gass : e qe fe Si antelli Darvel Maney Gree Pie eS
Sena Drive 3 c
c. BamMona ; rain ON ms Los! Anirmeas = = \ ar * Maria Méay =, Park %,_Plerce Street \ . 4 ty eli a Rod Herey a Carls Way. cs Blementans | 5 x a> i Lawrence Dreve Arinid Deine
pan a | v . ans al Gary Street, a Shenguud Orie \ sts HOWE Ney 2m Et B= 2 Cove. =f a! Ou ate = 2. = i-Lie ‘| i inch Pry, Horsch Way 1 sk Se
urmAvenue fee atWelburn Aves.
4 | ic ee eee ni Drie 3 Es = ath ; ;
= nf ii y) = i ce a South Valley: nme 5 3 a Fy 3 La Faloma * S Wicidie.

C3 > i] tens i F 2 & Way, th rs a Sopra a. SHEP.
& 2
t = — ~) CA 152 = it iw a | =
a Gaylian a © hills Memoria! in 5 Park ce = F =
S a #33. Court Monte Bello. Orne ~ pes y =f
ee a Ortega Circle Sete ly 6 te “3. z Racienda Drive rif 4. e Std Streep me Diced Ft a streck Bena fe a = Std Street ts ot rn ® a ci a = 4 eat we| ft 7 © £ a 3 = = x6 & ~ 5 & act! ca S 3 & £5209 FR Ve cake ane oot Geate A 53 fos Lin Dae oe % | Z : oe ain é BS San. Miguel Straes £ = Pate Od Gilry Stree. 2 HS AS a | o & Ayer oy Byars Sue et Baa Pa : : ks: Sie 3 1 ies Hersmar Bring . 7 Perealll St ment en ee cs &
we | Gas % wes : ee on 72> 40H + ~=.- Clark Way eee g

Rare = . Laas = a g
4G/5G: 4G_2100_CBSL_RSRP 1
I isc: -95dBm < RSRP
IBR: -100dBm < RSRP < -95dBm
|| In-Vehicle: -108dBm < RSRP < -100dBm
||

Outdoor: -115dBm < RSRP < -108dBm
SF54025A L2100 Coverage – 46’RC
SF54025A L2100 Coverage – WITHOUT THE SITE SF54025A L2100 Coverage – WITH THE SITE SF54025A SF54025A

Page 192 of 699 ends

ee, Sate J «io u : a5
a Baas f ie _— = sf =! ; Si fantelll. Drivel Masti ee
sjena Drive 7 :
e eamena j Fae a 2 Los! Animes han ¥ = ; we Maria Wty) * Pork Axel t osanertey | Carid Way, Elementany| 3 2 2 g Lawrence Orv Arnold Drnat:

Br Ways a | cast al Gary Street, w! Shengand Drive
Howat Aue, é x 2 6 at en Bnve. eat: es Place m2)
omicte | ic irc Pay. Hoesch Way | fp =
umAvenue — 4 ; Hs 4 oF lees ‘aa! ni drive = % f 2 mee ‘ ; Srrs, a} = 2 fe South Valley: w Dime 5°08 ae ie 3 ta palgma Yale idle. a A <a Be F Schoo! | te it By por rote oO e Er oerrito % s t
a —| Ca 152 — i ic i
aa Gavilan z 6 Phillis Memoria! qh E Park Span S
: cs by : = ie
£53 Court Monte Bello. Orie
Ortega Cirle
RaCienda Drlye 2 2 a ele tes yea ota Streer “5 3rd Street | e To pis 2 sy 5 ‘ o be PaRe pag Fe = 5 s Sar a estas fe = S pt te 5 z 2 i iF = z San Miguel strece es £ = af eRe = a ae ti & Aue A Byars Sueet
Sey eas : A " otk "hd Hersman Oring a Parvalll S65

ebaet (Clark Way

4G/5G: 4G_2100_CBSL_RSRP 0
{0 iac: -95dBm < RSRP
IBR: -100dBm < RSRP
|| In-Vehicle: -108dBm <
HB Outdoor: -115d8m < RSRP < -108dBm
< -95dBm
RSRP < -100dBm

= ¢ 50th ca nl - ® es w so) . 4 oe ae "i us x \ , , = 5 Sy jantelli Drew Manejo ‘Bi vi Se CA 152, Es cjena Drive . nent Ramona May. s oes 5 & - \ inte) Los Animas Cpe eS ie 2 Aah 4 “I = a) ane + ¥ aEe : he? Maria Way ‘| Park Riek tre he a Par Carla Way 4 flementany 3 ‘ * & & a Lowrence Drve Arnold Drive:

Br Wy og i , ial al Gary Street a Shengand Drive =
Howard Avee, é p= z eS 2 en Onve, 2 FeovFleca * tz
c tf inet Pay, Horsch Way ] af atts
um Avenue ae, AM 7 Ca = eer ne ae nitive = i % 3 ae . 5 & oy Pr ra South Valley. a C3 rs : ar 2) a3 4 Ca Falara Hct Migdle ao mig = 2 et aes E 4 :
[a8 _| CA 152 = [7 ~ :
~~ Gavilan ts o B hills Memoria!
5 Park Fs ky = bss Count Monte Bello Grave irs
en
Ortega Cirle. =
acienda Drive
=, s = Std Streep ss cents fd Streer 4 3rd Street j o z te os 2 £ om gt oe a “eye & eet Oy 3 . i . \ casee ia 1 s oF ai EGoapr = ag e % xi z Gos rs = 5 ote Psy, sian FS cael 4 si Sek pa NM Miguelstrecs — = Ss aan a Old Gilroy Strees z tier? im | = . Ave a Byars Suter ‘ 13 ‘ be ve ion = a Ox | bet x 5 A tnt 2 pet ft ™% Hersiian Ores * e err. Hy Bett EM exe at . 5 tp 3 = on 7 = 400m "=~. at es Clark He Wa bd ' . Sa ore 4 2 or 9

4G/5G: 4G_2100_CBSL_RSRP 1
I isc: -95dBm < RSRP
IBR: -100dBm < RSRP < -95dBm
|| In-Vehicle: -108dBm < RSRP < -100dBm
||

Outdoor: -115dBm < RSRP < -108dBm
SF54025A L2100 Coverage – 32’RC
SF54025A L2100 Coverage – WITHOUT THE SITE SF54025A L2100 Coverage – WITH THE SITE SF54025A SF54025A

Page 193 of 699 ends

pt Montell Drive ea
aamona Way : Maria Way, 5 |
Red rly | (ne =) Carla Way. a es, . PA a =|
: L $0 Lieence Onve at o 2b See ERAN
i =: Wer, 2 OE ~
enDnve, © “e (tue “= mG HP eats os eb bat pet, Feaol 8 Nomen’ 3; GE

nine E : Ly . & soit y ay
Se Lee ee WOM SD? Ooh Eudes Hele Soom es Coal a3) nem arash = a

ries ’ Westra D
£33 Court anueny
ua
e E
eee = Paula Dre ’ : Ea | ~ Miller Ayer
is : “ Ean Miguel Street ie E :
ra 4 dp ee Ses. vig
on Se —H sman Drive" ;
fe pebagy oo 00m ren : = Clark Way.

= ae . Dak
4G/5G: 4G_2100_CBSL_RSRP 2
{0 tec: -95d8m < RSRP
IBR: -100dBm < RSRP < -95dBm
i | In-Vehicle: -108dBm < RSRP < -100dBm
| | Outdoor: -115dBm < RSRP < -108dBm
SF54025A L2100 Standalone Coverage – 32’RC
SF54025A L2100 Coverage – Standalone
SF54025A

Page 194 of 699 ends

4G/5G: 4G_2100_CBSL_RSRP 2
{0 tec: -95d8m < RSRP
IBR: -100dBm < RSRP < -95dBm
i | In-Vehicle: -108dBm < RSRP < -100dBm
| | Outdoor: -115dBm < RSRP < -108dBm
SF54025A L2100 Standalone Coverage – 46’RC
SF54025A L2100 Coverage – Standalone
SF54025A

Page 195 of 699 ends

see Gavilan

: it ni enon Pi

oe F ae ~ ane *
bale ‘ ed
cs
oer a
4G/5G: 4G_2100_CBSL_RSRP 2
{0 tec: -95d8m < RSRP
IBR: -100dBm < RSRP < -95dBm
i | In-Vehicle: -108dBm < RSRP < -100dBm | | Outdoor: -115dBm < RSRP < -108dBm SF54025A L2100 Standalone Coverage – 60’RC
SF54025A L2100 Coverage – Standalone
SF54025A

Page 196 of 699 ends

SF54025A L2100 - Population Count
Legend Pop
Without Site
Pop
at 60’RC
Pop
at 46’RC
Pop
at 32’Rc
Indoor Coverage 18,564 21,830 20,580 19,415
• The Proposed height 60 feet provides significantly more consistent coverage to central Gilroy in the vicinity of 1st street (Hwy 152). 32 feet antenna height shows a significant coverage hole in the residential neighborhood south of 1st Street bordered by Wren Ave to the West & Miller Ave to the East. This is clearly shown in slide 4.
• 3,266 Population gain with the addition of SF54025A at 60’ RC • 2,016 Population gain with the addition of SF54025A at 46’ RC • 851 Population gain with the addition of SF54025A at 32’ RC • At 32’ RC there is a reduction of 2,415 indoor pops covered in the city of Gilroy

Page 197 of 699 ends

9 Next Steps :
Explore TEK Systems model
Look at amendments post SLT approval

Page 198 of 699 ends

Community Development
Department
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-6197
Telephone: (408) 846-0451 Fax: (408) 846-0429
http://www.cityofgilroy.org
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director
Ariana Fabian, Planning Technician
DATE: March 13, 2025
SUBJECT: Planning Division Staff Approvals
In conformance with Gilroy Municipal Code Sections 30.50.20(b) and 30.50.46, the following table lists all Minor Deviation approvals and all Architectural and Site approval/denial actions taken by the Planning Division since the last report was provided to the Planning Commission at its February 20, 2025 meeting. i
APPROVED PROJECT # LOCATION PROJECT NAME & DESCRIPTION
None
DENIED PROJECT # LOCATION PROJECT NAME & DESCRIPTION
None
AS = Architectural and Site Review
VMD = Minor Deviation
The current status of other planning projects is available online at:
https://www.cityofgilroy.org/298/Development-Activity-Projects i Submitted in conformance with Gilroy Municipal Code Sections 30.50.20(b) and 30.50.46

Page 199 of 699 ends

Exhibit 2
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Exhibit 2
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Exhibit 2
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Exhibit 2
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

Page 200 of 699 ends

Page 1 of 4 ends

City of Gilroy
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
Thursday, March 13, 2025 | 6:00 PM

1. OPENING
Tonight’s meeting was called to order by Chair Bhandal at 6:00 PM.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Bhandal led the pledge of allegiance.

3. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL
The agenda was posted on Thursday, March 6, 2025, at 6:25 PM.

Attendance Attendee Name
Present Patricia Bentson, Commissioner
Stefanie Elle, Commissioner
Annedore Kushner, Commissioner
Adriana Leongardt, Commissioner
Brian Dauenhauer, Vice Chair
Manny Bhandal, Chair
Absent Monica Valdez, Commissioner

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chair Bhandal opened public comment for items not on the agenda.

There being no speakers, Chair Bhandal closed public comment for items not on the agenda.

5. CONSENT AGENDA

5.1. February 20, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes A motion was made by Chair Bhandal; seconded by Commissioner Bentson to approve the consent agenda.

RESULT: Pass [6 – 0]
MOVER: Chair Bhandal
SECONDER: Commissioner Bentson
AYES: Commissioner Bentson, Elle, Kushner, Leongardt, Vice Chair Dauenhauer, and Chair Bhandal
ABSENT: Commissioner Valdez

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS

6.1. Architectural and Site Review and Variance for removal of existing 35-foot monopole and installation of a 65-foot monopole and related equipment located at 401 First Street, Application No. AS 24-14 and V 24-01

Page 201 of 699 ends

March 13, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 4 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes

1. Staff Report: Vanessa Sanchez, Planner I

2. Public Hearing:

Chair Bhandal opened public comment.

3. Close Public Hearing:

There being no speakers, Chair Bhandal closed public comment.

4. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communication:

None.

5. Possible Action:

Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission:
a) Based on its independent analysis, determine this project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3); and
b) Adopt a resolution approving the Architectural and Site Review permit application AS 24-14; and
c) Adopt a resolution approving the Variance permit application V 24-01.

A motion was made by Vice Chair Dauenhauer; seconded by Chair Bhandal to:

Based on its independent analysis, determine this project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3).

RESULT: Pass [6 – 0]
MOVER: Commissioner Dauenhauer
SECONDER: Chair Bhandal
AYES: Commissioner Bentson, Elle, Kushner, Leongardt, Vice Chair Dauenhauer, and Chair Bhandal
ABSENT: Commissioner Valdez
A motion was made by Vice Chair Dauenhauer; seconded by Chair Bhandal to:

Adopt a resolution approving the Architectural and Site Review permit application AS 24-14.

RESULT: Fail [3 – 3]
MOVER: Commissioner Dauenhauer
SECONDER: Chair Bhandal
AYES: Commissioner Bentson, Vice Chair Dauenhauer, and Chair Bhandal

Page 202 of 699 ends

March 13, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 3 of 4 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
NAYS: Commissioner Elle, Kushner, and Leongardt
ABSENT: Commissioner Valdez
A motion was made by Chair Bhandal; seconded by Commissioner Bentson to:

Adopt a resolution approving the Variance permit application V 24-01.

RESULT: Fail [3 – 3]
MOVER: Chair Bhandal
SECONDER: Commissioner Bentson
AYES: Commissioner Bentson, Vice Chair Dauenhauer, and Chair Bhandal NAYS: Commissioner Elle, Kushner, and Leongardt
ABSENT: Commissioner Valdez
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the Planning Commission’s votes to approve AS 24-14 and V 24-01 were 3-3, the effect of which are denials, and the Planning Commission’s action was final, thus appealable to the City Council.

7. NEW BUSINESS

7.1. VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan Update – Presentation by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Lauren Ledbetter, a Senior Transportation Planner with Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and VTA’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager, provided the Commission with a presentation on VTA’s Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan updates and answered the Commissioners’ questions.

8. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

8.1. Civic Center Master Plan Community Workshops
Community Development Director, Sharon Goei, provided the Commission with information on the community workshops scheduled for the Civic Center Master Plan development.

8.2. Planning Division Staff Approvals
There were no staff approvals since the last report provided to the Planning Commission at its February 20, 2025 special meeting.

9. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT
Community Development Director, Sharon Goei, provided an informational flyer to the Commission with information pertaining to the district-based election workshops and public hearings scheduled.

Community Development Director Goei provided a friendly reminder to the Planning Commissioners to complete their Form 700 by April 1, 2025.

Commissioners Bentson and Elle shared that they attended the League of California Cities Planning Commissioners Academy and found it very informative.

Page 203 of 699 ends

March 13, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 4 of 4 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes

10. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
None.

11. ADJOURNMENT To the Next Meeting of April 3, 2025 at 6:00 PM Chair Bhandal adjourned the meeting at 7:34 PM.

Ariana Fabian, Planning Technician

Page 204 of 699 ends

Exhibit 3
Notice of Final Action Cover Letter
Exhibit 3
Notice of Final Action Cover Letter
Exhibit 3
Notice of Final Action Cover Letter
Exhibit 3
Notice of Final Action Cover Letter

Page 205 of 699 ends

Community Development
Department
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-6197
Telephone: (408) 846-0451 Fax: (408) 846-0429
http://www.cityofgilroy.org
Sharon Goei

DIRECTOR
March 14, 2025
Revised: March 19, 2025
Lisa Elliott
Streamline Engineering
17180 Sycamore Avenue
Patterson, CA 95363
Subject: Notice of Final Action
AS 24-14 and V 24-01 Located at 401 First Street
Ms. Elliott:

On March 13, 2025, the Planning Commission considered your application for the abovereferenced requests. The Planning Commission’s votes to approve AS 24-14 and V 24- 01 were 3-3, the effect of which are denials. No resolution was adopted. You will receive the meeting minutes at a later date.

Note that the action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Council no later than twenty (20) days after the decision date. The appeal period for this project ends on April 2, 2025. If needed, appeal forms may be obtained from the City Clerk and must be submitted with the appropriate fees before the end of the appeal period.

Please call or email me at (408) 846-0252 or [email protected], if you have any questions regarding this letter.

Sincerely,
Vanessa Sanchez
Planner I

Page 206 of 699 ends

Page 207 of 699 ends

Page 208 of 699 ends

Page 209 of 699 ends

Page 210 of 699 ends

Page 211 of 699 ends

Page 212 of 699 ends

VICINITY MAP

SHEET INDEX

PROJECT DESCRIPTION CODE COMPLIANCE

SHEET DESCRIPTION REV

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO:
-
880511
01/10/24 CD 90%
Issued For:
880511

GOLDEN HILLS

POTTERY
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS

C
8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
SEAD
N. GEORGE
-
401 FIRST STREET
GILROY, CA 95020
- CAD
1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500
CONCORD, CA 94520

PREPARED FOR
R
1 02/27/24 CLIENT REV D.H.
2 10/02/24 PLANNING COMMS T.T.

DRIVING DIRECTIONS

PROJECT INFORMATION
SCALE: N/A
TN

SITE LOCATION

GOLDEN HILLS POTTERY
401 FIRST STREET, GILROY, CA 95020
BUN 880511
401 FIRST STREET
SF54025A
R

T-MOBILE WEST LLC

PROJECT - CELL TOWER REPLACEMENT

GOLDEN HILLS POTTERY
& T-MOBILE EQUIPMENT UPGRADE
T-1.1

TITLE SHEET
GILROY, CA 95020
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·

Page 213 of 699 ends

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO:
-
880511
01/10/24 CD 90%
Issued For:
880511

GOLDEN HILLS

POTTERY
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

PREPARED FOR
R
1 02/27/24 CLIENT REV D.H.
2 10/02/24 PLANNING COMMS T.T.

T-1.2
NOTES

Page 214 of 699 ends

LEGEND

Additional Land
Building
Asphalt Pavement
Contour - Major Contour - Minor
Easement
Guiderail
Jurisdiction Line
Property Line
Property Tie
Right of Way
Setback
Treeline
Wetland
Railroad Tracks
Centerline
Road Centerline
Stream
Stream (Directional)
Ditch
Channel
Fence
Cable TV
Cable Underground
Combined Sewer
Cable TV & Elec
Cable, Elec, & TV
Electric
Electric Underground
Fiber
Fiber Underground
Gas
Sewer
Storm
Telephone
Telephone Underground
Unknown Utility
Water
Topo - High Point
Topo - Low Point
Breakline
Match line
Property Tie

IP / Rebar Monu
IP / Rebar
Monu- Found
Cased Monu
Cased Monu - Found
Traverse Point
Survey Point
Gravel
Dirt
Concrete
Retaining Wall
Stairs
Door / Gate
Double
Door / Gate
Gate - Sliding
Signs
Mailbox
Column
Utility Pole
Guyed Pole
Pole
Bollard
Fire Hydrant
Flag Pole
Shrub
Tree - Palm
Tree - Conferous
Tree - Deciduous
Metal Platform
Fuel Tanks
Traffic Signal Controller

Transformer
Transformer Pad
Catch Basin
Inlet
Culvert

880911

GOLDEN HILL POTTERY
401 FIRST STREET
GILROY, CA 95020

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

VICINITY MAP

NTS
Utility Vault

Manhole
Handhole
Pull box
Pedestal
Riser
Meter
Valve
Cleanout
Junction Box
Pump Station
Utility Box
Controller
HVAC
Generator

ing
|
mee coe
eu

AS-BUILT SURVEY
SURVEY PERFORMED FOR:

CROWN CASTLE
1500 Corporate Drive

Canonsburg, PA 15317
SURVEY COORDINATED BY:

GEOLINE SURVEYING, INC.
13430 NW 10th Terrace, Suite A, Alachua, FL 32615

Tele: (386) 418-0500 | Fax: (386) 462-9986
SURVEY PERFORMED BY:

SMITHCO SURVEYING ENGINEERING
2005 AIRPORT DRIVE, BAKERSFIELD, NV93308

Tele: (661) 393-1217 | Fax: (661) 393-1218

DRAWN BY: GB | CHK BY: DA | JOB NO.: 71-1191

SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION:
| hereby certify to Global Signal Acquistions II LLC, Crown Castle USA Inc., including its parents, subsidiaries and affiliated entities, and [Title Company To Be Determined].

SURVEYOR NAME: D’ARTAGNAN ALBA

DATE & SIGNATURE

LEASE AREA ZONING:

C—1: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL

SHEET INDEX
SHEET NAME | TITLE
v-01 COVER SHEET V—-02 PROPERTY OVERVIEW V-—03 SITE BOUNDARY V—-04 SITE DETAIL

V-—05 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
LEASE AREA FLOOD NOTE:

THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOOD RATE MAP FOR COMMUNITY NO. 060340, PANEL NO. O639H, DATED MAY 18, 2009 SHOWS THAT AREAS ARE OF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD; AREAS OF 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WITH AVERAGE DEPTHS OF LESS THAN 1 FOOT OR WITH DRAINAGE AREAS LESS THAN 1 SQUARE MILE; AND AREAS PROTECTED

BY LEVEES FROM 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD.

BASIS OF NORTH:

ALL BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE GRID BEARINGS BASED

ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 ZONE 3.

NOTES:

1. SURVEY PERFORMED ON 12/11/23. 2. HORIZONTAL DATA PROJECTED IN CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (CCS83) ZONE 3(INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OIL & GAS PRODUCER’S EPSG CODE:3421) ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERITCAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88).

3. THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES (IF ANY) THAT APPEAR ON
THIS MAP HAVE BEEN LOCATED AND MARKED ON THE SURFACE BY AN INDEPENDENT PRIVATE UNDERGROUND LOCATING SERVICE. THESE MARKINGS HAVE BEEN SURVEYED AND SHOWN HEREON.

4. ALL VISIBLE TOWER EQUIPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS ARE
CONTAINED WITHIN THE DESCRIBED AREA.

5. NOT ALL SYMBOLS ARE DEPCITED TO SCALE. 6. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT REPRESENT A BOUNDARY

SURVEY OF THE PARENT PARCEL.

REV| DATE DESCRIPTION DRWN
OO [12/14/23 | PRELIMINARY GB O2 03

O04

SITE INFORMATION:

r 4
yt
z or SURVEY PROCEDURES & EQUIPMENT
- The Accuracy Of This Survey Meets Or Exceeds The Minimum 4 Standards As Required By [NVRequirements For Boundary Surveys]. a Instruments Used:
" N - SPECTRA PRECISION SP80 W/ SMARTNET VIRTUAL NETWORK - TOPCON TOTAL STATION GPT-3005
q i
a

AREA SUMMARY COORDINATES
AREA SQ. FT. ACRES LABEL LAT, LONG PARENT PARCEL +XX,XX +X.XXX FD. MON. 37° 00° 51.41", —121° 34° 39.19" TOWER LEASE AREA +275 +0.006 FD. MON. 37° 00 42.19", -121° 34’ 35.01” ACCESS & UTILITY EASEMENT +X XXX +X.XXX For internal use. UTILITY EASEMENT + X,XXX +X.XXX

Name GOLDEN HILL POTTERY

BUN 880511 Address | 401 FIRST STREET

GILROY, CA 95020
County | SANTA CLARA COUNTY

SITE LOCATED IN:

NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4, SEC. 11, T 20S, R61E,M.D.B. & M.

Page 215 of 699 ends

PROPERTY INFORMATION PARENT PARCEL
(1) HENRY R. AND MARY ANN ROSSI
APN: 790-32-004
ADDRESS: 401 1ST STREET
GILROY, CA 95020

ADJACENT PARCELS
(2) CORDOBA SHOPPING CENTER LLC
APN: 790-32-005
(3) HUYNH LOAN
APN: 790-32-042

BUILDING
Z

BUILDING OVER HANG
O

GRAPHIC SCALE
\
4Q
£103?

DRIVEWAY
Y

SURVEY PERFORMED FOR:
~*~ CROWN
) —, CASTLE Wy
i
gmat
i (
1500 Corporate Drive

Canonsburg, PA 15317
SURVEY COORDINATED BY:

GEOLINE SURVEYING, INC.
13430 NW 10th Terrace, Suite A, Alachua, FL 32615

Tele: (386) 418-0500 | Fax: (386) 462-9986
SURVEY PERFORMED BY:

SMITHCO SURVEYING ENGINEERING
2005 AIRPORT DRIVE, BAKERSFIELD, NV93308

Tele: (661) 393-1217 | Fax: (661) 393-1218

DRAWN BY: GB | CHK BY: DA | JOB NO.: 71-1191
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION:
| hereby certify to Global Signal Acquistions I] LLC, Crown Castle USA Inc., including its parents, subsidiaries and affiliated entities, and [Title Company To Be Determined].

SURVEYOR NAME: D’ARTAGNAN ALBA

DATE & SIGNATURE
LEASE AREA ZONING:

C—1: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
LEASE AREA FLOOD NOTE:

THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOOD RATE MAP FOR COMMUNITY NO. 060340, PANEL NO. 0639H, DATED MAY 18, 2009 SHOWS THAT AREAS ARE OF 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD; AREAS OF 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WITH AVERAGE DEPTHS OF LESS THAN 1 FOOT OR WITH DRAINAGE AREAS LESS THAN 1 SQUARE MILE; AND AREAS PROTECTED

BY LEVEES FROM 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD.

BASIS OF NORTH:

ALL BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE GRID BEARINGS BASED

ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 ZONE 3.

NOTES:

4. ALL VISIBLE TOWER EQUIPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS ARE
CONTAINED WITHIN THE DESCRIBED AREA.

5. NOT ALL SYMBOLS ARE DEPCITED TO SCALE. 6. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT REPRESENT A BOUNDARY

SURVEY OF THE PARENT PARCEL.

REV} DATE DESCRIPTION DRWN
00 |12/14/23 | PRELIMINARY GB O02 03

04 SITE INFORMATION:

Name |GOLDEN HILL POTTERY

BUN 880511
Address | 401 FIRST STREET

GILROY, CA 95020

County | SANTA CLARA COUNTY

777
SITE LOCATED IN:

NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4, SEC. 11, T 20S, R61 E,M.D.B. & M.

Page 216 of 699 ends

|
GRAPHIC SCALE —
\ OLD PROPERTY LINE
\ OLD PROPERTY LINE
Vr o
AB ee — VE
wire \3,
= — mn . a 42.
oa , a ayad®
i" WYP AREA \3, °
Zz git
al Torr (q19 of) -
=\ -— P.0.B.-11'X25'
7 _ “Se TOWER LEASE AREA
co} =—~ si\
\ OLD PROPERTY LINE
\ OLD PROPERTY LINE
SURVEY PERFORMED FOR:

CROWN CASTLE
1500 Corporate Drive

Canonsburg, PA 15317
SURVEY COORDINATED BY:

GEOLINE SURVEYING, INC.
13430 NW 10th Terrace, Suite A, Alachua, FL 32615

Tele: (386) 418-0500 | Fax: (386) 462-9986
SURVEY PERFORMED BY:

SMITHCO SURVEYING ENGINEERING
2005 AIRPORT DRIVE, BAKERSFIELD, NV93308

Tele: (661) 393-1217 | Fax: (661) 393-1218

SURVEYOR NAME: D’ARTAGNAN ALBA

DATE & SIGNATURE
LEASE AREA ZONING:

C—1: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
LEASE AREA FLOOD NOTE:

BY LEVEES FROM 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD.

BASIS OF NORTH:

ALL BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE GRID BEARINGS BASED

ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 ZONE 3. NOTES:

4. ALL VISIBLE TOWER EQUIPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS ARE
CONTAINED WITHIN THE DESCRIBED AREA.

5. NOT ALL SYMBOLS ARE DEPCITED TO SCALE. 6. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT REPRESENT A BOUNDARY

SURVEY OF THE PARENT PARCEL.

REV} DATE DESCRIPTION DRWN
OO }12/14/23 | PRELIMINARY GB Q2 03

04 SITE INFORMATION:

Name |GOLDEN HILL POTTERY

BUN 880511
Address | 401 FIRST STREET

GILROY, CA 95020
County | SANTA CLARA COUNTY

SITE LOCATED IN:

NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4, SEC. 11, T 20S, R61£E,M.D.B. & M.

Page 217 of 699 ends

TRASH ENCLOSURE
|
OLD
12° TREE (32° TALL)
PROPERTY LINE \ PARKING
GRAPHIC SCALE —
Y
OLD,PROPERTY LINE \

OLD PROPERTY LINE

30.7’ TALL

MONOPOLE

6’ @ GUARD POST (TYP)
6’ TALL WOODEN FENCE
,
rey
_ 44.8" WIDE GATE“

ELEC EQUIP
ON H—-FRAME
Nv
$

UNDERGROUND

ELEC UTILITY (UG/E)
key g
V—GUTTER —-
. OS
a x — . S
key ¢
DOWN YU ie

DOWN GU
12°¢- TREK (30.1’ TAL
14” $ TREE
(34.6’ TALL)

ELEC EQUIP

ALONG BUILDILNG
a DRAIN INLET
W
=
8)
DRIVEWAY =A
eA
=\
SURVEY PERFORMED FOR:
’
\ }
(> CROWN
, CASTLE
AN
qisttlityy
iN
1500 Corporate Drive

Canonsburg, PA 15317
SURVEY COORDINATED BY:

GEOLINE SURVEYING, INC.
13430 NW 10th Terrace, Suite A, Alachua, FL 32615

Tele: (386) 418-0500 | Fax: (386) 462-9986
SURVEY PERFORMED BY:

SMITHCO SURVEYING ENGINEERING
2005 AIRPORT DRIVE, BAKERSFIELD, NV93308

Tele: (661) 393-1217 | Fax: (661) 393-1218

SURVEYOR NAME: D’ARTAGNAN ALBA

DATE & SIGNATURE
LEASE AREA ZONING:

C—1: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
LEASE AREA FLOOD NOTE:

BY LEVEES FROM 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD.

BASIS OF NORTH:

ALL BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE GRID BEARINGS BASED

ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 ZONE 3. NOTES:

4. ALL VISIBLE TOWER EQUIPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS ARE
CONTAINED WITHIN THE DESCRIBED AREA.

5. NOT ALL SYMBOLS ARE DEPCITED TO SCALE. 6. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT REPRESENT A BOUNDARY

SURVEY OF THE PARENT PARCEL.

REV} DATE DESCRIPTION DRWN
OO }12/14/23 | PRELIMINARY GB Q2 03

04 SITE INFORMATION:

Name |GOLDEN HILL POTTERY

BUN 880511 Address | 401 FIRST STREET

GILROY, CA 95020

County | SANTA CLARA COUNTY
SITE LOCATED IN:

NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4, SEC. 11, T 20S, R61£E,M.D.B. & M.

Page 218 of 699 ends

PARENT PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PER GRANT DEED, RECORDED XXXX DOCUMENT NO. XXXX, OFFICIAL RECORDS:

XXXX

ADDITIONAL LEASE AREA PREPARED BY THIS OFFICE XXX

TOWER LEASE AREA

PREPARED BY THIS OFFICE XXX
SURVEY PERFORMED FOR:

CROWN CASTLE
1500 Corporate Drive

Canonsburg, PA 15317
SURVEY COORDINATED BY:

GEOLINE SURVEYING, INC.
13430 NW 10th Terrace, Suite A, Alachua, FL 32615

Tele: (386) 418-0500 | Fax: (386) 462-9986
SURVEY PERFORMED BY:

SMITHCO SURVEYING ENGINEERING
2005 AIRPORT DRIVE, BAKERSFIELD, NV93308

Tele: (661) 393-1217 | Fax: (661) 393-1218

SURVEYOR NAME: D’ARTAGNAN ALBA

DATE & SIGNATURE
LEASE AREA ZONING:

C—1: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
LEASE AREA FLOOD NOTE:

BY LEVEES FROM 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD.

BASIS OF NORTH:

ALL BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE GRID BEARINGS BASED

ON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 ZONE 3. NOTES:

4. ALL VISIBLE TOWER EQUIPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS ARE
CONTAINED WITHIN THE DESCRIBED AREA.

5. NOT ALL SYMBOLS ARE DEPCITED TO SCALE. 6. THIS SURVEY DOES NOT REPRESENT A BOUNDARY

SURVEY OF THE PARENT PARCEL.

REV| DATE DESCRIPTION DRWN
00 [12/14/23 | PRELIMINARY GB Q2 03

04 SITE INFORMATION:

Name GOLDEN HILL POTTERY

BUN 880511
Address | 401 FIRST STREET

GILROY, CA 95020
County | SANTA CLARA COUNTY

SITE LOCATED IN:

NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4, SEC. 11, T 20S, R61 E, M.D.B. & M.

Page 219 of 699 ends

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO: -
880511
01/10/24 CD 90%
Issued For:
880511

GOLDEN HILLS
POTTERY 0
APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

C
8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
SEAD
N. GEORGE -
401 FIRST STREET
GILROY, CA 95020 - CAD
1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500
CONCORD, CA 94520

PREPARED FOR
R 1 02/27/24 CLIENT REV D.H. 2 10/02/24 PLANNING COMMS T.T.

A-1.1

OVERALL SITE
PLAN
TN

Page 220 of 699 ends

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO: -
880511
01/10/24 CD 90%
Issued For:
880511

GOLDEN HILLS
POTTERY 0
APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

C
8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
SEAD
N. GEORGE -
401 FIRST STREET
GILROY, CA 95020 - CAD
1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500
CONCORD, CA 94520

PREPARED FOR
R 1 02/27/24 CLIENT REV D.H. 2 10/02/24 PLANNING COMMS T.T.

TN
A-1.2

EQUIPMENT PLAN

Page 221 of 699 ends

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO: -
880511
01/10/24 CD 90%
Issued For:
880511

GOLDEN HILLS
POTTERY 0
APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

C
8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
SEAD
N. GEORGE -
401 FIRST STREET
GILROY, CA 95020 - CAD
1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500
CONCORD, CA 94520

PREPARED FOR
R 1 02/27/24 CLIENT REV D.H. 2 10/02/24 PLANNING COMMS T.T.

A-2.1

ANTENNA PLAN
TN

Page 222 of 699 ends

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO:
-
880511
01/10/24 CD 90%
Issued For:
880511

GOLDEN HILLS

POTTERY
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

PREPARED FOR
R
1 02/27/24 CLIENT REV D.H.
2 10/02/24 PLANNING COMMS T.T.

A-3.1

ELEVATIONS

Page 223 of 699 ends

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO:
-
880511
01/10/24 CD 90%
Issued For:
880511

GOLDEN HILLS

POTTERY
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

PREPARED FOR
R
1 02/27/24 CLIENT REV D.H.
2 10/02/24 PLANNING COMMS T.T.

A-4.1

DETAILS

Page 224 of 699 ends

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO:
-
880511
01/10/24 CD 90%
Issued For:
880511

GOLDEN HILLS

POTTERY
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

PREPARED FOR
R
1 02/27/24 CLIENT REV D.H.
2 10/02/24 PLANNING COMMS T.T.

A-5.1

CABINET

SPECIFICATIONS

Page 225 of 699 ends

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO:
-
880511
01/10/24 CD 90%
Issued For:
880511

GOLDEN HILLS

POTTERY
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

PREPARED FOR
R
1 02/27/24 CLIENT REV D.H.
2 10/02/24 PLANNING COMMS T.T.

S-1.1

STRUCTURAL

DETAILS

Page 226 of 699 ends

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO:
-
880511
01/10/24 CD 90%
Issued For:
880511

GOLDEN HILLS

POTTERY
0 APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

PREPARED FOR
R
1 02/27/24 CLIENT REV D.H.
2 10/02/24 PLANNING COMMS T.T.

E-1.1

ELECTRICAL PLAN

Page 227 of 699 ends

REV DATE DESCRIPTION
SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NUMBER:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,

UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE

DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.

Vendor:

Licensee:

ENGINEER:

SITE NO: -
880511
01/10/24 CD 90%
Issued For:
880511

GOLDEN HILLS
POTTERY 0
APPROVED BY:

ISSUE STATUS

C
8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746 Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930
E-Mail: [email protected] Fax: 916-660-1941
SEAD
N. GEORGE -
401 FIRST STREET
GILROY, CA 95020 - CAD
1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500
CONCORD, CA 94520

PREPARED FOR
R 1 02/27/24 CLIENT REV D.H. 2 10/02/24 PLANNING COMMS T.T.

E-1.2

GROUNDING PLAN
& DETAILS
TN

Page 228 of 699 ends

401 First Street Gilroy CA 95020
880511
Golden Hills Property
Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant.

Proposed Looking northwest from First Street
View 1
Existing
proposed replacement monopole
©2024 Google Maps

Page 229 of 699 ends

Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant.

Proposed Looking northeast from First Street
View 2
Existing
proposed replacement monopole
401 First Street Gilroy CA 95020
880511
Golden Hills Property
©2024 Google Maps

Page 230 of 699 ends

Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant.

Proposed Looking southwest from Hanna Street
View 3
Existing
proposed replacement monopole
401 First Street Gilroy CA 95020
880511
Golden Hills Property
©2024 Google Maps

Page 231 of 699 ends

Property Detail Report
For Property Located At :
401 1ST ST, GILROY, CA 95020-5030
Owner Information
Owner Name: ROSSI HENRY R (TE)/ROSSI MARY A (TE)
Mailing Address: 926 ALTA OAK WAY, GILROY CA 95020-3447 C016 Vesting Codes: UM / / TE
Location Information
Legal Description:

County: SANTA CLARA, CA APN: 790-32-004
Census Tract / Block: 5125.13 / 1 Alternate APN:

Township-Range-Sect: Subdivision: LOUPE
Legal Book/Page: Map Reference: 83-E1 /
Legal Lot: 14-18 Tract #:

Legal Block: 6 School District: GILROY
Market Area: 1 School District Name: GILROY
Neighbor Code: Munic/Township: GILROY CITY
Owner Transfer Information
Recording/Sale Date: 10/26/2016 / 09/25/2016 Deed Type: TRUSTEE'S DEED(TRANSFER) Sale Price: 1st Mtg Document #:

Document #: 23477825
Last Market Sale Information
Recording/Sale Date: 04/16/1976 / 1st Mtg Amount/Type: / Sale Price: $64,000 1st Mtg Int. Rate/Type: /
Sale Type: FULL 1st Mtg Document #:

Document #: 5266001 2nd Mtg Amount/Type: /
Deed Type: DEED (REG) 2nd Mtg Int. Rate/Type: /
Transfer Document #: Price Per SqFt: $35.36
New Construction: Multi/Split Sale:

Title Company:

Lender:

Seller Name:

Prior Sale Information
Prior Rec/Sale Date: / Prior Lender:

Prior Sale Price: Prior 1st Mtg Amt/Type: /
Prior Doc Number: Prior 1st Mtg Rate/Type: /
Prior Deed Type:

Property Characteristics
Year Built / Eff: 1947 / 1947 Total Rooms/Offices Garage Area:

Gross Area: 1,810 Total Restrooms: Garage Capacity:

Building Area: 1,810 Roof Type: Parking Spaces:

Tot Adj Area: Roof Material: Heat Type:

Above Grade: Construction: WOOD Air Cond: NONE
# of Stories: 1 Foundation: Pool:

Other Improvements: Exterior wall: Quality: AVERAGE
Basement Area: Condition: AVERAGE
Site Information
Zoning: C1 Acres: 0.31 County Use: BUSINESS (DRIVE-IN) (58) Lot Area: 13,504 Lot Width/Depth: 95 x 100 State Use:

Land Use: COMMERCIAL

BUILDING
Res/Comm Units: / Water Type:

Site Influence: Sewer Type:
4/1/25, 8:27 AM RealQuest.com ® - Report
https://pro.realquest.com/jsp/report.jsp?&action=confirm&type=getreport&recordno=0&reportoptions=0&1743521245520&1743521253493 1/2

Page 232 of 699 ends

Tax Information
Total Value: $297,985 Assessed Year: 2024 Property Tax: $3,905.64 Land Value: $114,586 Improved %: 62% Tax Area: 02000
Improvement Value: $183,399 Tax Year: 2024 Tax Exemption:

Total Taxable Value: $297,985
4/1/25, 8:27 AM RealQuest.com ® - Report
https://pro.realquest.com/jsp/report.jsp?&action=confirm&type=getreport&recordno=0&reportoptions=0&1743521245520&1743521253493 2/2

Page 233 of 699 ends

Page 234 of 699 ends

Page 235 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy Page 1 of 3 5/4/2011

PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE
(To be completed by Applicant)
This document is required as part of the application submittal package and will assist in evaluating the proposed project and its potential environmental impacts. Complete and accurate information will facilitate the environmental assessment and review, and will minimize future requests for additional information. Please contact the Planning Division, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020 (408) 846-0440 if there are any questions concerning environmental issues or zoning.

APPLICANT’S STATEMENT OF INTENT (DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED PROJECT):
______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

PROJECT SITE INFORMATION
Property Address or Location:_____________________________________________________ Property Assessor’s Parcel Number:_________________ Property Dimensions:_____________ Property Area: Square Footage:_____________________ Acreage:_______________________ Site Land Use: Undeveloped/Vacant Developed
Existing Zoning of Project Site:_____________Proposed Zoning (If Applicable):____________ Describe adjacent land uses within 300 feet of the project site:

North:________________________________________________________________________ South:________________________________________________________________________ East:_________________________________________________________________________ West:_________________________________________________________________________ Describe the existing use of the site:_________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Is the site designated as a historical site?___________ Are any structures to be moved or demolished?_________If yes, indicate the age, condition, size and architectural style of the structures?_____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ (Include photos) City of Gilroy
Planning Division
7351 Rosanna St.

Gilroy, CA 95020
(408) 846-0440
Remove and replace existing old 32ft pole with new 65 ft pole and related equipment. 401 FIRST ST
70932004 11X25
275 SQ FT

NO CHANGE

THIS IS AN UNMANNED CELL SITE

SEE VICINITY MAP AND SIMS
NO
NO

Page 236 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy Page 2 of 3 5/4/2011

PROPOSED PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
(As applicable to proposal)
Size of new structure(s) or building addition(s) in gross square feet:_______________________ Building height in feet (measured from ground to highest point:__________________________ Project site coverage: Building coverage:__________________ Square Feet _____________% Landscaped area:____________________ Square Feet _____________% Paves surface area:__________________ Square Feet _____________% Total: _______________ Square Feet 100%
Total number of off-street parking spaces provided:____________ Handicap stalls:___________ (If not on the project site, attach a copy of a recorded Reciprocal Parking Agreement) Exterior building materials:_______________________________________________________ Exterior building colors:__________________________________________________________ Roof materials:_________________________________________________________________ Building construction type and fire rating:____________________________________________ If the proposal is a component of an overall larger project, describe the phases, proposed timelines for each phase and show them on the site plan:________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING, INSTITUTIONAL USES ONLY (As applicable to proposal)
Type of use(s) (Indicate if the project is for a specific use or tenant):_______________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Expected customer base: Regional__________ Citywide__________ Neighborhood__________ Days and hours of operation:______________________________________________________ Total occupancy/capacity of building(s):_____________________________________________ Total number of employees:__________ Anticipated number of employees per shift:__________ If restaurant/food facility, provide total dining area seating:__________ Fixed seating:________ Square footage of: Office area__________ Warehouse area__________ Sales area___________ Storage area__________ Loading area__________ Manufacturing area__________ Total visitors/customers on site at any one time:__________ Other occupants:_______________ Will the proposed use involve any hazardous materials or waste (explain):__________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ List any permits or approvals required for the project by state or federal agencies:____________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Project Impacts:

Describe the extent to which the project will result in an increase in any dust, ash, smoke, fumes, odors, or other emissions:_________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Describe the extent to which the project will involve, or result in, increased noise levels to surrounding properties:___________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 65 FT POLE
NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

Page 237 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy Page 3 of 3 5/4/2011

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Is the site within 100 feet of a watercourse or water body?_______________________________ Will the project change water body or ground water quality or quantity, or alter existing drainage patterns?________ If yes, explain:__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Is the project located within a 100-year flood plain?____________________________________ Are there any trees, bushes or shrubs on the site?__________ Are any to be removed as a result of this project?_________ If yes, explain_____________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ (Show all existing structures, trees, water bodies, flood plain locations and drainage patterns on site plans) Is the site currently under Williamson Act Contract?__________ If so, describe the agricultural uses on the property within the last 3 years:___________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

CERTIFICATION
Note: If the project site is on or near a historical site, archaeological site, landfill site, river, floodplain, freeway, or railroad, then specific technical studies may be required. Applicants are encouraged to contact the Planning Division at the earliest possible opportunity to determine the possible need and scope of such studies.

I understand that mitigation measures may be required as a condition of project approval in order to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to reduce identified potential environmental impacts to less than significant levels. These mitigations may include, but may not necessarily be limited to, changes in the project, off-site improvements or both.

As the Applicant/Agent for this proposal, I hereby state that, to the best of my knowledge the above answers and statements are true and complete.
_________________________________________ __________________ Signature of Applicant/Agent Date
______________________________________________________________________________ Contact Address
______________________________________
Email Address
NO
NO
NO
NO

LISA ELLIOTT
121124
17180 SYCAMORE AVE PATTERSON CA 95363
[email protected]

Page 238 of 699 ends

p 0 Lotter of Authoricatl

CITY OF GILROY, CA
7351 ROSANNA ST.

GILROY, CA 95020-6141
Re: Zoning/ Permitting — Plan / Design Review Process
I hereby represent that I am the legal owner of the property referenced below, and I hereby give my authorization to CROWN CASTLE TDC and/or its Agent(s), to act as our Agent(s) in processing and obtaining approval for Building and/or Zoning permits through the CITY OF GILROY, CA for the modification of the facility located at the existing wireless communications site described as:

Crown Site ID: 880511/GOLDEN HILL POTTERY
Site Address: 401 First Street, Gilroy, CA 95020
APN: 790-32-004
Property Owner: ROSSI, HENRY R.

Signature: Vy Tide Print Name: Heat a “s SS
Date: S ~~ ee by

fe iet |

Page 239 of 699 ends

Page 240 of 699 ends

1787 Sentry Pky W Suite 100 Blue Bell, PA 19422
Phone# (703)-276-1100
[email protected] ● www.sitesafe.com
Crown Castle on behalf of T-Mobile
Site ID – 880511
Application ID – 660152
Site Name – GOLDEN HILL POTTERY
Site Compliance Report
401 First Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
Latitude: N37-0-48.99
Longitude: W121-34-39.28
Structure Type: Monopole
Report generated date: March 14, 2025
Report by: Young Kim
Customer Contact: Candice Conger
T-Mobile is compliant and will remain compliant
upon implementation of the proposed changes.
© 2024 Site Safe, LLC, Blue Bell, PA
sealed 17mar2025

Page 241 of 699 ends

https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 • [email protected] Page 2 of 22
Crown Castle on behalf of T-Mobile
GOLDEN HILL POTTERY - 880511
Radio Frequency (RF) Site Compliance Report
401 First Street, Gilroy, CA 95020

Page 242 of 699 ends

https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 • [email protected] Page 2 of 22
Table of Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 3 2 SITE COMPLIANCE ............................................................................................ 4

2.1 SITE COMPLIANCE STATEMENT............................................................................. 4

2.2 ACTIONS FOR SITE COMPLIANCE......................................................................... 4 3 ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 5

3.1 RF EXPOSURE DIAGRAM .................................................................................... 5 4 ANTENNA INVENTORY ..................................................................................... 9 5 ENGINEER CERTIFICATION ............................................................................. 11 APPENDIX A – STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS ......................................... 12 APPENDIX B – ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS .................................................. 13 GENERAL MODEL ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................................13 DEFINITIONS..........................................................................................................14 APPENDIX C – RULES & REGULATIONS ................................................................... 16 EXPLANATION OF APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS............................................16 OCCUPATIONAL ENVIRONMENT EXPLAINED..............................................................16 APPENDIX D – GENERAL SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 17 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ....................................................................................18 APPENDIX E – REGULATORY BASIS ........................................................................ 19 FCC RULES AND REGULATIONS ..............................................................................19 APPENDIX F – SAFETY PLAN AND PROCEDURES ................................................... 21

Page 243 of 699 ends

https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 • [email protected] Page 3 of 22
1 Executive Summary
Crown Castle on behalf of T-Mobile has contracted with Site Safe, LLC (Sitesafe), an independent Radio Frequency (RF) regulatory and engineering consulting firm, to determine whether the proposed communications site, 880511 - GOLDEN HILL POTTERY, located at 401 First Street, Gilroy, CA, is in compliance with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Rules and Regulations for RF exposure.

This report contains a detailed summary of the RF environment at the site including:
• Diagram of the site
• Inventory of the make / model of all antennas
• Theoretical MPE based on modeling
This report addresses exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields in accordance with the FCC Rules and Regulations for all individuals, classified in two groups, “Occupational or Controlled” and “General Public or Uncontrolled.” T-Mobile is compliant with the FCC Rules and Regulations, as described in OET Bulletin 65, and will remain compliant upon implementation of the proposed changes.

T-Mobile proposes to make modifications to an existing site. The proposed antennas are noted as “Proposed” in the antenna table under Section 4.

This document and the conclusions herein are based on the information provided by T-Mobile.

If you have any questions regarding RF safety and regulatory compliance, please do not hesitate to contact Sitesafe’s Customer Support Department at (703) 276-1100.

Page 244 of 699 ends

https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 • [email protected] Page 4 of 22
2 Site Compliance

2.1 Site Compliance Statement
Upon evaluation of the cumulative RF exposure levels from all operators at this site, Sitesafe has determined that:

T-Mobile is compliant with the FCC Rules and Regulations, as described in OET Bulletin 65, and will remain compliant upon implementation of the proposed changes.

The compliance determination is based on theoretical modeling, RF signage placement recommendations, proposed antenna inventory and/or the level of restricted access to the antennas at the site. Any deviation from the T-Mobile proposed deployment plan could result in the site being rendered non-compliant upon further evaluation.

2.2 Actions for Site Compliance
Based on common industry practice and our understanding of FCC and OSHA requirements, this section provides a statement of recommendations for site compliance. If required, RF alert signage recommendations have been proposed based on theoretical analysis of MPE levels.

T-Mobile is compliant with the FCC Rules and Regulations and will remain compliant upon implementation of the proposed changes.

Note: Ensure all existing signage documented in this report still exists on site.

Note: For overall compliance, access to the site (i.e., access road, gate(s), climbing point(s), etc.) must be locked/restricted.

Note: Sitesafe recommends that persons accessing any adjacent trees or properties in excess of 49' above ground level (i.e. landscape and arborist contractors or other maintenance workers) within 108' directly in front of the T-Mobile antennas are informed of areas where RF levels exceed the FCC General Public limit in the airspace 49' above ground level.

Page 245 of 699 ends

https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 • [email protected] Page 5 of 22
3 Analysis

3.1 RF Exposure Diagram
The RF diagram(s) below display theoretical percentage of the Maximum Permissible Exposure for all systems at the site. These diagrams use modeling as prescribed in OET Bulletin 65 and assumptions detailed in Appendix B.

The key at the bottom of each diagram indicates if percentages displayed are referenced to FCC General Public Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits. Color coding on the diagram is as follows:

This table displays the maximum theoretical percentage of the FCC’s General Public MPE limits:

General Public Levels:

Exposure Type: Maximum Spatial Average
Reference Level: Antenna Ground
T-Mobile: 25,239.3% <1.0%
Composite: 25,239.3% <1.0%
Note: On the diagrams shown below, each level is marked with a height. For all diagrams that are marked as Spatially Averaged, the modeling program will spatially average the exposure within the area six feet above each set level. This provides an accurate spatial average of the percentage of the FCC’s MPE limits within an accessible area.

In the RF exposure simulations below, all heights are reflected with respect to the main site level. In most rooftop cases, this is the height of the main rooftop, and in other cases, this may be ground level. Each different area, rooftop, or platform level is labeled with its height relative to the main site level. Exposure is calculated appropriately based on the relative height and location of that area to all antennas. The analyzed elevations in the RF exposure simulations are as follows:
• GROUND LEVEL = 0’

Page 246 of 699 ends

GATE
MONOPOLE=65' AGL
FENCE
6 1
3 5
2 4
ADJACENT BUILDING=12'
AGL

CAUTION
Notice
INF
OR
MA
TIO
N
RF Exposure Simulation For: GOLDEN HILL POTTERY
Composite View
Sitesafe OET-65 Model
Near Field Boundary:

1.5 * Aperture
Reflection Factor: 1
Spatially Averaged
0 2.5 5
(Feet)
% of FCC Public Exposure Limit
0-5 5-100 100-500 500-5000 5000+

AT&T MOBILITY LLC VERIZON WIRELESS T-MOBILE SPRINT DISH UNKNOWN CARRIER Barrier Signage Legend
No-sign Notice Caution Warning Notice 2 Caution 2 Warning 2 Existing Barrier Proposed
Barrier/Sign
Remove
Barrier/Sign /X
N
www.sitesafe.com
3/15/2024 4:10:12 PM

Page 247 of 699 ends

GATE
MONOPOLE=65' AGL FENCE
1 2 3
4 6 5
ADJACENT BUILDING 2=12'
AGL
ADJACENT BUILDING=12'
AGL
108' CAUTION INF
OR
MA
TIO
N
RF Exposure Simulation For: GOLDEN HILL POTTERY
Antenna Level Emissions
Sitesafe OET-65 Model
Near Field Boundary:

1.5 * Aperture Reflection Factor: 1
Spatially Averaged
0 15 30
(Feet) % of FCC Public Exposure Limit 0-5 5-100 100-500 500-5000 5000+ AT&T MOBILITY LLC VERIZON WIRELESS T-MOBILE SPRINT DISH UNKNOWN CARRIER Barrier Signage Legend No-sign Notice Caution Warning Notice 2 Caution 2 Warning 2 Existing Barrier Proposed Barrier/Sign Remove Barrier/Sign /X
N
www.sitesafe.com
3/13/2025 3:06:09 PM

Page 248 of 699 ends

MONPOLE=65' AGL
FENCE
BUILDING=12' AGL
T-MOBILE=60' AGL
(AT GATE)
Notice
INF
OR
MAT
ION

CAUTION
RF Exposure Simulation For: GOLDEN HILL POTTERY
Elevation View – Southwest
Sitesafe OET-65 Model
Near Field Boundary:

1.5 * Aperture
Reflection Factor: 1
Single Level (0)
0 15 30
(Feet)
% of FCC Public Exposure Limit
0-5 5-100 100-500 500-5000 5000+

Page 249 of 699 ends

https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 • [email protected] Page 9 of 22
4 Antenna Inventory
The Antenna Inventory shows all transmitting antennas at the site. This inventory was provided by the customer and was utilized by Sitesafe to perform theoretical modeling of RF exposure. The inventory coincides with the site diagrams in this report, identifying each antenna’s location at 880511 - GOLDEN HILL POTTERY. The antenna information collected includes the following information:
• Licensee or wireless operator name
• Frequency or frequency band
• Transmitter power – Transmitter Power Output (“TPO”), Effective Radiated Power (“ERP”), or Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power (“EIRP”) • Antenna manufacturer make, model, and gain

Page 250 of 699 ends

https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 • [email protected] Page 10 of 22
The following antenna inventory was provided by the customer and was utilized to create the site model diagrams:

Ant
ID Operator Antenna Make and Model Type
TX
Freq
(MHz)
Technology Az
(Deg)
Hor
BW
(Deg)
Ant
Len
(ft)
Ant
Gain
(dBd)
Power Power
Type
Power
Units
TX
Count
Misc
Loss
Total
ERP
(Watts)
Z
(ft)
MDT
(Deg)
EDT
(Deg)
1 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 600 LTE 0 62.8 8 13.35 200.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 4325.44 60 0 0 1 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 700 LTE 0 63.7 8 13.75 200.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 4742.75 60 0 0 1 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 1900 LTE 0 64.9 8 15.25 160.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 5359.45 60 0 0 1 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 1900 5G 0 64.9 8 15.25 80.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 2679.72 60 0 0 1 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 2100 LTE/AWS1 0 59.4 8 16.45 160.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 7065.13 60 0 0 2 T-MOBILE (Proposed) Ericsson AIR6419 Panel 2500 5G 0 12.5 2.9 22.35 320.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 54973.07 60 0 0 3 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 600 LTE 120 62.8 8 13.35 200.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 4325.44 60 0 0 3 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 700 LTE 120 63.7 8 13.75 200.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 4742.75 60 0 0 3 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 1900 LTE 120 64.9 8 15.25 160.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 5359.45 60 0 0 3 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 1900 5G 120 64.9 8 15.25 80.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 2679.72 60 0 0 3 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 2100 LTE/AWS1 120 59.4 8 16.45 160.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 7065.13 60 0 0 4 T-MOBILE (Proposed) Ericsson AIR6419 Panel 2500 5G 120 12.5 2.9 22.35 320.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 54973.07 60 0 0 5 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 600 LTE 240 62.8 8 13.35 200.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 4325.44 60 0 0 5 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 700 LTE 240 63.7 8 13.75 200.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 4742.75 60 0 0 5 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 1900 LTE 240 64.9 8 15.25 160.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 5359.45 60 0 0 5 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 1900 5G 240 64.9 8 15.25 80.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 2679.72 60 0 0 5 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 2100 LTE/AWS1 240 59.4 8 16.45 160.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 7065.13 60 0 0 6 T-MOBILE (Proposed) Ericsson AIR6419 Panel 2500 5G 240 12.5 2.9 22.35 320.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 54973.07 60 0 0 Note: The Z reference indicates antenna height above the ground level (AGL). ERP values provided by the client and used in the modeling may be greater than are currently deployed. For additional modeling information, refer to Appendix B. Proposed equipment is tagged as (Proposed) under Operator or Antenna Make and Model.

Page 251 of 699 ends

https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 • [email protected] Page 11 of 22
5 Engineer Certification
The professional engineer whose seal appears on the cover of this document hereby certifies and affirms:

That I am registered as a Professional Engineer in the jurisdiction indicated in the professional engineering stamp on the cover of this document; and That I, Michael A. McGuire, P.E., am currently and actively licensed to provide (in this state/jurisdiction as indicated within the professional electrical engineering seal on the cover of this document) professional electrical engineering services, as an employee of Hurricane Hill Development Company, PLLC, a duly authorized/registered engineering firm (in this state, as applicable) on behalf of Site Safe, LLC; and
That I am thoroughly familiar with the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as well as the regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), both in general and specifically as they apply to the FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields; and That I have thoroughly reviewed this Site Compliance Report and believe it to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge as assembled by and attested to by Young Kim.

March 14, 2025

Page 252 of 699 ends

https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 • [email protected] Page 12 of 22
Appendix A – Statement of Limiting Conditions
Sitesafe will not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect the site or property.

Due to the complexity of some wireless sites, Sitesafe performed this analysis and created this report utilizing best industry practices and due diligence. Sitesafe cannot be held accountable or responsible for anomalies or discrepancies due to actual site conditions (i.e., mislabeling of antennas or equipment, inaccessible cable runs, inaccessible antennas or equipment, etc.) or information or data supplied by T-Mobile, the site manager, or their affiliates, subcontractors or assigns.

Sitesafe has provided computer generated model(s) in this Site Compliance Report to show approximate dimensions of the site, and the model is included to assist the reader of the compliance report to visualize the site area, and to provide supporting documentation for Sitesafe’s recommendations.

Sitesafe may note in the Site Compliance Report any adverse physical conditions, such as needed repairs, observed during the survey of the subject property or that Sitesafe became aware of during the normal research involved in performing this survey.

Sitesafe will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist.

Because Sitesafe is not an expert in the field of mechanical engineering or building maintenance, the Site Compliance Report must not be considered a structural or physical engineering report.

Sitesafe obtained information used in this Site Compliance Report from sources that Sitesafe considers reliable and believes them to be true and correct. Sitesafe does not assume any responsibility for the accuracy of such items that were furnished by other parties. When conflicts in information occur between data provided by a second party and physical data collected by Sitesafe, the physical data will be used.

Page 253 of 699 ends

https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 • [email protected] Page 13 of 22
Appendix B – Assumptions and Definitions
General Model Assumptions
In this site compliance report, it is assumed that all antennas are operating at full power at all times. Software modeling was performed for all transmitting antennas located on the site. Sitesafe has further assumed a 100% duty cycle and maximum radiated power.

The site has been modeled with these assumptions to show the maximum RF energy density. Sitesafe believes this to be a worst-case analysis, based on best available data. Areas modeled to predict exposure exposure greater than 100% of the applicable MPE level may not actually occur but are shown as a worst-case prediction that could be realized real time. Sitesafe believes these areas to be safe for entry by occupationally trained personnel utilizing appropriate personal protective equipment (in most cases, a personal monitor).

Thus, at any time, if power density measurements were made, we believe the realtime measurements would indicate levels below those depicted in the RF exposure diagram(s) in this report. By modeling in this way, Sitesafe has conservatively shown exclusion areas – areas that should not be entered without the use of a personal monitor, carriers reducing power, or performing real-time measurements to indicate real-time exposure levels.

Page 254 of 699 ends

https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 • [email protected] Page 14 of 22
Definitions
5% Rule – The rules adopted by the FCC specify that, in general, at multiple transmitter sites actions necessary to bring the area into compliance with the guidelines are the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce field strengths or power density levels at the area in question in excess of 5% of the exposure limits. In other words, any wireless operator that contributes 5% or greater of the MPE limit in an area that is identified to be greater than 100% of the MPE limit is responsible for taking corrective actions to bring the site into compliance.

Compliance – The determination of whether a site complies with FCC standards with regards to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from transmitting antennas.

Decibel (dB) – A unit for measuring power or strength of a signal.

Duty Cycle – The percent of pulse duration to the pulse period of a periodic pulse train. Also, may be a measure of the temporal transmission characteristic of an intermittently transmitting RF source such as a paging antenna by dividing average transmission duration by the average period for transmission. A duty cycle of 100% corresponds to continuous operation.

Effective (or Equivalent) Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) – The product of the power supplied to the antenna and the antenna gain in a given direction relative to an isotropic antenna.

Effective Radiated Power (ERP) – The product of the power supplied to the antenna and the antenna gain in a given direction relative to a half-wave dipole antenna.

Gain (of an antenna) – The ratio, usually expressed in decibels, of the power required at the input of a loss-free reference antenna to the power supplied to the input of the given antenna to produce, in a given direction, the same field strength or the same power density at the same distance. When not specified otherwise, the gain refers to the direction of maximum radiation. Gain may be considered for a specified polarization. Gain may be referenced to an isotropic antenna (dBi) or a half-wave dipole (dBd) antenna.

General Population/Uncontrolled Environment – Defined by the FCC as an area where RF exposure may occur to persons who are unaware of the potential for exposure and who have no control over their exposure. General Population is also referenced as General Public.

Generic Antenna – For the purposes of this report, the use of “Generic” as an antenna model means the antenna information was not provided and could not be obtained while on site. In the event of unknown information, Sitesafe will use its industry specific knowledge of antenna models to select a worst-case scenario antenna to model the site.

Isotropic Antenna – An antenna that is completely non-directional. In other words, an antenna that radiates energy equally in all directions.

Page 255 of 699 ends

https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 • [email protected] Page 15 of 22
Maximum Measurement – This measurement represents the single largest measurement recorded when performing a spatial average measurement.

Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) – The rms and peak electric and magnetic field strength, their squares, or the plane-wave equivalent power densities associated with these fields to which a person may be exposed without harmful effect and with acceptable safety factor.

Occupational/Controlled Environment – Defined by the FCC as an area where RF exposure may occur to persons who are aware of the potential for exposure as a condition of employment or specific activity and can exercise control over their exposure.

OET Bulletin 65 – Technical guideline developed by the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology to determine the impact of RF exposure on humans. The guideline was published in August 1997.

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) – Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthy workplace for their employees. OSHA's role is to promote the safety and health of America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual process improvement in workplace safety and health. For more information, visit www.osha.gov.

Radio Frequency Exposure or Electromagnetic Fields – Electromagnetic waves that are propagated from antennas through space.

Spatial Average Measurement – A technique used to average a minimum of ten (10) measurements taken in a ten (10) second interval from zero (0) to six (6) feet. This measurement is intended to model the average energy a 6-foot tall human body will absorb while present in an electromagnetic field of energy.

Transmitter Power Output (TPO) – The radio frequency output power of a transmitter’s final radio frequency stage as measured at the output terminal while connected to a load.

Page 256 of 699 ends

https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 • [email protected] Page 16 of 22
Appendix C – Rules & Regulations
Explanation of Applicable Rules and Regulations
The FCC has set forth guidelines in OET Bulletin 65 for human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Specific regulations regarding this topic are listed in Part 1, Subpart I, of Title 47 in the Code of Federal Regulations. Currently, there are two different levels of MPE - General Public MPE and Occupational MPE. An individual classified as Occupational can be defined as an individual who has received appropriate RF training and meets the conditions outlined below. General Public is defined as anyone who does not meet the conditions of being Occupational. FCC and OSHA Rules and Regulations define compliance in terms of total exposure to total RF energy, regardless of location of or proximity to the sources of energy.

It is the responsibility of all licensees to ensure these guidelines are maintained at all times. It is the ongoing responsibility of all licensees composing the site to maintain ongoing compliance with FCC rules and regulations. Individual licensees that contribute less than 5% MPE to any total area out of compliance are not responsible for corrective actions.

OSHA guidelines go further to state that persons must complete RF Safety Awareness training and must be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment.

All T-Mobile employees who require access to this site must complete RF Safety Awareness training and must be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment.

Page 257 of 699 ends

https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 • [email protected] Page 17 of 22
Appendix D – General Safety Recommendations
The following are general recommendations appropriate for any site with accessible areas in excess of 100% General Public MPE. These recommendations are not specific to this site. These are safety recommendations appropriate for typical site management, building management, and other tenant operations.

2. All individuals needing access to the main site should be instructed to read and obey all posted placards and signs.

5. Ensure that the site door remains locked (or appropriately controlled) to deny access to the general public if deemed as policy by the building/site owner.

6. For a General Public environment the five color levels identified in this analysis can be interpreted in the following manner:

Page 258 of 699 ends

https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 • [email protected] Page 18 of 22
• Gray represents areas predicted to be at 5% or less of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public can access these areas with no restrictions. • Green represents areas predicted to be between 5% and 100% of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public can access these areas with no restrictions.
• Blue represents areas predicted to be between 100% and 500% of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public should be restricted from accessing these areas.
• Yellow represents areas predicted to be between 500% and 5000% of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public should be restricted from accessing these areas.
• Red represents areas predicted to be greater than 5000% of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public should be restricted from accessing these areas.

Keep a copy of this report available for all persons who must access the site. They should read this report and be aware of the potential hazards with regards to RF and MPE limits.

Page 259 of 699 ends

https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 • [email protected] Page 19 of 22
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/index.html Appendix E – Regulatory Basis
FCC Rules and Regulations
In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted regulations for evaluating the effects of RF exposure in 47 CFR § 1.1307 and 1.1310. The guideline from the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology is Bulletin 65 (“OET Bulletin 65”), Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, Edition 97-01, published August 1997. Since 1996 the FCC periodically reviews these rules and regulations as per their congressional mandate.

All other areas are considered Uncontrolled environments. If a site has no access controls or no RF hazard signage it is evaluated with General Public limits.

Page 260 of 699 ends

https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 • [email protected] Page 20 of 22
Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure (MPE)
Frequency
Range
(MHz)
Electric
Field
Strength (E)
(V/m)
Magnetic
Field
Strength
(H) (A/m)
Power
Density (S)
(mW/cm2
)
Averaging Time |E|2
,
|H|2 or S (minutes)

0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6

0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30

1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/f2)* 30
30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30
300-1500 -- -- f/1500 30
1500-
100,000
-- -- 1.0 30
f = frequency in MHz *Plane-wave equivalent power density FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)
Plane-wave Equivalent Power Density

0.01 0.1
1 10
100
1000
0 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Frequency (MHz)
Power Density (mW/cm2
)
Occupational
General Public

Page 261 of 699 ends

https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 • [email protected] Page 21 of 22
Appendix F – Safety Plan and Procedures
The following items are general safety recommendations that should be administered on a site by site basis as needed by the carrier.

Page 262 of 699 ends

Planning Commission Project Clarification Questions
The answers to clarification questions that were asked by a Planning Commissioner are below in red.

Clarifications provided at or after the meeting are below in blue.

1. How is pole height measured? What is total (ground to top of equipment) height? It looks like 5 feet for the base and 60 feet for the pole totaling 65 feet. The pole is measured from ground level to the top of the monopole. In total the monopole is 65-feet tall.

2. What transmit frequency and power were used to make the RF simulation exposure on page 53? Additionally, for that simulation, please provide the following formation used for that simulation (section 4 lists all proposed antennas and internal radios, so please provide information which radios were used for the simulation):
• The power at the antenna? The max power into the antennas can be found in the 3 Power Columns in the Section 4 Antenna Table (Power, Power Type, and Power Units). • What is the mode duty cycle? Assuming carrier cycle at 100% - please confirm.

As referenced in Appendix B, this report assumed 100% duty cycle and maximum radiated power. • Transmit duty cycle? See response to above question.
• Antenna Gain (dBi) The antenna gain of the antennas can be found in the Ant Gain (dBd) column in the Section 4 Antenna Table.
• Operating frequency The operating frequency of the antennas can be found in the TX Freq (MHz) column in the Section 4 Antenna Table.

3. What is on the pole now? It says there is some "wireless" on the pole now but wireless could be anything from a walkie-talkie to a cell phone to Wi-Fi. Please provide clarification. There is currently nothing mounted on the pole. There is existing ground mounted equipment within the lease area. See Sheet A-1.2 of the plan set for the equipment plan. The equipment plan shows existing and new equipment.

During the March 13, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, staff clarified that there is a sprint radome antenna that makes up the top 5 feet of the pole. That antenna will be removed with the overall pole.

4. "The existing wireless facility was issued an approval in 2001 (Building Permit No. 01030203) for the construction of a 35-foot-tall monopole and associated equipment, within a 275 square foot leasing area located behind the existing commercial building at 401 First Street." Can you please provide the details of Building Permit No. 01030203 from 2001? The project description of that building permit is: “The project involves the installation of one tri-sector crosspolar antenna, one GPS antenna, and five equipment cabinets. The cross-polar antenna will be mounted in a 35’0” tall pole. The equipment cabinets will house the transmit and receive equipment.” The applicant at the time was Sprint.

Page 263 of 699 ends

5. Page: pdf 52 5-100 % of FCC Public Exposure Limit. Below 100%, what signs are required? As documented in the Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) report, there are no MPE issues 15’ above ground. No signage is required below 100% exposure levels.

6. Page: pdf 50
"Note: SiteSafe recommends that persons accessing any adjacent trees or properties in excess of 49' above ground level (i.e. landscape and arborist contractors or other maintenance workers) within 111' directly in front of the T-Mobile antennas are informed of areas where RF levels exceed the FCC General Public limit in the airspace 49' above ground level." This references Occupational exposure. What about General Population exposure which has more restrictive limits? To clarify, the distances listed in the report are assuming General Public and not Occupational MPE limits. Additionally, the general public should not be accessing any areas that are above the allowable general public exposure limits. Only workers would need to gain access and would be properly notified.

7. What are the General Population exposure concerns at 15 feet above ground at 160' away? As documented in the MPE report, there are no MPE issues 15’ above ground. This would be within the 0-5% public exposure limit.

8. Please provide horizontal azimuth as vertical azimuth (page 53) is insufficient. The current MPE report includes 2 MPE plots. The 1st MPE plot, which is labeled Composite View is confirming that all General Public areas near wireless sites are well below General Public Limits. The FCC has set the General Public MPE limit at 100% and the MPE theoretical assessment in this MPE plot shows all areas are below 5% General Public MPE. The 2nd MPE plot which is labeled Elevation View – Southwest is showing that areas of above General Public MPE limit are at the antenna level and 49’ above the ground level.

As part of the appeal packet, the applicant provided an updated Radio Frequency Report that contains a horizontal azimuth.

9. Please provide data sheets for:
• APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20
• Ericsson 4480 B71/B85
Please see sheet A4.1 of plans.

10. I thought that I read that the design will be determined. I would like to know if there is in intent to hide or disguise the tower? Currently, the proposal is to paint the monopole a flat color (gray). A tree design was considered but the applicant notified us that they would have to make the pole 5 feet taller for the branching and that there would be some overhang on to the building. Staff were also concerned with the appearance of a tree as the monopole is located in the middle of the parking lot and there are not many trees surrounding the site.

Page 264 of 699 ends

11. What are the addresses of all the T-Mobile owned towers in Gilroy? What are the addresses of the towers that T-Mobile uses from other carriers? Which T-Mobile towers have other carriers using their towers as well? The applicant informed staff that T-Mobile does not own any towers within City of Gilroy limits. T-Mobile is only the wireless operator. Crown Castle owns the monopole.

Page 265 of 699 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY

APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE REVIEW PERMIT FOR
THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 35-FOOT-TALL MONOPLE AND
INSTALLATION OF A NEW 65-FOOT-TALL MONOPLE AND RELATED
EQUIPMENT ON AN APPROXIMATE 0.22-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT
401 FIRST STREET, APN: 790-32-004 (FILE NUMBER AS 24-14) WHEREAS, on July 17, 2024, Lisa Elliott, on behalf of Crown Castle, submitted an application requesting an architectural and site review permit for the proposed demolition of an existing 35-foot-tall monopole and installation of a new 65-foot-tall monopole and related equipment located within the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district (APN: 790-32-004); and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2024, the application submittal was accepted as complete for final processing; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting, at which time the Planning Commission received and considered the staff report as well as all evidence received including written and oral public testimony; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2025, the Planning Commission determined that the project was exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3); and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2025, the Planning Commission made a motion to approve Architectural and Site Review (AS 24-14). The motion to approve AS 24-14 failed due to a 3-3 vote, in effect of which is a denial of the application; and WHEREAS, on April 1, 2025, the applicant, Global Signal Acquisitions III LLC on behalf of Crown Castle, USA Inc., filed an appeal of the March 13, 2025, Planning Commission determination; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting, at which time the City Council received and considered the staff report as well as all evidence received including written and oral public testimony related to the proposed Architectural and Site Review (AS 24-14) application; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the project approval is based is the City Clerk’s office of the City of Gilroy.

Page 266 of 699 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX
Appeal of AS 24-14
City Council Regular Meeting | May 5, 2025

Page 2 of 10 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby grants approval of the appeal of the March 13, 2025 Planning Commission determination and approves Architectural and Site Review Permit AS 24-14 based on the following findings made pursuant to Gilroy City Code section 30.35.21 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities) and

30.50.30 subject to the conditions identified in Exhibit A to this Resolution:

A. That either: (1) the development of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility as conditioned will not significantly affect any visual resources, environmentally sensitive habitat and/or other significant City of Gilroy resources, including agricultural, open space, and community character resources; or (2) there are no other environmentally equivalent and/or superior and technically feasible alternatives to the proposed wireless telecommunications facility as conditioned (including alternative locations and/or designs) with less visual and/or other resource impacts and the proposed facility has been modified by condition and/or project design to minimize and mitigate its visual and other resource impacts.

There are no environmentally sensitive habitats or other significant resources that would be impacted by the wireless facility. Additionally, the monopole will be painted a flat gray paint color to ensure that the pole blends in with the surrounding neighborhoods.

Alternative heights for the proposed monopole were provided and the analysis displayed that the 65-foot-tall monopole would provide greater coverage to the population; B. That the site is adequate for the development of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility and, for sites located in residential zoning districts or PUDs with residential uses, that the applicant has demonstrated that there are not environmentally equivalent or superior and technically feasible: (1) alternative sites outside residential zone districts or PUDs with residential uses; and/or (2) alternative designs for the proposed facility as proposed and conditioned.

The site is not located in a residential zoning district or within a PUD with residential uses.

The site is within the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district, and commercial and industrial zoning districts are the preferred locations for new wireless facilities.

Additionally, alternative heights for the monopole were analyzed for the site.

C. That the subject property upon which the wireless telecommunications facility is to be built is in compliance with all rules and regulations of the City of Gilroy, including, but not limited to, zoning uses, subdivisions and any other applicable provisions of this article, and that all zoning violations have been abated and abatement costs, if any, have been paid.

There are no zoning violations that currently exist at the site and the site is in compliance with the allowable uses of the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district;

Page 267 of 699 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX
Appeal of AS 24-14
City Council Regular Meeting | May 5, 2025

Page 3 of 10 ends

D. That the proposed wireless communication facility as conditioned is in compliance with all FCC, FAA and California PUC standards and requirements; The project is conditioned to remain compliant with all FCC, FAA, and California PUC standards and requirements.

E. That the proposed use is properly located in relation to the general plan and to the community as a whole and to other land uses and to transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; and
The project is located in the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district which allows the installation of new wireless facilities through approval of an Architectural and Site Review permit application. The parcel is surrounded by commercial development and will not interfere with the existing business operations.

F. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions upon which approval is made contingent, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity, or cause any damage, hazard, or nuisance to persons or property.

The project will not adversely impact other properties in the vicinity because it will comply with all conditions of approval, building code requirements, and all Federal Communications Commission rules and regulations. The radio frequency report prepared by SiteSafe, found the proposed wireless facility’s radio frequency emissions to be compliant with the FCC standards.

Page 268 of 699 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX
Appeal of AS 24-14
City Council Regular Meeting | May 5, 2025

Page 4 of 10 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of May 2025 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:
______________________________
Greg Bozzo, Mayor
ATTEST:

Bryce Atkins, Acting City Clerk
Attachment: Exhibit A (Conditions of Approval)

Page 269 of 699 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX
Appeal of AS 24-14
City Council Regular Meeting | May 5, 2025

Page 5 of 10 ends

EXHIBIT A
AS 24-14
401 First Street

PLANNING CONDITIONS
The following GENERAL conditions authorize specific terms of the project ENTITLEMENT.

1. APPROVED PROJECT: The approval for AS 24-14 is granted to demolish an existing 35- foot-tall monopole and install a 65-foot-tall monopole and related equipment as described in the staff report dated March 13, 2025, located at 401 First street (Assessor Parcel No. 790- 32-004),as shown on Project Plans received by the Planning Division on December 12, 2024, prepared by Streamline Engineering for T-Mobile, dated January 10, 2024, with revision dates of February 27, 2024, and October 2, 2024, and consisting of 16 sheets.

Build-out of the project shall conform to the plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions. Any future adjustment or modification to the plans, including any changes made at time of building permit submittal, shall be considered by the Community Development Director or designee, may require separate discretionary approval, and shall conform to all City, State, and Federal requirements, including subsequent City Code requirements or policies adopted by City Council.

2. PERMIT EXPIRATION: The expiration date of this approval to demolish an existing 35- foot-tall monopole and install a new 65-foot-tall monopole is one year from the decision date, May 5, 2025, during which time the applicant shall submit application for building permits and pursue construction diligently to completion. If any development for which architectural and site approval has been granted has not submitted complete application for building permits within one (1) year from the date of notification of approval, pursued issuance of the permit and/or initiated construction within 6 months of the permit issuance, the approval shall be deemed automatically revoked. Once a permit has been issued for construction, work shall be completed within one (1) year.

Upon application, an extension of time may be granted by the Community Development Director or designee. Should Developer intend to request an extension to the permit expiration date, Developer must submit to the Planning Division a written application with applicable fees prior to the expiration date. Only timely requests may be considered pursuant to the City Code.

3. WIRELESS FACILITY EXPIRATION. An approved wireless facility permit is granted for ten (10) years from the date of approval, upon which time this permit shall automatically become null and void. Should Developer desire to continue operation as granted herein, a new application or extension of such application must be requested in a timely manner and prior to the expiration date.

Page 270 of 699 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX
Appeal of AS 24-14
City Council Regular Meeting | May 5, 2025

Page 6 of 10 ends

4. COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS: If Developer, owner or tenant fails to comply with any of the conditions of this permit, the Developer, owner or tenant shall be subject to permit revocation or enforcement actions pursuant to the City Code. All costs associated with any such actions shall be the responsibility of Developer, owner or tenant.

5. INDEMNIFICATION: Developer agrees, as a condition of permit approval, at Developer’s own expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Gilroy (“the City”) and its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees and agents from any and all claim(s), action(s) or proceeding(s) brought against the City or its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees, or agents to challenge, attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this resolution or any condition attached thereto or any proceedings, acts or determinations taken, including actions taken under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, done or made prior to the approval of such resolution that were part of the approval process.

6. FEDERAL AND UNIFORM CODE COMPLIANCE: Wireless Facility shall comply with all uniform codes, all FCC rules, regulations, and standards, and FAA requirements.

7. PAINT SAMPLE. Applicant shall provide paint samples for the proposed monopole and pole mounted equipment for Community Development Director consideration and approval.

The paint sample must be a flat color.

8. MODIFICATIONS. Any proposed modifications to the wireless facility and/or this approval may require further review and/or planning entitlements subject to review by the Community Development Director or designee.

The following conditions shall be addressed prior to issuance of any BUILDING PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT or IMPROVEMENT PLAN, whichever is first issued, or as otherwise specified in the condition.

9. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Developer shall include a plan sheet(s) that includes a reproduction of all conditions of approval of this permit, as adopted by the decision-maker.

10. CERTIFICATION OF BUILDING PERMIT PLANS: The project architect/engineer shall certify in writing that the architectural design shown in the building permit plans match the plans approved by the Community Development Director or designee/Planning Commission/City Council. Any changes must be clearly noted. The project architect shall also certify that the structural plans are consistent with the architectural plans. In the event of a discrepancy between the structural plans and the architectural plans, the architectural plans shall take precedence, and revised structural drawings shall be submitted to the Building Division.

11. COLORS AND MATERIALS: Plans submitted for building permit applications shall include all exterior wireless facility materials and colors to be used in construction.

Page 271 of 699 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX
Appeal of AS 24-14
City Council Regular Meeting | May 5, 2025

Page 7 of 10 ends

12. SUBSEQUENT ENTITLEMENTS: Developer shall obtain necessary permits prior to initiating any new construction or modifications authorized under this approval, including but not limited to temporary construction trailers, temporary staging areas. Developer shall pay all requisite fees in effect at the time of plan submittal and/or issuance, as applicable.

13. FENCES AND WALLS: All fencing and walls are to be shown on construction drawings submitted for building permit review, measured from adjacent grade to the top of the fence or wall. The design and location must comply with all setback requirements.

The following conditions shall be met prior to RELEASE OF UTILITIES, FINAL INSPECTION, or ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, whichever occurs first, or as otherwise specified in the condition.

14. PLANNING INSPECTION: Inspection by the Planning Division is required for the final completion of the project to ensure that the construction matches the approved plans.

15. BUSINESS LICENSE: Wireless operator shall obtain a City of Gilroy Business License.

The following conditions shall be complied with AT ALL TIMES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROJECT, or as otherwise specified in the condition.

16. CONSTRUCTION RELATED NOISE: To minimize potential construction-related impacts to noise, Developer shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the subject site
“During earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer shall implement the following measures at the construction site:
a. Limit construction activity to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Construction noise is prohibited on Sundays and City-observed holidays;
b. Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area; c. Construct sound walls or other noise reduction measures prior to developing the project site;
d. Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment; e. Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; f. Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists; and
g. Designate a “disturbance coordinator’ who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem.”

Page 272 of 699 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX
Appeal of AS 24-14
City Council Regular Meeting | May 5, 2025

Page 8 of 10 ends

17. CONSTRUCTION RELATED AIR QUALITY: To minimize potential constructionrelated impacts to air quality, Developer shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the project site “During earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer shall implement the following basic control measures at the construction site:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material onsite or offsite shall be covered;
c. All visible mud or dirt tracked out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited;
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads or pathways shall be limited to 15 miles per hour;
e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points;
g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; and
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.” The following conditions shall be complied with AT ALL TIMES that the use permitted by this entitlement occupies the premises.

18. COLLOCATIONS. The permittee shall be willing to allow other carriers and site operators to collocate transmission equipment with the wireless facility, to the extent such facility or portions thereof are owned or controlled by the permittee, whenever technically feasible and aesthetically desirable in accordance with applicable provisions in the City’s Municipal Code.

19. MAINTENANCE. Wireless telecommunication facility shall comply at all times with the following operation and maintenance standards:

Page 273 of 699 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX
Appeal of AS 24-14
City Council Regular Meeting | May 5, 2025

Page 9 of 10 ends

a. All facilities and related equipment, including lighting, fences, shields, cabinets, and poles, shall be maintained in good repair, free from trash, debris, litter and graffiti and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible so as to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be removed from any facility or equipment as soon as practicable pursuant to Chapter 12.5.
b. Facility shall be operated in such a manner so as to minimize any possible disruption caused by noise. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. At no time shall equipment noise from any source exceed an exterior noise level of sixty (60) dB at the property line. c. Owner or operator of the facility shall routinely and regularly inspect wireless facility and associated equipment to ensure compliance with FCC standards and this approval.
d. Owner or operator of the wireless telecommunications facility shall provide signage identifying the name and phone number of a party to contact in event of an emergency. The design, materials, colors, and location of signs shall be subject to design review. The signage shall be attached to the base of any utility pole or light standard to which microcells are affixed.

20. TRANSFER OF OPERATIONS. Any carrier/service provider authorized by the planning manager or by the planning commission to operate a specific wireless telecommunications facility may assign the operation of the facility to another carrier licensed by the FCC for that radio frequency; provided, that such transfer is made known to the director in advance of such operation and all conditions of approval for the subject installation are carried out by the new carrier/service provider. Further planning entitlements/review may be required.

Page 274 of 699 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX
Appeal of AS 24-14
City Council Regular Meeting | May 5, 2025

Page 10 of 10 ends

CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK
I, BRYCE ATKINS, Acting City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2025-XX is an original resolution, or true and correct copy of a City Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a Regular Meeting of said held on Council held Monday, May 5, 2025, with a quorum present.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this Date.
____________________________________
Bryce Atkins
Acting City Clerk of the City of Gilroy
(Seal)

Page 275 of 699 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY

APPROVING A VARIANCE PERMIT, ALLOWING EXCEPTIONS TO

SIDE AND REAR WIRELESS FACILITY SETBACKS AND

EXCEPTIONS TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMITATAION OF THE
C1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT, FOR
THE PROPOSED NEW 65-FOOT-TALL MONOPOLE ON AN
APPROXIMATE 0.22-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 401 FIRST STREET, APN 790-32-004 (FILE NUMBER V 24-01)
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2024, Lisa Elliott, on behalf of Crown Castle, submitted an application requesting an architectural and site review permit for the proposed demolition of an existing 35-foot-tall monopole and installation of a new 65-foot-tall monopole and related equipment located within the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district (APN: 790-32-004); and; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2024, the application submittal was accepted as complete for final processing; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting, at which time the Planning Commission received and considered the staff report as well as all evidence received including written and oral public testimony; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2025, the Planning Commission determined that the project was exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3); and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2025, the Planning Commission made a motion to approve Variance permit (V 24-01). The motion to approve V 24-01 failed due to a 3-3 vote, in effect of which is a denial of the application; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2025, the applicant, Global Signal Acquisitions III LLC on behalf of Crown Castle, USA Inc., filed an appeal of the March 13, 2025, Planning Commission determination; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting, at which time the City Council received and considered the staff report as well as all evidence received including written and oral public testimony related to the proposed Variance (V 24-01) application; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the project approval is based is the City Clerk’s office of the City of Gilroy.

Page 276 of 699 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX
Appeal of V 24-01
City Council Regular Meeting | May 5, 2025

Page 2 of 5 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby grants approval of the appeal of the March 13, 2025 Planning Commission determination and approves Variance Permit V 24-01 based on the following findings made pursuant to Gilroy Code section 30.50.20(3) subject to the conditions identified in Exhibit A to this resolution:

1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property involved or to the proposed use.

Due to the property’s size, configuration, and existing structures, there are exceptional circumstances that prevent the wireless facility from meeting the minimum 65-foot setback from all property lines. Additionally, the proposed coverage would not be able to be comparably obtained if the monopole were limited to the maximum allowable height of the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district (35 feet). Zoning districts that would allow a monopole height of 65 feet are not located in the general vicinity of the coverage gap.

2. That because of such exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, the literal enforcement of specified provisions of this chapter would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship such as to deprive the applicant of a substantial property right possessed by other owners of property in the same class or district.

The literal enforcement of the wireless facility setback would cause hardship due to the lot’s configuration and existing conditions. Additionally, co-locating on an existing facility would not be possible as there are no other existing wireless facilities within 1,000 feet of the site. There is no zoning district within 1,000 feet of the site that would permit a 65- foot-tall monopole without going through the variance process. Most of the surrounding properties are zoned Neighborhood Commercial or Single Family Residential/Medium Density Residential. Installation of new wireless facilities on residential-zoned properties are not preferred as it could impact the character of the residential neighborhood and has potential to pose a greater impact to public safety and general welfare.

3. That the allowance of the variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to persons or property in the vicinity.

The allowance of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare because the proposed wireless facility will comply with all FCC and FAA rules and regulations.

Additionally, the wireless facility will be routinely maintained as needed, have all required signage, and implement a security plan to prevent unauthorized personnel from accessing the facility. The increase in telecommunication coverage would benefit the public and enhance the city’s emergency response network.

Page 277 of 699 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX
Appeal of V 24-01
City Council Regular Meeting | May 5, 2025

Page 3 of 5 ends

4. That the results of allowing the variances as specified will be in harmony with the general intent of the Zoning Ordinance.

The allowance of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent of the Zoning Ordinance because commercial and industrial-zoned properties are the preferred location for the installation of wireless facilities. There would be no impact on the existing business operations and parking as the work taking place will be within the existing 275 square foot lease area. Additionally, the new wireless facility would allow for future collocation for any interested carriers.

5. That the granting of a variance will not constitute the granting of a special privilege greater than that provided for by the standard provisions of this chapter for other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.

The granting of the variance would not constitute the granting of a special privilege because the proposed wireless facility will provide a necessary service to the public and the coverage could not be comparably obtained at a height lower than 65 feet.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of May 2025 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:
______________________________
Greg Bozzo, Mayor
ATTEST:

Bryce Atkins, Acting City Clerk
Attachment: Exhibit A (Conditions of Approval)

Page 278 of 699 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX
Appeal of V 24-01
City Council Regular Meeting | May 5, 2025

Page 4 of 5 ends

EXHIBIT A
V 24-01
401 First Street

PLANNING CONDITIONS
The following GENERAL conditions authorize specific terms of the project ENTITLEMENT.

1. APPROVED PROJECT: The approval for V 24-01 is granted for exemption to the side and rear wireless facility setback and height limitation to allow a 65-foot-tall monopole and associated equipment, located at 401 First Street (Assessor Parcel No 790-32-004), as shown on Project Plans as received by the Planning Division on December 12, 2024 prepared by Streamline Engineering for T-Mobile, dated January 10, 2024, with revision dates of February 27, 2024, and October 2, 2024, and consisting of 16 sheets.

2. PERMIT EXPIRATION: The expiration date of this approval is one year from the decision date, May 5, 2025. If the applicant does not receive a building permit for the installation of the new 65-foot-tall monopole within one year of this approval, then the variance shall automatically expire and have no further force and effect.

3. RELATED ENTITLEMENTS: This permit is subject to the findings and conditions of approval of concurrent related entitlements AS 24-14 or any subsequent amendments.

Page 279 of 699 ends

Resolution No. 2025-XX
Appeal of V 24-01
City Council Regular Meeting | May 5, 2025

Page 5 of 5 ends

Page 280 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Hold the Fifth Public Hearing Regarding the City's Transition from an At-Large to a District-Based Elections System for the Purpose of Receiving the Demographer’s Presentation on the Transition Process, the Information Received Regarding
Communities of Interest in the City, the Possible Contours of Six Districts, the Drawing of Maps by Redistricting Partners, the Review of Maps Submitted on the City’s Website and by Other Means, and the Presentation of Legally Compliant Draft Maps to the City Council for the Six New Districts, as well as the Order of Elections for the 2026 and 2028 Elections
Meeting Date: May 5, 2025
From: Andy Faber, City Attorney
Department: Administration
Submitted by: Andy Faber
Prepared by: Andy Faber
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Ensure Neighborhood Equity from City Services

RECOMMENDATION
Hold a Public Hearing and receive public input and a presentation from the City of Gilroy's consulting Demographer, Redistricting Partners, regarding the process and criteria for establishing boundaries for district elections pursuant to the California Voting Rights Act for the City Council. This could include discussion of the following topics:

1. The Communities of Interest within the City that should define the boundaries and composition of districts.

2. Review of additional draft maps submitted by Redistricting Partners and the public, including requests for changes to existing draft maps or requests to prepare new draft maps.

3. Provide direction regarding the final draft map for adoption at a Public Hearing on May 19, 2025.

4. Consideration of the Order of Elections, that is, which three districts will be on the ballot in 2026, and which three districts will be on the 2028 ballot.

Page 281 of 699 ends

5. Consideration of the period of time candidates for City Council must be residents and electors of the district in which they seek election prior to filing their nomination papers and declaring their intent to run.

BACKGROUND
The City of Gilroy ("City") currently has an at-large election system, where each of the City's six Councilmembers are elected to staggered four-year terms by voters throughout the City. The mayor is also elected at-large to a four-year term.

1. Letter Alleging Violation of the CVRA and the City’s Resolution of Intent to Transition from At-Large to District-Based Elections.

On December 16, 2024, the City received a letter alleging a violation of the California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”). The letter asserts that the City is in violation of the CVRA because the City's councilmember elections are at-large as opposed to by district and there exists racial polarization and vote dilution. On February 24, 2025, the City Council adopted a resolution declaring its intent to transition to a district-based electoral system commencing with the November 2026 Election.

2. Public Hearings, Public Input, and Community Workshops.

On March 3, 2025, and March 17, 2025, the City Council held the first and second of five public hearings required for the City’s transition to by-district elections. Public Hearings Nos. 1 and 2 were held prior to any draft maps being drawn. Redistricting Partners, the City’s retained demographer, made presentations at both public hearings regarding the CVRA, the transition process from at-large to district elections, the potential composition and number of districts, as well as the public input process.

Members of the public provided input at both hearings regarding communities of interest in and the various attributes of the City of Gilroy to aid in the districting process. At the close of the March 17th hearing, having considered the public's input and the presentation by Redistricting Partners, the City Council provided direction to the demographer to begin drawing draft maps for a by-district electoral system comprised of six districts and an at-large mayor.

In addition, on March 25 and March 29, 2025, the City hosted two workshops—offering childcare and language translation — where Redistricting Partners gave a presentation on districting, facilitated a Q&A session, engaged the public in map-drawing, and gathered additional public input.

On April 7, 2025, Public Hearing No. 3 was held to receive public and City Council feedback on the first set of draft maps. After considering this public input and the presentation by the demographer, the City Council provided direction to Redistricting Partners on proposed revisions to the draft maps to be considered and new maps drawn.

Page 282 of 699 ends

On April 21, 2025, Public Hearing No. 4 was held to receive public and City Council feedback on the second set of draft maps. After considering this public input and the presentation by the demographer, the City Council provided direction to Redistricting Partners on proposed revisions to the draft maps to be considered and new maps drawn.

3. Draft Map Development.

Based on public input and City Council feedback at the April 21 Public Hearing No. 4, the City’s consulting demographer, Redistricting Partners, further developed and revised draft maps, which were posted on the City’s website on April 28, 2025. These draft maps were designed to incorporate and address the public’s concerns and the direction provided by the City Council, all the while ensuring that the draft maps comply with both the CVRA and the Federal Voting Rights Act, as well as the sound map drawing/ demographic principles and meeting the requirements of the Fair Maps Act.

These new draft maps incorporate the underlying Census tract geography to establish the boundaries of individual City Council districts. In drawing these maps, every care was taken to honor neighborhoods and communities of interest as identified through public input. Furthermore, each of the maps complies with the 10% total deviation requirement between the largest to smallest district by population. Further explanation of the public input received and analysis that went in to drafting each of these new draft maps will be provided by Redistricting Partners on May 5, 2025, at Public Hearing No.

5. Also posted on the City's website by or on that date, were three maps that were submitted by members of the public.

At the May 5, 2025, Public Hearing No. 5, the City Council will take public input and provide feedback on the second set of draft maps. It will also provide direction to Redistricting Partners on any proposed revisions to be considered or new maps to be drawn in preparation for Public Hearing No. 6 on May 19, 2025. Again, the maps can be revised, or new maps drawn, after having been posted on the City's website by April 28, 2025. The City Council public hearing on May 19, 2025 will provide additional opportunities for public input and the City Council's consideration of draft maps to ensure that the public has sufficient opportunity to engage in the process. Any maps to be considered at the May 19, 2025, Public Hearing No. 6 will be posted on the City's website by May 12, 2025.

4. Other Matters/ Order of Elections & Residency Requirements.

In addition to the drawing and consideration of maps, the City Council also must determine the order of elections – that is, which three districts will be on the ballot in November of 2026, and which three districts will be on the ballot in November of 2028, as City Council terms are staggered under state law. The City Council will make this decision once it has selected a final map but may continue to hold these discussions on this topic at this Public Hearing No. 5. The decision on the order of elections must be made “in the spirit of the CVRA.”
The City Council may also determine whether candidates for City Council must be residents of the district in which they seek election for any period of time prior to filing

Page 283 of 699 ends

their nomination papers. Pursuant to Government Code section 34882, a candidate running for a city councilmember position is not eligible to hold that office unless they reside in the geographical area making up the district from which they are elected at the time their nomination papers are issued. The City Council may consider what period of time city council candidates must be residents and electors of the district in which they seek election prior to filing their nomination papers and declaring their intent to run. The City Council invites the public to provide their input on this topic.

As a general matter, and as the public may have noticed, incumbency and the location of current City Councilmembers’ residences are not and have not been discussed during the map-drawing process during the first four Public Hearings on the transition from at-large to district-based elections under the California Voting Rights Act. This is because incumbency and political party are not “communities of interest” for purposes of map drawing. Indeed, the Fair Maps Act precludes consideration of incumbency or current Councilmember addresses in defining the contours of the districts. Thus, there again will be no discussion of these matters at Public Hearing No. 5 this coming Monday, May 5, 2025, unless the City Council selects a final map. Once the City Council has chosen a final map on May 5 or at the May 19 Public Hearing No. 6, the Council may consider in which districts current Councilmembers reside in picking the order of elections – that is, which 3 districts will be on the ballot in 2026 and which 3 districts will be on the 2028 ballot. The law requires that the order of elections be determined in the spirit of the California Voting Rights Act with the aim to increase participation and the likelihood that minority residents can elect candidates of their choice. The districts in which current Councilmembers reside may be relevant to selection of districts for the 2026 or 2028 ballots given that Councilmember terms are staggered four-year terms.

5. Final Review, Map Selection, and Ongoing Outreach.

At the Public Hearing No. 6 on May 19, 2025, the City Council will select a map and also the order of elections - that is, which three (3) districts will be on the November 2026 ballot, and which three (3) districts will be on the ballot in November of 2028. The City Council will also decide the residency requirements for City Council candidates.

The City Council will then pass an ordinance that defines both the boundaries of the six new districts and the order of elections.

The City has and will continue to conduct an extensive community outreach effort to solicit feedback and input on the draft maps.

In accordance with Elections Code Section 10010, the City published on its website the draft maps prepared by Redistricting Partners seven (7) days prior to this hearing. Any updated draft maps will also be published seven (7) days in advance of any future public hearing.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There is no fiscal impact to hold this meeting as the City has already retained the services of outside legal counsel and a demographer to assist in the transition to

Page 284 of 699 ends

district-based elections.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
None.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Throughout the process in this transition to district elections, the City has engaged in a robust effort to encourage participation and inclusivity as a part of the process. After the April 21, 2025, Council meeting, the City will continue its robust community outreach effort to solicit feedback on the draft maps and the districting process in a general sense.

The City has and is also providing multiple ways for the public to submit feedback through in-person and online formats such as map drawing, fillable Communities of Interest forms, and submission of public comment. Members of the public are encouraged to regularly visit the City’s districting webpage at:
https://www.cityofgilroy.org/1069/Transition-to-District-Based-Elections Members of the public can access all meeting materials as well as provide input on the districting process and draft maps via the City’s website.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
During the regular meeting of February 24, 2025, the City Council adopted a Resolution declaring its Intent to Transition to District-Based Elections pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10010, with the transition taking effect for the November 2026 and 2028 Elections.

During the regular meeting of March 3, 2025, the City Council held its first public hearing – Public Hearing No. 1 - related to the transition to district-based elections.

There, the City's demographer, Redistricting Partners, made a presentation on the CVRA and the transition process for preparing district boundaries.

On March 17, 2025, the City Council held Public Hearing No. 2 at which the City’s demographer, Redistricting Partners, made a second presentation on the transition process for preparing district boundaries and how to use the City’s online map-drawing tool, “Districtr.” The City Council also determined on that date that the City of Gilroy will continue to have six City Council members – now in six distinct districts – and an atlarge mayor.

On March 25 and March 29, 2025, the City hosted two workshops—offering childcare and language interpretation—where Redistricting Partners gave a presentation on districting, facilitated a Q&A session, engaged the public in map-drawing, and gathered further public input.

Page 285 of 699 ends

On April 7, 2025, the City Council held Public Hearing No. 3 to receive public and City Council feedback on this first set of draft maps. The City Council, after considering public input, provided direction to Redistricting Partners on proposed map revisions and new maps to be drawn for Public Hearing No. 4 on April 21, 2025.

On April 21, 2025, the City Council held Public Hearing No. 4 to receive public and City Council feedback on the second set of draft maps. The City Council, after considering public input, provided direction to Redistricting Partners on proposed map revisions and new maps to be drawn for Public Hearing No. 5 on May 5, 2025.

Attachments:

1. Gilroy Draft Map A

2. Gilroy Draft Map A with 290309 Overlay

3. Gilroy Draft Map B

4. Gilroy Draft Map B with 290307 Overlay

5. Gilroy Draft Map C

6. Gilroy Draft Map D

7. Gilroy Draft Map D with JH05 overlay

8. Gilroy Draft Map E

9. ID 294590

10. ID 295615

11. ID 296092

12. Gilroy FAIR MAPS Act Assessment 4.28.25

13. E-mail Public Comments Before May 1, 2025

Page 286 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft A

Page 287 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft A
1 2 3 4 5 6
Population 9,599 10,227 10,214 10,046 10,079 9,527
Deviation -350 278 265 97 130 -422
Deviation % -3.5% 2.8% 2.7% 1.0% 1.3% -4.2%
Other 1,288 2,304 3,189 2,667 4,860 4,388
Other % 13.4% 22.5% 31.2% 26.5% 48.2% 46.1%
Latino 7,905 6,396 6,308 6,462 3,637 3,051
Latino % 82.4% 62.5% 61.8% 64.3% 36.1% 32.0%
Asian 260 1,260 533 761 1,371 1,861
Asian % 2.7% 12.3% 5.2% 7.6% 13.6% 19.5%
Black 146 267 184 156 211 227
Black % 1.5% 2.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.1% 2.4%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5 6
Total CVAP 3,708 5,922 6,937 5,339 6,820 6,959
Other CVAP 857 1,325 2,279 1,864 3,369 3,451
Other CVAP % 23.1% 22.4% 32.9% 34.9% 49.4% 49.6%
Latino CVAP 2,507 3,891 4,019 2,688 2,438 2,341
Latino CVAP % 67.6% 65.7% 57.9% 50.3% 35.7% 33.6%
Asian CVAP 209 552 417 652 989 940
Asian CVAP % 5.6% 9.3% 6.0% 12.2% 14.5% 13.5%
Black CVAP 135 154 222 135 24 227
Black CVAP % 3.6% 2.6% 3.2% 2.5% 0.4% 3.3%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)

Page 288 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft A
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,599 -350 -3.5% 1,288 13.4% 7,905 82.4% 260 2.7% 146 1.5% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,708 857 23.1% 2,507 67.6% 209 5.6% 135 3.6%

Page 289 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft A
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,227 278 2.8% 2,304 22.5% 6,396 62.5% 1,260 12.3% 267 2.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,922 1,325 22.4% 3,891 65.7% 552 9.3% 154 2.6%

Page 290 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft A
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,214 265 2.7% 3,189 31.2% 6,308 61.8% 533 5.2% 184 1.8% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,937 2,279 32.9% 4,019 57.9% 417 6.0% 222 3.2%

Page 291 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft A
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,046 97 1.0% 2,667 26.5% 6,462 64.3% 761 7.6% 156 1.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,339 1,864 34.9% 2,688 50.3% 652 12.2% 135 2.5%

Page 292 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft A
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,079 130 1.3% 4,860 48.2% 3,637 36.1% 1,371 13.6% 211 2.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,820 3,369 49.4% 2,438 35.7% 989 14.5% 24 0.4%

Page 293 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft A
District 6
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,527 -422 -4.2% 4,388 46.1% 3,051 32.0% 1,861 19.5% 227 2.4% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,959 3,451 49.6% 2,341 33.6% 940 13.5% 227 3.3%

Page 294 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft A with ID 290309 overlay

Page 295 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft A with ID 290309 overlay
1 2 3 4 5 6
Population 9,599 10,227 10,214 10,046 10,079 9,527
Deviation -350 278 265 97 130 -422
Deviation % -3.5% 2.8% 2.7% 1.0% 1.3% -4.2%
Other 1,288 2,304 3,189 2,667 4,860 4,388
Other % 13.4% 22.5% 31.2% 26.5% 48.2% 46.1%
Latino 7,905 6,396 6,308 6,462 3,637 3,051
Latino % 82.4% 62.5% 61.8% 64.3% 36.1% 32.0%
Asian 260 1,260 533 761 1,371 1,861
Asian % 2.7% 12.3% 5.2% 7.6% 13.6% 19.5%
Black 146 267 184 156 211 227
Black % 1.5% 2.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.1% 2.4%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5 6
Total CVAP 3,708 5,922 6,937 5,339 6,820 6,959
Other CVAP 857 1,325 2,279 1,864 3,369 3,451
Other CVAP % 23.1% 22.4% 32.9% 34.9% 49.4% 49.6%
Latino CVAP 2,507 3,891 4,019 2,688 2,438 2,341
Latino CVAP % 67.6% 65.7% 57.9% 50.3% 35.7% 33.6%
Asian CVAP 209 552 417 652 989 940
Asian CVAP % 5.6% 9.3% 6.0% 12.2% 14.5% 13.5%
Black CVAP 135 154 222 135 24 227
Black CVAP % 3.6% 2.6% 3.2% 2.5% 0.4% 3.3%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)

Page 296 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft A with ID 290309 overlay
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,599 -350 -3.5% 1,288 13.4% 7,905 82.4% 260 2.7% 146 1.5% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,708 857 23.1% 2,507 67.6% 209 5.6% 135 3.6%

Page 297 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft A with ID 290309 overlay
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,227 278 2.8% 2,304 22.5% 6,396 62.5% 1,260 12.3% 267 2.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,922 1,325 22.4% 3,891 65.7% 552 9.3% 154 2.6%

Page 298 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft A with ID 290309 overlay
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,214 265 2.7% 3,189 31.2% 6,308 61.8% 533 5.2% 184 1.8% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,937 2,279 32.9% 4,019 57.9% 417 6.0% 222 3.2%

Page 299 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft A with ID 290309 overlay
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,046 97 1.0% 2,667 26.5% 6,462 64.3% 761 7.6% 156 1.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,339 1,864 34.9% 2,688 50.3% 652 12.2% 135 2.5%

Page 300 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft A with ID 290309 overlay
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,079 130 1.3% 4,860 48.2% 3,637 36.1% 1,371 13.6% 211 2.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,820 3,369 49.4% 2,438 35.7% 989 14.5% 24 0.4%

Page 301 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft A with ID 290309 overlay
District 6
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,527 -422 -4.2% 4,388 46.1% 3,051 32.0% 1,861 19.5% 227 2.4% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,959 3,451 49.6% 2,341 33.6% 940 13.5% 227 3.3%

Page 302 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft B

Page 303 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft B
1 2 3 4 5 6
Population 10,132 10,067 10,238 9,847 9,851 9,557
Deviation 183 118 289 -102 -98 -392
Deviation % 1.8% 1.2% 2.9% -1.0% -1.0% -3.9%
Other 1,827 1,902 3,056 2,637 4,778 4,496
Other % 18.0% 18.9% 29.8% 26.8% 48.5% 47.0%
Latino 7,265 7,278 6,625 6,098 3,513 2,980
Latino % 71.7% 72.3% 64.7% 61.9% 35.7% 31.2%
Asian 821 673 447 907 1,349 1,849
Asian % 8.1% 6.7% 4.4% 9.2% 13.7% 19.3%
Black 219 214 110 205 211 232
Black % 2.2% 2.1% 1.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.4%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5 6
Total CVAP 5,475 4,273 6,146 5,968 6,700 7,123
Other CVAP 1,022 1,236 2,489 1,415 3,316 3,667
Other CVAP % 18.7% 28.9% 40.5% 23.7% 49.5% 51.5%
Latino CVAP 3,841 2,416 3,111 3,823 2,386 2,307
Latino CVAP % 70.2% 56.5% 50.6% 64.1% 35.6% 32.4%
Asian CVAP 444 439 375 603 974 924
Asian CVAP % 8.1% 10.3% 6.1% 10.1% 14.5% 13.0%
Black CVAP 168 182 171 127 24 225
Black CVAP % 3.1% 4.3% 2.8% 2.1% 0.4% 3.2%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)

Page 304 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft B
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,132 183 1.8% 1,827 18.0% 7,265 71.7% 821 8.1% 219 2.2% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,475 1,022 18.7% 3,841 70.2% 444 8.1% 168 3.1%

Page 305 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft B
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,067 118 1.2% 1,902 18.9% 7,278 72.3% 673 6.7% 214 2.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,273 1,236 28.9% 2,416 56.5% 439 10.3% 182 4.3%

Page 306 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft B
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,238 289 2.9% 3,056 29.8% 6,625 64.7% 447 4.4% 110 1.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,146 2,489 40.5% 3,111 50.6% 375 6.1% 171 2.8%

Page 307 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft B
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,847 -102 -1.0% 2,637 26.8% 6,098 61.9% 907 9.2% 205 2.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,968 1,415 23.7% 3,823 64.1% 603 10.1% 127 2.1%

Page 308 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft B
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,851 -98 -1.0% 4,778 48.5% 3,513 35.7% 1,349 13.7% 211 2.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,700 3,316 49.5% 2,386 35.6% 974 14.5% 24 0.4%

Page 309 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft B
District 6
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,557 -392 -3.9% 4,496 47.0% 2,980 31.2% 1,849 19.3% 232 2.4% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 7,123 3,667 51.5% 2,307 32.4% 924 13.0% 225 3.2%

Page 310 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft B with ID 290307 overlay

Page 311 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft B with ID 290307 overlay
1 2 3 4 5 6
Population 10,132 10,067 10,238 9,847 9,851 9,557
Deviation 183 118 289 -102 -98 -392
Deviation % 1.8% 1.2% 2.9% -1.0% -1.0% -3.9%
Other 1,827 1,902 3,056 2,637 4,778 4,496
Other % 18.0% 18.9% 29.8% 26.8% 48.5% 47.0%
Latino 7,265 7,278 6,625 6,098 3,513 2,980
Latino % 71.7% 72.3% 64.7% 61.9% 35.7% 31.2%
Asian 821 673 447 907 1,349 1,849
Asian % 8.1% 6.7% 4.4% 9.2% 13.7% 19.3%
Black 219 214 110 205 211 232
Black % 2.2% 2.1% 1.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.4%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5 6
Total CVAP 5,475 4,273 6,146 5,968 6,700 7,123
Other CVAP 1,022 1,236 2,489 1,415 3,316 3,667
Other CVAP % 18.7% 28.9% 40.5% 23.7% 49.5% 51.5%
Latino CVAP 3,841 2,416 3,111 3,823 2,386 2,307
Latino CVAP % 70.2% 56.5% 50.6% 64.1% 35.6% 32.4%
Asian CVAP 444 439 375 603 974 924
Asian CVAP % 8.1% 10.3% 6.1% 10.1% 14.5% 13.0%
Black CVAP 168 182 171 127 24 225
Black CVAP % 3.1% 4.3% 2.8% 2.1% 0.4% 3.2%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)

Page 312 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft B with ID 290307 overlay
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,132 183 1.8% 1,827 18.0% 7,265 71.7% 821 8.1% 219 2.2% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,475 1,022 18.7% 3,841 70.2% 444 8.1% 168 3.1%

Page 313 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft B with ID 290307 overlay
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,067 118 1.2% 1,902 18.9% 7,278 72.3% 673 6.7% 214 2.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,273 1,236 28.9% 2,416 56.5% 439 10.3% 182 4.3%

Page 314 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft B with ID 290307 overlay
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,238 289 2.9% 3,056 29.8% 6,625 64.7% 447 4.4% 110 1.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,146 2,489 40.5% 3,111 50.6% 375 6.1% 171 2.8%

Page 315 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft B with ID 290307 overlay
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,847 -102 -1.0% 2,637 26.8% 6,098 61.9% 907 9.2% 205 2.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,968 1,415 23.7% 3,823 64.1% 603 10.1% 127 2.1%

Page 316 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft B with ID 290307 overlay
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,851 -98 -1.0% 4,778 48.5% 3,513 35.7% 1,349 13.7% 211 2.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,700 3,316 49.5% 2,386 35.6% 974 14.5% 24 0.4%

Page 317 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft B with ID 290307 overlay
District 6
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,557 -392 -3.9% 4,496 47.0% 2,980 31.2% 1,849 19.3% 232 2.4% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 7,123 3,667 51.5% 2,307 32.4% 924 13.0% 225 3.2%

Page 318 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft C

Page 319 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft C
1 2 3 4 5 6
Population 10,261 9,702 10,219 10,171 9,572 9,767
Deviation 312 -247 270 222 -377 -182
Deviation % 3.1% -2.5% 2.7% 2.2% -3.8% -1.8%
Other 1,779 1,747 3,982 2,397 4,153 4,638
Other % 17.3% 18.0% 39.0% 23.6% 43.4% 47.5%
Latino 7,850 7,140 5,517 6,466 3,863 2,923
Latino % 76.5% 73.6% 54.0% 63.6% 40.4% 29.9%
Asian 491 624 580 1,044 1,328 1,979
Asian % 4.8% 6.4% 5.7% 10.3% 13.9% 20.3%
Black 141 191 140 264 228 227
Black % 1.4% 2.0% 1.4% 2.6% 2.4% 2.3%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5 6
Total CVAP 5,270 4,439 6,208 5,968 6,396 7,404
Other CVAP 1,537 1,228 2,375 1,458 2,865 3,682
Other CVAP % 29.2% 27.7% 38.3% 24.4% 44.8% 49.7%
Latino CVAP 3,239 2,576 3,329 3,756 2,641 2,343
Latino CVAP % 61.5% 58.0% 53.6% 62.9% 41.3% 31.6%
Asian CVAP 304 486 362 586 861 1,160
Asian CVAP % 5.8% 10.9% 5.8% 9.8% 13.5% 15.7%
Black CVAP 190 149 142 168 29 219
Black CVAP % 3.6% 3.4% 2.3% 2.8% 0.5% 3.0%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)

Page 320 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft C
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,261 312 3.1% 1,779 17.3% 7,850 76.5% 491 4.8% 141 1.4% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,270 1,537 29.2% 3,239 61.5% 304 5.8% 190 3.6%

Page 321 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft C
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,702 -247 -2.5% 1,747 18.0% 7,140 73.6% 624 6.4% 191 2.0% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,439 1,228 27.7% 2,576 58.0% 486 10.9% 149 3.4%

Page 322 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft C
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,219 270 2.7% 3,982 39.0% 5,517 54.0% 580 5.7% 140 1.4% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,208 2,375 38.3% 3,329 53.6% 362 5.8% 142 2.3%

Page 323 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft C
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,171 222 2.2% 2,397 23.6% 6,466 63.6% 1,044 10.3% 264 2.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,968 1,458 24.4% 3,756 62.9% 586 9.8% 168 2.8%

Page 324 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft C
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,572 -377 -3.8% 4,153 43.4% 3,863 40.4% 1,328 13.9% 228 2.4% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,396 2,865 44.8% 2,641 41.3% 861 13.5% 29 0.5%

Page 325 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft C
District 6
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,767 -182 -1.8% 4,638 47.5% 2,923 29.9% 1,979 20.3% 227 2.3% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 7,404 3,682 49.7% 2,343 31.6% 1,160 15.7% 219 3.0%

Page 326 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft D: JH05 modified

Page 327 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft D: JH05 modified
1 2 3 4 5 6
Population 10,227 10,079 10,058 9,484 10,092 9,752
Deviation 278 130 109 -465 143 -197
Deviation % 2.8% 1.3% 1.1% -4.7% 1.4% -2.0%
Other 2,304 4,860 3,247 1,218 2,532 4,535
Other % 22.5% 48.2% 32.3% 12.8% 25.1% 46.5%
Latino 6,396 3,637 6,078 7,875 6,647 3,126
Latino % 62.5% 36.1% 60.4% 83.0% 65.9% 32.1%
Asian 1,260 1,371 546 251 754 1,864
Asian % 12.3% 13.6% 5.4% 2.6% 7.5% 19.1%
Black 267 211 187 140 159 227
Black % 2.6% 2.1% 1.9% 1.5% 1.6% 2.3%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5 6
Total CVAP 5,922 6,820 6,686 3,618 5,544 7,095
Other CVAP 1,325 3,369 2,183 795 1,925 3,548
Other CVAP % 22.4% 49.4% 32.7% 22.0% 34.7% 50.0%
Latino CVAP 3,891 2,438 3,879 2,488 2,808 2,380
Latino CVAP % 65.7% 35.7% 58.0% 68.8% 50.6% 33.5%
Asian CVAP 552 989 428 202 648 940
Asian CVAP % 9.3% 14.5% 6.4% 5.6% 11.7% 13.2%
Black CVAP 154 24 196 133 163 227
Black CVAP % 2.6% 0.4% 2.9% 3.7% 2.9% 3.2%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)

Page 328 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft D: JH05 modified
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,227 278 2.8% 2,304 22.5% 6,396 62.5% 1,260 12.3% 267 2.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,922 1,325 22.4% 3,891 65.7% 552 9.3% 154 2.6%

Page 329 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft D: JH05 modified
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,079 130 1.3% 4,860 48.2% 3,637 36.1% 1,371 13.6% 211 2.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,820 3,369 49.4% 2,438 35.7% 989 14.5% 24 0.4%

Page 330 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft D: JH05 modified
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,058 109 1.1% 3,247 32.3% 6,078 60.4% 546 5.4% 187 1.9% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,686 2,183 32.7% 3,879 58.0% 428 6.4% 196 2.9%

Page 331 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft D: JH05 modified
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,484 -465 -4.7% 1,218 12.8% 7,875 83.0% 251 2.6% 140 1.5% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,618 795 22.0% 2,488 68.8% 202 5.6% 133 3.7%

Page 332 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft D: JH05 modified
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,092 143 1.4% 2,532 25.1% 6,647 65.9% 754 7.5% 159 1.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,544 1,925 34.7% 2,808 50.6% 648 11.7% 163 2.9%

Page 333 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft D: JH05 modified
District 6
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,752 -197 -2.0% 4,535 46.5% 3,126 32.1% 1,864 19.1% 227 2.3% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 7,095 3,548 50.0% 2,380 33.5% 940 13.2% 227 3.2%

Page 334 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft D with JH05 overlay

Page 335 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft D with JH05 overlay
1 2 3 4 5 6
Population 10,227 10,079 10,058 9,484 10,092 9,752
Deviation 278 130 109 -465 143 -197
Deviation % 2.8% 1.3% 1.1% -4.7% 1.4% -2.0%
Other 2,304 4,860 3,247 1,218 2,532 4,535
Other % 22.5% 48.2% 32.3% 12.8% 25.1% 46.5%
Latino 6,396 3,637 6,078 7,875 6,647 3,126
Latino % 62.5% 36.1% 60.4% 83.0% 65.9% 32.1%
Asian 1,260 1,371 546 251 754 1,864
Asian % 12.3% 13.6% 5.4% 2.6% 7.5% 19.1%
Black 267 211 187 140 159 227
Black % 2.6% 2.1% 1.9% 1.5% 1.6% 2.3%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5 6
Total CVAP 5,922 6,820 6,686 3,618 5,544 7,095
Other CVAP 1,325 3,369 2,183 795 1,925 3,548
Other CVAP % 22.4% 49.4% 32.7% 22.0% 34.7% 50.0%
Latino CVAP 3,891 2,438 3,879 2,488 2,808 2,380
Latino CVAP % 65.7% 35.7% 58.0% 68.8% 50.6% 33.5%
Asian CVAP 552 989 428 202 648 940
Asian CVAP % 9.3% 14.5% 6.4% 5.6% 11.7% 13.2%
Black CVAP 154 24 196 133 163 227
Black CVAP % 2.6% 0.4% 2.9% 3.7% 2.9% 3.2%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)

Page 336 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft D with JH05 overlay
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,227 278 2.8% 2,304 22.5% 6,396 62.5% 1,260 12.3% 267 2.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,922 1,325 22.4% 3,891 65.7% 552 9.3% 154 2.6%

Page 337 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft D with JH05 overlay
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,079 130 1.3% 4,860 48.2% 3,637 36.1% 1,371 13.6% 211 2.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,820 3,369 49.4% 2,438 35.7% 989 14.5% 24 0.4%

Page 338 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft D with JH05 overlay
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,058 109 1.1% 3,247 32.3% 6,078 60.4% 546 5.4% 187 1.9% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,686 2,183 32.7% 3,879 58.0% 428 6.4% 196 2.9%

Page 339 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft D with JH05 overlay
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,484 -465 -4.7% 1,218 12.8% 7,875 83.0% 251 2.6% 140 1.5% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,618 795 22.0% 2,488 68.8% 202 5.6% 133 3.7%

Page 340 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft D with JH05 overlay
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,092 143 1.4% 2,532 25.1% 6,647 65.9% 754 7.5% 159 1.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,544 1,925 34.7% 2,808 50.6% 648 11.7% 163 2.9%

Page 341 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft D with JH05 overlay
District 6
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,752 -197 -2.0% 4,535 46.5% 3,126 32.1% 1,864 19.1% 227 2.3% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 7,095 3,548 50.0% 2,380 33.5% 940 13.2% 227 3.2%

Page 342 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft E (ID 289808)

Page 343 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft E (ID 289808)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Population 10,026 9,983 9,929 9,849 9,923 9,982
Deviation 77 34 -20 -100 -26 33
Deviation % 0.8% 0.3% -0.2% -1.0% -0.3% 0.3%
Other 1,234 3,583 2,102 3,279 4,217 4,281
Other % 12.3% 35.9% 21.2% 33.3% 42.5% 42.9%
Latino 8,433 5,791 6,411 4,831 4,092 4,201
Latino % 84.1% 58.0% 64.6% 49.1% 41.2% 42.1%
Asian 246 483 1,152 1,478 1,381 1,306
Asian % 2.5% 4.8% 11.6% 15.0% 13.9% 13.1%
Black 113 126 264 261 233 194
Black % 1.1% 1.3% 2.7% 2.7% 2.3% 1.9%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5 6
Total CVAP 4,054 6,192 5,748 6,429 6,581 6,681
Other CVAP 1,130 2,697 1,142 2,358 2,918 2,900
Other CVAP % 27.9% 43.6% 19.9% 36.7% 44.3% 43.4%
Latino CVAP 2,634 2,985 3,828 2,826 2,736 2,875
Latino CVAP % 65.0% 48.2% 66.6% 44.0% 41.6% 43.0%
Asian CVAP 181 363 588 958 898 771
Asian CVAP % 4.5% 5.9% 10.2% 14.9% 13.6% 11.5%
Black CVAP 109 147 190 287 29 135
Black CVAP % 2.7% 2.4% 3.3% 4.5% 0.4% 2.0%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)

Page 344 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft E (ID 289808)
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,026 77 0.8% 1,234 12.3% 8,433 84.1% 246 2.5% 113 1.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,054 1,130 27.9% 2,634 65.0% 181 4.5% 109 2.7%

Page 345 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft E (ID 289808)
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,983 34 0.3% 3,583 35.9% 5,791 58.0% 483 4.8% 126 1.3% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,192 2,697 43.6% 2,985 48.2% 363 5.9% 147 2.4%

Page 346 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft E (ID 289808)
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,929 -20 -0.2% 2,102 21.2% 6,411 64.6% 1,152 11.6% 264 2.7% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,748 1,142 19.9% 3,828 66.6% 588 10.2% 190 3.3%

Page 347 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft E (ID 289808)
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,849 -100 -1.0% 3,279 33.3% 4,831 49.1% 1,478 15.0% 261 2.7% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,429 2,358 36.7% 2,826 44.0% 958 14.9% 287 4.5%

Page 348 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft E (ID 289808)
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,923 -26 -0.3% 4,217 42.5% 4,092 41.2% 1,381 13.9% 233 2.3% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,581 2,918 44.3% 2,736 41.6% 898 13.6% 29 0.4%

Page 349 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
Draft E (ID 289808)
District 6
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,982 33 0.3% 4,281 42.9% 4,201 42.1% 1,306 13.1% 194 1.9% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,681 2,900 43.4% 2,875 43.0% 771 11.5% 135 2.0%

Page 350 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 294590, "JH12"

Page 351 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 294590, "JH12"
1 2 3 4 5 6
Population 10,359 10,172 9,912 9,428 9,753 10,068
Deviation 410 223 -37 -521 -196 119
Deviation % 4.1% 2.2% -0.4% -5.2% -2.0% 1.2%
Other 5,173 4,712 2,123 2,581 1,282 2,825
Other % 49.9% 46.3% 21.4% 27.4% 13.1% 28.1%
Latino 3,468 3,554 6,895 5,796 8,058 5,988
Latino % 33.5% 34.9% 69.6% 61.5% 82.6% 59.5%
Asian 1,474 1,708 699 864 307 994
Asian % 14.2% 16.8% 7.1% 9.2% 3.1% 9.9%
Black 244 198 195 187 106 261
Black % 2.4% 1.9% 2.0% 2.0% 1.1% 2.6%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5 6
Total CVAP 7,041 7,317 4,655 5,828 4,292 6,552
Other CVAP 3,739 3,566 1,438 1,335 853 2,214
Other CVAP % 53.1% 48.7% 30.9% 22.9% 19.9% 33.8%
Latino CVAP 2,282 2,594 2,481 3,766 3,095 3,666
Latino CVAP % 32.4% 35.5% 53.3% 64.6% 72.1% 56.0%
Asian CVAP 978 953 592 624 228 384
Asian CVAP % 13.9% 13.0% 12.7% 10.7% 5.3% 5.9%
Black CVAP 42 204 144 103 116 288
Black CVAP % 0.6% 2.8% 3.1% 1.8% 2.7% 4.4%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)

Page 352 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 294590, "JH12"
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,359 410 4.1% 5,173 49.9% 3,468 33.5% 1,474 14.2% 244 2.4% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 7,041 3,739 53.1% 2,282 32.4% 978 13.9% 42 0.6%

Page 353 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 294590, "JH12"
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,172 223 2.2% 4,712 46.3% 3,554 34.9% 1,708 16.8% 198 1.9% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 7,317 3,566 48.7% 2,594 35.5% 953 13.0% 204 2.8%

Page 354 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 294590, "JH12"
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,912 -37 -0.4% 2,123 21.4% 6,895 69.6% 699 7.1% 195 2.0% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,655 1,438 30.9% 2,481 53.3% 592 12.7% 144 3.1%

Page 355 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 294590, "JH12"
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,428 -521 -5.2% 2,581 27.4% 5,796 61.5% 864 9.2% 187 2.0% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,828 1,335 22.9% 3,766 64.6% 624 10.7% 103 1.8%

Page 356 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 294590, "JH12"
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,753 -196 -2.0% 1,282 13.1% 8,058 82.6% 307 3.1% 106 1.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,292 853 19.9% 3,095 72.1% 228 5.3% 116 2.7%

Page 357 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 294590, "JH12"
District 6
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,068 119 1.2% 2,825 28.1% 5,988 59.5% 994 9.9% 261 2.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,552 2,214 33.8% 3,666 56.0% 384 5.9% 288 4.4%

Page 358 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 295615, "JH13"

Page 359 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 295615, "JH13"
1 2 3 4 5 6
Population 10,117 9,842 9,936 10,402 9,599 9,796
Deviation 168 -107 -13 453 -350 -153
Deviation % 1.7% -1.1% -0.1% 4.6% -3.5% -1.5%
Other 2,619 2,320 1,369 4,460 4,137 3,791
Other % 25.9% 23.6% 13.8% 42.9% 43.1% 38.7%
Latino 7,009 6,372 7,899 4,222 4,326 3,931
Latino % 69.3% 64.7% 79.5% 40.6% 45.1% 40.1%
Asian 359 921 493 1,482 972 1,819
Asian % 3.5% 9.4% 5.0% 14.2% 10.1% 18.6%
Black 130 229 175 238 164 255
Black % 1.3% 2.3% 1.8% 2.3% 1.7% 2.6%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5 6
Total CVAP 5,454 6,111 4,228 6,820 6,035 7,037
Other CVAP 2,126 1,370 895 3,032 2,829 2,893
Other CVAP % 39.0% 22.4% 21.2% 44.5% 46.9% 41.1%
Latino CVAP 2,768 4,063 2,895 2,818 2,593 2,747
Latino CVAP % 50.8% 66.5% 68.5% 41.3% 43.0% 39.0%
Asian CVAP 380 497 310 940 526 1,106
Asian CVAP % 7.0% 8.1% 7.3% 13.8% 8.7% 15.7%
Black CVAP 180 181 128 30 87 291
Black CVAP % 3.3% 3.0% 3.0% 0.4% 1.4% 4.1%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)

Page 360 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 295615, "JH13"
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,117 168 1.7% 2,619 25.9% 7,009 69.3% 359 3.5% 130 1.3% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,454 2,126 39.0% 2,768 50.8% 380 7.0% 180 3.3%

Page 361 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 295615, "JH13"
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,842 -107 -1.1% 2,320 23.6% 6,372 64.7% 921 9.4% 229 2.3% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,111 1,370 22.4% 4,063 66.5% 497 8.1% 181 3.0%

Page 362 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 295615, "JH13"
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,936 -13 -0.1% 1,369 13.8% 7,899 79.5% 493 5.0% 175 1.8% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,228 895 21.2% 2,895 68.5% 310 7.3% 128 3.0%

Page 363 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 295615, "JH13"
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,402 453 4.6% 4,460 42.9% 4,222 40.6% 1,482 14.2% 238 2.3% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,820 3,032 44.5% 2,818 41.3% 940 13.8% 30 0.4%

Page 364 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 295615, "JH13"
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,599 -350 -3.5% 4,137 43.1% 4,326 45.1% 972 10.1% 164 1.7% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,035 2,829 46.9% 2,593 43.0% 526 8.7% 87 1.4%

Page 365 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 295615, "JH13"
District 6
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,796 -153 -1.5% 3,791 38.7% 3,931 40.1% 1,819 18.6% 255 2.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 7,037 2,893 41.1% 2,747 39.0% 1,106 15.7% 291 4.1%

Page 366 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 296092, "HS"

Page 367 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 296092, "HS"
1 2 3 4 5 6
Population 9,635 9,563 9,829 10,044 10,311 10,310
Deviation -314 -386 -120 95 362 361
Deviation % -3.2% -3.9% -1.2% 1.0% 3.6% 3.6%
Other 1,793 3,271 4,675 4,339 1,755 2,863
Other % 18.6% 34.2% 47.6% 43.2% 17.0% 27.8%
Latino 7,037 5,698 3,007 4,124 7,452 6,441
Latino % 73.0% 59.6% 30.6% 41.1% 72.3% 62.5%
Asian 601 497 1,929 1,348 891 780
Asian % 6.2% 5.2% 19.6% 13.4% 8.6% 7.6%
Black 204 97 218 233 213 226
Black % 2.1% 1.0% 2.2% 2.3% 2.1% 2.2%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5 6
Total CVAP 4,206 5,584 7,230 6,753 5,362 6,550
Other CVAP 1,098 2,673 3,509 3,028 1,103 1,734
Other CVAP % 26.1% 47.9% 48.5% 44.8% 20.6% 26.5%
Latino CVAP 2,505 2,493 2,362 2,802 3,627 4,095
Latino CVAP % 59.6% 44.6% 32.7% 41.5% 67.6% 62.5%
Asian CVAP 445 288 1,141 893 442 550
Asian CVAP % 10.6% 5.2% 15.8% 13.2% 8.2% 8.4%
Black CVAP 158 130 218 30 190 171
Black CVAP % 3.8% 2.3% 3.0% 0.4% 3.5% 2.6%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)

Page 368 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 296092, "HS"
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,635 -314 -3.2% 1,793 18.6% 7,037 73.0% 601 6.2% 204 2.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,206 1,098 26.1% 2,505 59.6% 445 10.6% 158 3.8%

Page 369 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 296092, "HS"
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,563 -386 -3.9% 3,271 34.2% 5,698 59.6% 497 5.2% 97 1.0% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,584 2,673 47.9% 2,493 44.6% 288 5.2% 130 2.3%

Page 370 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 296092, "HS"
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 9,829 -120 -1.2% 4,675 47.6% 3,007 30.6% 1,929 19.6% 218 2.2% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 7,230 3,509 48.5% 2,362 32.7% 1,141 15.8% 218 3.0%

Page 371 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 296092, "HS"
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,044 95 1.0% 4,339 43.2% 4,124 41.1% 1,348 13.4% 233 2.3% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,753 3,028 44.8% 2,802 41.5% 893 13.2% 30 0.4%

Page 372 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 296092, "HS"
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,311 362 3.6% 1,755 17.0% 7,452 72.3% 891 8.6% 213 2.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 5,362 1,103 20.6% 3,627 67.6% 442 8.2% 190 3.5%

Page 373 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy
ID 296092, "HS"
District 6
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 10,310 361 3.6% 2,863 27.8% 6,441 62.5% 780 7.6% 226 2.2% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 6,550 1,734 26.5% 4,095 62.5% 550 8.4% 171 2.6%

Page 374 of 699 ends

1 | P a g e
Public Maps: FAIR MAPS Act Assessment
The following maps were submitted by April 28, 2025, and can be considered during the May 5 public hearing Under the FAIR MAPS Act, the City of Gilroy is required to follow a ranked list of criteria in their districting process:
• Relatively equal in population size – total deviation is under 10% • Contiguous
• Maintains “communities of interest”
• Easily identifiable and understandable lines, following city, natural, and man-made boundaries
• Compact
As demographers, we can assess all criteria objectively except for “maintaining communities of interest.” This particular criterion is subjective by definition and should be discussed by the public and the City Council to determine how well these maps fulfil this criterion.

This assessment is meant to inform the City Council on which maps already follow the FAIR MAPS Act guidelines and does not exclude any map from being considered. Any map can be uplifted as a draft and, if necessary, modified to follow the FMA criteria at the discretion of the City Council.

ID 296092
“HS”
Total Deviation: 7.5 %
Date of submission: 4/24/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? 
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?

Compact? ✓
Note: Minor issues, which can be fixed: missing
census blocks and lines need to be straightened out.

Page 375 of 699 ends

2 | P a g e
ID 295615
“JH13”
Total Deviation: 8.1%
Date of submission: 4/21/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
ID 294590
“JH12”
Total Deviation: 9.4%
Date of submission: 4/15/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? 
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ?
Note: minor contiguity issue and lines should be
straightened out. The Purple district does not look
compact but could be justified if it’s maintaining a
community of interest.

Page 376 of 699 ends

3 | P a g e
The following maps were submitted by April 14, 2025 and were considered during the April 21 public hearing
ID 294311
“T2”
Total Deviation: 13.7 %
Date of submission: 4/13/2025
Relatively equal in population size? 
Contiguous? 
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
Note: Minor contiguity issue on the west side of the blue district. Map can be adjusted to bring the population into compliance and fix the non-contiguity issue.

ID 293873
“Protect Our Business Representation”
Total Deviation: 20.4%
Date of submission: 4/9/2025
Relatively equal in population size? 
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? 
Note: The deviation size is likely too large to adjust the map without major modifications.

Page 377 of 699 ends

4 | P a g e
ID 293705
Total Deviation: 12.8%
Date of submission: 4/8/2025
Relatively equal in population size? 
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
Note: The deviation size is small enough where the map
could be adjusted without major changes to the
integrity of the map.

ID 293684
“Fair-1”
Total Deviation: 2.8%
Date of submission: 4/8/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓

Page 378 of 699 ends

5 | P a g e
ID 293651
“JH11 from JH05”
Total Deviation: 8.6%
Date of submission: 4/8/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
ID 293648
“JH10 – from Draft C”
Total Deviation: 2.8%
Date of submission: 4/8/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
ID 293380
“TF- Modified-B”
Total Deviation: 4.4%
Date of submission: 4/6/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓

Page 379 of 699 ends

6 | P a g e
ID 292752
“Garlic City 04/2025”
Total Deviation: 6.8%
Date of submission: 4/1/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
ID 292725
“JH09 – Same as 292463 COI”
Total Deviation: 5.3%
Date of submission: 4/1/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?

Compact? 

Page 380 of 699 ends

7 | P a g e
The following maps were submitted by March 31, 2025 and were considered during the April 7 public hearing.

ID 288689
“JH01”
Total Deviation: 1.1 %
Date of submission: 3/11/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
ID 288702
"JH02”
Total Deviation: 0.36%
Date of submission: 3/11/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? 

Page 381 of 699 ends

8 | P a g e
ID 288706
"JH03"
Total Deviation: 1%
Date of submission: 3/11/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
ID 289081
Total Deviation: 10.4 %
Date of submission: 3/12/2025
Relatively equal in population size? 
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? 
ID 289084
"Billy O"
Total Deviation: 11.1%
Date of submission: 3/12/2025
Relatively equal in population size? 
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓

Page 382 of 699 ends

9 | P a g e
ID 289094
“Four Majority Latino Districts”
Total Deviation: 11.5%
Date of submission: 3/12/2025
Relatively equal in population size? 
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
ID 289103
“JH04”
Total Deviation: 11.3 %
Date of submission: 3/12/2025
Relatively equal in population size? 
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
ID 289301
“JH05”
Total Deviation: 7.46%
Date of submission: 3/13/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓

Page 383 of 699 ends

10 | P a g e
ID 289422
Total Deviation: 12.3%
Date of submission: 3/13/2025
Relatively equal in population size? 
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
ID 289567
“Business Corridor”
Total Deviation: 22.6%
Date of submission: 3/14/2025
Relatively equal in population size? 
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? 
ID 289693
“JV INO”
Total Deviation: 2%
Date of submission: 3/15/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓

Page 384 of 699 ends

11 | P a g e
ID 289422
Total Deviation: 12.3%
Date of submission: 3/13/2025
Relatively equal in population size? 
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
ID 289567
“Business Corridor”
Total Deviation: 22.6%
Date of submission: 3/14/2025
Relatively equal in population size? 
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? 
ID 289693
“JV INO”
Total Deviation: 2%
Date of submission: 3/15/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓

Page 385 of 699 ends

12 | P a g e
ID 289695
“Balanced 1% JCV INB”
Total Deviation: 2%
Date of submission: 3/15/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
Note: same map as ID 289693.

ID 289808
“JH06”
Total Deviation: 1.8%
Date of submission: 3/16/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
ID 290180
“GILROY FUTURE 1854”
Total Deviation: 3.6%
Date of submission: 3/17/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓

Page 386 of 699 ends

13 | P a g e
ID 290307
“#Go Gilroy”
Total Deviation: 12.3%
Date of submission: 3/18/2025
Relatively equal in population size? 
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
Note: Draft B is based on this map.

ID 290309
“JH07”
Total Deviation: 2.2%
Date of submission: 3/18/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
Note: Draft A is based on this map.

ID 290576
“EQUAL REPRESENTATION”
Total Deviation: 17.9%
Date of submission: 3/19/2025
Relatively equal in population size? 
Contiguous? 
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?

Compact? 

Page 387 of 699 ends

14 | P a g e
ID 290606
“Compact Districts”
Total Deviation: N/A
Date of submission: 3/19/2025
Relatively equal in population size? N/A
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? 
Note: This map has 7 districts.

ID 290655
“Compact Districts #2”
Total Deviation: N/A
Date of submission: 3/20/2025
Relatively equal in population size? N/A
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
Note: This map has 7 districts.

ID 291665
“JH08”
Total Deviation: 6.7%
Date of submission: 3/26/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓

Page 388 of 699 ends

15 | P a g e
ID 292240
“WO”
Total Deviation: 5.2%
Date of submission: 3/29/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
ID 292418
Total Deviation: 1.9%
Date of submission: 3/30/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
ID 292419
Total Deviation: 1.9%
Date of submission: 3/30/2025
Relatively equal in population size? ✓
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓
Note: Same map as ID 292418.

Page 389 of 699 ends

16 | P a g e
ID 292517
Total Deviation: 13.7%
Date of submission: 3/31/2025
Relatively equal in population size? 
Contiguous? ✓
Lines are easy to understand and
identify?
✓
Compact? ✓

Page 390 of 699 ends

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

From: Armando Be
To: Public Comments
Subject: EXTERNAL - Item10.1 Public Hearing re: Transition to District Electios Date: Monday, March 3, 2025 1: 56: 31 PM
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I look forward to the first public hearing regarding the transition to District Elections for Gilroy. It is a first step to ensure a more equitable election process.

Regards,
Armando Benavides

Page 391 of 699 ends

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

From: Jan Bernstein Chargin
To: City Clerk; All Council Members
Subject: EXTERNAL - In favor of redistricting
Date: Monday, March 3, 2025 1: 24: 34 PM
Dear City Council and Honorable Mayor of the City of Gilroy, I am writing in support of Item 10.1 on today' s City Council agenda. I am grateful and relieved that the council has made the decision to transition from at-large to district- level elections.

Gilroy has grown considerably over the past few decades and needs a governance structure that can be responsive to the different needs of different areas of our growing and diverse community. This approach will give community members a better connection to our government and the knowledge that there is a council member both familiar with the specific conditions where they live and an accountability to their neighborhood. This will strengthen all neighborhoods. It will also make it possible for more people to seek elective office by reducing the number of potential voters each candidate is seeking to represent. This will reduce the cost of running for office and preclude the necessity of seeking campaign contributions from out-of-town donors.

The California Voting Rights Act requires voting districts that are fair, equitable, and respectful of communities of interest.

As districts are drawn we should consider specific socio- economic factors: specifically income, but also ratio of renters to homeowners, age of infrastructure, presence of HOAs, and the geographic boundaries created by major roads and freeways and creeks.

My East side neighborhood, adjacent to Eliot School, is one such community of interest: It is a predominantly working- class neighborhood of older homes, a high proportion of renters, and city roads and sidewalks rather than HOAs. We are in walking distance to the bus/train station and likely to be heavily impacted by high speed rail, if and when it comes through Gilroy. Our neighborhood includes both immigrants and families that have lived in Gilroy for generations.

Multiple languages are spoken here. It will be important to have a representative on the City Council who understands this community and its unique needs as part of a strong Gilroy for the future.

Sincerely,
Jan Bernstein Chargin
7350 Maple Street
408) 843-8691

Page 392 of 699 ends

1 | P a g e
City of Gilroy Districtr Community of Interest Testimony Submissions Community of Interest testimony submitted via Districtr prior to Public Hearing on April 7, 2025 ID 292463
jah”
Date of submission: 3/ 31/ 2024
Notes: No description included.

Page 393 of 699 ends

2 | P a g e
ID 290886
Communities of Interest - Citywide”
Date of submission: 3/ 21/ 2025
Color of Community
of Interest/ Name
Description
Blue/ “ Oldtown West” The western portion of Oldtown Gilroy, bounded by Church Street, 10th Street, Wren Avenue, and 1st Street, clearly qualifies as a Community of Interest under the criteria outlined in California’ s Fair Maps Act. This neighborhood is defined by shared social and economic characteristics, strong civic and cultural institutions, and distinctive infrastructure that directly impacts how its residents live, move, and interact with their community.

Gold/ “ Oldtown East” The eastern portion of Oldtown Gilroy, including the Historic Downtown, should clearly be recognized as a Community of Interest under California’ s Fair Maps Act. This neighborhood is the most urban and mixed- use area in the city. It is bounded roughly by Highway 101 to the east, 10th Street to the south, Church Street to the west, and 1st Street and Leavesley Road to the north. Within this compact area is a vibrant mix of housing, businesses, cultural institutions, community

Page 394 of 699 ends

3 | P a g e
organizations, and public services that form a highly interdependent and distinct neighborhood.

Oldtown East has by far the densest population of Hispanic residents in Gilroy. Compared to the city average of 56.6%, Oldtown East is 84.6% Hispanic. Despite this, it has a significantly lower-than-average Citizen Voting Age Population ( CVAP), which makes the community particularly vulnerable to vote dilution under the California Voting Rights Act. Maintaining this neighborhood as a single district is critical to preserving the collective voice of a population that has long been active in civic life but underrepresented politically.

The centerpiece of the area is Historic Downtown Gilroy, which includes dozens of small businesses that serve both local residents and visitors. These businesses range from restaurants and retail shops to professional services. Many of them cater specifically to the local Hispanic and Spanish- speaking community— especially south of 6th Street and Railroad Street— where residents rely on locally owned establishments such as tax and immigration services, auto repair shops, a medical clinic, bodega- style groceries, Mexican restaurants, joyerías, botanicas, salons, barbershops, party supply stores, florists, laundromats, clothing shops, and so much more. Additional businesses include breweries, antique stores, a comic book store, a used book store, art studios, a live events theater, sign shops, a silk-screening shop, a custom frame store, and dozens of restaurants. Many of these businesses are minority- and immigrant- owned, offering affordable goods and services and creating pathways to economic self-sufficiency.

The housing stock in this neighborhood includes older single- family homes, multi-generational residences, mixed- use buildings with apartments above shops, and a variety of small- scale multifamily housing. Much of this housing qualifies as naturally occurring affordable housing— unsubsidized but still accessible due to age, size, and zoning. This diversity supports a wide range of households and income levels and provides a critical alternative to the more uniform and car-dependent housing found in newer parts of Gilroy.

There is also a dense concentration of nonprofits and community organizations in the neighborhood. These include the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce, CARAS, Nueva Vida, the Garlic Festival Association, CMAP TV, Gilroy Arts Alliance, 6th Street Studios and Art Center, Pintello Comedy Theater, Gilroy Grange, Rebekah’ s Children’ s Services, Social Vocational Services, IOOF Hall, and numerous churches. These organizations serve the local population in public health, education, family services, the arts, media, and cultural preservation. Many offer services in Spanish, meeting a vital need in a neighborhood where language access is a shared concern.

Oldtown East also hosts a variety of neighborhood- focused cultural and community events. These include the annual Tamal Festival, annual

Page 395 of 699 ends

4 | P a g e
Ofrenda Festival, weekly Downtown Live summer concert series, car shows, cruise nights, a Christmas Festival, Memorial Day Parade, and Portuguese cultural parades. Larger events that attract a citywide audience— such as National Night Out, the Beer Crawl, and the Heart of Gilroy Art and Wine Stroll— also take place in the downtown core, further reinforcing this neighborhood’ s role as a cultural and civic hub.

Churches in this neighborhood are deeply embedded in the daily life of residents. Many parishioners walk to services, and most churches serve primarily Spanish- speaking congregants. These institutions often have little or no off-street parking, which underscores their role as walkable, neighborhood- based anchors and reflects the strong sense of local cohesion.

Oldtown East shares several characteristics with neighboring Oldtown West, including access to public transit, proximity to schools and parks, and a walkable street grid. However, Oldtown East exhibits even greater density, more mixed- use zoning, and a higher concentration of both housing and commercial spaces. This makes it the neighborhood in Gilroy with the greatest opportunity for residents to live and work within walking distance. The Railroad Street corridor and the mixed- use commercial spaces sprinkled throughout the area, in particular, provide affordable commercial spaces that foster small and startup businesses.

These enterprises help maintain the neighborhood’ s affordability and economic vitality. There is also a rich history of small businesses being run out of residences or in shared outdoor spaces ( ie pulgas, yard sales, or flea markets).

The neighborhood is also home to important public services, including the Gilroy Transit Center, which connects residents to Caltrain, Amtrak, VTA, and MST; the city’s only public art center; and Rebekah’ s Children’ s Services, a major nonprofit that supports at-risk youth and families and provides foster care services. The area is surrounded by all the City’s key commercial corridors along 1st Street, 10th Street, Leavesley Road, and the Historic Downtown core, ensuring that essential goods and services remain accessible on foot or by transit— an especially critical feature for youth, seniors, and others who do not or cannot drive.

If this neighborhood were divided across multiple districts, the cohesive voice of its residents— particularly Hispanic, Spanish- speaking, lowincome, and immigrant communities— would be diluted. Its unique needs around housing, small business development, cultural identity, walkability, and access to services would be far less likely to be addressed effectively. Keeping Oldtown East intact is essential to ensuring these shared interests are represented at City Hall.

Page 396 of 699 ends

5 | P a g e
In summary, Oldtown East offers a way of life that is distinct from the rest of Gilroy. It is defined by walkability, mixed land use, local businesses, cultural vibrancy, economic diversity, and strong community ties. Residents rely on a dense network of neighborhood- based services and institutions that bind them together as a coherent and interdependent community. This neighborhood clearly meets and exemplifies the definition of a Community of Interest under the Fair Maps Act— a population with shared social and economic interests that benefits from being represented together for purposes of effective and fair political representation. For these reasons, Oldtown East must be kept whole within a single city council district.

Seafoam/ “ Lonoke” The Lonoke neighborhood is a clearly defined, densely populated residential area, roughly bounded by Monterey Road, 1st Street, Wren Avenue, and Cohansey Avenue. The neighborhood is compact, contiguous, and defined by shared infrastructure, housing patterns, and community assets ( or lack thereof).

This area is one of the most densely populated parts of Gilroy, with a concentration of housing types that includes late 20th- century singlefamily homes, small multi-family dwellings, and a few large apartment complexes— most notably the one on Cohansey Avenue. The neighborhood’ s residential character is shaped by a consistent housing pattern, where nearly every home has a front-facing garage, although many of these have been visibly converted into accessory dwelling units ADUs) or “ granny units.” This points to both a growing demand for multi-generational housing and a trend toward informal housing adaptation to meet family or affordability needs.

The central organizing feature of the neighborhood is Las Animas Park, one of Gilroy’ s largest and most heavily used public parks. The park serves as a gathering place for local residents of all ages. It provides essential green space in a densely built environment and is frequently used. The presence of this park gives the neighborhood a unifying landmark and a shared resource that is vital to its residents.

While the area is primarily residential, it is framed by commercial corridors along 1st Street, Monterey Road, and Wren Avenue.

Walkability within the neighborhood varies— residents living south of Las Animas Park enjoy higher walk scores due to proximity to shops and services on 1st Street, while areas north of the park are more cardependent, with fewer nearby commercial uses. Overall, the neighborhood is more auto-oriented than Gilroy’ s Oldtown neighborhoods, as evidenced by the prevalence of street and driveway parking and the general layout of homes and streets.

Lonoke is also notable for what it lacks: it does not contain any public elementary or middle school within its boundaries. Two schools that

Page 397 of 699 ends

6 | P a g e
once served the area were closed— one due to low enrollment, and another due to its proximity to the California National Guard Armory, which also functions as a shelter for unhoused individuals. One of the former school sites has since been converted into Gilroy’ s third public preschool, alongside the two located in Oldtown East and West. The other has been redeveloped into single- family housing, further increasing residential density. There is one private K-8 school on the southern edge of the nieghborhood - St Mary Church. The neighborhood contains three churches, which is less than what we see in Oldtown, but still more than some of the more suburban areas to the west.

The neighborhood is majority Hispanic— approximately 65%— and shares common challenges related to density, traffic, infrastructure, and access to public services. Although it may lack traditional civic institutions, these shared conditions— along with the centrality of Las Animas Park and the presence of high-density residential development— give the area a distinct identity and a shared set of needs.

These needs include improved civic infrastructure, access to schools, and safe pedestrian connections— needs that would benefit from focused advocacy and representation.

In summary, the Lonoke neighborhood represents a concentrated, clearly bounded residential community with high density, common housing patterns, a shared community space in Las Animas Park, and a unified set of concerns tied to infrastructure and livability. Under the Fair Maps Act, a Community of Interest is defined as a population with shared social or economic interests that benefit from being represented together. Lonoke meets that definition, and it should be kept whole within a single city council district to ensure its residents have effective and equitable representation.

Bright Green/
Sunrise”
This neighborhood is one of the newer communities in Gilroy, defined primarily by single- family residential development with a few community- serving amenities. It is roughly bounded by Kern Avenue, Mantelli Drive, Rancho Hills Drive, and Day Road. The area is cohesive, family- oriented, and shaped by consistent land use and shared infrastructure.

The neighborhood is composed almost entirely of single- family homes built within the past 40 years, creating a sense of continuity and a shared lifestyle choices among residents. It includes two neighborhood parks, a public elementary school, a private elementary school ( Pacific Point Christian), a public high school, and a church— all of which serve as important social and community anchors.

The neighborhood does not have any commercial corridors like other parts of Gilroy, it functions as a self-contained residential enclave—

Page 398 of 699 ends

7 | P a g e
something many families actively seek out in choosing a home. It embodies the qualities of a “ quiet neighborhood,” with local amenities centered on schools, parks, and family life.

Demographically and economically, the neighborhood tends to be more uniform than older parts of the city, with a strong focus on families, homeownership, and school- based activities. Its infrastructure, traffic patterns, and planning needs are also distinct— particularly as a commuter- oriented community, with many residents traveling north to work in Silicon Valley and surrounding areas.

In summary, this neighborhood represents a cohesive, family- focused residential community that shares a common housing stock, infrastructure, and community identity. Under the Fair Maps Act, a Community of Interest is defined as a population with shared social and economic interests that should be kept together for purposes of effective representation. This neighborhood meets that definition, and it should be kept intact within a single city council district to ensure that it is represented by someone who understands the needs and priorities of a quiet, residential neighborhood.

Magenta/ “ Westwood” This community is similar in character to Lonoke - not quite a fully residential " quiet community" like those futher to the west, but not quite an urban/ mixed- use neighborhood either. Although it does have a public elementary school within it's boundaries.

Purple/ “ West
Foothills”
This is one of the least densely populated areas of Gilroy, defined by large residential lots, open space, and recreational institutions. It is largely made up of hillside neighborhoods. The area is characterized by a significant amount of open space, low-density development, and a rural-to-suburban feel that distinguishes it from the rest of the city.

Many of the homes in this area are large, single- family residences on expansive lots, often located along winding hillside roads. The neighborhood includes recreational and social institutions such as Eagle Ridge Golf Club, Gilroy Golf Course, the Elks Lodge, and Gilroy Gardens.

The community shares common concerns and planning needs related to hillside preservation, fire safety, open space protection, and infrastructure for large- lot residential areas. Residents also tend to rely more heavily on personal vehicles for access to city services, and many commute long distances to work. These patterns create a distinct set of priorities that differ from denser, more urban parts of Gilroy.

Although more spread out, this area shares a cohesive identity centered on rural character, open space, and a quieter, more natural living environment. It also includes key public assets— like Gilroy Gardens— that contribute to both the neighborhood' s character and the city’s broader cultural and recreational offerings.

Page 399 of 699 ends

8 | P a g e
In summary, this neighborhood represents a geographically distinct, low-density community with shared land use, infrastructure needs, and planning priorities.

Teal/ “ The East Cut” Area- wise the majority of this district covers the vast eastern portion of the city that is dominated by commercial space and so has a very sparce population.

There is only one moderately sized, but isolated population center north of Leavesley with approximately 600 residents. The rest are spread throughout a largely commercial and rural area.

Although the area has distinct character, the extreme low density almost definitely ensures it will need to be incorporated into other districts to meet population differential maximums set by the state.

Lilac/ “ The South
Cut”
A broad range of housing types from the large Alexander St apartments, to tall the newer single family homes to the west of monterey. This area includes the park side of christmas hill park, gilroy high school, and is directly adjacent to the gilroy sports park.

Identified Important Places:

Wheeler Auditorium
Public Library
City Hall
Police Station
Senior Center
Playground and
park
Wheeler Manor
Senior Housing
Salvation Army
Christian Scientist
Church
Victory Outreach
Church
Templo Bethel
Gateway School
State Preschool at
Glen View
Glen View
Elementary
El Roble
Elementary
El Roble Park
Brownell Middle
School
Miller Park
Mission Park
Aprtments
Gilroy Medical Park
LDS Church
Cottage Court
Apartment Mansion
Converted
Apartment Mansion
Rebekah’ s Children
Services
South Valley Middle
School
Gilroy Prep
Cesar Chavez Gym
Mobile home Park
San Ysidro Park
Plaza Vasquez
Historic Grange
Building
United Methodist
Church
Gilroy Museum
Gilroy Art Center
Caltrain Station
Eliot Elementary
Tiny Park
IFDES
Forest St Park
Luz Del Mundo
Church
Don Prietto Park
Veteran’ s memorial
building
The Barber
Academy
Greenhouse coworking

CMAP TV
Gilroy Post Office
Swanson Pre-school
Cathedral of Raith
Church

Page 400 of 699 ends

9 | P a g e
Slabsides Old Gilroy
Pacheco Pass motel
Large, unique
cottage court
Cottage Court
Tiny Home
Railroad Street
Commercial
Corridor
Iglesia Del Dios
La Flor De Jalisco
Muscle House Gym
Industrial Park
Lirio de Valle
Church
Bethany
Community Church
IOOF Meeting Hall
Willey House
Community Center
New Point 64
Large brand new
apartment building
with central park
Alicia’ s Market
Converted
Apartment Mansion
The levee
Gilroy Sports Park
ID 290610
Population Centers”
Date of submission: 3/ 19/ 2025
Description of communities of interest is the same as ID 290886 (“ Communities of Interest - Citywide”)

Page 401 of 699 ends

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

From: Armando Be
To: Public Comments; Districting
Subject: EXTERNAL - 8.1. Third Public Hearing Regarding the City"s Transition from an AtLarge to a District-Based Elections System
Date: Monday, April 7, 2025 3:09:04 PM
Dear Mayor Bozzo and City Council Members,
I look forward to hearing more about the transition to district elections. I am writing in support of the proposed district map, JH05 ( 289301), and JH07 ( 290309) as the second choice. After reviewing the maps, I strongly believe that both accurately reflect the diverse communities of interest within our city, and that adopting this map would serve the best interests of all Gilroy residents.

Gilroy is a city rich in diversity, and it is essential that its districts are drawn in a way that ensures representation for all segments of our community. The JH05 and JH07 maps thoughtfully consider the various neighborhoods and socio- economic factors that shape the lives of residents. It creates districts that are not only geographically cohesive but also reflect common concerns, needs, and interests within each area. This will ensure that each district is represented by someone who understands the unique challenges and opportunities of that specific community.

One of the key benefits of district elections is that they provide more localized and focused representation. By adopting JH05 ( preferred or JH07), residents in each district will have a direct and accessible voice in city governance, making it more likely that their concerns will be addressed in a meaningful way. The maps' design also promotes fair and equitable representation, ensuring that all neighborhoods are given the opportunity to elect a representative who is attuned to their specific needs.

In conclusion, I fully support the adoption of district map JH05 ( or JH07 as a second choice) for Gilroy’ s transition to district elections. Each map reflects our city's diverse communities, promotes fair representation, and helps ensure that the voices of all residents are heard and valued. I urge you to adopt one of the two maps and take this important step toward a more inclusive and effective local government.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Armando Benavides

Page 402 of 699 ends

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

From: Noshaba Afzal
To: Public Comments; Districting; Mayor Greg Bozzo
Cc: Council Member Carol Marques; Council Member Tom Cline; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Terence Fugazzi; Council Member Dion Bracco
Subject: EXTERNAL - Gilroy Fair and Equitable District Maps: ID 289301 " JH05" OR ID 290309 " JH07" Date: Monday, April 7, 2025 2:57:11 PM
Attachments: image. png
image.png
Hello,
I am writing to support these two district maps listed: ID 289301 "JH05" OR ID 290309 JH07"
These two district maps well represent the diverse Gilroy community in the most equitable manner and are legally compliant. These two maps also align well with Gilroy USD student district mapping. Furthermore, these two maps passed all legal criteria under the Fair Maps Act and the California Voting Rights Act.

We look forward to Gilroy City adopting one of these two maps so the diversity of the city constituents is not only celebrated but critically represented equitably with the city council.

Best Wishes,
Noshaba Afzal

Page 403 of 699 ends

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

We look forward to Gilroy City adopting one of these two maps so the diversity of the city constituents is not only celebrated but critically represented equitably with the city council.

Best Wishes,
Noshaba Afzal

Page 404 of 699 ends

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

From: noreply@civicplus. com
To: Districting
Subject: EXTERNAL - Online Form Submittal: Community of Interest Form Date: Saturday, March 15, 2025 4: 04: 37 PM
Community of Interest Form
Help shape the future of the City of Gilroy’ s City Council Districts The City of Gilroy has begun the process of transitioning to district elections. The U.S.

Census data will be used to balance the population of each City Council District.

One of the primary goals of this process is to keep communities together within each district. Complete this form to tell the City about your community of interest.

What is a Community of Interest?
A Community of Interest is a group of people in the same geographically definable area who share common social and economic interests. Some examples of Communities of Interest are:

Senior citizens
College students living near campus
People who live downtown or in a neighborhood
Dog park community
Residents who share a common language
People that use the same transportation systems
What criteria will help the City Council understand the importance of your community in the redistricting process?
When documenting your community, it is important to address the following questions to assist the City Council in the redistricting process:

1. Does your community have a shared culture, characteristics, or bond?

2. Is your community geographic in nature? Is your community able to be mapped? Is there density within your community?

3. Describe your community’ s relationship with the City and how it is affected by policy decisions made by the City Council.

The public can submit any testimony, but it is important to remember that your input can be best used if it addresses all three of these questions.

Page 405 of 699 ends

What You Can Do to Further Participate in the Redistricting Process

1. Provide your comments on your community of interest by completing this online form and clicking "submit."

2. Paper forms can be returned by email to [email protected] or drop off a hard copy to Gilroy City Hall, C/O City Clerk’ s Office ( 7351 Rosanna Street). A PDF version of this form is available at the link below.

3. Attend one of the Gilroy City Council public meetings, times and locations are available at www.cityofgilroy.org/districting.

Community of Interest
Form PDF
Community of Interest Form [English]
Community of Interest
Form PDF [Spanish]
Community of Interest Form [Spanish]
Document Your Community of Interest
What is the
neighborhood/ zip code
where you reside?
95020
How do you describe
your community? What
are the common
interests in your
community? Describe
how they are important:

Dirty... homeless everywhere...

Streets in bad conditions...

Explain the
geographical location
of your community of
interest. What are the
physical
boundaries/ features
streets, freeways,
parks, etc.)?
None
Are the public services
bus lines, libraries,
public schools, etc.)
that help identify your
All stop busses should have shed and seats...

Page 406 of 699 ends

community?
What type of homes
single family houses,
apartments, condos,
mobile homes, etc.)
largely make up your
community?
Doesn't apply
What is the rationale
for your community of
interest to be used in
the City Council
redistricting process?
Please describe how
the issues before the
City Council has an
impact on your
community.

Doesn't apply
What else would you
like to tell us about
your community?
Dirty... homeless everywhere...

Streets in bad conditions...

But thank you to leave some Business like launch trucks to work around our community
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Page 407 of 699 ends

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

From: REBECCA SCHEEL
To: Public Comments
Subject: EXTERNAL - Adopt District Mayo JH05
Date: Monday, April 7, 2025 11: 03: 01 AM
Dear Mayor & City Council members,
I would like you to adopt Map number JH05. I am a home owner & have lived in Gilroy for 31 years, my neighborhood is in the Kern/Welburn area, near Rod Kelley School on the blue portion on JHO5 map. My second choice is JHO7, which is very similar.

My immediate neighborhood is connected in many ways, in this area residents have been here for 20-40 years, many are original home owners such as myself. We were involved in a Neighborhood Watch Program, we keep our area informed & we take care of each other. We would not want to be separated, we are a ‘ Community’ within Gilroy.

In my extended neighborhood of the Blue area on Map JH05, we use the same neighborhood parks, we frequent shopping on First Street & we send our children to the same elementary school, Rod Kelley. We have neighborhood yard sales & 4th of July picnics. We share many of the same interests including our poorly maintained streets.

Lastly, regardless of the above request, please do not include our area in the Northwest area/ quadrant, the yellow area on this map west of Santa Teresa. We are mostly working class or retired residents with older homes & our income level is less than residents in the NW area.

We are very different.

We need to be represented by someone who has the same interests & understands our unique needs for fair representation.

Thank you,
Rebecca Scheel

Page 408 of 699 ends

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

From: Vanessa Ashford
To: Districting; Public Comments
Subject: EXTERNAL - Public Comment in support of district based elections for 5/7 meeting Date: Monday, April 7, 2025 11: 11: 55 AM
Attachments: Outlook- asadtobp. png
April 7, 2025
To whom it may concern,
I am writing this letter in support of district based elections in the City of Gilroy. As a lifelong Gilroy resident ( 47 years) and an advocate who works directly with the community on a daily basis I have seen first hand the inequity that is visible in our City currently. When looking at housing allocations and available spaces for affordable housing the map looks very segregated. We have the opportunity and responsibility to take action to improve our City, our services, and our communities by taking any action available to us.

District based elections are one of the proven ways that we can improve access and equity within our community.

The map I support is Map JH05 I support this map due to the fact that it balances the need for representation for our largely hispanic population in equitable and balanced ways. Although Gilroy is a diverse town with a large Hispancic population this is not reflected in the composition of our City Council. It is imperative to include people who are most affected and impacted by policies in the decision making.

Thank you for your representation and attention to this matter, Vanessa Ashford
Director of Community Initiatives and Peer Services
Carry the Vision
408.840.3305
7365 Monterey Street #203
Gilroy, CA 95020
www.carrythevision.org
vanessa@carrythevision. org

Page 409 of 699 ends

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

From: Armando Be
To: Russell Blalack
Cc: Public Comments
Subject: EXTERNAL - Re: District map selection
Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 2: 48: 02 PM
Great!
On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 8:53 PM Russell Blalack < russellblalack@gmail. com> wrote:

Dear Mayor Bozzo and City Council Members,
I am writing to express my support for neighborhoods and communities at thestreet level, and I am excited about Gilroy' s transition to district elections. After reviewing the proposed district maps, I strongly endorse map JH05 ( 289301) as my first choice, with JH07 ( 290309) as a close second. Both maps accurately reflect the diverse communities of interest within our city and would serve the best interests of all Gilroy residents.

Gilroy ensurefair is a city rich in diversity, and it is vital that its districts are drawn to mapsthoughtfully representation for all segments of our community. The JH05 and JH07 account for the unique characteristics of our neighborhoods, including socio-economic factors that influence residents' lives. These maps create districts that are geographically cohesive while also reflecting shared concerns, needs, and interests within each area. This approach will help ensure that each district is represented by someone who truly understands the specific challenges andopportunities faced by their community.

One of the key advantages of district elections is the opportunity for more localizedand focused representation. By adopting map JH05 ( or JH07), residents in each district will have a direct and accessible voice in city governance, increasing the likelihood that their concerns will be addressed effectively. The design of these maps also promotes fair and equitable representation, giving all neighborhoods a chance to elect leaders who are attuned to their specific needs.

In conclusion, I fully support the adoption of district map JH05 ( with JH07 as thesecond ourcity' choice) for Gilroy' s transition to district elections. These maps reflect s diversity, promote fair representation, and ensure that the voices of all residents are heard and valued. I urge you to adopt one of these two maps to take an important step toward a more inclusive and effective local government.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Russell Blalack

Page 410 of 699 ends

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

From: Katherine Napoli
To: Public Comments; Districting
Subject: EXTERNAL - Districting Maps
Date: Monday, April 7, 2025 5: 19: 57 PM
Honorable Mayor Bozzon and Councilmembers:

I strongly support maps submitted JH05 or JH07. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your feedback.

Regards,
Kathy Chavez Napoli,

Page 411 of 699 ends

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

From: Russell Blalack
To: Public Comments
Subject: EXTERNAL - District map selection
Date: Monday, April 7, 2025 8: 54: 05 PM
Dear Mayor Bozzo and City Council Members,
I
streetlevel, am writing to express my support for neighborhoods and communities at theand I am excited about Gilroy' s transition to district elections. After reviewingthe proposed district maps, I strongly endorse map JH05 ( 289301) as my first choice, with JH07 ( 290309) as a close second. Both maps accurately reflect the diversecommunities Gilroyresidents. of interest within our city and would serve the best interests of all Gilroy is a city rich in diversity, and it is vital that its districts are drawn to ensure fair representation mapsthoughtfully for all segments of our community. The JH05 and JH07 account for the unique characteristics of our neighborhoods, includingsocio- economic factors that influence residents' lives. These maps create districts thatare andinterests geographically cohesive while also reflecting shared concerns, needs, within each area. This approach will help ensure that each district isrepresented by someone who truly understands the specific challenges andopportunities faced by their community.

One of the key advantages of district elections is the opportunity for more localizedand eachdistrict focused representation. By adopting map JH05 ( or JH07), residents in will have a direct and accessible voice in city governance, increasing thelikelihood mapsalso that their concerns will be addressed effectively. The design of these promotes fair and equitable representation, giving all neighborhoods a chance toelect leaders who are attuned to their specific needs.

In conclusion, I fully support the adoption of district map JH05 ( with JH07 as the second sdiversity, choice) for Gilroy' s transition to district elections. These maps reflect our city' areheard promote fair representation, and ensure that the voices of all residents and valued. I urge you to adopt one of these two maps to take an importantstep toward a more inclusive and effective local government.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Russell Blalack

Page 412 of 699 ends

From: Katherine Napoli
To: Public Comments
Subject: EXTERNAL - New map submitted
Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2025 8:04: 27 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

It is my understanding that current Councilmembers cannot submit or promote maps that protect the area in which they live to stay in office. Please review all maps proposed by current Councilmembers to ensure this does not happen.

Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone

Page 413 of 699 ends

From: Jack Howe III
To: Districting
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL - Online Mapping Tool
Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 12:30:42 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Rachelle -
Thank you.

Jack
From: Districting <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 9:41 AM
To: Jack Howe III <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL - Online Mapping Tool
Good morning, Jack,
Thank you for your feedback regarding the mapping tool. The mapping tool is provided through a third party that was contracted to assist with this process. I’ve provided your feedback to their team for review and consideration.

It’s my understanding that instructions on how to use the mapping tool will be provided during tonight’s public hearing.

Thank you,
Rachelle Bedell | Communication and Engagement Manager
Administration Department
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020
( 408.846.0219 | Direct 408.846.0443
: http://www.cityofgilroy.org
From: Jack Howe III <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 4:08 PM
To: Districting <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL - Online Mapping Tool

Page 414 of 699 ends

Rachel -
The tool works well for drawing the maps, but not so well for managing the maps that are drawn.

Maps should not be eligible for consideration by other than the author until they are in the "Public Gallery". "Works in progress" are just that, works in progress (i.e. Drafts), and should be private to the author.

The maps I want deleted are "Works in progress" maps, not "Public Gallery" maps. Until I post a draft to the "Public Gallery", I should be able to modify or delete it. If I start with a Draft and then post it to Public, the corresponding Draft should be removed from "Works in progress".

Apparently, the "Team or Plan" name is only an informational item, not key to identifying a map. "Works in progress" maps should replace the last copy each time they are saved as a "Work in progress", not generate a new "ID". If versioning (new ID) of drafts is desirable, that should be an option each time the map is saved.

I did not intend for my "Works in progress" to be updatable by anyone but me. I'm also not sure that I intended them to be viewable by anyone but me. ===

Page 415 of 699 ends

I think the instructions should be clearer about the 3 states of a map:

1. Saved - not in "Works in progress" or "Public Gallery" - not displayed anywhere else in the tool - accessible only via the URL provided with the Save action - if you don't save the URL somewhere you can't get back to your map - anyone with the URL can access your map - a new Save will generate a new ID

2. Saved and shared in the "Public Gallery" - I should not be able to update or delete my maps

3. Saved as a "Work in progress" - I should be able to update or delete my maps - this choice has no value to me if I cannot use it as a sandbox for my maps When I read this, I did not intend to share my plan, so I did not save the link. I chose "Work in progress" and provided a "Plan" name. Imagine my surprise when I saw how the tool was actually working., that "Work in progress" is a shared category and is not a sandbox for drafts.

That is not intuitively obvious. I did not realize that I should have stopped with the Save action, copied the URL, exited the popup window without taking any other action.

Maps do not appear to be tied to a userid as no userid was required to access the tool. I don't see how the tool is able to claim that "Even if you share the link, nobody buy you can change

Page 416 of 699 ends

CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. your plan — other people's changes will save to a new link." The tool is behaving as though every change is by an "other person". Is there possible a login feature that you have not enabled yet?
I think that the District-based Elections web page needs to add some information on how the tool works.

Jack
From: Districting <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 2:21 PM
To: Jack Howe III <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL - Online Mapping Tool
Hi Jack,
Thanks so much for reaching out and being part of this process. We cannot delete maps due to transparency reasons, but we can use this as testimony that you would like to no longer support these maps as potential drafts. If you have a preferred map drawn in Districtr, please let us know about your map, and you’re welcome to testify about the map either in-person at a public meeting or via email.

Thank you,
Rachelle Bedell | Communication and Engagement Manager
Administration Department
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020
( 408.846.0219 | Direct 408.846.0443
: http://www.cityofgilroy.org
From: Jack Howe III <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 10:53 AM
To: %[email protected] <IMCEAEMAIL-
[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL - Online Mapping Tool

Page 417 of 699 ends

TWIMC -
How do I delete drafts? I no longer need the following IDs:
288652
289106
289299
289304
Jack Howe

Page 418 of 699 ends

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

From: Jack Howe III
To: Districting
Subject: EXTERNAL - District Maps Submission
Date: Saturday, March 29, 2025 7:31:14 PM
Attachments: Gilroy-District-Based-Elections-JH01-thru-JH08-20250331.pdf

TWIMC -
My JH01 thru JH08 maps are posted in the Public Gallery.

1. 288689 - JH01

2. 288702 - JH02

3. 288706 - JH03

4. 289103 - JH04

5. 289301 - JH05

6. 289808 - JH06

7. 290309 - JH07

8. 291665 - JH08
Please see the attached PDF for a summary and comments.

Jack Howe
7630 Dowdy St
PS: This link doesn't work...

Districtr Map Review (This link takes you to a website where you can view all of the maps and zoom in and out to see the map details.)

Page 419 of 699 ends

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

From: Jack Howe III
To: Districting
Subject: EXTERNAL - Public Maps submitted priot to March 27, 2025 Date: Sunday, March 30, 2025 7:19:43 PM

TWIMC -
I don't see any comments from Redistricting partners.

Of the 14 maps that were not mine...
1 - 7 districts
7 - Exceed the 10% requirement
3 - Ok
Of mine...
1 - Exceeds the 10% requirement
4 - Have shapes that might not be acceptable
3 - Ok
I hope they don't plan to spend much time on April 7 on maps that don't meet requirements.

Jack Howe
Dowdy St

Page 420 of 699 ends

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

From: Jack Howe III
To: Districting
Subject: EXTERNAL - Map submission - 292725 - JH09
Date: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 9:08:21 AM
Attachments: Gilroy-District-Based-Elections-JH09-20250402.pdf

TWIMC -
Please see the attached PDF.

Last night, map 292463 (not mine) appeared as a Communities of Interest map. Today it is no longer listed but can be pulled up by number.

I liked the map but could not see a way to view it as a district plan map, so I drew a new one... 292725 - JH09
Jack Howe
Dowdy St

Page 421 of 699 ends

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

From: Jack Howe III
To: Districting
Subject: EXTERNAL - Draft Map Overlays
Date: Sunday, April 13, 2025 7:12:16 PM

TWIMC -
I really like the "Draft Map D JH05 Overlay", could the same be done for Drafts A, B, and C, and any other new drafts that are produced?
The Overlay lets the public see what changes were made (if any) between the original submission and the draft.

Jack Howe
Dowdy St

Page 422 of 699 ends

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

From: Jack Howe III
To: Districting
Subject: EXTERNAL - District-based Elections - Map submission Date: Saturday, April 26, 2025 3:26:23 PM
Attachments: Gilroy-District-Based-Elections-JH12-JH13-20250426.pdf

TWIMC -
Attached are my JH12 and JH13 map submissions.

Jack Howe
Dowdy St

Page 423 of 699 ends

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Food Truck Ordinance Update
Meeting Date: May 5, 2025
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted by: Victoria Valencia, Economic Development Manager Prepared by: Victoria Valencia, Economic Development Manager STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Promote Economic Development Activities

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive the report, review the proposed amendments to Chapter 16A Article II, and provide direction.

2. Adopt a resolution for a pilot program allowing food trucks to operate in specified downtown zones (Fifth Street Lot, portions of Eigleberry Street, and/or designated parking lots adjacent to Gourmet Alley), subject to the regulations identified herein.

BACKGROUND
At the December 4, 2023 City Council Meeting, the Council directed staff to review ordinances and regulations for food trucks in neighboring cities and examine flexible location options. (This work was paused while the City updated its' mobile vending ordinance).

At the August 19, 2024 City Council Meeting, the Council further directed staff to explore designated locations in the downtown area for food trucks to operate and to solicit feedback from local businesses potentially impacted by disallowing food trucks on Monterey Road. Two primary locations were identified:
• City-owned parking lot at 5th and Monterey(5th Street Lot) • Street parking along Eigleberry Street

Page 424 of 699 ends

ANALYSIS
Ordinance Review and Updates:

Currently, Gilroy City Code Chapter 16A Article II governs mobile vending (including food trucks) and requires vendors to move at least 100 feet every 10 minutes, while also prohibiting such operations in the C1, C2, and C3 commercial zoning districts. The ordinance defines a “mobile vending facility” broadly to include any container, cart, stand, vehicle, or wagon displaying or selling food, goods, or services.

In reviewing these regulations, staff identified inconsistencies between local definitions in Chapter 16A and 16B and determined that further updates would be needed to align with the California Retail Code. Zoning codes referenced in the current ordinance are outdated and should be updated to reflect existing codes.

1. Inconsistent Definitions
• Chapter 16B defines “mobile vendor” as a motorized mobile vending vehicle operator (requiring a driver’s license).
• Chapter 16A defines a “mobile vending facility” more broadly to include carts, stands, and any nonmotorized or motorized apparatus.
• California Retail Code (CRC) defines a “mobile food facility” as a truck, trailer, or other wheeled equipment from which food is sold, and a “compact mobile food operation” as a pushcart, stand, wagon, or other nonmotorized device used for vending.

To address these discrepancies, staff recommends adopting standardized language from the California Retail Code and clarifying the type of mobile vendor permits that may be required, based on a vendor's location.

2. Updated Zoning Code References and Timing
The current ordinance references outdated C1, C2, and C3 zones. Staff proposes modernizing these references to reflect Gilroy’s existing zoning codes accurately.

Vendors are required to move at least 100 feet every 10 minutes. This time limit is typical for ice cream trucks but may not be feasible for food trucks with more elaborate food service, or trucks providing health services. The County of Santa Clara Health Department requires mobile food facilities operating longer than one hour to have readily available restrooms and a handwashing sink within 200 feet of the food truck.

Council could consider updating the time limit or creating a tiered framework, similar to the City of Hollister, which has three levels of permits with different time requirements.

The City of Hollister's guidelines are included in the packet.

Page 425 of 699 ends

3. Improved Permit Framework
Under the proposed amendments, in addition to a City of Gilroy Business license and any other permits required by the County, State or other government agency, mobile vendors (excluding sidewalk vendors already permitted under Chapter 16B) would be required to obtain:

1. Identity Permit (one to three weeks to process, $158 for initial application, $82 for renewal)
o Confirms the operator’s identity and background.
o Background Check and Livescan may be required, and additional fees apply.
o Exclusion applies if the operator is a Gilroy resident of at least five (5) years and owns a permanent business facility in the city.

2. Mobile Vending Permit (issued by the City Administrator or designee) o The primary license for operating a mobile vending facility in the city.

3. Temporary Vending Permit (issued by the Community Development Director or designee)
o Required for any vendor operating on private property.

Food trucks may also be required to have an annual fire inspection. Fees will be established in the updated fee schedule.

Mobile Vendors in Downtown
Staff evaluated specific zones in the downtown area (outside of Monterey Road) where Council could consider allowing food trucks to operate:
• 5
th Street Lot
o Could be designated for food truck parking only during certain times (commonly Friday and Saturday evenings from 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.). o Requires signage and closure of the left turn lane to safely accommodate trucks.
o Would trigger the need for readily available restrooms (portable or otherwise) within 200 feet, in accordance with Santa Clara County Environmental Health regulations, if a truck remains more than one hour. • Eigleberry Street
o Parallel curb parking is available, but the size of some food trucks could pose safety hazards for pedestrians and vehicles.
o Council may choose to allow food trucks by right on Eigleberry (with no special signage) or direct staff not to pursue this option further.

Page 426 of 699 ends

• Gourmet Alley & Adjacent Parking Lots (Downtown Committee Recommendations)
o The Downtown Committee suggested using the alley between 4th and 6th Streets for food trucks, limiting the total number, recovering all City costs via fees, requiring internal generators, and enforcing rules through shiftbased Code Enforcement. o Staff Recommendation: Avoid placing trucks directly in the alley to maintain its pedestrian-friendly character and outdoor dining opportunities. o Two parking lots adjoining Gourmet Alley (between 4th and 6th) each have several potential spots for designated food truck parking. This would have minimal impact on traffic flow and maintain a safe environment for pedestrians.
o Food Trucks could be allowed to operate on private property along Gourmet Alley with a Temporary Vending Permit.

Based on the draft revised ordinance (attached), food trucks would not be allowed to operate in Downtown without a resolution by the City Council. In addition, Council may consider directing staff to develop a program to coordinate scheduling mobile vendors and booking locations, consider contracting with an external organization to manage coordination, or allowing food trucks to utilize designated spaces on a first-come, firstserved basis.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Take no action, maintaining the current code and time limits with no exceptions for food trucks operating in downtown.

2. Consider revisions to Chapter 16 A Article II, and not create a special provision for food trucks in downtown.

3. Adopt a temporary, time-limited pilot program for certain downtown locations.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
No fiscal impact at this time. However, depending on Council direction, there may be administrative costs to process permits, enforce regulations, and post appropriate signage or infrastructure in designated zones. Should the City contract with a third party to manage scheduling food trucks in designated zones, that arrangement would have associated costs or fees as well. Staff will finalize fee schedules and potential offsets once the ordinance is refined, prior to Council adoption.

Page 427 of 699 ends

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Over the last two years, staff has met with downtown breweries and taprooms that would be most impacted by a change to the mobile vendor ordinance, as well as with community partners and organizations who often invite food trucks to downtown.

NEXT STEPS

1. Ordinance Finalization: Staff will integrate Council and community feedback into a final draft of Chapter 16A amendments.

2. Public Hearing & Adoption: Staff will present the refined ordinance and any related resolutions for public hearing and final Council approval.

3. Downtown Resolution: If Council chooses to allow food trucks in designated zones, a resolution should be adopted specifying approved locations, times, and corresponding requirements.

Attachments:

1. Chapter 16A Article II Draft Revisions

2. Draft Resolution for Food Truck Pilot Program

3. City of Hollister Mobile Food Guidelines

4. Current Mobile Vendor Ordinance

Page 428 of 699 ends

ARTICLE II. MOBILE VENDING PERMITS
Definitions:
16A.13 (a) “Enforcement official” means any person designated by the city administrator to enforce this chapter and includes, but is not limited to: community development department or recreation division staff tasked with code enforcement or compliance, all Gilroy police department sworn personnel and community service officers, and/or any city-contracted code enforcement officer or specialist. (b) “Food” means raw, cooked, or processed edible substance, ice, beverage, an ingredient used or intended for use or for sale in whole or in part for human consumption, chewing gum and/or any other items defined as food by the California Retail Food Code. (c) “Mobile vendor” means a person who sells food or merchandise from a vending device or from one’s person, and operating from a nonpermanent location in the City. This term is inclusive of all mobile vendors, peddlers, solicitors, transient businesses, and any other traveling merchant.
(d) “Vending device” means a pushcart, stand, display, pedal-driven cart, wagon, showcase, rack, nonmotorized conveyance (including trailers), freestanding table, chair, box, stand, or any container, structure, or other object used or capable of being used for holding, selling, advertising, or displaying tangible things, together with any associated seating facilities. “Vending device” does not include any street furniture such as benches or planters, or any other structure permanently installed by the City of Gilroy or with the consent of the City of Gilroy. (Ord. No. 2023-08, Exh. A, 8-21-23) (e) “No vending or limited vending zone” means an area where mobile vending is prohibited or limited due to objective public health, safety, or welfare concerns. The city council may establish no vending or limited vending zones by resolution, as set forth in section 16B.4(c).
(f) “Temporary vending” means to sell, offer for sale, expose or display for sale, solicit offers to purchase, or to barter food, goods, or merchandise on any private sidewalk, pedestrian path, park, or other private property, with or without the assistance of a vending device, or to require someone to pay a fee or to set, negotiate, or establish a fee before providing any such food, goods, or merchandise, even if characterized by the mobile vendor as a donation.
(g) “Temporary vending permit” means a permit or card issued by the city to a mobile vendor pursuant to section 16A.15.

Commented [VV1]: Thoughts to simplify: label
all-either public or private and Itinerant merchants.

First section would define types of merchants and
permits. Next part would lay out types of permits
and when/where they are required. Ex: itinerant
merchants, excluding sidewalk vendors approved
to operate and regulated by Chapter 16B, are
required to obtain identity permits. Vendors
operating on private sidewalks(not parking lots) are
required to obtain a Temporary Vending Permit.

Commented [VV2]: @Melissa Durkin does
sidewalk vending need to be included here if it is
defined in 16b?
Commented [MD3R2]: If it's already included
in 16B, I don't think you need to include it here.

I would like to see a version of this without "track
changes" so we can see how it all lays out. We
might need to make adjustments after that.

Commented [VV4R2]: Click on the review
button at the top of word, where it says "all mark
up", change to "no markup". This will also hide the
comments.

Page 429 of 699 ends

Gilroy City CouncilMay 5, 2025

Gilroy City Council
May 5, 2025