Gilroy City Council
May 5, 2025

May 5, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 1 of 8 City Council
Regular Meeting

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA

CITY CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
7351 ROSANNA STREET, GILROY, CA
95020
MONDAY, MAY 5, 2025 | 6:00 PM
MAYOR
Greg Bozzo

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Dion Bracco
Tom Cline
Terence Fugazzi
Zach Hilton
Carol Marques
Kelly Ramirez
CITY COUNCIL PACKET MATERIALS ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE AT www.cityofgilroy.org AGENDA CLOSING TIME IS 5:00 P.M. THE TUESDAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Public testimony is subject to reasonable regulations, including but not limited to time restrictions for each individual speaker. **Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.** The amount of time allowed per speaker may vary at the Mayor’s discretion depending on the number of speakers and length of the agenda.

Written comments on any agenda item may be emailed to the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] or mailed to the Gilroy City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by the City Clerk’s Office by 1 p.m. on the day of a Council meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to or at the meeting and available for public inspection with the agenda packet located in the lobby of Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street prior to the meeting. Any correspondence received will be incorporated into the meeting record. Items received after the 1 p.m. deadline will be provided to the City Council as soon as practicable. Written comments are also available on the City’s Public Records Portal at bit.ly/3NuS1IN.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to the meeting at (408) 846-0204 or [email protected] to help ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made.

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

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

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

May 5, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 8 City Council
Regular Meeting

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

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

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT

ORDINANCE, TO RECEIVE A FREE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A

VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION STAFF AT (408) 846-0204.

If you need assistance with translation and would like to speak during public comment, please contact the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the meeting at 408-846-0204 or e-mail the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected].

Si necesita un intérprete durante la junta y gustaría dar un comentario público, comuníquese con el Secretario de la Ciudad un mínimo de 72 horas antes de la junta al 408-846-0204 o envíe un correo electrónico a la Oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad a [email protected].

To access written translation during the meeting, please scan the QR Code or click this link:

Para acceder a la traducción durante la reunión, por favor escanee el código QR o haga clic en el enlace:
bit.ly/3FBiGA0
Choose Language and Click Attend | Seleccione su lenguaje y haga clic en asistir
Use a headset on your phone for audio or read the transcript on your device.

Use sus auriculares para escuchar el audio o leer la transcripción en el dispositivo.

The agenda for this regular meeting is outlined as follows:

1. OPENING

1.1. Call to Order

1.2. Pledge of Allegiance

1.3. Invocation

1.4. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda

1.5. Roll Call

May 5, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 3 of 8 City Council
Regular Meeting

1.6. Orders of the Day

1.7. Employee Introductions

2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - Proclamations and Awards

2.1. Presentation of Retirement Proclamation to Randy Carpenter

2.2. Presentation of Retirement Proclamation to Jason Smith

2.3. Proclamation Declaring May 2025 as Affordable Housing Month

2.4. Proclamation Declaring May 2025 as Building Safety Month

3. COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE (Informational Only)

4. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL

4.1. Youth Commission Annual Presentation

4.2. PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE

AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Council on matters within the Gilroy City Council’s jurisdiction but not on the agenda. Persons wishing to address the Council are requested to complete a Speaker’s Card located at the entrances and handed to the City Clerk. Speakers are limited to 1 to 3 minutes each, varying at the Mayor’s discretion depending on the number of speakers and length of the agenda. The law does not permit Council action or extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Council action is requested, the Council may place the matter on a future agenda.

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

5. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco – Downtown Committee, Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority, Santa Clara Water Commission, Santa Clara Valley Water Joint Water Resources

May 5, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 4 of 8 City Council
Regular Meeting
Committee, SCRWA
Council Member Fugazzi – Santa Clara Water Commission (alternate), Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board (alternate), SCRWA, Visit Gilroy California Welcome Center, VTA Mobility Partnership Committee
Council Member Marques – ABAG, Downtown Committee, Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board, SCRWA (alternate) Council Member Hilton – CalTrain Policy Group, Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Advisory Board (alternate), Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team, VTA Policy Advisory Committee Council Member Ramirez – ABAG (alternate), Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors (alternate), Gilroy Sister Cities, Gilroy Youth Task Force (alternate), SCRWA, Santa Clara Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee
Council Member Cline – CalTrain Policy Group (alternate), Gilroy Sister Cities (alternate), Gilroy Youth Task Force, Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Advisory Board, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board (alternate), Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board, Visit Gilroy California Welcome Center (alternate), VTA Mobility Partnership Committee, VTA Policy Advisory Committee (alternate)
Mayor Bozzo – Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors, Santa Clara Valley Water Joint Water Resources Committee, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team, VTA Board of Directors (alternate), Santa Clara Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (alternate)

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

6.1. Approval of the Action Minutes of the April 21, 2025 City Council Special Meeting and the April 21, 2025 City Council Regular Meeting

6.2. Gilroy Museum's Request for Commission Approval to Transfer $1,985.04 in Interest Income from the Gilroy Museum Endowment Trust to the Museum Donations Fund

6.3. Approval of a Notice of Acceptance of Completion for the Gourmet Alley Improvement Project 24-PW-287 and Approval of a Final Contract Amount of $3,473,203.90

6.4. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of

May 5, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 5 of 8 City Council
Regular Meeting
Gilroy Amending Chapter 16.6-1(p) Cardroom, Table Restrictions

6.5. Claim of Roselyn Bowers (The City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute denial of the claim)

6.6. Claim of Tony Romero Huerta III (The City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute denial of the claim)

6.7. Claim of Miriam Villarial Luna (The City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute denial of the claim)

7. BIDS AND PROPOSALS

7.1. Award a contract to William Duff Architects, Inc. for Fire Station Renovations Architectural Services in the Amount of $243,076.

1. Staff Report: John Doughty, Public Works Director

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

1. Award a contract to William Duff Architects, Inc. in the amount of $243,076.

2. Authorize the City Administrator to execute the agreement and all other related documents.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

8.1. Appeal of the Planning Commission's Determination for Architectural and Site Review and Variance Application for Removal of an 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

1. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications

2. Staff Report: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director

3. Open Public Hearing

4. Close Public Hearing

5. Possible Action:

Staff recommends that the City Council grant the appeal of the Planning Commission’s 3-3 tie vote, which resulted in denial of variance application V 24-01 and Architectural and site review application AS 24-14, and approve AS 24-14 and V 24-01 to allow the removal of an existing 35-foot monopole and installation of a 65-foot monopole and related equipment located at 401 First Street, APN 790-32-004.

8.2. 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

May 5, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 6 of 8 City Council
Regular Meeting
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

1. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications

2. Staff Report: Andy Faber, City Attorney

3. Open Public Hearing

4. Close Public Hearing

5. Possible Action:

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.

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.

9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

9.1. Food Truck Ordinance Update

1. Staff Report: Victoria Valencia, Economic Development Manager

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

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.

May 5, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 7 of 8 City Council
Regular Meeting

10. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS

10.1. Receive Draft Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan and Program Year (PY) 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan and Provide Direction on PY 2025-2026 Funding Allocations

1. Staff Report: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

1. Receive report and public comments on the draft CDBG 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan and PY 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan.

2. Provide direction on CDBG PY 2025-2026 funding allocations.

11. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS

12. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS

12.1. Santa Teresa Fire Station/Fire Service Update

12.2. Sharks Ice Update

13. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS

14. CLOSED SESSION

14.1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to GC Sec. 54956.8 and GCC Sec. 17A.8
Property: 7257 Monterey Street (APN 799-09-059)
Negotiators: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator; Sharon Goei, Community Development Director
Other Party to Negotiations: RIG I LLC
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment

14.2. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT/EMPLOYMENT: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.11(2) Name/Title: Police Chief

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

16. ADJOURNMENT

FUTURE MEETING DATES

May 5, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 8 of 8 City Council
Regular Meeting
May 2025
12 19
Budget Study Session - 6:00 p.m.

City Council Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.

June 2025
02 16
City Council Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.

City Council Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.

July 2025
28 City Council Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.

Meetings are webstreamed on the City of Gilroy’s website at gilroy.city/meetings.

DRAFT

City of Gilroy
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
Monday, April 21, 2025 | 5:45 PM

1. OPENING

1.1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:45 P.M.

1.2. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
City Clerk Atkins Reported that the agenda was posted on Friday, April 18, 2025 at 10:37 A.M.

1.3. Roll Call
Attendance Attendee Name
Present Dion Bracco, Council Member
Tom Cline, Council Member
Kelly Ramirez, Council Member
Greg Bozzo, Mayor
Absent Terence Fugazzi, Council Member
Zach Hilton, Council Member
Carol Marques, Council Member

2. CLOSED SESSION

2.1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION.

Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision (d) and Paragraph (3) of Subdivision (e) of Government Code Section 54956.9 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.11 (3) (b), Based Upon Receipt of a Written Communication from Shenkman & Hughes, PC (Available for Inspection Upon Request at the Office of the City Clerk). One Case as Defendant
Motion: ENTER into Closed Session.

RESULT: Pass
MOVER:

SECONDER:

AYES: Council Member Bracco, Council Member Cline, Council Member Ramirez, Mayor Bozzo

3. ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION
The Council returned to open session at 6:08 PM.

Assistant City Attorney Houston stated that there was no reportable action.

4. ADJOURNMENT

April 21, 2025 | 5:45 PM Page 2 of 2 City Council
Regular Meeting Minutes
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:08 PM.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gilroy.
/s/Bryce Atkins
Acting City Clerk

DRAFT

City of Gilroy
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
Monday, April 21, 2025 | 6:00 PM

1. OPENING

1.1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:09 PM.

1.2. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Ramirez.

1.3. Invocation
None.

1.4 City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
City Clerk Atkins Reported that the agenda was posted on Friday, April 18, 2025 at 10:37 A.M.

1.5. Roll Call
Attendance Attendee Name
Present Dion Bracco, Council Member
Tom Cline, Council Member
Kelly Ramirez, Council Member
Greg Bozzo, Mayor
Absent Terence Fugazzi, Council Member
Zach Hilton, Council Member
Carol Marques, Council Member

1.6. Orders of the Day
Mayor Bozzo announced that the districting public hearing item will be heard at 7:00 PM.

1.7. Employee Introductions
Police Chief Espinoza introduced three promoted employees: Sergeant Diana Casey, Sergeant Daniel Pineda, and Captain Lamonte Toney

2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - Proclamations and Awards
None.

3. COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE (Informational Only)
None.

April 21, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 6 City Council
Regular Meeting Minutes

4. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL

4.1. PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE

AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE

CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Bozzo opened public comment.

Robert Butler - Commented about his personal history in Gilroy and informed the Council about an art exhibit and fundraising for the South County Compassion Center for the May 2nd fundraising concert, and a kids drama club at the Gilroy Arts Center.

Elaine Gooding - Commented about issues encountered at the Garlic Farm RV Park and previous efforts to resolve the ongoing issues.

Eric Rodriguez - From Silicon Valley Clean Energy - reported on community benefits for the City’s membership with SVCE.

Emily Miller - Commented about her membership as a Parks and Recreation Commission and their proposed workplan.

Ron Kirkish - Commented about the SVCE presentation and his concerns with the original promise of green energy and current energy procurement practices.

With no further speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment.

5. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco – Reported on the Library Joint Powers Authority Finance Committee that it is in excellent financial shape and addressed incorrect rumors on the future of the Library District.

Council Member Ramirez – Nothing to report.

Council Member Cline – Nothing to report.

Mayor Bozzo – Nothing to report.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

6.1. Approval of the Action Minutes of the April 7, 2025 City Council Special Meeting and the April 7, 2025 City Council Regular Meeting

6.2. Approval of a Notice of Acceptance of Completion for the FY25 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project No. 25-PW-290 and Approval of a Final Contract Amount of $403,574

6.3. Consent to the Appointment of Rob Fleeup as Fire Chief

6.4. Claim of Helen Witter (The City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute denial of the claim)

April 21, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 3 of 6 City Council
Regular Meeting Minutes
Mayor Bozzo opened public comment.

With no speakers present, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment.

Motion: APPROVE
RESULT: Pass
MOVER: Kelly Ramirez, Council Member
SECONDER: Tom Cline, Council Member
AYES: Council Member Bracco, Council Member Cline, Council Member Ramirez, Mayor Bozzo

7. BIDS AND PROPOSALS

7.1. Award a Three-Year Contract to Honeywell International Inc., for HVAC Maintenance Services, in the amount of $620,878
Motion: AWARD CONTRACT
RESULT: Pass
MOVER: Tom Cline, Council Member
SECONDER: Dion Bracco, Council Member
AYES: Council Member Bracco, Council Member Cline, Council Member Ramirez, Mayor Bozzo
Mayor Bozzo opened public comment.

With no speakers present, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

8.1. Introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Amending Chapter 16.6-1(p) Cardroom, Table Restrictions Mayor Bozzo opened the Public Hearing at 6:47 PM.

With no speakers present, Mayor Bozzo closed the Public Hearing at 6:48 PM.

Motion: READ TITLE ORDINANCE AND WAIVE FURTHER READING and

INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE
RESULT: Pass
MOVER: Dion Bracco, Council Member
SECONDER: Kelly Ramirez, Council Member
AYES: Council Member Bracco, Council Member Cline, Council Member Ramirez, Mayor Bozzo

8.2. Public Hearing to Establish a List of Properties Subject to the Weed

April 21, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 4 of 6 City Council
Regular Meeting Minutes
Abatement Program and Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Fire Chief to Abate the Nuisance Arising Out of Weeds Growing and Refuse Accumulating Upon Property in the City of Gilroy Pursuant to Section

12.51 of the Gilroy Code
Mayor Bozzo opened the Public Hearing at 6:50 PM.

With no speakers present, Mayor Bozzo closed the Public Hearing at 6:51 PM.

Motion: ADOPT the resolution
RESULT: Pass
MOVER: Tom Cline, Council Member
SECONDER: Dion Bracco, Council Member
AYES: Council Member Bracco, Council Member Cline, Council Member Ramirez, Mayor Bozzo

8.3. Hold the Fourth Public Hearing Regarding the City's Transition from an AtLarge 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
This item was heard after Item No. 10.1.

Mayor Bozzo opened the Public Hearing at 7:22 PM.

Joanne Fierro – Commented that the east side should not be split into two, and that Draft Maps A and D are the best two maps.

With no further speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed the Public Hearing at 7:23 PM.

The Council directed that map JH06 be elevated as Draft.

After some Council discussion, the Public Hearing was re-opened at 7:28 PM Sally Armendariz – Commented that JH06 would divide the Latino community, and that the east side prefers Draft Maps A and D.

Gretchen Yodershock – Commented that she lives in the Wren area and prefers Draft Map A because she likes her neighborhood not being linked to Eagle Ridge, and that the east side should be kept as one solid voting block with shared interests.

Andrea Altamirano – Commenting on behalf of CARAS about the importance of fair and equitable elections, and advocated support for Draft Maps A and D.

April 21, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 5 of 6 City Council
Regular Meeting Minutes
With no additional speakers, Mayor Bozzo re-closed the Public Hearing at 7:32 PM.

Motion: APPROVE to move the final decision on districting from May 5, 2025 to May 19, 2025.

RESULT: Pass
MOVER: Tom Cline, Council Member
SECONDER: Kelly Ramirez, Council Member
AYES: Council Member Bracco, Council Member Cline, Council Member Ramirez, Mayor Bozzo

9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

10. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS

10.1. Quality-of-Life Police Officer Program
This item was heard after Item No. 8.2
Mayor Bozzo opened public comment.

Ron Kirkish – Commented on blight at certain locations and thanked the Police Chief, Council, and City Administrator for addressing it, but that it took effort to get friendly attention on the matter as a third-party reporter.

Maria Aguilar – Commented that it is great to have the Quality-of-Life Officers, but that the money can be used in a better way and should be refocused on service provision.

With no additional speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment.

10.2. Consideration of a City Logo Policy
Mayor Bozzo opened public comment.

Maria Aguilar – commented that she wants the Council to consider in the policy grassroots non-profit organizations regarding use of the logo.

With no further speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment.

Council provided staff with direction.

11. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
None.

12. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS

12.1. Santa Teresa Fire Station Update

12.2. Media Training for Elected Officials

April 21, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 6 of 6 City Council
Regular Meeting Minutes
City Administrator Forbis reported about the Gilroy Foundation granting funds to the Recreation Division, and that a more comprehensive update will be provided at the next Council Meeting.

Communications and Engagement Manager Bedell provided media training for the City Council.

13. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
None.

14. CLOSED SESSION
None.

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

16. ADJOURNMENT
With no additional business before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:03 PM.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gilroy on May 5, 2025. /s/Bryce Atkins
Acting City Clerk

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Gilroy Museum's Request for Commission Approval to Transfer $1,985.04 in Interest Income from the Gilroy Museum Endowment Trust to the Museum Donations Fund
Meeting Date: May 5, 2025
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted by: Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator Prepared by: Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the transfer of $1,985.04 from the Museum Vase Endowment Trust Fund to the Gilroy Museum Fund.

BACKGROUND
On September 5, 2007, the Gilroy Historical Society and the City of Gilroy entered into an Endowment Trust Agreement, for the purpose of establishing an Endowment Trust account for the Gilroy Museum. The Kaiser Wilhelm vase was deaccessioned from the Museum collection and sold at auction on February 11, 2009, for $37,500. Funds from the sale of the vase were deposited in the Endowment Trust Fund (Fund 814).

Per the Trust Agreement, interest income generated from the funds may be transferred annually for use by the Gilroy Museum. Currently the Gilroy Museum has an established project account (80050D149), which has been designated to receive the funds. The agreement also states that if a letter is received from the Gilroy Historical Society making this request, the interest from the Trust will be transferred to the Museum’s account.

On April 8, 2025, at the regular meeting of the Arts and Culture Commission, the Gilroy Historical Society presented a letter requesting the annual interest income be

transferred to the Museum’s account. The Arts and Culture Commission approved a motion recommending that the annual interest income from the Endowment Trust account totaling $1,985.04 be transferred to the Gilroy Museum’s account. As such, it is recommended that City Council approve the transfer.

ALTERNATIVES
Council could deny the transfer request, however this is not recommended as the transfer of funds is consistent with the terms and conditions of the trust agreement.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
This transaction has no impact on the City’s finances.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
This item has gone before a public meeting of the Arts and Culture Commission on April 8, 2025 and has been on the publicly posted agenda for this meeting.

NEXT STEPS
With approval, the transfer will be completed by the City’s Finance Department.

Attachments:

1. Letter of Request to Transfer Interest Income from Gilroy Historical Society

2. Museum Endowment Trust Account Balance Report

3. Gilroy Museum Endowment Trust Agreement

4. Agreement with the Gilroy Historical Society Regarding City of Gilroy Museum

City of Gilroy
#814 Museum Endowment Trust
6/30/2024
Beginning Fund Balance 7/1/23 $ 45,991.59
Revenue
Interest earned FY24 $ 1,985.04
Total Revenue $ 1,985.04
Expenses
Interest transfer (prior yr.) to fund #800 $ (1,138.54) Total Expense $ (1,138.54)
Ending Fund Balance 06/30/24 $ 46,838.09
C:\Users\rosemary\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\2UT9E4OH\Museum Endowment Trust 06302024 3-31-25

C:\Users\rosemary\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\2UT9E4OH\Museum Endowment Trust 06302024 3-31-25

THE GILROY MUSEUM

ENDOWMENT TRUST AGREEMENT
This Trust Agreement is by and between the City of Gilroy, a municipal corporation, as the Settler and as the Trustee, and the Gilroy Historical Society, a non - profit organization as the Special Advising Trustee.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TRUST
The Gilroy Museum Endowment Trust (the " Trust ") is established upon the execution of this Trust Agreement, and upon the funding ofthe Trust.

TERM
The Gilroy Museum Endowment Trust shall continue so long as the Gilroy Museum is in existence as an asset belonging to the City of Gilroy, but not longer than December 31, 2057.

FUNDING OF THE TRUST
The core funds for the trust will come from the sale of the Kaiser Wilhelm II vase currently held in the collection ofthe Gilroy Museum. The proceeds ofthe sale of the Kaiser Wilhelm II vase and such other items which may be sold in the future due to de- accession from the Gilroy Museum collection may, at the City' s direction, be deposited into said Trust upon receipt of such proceeds by the City of Gilroy. In the future, the Gilroy Historical Society, other organizations or individuals may contribute to the Core Fund of the Trust.

ENDOWMENT
The principle amount of all contributions to the Trust (the Core Fund) shall be held by the Trustee without being depleted. Any interest or other earnings on the Core Fund may be spent in accord with this Trust Agreement.

TRUSTEE
The City of Gilroy will serve as the Trustee ofthe Trust. The Trust funds shall be annually accounted for separately from other City funds.

Should the City lose the desire or the ability to manage the Trust, the Trust responsibility will be transferred to the Gilroy Historical Society as successor Trustee, and ifthe Gilroy Historical Society no longer exists or does not have the desire or ability to act as Trustee, a successor Trustee shall be appointed by the City of Gilroy.

EARNINGS ON THE CORE FUND
Any interest earned on the Core Fund shall be annually posted to the Trust account. Such interest earnings may be spent in the subsequent two years in accord with the criteria of the Trust. If any earnings are not spent within two years, such earnings shall be added to the Core LAC \733024. 3
073007 - 04706083

1-
Fund. If a long term master development program has been adopted for the Gilroy Museum by the City of Gilroy, the annual earnings may be set aside for up to six years to fund such long term program.

The Trustee will deposit the Core Fund and interest earnings into an interest bearing federally insured bank account, or the City of Gilroy may deposit the monies in the City' s pooled investment account and annually post the proportional interest earned to the Trust.

USE OF EARNINGS
The income ofthis Trust shall be spent solely for the benefit of the Gilroy Museum' s special programs, special projects, collections, enhancement, direct care of the Museum' s collections and any long term master development program that has been adopted by the City of Gilroy. Income of this Trust may not be used for maintenance, repairs, salaries, travel, stipends or any operational expense of the Gilroy Museum.

Should the Gilroy Museum cease to function and the collection is retired, the Trust income may be used for local Gilroy history programs and projects provided by any Gilroy foundation or entity interested in Gilroy history as determined by the Trustee.

PROCEDURE FOR DISBURSEMENTS
The Gilroy Historical Society Board of Directors, or the governing board of a successor organization that has been approved by the City of Gilroy, by February of each year will make a recommendation for the use and disbursement of any earnings from this Trust. Such recommendation shall be made to the Gilroy City Council, who acts on behalf of the Trustee.

The City Council shall make the final determination for the use of earnings as allowed by this Trust Agreement. If at any time the City Council appoints a Commission or Advisory Board for the Gilroy Museum, the Gilroy Historical Society shall also forward its recommendation to such Commission or Board for review.

Z iZ > >, 2
esident of the Gilroy H s " rical Society
Board of Directors
Cie
Dated
1LAC1733024. 3
073007 - 04706083
A mheiro, Mayor of the City of
Gilroy
Date
1 O
Revised: 8/ 30/2007

1 4888-9550-0353v1
SSCORDELIS\04706083
Agreement with the Gilroy Historical Society regarding the City of Gilroy Museum
This GILROY MUSEUM AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is hereby entered into as of January 1, 2023, by and between the City of Gilroy (“City”) and the Gilroy Historical Society (“Society”), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.

Society is comprised of a group of individuals interested in preserving the history of the City of Gilroy and its surrounding area, and the continued public access to the historical collection and resources located at the Gilroy Museum. Society donates a portion of its yearly monies to the support of the annual program and supplies budget for the Gilroy Museum. City seeks to provide a revocable agreement for Society to use space owned by City to sell items for the purpose of Museum support, as well as recruit and schedule City of Gilroy volunteers for Museum operation and provide for Museum management so that the public may have access to City historical resources, information, and the over 25,000 artifacts located in the Gilroy Museum collection.

City hereby gives to Society a non-transferable revocable license. This Agreement is subject to the terms set forth herein, for the use and right to sell items for the support of the Gilroy Museum in an area to be designated by City at City’s real property located at 195 Fifth Street in Gilroy, California 95020 (the “Museum” or “Gilroy Museum”).

1. Limited Term of Use
This agreement may be reviewed and renewed annually by either the City or Society.

The Term of the license will begin January 1, 2023 and will automatically terminate on December 31, 2030. The license and this Agreement may be terminated prior to the end of the Term by mutual written agreement of the parties or upon 30-day written notice by either party.

2. Society Covenants.

Society agrees, at its sole costs and expense, to do the following:
• Provide Museum services at the Gilroy Museum location during operating hours Tuesday and Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and the first and second Saturdays of the month from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. as well as at additional mutually agreed upon times for Museum or co-sponsored City events;
• In March, 2020 the Society hired a part time Museum Manager that is paid for using the annual payout of the fund balances from the Gilroy Foundation to pay the salary and related expenses for this position. If Society has an employee, they will provide City proof of Worker’s Compensation insurance, as required by DocuSign Envelope ID: E577EC5F-DAC3-4B9B-9800-D9C5D1E353F4

2 4888-9550-0353v1
SSCORDELIS\04706083
California Labor Code § 3700 et seq (and/or any other law), and each time the policy is changed or renewed for an additional year.
• The Society will continue to recruit City of Gilroy volunteers to keep the Museum open to the public. Said volunteers will submit a City of Gilroy Volunteer application and complete the Department of Justice (DOJ) fingerprinting process and comply with any other City requirements. The Society will require that volunteers are scheduled and trained in accepted museum practices. Volunteers are required to adhere to the City of Gilroy volunteer practices and established museum practices and policies;
• Volunteers may be present as scheduled during hours of non-public operation for completion of museum projects and meetings, museum displays and trainings. • If there are sufficient volunteers, the Society would like to increase the Museum operating hours, particularly on Saturdays. Changes to the Museum’s public hours are subject to the approval of the Recreation Manager or their designee and must be submitted by the Gilroy Historical Society in writing; • Facilitate meetings with City and work together in good faith to ensure the quality of services delivered;
• Responsible for making an annual report to the Arts and Culture Commission on the operation of the Gilroy Museum;
• Responsible for providing the annual budget for museum programs and supplies and may furnish appropriate gift items for sale at the museum for the purpose of fundraising;
• Monetary donations contributed at the Gilroy Museum will be documented and deposited with the Society to be used for the benefit of the museum programs, supplies, and the collection;
• Continue to pay for content support and upgrades to Past Perfect, the specialized museum software that maintains and updates the record of museum artifacts; • Maintain the microfilm equipment and films including repair, replacement, or conversion to an equivalent service or tool;
• The Society receives income annually from both the Gilroy Museum Fund and the Lindeleaf Fund held at the Gilroy Foundation. These monies have allowed them to pay a half time Museum Manager on a contractual basis since August of 2021. • The Society and the City, as part of volunteer recruitment will promote museum volunteers and museum programs through the City of Gilroy Recreation Activity Guide and their respective websites, newsletters, and social media outlets; • Create Museum emails, letters, flyers and schedules for publicity and Museum volunteers as needed. Any museum flyers or promotional material should be reviewed and approved by City staff before distribution. This includes all events taking place at the museum and flyers or announcements with the City of Gilroy logo on it.
• Maintain and ensure the public areas of the Gilroy Museum are clean and free of debris. Comply with City’s rules and regulations and all applicable laws.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E577EC5F-DAC3-4B9B-9800-D9C5D1E353F4

3 4888-9550-0353v1
SSCORDELIS\04706083

3. City Covenants.

City agrees, at its sole costs and expense, to do the following:
• Provide the Gilroy Museum building, landscaping, garbage collection and custodial duties (i.e., clean restroom, restock supplies), electricity, internet service, burglar alarm, telephone and telephone line, air conditioning and heat; • Provide facility repair and maintenance, and weekly custodial services in the lavatory area including basic restroom and cleaning supplies; • Provide a staff liaison responsible for all museum matters including City volunteers, facility repair requests and other necessary functions. • Provide Wi-Fi and technology services including City networked equipment (three computers, monitors, printers, and one copy machine), software and information technology support for the software programs, computer hardware and disk storage space for archival collection storage and information back-ups; • Provide the volunteers with Workmen’s Compensation insurance for any injuries incurred while volunteering, just as they do for other City volunteers; • Provide a public meeting space at the Gilroy Museum once a month for Gilroy Museum Management meetings;
• Advertise special events in the City of Gilroy Recreation Activity Guide or the City’s social media outlets;
• Provide tables and chairs to support special events;
• City and Society agree that the Gilroy Museum Endowment Trust Agreement is appended to this document and is incorporated herein.

4. Indemnification.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, Society agrees to defend, through counsel approved by City (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), indemnify and hold harmless City, its officers, representatives, agents and employees against any and all suits, damages, costs, fees, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, liabilities and expenses, including without limitation attorneys’ fees, arising or resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of Society’s assistants, employees or agents, including all claims relating to the injury or death of any person or damage to any property.

5. Insurance.

Society agrees to, at no cost to City, obtain and maintain throughout the term of this Agreement Commercial Liability Insurance on a per occurrence basis, including coverage for owned and non-owned automobiles, with a minimum combined single limit coverage of $1,000,000 per occurrence for all damages due to bodily injury, sickness or disease, or death to any person, and damage to property, including the loss of use thereof. As a condition precedent to City’s obligations under this Agreement, Society will furnish written evidence of such coverage (naming City, its officers and employees as additional insured on the Comprehensive Liability insurance policy via a specific endorsement) and DocuSign Envelope ID: E577EC5F-DAC3-4B9B-9800-D9C5D1E353F4

4 4888-9550-0353v1
SSCORDELIS\04706083
requiring thirty (30) days written notice of policy lapse or cancellation, or of a material change in policy terms.

6. Assignment.

Society may not assign, transfer or encumber this Agreement or the License, nor grant any other right of use or occupancy of the Property by any party other than Society without the prior written consent of City, which may be withheld in City 's sole and absolute discretion.

7. Miscellaneous.
a. If any term or provision of this Agreement shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected, and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. This Agreement may be modified only in writing by City and Society.
b. This Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be interpreted, construed, and enforced in accordance with the laws of the state of California. c. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, the expiration or revocation of this Agreement shall not relieve Society from Society's obligations accruing prior to the expiration or revocation and such obligations shall survive any such expiration or revocation.
d. The person signing this Agreement on behalf of Society represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized and has legal capacity to execute and deliver this Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E577EC5F-DAC3-4B9B-9800-D9C5D1E353F4

5 4888-9550-0353v1
SSCORDELIS\04706083
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Society have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.

Jimmy E. Forbis, Jr.

City Administrator
City of Gilroy, “City”
Date
Connie Rogers, President Gilroy
Historical Society, “Society”
Date
Approved as to form:

City Attorney
Attest:

Thai Nam Pham, City Clerk Date
DocuSign Envelope ID: E577EC5F-DAC3-4B9B-9800-D9C5D1E353F4 12/22/2022
12/27/2022
12/27/2022

RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

City of Gilroy

WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO:

City Clerk’s Office
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020

(SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE)
RECORD WITHOUT FEE UNDER SECTION 27383

GOVERNMENT CODE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Notice of Acceptance of Completion
Gourmet Alley Revitalization Project
Project No. 24-PW-287

SEPARATE PAGE PURSUANT TO GOVT. CODE 27361.6

NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, as of the 5th day of May, 2025, the City of Gilroy, California (“City”) has accepted as completed the work required to be performed under the following agreement (“Agreement”) by and between Trinchero Construction Co (“Contractor”) and City:

Gourmet Alley Revitalization Project
Project No. 24-PW-287
Trinchero Construction Co
Project No.: 24-PW-287
Contractor Name: Trinchero Construction Co
Contractor Address: 12860 Sycamore Avenue, San Martin, CA 95046 Surety on Contract: Contractors Bonding and Insurance Company Location of Project: Gilroy, California
Description of Work:

The work consisted of furnishing of all labor, materials, incidentals, and equipment necessary to perform asphalt overlay, slurry seal, new street lights, underground utilities, landscape, landscape furniture, solid waste enclosures, fencing, signing, striping, and other work as indicated in the Plans and Specifications.

Interest of City: Owner in Fee
Vendee under Agreement to Purchase
Lessee
Owner of Easements
Holder of License
X Owner of Streets
Owner of Utilities, Water, Sewer, Storm Systems
Owner's Name/Address: City of Gilroy, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020 Work Done: See above, Description of Work
This notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California.

The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and say:

That I am an officer of the City of Gilroy, that I have read the foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Completion and know the contents thereof; and that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters that I believe to be true.

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed at the City of Gilroy, County of Santa Clara, State of California, on .

CITY OF GILROY

BY:

Daniel Padilla
TITLE: City Engineer

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Amending Chapter 16.6-1(p) Cardroom, Table Restrictions
Meeting Date: May 5, 2025
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Police
Submitted by: Pedro Espinoza, Chief of Police
Prepared by: Patricia Vigil, Management Analyst
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends to adopt the second reading of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending Chapter 16.6-1(p) of the Gilroy City Code, entitled Cardroom, Table Restrictions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The consideration of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending Gilroy City Code Chapter 16.6-1(p) to amend cardroom table restrictions was presented to Council at the September 9, 2024 meeting. At that time, Council directed staff to draft amendments to the ordinance. The first reading of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy was presented at April 21, 2025 meeting. This item, if approved by the City Council, will finalize the adoption of the ordinance, making it effective 30 days after adoption pursuant to the City Charter.

BACKGROUND
California Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341), enacted by the California Legislature, reinstates a moratorium on the expansion of cardroom gaming and authorizes local jurisdictions the option to amend their ordinances to increase the number of cardroom tables by up to two additional tables initially and by up to two additional tables every four years

thereafter, not to exceed 10 additional tables above the number of tables operated as of January 1, 2023. The proposed amendment to Section 16.6-1(p), Table Restriction, of the Gilroy City Code would permit an increase in the maximum number of tables from 10 to 12.

ANALYSIS
The proposed amendment to Section 16.6-1(p) of the Gilroy City Code is as follows:

Current Ordinance Language (Section 16.6-1):
(p) Table Restriction. No permittee, or the permittee’s employee, shall use, operate or permit the use or operation of more cardroom tables than those permitted by its cardroom permit and for which the permittee previously has paid the required table permit fees. The number of tables located at a cardroom shall not be increased without prior approval of the city council and prior payment of the appropriate table permit fees.

In any event, no cardroom shall operate more than ten (10) tables. All tables shall be located in the same room and be visible from the entrance of the cardroom.

Proposed Amended Language (Section 16.6-1):
(p) Table Restriction. No permittee, or the permittee’s employee, shall use, operate or permit the use or operation of more cardroom tables than those permitted by its cardroom permit and for which the permittee previously has paid the required table permit fees. The number of tables located at a cardroom shall not be increased without prior approval of the city council and prior payment of the appropriate table permit fees.

In any event, no cardroom shall operate more than twelve (12) tables. All tables shall be located in the same room and be visible from the entrance of the cardroom.

ALTERNATIVES
Council may chose to reject or amend the ordinnace. Neither alternative is recommended, as the Council has already deliberated about the proposed amendment, and the California Department of Gambling Control has already approved the ordinance as written. Any change to the proposed ordinance would require the process to re-start, beginning at the State review.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Increasing the table limit to 12 could provide additional revenue for the City while enhancing the customer experience at the cardroom by potentially reducing wait times and improving table availability. Each new table generates $300 per year from the table permit fee, therefore, increasing the number of tables from 10 to 12 would generate an additional $600 in annual revenue. More tables may necessitate hiring additional dealers, leading to additional employee registration fees and potentially increasing related economic activity for cardrooms.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
None.

NEXT STEPS
Staff recommends that Council adopt the second reading of the ordinance.

Attachments:

1. September 9, 2024 Cardroom Consideration

2. April 21, 2025 Cardrooms Introduction

3. Assembly Bill 341

4. Gilroy City Code Chapter 16.6-1 Cardrooms

5. Cardroom Ordinance No. 2025-XXX

8.1 p. 57 of 499

8.1 p. 58 of 499

8.1 p. 59 of 499

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Amending Chapter 16.6-1(p)
Cardroom, Table Restrictions
Meeting Date: April 21, 2025
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted By: Pedro Espinoza, Police Chief
Prepared By: Patricia Vigil, Management Analyst
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION
Council:

1. Motion to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading.

2. Introduce an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending Chapter

16.6-1(p) of the Gilroy City Code, entitled Cardroom, Table Restrictions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The consideration of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending Gilroy City Code Chapter 16.6-1(p) to amend cardroom table restrictions was presented to Council at the September 9, 2024 meeting. Council directed staff to draft amendments to the ordinance. The consideration of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending Gilroy City Code Chapter 16.6-1(p) to amend cardroom table restrictions was presented to Council at the September 9, 2024 meeting. Council directed staff to draft amendments to the ordinance.

BACKGROUND
California Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341), enacted by the California Legislature, authorized local jurisdictions the option to amend their ordinances to increase the number of

8.1 p. 55 of 499

Introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Amending Chapter 16.6- 1(p) Cardroom, Table Restrictions
City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 2 April 21, 2025
cardroom tables by up to two additional tables initially and by up to two additional tables every four years, thereafter, not to exceed 10 additional tables above the number of tables operated as of January 1, 2023. Any such amendment would also require final approval from the Bureau of Gambling Control.

ANALYSIS
The proposed amendment to increase the table limits from 10 to 12 is an option provided by AB 341. Increasing the table limits could enhance the customer experience at the cardroom by potentially reducing wait times and improving table availability. The Gilroy Police Department supports the proposed amendment and does not anticipate any increase in criminal activity resulting from two additional tables.

ALTERNATIVES
The City could maintain its current limit of 10 tables in cardrooms. This option avoids potential issues related to increased gambling activity.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Introduction of the ordinance amendment from 10 to 12 tables would nominally generate an additional $600 in annual permit revenue.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
This item was discussed previously at the public, regular meeting of the Gilroy City Council on September 9, 2024.

NEXT STEPS
Should Council vote to introduce the ordinance, the ordinance will return to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council for adoption.

Attachments:

1. Council Staff Report of September 9, 2024

2. Proposed Ordinance for Cardroom Tables

8.1 p. 56 of 499

8.1 p. 60 of 499

8.1 p. 61 of 499

8.1 p. 62 of 499

8.1 p. 63 of 499

8.1 p. 64 of 499

8.1 p. 65 of 499

8.1 p. 66 of 499

8.1 p. 67 of 499

8.1 p. 68 of 499

8.1 p. 69 of 499

8.1 p. 70 of 499

8.1 p. 71 of 499

8.1 p. 72 of 499

8.1 p. 73 of 499

8.1 p. 74 of 499

8.1 p. 75 of 499

8.1 p. 76 of 499

ORDINANCE NO. 2025-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY
AMENDING GILROY CITY CODE CHAPTER 16.6-1(p) CARDROOM,
TABLE RESTRICTIONS, FROM 10 TO 12 TABLES
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Constitution article XI, section 7, and the City Charter, section 600, the City Council has the authority to enact ordinances which promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the modification to Gilroy City Code, Chapter 16.6-1(p), pertaining to cardroom table restrictions; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA,” Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.), because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and it does not have the potential to result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations “CEQA Guidelines,” section 15060(c)(2) and (3)).

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

SECTION I
Chapter 16.6-1(p) of the Gilroy City Code entitled “Cardrooms” is hereby amended by changing section (p) to read as follows:
(p) Table Restriction. No permittee, or the permittee’s employee, shall use, operate or permit the use or operation of more cardroom tables than those permitted by its cardroom permit and for which the permittee previously has paid the required table permit fees. The number of tables located at a cardroom shall not be increased without prior approval of the city council and prior payment of the appropriate table permit fees. In any event, no cardroom shall operate more than twelve (12) tables. All tables shall be located in the same room and be visible from the entrance of the cardroom.

SECTION II
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of

8.1 p. 77 of 499

Ordinance No. 2025-XX
Cardroom Table Restriction
City Council Regular Meeting |

the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION III
Pursuant to section 608 of the Charter of the City of Gilroy, this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date it is adopted.

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

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:

______________________________
Greg Bozzo, Mayor
ATTEST:

Bryce Atkins, Acting City Clerk

8.1 p. 78 of 499

Ordinance No. 2025-XX
Cardroom Table Restriction
City Council Regular Meeting |

CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK
I, BRYCE ATKINS, Acting City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached Ordinance 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)

8.1 p. 79 of 499

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Claim of Roselyn Bowers (The City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute denial of the claim)
Meeting Date: May 5, 2025
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Administrative Services
Submitted by: LeeAnn McPhillips, Assistant City Administrator/HR Director Prepared by: LeeAnn McPhillips, Assistant City Administrator/HR Director STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Not Applicable

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on the recommendation from Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA) and/or legal counsel, the following claim is submitted to the City Council for rejection at the May 5, 2025 meeting:
• Claim of Roselyn Bowers
Attachments:

1. Claim of Roselynn Bowers for Agenda Packet

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Claim of Tony Romero Huerta III (The City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute denial of the claim)
Meeting Date: May 5, 2025
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Administrative Services
Submitted by: LeeAnn McPhillips, Assistant City Administrator/HR Director Prepared by: LeeAnn McPhillips, Assistant City Administrator/HR Director STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Not Applicable

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on the recommendation from Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA) and/or legal counsel, the following claim is submitted to the City Council for rejection at the May 5, 2025 meeting:
• Claim of Tony Huerta
Attachments:

1. Claim of Tony Romero Huerta III for Agenda Packet

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Claim of Miriam Villarial Luna (The City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute denial of the claim)
Meeting Date: May 5, 2025
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Administrative Services
Submitted by: LeeAnn McPhillips, Assistant City Administrator/HR Director Prepared by: LeeAnn McPhillips, Assistant City Administrator/HR Director STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Not Applicable

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on the recommendation from Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA) and/or legal counsel, the following claim is submitted to the City Council for rejection at the May 5, 2025 meeting:
• Claim of Miriam Villarial Luna
Attachments:

1. Claim of Miriam Villarial Luna for Agenda Packet

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Award a contract to William Duff Architects, Inc. for Fire Station Renovations Architectural Services in the Amount of $243,076.

Meeting Date: May 5, 2025
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Public Works
Submitted by: John Doughty, Public Works Director
Prepared by: Ryan Osenton, Project Manager
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION

1. Award a contract to William Duff Architects, Inc. in the amount of $243,076.

2. Authorize the City Administrator to execute the agreement and all other related documents.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fire Station Renovations Design Project will address several operational issues identified in the 2016 Fire Station Needs Assessment Report for Las Animas Avenue and Chestnut Street Fire Stations.

This project will include seismic analysis of both stations. Additionally, the project creates updated architectural plans for both the Las Animas Station and Chestnut Station to address kitchen and living spaces, dormitories, bathrooms, and laundry room, respectively. This contract will also provide bid and building permit support on a Time & Materials basis up to $20,000. This contract will be funded by the Equipment Outlay (625) Fund and is a budgeted item in the FY24 and FY25 capital budgets. Approval of this contract will enable the City to move forward with design and construction bid documents to facilitate potential construction in Spring 2026.

Fire Station Renovations has been included in budget discussions in several annual budget meetings, most recently May of 2024, where it was determined the project needed to move forward.

BACKGROUND
The City of Gilroy is hiring an Architectural Consultant Team to provide Professional Architectural Design Services to complete the design and preparation of bid documents for two partial fire station remodels.

The Chestnut Fire Station was originally built in 1971 to accommodate 2 fire personnel (standard company size at the time) and only male firefighters (standard at the time). In 1986, the administrative wing was constructed to create new office space. Outside of this addition, there have been no major renovations to this station since it was built. The station currently accommodates 6 administrative staff and a minimum of 3 fire personnel. The 2016 Needs Assessment Report identified that the Chestnut Fire Station required a significant seismic retrofit/remodel and numerous upgrades to be compliant with the Essential Services Building Seismic Safety Act (ESBSSA). The report also recommended improvements including living/kitchen improvements, expansion for accommodation of all genders, and expanded restroom facilities, among other items. Areas to redesign include a remodel of the existing storage room to be converted into showers and/or a full bathroom, remodel of existing dormitories to create private rooms, remodel of existing kitchen/living space, and convert flooring throughout station to polished concrete.

The Las Animas Fire Station was originally built in 1978 to accommodate 2 fire personnel (standard company size at the time) and only male firefighters (standard at the time). The station currently accommodates 3 fire personnel and has received no major renovations since its opening. The same report identified the Las Animas Fire Station required a significant seismic retrofit/remodel and numerous upgrades to be compliant with the Essential Services Building Seismic Safety Act (ESBSSA). The report also recommended improvements including lead/asbestos evaluation, expansion of bathroom facilities to accommodate more than one gender, and to address space issues due to the station being designed for two personnel on duty, among other items.

Areas to redesign include a remodel of the existing kitchen/living space, dormitories to create additional room for the kitchen/living space, remodel of dormitories to create individual bedrooms, a private laundry room, and remodel of the existing bathroom to add an additional shower.

ANALYSIS
The City issued the Request for Proposals (RFP) in January 2025 (Attachment 3) and received two responses. The City formed a multi-disciplinary internal review committee who evaluated, scored the proposals, and provided a recommendation on the preferred architect of record for this project. The review committee unanimously recommended

William Duff Architects. Their proposal is attached to this staff report as Attachment 2.

The review committee noted the proposal from William Duff Architects was the clearly superior proposal with excellent recommendations from their references, a well-thoughtout work plan and project approach, and very applicable work history, having performed similar work for Alameda County Fire Department.

The cost of the architectural design as proposed is $243,076. While not considered by the review committee, the William Duff Architects proposal was the lowest cost proposal, including $20,000 bid and permit support based on Time & Materials and Reimbursables included.

The contract will use the City’s standard form of agreement, and the scope of work and milestone schedule will be based on the proposal’s response timeframe and project phasing. The design timeframe is anticipated to extend approximately nine months, ending in January 2026. The City will either amend this agreement or enter into a separate agreement as part of the construction representation process.

Proposed Project Schedule (in summary):

Task 1 – Project Initiation – two weeks
Task 2 – 30% Construction Documents – approximately 11 weeks Task 3 – 60% Construction Documents – approximately 9 weeks Task 4 – 95% Construction Documents – approximately 9 weeks Task 5 – Cost Estimates – 3 weeks
Task 6 – 100% Construction Documents – approximately 9 weeks

ALTERNATIVES
Council may choose not to award the agreement to William Duff Architects and reject all proposals. This is not recommended, as the procurement process would be required to restart, delaying the project. It is also anticipated that restarting the process would unlikely yield different results without reducing the scope of work and may result in higher contract costs.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
This capital project is a combination of CIP projects 800840 and 800850. This contract will be funded by the Equipment Outlay (625) Fund and the project is included in the adopted FY24-28 CIP. The agreement with William Duff Architects, Inc. is for an amount not to exceed $243,076, which is within design budget of the project. The combination of these projects allows the City to take advantage of economies of scale and reduce overall design costs by approximately 100%.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
The City issued the Request for Proposals (RFP) in January 2025 and received two

responses. This project was advertised in the San Jose Mercury News, ARC PlanWell, and on the City of Gilroy website.

NEXT STEPS
If approved by Council, staff will complete the contract with the selected vendor and commence the project.

Attachments:

1. William Duff Architect Agreement for Services FINAL

-1-

AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
(For design professional contracts over $5,000)
This AGREEMENT made this 20 day of May, 2025 between:

CITY: City of Gilroy, having a principal place of business at 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California
and CONSULTANT: WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC, having a principal place of business at 1275 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103.

ARTICLE 1. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement will become effective on June 1, 2025 and will continue in effect through May 31, 2026 unless terminated in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of this Agreement.

ARTICLE 2. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS
It is the express intention of the parties that CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not an employee, agent, joint venturer or partner of CITY. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed as creating or establishing the relationship of employer and employee between CITY and CONSULTANT or any employee or agent of CONSULTANT. Both parties acknowledge that CONSULTANT is not an employee for state or federal tax purposes.

CONSULTANT shall not be entitled to any of the rights or benefits afforded to CITY’S employees, including, without limitation, disability or unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, medical insurance, sick leave, retirement benefits or any other employment benefits. CONSULTANT shall retain the right to perform services for others during the term of this Agreement.

ARTICLE 3. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONSULTANT
A. Specific Services
CONSULTANT agrees to: perform the services as outlined in Exhibit “A” (“Specific Provisions”) and Exhibit “B” (“Scope of Services”) within the time periods described in and Exhibit “C” (“Milestone Schedule”).

B. Method of Performing Services
CONSULTANT shall determine the method, details and means of performing the above-described services. CITY shall have no right to, and shall not, control the manner or determine the method of accomplishing CONSULTANT’S services.

-2-
C. Employment of Assistants
CONSULTANT may, at the CONSULTANT’S own expense, employ such assistants as CONSULTANT deems necessary to perform the services required of CONSULTANT by this Agreement, subject to the prohibition against assignment and subcontracting contained in Article 5 below. CITY may not control, direct, or supervise CONSULTANT’S assistants in the performance of those services. CONSULTANT assumes full and sole responsibility for the payment of all compensation and expenses of these assistants and for all state and federal income tax, unemployment insurance, Social Security, disability insurance and other applicable withholding.

D. Place of Work
CONSULTANT shall perform the services required by this Agreement at any place or location and at such times as CONSULTANT shall determine is necessary to properly and timely perform CONSULTANT’S services.

ARTICLE 4. COMPENSATION
A. Consideration
In consideration for the services to be performed by CONSULTANT, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT the amounts set forth in Exhibit “D”. In no event however shall the total compensation paid to CONSULTANT exceed Two Hundred Forty Six Thousand Seventy Six Dollars and Zero Cents ($243,076.00).

B. Invoices
CONSULTANT shall submit invoices for all services rendered.

C. Payment
Payment shall be due according to the payment schedule set forth in Exhibit “D”. No payment will be made unless CONSULTANT has first provided City with a written receipt of invoice describing the work performed and any approved direct expenses (as provided for in Exhibit “A”, Section IV) incurred during the preceding period. If CITY objects to all or any portion of any invoice, CITY shall notify CONSULTANT of the objection within thirty (30) days from receipt of the invoice, give reasons for the objection, and pay that portion of the invoice not in dispute. It shall not constitute a default or breach of this Agreement for CITY not to pay any invoiced amounts to which it has objected until the objection has been resolved by mutual agreement of the parties.

D. Expenses
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for all costs and expenses incident to the performance of services for CITY, including but not limited to, all costs of equipment used or provided by CONSULTANT, all fees, fines, licenses, bonds or taxes required of or imposed against CONSULTANT and all other of CONSULTANT’S costs of doing business. CITY shall not be

-3-
responsible for any expenses incurred by CONSULTANT in performing services for CITY, except for those expenses constituting “direct expenses” referenced on Exhibit “A.” ARTICLE 5. OBLIGATIONS OF CONSULTANT
A. Tools and Instrumentalities
CONSULTANT shall supply all tools and instrumentalities required to perform the services under this Agreement at its sole cost and expense. CONSULTANT is not required to purchase or rent any tools, equipment or services from CITY.

B. Workers’ Compensation
CONSULTANT agrees to provide workers’ compensation insurance for CONSULTANT’S employees and agents and agrees to hold harmless, defend with counsel acceptable to CITY and indemnify CITY, its officers, representatives, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, suits, damages, costs, fees, demands, causes of action, losses, liabilities and expenses, including without limitation attorneys’ fees, arising out of any injury, disability, or death of any of CONSULTANT’S employees.

C. Indemnification of Liability, Duty to Defend

1. As to professional liability, to the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall defend, through counsel approved by CITY (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officers, representatives, agents and employees against any and all suits, damages, costs, fees, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, liabilities and expenses, including without limitation attorneys’ fees, to the extent arising or resulting directly or indirectly from any willful or negligent acts, errors or omissions of CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT’S assistants, employees or agents, including all claims relating to the injury or death of any person or damage to any property.

2. As to other liability, to the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall defend, through counsel approved by CITY (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officers, representatives, agents and employees against any and all suits, damages, costs, fees, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, liabilities and expenses, including without limitation attorneys’ fees, arising or resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT’S assistants, employees or agents, including all claims relating to the injury or death of any person or damage to any property.

D. Insurance
In addition to any other obligations under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall, at no cost to CITY, obtain and maintain throughout the term of this Agreement: (a) Commercial Liability Insurance on a per occurrence basis, including coverage for owned and non-owned automobiles, with a minimum combined single limit coverage of $1,000,000 per occurrence for all damages due to bodily injury, sickness or disease, or death to any person, and damage to property, including the loss of use thereof; and (b) Professional Liability Insurance (Errors & Omissions) with a minimum coverage of $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, and $2,000,000 aggregate; provided however,

-4-
Professional Liability Insurance written on a claims made basis must comply with the requirements set forth below. Professional Liability Insurance written on a claims made basis (including without limitation the initial policy obtained and all subsequent policies purchased as renewals or replacements) must show the retroactive date, and the retroactive date must be before the earlier of the effective date of the contract or the beginning of the contract work. Claims made Professional Liability Insurance must be maintained, and written evidence of insurance must be provided, for at least five (5) years after the completion of the contract work. If claims made coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the earlier of the effective date of the contract or the beginning of the contract work, CONSULTANT must purchase so called “extended reporting” or “tail” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work, which must also show a retroactive date that is before the earlier of the effective date of the contract or the beginning of the contract work.

As a condition precedent to CITY’S obligations under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall furnish written evidence of such coverage (naming CITY, its officers and employees as additional insureds on the Comprehensive Liability insurance policy referred to in (a) immediately above via a specific endorsement) and requiring thirty (30) days written notice of policy lapse or cancellation, or of a material change in policy terms.

E. Assignment
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, neither this Agreement nor any duties or obligations of CONSULTANT under this Agreement may be assigned or subcontracted by CONSULTANT without the prior written consent of CITY, which CITY may withhold in its sole and absolute discretion.

F. State and Federal Taxes
As CONSULTANT is not CITY’S employee, CONSULTANT shall be responsible for paying all required state and federal taxes. Without limiting the foregoing, CONSULTANT acknowledges and agrees that:
• CITY will not withhold FICA (Social Security) from CONSULTANT’S payments;
• CITY will not make state or federal unemployment insurance contributions on CONSULTANT’S behalf;
• CITY will not withhold state or federal income tax from payment to CONSULTANT;
• CITY will not make disability insurance contributions on behalf of CONSULTANT;
• CITY will not obtain workers’ compensation insurance on behalf of CONSULTANT.

-5-
ARTICLE 6. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY
A. Cooperation of City
CITY agrees to respond to all reasonable requests of CONSULTANT and provide access, at reasonable times following receipt by CITY of reasonable notice, to all documents reasonably necessary to the performance of CONSULTANT’S duties under this Agreement.

B. Assignment
CITY may assign this Agreement or any duties or obligations thereunder to a successor governmental entity without the consent of CONSULTANT. Such assignment shall not release CONSULTANT from any of CONSULTANT’S duties or obligations under this Agreement.

ARTICLE 7. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
A. Sale of Consultant’s Business/ Death of Consultant.

CONSULTANT shall notify CITY of the proposed sale of CONSULTANT’s business no later than thirty (30) days prior to any such sale. CITY shall have the option of terminating this Agreement within thirty (30) days after receiving such notice of sale. Any such CITY termination pursuant to this Article 7.A shall be in writing and sent to the address for notices to CONSULTANT set forth in Exhibit A, Subsection V.I., no later than thirty (30) days after CITY’ receipt of such notice of sale.

If CONSULTANT is an individual, this Agreement shall be deemed automatically terminated upon death of CONSULTANT.

B. Termination by City for Default of Consultant
Should CONSULTANT default in the performance of this Agreement or materially breach any of its provisions, CITY, at CITY’S option, may terminate this Agreement by giving written notification to CONSULTANT. For the purposes of this section, material breach of this Agreement shall include, but not be limited to the following:

1. CONSULTANT’S failure to professionally and/or timely perform any of the services contemplated by this Agreement.

2. CONSULTANT’S breach of any of its representations, warranties or covenants contained in this Agreement.

CONSULTANT shall be entitled to payment only for work satisfactorily completed through the date of the termination notice, as reasonably determined by CITY, provided that such payment shall not exceed the amounts set forth in this Agreement for the tasks described on Exhibit C” which have been fully, competently and timely rendered by CONSULTANT. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if CITY terminates this Agreement due to CONSULTANT’S default in the performance of this Agreement or material breach by CONSULTANT of any of its provisions, then in addition to any other rights and remedies CITY may have, CONSULTANT shall reimburse

-6-
CITY, within ten (10) days after demand, for any and all costs and expenses incurred by CITY in order to complete the tasks constituting the scope of work as described in this Agreement, to the extent such costs and expenses exceed the amounts CITY would have been obligated to pay CONSULTANT for the performance of that task pursuant to this Agreement.

C. Termination for Failure to Make Agreed-Upon Payments Should CITY fail to pay CONSULTANT all or any part of the compensation set forth in Article 4 of this Agreement on the date due, then if and only if such nonpayment constitutes a default under this Agreement, CONSULTANT, at the CONSULTANT’S option, may terminate this Agreement if such default is not remedied by CITY within thirty (30) days after demand for such payment is given by CONSULTANT to CITY.

D. Transition after Termination
Upon termination, CONSULTANT shall immediately stop work, unless cessation could potentially cause any damage or harm to person or property, in which case CONSULTANT shall cease such work as soon as it is safe to do so. CONSULTANT shall incur no further expenses in connection with this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall promptly deliver to CITY all work done toward completion of the services required hereunder, and shall act in such a manner as to facilitate any the assumption of CONSULTANT’s duties by any new consultant hired by the CITY to complete such services.

ARTICLE 8. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Amendment & Modification
No amendments, modifications, alterations or changes to the terms of this Agreement shall be effective unless and until made in a writing signed by both parties hereto.

B. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Throughout the term of this Agreement, the CONSULTANT shall use due professional care to comply fully with all applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“the Act”) in its current form and as it may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall also require such compliance of all subcontractors performing work under this Agreement, subject to the prohibition against assignment and subcontracting contained in Article 5 above. The CONSULTANT shall defend with counsel acceptable to CITY, indemnify and hold harmless the CITY OF GILROY, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from and against all suits, claims, demands, damages, costs, causes of action, losses, liabilities, expenses and fees, including without limitation attorneys’ fees, that may arise out of any violations of the Act by the CONSULTANT, its subcontractors, or the officers, employees, agents or representatives of either.

C. Attorneys’ Fees
If any action at law or in equity, including an action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to reasonable

-7-
attorneys’ fees, which may be set by the court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled.

D. Captions
The captions and headings of the various sections, paragraphs and subparagraphs of the Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered nor referred to for resolving questions of interpretation.

E. Compliance with Laws
The CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of all State and National laws and all municipal ordinances and regulations of the CITY which in any manner affect those engaged or employed in the work, or the materials used in the work, or which in any way affect the conduct of the work, and of all such orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals having any jurisdiction or authority over the same. Without limiting the foregoing, CONSULTANT agrees to observe the provisions of the Municipal Code of the CITY OF GILROY, obligating every contractor or subcontractor under a contract or subcontract to the CITY OF GILROY for public works or for goods or services to refrain from discriminatory employment or subcontracting practices on the basis of the race, color, sex, religious creed, national origin, ancestry of any employee, applicant for employment, or any potential subcontractor.

F. Conflict of Interest
CONSULTANT certifies that to the best of its knowledge, no CITY employee or office of any public agency interested in this Agreement has any pecuniary interest in the business of CONSULTANT and that no person associated with CONSULTANT has any interest that would constitute a conflict of interest in any manner or degree as to the execution or performance of this Agreement.

G. Entire Agreement
This Agreement supersedes any and all prior agreements, whether oral or written, between the parties hereto with respect to the rendering of services by CONSULTANT for CITY and contains all the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to the rendering of such services in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement, statement or promise not contained in this Agreement shall be valid or binding.

No other agreements or conversation with any officer, agent or employee of CITY prior to execution of this Agreement shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations contained in any documents comprising this Agreement. Such other agreements or conversations shall be considered as unofficial information and in no way binding upon CITY.

-8-
H. Governing Law and Venue
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard to the conflict of laws provisions of any jurisdiction. The exclusive jurisdiction and venue with respect to any and all disputes arising hereunder shall be in state and federal courts located in Santa Clara County, California.

I. Notices
Any notice to be given hereunder by either party to the other may be effected either by personal delivery in writing or by mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid with return receipt requested.

Mailed notices shall be addressed to the parties at the addresses appearing in Exhibit “A”, Section V.I. but each party may change the address by written notice in accordance with this paragraph.

Notices delivered personally will be deemed delivered as of actual receipt; mailed notices will be deemed delivered as of three (3) days after mailing.

J. Partial Invalidity
If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.

K. Time of the Essence
All dates and times referred to in this Agreement are of the essence.

L. Waiver
CONSULTANT agrees that waiver by CITY of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be construed as waiver(s) of any other condition of performance under this Agreement.

Executed at Gilroy, California, on the date and year first above written.

CONSULTANT: CITY:

WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. CITY OF GILROY
By: By:

Name: DAVID PLOTKIN Name: JOHN DOUGHTY
Title: PRINCIPAL / COMMUNITY

PRACTICE LEADER
Title: DIRECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS
Social Security or Taxpayer
Identification Number

-9-
Approved as to Form ATTEST:

City Attorney City Clerk

-1-
EXHIBIT “A”

SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
I. PROJECT MANAGER
CONSULTANT shall provide the services indicated on the attached Exhibit “B”, Scope of Services (“Services”). (All exhibits referenced are incorporated herein by reference.) To accomplish that end, CONSULTANT agrees to assign KENNY ENDO, who will act in the capacity of Project Manager, and who will personally direct such Services.

Except as may be specified elsewhere in this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall furnish all technical and professional services including labor, material, equipment, transportation, supervision and expertise to perform all operations necessary and required to satisfactorily complete the Services required herein.

II. NOTICE TO PROCEED/COMPLETION OF SERVICE
A. NOTICE TO PROCEED
CONSULTANT shall commence the Services upon delivery to CONSULTANT of a written “Notice to Proceed”, which Notice to Proceed shall be in the form of a written communication from designated City contact person(s). Notice to Proceed may be in the form of e-mail, fax or letter authorizing commencement of the Services. For purposes of this Agreement, RYAN OSENTON shall be the designated City contact person(s). Notice to Proceed shall be deemed to have been delivered upon actual receipt by CONSULTANT or if otherwise delivered as provided in the Section V.I. (“Notices”) of this Exhibit “A”.

B. COMPLETION OF SERVICES
When CITY determines that CONSULTANT has satisfactorily completed all of the Services, CITY shall give CONSULTANT written Notice of Final Acceptance, and CONSULTANT shall not incur any further costs hereunder. CONSULTANT may request this determination of completion when, in its opinion, it has satisfactorily completed all of the Services and, if so requested, CITY shall make this determination within two (2) weeks of such request, or if CITY determines that CONSULTANT has not satisfactorily completed all of such Services, CITY shall so inform CONSULTANT within this two (2) week period.

III. PROGRESS SCHEDULE
The schedule for performance and completion of the Services will be as set forth in the attached Exhibit “C”.

IV. PAYMENT OF FEES AND DIRECT EXPENSES
Payments shall be made to CONSULTANT as provided for in Article 4 of this Agreement.

-2-
Direct expenses are charges and fees not included in Exhibit “B”. CITY shall be obligated to pay only for those direct expenses which have been previously approved in writing by CITY.

CONSULTANT shall obtain written approval from CITY prior to incurring or billing of direct expenses.

Copies of pertinent financial records, including invoices, will be included with the submission of billing(s) for all direct expenses.

V. OTHER PROVISIONS
A. CONSULTANT’S SERVICES TO BE APPROVED BY A REGISTERED

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
All civil (including structural and geotechnical) engineering plans, calculations, specifications and reports shall be prepared by, or under the responsible charge of, a licensed civil engineer and shall include his or her name and license number. Interim documents shall include a notation as to the intended purpose of the document, such as “preliminary” or “for review only.” All civil engineering plans and specifications that are permitted or that are to be released for construction shall bear the signature and seal of the licensee and the date of signing and sealing or stamping.

All final civil engineering calculations and reports shall bear the signature and seal or stamp of the licensee, and the date of signing and sealing or stamping.

B. STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP
CONSULTANT represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, skills and licenses necessary to perform the Services, and its duties and obligations, expressed and implied, contained herein, and CITY expressly relies upon CONSULTANT’S representations and warranties regarding its skills, qualifications and licenses. CONSULTANT shall perform such Services and duties in conformance to and consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California.

Any plans, designs, specifications, estimates, calculations, reports and other documents furnished under this Agreement shall be of a quality acceptable to CITY. The minimum criteria for acceptance shall be a product of neat appearance, well-organized, technically and grammatically correct, checked and having the maker and checker identified. The minimum standard of appearance, organization and content of the drawings shall be that used by CITY for similar purposes.

C. RESPONSIBILITY OF CONSULTANT
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and the coordination of the Services furnished by it under this Agreement. The CITY’S review, acceptance or payment for any of the Services shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this Agreement, and CONSULTANT shall be and remain liable to CITY in accordance with applicable

-3-
law for all damages to CITY caused by CONSULTANT’S negligent performance of any of the services furnished under this Agreement.

D. RIGHT OF CITY TO INSPECT RECORDS OF CONSULTANT
CITY, through its authorized employees, representatives or agents, shall have the right, at any and all reasonable times, to audit the books and records (including, but not limited to, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, time cards, etc.) of CONSULTANT for the purpose of verifying any and all charges made by CONSULTANT in connection with this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall maintain for a minimum period of three (3) years (from the date of final payment to CONSULTANT), or for any longer period required by law, sufficient books and records in accordance with standard California accounting practices to establish the correctness of all charges submitted to CITY by CONSULTANT, all of which shall be made available to CITY at the CITY’s offices within five (5) business days after CITY’s request.

E. CONFIDENTIALITY OF MATERIAL
All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, manufacturing procedures, data (including, but not limited to, computer data and source code), drawings, descriptions, documents, discussions or other information developed or received by or for CONSULTANT and all other written and oral information developed or received by or for CONSULTANT and all other written and oral information submitted to CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by CONSULTANT and shall not, without the prior written consent of CITY, be used for any purposes other than the performance of the Services, nor be disclosed to an entity not connected with the performance of the such Services. Nothing furnished to CONSULTANT which is otherwise known to CONSULTANT or is or becomes generally known to the related industry (other than that which becomes generally known as the result of CONSULTANT’S disclosure thereof) shall be deemed confidential. CONSULTANT shall not use CITY’S name or insignia, or distribute publicity pertaining to the services rendered under this Agreement in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper or other medium without the express written consent of CITY.

F. NO PLEDGING OF CITY’S CREDIT.

Under no circumstances shall CONSULTANT have the authority or power to pledge the credit of CITY or incur any obligation in the name of CITY.

G. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIAL.

All material including, but not limited to, computer information, data and source code, sketches, tracings, drawings, plans, diagrams, quantities, estimates, specifications, proposals, tests, maps, calculations, photographs, reports and other material developed, collected, prepared (or caused to be prepared) under this Agreement shall be the property of CITY, but CONSULTANT may retain and use copies thereof subject to Section V.E of this Exhibit “A”.

CITY shall not be limited in any way in its use of said material at any time for any work, whether or not associated with the City project for which the Services are performed.

-4-
H. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY.

This Agreement shall not be construed or deemed to be an agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties, and no third party or parties shall have any claim or right of action hereunder for any cause whatsoever.

I. NOTICES.

Notices are to be sent as follows:

CITY: Ryan Osenton, Project Manager
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
(408) 846-0277
CONSULTANT: David Plotkin, Principal
1275 Folsom Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 604-4261
J. FEDERAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS.

If the box to the left of this sentence is checked, this Agreement involves federal funding and the requirements of this Section V.J. apply.

If the box to the left of this sentence is checked, this Agreement does not involve federal funding and the requirements of this Section V.J. do not apply.

1. DBE Program
CONSULTANT shall comply with the requirements of Title 49, Part 26, Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 26) and the City-adopted Disadvantaged Business Enterprise programs.

2. Cost Principles
Federal Acquisition Regulations in Title 48, CFR 31, shall be used to determine the allowable cost for individual items.

3. Covenant against Contingent Fees
The CONSULTANT warrants that he/she has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he/she has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or formation of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Local Agency shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability or, at its discretion, to deduct from the agreement price or consideration, or

-5-
otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or contingent fee.

-1-
EXHIBIT “B”

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of work for the Las Animas Fire Station (approximately 1,500 SF), located at 8383 Wren Ave, Gilroy, CA 95020, includes the remodeling of the kitchen and living space, dormitory, laundry room, and bathroom. The Las Animas Fire Station was originally built in 1978 to accommodate 2 fire personnel (standard company size at the time) and only male firefighters (standard at the time). The station currently accommodates 3 fire personnel and has received no major renovations since its opening. The same report identified the Las Animas Fire Station required a significant seismic retrofit/remodel and numerous upgrades to be compliant with the Essential Services Building Seismic Safety Act (ESBSSA). The report also recommended improvements including lead/asbestos evaluation, expansion of bathroom facilities to accommodate more than one gender, and to address space issues due to the station being designed for two personnel on duty, among other items. Areas to redesign include a remodel of the existing kitchen/living space, dormitories to create additional room for the kitchen/living space, remodel of dormitories to create individual bedrooms, a private laundry room, and remodel of the existing bathroom to add an additional shower.

The scope of work for the Chestnut Fire Station (approximately 1,200 SF), located at 7070 Chestnut St, Gilroy, CA 95020, includes the remodeling of the shower room, bathroom, dormitory, and kitchen. The Chestnut Fire Station was originally built in 1971 to accommodate 2 fire personnel (standard company size at the time) and only male firefighters (standard at the time). In 1986, the administrative wing was constructed to create new office space. Outside of this addition, there have been no major renovations to this station since it was built. The station currently accommodates 6 administrative staff and a minimum of 3 fire personnel. The 2016 Needs Assessment Report identified that the Chestnut Fire Station required a significant seismic retrofit/remodel and numerous upgrades to be compliant with the Essential Services Building Seismic Safety Act (ESBSSA). The report also recommended improvements including living/kitchen improvements, expansion for accommodation of all genders, and expanded restroom facilities, among other items. Areas to redesign include a remodel of the existing storage room to be converted into showers and/or a full bathroom, remodel of existing dormitories to create private rooms, remodel of existing kitchen/living space, and convert flooring throughout station to polished concrete.

Environmental, accessibility, and code-required upgrades will be assessed and incorporated as necessary. Design, documentation, and client reviews for both stations will progress simultaneously; however, each facility will have a separate set of documents for permitting and construction.

William Duff Architects has proposed organizing the project into three key tasks/phases:
1) project assessment, 2) design and documentation, and 3) construction support. Each phase is designed to align with critical milestones while remaining adaptable to evolving conditions and findings. To facilitate an accelerated and efficient timeline, WDA will strategically overlap tasks where possible, allowing work to progress independently of decision-based information. Through open communication and transparency, WDA will collaborate closely with City of Gilroy staff to

-2-
refine priorities and expectations, ensuring a clear and effective path to achieving the project’s goals.

TASK 1: Project Assessment
WDA will initiate the project with a kick-off meeting, bringing together the City, stakeholders, and project team to:

1. Clarify the program

2. Identify critical path items for the immediate and overall project schedule

3. Define project goals to align expectations
During this phase, WDA will gather essential information to understand functional needs, integrate stakeholder input, and build consensus on design direction, establishing a Basis of Design (BOD). The project schedule will be structured using pull-planning, starting with the target milestone and working backward to identify critical steps for task completion. WDA’s approach ensures a collaborative design process, where we provide professional guidance while the City of Gilroy shapes the vision, making us co-creators in achieving the best possible outcome.

A. Services and Deliverables

1. Project Kick-Off includes the following: a) One (1) kick-off meeting with key stakeholders (in-person, on-site), b) Site Visit, Existing Conditions Investigation, and c) Determine and Confirm Overall and Immediate Project Schedule.

2. Program and Existing Conditions Assessment includes the following: a) Stakeholders Meeting, b) Environmental/Asbestos Assessment, c) ADA assessment (interior only), d) Develop Preliminary Concept Layouts, and e) Establish and Document Basis of Design.

3. Meetings, Project Coordination & Project Management includes the following: a) Client check-in meetings as needed, b) Weekly project activity updates, c) Consultant coordination meetings as needed, and d) Meeting agenda and minutes, as required.

B. Anticipated Timeline (Approx. 6 to 8 weeks)
Based on an NTP at the beginning of May 2025, WDA anticipates: 1) Kick-Off Meeting, Site Visit and Stakeholders program discussion the first week of May, 2) Investigations / Existing Conditions Assessment from early to end of May, 3) Establish Basis of Design / Preliminary Concept Layout by the end of May, and 4) City/Stakeholder Review & Approval by early June 2025
C. Project Team Roles

-3-

1. Discussion with stakeholders to better understand programmatic needs and suggestions for a preliminary layout will be led by architects at WDA with Edgar Lopez & Associates (ELA)

2. Investigations of the existing MEP systems and assessments for proposed modifications will be provided by MEP engineers, Interface Engineering

3. Investigations of the existing structural documents will be provided by Structural Engineers at Miyamoto

4. The Environmental/Asbestos survey and potential abatement will be conducted by SCA

5. On-going project coordination and management by architects at WDA.

6. **If required by AHJ, site accessibility evaluation for ADA compliance will be conducted by Civil Engineers at Sandis.

TASK 2:

Design and Documentation: WDA proposes an efficient and structured approach to developing the design and documentation while maintaining an accelerated schedule. Keys to the approach include the following:

Early Preparation & Coordination: Before the City's approval of the Basis of Design (BOD), WDA and consultants will initiate working drawings, beginning with project backgrounds and document formatting to streamline coordination across all disciplines. A cartoon set will outline required drawings and documents to meet permit, bidding, and construction requirements.

Construction Documentation Process: After the City’s BOD approval in the Assessment Phase, WDA will develop drawings and specifications at 30%, 60%, 95%, and 100% CD milestones. WDA will integrate City feedback throughout, conduct QA/QC for code compliance and coordination, and provide cost estimates at each CD phase to guide decisions and budget adjustments.

Maximizing Efficiency & Managing Client Review: The City requires three weeks to review each CD submission. During this period, WDA's team will advance “decisionindependent” tasks to maintain momentum, such as coordinating approved product specifications, conducting vendor research, and preparing necessary documentation for the next milestone.

Expedited Permitting Strategy: To optimize the timeline, WDA proposes submitting a permit package before 100% CDs, prioritizing critical design decisions and identifying required documents early to prevent delays. The submission milestone will be set during the Assessment Phase.

Designing for Longevity & Compliance: WDA's design approach prioritizes flexibility and durability to minimize future operational and maintenance challenges. As a public project,

-4-
specifications will not be sole-sourced; instead, WDA will define performance-based criteria and specify widely available equivalent products aligned with the Basis of Design.

Purpose-Driven Design: Ultimately, WDA's process is dedicated to creating functional, comfortable, and user-friendly spaces that meet the City's needs while fostering environments that provide dignity and well-being for the City of Gilroy’s first responders.

A. Services and Deliverables

1. Design, includes the following: a) Layout Refinement, b) Performance Refinement Design (Systems Coordination with Consultants), c) Finish (Wall, Ceiling, Floor) Selection Design, d) Fixture (Kitchen, Bathroom, Lighting) Selection Design, and e) Renderings for presentation purposes.

2. Documentation, includes the following: a) Code Analysis, b) Sheet specifications to be considered for expediency, c) Drawings and Specifications at 30% Construction Documents, 60% Construction Documents, 95% Construction Documents, 100% Construction Documents, and d) Permit Set Coordination and Issuance at 95% CD’s.

3. Meetings, Project Coordination & Project Management includes the following: a) Client check-in meetings as needed, b) Weekly project activity updates for the client. (WDA standard service)c) Consultant coordination meetings as needed, d) Meeting with Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) for permitting, and e) Meeting agenda and minutes, as required.

B. Anticipated Timeline (Approx. 32 - 36 weeks )
Based on client and stakeholder approval of the basis of design items noted in Task 1 by early June 2025, we anticipate the development of the design and documentation for permitting and construction bids by the end of October 2025 per the following:

1. 30% Construction Documents (approximately 11 weeks), including the following milestones: a) Background Drawings and Documents Setup Preparation (approximately 2 weeks), b) Preparation, QA/QC, and Submission of 30% CD’s by early July 2025 (approximately 6 weeks), and c) City/Stakeholder Review and Approval of 30% CD set by end of July 2025 (3 weeks).

2. 60% Construction Documents (approximately 9 weeks), including the following milestones: a) Preparation, QA/QC, and Submission of 60% CD’s by early July 2025 (approximately 6 weeks), b) Address, coordinate and incorporate client comments from 30% CD (overlaps with above), and c) City/Stakeholder Review and Approval of 60% CD set by end of July 2025 (3 weeks).

3. 95% Construction Documents (approximately 9 weeks), including the following milestones: a) Preparation, QA/QC, and Submission of 95% CD’s by early July 2025 (approximately 6 weeks), b) Address, coordinate and incorporate client comments from 60% CD (overlaps with above), c) Address, coordinate and incorporate changes as needed from cost

-5-
estimate (overlaps with above), d) City/Stakeholder Review and Approval of 60% CD set by end of July 2025 (3 weeks).

4. Cost Estimates, including the following milestones: a) Cost Estimates at 95% Construction Documents, and b) Cost Estimate Reviews (approximately 3 weeks).

5. Building Permit (approximately 14 weeks concurrently with and past 100% CD’s), including the following milestones: a) Issue 95% CD for Building Permit, and b) Respond to Plan Check Comments as Needed.

6. 100% Construction Documents (approximately 9 weeks), including the following milestones: a) Preparation, QA/QC, and Submission of 100% CD’s by end of November 2025 (approximately 6 weeks), b) Address, coordinate and incorporate client comments from 95% CD (overlaps with above), and c) City/Stakeholder Review and Approval of 100% CD set by mid December 2025 (3 weeks if needed).

C. Project Team Roles
• Construction Document Drawings and Specifications will be produced, QA/QC reviewed and issued by architects at WDA and MEP+FLS+ICT engineers at Interface. Structural engineering assistance by Miyamoto.
• On-going project coordination and management by architects at WDA. • Building permit coordination with the permitting agency by architects at WDA, in concert with the City.
• Cost Estimation Services by Saylor.

TASK 3:

Construction Support Services
WDA will assist the City in preparing bidding documents and will incorporate any ongoing permit review changes into the bid set as an addendum, pending further discussion. After the project is awarded to a general contractor, WDA will coordinate a construction kick-off meeting with the design team, contractor, owner, and key stakeholders to establish expectations and align all parties.

During construction, WDA will ensure the project stays consistent with the design intent and meets the quality standards outlined in the contract documents. The WDA team will provide targeted and strategic construction administration services, focusing on critical coordination issues to minimize delays and keep the project on track.

A. Services and Deliverables

1.Bid Document Support, including: a)Bid RFI limited up to (5) five responses.

-6-

2. Construction Administration, including: a) Targeted and strategic review and response to submittals and RFI’s, limited up to (5) five submittals each.

3. Meetings, Project Coordination & Project Management, including the following: a) Construction kick-off meeting with the design team, general contractor, county and stakeholders, b) Client check-in meetings as needed, c) Weekly project activity updates for the client, d) Consultant coordination meetings as needed, and e) Meeting agenda and minutes, as required.

B. Anticipated Timeline (dates to be determined)

1. Bid Document Support (approximately 6 weeks, Holidays may affect duration), includes the following: a) Prepare and Finalize bid documents, b) Pre-bid meeting, c) Contractor Bid Review, Bid RFI response, d) Bid Evaluation and Reports, and e) Award contract to builder.

2. Construction Administration (approximately 8 weeks / 2 months), includes the following: a) Contractor Kick-Off Meeting, early February 2026, b) Demolition, c) Preliminary Construction, and C) Project Team Involvement.
• Construction Administration Services will be provided by architects at WDA and MEP+FLS+ICT engineers at Interface. Structural engineering assistance by Miyamoto. • On-going project coordination and management by architects at WDA.

-1-
EXHIBIT “C”

MILESTONE SCHEDULE
See Attachment labeled "Exhibit C".

City of Gilroy RFP Fire Station Renovations No. 25-RFP-PW-515 / 13 February 2025 William Duff Architects, Inc.

III / SCOPE AND APPROACH
C. Proposed Project Schedule
WDA’s proposed schedule assumes a start date of May 2025. Drawing/Specification production, permit approval, construction timeline shown in the schedule is based on rough estimate by scale and scope. A refined schedule will need to be developed upon further discussion and investigation collaboratively with the City of Gilroy. 30 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 5/25 6/25 7/25 8/25 9/25 10/25 11/25 12/25 1/26 2/26 3/26 4/26 5/26 6/26 7/26 8/26 9/26 10/26 11/26 12/26 1/27 Gilroy Fire Station Renovations
Task 1 - Project Assessment
Notice to Proceed (NTP)
Kick-Off Meeting / Site Visit / Stakeholder's Meetings
Investigations / Existing Conditions Assessment
Establish the Basis of Design
City/Stakeholder Review and Approval
Task 2 - Design and Documentation
30% Construction Documents
Background and Documentation Preparation
Background Issuance to Consultants
Design Team Prepares Drawings and Specifications
Design Team QA/QC
Design Team Issues Submission for Client Review
Client Review, Feedback and Approval
60% Construction Documents
Design Team Review and incorporate 30% CD client ...

Design Team Prepares Drawings and Specifications
Design Team QA/QC
Design Team Issues Submission for Client Review
Client Review, Feedback and Approval
95% Construction Documents
Design Team Review and incorporate 60% CD client ...

Design Team Prepares Drawings and Specifications
Design Team QA/QC
Design Team Issues Submission for Client Review
Design Team Issues Submission for Permit Review
Client Review, Feedback and Approval
Cost Estimate at 95% CD
100% Construction Documents
Design Team Review and incorporate 95% CD client ...

Design Team Prepares Drawings and Specifications
Design Team QA/QC
Design Team Issues Submission for Client Review
Client Review, Feedback and Approval
Building Permit Application
Permit Review
Plan Check Comments and Revisions
Submit Revisions for Permit
Permit Approval
Task 3 - Construction Support Services
Bid Support
Prepare and Finalize bid documents
Submit Bid Package and Solicit Bids
Pre-bid meeting
Contractor Bid Review
Bid Evaluation and Reports
Award contract to builder
Construction Administration
Contractor Kick-Off Meeting
Demolition
Preliminary Construction
Construction Administration (NIC)
Construction
Project Close-Out
Substantial Completion / COO
Gilroy Fire Station Renovations
Task 1 - Project Assessment
Notice to Proceed (NTP)
Kick-Off Meeting / Site Visit / Stakeholder's Meetings
Investigations / Existing Conditions Assessment
Establish the Basis of Design
City/Stakeholder Review and Approval
Task 2 - Design and Documentation
30% Construction Documents
Background and Documentation Preparation
Background Issuance to Consultants
Design Team Prepares Drawings and Specifications
Design Team QA/QC
Design Team Issues Submission for Client Review
Client Review, Feedback and Approval
60% Construction Documents
Design Team Review and incorporate 30% CD client feedback Design Team Prepares Drawings and Specifications
Design Team QA/QC
Design Team Issues Submission for Client Review
Client Review, Feedback and Approval
95% Construction Documents
Design Team Review and incorporate 60% CD client feedback Design Team Prepares Drawings and Specifications
Design Team QA/QC
Design Team Issues Submission for Client Review
Design Team Issues Submission for Permit Review
Client Review, Feedback and Approval
Cost Estimate at 95% CD
100% Construction Documents
Design Team Review and incorporate 95% CD client feedback Design Team Prepares Drawings and Specifications
Design Team QA/QC
Design Team Issues Submission for Client Review
Client Review, Feedback and Approval
Building Permit Application
Permit Review
Plan Check Comments and Revisions
Submit Revisions for Permit
Permit Approval
Task 3 - Construction Support Services
Bid Support
Prepare and Finalize bid documents
Submit Bid Package and Solicit Bids
Pre-bid meeting
Contractor Bid Review
Bid Evaluation and Reports
Award contract to builder
Construction Administration
Contractor Kick-Off Meeting
Demolition
Preliminary Construction
Construction Administration (NIC)
Construction
Project Close-Out
Substantial Completion / COO
Exhibit C: Milestone Schedule

-1-
EXHIBIT “D”

PAYMENT SCHEDULE
The cost of the work shall not exceed $238,046 as shown in the William Duff Architects, Inc. fee proposal. See Attachment labeled "Exhibit D".

Fee Proposal

SUBMITTED TO /
Issuing Office: Carina Baksa
Project Manager: Ryan Osenton
City of Gilroy

AUTHORIZED BY /
William Duff Architects, Inc.
1275 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103
David K Plotkin, AIA, LEED AP
Principal, Community Practice Leader
(415) 604-4250 [email protected]
13 February 2025

FEE PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES /
Fire Station Renovations
No. 25-RFP-PW-515
Exhibit D: Payment Schedule

City of Gilroy RFP Fire Station Renovations No. 25-RFP-PW-515 / 13 February 2025 William Duff Architects, Inc.

IV COST
A. Fee Proposal
FIRM / William Duff Architects
DISCIPLINE /Design Team Total

PROJECT /
Gilroy Fire Station Renovations No. 25-RFP-PW-515
DATE / 13 February 2025
Architecture
/ Proj.Mmgt.

Mechanical/
Plumbing
Electrical FLS ICT Design
Structural
Engineering
Environmental/
Asbestos
Assessment
Cost
Estimation
Strategic
Advisor
Task No. Task Description WDA Interface Interface Interface Interface Miyamoto SCA Saylor ELA Task 1 Project Assessment $15,000 $3,600 $2,400 $500 $1,100 $1,500 $22,676 $5,600 $52,376 Task 2 Design and Documentation $105,000 $21,600 $14,400 $2,500 $6,500 $6,000 $10,200 $166,200 Task 3 Construction Support Services $13,225 $5,000 $1,775 $20,000 All Task Totals $133,225 $30,200 $16,800 $3,000 $7,600 $9,275 $22,676 $10,200 $5,600 $238,576 Percentage of Total 56% 13% 7% 1% 3% 4% 10% 4% 2% 100%
Discipline & Firm
Design Fee
Totals by Task
Title 24 Envelope
(if required)
Civil Engineer
ADA Assmt.
(if required)
Cost
Estimation
(if required)
Task No. Task Description Interface Sandis Saylor
Task 1 Project Assessment $12,830
Task 2 Design and Documentation $6,000 $24,600 $30,600
Task 3 Construction Support Services
$6,000 $12,830 $24,600 $43,430
Percentage of Total 3% 5% 10% 125%
Additional Services Task Totals
Discipline & Firm
Design Fee
Totals by Task
Basic Scope of Services per RFP
Recommendations / Optional Additional Services

City of Gilroy RFP Fire Station Renovations No. 25-RFP-PW-515 / 13 February 2025 William Duff Architects, Inc.

IV COST
FIRM / William Duff Architects
DISCIPLINE /Design Team Total
PROJECT /Gilroy Fire Station Renovations No. 25-RFP-PW-515 DATE / 13 February 2025
Architecture
/ Proj.Mmgt.

Mechanical/
Plumbing
Electrical FLS ICT Design
Structural
Engineering
Environmental/
Asbestos
Assessment
Cost
Estimation
Strategic
Advisor
Task No. Task Description WDA Interface Interface Interface Interface Miyamoto SCA Saylor ELA Task 1 Project Assessment $600 $300 $100 $300 $1,300
Task 2 Design and Documentation $2,350 $2,350
Task 3 Construction Support Services $450 $300 $100 $850 All Task Totals $3,400 $600 $200 $300 $4,500
Discipline & Firm
Design Fee
Totals by Task
Estimated Reimbursable Expenses

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Determination for Architectural and Site Review and Variance
application for removal of an 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
Meeting Date: May 5, 2025
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Community Development
Submitted By: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director Prepared By: Vanessa Sanchez, Planner I
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council grant the appeal of the Planning Commission’s 3-3 tie vote, which resulted in denial of Variance application V 24-01 and Architectural and Site Review application AS 24-14, and approve AS 24-14 and V 24-01 to allow the removal of an existing 35-foot monopole and installation of a 65-foot monopole and related equipment located at 401 First Street, APN 790-32-004.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 13, 2025, staff brought before the Planning Commission Architectural and Site Review (AS 24-14) and Variance permit (V 24-01) for formal determination. The proposed project was analyzed for conformance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff recommended exempting the project from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA guidelines section 15303 (Class 3); adopting a resolution approving Architectural and Site Review permit application AS 24-14; and adopting a resolution approving Variance permit application V 24-01.

City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 12 May 5, 2025
1 2
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to determine the project was exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3). Two separate motions were made to adopt resolutions approving Architectural and Site Review permit application AS 24-14 and Variance permit application V 24-01. Both motions resulted in a 3-3-tie vote, the effects of which were denials of the applications.

The applicant, Crown Castle, USA Inc. represented by Global Signal Acquisitions III LLC, filed an appeal of the March 13, 2025, Planning Commission determinations for AS 24- 14 and V 24-01 on April 1, 2025.

BACKGROUND
Telecommunications Act of 1996: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “1996 Act”) provides guidance to local jurisdictions regarding regulations of telecommunication facilities. Per Title 47 U.S.C section 332(c)(7)(B)(i-v) of the Telecommunications Act, a local jurisdiction may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. The regulation of a wireless facility must abide by the following criteria:
(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof –
(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and
(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request.
(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.
(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.
(v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief.

City of Gilroy City Council Page 3 of 12 May 5, 2025
1 2
Permit History: 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 lease area located behind the existing commercial building at 401 First Street. In 2013, a building permit was issued (Building Permit No. 13070125) to remove and replace two ground-level cabinets, install three remote radio units on a H-frame, and replace a GPS antenna.

Application Submittal Timeline: On July 17, 2024, Lisa Elliott, on behalf of Crown Castle, submitted an application requesting Architectural and Site Review permit for the proposed demolition of an existing 35-foot-tall monopole and installation of a new 65-foottall monopole and related equipment, and submitted an application requesting a variance to Zoning Ordinance section 30.35.19. The variance requested an exception to the wireless facility setback standard. This section of the Zoning Ordinance requires wireless facilities to be set back a minimum of the overall height of the structure, in this case, 65 feet. The variance also requested an exception to the maximum height allowed in the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district (35 feet). On August 16, 2024, staff sent the applicant a Notice of Incomplete application. On December 11, 2024, the applicant resubmitted the requested incompleteness items. On December 20, 2024, the application submittal was accepted as complete for final processing.

Planning Commission Review:

On March 13, 2025, the applications were brought before the Planning Commission for a formal determination. Staff analyzed the proposed project and found it to be compliant with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding radio frequency emissions. No substantial evidence was found that would justify a denial of the proposed wireless facility. Staff did not receive any public comments on the request.

The Planning Commission asked staff questions regarding the Radio Frequency report that was prepared by SiteSafe’s registered professional engineer. Staff provided answers to the questions prior to the meeting and provided copies for the Planning Commission and public to review (refer to attachment 2 text in red). The Planning Commission discussed concerns regarding the radio frequency report not containing a horizontal azimuth, and potential impact on airplanes and wildlife, specifically birds. A member of the applicant’s team, Alyse Mathis, confirmed that the wireless facility is compliant with all FCC standards and was not aware of any impacts to wildlife or airplanes. The Assistant City Attorney reiterated that the project was reviewed for environmental review and was found to be exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15303 (Class 3) of the CEQA guidelines. As part of the appeal packet, the applicant provided a revised Radio Frequency report that contains the discussed horizontal azimuth.

Planning Commission Action:

The Planning Commission made a motion to, based on its independent analysis, determine that the project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3). The motion passed with a 6-0 vote. A motion was made to adopt a resolution approving Architectural and Site Review permit

City of Gilroy City Council Page 4 of 12 May 5, 2025
1 2
application AS 24-14. The motion failed due to a 3-3 vote. A motion was made to adopt a resolution approving Variance permit application V 24-01. The motion failed due to a 3-3 vote. The Assistant City Attorney stated that the Planning Commission’s vote to approve AS 24-14 and V 24-01 were tied 3-3, the effect of which are denials. The Assistant City Attorney stated that the Planning Commission’s action was final and thus appealable to the City Council.

A notice of final action letter was provided to the applicant on Friday, March 14, 2025, and revised on March 19, 2025. The letter notified the applicant of the March 13, 2025, Planning Commission meeting’s determination and the 20-day appeal period which ended on April 2, 2025. On April 1, 2025, the applicant, Crown Castle, USA Inc. represented by Global Signal Acquisitions III LLC, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action on AS 24-14 and V 24-01.

ANALYSIS
Architectural and Site Review AS 24-14 and Variance V 24-01, filed on July 17, 2024, propose to demolish an existing 35-foot tall monopole and install a new 65-foot tall monopole and related equipment consisting of (1) 6160 cabinet with two RP6651 Units and IXRE router, enclosure Bi60 Cabinet, double tri-sector collar with T-arms, six (6) antennas, two (2) hybrid cables, three (3) 4460 radio units, and three (3) 4480 radio units.

Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses: The subject site (APN 790-32-004) is presently developed with a commercial building, associated parking and landscaping. The property also is developed with a 275 square foot leased fenced area that contains a 35- foot-tall monopole and associated wireless equipment located behind the commercial building. The site and surrounding land uses are as follows:

LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING
Project Site Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood
Commercial (C1)
North Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood
Commercial (C1)
South Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood
Commercial (C1)
East Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood
Commercial (C1)
West Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood
Commercial (C1)
Environmental Assessment:

Section 15303 (Class 3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, categorically exempts from further environmental review, those projects involving “construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures.” The proposed 65-foot-tall monopole is considered a small facility as there is no horizontal expansion of the existing leasing area and there is only the replacement of existing

City of Gilroy City Council Page 5 of 12 May 5, 2025
1 2
monopole and associated equipment involved. Filing of a Notice of Exemption (NOE) is not mandated; however, it reduces the statute of limitations for legal challenges under CEQA, from 180 days to 35 days. No further assessment is necessary for this proposal, and a NOE may be filed for the project.

General Plan Consistency: The City's General Plan designates the subject site for Mixed Use, which supports the proposed project request. As such, the proposal conforms to the goals and policies of the General Plan. Key goals and policies which pertain to the proposed project are discussed below:

POLICY # TITLE AND SUMMARY ANALYSIS
PSF 1.8 Provision of Utilities
Work with public, quasi-public, and
private utility providers as practicable
to provide adequate levels of service
to city residents.

The new wireless facility would improve
telecommunication services to the public
and emergency services personnel.

PSF 8.7 Telecommunication Technologies
Support the implementation of
telecommunication technologies to
attract new businesses and meet the
changing communication needs of
City residents and businesses.

The new wireless facility will improve 5G
coverage and fill in a significant coverage
gap for the residents of Gilroy.

Architectural and Site Review AS 24-14 Analysis
The proposed wireless facility is located in the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. In accordance with the Gilroy City Code (GCC) Section 30.35.14, the proposed wireless facility may be permitted with an approved Architectural and Site Review Permit.

The Architected and Site Review Permit may be approved at a staff level if it complies with all zoning regulations. However, because the project is proposing a monopole height greater than the allowed height for the C-1 zoning district and a smaller setback, a Variance Permit application is required. Per GCC section 30.50.20, Variance permits shall go before the Planning Commission for formal determination. The applicable development standards for the project have been considered for the proposed project, as follows:

STANDARD REQUIRED PROPOSED CONFORMS?
Maximum Height 35 feet 65 feet No, Variance
Minimum Front Setback 65 feet 81 feet Yes
Minimum Interior Side
Setback
65 feet 53 feet 4 inches No, Variance

City of Gilroy City Council Page 6 of 12 May 5, 2025
1 2
STANDARD REQUIRED PROPOSED CONFORMS?
Minimum Street Side
Setback
65 feet 48 feet 9 inches No, Variance
Minimum Rear Setback 65 feet 53 feet 8 inches No, Variance Per Gilroy Code section 30.35.19(c)(1), a wireless facility is required to be setback at a minimum of the overall structure height from all property lines and/or a distance consistent with the required yard setbacks of the particular zone district. The C-1 zoning district has a front yard setback of 31 feet, side yard adjacent to street setback of 21 feet, and no minimum rear or interior side yard setback when surrounded by parcels within the same zoning district. The proposed wireless facility meets the minimum setback requirement of the zoning district. However, since the proposed monopole is 65 feet tall, the more restrictive setback is 65 feet from all property lines. This setback requirement is part of the variance request. Due to the size of the property, the wireless facility cannot meet the 65-foot setback requirement.

The applicant has provided a letter signifying their willingness to allow other carriers to co-locate on the facility wherever technically and economically feasible. The applicant provided the required Radio Frequency Compliance Report prepared by SiteSafe’s registered professional engineer, dated May 2024. The Report deemed the proposed wireless facility to be complaint with FCC Rules and Regulations and outlines actions that the site must take. This includes installing proper signage, ensuring the site remains secure, and implementing proper radio frequency safety awareness training for personnel who need to access the site. Additionally, the monopole will be constructed out of nonflammable metal and shall be painted a flat gray color. The monopole will be conditioned to provide a color sample for Community Development Director approval.

Architectural and Site Review Findings:

In accordance with Gilroy City Code Section 30.35.21 (Wireless Telecommunication Facilities) and 30.50.30, approval of an Architectural and Site Review permit for a wireless facility may be approved if certain findings are made. Those findings are listed below along with staff’s assessment of the project’s compliance with the findings. 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.

City of Gilroy City Council Page 7 of 12 May 5, 2025
1 2
There are no environmentally sensitive habitats or other significant resources that would be impacted by the wireless facility. The project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3). 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. A tree design was considered for the monopole, however staff concluded that it would not be the best option as the tree design would require an additional five-foot height increase to accommodate tree branching, which would cause overhang onto the existing commercial building. There were concerns regarding the tree design not blending in with the existing surroundings as it would be located in the middle of the commercial parking lot and there are minimal trees in the general vicinity of the project 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.
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.

City of Gilroy City Council Page 8 of 12 May 5, 2025
1 2
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.

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.

Variance Application V 24-01 Analysis
Gilroy Code section 30.35.19(d) requires wireless facilities proposed in commercial zoning districts to meet the height limitation for the underlying zoning district unless a variance is obtained. The proposed wireless facility would be 65 feet, which exceeds the C1 zoning district height limitation of 35 feet.

The variance application must provide a written justification for the proposed tower height and an analysis for absence of alternatives that would have less of a visual impact. The applicant provided the following justification for an increased tower height:
• A height increase is needed to achieve the coverage and capacity of wireless services for the area. The additional height would allow for additional antennas and upgraded technologies. Additionally, emergency services would benefit from the additional antennas at the new height. The site is an existing wireless facility, which would eliminate the need for a new cellular facility.

The applicant does not believe there are viable alternative sites for this wireless facility for the following reason:
• Crown Castle owns the existing tower and has a lease in place with the carrier (TMobile). The lease is locked in place for a certain number of years; therefore, Crown Castle would not look for another pole (site) to put these antennas on and lose that revenue.

Although other sites were not analyzed, the applicant did provide a coverage map that shows there are no other existing wireless facilities within 1,000 feet of the site; therefore

City of Gilroy City Council Page 9 of 12 May 5, 2025
1 2
colocation would not be an option. Additionally, the applicant did analyze the different coverage options at various heights: 32-feet RC placement height, 46-feet RC placement height, and 60-feet RC placement height. RC signifies the placement height of wireless technology equipment. The analysis showed that the 32-foot-tall monopole would have a 851 population gain if updated technology was placed on the existing pole. The 46-foottall monopole can achieve a 2,016 population gain and the 60-foot-tall monopole is able to achieve a 3,266 population gain. The 65-foot-tall monopole (60-foot RC placement) can provide a large coverage area for the residential neighborhood south of First Street bordered by Wren Avenue to the West and Miller Avenue to the East.

Variance Findings:

In accordance with Gilroy City Code Section 30.50.20(3), approval of variances from the City’s development standards may be allowed only when specified findings can be made. Those findings are listed below along with staff’s assessment of the project’s compliance with the findings.
a. 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. b. 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.

City of Gilroy City Council Page 10 of 12 May 5, 2025
1 2
c. 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. d. 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. e. 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.

Applicant Basis for Appeal:

The applicant submitted a letter that outlines the basis for their appeal. The applicant is basing the appeal on the following items:
a. City staff recommended approval of AS 24-14 and V 24-14 and found the project to be consistent with the General Plan, compliant with zoning, categorically exempt from CEQA, and compliant with FCC rules and regulations. In addition, the applications were reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and staff is able to make the required findings.
b. No findings were made, based on substantial evidence, to deny the project as required by section 332(c)(7) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. c. Denial of the project by the Planning Commission is in violation of Section 332(c)(7) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and may amount to a prohibition on the provision of personal wireless services.

City of Gilroy City Council Page 11 of 12 May 5, 2025
1 2
d. Comments made at the March 13, 2025, Planning Commission meeting suggest that the decisions made by the Planning Commission may have been impermissible under section 332(c)(7) of the 1996 Act.

Conclusion:

The motion made by the Planning Commission to approve AS 24-14 and V 24-01 failed and therefore resulted in denials of the applications. The Planning Commission did not make a motion to deny the project, therefore there were no findings of denial that were made, and no substantial evidence was stated to deny the project. Staff is recommending granting the appeal resulting in approval of applications AS 24-14 and V 24-01 because all required Architectural and Site Review and Variance findings were able to be made for the project and no substantial evidence is known to justify a denial of the project.

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Project plans were routed to Engineering, Building, Fire Prevention, and Police representatives for internal review and comments.

There were no concerns raised or conditions provided by TAC members.

ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may deny the appeal. However, staff does not recommend denial of the appeal without making the required written findings based on substantial evidence as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii).

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The applicant has paid all planning fees associated with the project applications and appeal. The project will also require payment of all associated building permit fees.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Property owner information (i.e. list, labels, and map) within 500 feet of the subject site were generated by the City of Gilroy using current ownership data. On February 28, 2025, notices of the March 13, 2025 Planning Commission meeting were mailed to the property owners along with other interested parties and published in the Gilroy Dispatch at least 10 days prior to the meeting. In addition, the property has been posted with on-site signage notifying passersby of pending development, and the Planning Commission public hearing packets were made available through the City's webpage.

Notices for the May 5, 2025 City Council meeting were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the site, published in the Gilroy Dispatch, and the required project notification signage was maintained on the site throughout the appeal period. Both the Planning Commission and City Council public hearing packets are available through the City’s website.

City of Gilroy City Council Page 12 of 12 May 5, 2025
1 2

NEXT STEPS
If approved, the applicant would submit to the Building Division to obtain a building permit.

Attachments:

1. Appeal Packet

2. March 13, 2025, Planning Commission Questions

3. Draft Resolution of Approval for AS 24-14

4. Draft Resolution of Approval for V 24-01

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 | Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: 213.622.5555 | Facsimile: 213.620.8816
www.allenmatkins.com
Emily L. Murray
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 213.955.5584 File Number: 377510.00005/4900-8736-8240.5 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco | New York Allen Matkins
Via Electronic Mail
April 1, 2025
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Gilroy, City Hall
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, California 95020
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Architectural and Site Review Permit (AS 24-14) and Variance Permit (V 24-01) Related to the Wireless Communications Tower Located at 401 First Street, Gilroy, California 95020
Dear Honorable Mayor Greg Bozzo and Gilroy City Council Members:

Pursuant to the City of Gilroy (“City”) Municipal Code section 30.51.50, the Applicant and Appellant Global Signal Acquisitions III LLC, a subsidiary of Crown Castle, USA Inc. (“GSA III”), submits this letter in support of its appeal of the March 13, 2025 decision by the Planning Commission to deny GSA III’s Architectural and Site Review permit application (“AS 24-14”) and Variance permit application (“V 24-01”) to remove an existing 35-foot monopole and install a 65- foot monopole and related equipment (the “Project”) on the site located at 401 First Street, Gilroy, California 95020, Assessor’s Parcel Number (“APN”) 790-320-004 (the “Property”). Specifically, GSA III appeals to the City Council to reverse the Planning Commission’s March 13, 2025 denial of GSA III’s application for AS 24-14, to remove the existing 35- foot monopole and install a new 65-foot monopole and related equipment, and V 24-01, to obtain a height variance to allow installation of the new monopole and to waive the setback requirement that the setback be equal in distance to the overall height of the monopole.

GSA III’s appeal is based upon the Application for Appeal, this letter and all exhibits thereto, the entire record that was before the Planning Commission at the hearing on the Project, the testimony of GSA III’s representative at the hearing on the Project, and the Planning Division staff report and recommendations to approve the Project, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. This letter does not constitute an exhaustive description of the arguments that will be raised by GSA III at the hearing on the appeal, and GSA III expressly reserves the right to make additional arguments and present additional evidence at or before the hearing.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
April 1, 2025

I. INTRODUCTION
On July 17, 2024, GSA III applied to the City for permits to allow the removal of the existing 35-foot monopole and installation of a new 65-foot monopole and related equipment at the Property. The existing monopole and related wireless equipment are contained within a 275 square foot leased fenced area behind a commercial building. GSA III is seeking to install a taller monopole in order to improve 5G coverage provided to the public and emergency personnel, thereby filling a significant gap in coverage for the residents of Gilroy.

In advance of the March 13, 2025 hearing before the Planning Commission to consider whether to approve the Project, the Community Development Department staff issued a staff report to the Planning Commission, recommending approval of the Project. The staff report is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference.

At the hearing, the Planning Commission vote resulted in a 3-3 tie on whether to approve the permits, which were effectively denials. The decision was arbitrary, as demonstrated by the fact that no evidence was offered in opposition to the project in the record or at the hearing. Because no evidence in opposition to the Project was presented at the hearing, the decision to deny the Project was not supported by substantial evidence. Further, the Planning Commission failed to make written findings to justify the denial of the Project and, even if the Planning Commission had drafted denial findings, the findings would not have been supported by any evidence, let alone substantial evidence.

It is axiomatic that the land use decisions of local jurisdictions, such as the Planning Commission's decision to deny AS 24-14 and V 24-01, must be supported by substantial evidence.

Substantial evidence is not made up of unsubstantiated opinion testimony, argument or speculation, but rather facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of S.F. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 675.) Further, to support denial, agencies “must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order.” (See Topanga Assn. for the Scenic Community v. County of LA (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515.) Furthermore, under 47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “1996 Act”), which regulates the provision of personal wireless services, a local government’s decision to deny a request must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence.

In addition, questions and comments raised by members of the Planning Commission during the March 13, 2025 hearing suggest that the denial may have been motivated by or based upon impermissible reasons under the 1996 Act, which prohibits local agencies from denying a modification to a personal wireless services facility on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions where the facility complies with the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) regulations of radio frequency emissions.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
April 1, 2025

The Planning Commission failed to make findings related to its denial of the Project in violation of the City Code and the 1996 Act and no evidence was included in the record or offered during the hearing to support the denial of the Project, accordingly the Planning Commission’s denial of the Project should be reversed. GSA III respectfully requests that the City Council order that AS 24-14 and V 24-02 are approved.

II. SUMMARY OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND
a. City Staff Recommends Approval of the Project, but the Planning Commission Arbitrarily Denied the Project Based on No Evidence.

In the Staff Report, the Community Development Department recommended that the Planning Commission (1) determine that this project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3), and (2) adopt resolutions approving AS 24-14 and V 24-01 based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval. (Exhibit 1, p. 1.) Among other things, the staff report found that:
• Consistency with the Property’s Zoning. With respect to project development, the Property is located within the C1 Neighborhood Commercial Zone, which permits a wireless facility upon approval of an Architectural and Site Review permit. Because the Project includes a monopole that is taller than is permitted and a smaller setback, a Variance permit is also required. The height variance is necessary for the Project to maximize its benefits to the public and emergency personnel. (Id. at pp. 1-3.)
• Consistency with the General Plan. With respect to the General Plan, the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, which designated the Property as Mixed Use, and furthers the goals and policies stated in the General Plan, including PSF 1.8 and PSF 8.7. (Id. at p. 2.)
• Surrounding Land Uses. With respect to the surrounding uses, the land uses surrounding the Property are also within the C1 Neighborhood Commercial Zone and have a Mixed Use General Plan designation. (Id.)
• CEQA Categorical Exemption. With respect to CEQA, the Project is found to be categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3) of the CEQA guidelines, which categorically exempts projects involving “construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures,” and thus no further environmental review is required. (Id.)

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
April 1, 2025

• Compliant with FCC Rules and Regulations. With respect to FCC Rules and Regulations, the Project is compliant with FCC Rules and Regulations and required to take specific actions. (Id. at p. 4.)
• Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”) Approval. With respect to TAC approval, the project plans were provided to Engineering, Building, Police, and Fire representatives for internal review and comment. No concerns were raised or conditions provided by the reviewing TAC representatives. (Id. at p. 4.) A proposed resolution to approve AS 24-14 and a proposed resolution to approve V 24-01, which are attached hereto as Attachments A and B of Exhibit 1, provided yet more support for the Project, noting, among other things, that:
• “There are no environmentally sensitive habitats or other significant resources that would be impacted by the wireless facility.” (Exhibit 1, Attachment A, p.

1.)
• “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.” (Id. at p. 2.)
• “The site is within the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district, and commercial and institutional zoning districts are the preferred locations for new wireless facilities.” (Id.)
• “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.” (Id.)
• “[T]he proposed wireless communication facility as conditioned is in compliance with all FCC, FAA and California PUC standards and requirements.” (Id.) • “[T]he 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.” (Id.)
• “[T]he 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.” (Id.) • “[T]he proposed coverage would not be able to be comparably obtained at the maximum allowable height of the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district.

Zoning districts that would allow a monopole height of 65 feet are not located in the general vicinity of the coverage gap.” (Exhibit 1, Attachment B, p. 1.)

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
April 1, 2025

• “The literal enforcement of the wireless facility setback would cause hardship due to the lot’s configuration and existing conditions.” (Id. at p. 2.) • “The allowance of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other persons or property in the vicinity as the proposed wireless facility will comply with all FCC and FAA rules and regulations.” (Id.)
III. CITY COUNCIL SHOULD REVERSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION AND APPROVE AS 24-14 AND V 24-01.
a. Federal Law Required the Planning Commission to Approve the Project Unless it Made Written Findings Supported by Substantial Evidence to Support the Denial, Which the Planning Commission Failed to Make.

Because the Project qualifies as a personal wireless service facility under 47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7) of the 1996 Act, in order to deny the Project, the City would have had to make written findings supported by substantial evidence, which it failed to do. The limitations on local authority to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless services facilities in Section 332(c)(7) include, among others:
• “The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof—(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.” (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i).)
• “Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.” (Id. at § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii).)
• “No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [Federal Communications] Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.” (Id. at § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).)

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
April 1, 2025

i. The Denial of the Permits by the Planning Commission May Amount to a Prohibition on the Provision of Personal Wireless Services in Violation of Section 332(c)(7).

Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) states that a local government “shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.” (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i).) To prevail on a claim that the City’s denial creates a gap in its service that is sufficient to constitute a denial of service, the applicant must show that “its facility will fill an existing significant gap in the ability of remote users to access the national telephone network” and that “the manner in which it proposes to fill the significant gap in service is the least intrusive on the values that the denial sought to serve.” (MetroPCS, Inc. v. City of San Francisco, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1013-1015 (N.D. Cal. 2003), aff’d in part, rev’d in part and remanded sub nom. MetroPCS, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2005).)
There is consensus among most circuit courts that a local zoning authority may be in violation of this provision if enforcement of local requirements creates a “significant gap” in service coverage. The Ninth Circuit has held that a “significant gap” in coverage exists where a particular provider seeking to install facilities has a gap in its own service network despite the presence of other service providers in the area. (MetroPCS, Inc. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 731-734 (9th Cir. 2005), abrogated by T-Mobile S., LLC v. City of Roswell, Ga., 574 U.S. 293, 135 S. Ct. 808, 190 L. Ed. 2d 679 (2015).) Here, the Project would fill a significant gap in coverage in the residential neighborhood south of First Street bordered by Wren Avenue to the west and Miller Avenue to the east, achieving a 3,266-population gain. (See generally Exhibit 1, Attachment G.)
Further, while the reasons for the denial are unclear due to the failure of the Planning Commission to provide written findings, the Project is the “least intrusive” way to provide substantially more coverage to Gilroy residents. As part of the project review, GSA III provided an alternative height analysis that analyzed coverage available at different heights, finding that the 65- foot monopole would provide greater coverage to the population than the alternative heights assessed. Therefore, the denials of AS 24-14 and V 24-01 by the Planning Commission amount to a violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the 1996 Act. ii. The Planning Commission Failed to Provide Any Written Findings to Support the Project Denial as Required by Section 332(c)(7) of the 1996 Act and Section 30.35.21(e) of the City Code.

Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) of the 1996 Act provides that a local government’s decision to deny a request must be “in writing and supported by substantial evidence, contained in a written record.” (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii); see T-Mobile S., LLC v. City of Roswell, Ga., 574 U.S. 293, 135 S. Ct. 808, 190 L. Ed. 2d 679 (2015).) Similarly, under Section 30.35.21(e) of the City Code,

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
April 1, 2025

“any decision to deny a permit for a wireless communication facility shall be in writing and shall specifically identify the reasons for the decision.” (City Code § 30.35.21(e).) Both the written findings and the decision must be supported by substantial evidence, or the decision should be reversed. (See Topanga, 11 Cal.3d at p. 514; McMillan v. Am. Gen. Fin. Corp., 60 Cal.App.3d 175, 177 (1960); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5.) Substantial evidence “include[s] facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts, but not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, or clearly erroneous evidence.” (San Franciscans, 102 Cal.App.4th at p. 675.) To support denial, an agency “must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision to order.” (Topanga, 11 Cal.3d at p. 515.) Here, the Planning Commission failed to adopt any findings to support the denial of the permits. Neither the discussion following the vote nor any documents recounting the hearing articulate the reasons for the denial of the Project. No reasons for the denial were provided in the meeting minutes, attached hereto as Exhibit 2, or in the letter that GSA III received from the City Planner assigned to this matter, Vanessa Sanchez, following the hearing, attached hereto as Exhibit

3. Failure to adopt the required findings violates City Code Section 30.35.21(e).

Even if the Planning Commission had made denial findings, there is no evidence in the record, let alone substantial evidence, to support the denial of the permits. Following the vote to deny the Project at the hearing, the Assistant City Attorney even stated that “[the] denial was not supported by any evidence” in the record. (See generally Planning Commission Hearing, 50:05- 50:35.) The only evidence in the record before the Planning Commission supported the exact opposite of the determination that the Planning Commission made, specifically that the Project should be approved. The decision of the Planning Commission is therefore wholly unsupported by any evidence in the record, and the Planning Commission has failed to provide any legitimate reasons for its refusal to approve the Project. Therefore, the decision can only be characterized as an arbitrary and capricious decision and violates federal, state, and local law, including Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) of the 1996 Act and City Code Section 30.35.21(e), as the denial is not supported by substantial evidence.
iii. Comments Made by the Commissioners During the March 13, 2025 Hearing Suggest that the Reasons for the Denial May Have Been Impermissible Under Section 332(c)(7) of the 1996 Act.

As stated above, Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the 1996 Act prohibits a local authority from basing its determination on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the FCC’s regulations concerning such emissions. There is substantial evidence in the record to show that the proposed Project complies with the relevant FCC regulations, including a detailed report certified by a licensed engineer that finds that the Project is compliant with FCC regulations. (See generally Exhibit 1, Attachment F.) Therefore, the question that remains is whether the Planning Commission’s decision was impermissibly based on concerns

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
April 1, 2025

about radio frequency emissions. Absent written findings to justify the denial of the Project, it is impossible to ascertain whether the denial was based on impermissible concerns, but the questions asked, and comments made, by members of the Commission during the hearing suggest that their bases for denying the Project may have been impermissible pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).

Questions asked by Commissioner Stefanie Elle suggest that her concerns may relate to radio frequency emissions, as she expressed concern about the “safety [of the radio frequency emissions] from the front of the…antenna,” commenting that the radio frequency exposure simulation did not provide sufficient information about the emissions from the front of the antenna. (See Planning Commission Hearing, 14:20-15:05, 21:29-22:08.) Later in the hearing, she also mentioned that residents have expressed concerns as a result of the proposed height of the Project. (Id. at 41:17-41:47.) Therefore, absent written findings or any further explanation for her vote to deny, it is impossible to ascertain the permissibility of the bases for her vote to deny.

Commissioner Adriana Leongardt speculated about the impact of the Project on wildlife and airplanes in the area, neither of which are substantiated by any evidence in the record. (Id. at 27:19- 30:32.) The Assistant City Attorney advised that there is not any evidence in the record to indicate that there would be an impact to wildlife, and the environmental review found the same. (Id. at 30:32-30:59.) Similarly, the Assistant City Attorney addressed her concerns about impacts on airplanes by stating that there is no impact on airplanes by the existing monopole, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest that there is an impact on airplanes as a result of the Project. (Id. at 31:00-31:17.) A conference report adopted by Congress states that this Section of the 1996 Act is intended “to prevent a State or local government or its instrumentalities from basing the regulation of the placement, construction, or modification of CMS facilities directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions if those facilities comply with the [FCC’s] regulations…concerning such emissions.” (H.R. Conference Report No. 104-458, 201 (1996).) Therefore, the comments made by Commissioner Leongardt suggest that her vote to deny may have been impermissibly based on the environmental effects of the radio frequency emissions, specifically impacts to wildlife.

Absent written findings to explain the reasons for the denial, it is impossible to assess whether the denial was based on impermissible justifications, but there is reason to suspect that this provision of the 1996 Act may have been violated based on questions asked and comments made during the Planning Commission hearing.

IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, and those which will be presented at the hearing before the City Council, GSA III respectfully requests that the City Council reverse the Planning

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
April 1, 2025

Commission’s decision denying approval of AS 24-14 and V 24-01 and order that AS 24-14 and V 24-01 are approved.

Very truly yours,
Emily L. Murray
ELM
Exhibits

Exhibit 1
Staff Report and Related Attachments
Exhibit 1
Staff Report and Related Attachments
Exhibit 1
Staff Report and Related Attachments
Exhibit 1
Staff Report and Related Attachments

March 13, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 1 of 3 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda

PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, March 13, 2025 | 6:00 PM

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
7351 ROSANNA STREET, GILROY, CA 95020
Chair: Manny Bhandal:
[email protected]
Vice Chair: Brian Dauenhauer:
[email protected]
Commissioners:

Patricia Bentson:
[email protected]
Stefanie Elle:
[email protected]
Annedore Kushner:
[email protected]
Adriana Leongardt:
[email protected]
Monica Valdez:
[email protected]
Staff Liaison: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director | [email protected] Written comments can be submitted by email to [email protected]. Please note that written comments will not be read out loud, but will be part of the written record.

Comments by the public will be taken on any agenda item before action is taken by the Planning Commission. Persons speaking on any matter are asked to state their name and address for the record. Public testimony is subject to reasonable regulations, including but not limited to time restrictions on particular issues and for each individual speaker. A minimum of 12 copies of materials should be provided to the Clerk for distribution to the Commission and Staff. Public comments are limited to no more than three-minutes, at the Chair’s discretion.

Comments on any agenda item may be emailed to the Planning Division at [email protected] or mailed to the City of Gilroy, Community Development Department at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by the Planning Division by 1:00 pm on the day of a Planning Commission meeting will be distributed to the Planning Commissioners prior to or at the meeting and are available for public inspection at the Planning Division counter at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street. Any correspondence received will be incorporated into the meeting record. Items received after the 1:00 pm deadline will be provided to the Planning Commission as soon as practicable.

In compliance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA), the City will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk 72 hours prior to the meeting at (408) 846-0491. A sound enhancement system is available in the City Council Chambers.

Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda Page 2 of 3 March 13, 2025 | 6:00 PM If you challenge any planning or land use decision made at this meeting in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing held at this meeting, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please take notice that the time within which to seek judicial review of any final administrative determination reached at this meeting is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

Persons who wish to speak on matters set for Public Hearing will be heard when the presiding officer calls for comments from those persons who are in support of or in opposition thereto. After persons have spoken, the hearing is closed and brought to the Planning Commission level for discussion and action. There is no further comment permitted from the audience unless requested by the Planning Commission.

A Closed Session may be called during this meeting pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) if a point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the City on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City.

Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection with the agenda packet in the lobby of Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street during normal business hours. These materials are also available with the agenda packet on the City website at www.cityofgilroy.org KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE GILROY OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE.

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public.

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

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT

ORDINANCE, TO RECEIVE A FREE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A

VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION STAFF AT (408) 846-0204 or by email at [email protected].

1. OPENING

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
(Three-minute time limit). This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Planning Commission on matters not on the agenda. The law does not permit the Planning Commission action or extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. Comments on any agenda item may be emailed to the Planning Division at [email protected] or mailed to Community Development Department at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by the Planning Division by 1:00pm on the day of a Planning Commission meeting will be distributed to the Planning Commission prior to or at the meeting and available for public inspection with the agenda packet located in the lobby of Planning Division at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street prior to the meeting. Any correspondences received will be incorporated into the meeting record. Items received after 1:00pm deadline will be provided to the Planning Commission as

Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda Page 3 of 3 March 13, 2025 | 6:00 PM soon as practicable. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing.

PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR RELATED PROJECT APPLICATIONS WILL BE HEARD CONCURRENTLY AND ACTION WILL BE TAKEN INDIVIDUALLY. COMPANION

PROJECTS UNDER NEW BUSINESS WILL BE TAKEN UP FOR ACTION PRIOR TO, OR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE RELATED PUBLIC HEARING. THIS REQUIRES DEVIATION IN THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AS NOTED WITHIN THE AGENDA.

5. CONSENT AGENDA

5.1. February 20, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

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.

1. Staff Report: Vanessa Sanchez, Planner I

2. Public Hearing:

3. Close Public Hearing:

4. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communication:

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.

7. NEW BUSINESS

7.1. VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan Update – Presentation by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

8. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

8.1. Civic Center Master Plan Community Workshops

8.2. Planning Division Staff Approvals

9. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT

10. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT

11. ADJOURNMENT To the Next Meeting of April 3, 2025 at 6:00 PM

City of Gilroy
Planning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes
Thursday, February 20, 2025 | 6:00 PM

1. OPENING
Tonight’s meeting was called to order by the 2024 Chair, Manny Bhandal, at 6:00 p.m.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2024 Chair, Manny Bhandal, led the pledge of allegiance.

3. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL
The agenda was posted on Thursday February 13, 2025, at 5:54 p.m.

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

4. ELECT CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 2025
A motion was made by Commissioner Valdez; seconded by Commissioner Dauenhauer to elect Commissioner Bhandal as the 2025 Planning Commission Chair.

RESULT: Pass [6 – 0]
MOVER: Chair Bhandal
SECONDER: Commissioner Leongardt
AYES: Commissioner Bentson, Kushner, Leongardt, Valdez, Vice Chair Dauenhauer, and Chair Bhandal
ABSENT: Commissioner Elle
A motion was made by Commissioner Kushner; seconded by Commissioner Leongardt to elect Commissioner Dauenhauer as the 2025 Planning Commission Vice Chair.

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

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chair Bhandal opened public comments for items not on the agenda.

February 20, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 4 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes
Roy Flowers provided a public comment expressing concerns with the Hoey Ranch development area.

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

6. CONSENT AGENDA

6.1. January 16, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes A motion was made by Chair Bhandal; seconded by Commissioner Leongardt to approve the consent agenda.

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

7. PUBLIC HEARINGS

7.1. Two Tentative Map applications to subdivide approximately 6.7 acres into 42 single-family duet residential lots (TM 24-02) and approximately 41.36 acres into 84 single-family residential lots (TM 24-03) in the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan area

1. Staff Report: Melissa Durkin, Extra Help Planner

2. Public Comment:

Chair Bhandal opened public comment.

Roya Cruz provided a public comment opposing the approval of the applications due to concerns with the projects.

Jeff Heid provided a public comment supporting the approval of the applications.

3. Close Public Hearing:

There being no further 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) Determine that Tentative Map applications TM 24-02 and TM 24-03 do not require independent CEQA review beyond EIR Addendum #2 because

February 20, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 3 of 4 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes
none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 are present; and
b) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Tentative Map TM 24-02, subject to the findings, conditions, and mitigation measures provided in the draft resolution.
c) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Tentative Map TM 24-03, subject to the findings, conditions, and mitigation measures provided in the draft resolution.

A motion was made by Commissioner Kushner; seconded by Commissioner Valdez to:

Determine that Tentative Map applications TM 24-02 and TM 24-03 do not require independent CEQA review beyond EIR Addendum #2 because none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 are present.

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

Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Tentative Map TM 24-02, subject to the findings, conditions, and mitigation measures provided in the draft resolution.

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

Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Tentative Map TM 24-03, subject to the findings, conditions, and mitigation measures provided in the draft resolution.

RESULT: Pass [6 – 0]
MOVER: Commissioner Kushner
SECONDER: Commissioner Bentson

February 20, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 4 of 4 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes
AYES: Commissioner Bentson, Kushner, Leongardt, Valdez, and Vice Chair Dauenhauer, and Chair Bhandal
ABSENT: Commissioner Elle

8. NEW BUSINESS

8.1. FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 Planning Commission Workplan, Training, and Budget Request

1. Staff Report: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission establish and recommend for approval by the City Council the Fiscal Year 2025-26 and Fiscal Year 2026-27 Planning Commission workplan, training, and budget request.

Community Development Director, Sharon Goei. provided the Planning Commission with a presentation discussing the commission’s workplan, training, and budgeting. After receiving the presentation, the Planning Commission provided feedback and recommended for approval by the City Council the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Planning Commission workplan, training, and budget request.

9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

8.1. Planning Division Staff Approvals
There was one architectural and site review application staff approval.

10. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT
None.

11. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
City Attorney Andrew Faber informed the Planning Commission of a legal newspaper article out of Los Angeles on a case where the Planning Commission got the city in trouble through the denial of a housing project where the actions taken were not taken in good faith.

12. ADJOURNMENT To the Next Meeting of March 13, 2025 at 6:00 PM Chair Bhandal adjourned the meeting at 7:06 p.m.

Ariana Fabian, Planning Technician

Community Development
Department
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020-6197
Telephone: (408) 846-0451 | Fax: (408) 846-0429
cityofgilroy.org |[email protected]
Sharon Goei

DIRECTOR
DATE: March 13, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Vanessa Sanchez, Planner I
SUBJECT: 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 .

RECOMMENDATION:

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.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The applicant, Crown Castle, is requesting an Architectural and Site Review permit and Variance permit for to demolish an existing 35-foot tall monopole and install a new 65- foot tall monopole and related equipment consisting of (1) 6160 cabinet with two RP6651 Units and IXRE router, enclosure Bi60 Cabinet, double tri-sector collar with T-arms, six (6) antennas, two (2) hybrid cables, three (3) 4460 radio units, and three (3) 4480 radio units, located in the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Construction shall be contained within the existing leased area consisting of 275 square feet. The leased area shall maintain the existing six (6) bollards and a 6-foot-high wooden fence. The proposed wireless facility will be unstaffed and will be maintained and serviced as needed. The wireless facility will also be implementing the required safety plans and procedures.

The project requires Planning Commission approval because the new monopole is requesting a height and setback variance.

2 BACKGROUND:

Previous Approvals: 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.

Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses: The subject site (APN 790-32-004) is presently developed with a commercial building, associated parking and landscaping. The property also is developed with a 275 square foot leased fenced area that contains a 35- foot-tall monopole and associated wireless equipment located behind the commercial building. The site and surrounding land uses are as follows:

LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING
Project Site Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood
Commercial (C1)
North Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood
Commercial (C1)
South Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood
Commercial (C1)
East Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood
Commercial (C1)
West Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood
Commercial (C1)
Environmental Assessment:

Section 15303 (Class 3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, categorically exempts from further environmental review, those projects involving “construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures.” The proposed 65-foot-tall monopole is considered a small facility as there is no horizontal expansion of the existing leasing area and there is only the replacement of existing monopole and associated equipment involved. Filing of a Notice of Exemption (NOE) is not mandated; however, it reduces the statute of limitations for legal challenges under CEQA, from 180 days to 35 days. No further assessment is necessary for this proposal, and a NOE may be filed for the project.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS:

General Plan Consistency: The City's General Plan designates the subject site for Mixed Use, which supports the proposed project request. As such, the proposal conforms to the goals and policies of the General Plan. Key goals and policies which pertain to the proposed project are discussed below:

POLICY # TITLE AND SUMMARY ANALYSIS
PSF 1.8 Provision of Utilities
Work with public, quasi-public, and
private utility providers as practicable
to provide adequate levels of service
to city residents.

The new wireless facility would improve
telecommunication services to the public
and emergency services personnel.

3 PSF 8.7 Telecommunication Technologies
Support the implementation of
telecommunication technologies to
attract new businesses and meet the
changing communication needs of
City residents and businesses.

The new wireless facility will improve 5G
coverage and fill in a significant coverage
gap for the residents of Gilroy.

Zoning Code Conformance: The proposed wireless facility is located in the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. In accordance with the Gilroy City Code (GCC) Section 30.35.14, the proposed wireless facility may be permitted with an approved Architectural and Site Review Permit. The Architected and Site Review Permit may be approved at a staff level if it complies with all zoning regulations. However, because the project is proposing a monopole height greater than the allowed height for the C-1 zoning district and a smaller setback, a Variance Permit application is required. Applicable development standards for the project have been considered for the proposed project, as follows:

STANDARD REQUIRED PROPOSED CONFORMS?
Maximum Height 35 feet 65 feet No, Variance
Minimum Front Setback 65 feet 81 feet Yes
Minimum Interior Side
Setback
65 feet 53 feet 4 inches No, Variance
Minimum Street Side
Setback
65 feet 48 feet 9 inches No, Variance
Minimum Rear Setback 65 feet 53 feet 8 inches No, Variance Per Gilroy Code section 30.35.19(c)(1), a wireless facility is required to be setback at a minimum of the overall structure height from all property lines and/or a distance consistent with the required yard setbacks of the particular zone district. The C-1 zoning district has a front yard setback of 31 feet, side yard adjacent to street setback of 21 feet, and no minimum rear or interior side yard setback when surrounded by parcels within the same zoning district. The proposed wireless facility meets the minimum setback requirement of the zoning district. However, since the proposed monopole is 65 feet tall, the more restrictive setback is 65 feet from all property lines. This setback requirement is part of the variance request. Due to the size of the property, the 65-foot setback would not be able to be met.

Additionally, per Gilroy Code section 30.35.19(d), wireless facilities proposed in commercial zoning districts shall meet the height limitation for the underlying zoning district unless a variance is obtained. The variance application must provide a written justification for the tower height and analysis for absence of alternatives that would have less of a visual impact. The applicant provided the following justification:
- A height increase is needed to achieve the coverage and capacity of wireless services for the area. The additional height would allow for additional antennas and upgraded technologies. Additionally, emergency services would also benefit from the additional antennas at the new height. The site is an existing wireless facility, which would eliminate the need for a new cellular facility.

4 For viable alternatives, the applicant provided the following justification for other potential sites:
- Crown Castle owns the existing tower and has a lease in place with the carrier (T-Mobile). The lease is locked in place for a certain number of years; therefore, Crown Castle would not look for another pole (site) to put these antennas on and lose that revenue.

Although other sites were not analyzed, the applicant did provide a coverage map that showed that there are no other existing wireless facilities within 1,000 feet of the site, therefore colocation would not be an option. Additionally, the applicant did analyze the different coverage options at various heights: 32-feet RC placement height, 46-feet RC placement height, and 60-feet RC placement height. RC signifies the placement height of wireless technology equipment. The analysis showed that the 32-foot-tall monopole has a 851 population gain if updated technology was placed on the existing pole. The 46- foot-tall monopole can achieve a 2,016 population gain and the 60-foot-tall monopole is able to achieve 3,266 population gain. The 65-foot-tall monopole (60-foot RC placement) can provide greater coverage for the residential neighborhood south of First Street bordered by Wren Avenue to the West and Miller Avenue to the East.

The applicant has provided a letter signifying their willingness to allow other carriers to co-locate on the facility wherever technically and economically feasible. The applicant provided the required Radio Frequency Compliance Report prepared by Young Km with Site Safe, dated May 2024. The Report deemed the proposed wireless facility to be complaint with FCC Rules and Regulations and outlines actions that the site must take.

This includes installing proper signage, ensuring the site remains secure, and implementing proper radio frequency safety awareness training for personnel who need to access the site. Additionally, the monopole will be constructed out of non-flammable metal and shall be painted a flat color. The monopole will be conditioned to provide a color sample for Development Services Director approval.

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Project plans were routed to Engineering, Building, Police, and Fire representatives for internal review and comment. There were no concerns raised or conditions provided by TAC members.

PUBLIC NOTICING:

Property owner information (i.e. list, labels, and map) within 500 feet of the subject site were generated by the City of Gilroy using current ownership data. On February 28,2025 notices of this Planning Commission meeting were mailed to the property owners along with other interested parties and published in the Gilroy Dispatch at least 10 days prior to the meeting. In addition, the property has been posted with on-site signage notifying passersby of pending development, and the Planning Commission public hearing packets are available through the City's webpage.

APPEAL PROCEDURE:

In accordance with Section 30.51.50 of the Gilroy City Code, the Planning Commission's decision may be appealed, in writing, to the City Council within 20 days of adoption of the

5 resolution. Appeal forms may be obtained from the City Clerk and must be submitted with the appropriate fee before the end of the appeal period.

Attachments:

A. Draft Resolution of Approval, Architectural and Site Review Permit AS 24-14 B. Draft Resolution of Approval, Variance Permit V 24-01 C. Vicinity Map
D. Project Plans
E. Photo Simulations
F. Radio Frequency Report
G. Coverage Map Analysis

AS 24-14
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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, the project has been determined to be categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3) which applies to construction of small facilities; 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, 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 Community Development Department, Planning Division.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy hereby grants approval of the 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

Resolution No. 2025-__

AS 24-14
impacted by the wireless facility. Additionally, the monopole will be painted a flat 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;
D. That the proposed wireless communication facility as conditioned is in compliance 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
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.

Resolution No. 2025-__

AS 24-14
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of March 2025 by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
_____________________________ ______________________________ Sharon Goei, Secretary Manny Bhandal, Chairperson
Community Development Director
Attachment: Exhibit A (Conditions of Approval)

Resolution No. 2025-__

AS 24-14

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 TMobile, 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, March 13, 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

Resolution No. 2025-__

AS 24-14
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.

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 decisionmaker.

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

Resolution No. 2025-__

AS 24-14
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.

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, model home sales offices, advertising signs of any kind, exterior and interior modifications. 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

Resolution No. 2025-__

AS 24-14
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.”

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

Resolution No. 2025-__

AS 24-14
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:
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

Resolution No. 2025-__

AS 24-14
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.

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-_

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

GILROY APPROVING VARIANCE PERMIT, ALLOWING EXCEPTIONS TO

SIDE AND REAR WIRLESS FACILITY SETBACKS AND EXCEPTIONS TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMITATION OF THE C1 NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPOSED NEW 65-
FOOT-TALL MONOPOLE ON AN APPROXIMATE 0.22-ACRE SITE
LOCATED 401 FIRST STREET, APN 790-32-004 (FILE NUMBER V 24-01) WHEREAS, on July 17, 2024, Lisa Elliot, on behalf of Crown Castle, submitted an application requesting a variance permit to Gilroy City Code section 30.35.19 for exceptions to the wireless facility setbacks requiring wireless facilities to be setback a minimum of the overall height of the structure and to exceed the maximum height requirement of the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district to allow a 65-foot-tall monopole; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2024, the application submittal was accepted as complete for final processing; and
WHEREAS, the project has been determined to be categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3) which applies to construction of small facilities; 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, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this project approval is based is the Community Development Department; Planning Division; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy has considered the variance application (V 24-01), in accordance with the Gilroy Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable standards and regulations; and
NOW, THREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy hereby grants approval of the Variance Permit V 24-01 based on the following findings made pursuant to Gilroy City Code section 30.50.20(3) subject to the conditions identified in Exhibit A to this Resolution:

1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property arising from the property’s size, configuration, and existing structures, 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 at the maximum allowable height of the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Zoning districts that would allow a monopole height of 65 feet are not

Resolution No. 2025-_

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 Zoning Ordinance 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 residential neighbor and has potential to pose a greater impact to public safety and general welfare;

3. The allowance of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to persons or property in the vicinity as 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.

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

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 given that 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.

Resolution No. 2025-_

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of March 2025 by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

RECUSAL:

ABSENT:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
_____________________________ ______________________________ Sharon Goei, Secretary Manny Bhandal, Chairperson
Community Development Director
Attachment: Exhibit A (Conditions of Approval)

Resolution No. 2025-_

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.

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 is one year from the decision date, March 13, 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.

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

Note: Map is for reference purposes only.
401 First Street
4,514 City of Gilroy, GIS Services

0.1 WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere 1:

0.07 Miles 0 0.1
City of Gilroy

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

SHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

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
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·

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

SHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

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.

T-1.2
NOTES

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.

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:

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
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.

|
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

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:

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 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.

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

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:

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 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.

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

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:

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
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.

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

SHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

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

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

SHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

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

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

SHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

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

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

SHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

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-3.1

ELEVATIONS

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

SHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

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-4.1

DETAILS

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

SHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

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-5.1

CABINET

SPECIFICATIONS

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

SHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

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.

S-1.1

STRUCTURAL

DETAILS

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

SHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

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-1.1

ELECTRICAL PLAN

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

SHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

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

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

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

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

475 Sentry Parkway W, Suite 200, Blue Bell, PA 19422
703.276.1100 office
[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: N37-00-48.99
Longitude: W121-34-39.28
Structure Type: Monopole (Proposed)
Report generated date: May 15, 2024
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 15may2024

475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422
703.276.1100 • [email protected]
Crown Castle on behalf of T-Mobile
GOLDEN HILL POTTERY - 880511
Radio Frequency (RF) Site Compliance Report
401 First Street, Gilroy, CA 95020

475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422
703.276.1100 • [email protected]
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 ..................................................................................... 8 5 ENGINEER CERTIFICATION ............................................................................. 10 APPENDIX A – STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS ......................................... 11 APPENDIX B – ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS .................................................. 12 GENERAL MODEL ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................................12 DEFINITIONS..........................................................................................................13 APPENDIX C – RULES & REGULATIONS ................................................................... 15 EXPLANATION OF APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS............................................15 OCCUPATIONAL ENVIRONMENT EXPLAINED..............................................................15 APPENDIX D – GENERAL SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 16 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ....................................................................................17 APPENDIX E – REGULATORY BASIS ........................................................................ 18 FCC RULES AND REGULATIONS ..............................................................................18 APPENDIX F – SAFETY PLAN AND PROCEDURES ................................................... 20

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

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.

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

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 proposed T-Mobile 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 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.

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

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 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’

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

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

CAUTION WARNING
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 15.1 30.2
(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
5/15/2024 10:01:08 AM

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

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

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

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 5G 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 5G 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 5G 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 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.

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

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.

May 15, 2024

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.