Gilroy City Council
June 15, 2026

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 6 March 31, 2026 identify peak hour traffic conditions, evaluate intersection operations, and assess AWSC Warrant D (Eight-Hour Volume) conditions. Detailed turning movement data sheets are included in the Appendix.

2.4 Speed Data Collection
Vehicle speed measurements were collected along Charles Lux Drive between Sanchez Place and Lopez Way to understand the operating speed environment near the study intersection.

Speed data were collected for a 12-hour period between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, concurrent with the turning movement count data collection. The speed study recorded individual vehicle speeds and calculated summary statistics including:
 Mean (average) speed
 50th percentile speed
 85th percentile speed
 95th percentile speed
 Percentage of vehicles exceeding the posted speed limit These metrics were used to evaluate whether operating speeds on Charles Lux Drive are consistent with the posted 25 mph residential speed limit and to assess whether speed conditions contribute to potential safety concerns.

Speed study results are summarized in Section 3 – Existing Conditions.

2.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Counts
The turning movement counts conducted at the study intersection also recorded pedestrian and bicycle activity on all approaches. Pedestrian and bicycle counts were recorded by approach and movement during the 12-hour count period (7:00 AM – 7:00 PM). These data provide insight into multimodal activity near the intersection, particularly during school arrival and dismissal periods associated with Las Animas Elementary School.

The pedestrian and bicycle counts were used to evaluate multimodal traffic volumes for AWSC Warrant D, understand pedestrian crossing patterns at the intersection, and identify potential safety considerations related to pedestrian exposure. Pedestrian and bicycle volumes by intersection approach are summarized in Section 3 – Existing Conditions and further discussed in the AWSC Warrant E evaluation in Section 4.

3. Existing Conditions

3.1 Roadway Characteristics
The intersection of Charles Lux Drive / Lopez Way is located within the Las Animas residential neighborhood of Gilroy and functions as part of the local circulation network serving surrounding homes and Las Animas Elementary School. While the intersection of Charles Lux Drive / Lopez Way is the focus intersection of this study, descriptions are provided for the other streets within the study roadway for additional context. Field observations related to these streets are documented in Section 5.

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 7 March 31, 2026 Unless otherwise posted or established by City engineering and traffic survey, local residential streets within the study area operate under the California prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour.

Charles Lux Drive is a two-lane residential roadway that functions as a neighborhood collector within the Las Animas area. The roadway generally runs east–west and provides access to several residential streets and school access points. The roadway consists of two travel lanes with striped bike lanes on both sides from W. 10th Street to Cimino Street, with no on-street parking. East of Cimino Street to Greenfield Drive, there is on-street parking on the north side of the street and a parking/passenger loading zone on the south side of the street. Charles Lux Drive is posted at 25 miles per hour and serves both residential traffic and school-related travel.

Lopez Way is a local residential street that runs north–south between De Anza Way and Bonino Way.

South of Charles Lux Drive, a portion of Lopez Way is privately maintained by a homeowners association. The roadway consists of two travel lanes with parking permitted on both sides and primarily provides direct access to adjacent residential properties. Lopez Way is controlled by STOP signs at its intersection with Charles Lux Drive. In the absence of observed posted signage or engineering survey modification, Lopez Way operates under the prima facie residential speed limit of 25 miles per hour.

West 10th Street is identified in the City’s Mobility Element as an arterial roadway that provides east–west connectivity across the City. In the vicinity of the study area, West 10th Street consists of two travel lanes, a center median and a bike lane on each side and is traffic calmed with roundabouts at each intersection. The City’s 2019 Speed Survey establishes a 35 miles per hour speed limit along portions of West 10th Street east of Uvas Park Drive; however, the segment within the study area was not included in the survey and is part of newer development. Posted speed limit signage was not observed during the field visit. Therefore, this segment is assumed to operate under the prima facie residential speed limit of 25 miles per hour.

Sanchez Place is a private local residential street that provides direct access to adjacent homes and connects to Charles Lux Drive. The roadway consists of two travel lanes with parking on both sides and serves only neighborhood traffic. No posted speed limit signage was observed, and the roadway operates under the prima facie residential speed limit of 25 miles per hour.

Cimino Street is a north–south local residential street that includes both publicly and privately maintained segments. The segment between Charles Lux Drive and West Luchessa Avenue is publicly maintained and functions as a neighborhood collector, providing direct frontage and primary access to Las Animas Elementary School. Segments south of West Luchessa Avenue are privately maintained and primarily serve adjacent residential properties. Along the public segment fronting the school, the roadway consists of two travel lanes, intermittent left-turn lanes, bike lanes on both sides, and a northbound parking/passenger loading zone adjacent to the school frontage. Posted signage reflects a 25 mph school zone speed limit.

Greenfield Drive is a north south running local residential street within the study area running from Charles Lux Drive to Oak Brook Way and provides neighborhood access, school access, and connectivity between local streets and nearby higher-order roadways. The roadway consists of two travel lanes with parking on each side. The southbound direction adjacent to Las Animas Elementary School functions as a passenger loading zone during school hours (7:00 AM – 4:00 PM). No posted speed limit signage was observed; therefore, Greenfield Drive operates under the prima facie residential speed limit of 25 miles per hour.

West Luchessa Avenue is identified in the City’s Mobility Element as an arterial roadway providing east–west connectivity through the southern portion of Gilroy. In the study area, the roadway

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 8 March 31, 2026 consists of four travel lanes with a center median and bike lanes on each side. The City’s 2019 Speed Survey establishes a 40 miles per hour speed limit east of Cimino Street. However, the segment west of Cimino Street was not included in the survey due to newer development. Posted speed limit signage was not observed along this segment; therefore, it is assumed to operate under the prima facie residential speed limit of 25 miles per hour.

Alta Oak Way is an east-west local residential street that connects to Greenfield Drive and provides access to adjacent homes and neighborhood circulation. The roadway consists of two travel lanes and serves only local neighborhood traffic. In the absence of posted signage, Alta Oak Way operates under the prima facie residential speed limit of 25 miles per hour.

Brook Way is an east-west local residential street that connects to Greenfield Drive and provides direct access to surrounding residential properties. The roadway consists of two travel lanes and carries only local neighborhood traffic. No posted speed limit signage was observed, and the roadway operates under the prima facie residential speed limit of 25 miles per hour.

These roadway characteristics, including functional classification, lane configuration, and speed environment, provide important context for evaluating traffic operations and safety conditions at the study intersection and surrounding school area.

3.2 Traffic Volumes - Charles Lux Drive / Lopez Way
Turning movement counts conducted on March 5, 2026 recorded 1,205 vehicles entering the intersection during the 12-hour count period (7:00 AM – 7:00 PM).

Traffic volumes are substantially higher on Charles Lux Drive than on Lopez Way. Approximately 74 percent of intersection traffic occurs on Charles Lux Drive, while 26 percent occurs on Lopez Way.

Table 1 summarizes the distribution of vehicle volumes by approach.

Table 1. 12-hour Vehicle Volumes by Approach
Approach Vehicles Percent of Total
Charles Lux Drive Eastbound 357 30%
Charles Lux Drive Westbound 534 44%
Lopez Way Northbound 159 13%
Lopez Way Southbound 155 13%
Total 1,205 100%
These data indicate that Charles Lux Drive functions as the major roadway, carrying approximately three times the traffic volume of Lopez Way.

3.3 Peak Hour Conditions
The highest intersection demand occurs during the morning school arrival period, when traffic associated with Las Animas Elementary School is most active.

The AM peak hour occurs between 7:30 AM and 8:30 AM, during which 364 vehicles entered the intersection. Table 2 summarizes the distribution of peak hour vehicle volumes by approach.

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 9 March 31, 2026 Table 2. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (7:30 AM – 8:30 AM)
Approach Vehicles
Charles Lux Drive Eastbound 151
Charles Lux Drive Westbound 158
Lopez Way Northbound 30
Lopez Way Southbound 25
Total 364
Charles Lux Drive carries the majority of peak hour traffic, with through movements accounting for most vehicles traveling along the corridor.

3.4 Operating Speeds - Charles Lux Drive
Vehicle speed measurements were collected along Charles Lux Drive between Sanchez Place and Lopez Way during the same 12-hour period as the traffic counts.

The results indicate that typical operating speeds are consistent with residential collector roadways.

Table 3. Speed Study Results – Charles Lux Drive
Direction Speed
Limit
% of Vehicles
Exceeding Speed Limit
Mean
Speed
85th Percentile
Speed
95th Percentile
Speed
Eastbound 25 mph 50% 25 mph 29 mph 32 mph
Westbound 25 mph 66% 27 mph 30 mph 33 mph
While a portion of drivers exceed the posted speed limit, the observed speeds are typical for residential collector streets with a posted speed limit of 25 mph.

3.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Activity - Charles Lux Dr / Lopez Way Pedestrian and bicycle activity was recorded during the 12-hour turning movement count. A total of 120 pedestrian and bicycle movements were recorded during the count period.

The majority of pedestrian activity occurs along Charles Lux Drive, particularly on the south side of street crossing the Lopez Way northbound approach, reflecting pedestrian movements associated with Las Animas Elementary School.

Table 4. Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes
Approach Pedestrians
(# Crossing Approach)
Bicycles Total
Charles Lux Drive Eastbound 7 0 7
Charles Lux Drive Westbound 11 3 14
Lopez Way Northbound 81 0 81
Lopez Way Southbound 17 1 18
Total 116 4 120

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 10 March 31, 2026 The multimodal peak hour occurs during the morning school arrival period beginning at 7:30 AM, when approximately 33 pedestrians or bicyclists were recorded entering or crossing the intersection.

Although pedestrian activity is present, the observed volumes are typical for residential school-area intersections and are concentrated during school arrival periods.

3.6 Summary of Existing Conditions
The Charles Lux Drive / Lopez Way intersection exhibits the following key characteristics:
 Charles Lux Drive carries substantially higher traffic volumes than Lopez Way  Peak traffic demand occurs during the morning school arrival period  Operating speeds on Charles Lux Drive are typical for residential collectors  Pedestrian activity is present but is primarily associated with school travel periods These conditions provide the basis for evaluating whether the intersection satisfies the CA MUTCD AWSC engineering study warrants, which are discussed in the following section.

4. All-Way Stop Control (AWSC) Analysis
The following section summarizes our findings of the CA MUTCD AWSC study warrants.

4.1 All-Way Stop Control (AWSC) Engineering Study Guidelines The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) 2026 Section 2B.12 provides guidance for an engineering study to determine whether AWSC is appropriate at an intersection. The study guidance includes studies, or “warrants”, for aspects of the intersection operations and safety.

However, the CA MUTCD notes that “Warrants are not a substitute for engineering judgment. The fact that a warrant is met is not conclusive justification to install or not install all-way stop control.”1 The CA MUTCD warrants are as follows:

1. Warrant A: Crash Experience (Section 2B.13) – For a four-leg intersection, five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period or six or more reported crashes in a 36-month period that were of a type susceptible to correction by the installation of all-way stop control.

2. Warrant B: Sight Distance (Section 2B.14) – Where the sight distance on the minor-road approaches controlled by a STOP sign is not adequate for a vehicle to turn onto or cross the major (uncontrolled) road.

3. Warrant C: Transition to other control (Section 2B.15) – Where AWSC is an interim measure before installation of a traffic signal or circular intersection.

4. Warrant D: 8-Hour Volume (Section 2B.16) - At least 300 vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians entering the intersection from the major street approaches per hour AND at least 200 vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians from the minor street approaches per hour for eight hours of a typical day.

5. Warrant E: Other Factors (Section 2B.17) – Other factors may include, but are not limited to:
1 Section 2B.12.01.

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 11 March 31, 2026 a. Need to control left turn conflicts.
b. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collectors (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection. c. Where pedestrian and/or bicyclist movements support the installation of all-way stop control.

4.2 Collision Records (Warrant A)
Parametrix reviewed collision data obtained from the California Crash Reporting System (CCRS) for the study intersection for the period January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2025.

No reported collisions were identified at the intersection of Charles Lux Drive / Lopez Way during this five-year analysis period.

For a four-leg intersection, Warrant A is satisfied when:
 Five or more crashes occur within a 12-month period, or  Six or more crashes occur within a 36-month period,
and those crashes are of a type that could reasonably be corrected by installation of all-way stop control.

Because no reported collisions were identified during the analysis period, the intersection does not satisfy Warrant A.

It is noted that the City initiated this study following a recent fatal collision reported in early 2026, which is not reflected in the CCRS dataset. While this incident is an important consideration in evaluating overall safety conditions, a single crash does not establish a pattern that would satisfy the CA MUTCD crash warrant.

While no collisions were reported at the Charles Lux Drive / Lopez Way intersection during the study period, a limited number of collisions were identified within the surrounding school area. These collisions include bicycle- and pedestrian-involved incidents at nearby intersections. Although these occurrences highlight broader safety considerations within the school vicinity, they do not represent a recurring crash pattern at the study intersection and therefore do not satisfy the criteria for Warrant A.

4.3 Sight Distance (Warrant B)
Parametrix conducted a field review of the study intersection on March 5, 2026 between approximately 7:15 AM and 3:30 PM, including observation of both school drop-off and pick-up periods, to evaluate intersection geometry, driver behavior, and sight distance conditions.

The field review included sufficient staffing to allow for direct observation of approach conditions and qualitative assessment of sight distance from each leg.

Observed conditions include:
 Charles Lux Drive operates on a gentle horizontal curve and slight downgrade in the eastbound direction, with the eastbound approach located on the outside of the curve, which can affect driver visibility and perception of approaching traffic

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 12 March 31, 2026  During the morning drop-off period, the sun was low on the eastern horizon, creating potentially blinding conditions for eastbound drivers, which was observed during the field visit
 There is no on-street parking on Charles Lux Drive, and the roadway includes bike lanes with street trees located in the parkways on both sides of the street  Drivers on Lopez Way were observed to creep forward beyond the stop bar in order to improve visibility of approaching traffic on Charles Lux Drive  Sight distance concerns are more pronounced for the southbound Lopez Way approach, where drivers must look toward the eastbound Charles Lux approach under conditions influenced by curvature, grade, and street tree obstructions.

While some drivers were observed to queue or temporarily stop within the bike lane on Charles Lux Drive, this behavior was more prevalent east of the intersection and does not significantly affect sight distance at the Lopez Way approaches.

Although these conditions can affect visibility under certain circumstances, the available sight distance is generally adequate for drivers to observe and respond to approaching traffic when properly positioned at the intersection.

Furthermore, there are targeted improvements—such as traffic calming along Charles Lux Drive, tree trimming or selective removal, and enforcement—could address localized visibility concerns without the need for all-way stop control.

Therefore, Warrant B is not satisfied.

4.4 Temporary Control (Warrant C)
Warrant C applies when AWSC is installed as a temporary measure prior to implementation of a traffic signal or circular intersection. The Charles Lux Drive / Lopez Way intersection is not being considered for signalization or roundabout control.

Therefore, Warrant C does not apply.

4.5 Eight-Hour Multimodal Volumes (Warrant D)
Traffic Counts Plus conducted multimodal turning movement counts (vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians) at the study intersection on March 5, 2026, between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. CA MUTCD Warrant D requires:
 At least 300 multimodal users per hour on the major street, and  At least 200 multimodal users per hour on the minor street, for eight hours of a typical day. Table 5 summarizes whether the counts satisfy the criteria of the AWSC Warrant D. The raw data sheets are included in the Appendix.

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 13 March 31, 2026 Table 5. Multimodal Traffic Counts, Charles Lux Drive / Lopez Way Major Approach
(Charles Lux Drive)
Minor Approach
(Lopez Way)
Start
Time Vehicles Bikes Peds Total
Total
>300 per
hour? Vehicles Bikes Peds Total
Total
>200 per
hour?
7:00 171 1 3 175 No 49 1 6 56 No
8:00 162 0 1 163 No 44 0 23 67 No
9:00 12 0 1 13 No 13 0 6 19 No
10:00 19 1 0 20 No 9 0 1 10 No
11:00 24 0 2 26 No 18 0 3 21 No
12:00 29 0 3 32 No 22 0 5 27 No
1:00 46 0 0 46 No 24 0 2 26 No
2:00 180 0 0 180 No 49 0 6 55 No
3:00 85 1 2 88 No 26 0 27 53 No
4:00 76 2 4 82 No 19 2 2 21 No
5:00 46 0 2 48 No 19 0 5 24 No
6:00 41 1 1 43 No 24 0 9 33 No
Total 916 412
Source: Traffic Counts Plus and Parametrix, December 2, 2025 The highest observed multimodal volumes were:
 180 users per hour on Charles Lux Drive
 67 users per hour on Lopez Way
Neither approach meets the minimum thresholds required by the CA MUTCD. Additionally, volumes are substantially unbalanced, with Charles Lux Drive carrying the majority of traffic.

Therefore, Warrant D is not satisfied.

4.6 Other (Warrant E)
Warrant E contains guidance for other factors to be considered in the engineering study.

Left turn conflicts
Table 6 presents the hourly left turn vehicle movements recorded at the study intersection. The maximum number of left turns is 17 at the southbound Lopez Way approach. All four approaches have fewer than 15 left turns an hour during other times. As such, the traffic volumes do not indicate an issue for vehicles making left turns that would necessitate AWSC.

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 14 March 31, 2026 Table 6. Left Turn Traffic Counts, Charles Lux Drive / Lopez Way Major Approach
(Charles Lux Drive)
Minor Approach
(Lopez Way)
Start Time EB Left WB Left NB Left SB Left
7:00 1 6 10 17
8:00 3 7 9 14
9:00 0 3 1 7
10:00 0 1 1 4
11:00 0 5 1 11
12:00 2 7 4 8
1:00 0 5 5 5
2:00 5 10 7 14
3:00 6 7 6 8
4:00 2 10 3 6
5:00 1 7 3 2
6:00 1 15 4 8
Residential neighborhood collectors
Charles Lux Drive functions as a residential collector roadway, while Lopez Way functions as a local residential street. Traffic volumes on Charles Lux Drive are approximately three times higher than those on Lopez Way, indicating the intersection does not involve two roadways with similar characteristics. Therefore, this factor does not support AWSC installation.

Pedestrian and bicyclist movements
Pedestrian and bicycle counts indicate 120 multimodal movements during the 12-hour period, with a peak of 33 movements during the morning school arrival period. Pedestrian activity is concentrated along Charles Lux Drive, particularly eastbound toward Las Animas Elementary School. While pedestrian activity is present, the volumes are moderate and typical for residential school areas and do not warrant AWSC installation based on pedestrian demand alone.

In addition to pedestrian activity observed during the field visit, collision data indicate that pedestrian- and bicycle-involved collisions have occurred within the broader school area. While these collisions did not occur at the study intersection, they highlight the importance of improving pedestrian visibility, crossing conditions, and driver awareness throughout the corridor. These findings support consideration of targeted safety improvements but do not, in isolation, justify installation of all-way stop control.

Operating Speed Environment
Speed data indicate 85th percentile speeds of approximately 29–30 mph, which are consistent with typical residential collector conditions. While some drivers exceed the posted speed limit, speeds are not unusually high relative to similar facilities.

Recent Fatal Collision and Community Concern
The City initiated this study following a recent fatal collision in early 2026. While this incident raises legitimate safety concerns, the available crash history does not indicate a recurring pattern that would typically support AWSC installation.

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 15 March 31, 2026

4.7 Summary of Findings
Table 7 summarizes whether the study intersection meets any of the CA MUTCD 2026 AWSC warrants.

Table 7. Charles Lux Drive / Lopez Way AWSC Warrant Summary Criterion Notes
Warrant A – Crash Experience Not Satisfied
Warrant B – Sight Distance Not Satisfied
Warrant C – Temporary Control Not Applicable
Warrant D – Eight-Hour Volume Not Satisfied
Warrant E – Other Factors Not Satisfied
The intersection does not meet the primary CA MUTCD AWSC warrants and does not exhibit conditions that would typically justify installation of all-way stop control based on engineering judgment. Traffic volumes are relatively low throughout most of the day and are unbalanced between approaches, with Charles Lux Drive carrying the majority of through traffic. Under these conditions, installation of all-way stop control may result in unnecessary delay for major street traffic and could reduce overall compliance with stop control.

Based on this evaluation, installation of all-way stop control at the Charles Lux Drive / Lopez Way intersection is not warranted from an engineering and operational perspective. However, the City may elect to implement all-way stop control as a policy decision in response to community concerns.

If pursued, such an installation should consider the potential tradeoffs related to intersection delay, driver compliance, and overall effectiveness relative to other targeted safety improvements identified in this study.

5. Study Area Observations
Parametrix conducted field observations of the Charles Lux Drive / Lopez Way intersection and surrounding study area on Thursday, March 5, 2026, between approximately 7:15 AM and 3:30 PM.

Observations were conducted during both morning school drop-off and afternoon pick-up periods at Las Animas Elementary School and included review of all study intersections as well as overall school circulation patterns. Figure X provides additional context, notes and specific locations of these observations.

5.1 Driver Behavior and Traffic Operations
Traffic operations within the study area are primarily influenced by school-related circulation patterns rather than deficiencies in intersection control. During both peak periods, vehicle activity increased near Las Animas Elementary School, but traffic flow remained generally orderly.

Drivers accessing the school were observed to follow consistent circulation patterns, entering via Cimino Street, circulating through the school parking lot, and exiting onto Charles Lux Drive before returning to West Luchessa Avenue via Greenfield Drive or Cimino St. Similar patterns were observed

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 16 March 31, 2026 during both drop-off and pick-up periods. Drivers were observed parking along Charles Lux Drive, Cimino Street, Greenfield St, and Lopez Way and walking students to/from school. Drivers on Lopez Way complied with STOP control but frequently advanced beyond the stop bar to improve visibility.

The observed circulation patterns and on-street parking activity also suggest that school-site pick-up and drop-off operations may not fully accommodate peak demand, resulting in vehicles utilizing the surrounding street network for staging, parking, and student loading/unloading. This condition contributes to localized congestion, queueing, and pedestrian crossing activity outside of designated facilities.

During peak periods, queueing and congestion were observed throughout the network. Maximum queue lengths along eastbound Charles Lux Drive extended approximately 13 vehicles past Lopez Way from Cimino Street. Morning queueing was observed along both westbound right-turn and eastbound left-turn movements on West Luchessa Avenue. Afternoon queueing was also observed on southbound Cimino Street left turns onto West Luchessa Avenue, extending beyond existing turn pockets.

See Figure 2 for a photo of afternoon pickup queueing and Cimino Street parking behavior.

Figure 2. Photo of Cimino Street During Afternoon Pickup Charles Lux Drive, Cimino Street, and Greenfield Drive were heavily utilized in both directions during peak periods. The segment of Charles Lux Drive between Cimino Street and Greenfield Drive operated near saturation, limiting available gaps for turning movements and driveway access.

Instances of STOP control non-compliance were observed at the intersection of Cimino Street and Charles Lux Drive following drop-off periods, when traffic volumes decreased.

5.2 Pedestrian Activity and Behavior
Pedestrian activity was concentrated during school arrival and dismissal periods and was generally focused along Charles Lux Drive east of Cimino Street and along Cimino Street adjacent to the

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 17 March 31, 2026 school frontage. Pedestrian volumes observed during the field visit were consistent with typical residential school-area conditions.

While most pedestrian activity followed expected paths along sidewalks and designated crossings, some informal crossing behavior was observed. Parents were observed parking along Cimino Street and crossing mid-block to access the school. Similar behavior of crossing outside of designated crosswalks was observed along midblock on Charles Lux Drive and Greenfield Drive near the secondary school access point. These behaviors appear to be influenced by the interaction between parking availability, school access points and the location of designated crossing facilities. See Figure 3 for a photo of people crossing Cimino Street midblock.

Figure 3. Photo of People Crossing Cimino Street Midblock These observed crossing behaviors appear to reflect a combination of factors, including both the location and spacing of designated crossing facilities within the public street network and the configuration of school access points, parking patterns, and pick-up/drop-off activity. In particular, pedestrians were observed to select crossing locations that align with convenient access to parked vehicles and school entry points rather than established crossings, indicating that both roadway design and school-related circulation patterns influence pedestrian behavior.

Accessibility conditions were also noted as a concern. Curb ramps at Brook Way and Alta Oak Way were observed to be non-compliant with current ADA standards and positioned behind the stop limit line, reducing their effectiveness. In addition, ADA-compliant crossing opportunities east of Greenfield Drive are limited to the all-way stop at Charles Lux Drive and the signalized crossing at West Luchessa Avenue, requiring pedestrians to travel longer distances to access compliant facilities.

Collision data indicate that pedestrian- and bicycle-involved crashes have occurred within the surrounding school area, reinforcing the importance of improving pedestrian crossing conditions and visibility, particularly during school arrival and dismissal periods. These conditions indicate that pedestrian safety in the study area is influenced by both the design and placement of roadway

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 18 March 31, 2026 crossing facilities and the configuration and operation of school access and circulation, and that effective improvements will likely require coordination between both.

5.3 Sight Distance and Visibility
Visibility at the study intersection is influenced by roadway geometry, lighting conditions, and roadside features. Charles Lux Drive runs gently downhill in the eastbound direction and follows a horizontal curve, with the eastbound approach located on the outside of the curve. This geometry affects the perception of approaching vehicles, particularly for drivers on Lopez Way.

During the morning field observations, the sun was low on the eastern horizon and created glare conditions for eastbound drivers. This condition was observed to potentially reduce visibility for both through vehicles and those entering from Lopez Way, depending on time of day and environmental conditions. See Figure 4 for a photo showing the late morning sun glare looking east along Charles Lux Drive.

Figure 4. Photo Looking East Along Charles Lux Drive Towards Lopez Way Drivers on Lopez Way were consistently observed to creep forward beyond the stop bar to obtain a clearer line of sight toward eastbound Charles Lux traffic. However, actual sight distance conditions vary by approach on Lopez Way. The northbound approach provides generally adequate visibility in the absence of parked vehicles, while the southbound approach is more constrained due to a wall, vegetation, and the combined influence of roadway curvature, grade and lighting.

Although no on-street parking is permitted on Charles Lux Drive west of Cimino Street, street trees located within the parkways may intermittently affect visibility depending on driver position. Between

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 19 March 31, 2026 Lopez Way and Cimino Street, drivers were observed to park in the bike lane which limits driver visibility as well. East of Cimino Street, on-street parking is present and fully occupied during peak periods. During peak periods, queueing along Charles Lux Drive further limits available sight distance for side street and driveway movements. In particular, queueing between Cimino Street and Greenfield Drive constrains visibility for vehicles exiting the school driveway.

Although red curb is present along portions of Charles Lux Drive east of Cimino Street, vehicles were observed stopping within these areas during peak periods, further reducing visibility for driveway egress.

5.4 Parking, Loading, and Bicycle Facilities
Parking and loading activity in the study area is strongly influenced by school operations and adjacent land uses. On-street parking along Charles Lux Drive east of Cimino Street was observed to be fully occupied during peak periods, likely due to both school activity and the adjacent park.

Vehicles were observed parking and queuing within bike lanes along Charles Lux Drive between Lopez Way and Cimino Street during peak school periods. Similar behavior was observed along Cimino Street, where parents parked along the southbound curb and crossed the street to access the school. Although this activity was concentrated east of the Lopez Way intersection and does not significantly affect its operations, it contributes to overall roadway function and user expectations.

An inconsistent transition from bike lanes to on-street parking occurs at Cimino Street along Charles Lux Drive, and no dedicated accommodation for bicyclists is provided through this transition area. This condition creates potential conflicts between bicyclists and parked or queued vehicles.

Temporary no-parking areas delineated with cones were observed along Charles Lux Drive and Cimino Street during school peak periods. Based on field observations, these treatments appear to be effectively preventing parking in specific targeted locations, such as along approaches to key driveways, where maintaining clear access is critical to site circulation. However, the intended application, duration, and broader operational objectives of these temporary measures were not confirmed at the time of the field review. In addition, while effective where deployed, these treatments do not address parking and queuing behavior occurring elsewhere within the study area, where similar constraints and conflicts were observed.

As a result, the current approach functions as a localized solution but does not comprehensively manage curbside activity across the school area. Further coordination with school staff is recommended to confirm the intended use of these measures and to evaluate whether a more consistent and formalized curb management strategy would improve overall effectiveness.

5.5 Traffic Control Devices and Markings
Traffic control devices and pavement markings within the study area exhibit several inconsistencies.

Roundabout signage along West 10th Street was observed to be faded, and school area warning signage was generally limited. Pavement markings were observed to be faded and inconsistent, including stop bars, limit lines, and crosswalk markings at various locations within the study area.

Centerline striping along Charles Lux Drive consists of 4-inch and 6-inch double yellow striping without reflectors, reducing visibility under low-light conditions. Greenfield Drive lacks centerline and edge line striping, reducing lane definition. Additionally, the uncontrolled crossing on Greenfield Drive at Charles Lux Drive lacks daylighting, yield markings, and pedestrian warning signage.

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 20 March 31, 2026 Crosswalk markings are inconsistent throughout the study area, with a mix of white and yellow continental markings and the use of double continental striping, which is no longer included in current MUTCD guidance. Additionally, red curb (daylighting) treatments are not consistently applied throughout the study area, including at Charles Lux Drive and Greenfield Drive, reflecting varying approaches to curb management and intersection visibility. See Figure 5 for a photo of faded pavement markings at the intersection of Luchessa Avenue / Greenfield Drive.

Figure 5. Photo of Faded Pavement Markings at Luchessa Avenue / Greenfield Drive Curb return radii throughout the study area are relatively large, generally ranging from approximately 25 to 30 feet or greater. While excessive speeds were not observed, these larger radii allow for faster turning movements, particularly at uncontrolled right-turn locations.

5.6 Summary of Observations
Overall, the study intersection and surrounding roadway network operate as a typical residential school environment. Observed conditions indicate that traffic operations are primarily influenced by school circulation patterns, pedestrian activity during peak periods, and localized visibility constraints.

While drivers adapt to visibility conditions through positioning and behavior, and overall operations remain stable, several factors—such as inconsistent traffic control devices, informal pedestrian crossings, and parking-related impacts—contribute to perceived safety concerns. These conditions are best addressed through targeted improvements rather than changes to intersection control.

6. Recommended Safety Improvements
As discussed in Section 4, the intersection does not meet the CA MUTCD warrants for all-way stop control. However, field observations and engineering judgment identified several conditions that warrant targeted safety improvements. These improvements are divided into near-term measures and areas requiring further study.

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 21 March 31, 2026

6.1 Summary of Recommended Safety Improvements
The following recommendations are intended to address the observed safety conditions through a combination of near-term, implementable improvements and longer-term strategies. To support decision-making, the recommended countermeasures are organized into three categories: user behavior (education and awareness), operational improvements (near-term, lowcost measures), and structural improvements (long-term capital enhancements). This framework highlights low-cost, near-term actions that can be implemented quickly, while distinguishing more complex improvements that require additional design, coordination, or capital investment.

Many of the operational improvements can be incorporated into a coordinated quick-build striping and signing plan for Charles Lux Drive (Figure Y), while more complex or corridor-level improvements are identified separately in Section 6.2. Table 8 on the next page summarizes the key observations from the field review and AWSC analysis and identifies recommended countermeasures for each condition. The locations of these improvements are shown on Figure X – Recommended Safety Improvements.

The conceptual quick-build plan shown in Figure Y integrates several of the operational recommendations into a coordinated corridor-level improvement for Charles Lux Drive, addressing visibility, lane organization, and pedestrian safety. Key elements include lane narrowing from Sanchez Place to Lopez Way, reduction to 10-foot travel lanes in each direction, the widening of existing bicycle facilities, additional conflict striping, and additional red curb for visibility.

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 22 March 31, 2026 Table 8. Observations and Recommendations Summary
Observation / Condition Safety Consideration Recommended Countermeasure User Behavior (Education & Awareness)
Morning sun glare impacts
eastbound drivers
Temporary visibility
impairment during school
drop-off
Install advance warning signage (e.g.,
“Intersection Ahead”); reinforce crosswalk
visibility (see Figure Y)
General lack of school area
warning signage
Reduces driver awareness of
pedestrian activity
Install school zone and pedestrian warning signage
along key approaches (see Figure Y)
Parents parking on Cimino and
crossing midblock outside of
designated crosswalks to school
Increases mid-block
pedestrian conflicts
Improve crossing visibility; evaluate formal crossing
locations; reinforce use of designated crossings
(see Figure X)
Jaywalking observed on
Greenfield near secondary school
access
Reflects unmet pedestrian
crossing demand.

Evaluate supplemental signage near secondary
access point (see Figure X)
Operational Improvements (Near-Term / Low-Cost)
Drivers on Lopez Way creep
forward beyond stop bar to gain
visibility
Indicates constrained or
perceived limited sight
distance
Install red curb (daylighting) at all four corners,
prioritize SB Lopez (see Figure Y)
Inconsistent crosswalk markings
(yellow/white mix, outdated
double continental)
Reduces driver recognition
and consistency of pedestrian
priority
Standardize to CA MUTCD-compliant yellow highvisibility continental crosswalks across study area (see Figure X & Y)
Inconsistent and faded stop bars,
and crosswalks
Reduces clarity of control and
crossings
Refresh all pavement markings; standardize striping
(Figure X)
Lack of daylighting (red curb) at
key intersections
Reduces visibility between
vehicles and pedestrians
Implement red curb (daylighting) treatments at key
intersections to improve visibility (see Figure X & Y)
Parking and queuing in bike lanes
along Charles Lux east of Cimino
Increases multimodal conflict
risk
Install curb management signage; incorporate new
striping or buffer treatments for bike lanes to
promote compliance. (see Figure Y)
Awkward transition from bike lane
to parking at Cimino
Creates confusion and
potential conflicts for bicyclists
Provide clear striping transition, consider buffer or
taper treatments (see Figure Y)
Street trees in parkways affect
visibility
Intermittent obstruction
depending on driver position
Implement tree trimming or selective removal where
needed to maintain sight triangles (see Figure Y)
Temporary cones and curb
controls applied for specific
locations
Functions as a localized
solution but does not address
broader curbside activity
Evaluate and formalize curb management strategy
Faded roundabout signage on
West 10th Street
Reduces driver awareness
and compliance
Replace and upgrade signage to current standards
(see Figure Y)
School circulation creates
localized congestion and informal
behaviors
Influences driver expectations
and pedestrian movements
Coordinate with school to refine pick-up/drop-off
circulation and loading patterns
Structural Improvements (Long-Term / Capital)
Non-ADA compliant curb ramps
behind STOP limit line at Brook
Way and Alta Oak Way
Limits accessibility and
increases pedestrian risk
Operational: Adjust STOP limit line placement relative
to curb ramps Structural: Address ADA curb ramp
compliance as part of future CIP or similar programs
Wide curb radii (~25–30 ft) allow
faster turning movements
Increases turning speeds
and pedestrian conflict risk
Evaluate curb extensions or striping
treatments to tighten turning paths (see Figure Y)
Lack of formal crossings in key
areas
Pedestrian demand not fully
accommodated
Evaluate new or enhanced crossings (e.g., midblock
crossing near school access)

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 23 March 31, 2026

6.2 Recommended Areas for Future Study
In addition to the targeted improvements identified in Section 6.1, several areas were identified during the course of this study that would benefit from further evaluation and design development.

These items involve more complex operational, geometric, or policy considerations and are recommended for future study by the City.

School Site Circulation and Access Improvements
Observed traffic operations within the study area indicate that school-site circulation and pickup/drop-off patterns play a significant role in driving queueing, parking behavior, and pedestrian activity on adjacent streets. Current operations concentrate the majority of pick-up and drop-off activity at the southernmost driveway and along the internal curb adjacent to the main school entrance, which contributes to queuing within the on-site circulation aisle and spillback into the surrounding street network.

To better accommodate peak demand and reduce reliance on the adjacent street system, the City may consider partnering with Gilroy Unified School District (GUSD) to evaluate opportunities to modify on-site circulation and access configurations. A focused study could explore potential strategies to improve circulation efficiency and increase on-site vehicle storage capacity, including:
 Reconfiguring internal circulation to allow for continuous or through movement across the school site
 Relocating or expanding the primary pick-up/drop-off area further north to better distribute activity
 Modifying driveway access patterns
 Evaluating partial or full closure of the southernmost driveway to simplify circulation and increase on-site queueing capacity
 Considering opportunities to increase on-street parking supply in locations where access modifications may reduce driveway demand
These concepts are intended as planning-level considerations and may be implemented individually or in combination. Evaluation of these strategies should consider operational performance, safety outcomes, emergency access requirements, and coordination with school administration.

Given the direct influence of school-site operations on surrounding traffic conditions, a jointly funded and coordinated study between the City and GUSD would support development of effective, integrated solutions that address both on-site circulation and off-site conditions.

Cimino Street Corridor Evaluation
Cimino Street serves as the primary frontage and access point for Las Animas Elementary School and plays a key role in school circulation and pedestrian activity. Observations indicate opportunities to improve safety, accessibility, and operations along this corridor. The City should consider a focused study to evaluate alternative cross-section configurations for Cimino Street, including:
 Reallocation of roadway space to balance parking, bicycle facilities, and vehicle operations

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 24 March 31, 2026  Evaluation of on-street parking utilization and loading behavior  Opportunities to improve pedestrian safety along the school frontage  Feasibility of a consolidated midblock crossing aligned with primary pedestrian desire lines This effort should consider both operational performance and safety outcomes and be coordinated with school operations.

Given the role of Las Animas Elementary School in influencing traffic circulation, parking behavior, and pedestrian activity along the Cimino Street corridor, the City may consider partnering with Gilroy Unified School District (GUSD) to jointly scope and fund a focused corridor study. A coordinated effort would support development of improvements that address both roadway conditions and school-site operations, and would help ensure that recommended solutions are practical, effective, and aligned with both City and school objectives.

School Coordination – Pick-Up and Drop-Off Operations
Observed traffic patterns indicate that school-site circulation and pick-up/drop-off operations contribute to informal parking, queueing, and pedestrian crossing behavior within the surrounding neighborhood. While longer-term physical modifications to the school site may improve circulation capacity, there are also opportunities to improve operations through coordination with Las Animas Elementary School administration.

The City should consider working with the school to evaluate near-term operational strategies to improve pick-up and drop-off efficiency, including:
 Optimization of on-site circulation and queuing within the school parking lot  Strategies to reduce reliance on on-street parking and loading along Cimino Street and Charles Lux Drive
 Reinforcement of designated access routes and loading areas These operational improvements may provide interim benefits and help reduce conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, and can also inform the development of longer-term school site circulation improvements described above
Citywide Engineering and Traffic Speed Survey
The City is currently advancing an Engineering and Traffic Speed Survey to evaluate operating conditions and establish appropriate speed limits on roadways throughout the community.

Portions of the study area, including newer roadway segments, should be incorporated into this effort to ensure that speed limits reflect current conditions and support school-area safety objectives.

Inclusion of the study area within the ongoing speed survey presents an opportunity to:
 Establish updated, defensible speed limits based on current conditions  Evaluate opportunities to apply reduced speed limits in school areas under current California law and MUTCD provisions
 Evaluate implementation of 20 mph or 15 mph speed limits in the vicinity of schools The City may also consider whether to implement this effort as:

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 25 March 31, 2026  A programmatic approach applied to all school zones, or  A location-specific approach based on individual school conditions This effort should be coordinated with City staff and consistent with applicable State guidelines, and would complement the near-term improvements identified in Section 6.1 while supporting a comprehensive, long-term approach to improving safety and operations within the Las Animas Elementary School area.

Greenfield Drive Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation
Pedestrian activity, including informal midblock crossing behavior, was observed along Greenfield Drive near the secondary school access point during the field review. However, these observations were based on a limited duration dataset and may not fully represent typical or recurring conditions.

The City may consider conducting a focused evaluation to better understand pedestrian crossing patterns and demand at this location, including confirmation of crossing frequency, peak period activity, and the consistency of observed behaviors.

Based on the results of this evaluation, the City may then determine whether enhancements to existing crossings or additional pedestrian treatments—such as signage, markings, or other measures—are appropriate. This assessment should consider pedestrian volumes, sight distance, vehicle speeds, and proximity to school access points.

Accessibility Considerations (ADA Coordination)
The field review identified locations with non-compliant curb ramps and gaps in accessible pedestrian circulation within the study area. While these conditions present accessibility challenges, they are not directly associated with the primary operational or safety issues identified in this study.

To improve efficiency and minimize disruption, the City may consider addressing ADA-related improvements in coordination with future pavement, striping, or corridor-level projects, rather than as a standalone effort. This approach would allow accessibility upgrades—such as curb ramp replacement or realignment—to be implemented as part of planned capital improvements within the study area.

7. Next Steps
Based on the findings of this study, the City may consider advancing a combination of near-term improvements, operational coordination efforts, and longer-term study initiatives to address the observed safety and operational conditions within the Las Animas Elementary School area.

In the near term, the City can proceed with implementable signing, striping, and curb management improvements identified in Section 6.1. These measures can be advanced through a coordinated effort, including the proposed conceptual quick-build striping plan for Charles Lux Drive from West 10th Street to Greenfield Drive. This approach would allow the City to address visibility, pedestrian safety, bicycle operations, and roadway organization through a single, cohesive implementation.

In parallel, the City may consider working with Las Animas Elementary School and Gilroy Unified School District (GUSD) to implement near-term operational improvements to pick-up and drop-off circulation, with the goal of reducing reliance on the surrounding street network and minimizing conflicts related to parking, queueing, and pedestrian activity.

DRAFT - Technical Memorandum
City of Gilroy 484-9591-004
Charles Lux and Lopez All-Way Stop Control Analysis 26 March 31, 2026 For longer-term improvements, the City may consider advancing focused studies and coordination efforts described in Section 6.2, including the Cimino Street corridor evaluation and school-site circulation and access improvements. These efforts may benefit from a coordinated or joint funding approach with GUSD, given the role of school-related circulation in influencing traffic operations within the study area.

Collectively, these actions provide a practical and phased approach to improving safety and operations in the study area, while maintaining consistency with engineering standards and City policies.

9.2. City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Third Quarter Budget and General Fund Forecast Update and Adoption of Resolutions Amending the Budget and Updating the Position Control List
Meeting Date: June 15, 2026
From: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Department: Finance
Submitted by: Cindy Murphy, Finance Director
Prepared by: Carina Baksa, Finance Manager
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Develop a Financially Resilient Organization

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive budget update as of the Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26);

2. Adopt a resolution approving the updated Position Control List for FY26 and FY27;

3. Adopt a budget amendment resolution for FY26 and FY27.

4. Authorize the City Administrator to submit a bid for a Reserve Fire Engine from the Mountain View Fire Department for an amount not to exceed $150,000 and execute all related documents necessary to procure the Reserve Fire Engine if Gilroy's bid is accepted.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides the City Council with a budget update for FY26 as of the end of the third quarter, March 31, 2026. Additionally, staff is bringing for Council consideration and adoption an updated Position Control List and budget amendment resolution for FY26 and FY27.

BACKGROUND
The FY26 and FY27 budgets were adopted on June 2, 2025, as part of the City's biennial budget development process. Activity for FY26 began on July 1, 2025. The

9.2. City has now completed three quarters of operations for FY26 and this report provides a financial summary of such activity as compared to the budget for the period of July 1, 2025 through March 31, 2026. Included with the budget adoption was a resolution establishing the Position Control List (PCL) which lists the full-time equivalent positions authorized for the current budget cycle. The PCL was last updated on March 16, 2026, as part of the Second Quarter Budget Status report. Staff is bringing the PCL back to Council in this staff report with the most recent proposed updates, which are discussed within the Analysis section of the staff report.

ANALYSIS
General Fund Revenues
General Fund revenues received through the third quarter of FY26 totaled $46.8 million. This is approximately 63% of the amended budget of $74.9 million. Revenues received up to this point are typically under the 75% fiscal-year mark, especially tax revenues, due to the lag between when the economic transaction occurs and when the City receives those revenues. The table below provides a breakdown of General Fund Revenues by category and a comparison of the actual revenues to the amended budget.

Sales Tax
Sales tax is the second largest source of tax revenue for the General Fund. The City receives its sales tax revenue approximately two months after funds are collected by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. The FY26 budget for sales tax revenue is $20.4 million, of which $12.7 million (62%) has been received as of March 31, 2026. Based on the latest quarterly sales tax report, the City’s sales tax revenue for FY26 is expected to come in slightly above budget.

9.2. Property Tax
Property tax is the largest source of tax revenue for the General Fund. Property tax revenues are received at various intervals from Santa Clara County and are not distributed evenly, as tax payments are typically due in November and April of each fiscal year and remitted in installments. The FY26 budget for property tax revenue is $22.9 million, of which $12.3 million (54%) has been received as of March 31, 2026.

Much of the annual property tax revenue is received in the second half of the fiscal year, including the annual ERAF payment. At this time, property tax revenue is expected to come in as budgeted.

Utility Users Tax (UUT)
Utility taxes are assessed against the value of energy and telecommunications, such as gas, electricity, steam, cable, and phone charges. The current tax rates are 4.5% for telecommunications and 5% for gas and electricity. The City’s UUT revenues are received one month after the revenues are earned. The FY26 budget for utility user tax is $8.2 million, of which $4.8 million (59%) has been received as of March 31, 2026.

The majority of the receipts for UUT to date represent revenue through February 2026.

At this time, UUT revenues are expected to come in approximately $400,000 under budget. A related budget amendment is included for FY27 as discussed further in this section.

Franchise Tax
Franchise tax revenue is received from three franchise types, including gas and electric, cable TV, and garbage/refuse. The FY26 budget for franchise tax is $2.6 million, of which $0.8 million (30%) has been received as of March 31, 2026, which primarily reflects refuse franchise payments. The larger portion of franchise tax comes from PG&E, which remits payments once a year and is typically received in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year. The cable franchise is remitted on a quarterly basis; thus, the third quarter will be reflected in the FY26 Q4 budget report. At this point, this revenue source is projected to come in line with the budget.

Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
Transient Occupancy Tax revenue comes from a 9% tax on hotel room rentals under 30 days, as well as from some of the RV parks in the City. The hotels pay within one month after their quarter ends. The FY26 budget for TOT is $1.9 million, of which $1.0 million (40%) has been received as of March 31, 2026. Payments for the third quarter are expected to be received in April and will be reflected in the next quarterly budget report. It is anticipated that TOT at year-end will be in line with the budget.

Business License
The FY26 budget for Business License fees is $0.8 million, of which $0.6 million (78%)

9.2. has been received as of March 31, 2026. The business license revenue is tied to the timing of the annual license renewal and any new business licenses issued, and therefore, it can fluctuate throughout the year.

Other General Fund Revenues
This category comprises departmental service charges, general administration charges, fines and forfeitures, and other intergovernmental revenues. The FY26 budget for this aggregate revenue category is $18.0 million, of which $14.6 million (81%) has been received as of March 31, 2026. At this time, departmental revenues for building permits are expected to come in under budget. A related budget amendment is included for FY26 as discussed further in this section.

General Fund Expenditures
General Fund expenditures through the third quarter of FY26 totaled $59.1 million. This is approximately 75% of the amended budget of $79.2 million. The table below provides a breakdown by department and function comparing the actual expenditures through the third quarter to the amended budget. Generally, the majority of the departments are within or below their expenditure target through the third quarter of the fiscal year.

Police and Fire are tracking slightly higher than the target, primarily in overtime costs.

For Fire, overtime is related to Strike team activity and is reimbursable. The categories of “Other Transfers” and “Other General Government” are also tracking higher primarily due to one-time transfers to the Section 115 Trusts for Pension and OPEB, approved by Council in October 2025, and to the Capital Infrastructure Reserve Fund, approved by Council in January 2026.

Non-General Fund Revenues

9.2. The City has approximately 60 non-general funds. The revenues and expenditures for these funds are presented in the table below in aggregate, by fund type, along with a brief description of what is included in these categories.

Non-General Fund revenues received as of March 31, 2026, total $61.4 million. This is approximately 59% of the amended budget of $104.8 million. Consistent with prior years, revenues received through the third quarter are under the 75% fiscal-year mark due to the timing of receipts, especially for special revenue and capital/development funds.

Special Revenues
The primary source of this fund type is intergovernmental funds in the manner of tax sharing or grants from Federal, State, County, and other regional governments. For the City of Gilroy, these Special Revenues provide funding for transportation (Gas Taxes, Vehicle Registration, and Measure B), public safety (Proposition 172 sales tax, Gang Prevention, and regional task forces), and community development (CDBG and housing) among others. The FY26 budget for Special Revenues is $12.1 million, of which $5.8 million (48%) has been received as of March 31, 2026. Many of these revenues are based on quarterly reimbursement claims submitted by staff. Staff is expecting to submit claims for reimbursement for approximately $5.0 million in the fourth quarter. Remaining grants will be included in the mid-cycle "true-up" to be carried over to FY27.

Recreation
The Recreation Fund receives an annual allocation of $1.5 million from the General Fund, in addition to the revenues it generates from charges for services and grants related to recreation programs. The services provided by Recreation are seasonal, with the majority of activity typically occurring during spring and summer. The FY26 budget for Recreation revenue is $2.4 million, of which $1.9 million (70%) has been received

9.2. as of March 31, 2026.

Capital/Development Impact Funds
Revenues in the Capital and Development Impact Funds are primarily generated by new development approvals and the required contributions to offset infrastructure impacts. Revenue depends on the size and impact of the development and the timing of the project; therefore, revenue is not evenly distributed throughout the fiscal year.

The FY26 budget for Capital/Development Funds revenue is $30.7 million, of which $9.2 million (30%) has been received as of March 31, 2026. Of the $30.7 million in revenue budgeted, $15.0 million is for the Bond Proceeds budgeted for the Gilroy Ice Center in FY26. The majority of the remaining $6.5 million budget is allocated for development-related fees and for grant funded projects such as San Ysidro Healthy Living Enhancements.

Debt Service Funds
Debt Service funds receive their revenue from annual property tax levies and/or via interfund transfers from other funds and are typically aligned with the timing of the debt service payment. The FY26 amounts for the third quarter primarily reflect the interfund transfers. The property tax levies for the Library Bond debt service are received similarly to the General Fund property tax distribution, with the majority of it in the second half of the fiscal year. The FY26 budget for Debt Service Funds revenue is $5.1 million, of which $3.3 million (65%) has been received as of March 31, 2026.

Internal Service Funds
Internal Service Funds (Information Technology, Fleet, Facilities, Equipment Outlay, Worker’s Compensation, and Liability Funds) primarily receive their revenue from charges to other departments and other funds within the City. These charges are assessed based on the budget, and it is expected that the full budgeted amount will be received. The FY26 budget for Internal Service Funds revenue is $17.2 million, of which $13.7 million (80%) has been received as of March 31, 2026.

Sewer Fund
The FY26 budget for Sewer revenue is $19.5 million, of which $14.4 million (74%) has been received as of March 31, 2026. The Sewer Enterprise Fund generates its revenue from utility user charges. At this time, it is expected that the revenue will come in at budget.

Water Fund
The FY26 budget for Water revenue is $17.9 million, of which $13.2 million (74%) has been received as of March 31, 2026. Like the Sewer Fund, the Water Fund generates its revenues from utility user charges. At this time, it is expected that the revenue will

9.2. come in at budget.

Non-General Fund Expenditures
Non-General Funds expenditures as of March 31, 2026, total $63.6 million, or 42% of the amended budget of $151.7 million. The table below presents the Non-General Fund expenditures by Fund Type.

Special Revenues
The primary expenditures in this fund type are for maintenance and capital improvements of roads/sidewalks, followed by grant-related expenditures for the Police and Community Development Department for housing and CDBG. As of March 31, 2026, expenditures are at $10.1 million (48%) of the budgeted amount of $21.1 million.

Road and infrastructure capital projects typically begin after the winter/rainy season.

Staff expect additional expenditures during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year.

However, some capital projects are anticipated to be carried over to FY27 and these projects will be included in the mid-cycle budget report.

Recreation
As of March 31, 2026, expenditures are at $1.4 million (48%) of the budgeted amount of $3.0 million. The services provided by Recreation are seasonal, typically most active during the spring and summer months. Staff expects funds to be encumbered and expenditures to occur in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year.

Capital/Development Impact Funds
As of March 31, 2026, expenditures are at $7.5 million (16%) of the budgeted amount of $48.2 million. The below target spending is primarily in the capital outlay. It is

9.2. important to note that $16.5 million of the $48.2 million is attributed to the Gilroy Ice Center project. Many of the budgeted projects are still in early phases, such as bidding or design phases, and the subsequent construction phase, the larger expenditure category, is expected to occur next fiscal year. Some capital projects are anticipated to be carried over to FY27, and these projects will be included in the mid-cycle budget report.

Debt Service Funds
As of March 31, 2026, expenditures are at $4.4 million (90%) of the budgeted amount of $4.9 million. The debt service payments typically include semiannual interest payments and an annual principal payment. These expenses are expected to come in at budgeted levels.

Internal Services Funds
As of March 31, 2026, expenditures are at $12.9 million (55%) of the budgeted amount of $23.5 million. Expenditures related to the City’s internal service funds (Information Technology, Fleet, Facilities, Equipment Outlay, Worker’s Compensation, and Liability Funds) are expected to come in under budgeted levels, primarily for capital outlay for Las Animas and Chestnut Fire Stations renovations. Staff is preparing the bid packet for these two fire station renovations.

Sewer Fund
As of March 31, 2026, expenditures are at $14.3 million (63%) of the budgeted amount of $22.8 million. Of the $22.8 million budgeted, $5.5 million is allocated to capital outlay, and the remainder is for operations. Of the $14.3 million in expenditure to date, $1.7 million is related to capital outlay, including the acquisition of the Jessup property for the Utilities Department (split 50/50 between water and wastewater), and the remainder, $12.6 million, is attributed to operations.

Water Fund
As of March 31, 2026, expenditures are at $12.9 million (46%) of the budgeted amount of $28.2 million. Of the budgeted $28.2 million, $10.6 million is allocated to capital outlay, and the remainder is for operations. Of the $12.9 million expenditure to date, $2.3 million is related to capital outlay, including the acquisition of the Jessup property for the Utilities Department (split 50/50 between water and wastewater), and the remainder, $10.6 million, is attributed to operations.

Updates to Position Control List
Staff is recommending the following updates to the City's Position Control List, which was originally approved as part of the current biennial budget adoption in June 2025, and is periodically updated as warranted through these quarterly reports:

9.2. Solid Waste Implementation Fund (203) - As part of the City’s ongoing operations to meet current and upcoming trash control and stormwater permit requirements, the City requires additional dedicated staff and maintenance support for inspections, cleaning, repairs, documentation, and reporting. The Solid Waste Franchise Agreement with South Valley Recology includes an implementation fee to support eligible work, including the addition of a Management Analyst and two Public Works Maintenance Worker I position, effective FY27.

Budget Adjustments
Staff is recommending the following budget adjustments:

Fiscal Year 2026:

1. General Fund (100) - Overtime expense is trending over budget by approximately $500,000 for the Police Department's operations division. A related one-time budget amendment is recommended.

2. Recreation Fund (209) - California Youth Community Access Grant in the amount of $83,209 was received by the Recreation Division and is being appropriated for this fiscal year.

3. Fleet Fund (600) - As referenced in the last quarterly report, the City is in need of a more reliable Reserve Engine. The City of Mountain View is preparing to surplus six fire engines and has committed to initially offering them to Santa Clara County Agencies. Staff is seeking approval to increase the appropriation from the previously approved amount of $100,000 to $150,000 as it is anticipated that the bids may be higher than originally anticipated. Further, staff is asking Council to authorize the City Administrator to approve the bid purchase, should it be awarded to Gilroy, within that range, which would otherwise be subject to the City Council approval threshold.

Fiscal Year 2027:

1. General Fund (100)
a. As mentioned above, UUT revenues are trending under budget and are expected to come in approximately $400,000 lower than budget for FY27. A related adjustment is recommended.
b. The adopted FY27 budget assumed one of the two hotels to come online in FY27, and related TOT revenue was budgeted. Based on the latest information, hotel development will not materialize in FY27; the assumption has been revised to FY28, so a recommendation to reduce the TOT revenue assumption for FY27 by $400,000 is included. c. Charges for services, including Building Permit Fees, are anticipated to

9.2. be $450,000 less than budgeted for FY27.
d. Intergovernmental revenue, including Blue Skies Initiative ($50,000) and Jumpstart CalOES Grant ($90,000), is expected to be received in FY27. e. County fees related to Emergency Medical Dispatch costs are anticipated to be $77,000 more than originally budgeted. Council approved the EMD services agreement in May 2026.
f. County fees related to animal sheltering services are anticipated to be $224,000 more than originally budgeted. Council is recommended to approve a one-year term agreement as part of consent agenda item at the June 15, 2026 City Council meeting.
g. City Administrative revenues related to the oversight of the Recology Implementation Funds are expected to be $83,412 more than budgeted.

2. Solid Waste Implementation Fund (203) - The South Valley Recology Implementation Fees have been expanded to cover the costs associated with three additional positions ($450,000) as well as increased materials and services costs ($345,000). These increased costs will be offset by the increased implementation fees of $795,000 to be received from Recology.

3. Police Grants Fund (225) - The Police department has received a new Department of Justice Bulletproof Vest Grant in the amount of $12,157 which will increase revenues and expenditures.

4. Capital Projects (400) - Public Works Gateway Senior Apartments Pedestrian Walkway project revenues in the amount of $350,000 were received and deferred in 2024, and now construction is expected to begin in the first quarter of FY27. Related grant revenue and expenditure budget adjustments are included for FY27.

5. Street Tree Development (432) - Public Works has identified the need to do some tree planting across the City and is developing a Citywide tree planting project to be funded by Street Tree Impact Fund which has a projected fund balance of $198,000 at the beginning FY27; thus it is recommended that the full balance of the funds be appropriated for the project.

6. Workers Compensation Fund (605) - Insurance premiums are expected to be $37,580 higher than originally budgeted.

7. Liability Insurance Fund (610) - Insurance premiums are expected to be $269,750 higher than originally budgeted.

General Fund Forecast Update
The City Council last received the General Fund Forecast update in March 2026, with the FY26 Q2 budget update. The information and chart that follow present an updated

9.2. General Fund forecast that incorporates year-to-date budget amendments approved by the Council for the General Fund and, in addition, incorporates the recommended budget adjustments included in this staff report.

Notable adjustments include the following:
• Revenues:
o Sales Tax has been updated to use the latest quarterly sales tax report from FY26 through FY31. The current forecast projects sales tax revenue base to be higher by about $0.8 million/year, notably in the County pool allocation. The existing Bradley Burns one percent (1%) allocation continues to project only a nominal year-over-year average growth of about 1.5% over the forecast period.
o Utility User Tax base has been adjusted down by about $0.4 million beginning in FY27 and onwards.
o TOT revenue has been adjusted to assume the new hotel coming online in FY28 vs. FY27, a $400,000 one-time adjustment for FY27.

The second hotel was previously assumed to come online in FY28, and is now assumed to come online in FY29.
o Building Permit revenue base has been adjusted down by about $0.5 million beginning in FY27 and onwards.
• Expenditures:
o County Emergency Medical Dispatch - In April 2026, the Council approved the services agreement with the County to provide Emergency Medical Dispatch. Due to recent changes in the County's cost allocation and cost recovery, service costs have increased significantly. There is a related fiscal impact of about $77,000 for FY27, increasing to $234,000 beginning in FY28 and onward. o County Animal Shelter Services - The City currently obtains animal sheltering services from the County, and similarly, the cost of services has increased, and there is a related fiscal impact of about $224,000 in FY27 and onwards. Included on the same meeting agenda is a consent approval of a one-year services agreement with the County for animal shelter services.
o Overtime related to Police Patrol - The Police Department's operations division is experiencing increased overtime utilization for increased service demands, and to cover vacancies and disabilities, thus a onetime overtime budget increase is recommended for the current fiscal year of $500,000.
o Code Enforcement positions - In the current adopted biennial budget, Council authorized two limited-term Code Enforcement positions through FY27. Staff are recommending and have assumed both of those positions to become permanent from FY28 onwards in the

9.2. forecast.
o Section 115 Trust Leverage - As a last step of the forecast adjustment, staff have readjusted the drawdown amounts from the Section 115 Pension Trust to structurally balance the forecast after the aforementioned revenue and expenditure impacts. Further, the table now shows the operating margins before and after the drawdown.

Staff has updated the General Fund forecast format to show the operating margin both before and after the projected drawdowns from the Section 115 Pension Trust to better illustrate the fiscal impact. As a result of the aforementioned adjustments, the forecast now indicates a slightly negative operating margin (before pension trust drawdowns) of $0.1 million for FY26 and a negative operating margin of about $1.4 million for FY27.

For the forecast years, the operating margin (before pension trust drawdown) ranges from negative $2.2 million in FY28 to negative $1.2 million in FY31. The forecast assumes leveraging the Pension Trust to offset negative operating margins from FY28 through FY31. The Pension Trust is projected to have approximately $6.9 million by the beginning of FY28.

Further, the forecast projects that the General Fund will fall below the Council's 30% fund balance policy by the end of FY27 and remain below it throughout the forecast period. Staff is not recommending any adjustments at this time, as the General Fund typically has year-end savings that could be used to address FY27 fund balance, therefore any recommendations to adjust will be brought forward with the FY26 yearend report. Nonetheless, it is evident that adjustments will be required as part of the upcoming biennial budget development to ensure the General Fund balance meets the required policy for future fiscal years.

The current biennial budget and work plan include a citywide comprehensive user fee study to ensure the City's cost-recovery fees reflect the actual cost of providing the service. The study will be conducted in FY27. In addition, service delivery models will require evaluation to identify opportunities for operational and financial efficiencies.

Key Future Fiscal Considerations

9.2. There are several items that staff are continuing to monitor, which may impact the General Fund forecast as well as other funds, but are not yet fully reflected in the forecast. These items will be evaluated and brought back to Council with recommendations as warranted through future budget updates, including:
• County Service Costs – the City currently contracts with Santa Clara County for several services including emergency medical dispatching (EMD), hazardous waste, weed abatement, crime lab, and other technology-related systems. Over the last few years, the County has updated its internal cost allocation methodology, which has led to significant cost increases for services it provides to various municipalities in the region, including Gilroy. Staff is continuing to evaluate potential alternative service delivery models for some of the higher-cost services but will be financially impacted in the interim. Staff has included some of the known impacts with this report, for example, EMD and animal shelter services, and will continue to monitor potential impacts to other services the City obtains through the County.
• Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) - TOT Revenue is trending down overall. For FY26, staff anticipate meeting the budget due to additional collections resulting from the audits. Excluding the audit results, TOT revenue would be approximately $1.7 million at year-end, $200,000 below the budgeted amount. • Public Facilities Impact Fund (440) – the developer impact funds related to the Public Facilities Impact Fund are trending lower than anticipated, primarily due to the timing of receipts. We anticipate that this fund will experience a deficit of approximately $1,200,000 by year-end. We will return to Council at year-end with final amounts, which will necessitate a temporary interfund loan. Staff is also commencing a review of all the developer impact fees in the upcoming fiscal year.
• CalPERS Investment Rate of Return for FY26 — CalPERS is expected to report the preliminary investment rate of return for its FY26 at the end of July.

Current trends indicate CalPERS will meet or exceed its target rate of return of

6.8%. For example, as of March 31, 2026, CalPERS had a fiscal year-to-date return of 7.9%. Should CalPERS exceed its target, it is projected to have a positive impact to the City's unfunded accrued liability and further reduce the related payments in future fiscal years.

ALTERNATIVES
There are no recommended alternatives to receiving the Budget Report for the third quarter of FY26. The City Council could elect not to approve any single, or all the budget adjustments requested as well as the proposed changes to the Position Control, however staff does not recommend this option.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE

9.2. The fiscal impacts are discussed in the Analysis section of the report in detail, and the impacts of preparing the quarterly reports are a workplan item included in the Finance Department and accommodated within existing resources. The recommended budget adjustments are included with the resolution for Council adoption.

PUBLIC OUTREACH

NEXT STEPS
Attachments:

1. Draft Resolution - Position Control FY26 and FY27

2. Draft Resolution - FY26 and FY27 Q3 Budget Amendments

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

GILROY ADOPTING THE AUTHORIZED POSITION

CONTROL LIST FOR THE CITY OF GILROY FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2025-2026 AND 2026-2027
WHEREAS, the business operations of the City of Gilroy are conducted by hired professional staff; and
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy is committed to delivering services to our residents; and
WHEREAS, the delivery of services is effectuated by providing adequate and appropriate staffing levels to carry out the business of the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the number and classifications of regular full-time positions in which persons may be employed by the City of Gilroy during Fiscal Years 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 is hereby amended and shall be as set forth in the attached position control list, incorporated herein by reference.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a change in the position control list shall only be accomplished by resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council this 15th day of June 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:

Greg Bozzo, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Kim Mancera, City Clerk

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Position Control List
City Council Regular Meeting| June 15, 2026

DEPARTMENT
FY24
Amended
FY25
Amended
FY26
Amended
FY27
Amended
ADMINISTRATION 15 15 16 16
Assistant City Administrator 0 0 1 1
Assistant to the City Administrator 1 1 0 0
City Administrator 1 1 1 1
City Clerk 1 1 1 1
Community Coordinator 1 1 0 0
Communication and Engagement Manager 1 1 1 1
Community Engagement Coordinator 1 1 1 1
Community Resilience Coordinator 1 1 1 1
Economic Development Director 0 0 1 1
Economic Development Manager 1 1 1 1
Emergency Services & Volunteer Coordinator 1 1 1 1
Management Analyst 1 1 1 1
Management Assistant 1 1 2 2
Office Assistant I/II 1 1 1 1
Recreation Coordinator 1 1 1 1
Recreation Manager 1 1 1 1
Recreation Supervisor 1 1 1 1
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 14 14 14 14
Administrative Services & Human Resources
Director/Risk Manager 1 1 1 1
Custodian 1 1 1 1
Equipment Mechanic 2 2 2 2
Facilities Maintenance Specialist 2 2 2 2
Facilities and Fleet Superintendent 1 1 1 1
Human Resources Analyst 2 2 2 2
Human Resources & Risk Management
Technician I 0 0 1 1
Human Resources Technician II 1 1 1 1
Management Assistant 2 2 1 1
Senior Equipment Mechanic 1 1 1 1
Senior Facilities Maintenance Specialist 1 1 1 1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 26 27 29 29
Building Inspector I/II 3 3 3 3
Building Official 1 1 1 1
Code Enforcement Officer 2 2 4 4
Community Development Director 1 1 1 1
Deputy Director of Community Development 0 1 1 1
Deputy Fire Marshal/Haz Mat Supervisor 1 0 0 0
Fire Marshal 0 1 1 1
Hazardous Materials Inspector I/II 2 2 2 2
HCD Technician 1 0 0 0
Housing and Community Services Coordinator 0 1 1 1
Housing and Community Services Manager 1 1 1 1
Management Analyst 1 1 0 0
Management Assistant 1 1 1 1
Office Assistant I/II 1 1 1 1
Permit Technician 3 3 3 3
The table below shows the number of full-time positions by Department included in the FY26 and FY27 Adopted Budgets. This table does not include the seven positions for Mayor and Council members.

POSITION CONTROL LIST

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Position Control List
City Council Regular Meeting| June 15, 2026

DEPARTMENT
FY24
Amended
FY25
Amended
FY26
Amended
FY27
Amended
Planner I/II 2 2 2 2
Planning Technician 1 1 1 1
Planning Manager 1 1 1 1
Supervising Code Enforcement Officer 1 1 1 1
Senior Hazardous Materials Inspector 1 1 1 1
Senior Management Analyst 0 0 1 1
Senior Planner 2 2 2 2
FINANCE 21 21 22 22
Accountant 2 2 2 2
Accounting Assistant I/II 7 7 8 8
Accounting Technician - Payroll 1 1 1 1
Finance Director 1 1 1 1
Finance Manager 2 2 2 2
Financial Analyst 1 1 1 1
Geographic Information Systems Analyst 1 1 1 1
IT Applications Analyst 1 1 1 1
IT Manager 1 1 1 1
IT Technician I/II 1 1 1 1
Network Administrator 1 1 1 1
Public Safety Systems Administrator 1 1 1 1
Supervising Accounting Technician 1 1 1 1
FIRE 44 46 47 47
Fire Administration Technician 1 1 1 1
Fire Captain 10 10 12 12
Fire Chief 1 1 1 1
Fire Division Chief 3 3 4 4
Fire Engineer 9 9 9 12
Firefighter I/II 19 21 19 16
Management Analyst 1 1 1 1
POLICE 104 107 108 108
Community Coordinator 0 0 1 1
Community Engagement Coordinator 1 1 1 1
Community Services Officer 4 4 4 4
Police Crime Analyst 1 1 1 1
Detention Services Officer 5 5 5 5
Management Analyst 1 1 1 1
Management Assistant 1 1 1 1
Office Assistant I/II 1 1 1 1
Police Captain 3 3 3 3
Police Chief 1 1 1 1
Police Corporal 8 9 9 9
Police Officer 44 45 45 45
Police Records Technician I/II 6 6 6 6
Police Sergeant 11 11 11 11
Property and Evidence Technician 1 1 1 1
Public Safety Communications Supervisor 1 1 1 1
Public Safety Communicator 13 14 14 14
Police Records Supervisor 1 1 1 1
Youth Task Force Coordinator 1 1 1 1

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Position Control List
City Council Regular Meeting| June 15, 2026

DEPARTMENT
FY24
Amended
FY25
Amended
FY26
Amended
FY27
Amended
PUBLIC WORKS 31 32 32 35
City Engineer/Transportation Engineer 1 1 1 1
Deputy Director of Public Works 1 1 1 1
Engineer I/II 5 5 5 5
Engineering Technician/Inspector I/II/III 3 3 3 3
Environmental Programs Manager 1 1 1 1
Maintenance Worker I/II 10 10 10 12
Management Analyst 2 2 2 3
Management Assistant 1 1 1 1
Operations Services Supervisor 2 2 2 2
Project Manager 0 1 1 1
Public Works Director 1 1 1 1
Senior Civil Engineer 2 2 2 2
Senior Maintenance Worker 2 2 2 2
UTILITIES 27 29 31 31
Utilities Director 1 1 1 1
Utilities Operations Manager 0 1 1 1
Business Manager 1 1 1 1
Engineer I/II 2 1 1 1
Environmental Engineer 1 1 1 1
Maintenance Worker I/II 15 15 14 14
Management Analyst 1 1 1 1
Management Assistant 0 0 1 1
Office Assistant I/II 1 1 0 0
Operations Services Supervisor 1 2 1 1
Senior Civil Engineer 0 1 1 1
Senior Environmental Engineer 1 1 1 1
Senior Maintenance Worker 3 3 3 3
Water Operator 0 0 2 2
Water Quality Specialist 0 0 1 1
Water Systems Superintendent 0 0 1 1
TOTAL FULL-TIME PERSONNEL 282 291 299 302

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 AND 2026-27 BUDGET FOR

THE CITY OF GILROY
WHEREAS, the City Administrator prepared and submitted to the City Council a budget for the City of Gilroy for Fiscal Years 2026 and 2027, and the City Council carefully examined, considered and adopted the same on June 2, 2025; and
WHEREAS, City Staff has prepared and submitted to the City Council a proposed amendment to said budget for Fiscal Year 2026 and Fiscal Year 2027 for the City of Gilroy in the staff report dated June 15, 2026, for Fiscal Year 2026 Quarterly Budget Update, and adopting resolutions updating the position control list and amending the budget; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully examined and considered the same and is satisfied with said budget amendments.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that appropriations to the expenditure and revenue accounts for Fiscal Year 2026 and Fiscal Year 2027 are hereby increased or decreased as indicated in Exhibit A, attached to this resolution in the respective funds.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of June 2026 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:
______________________________
Greg Bozzo, Mayor
ATTEST:

Kim Mancera, City Clerk

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Budget Amendment Resolution
City Council Regular Meeting | June 15, 2026

Exhibit A
Item # Department Description
Fiscal
Year Fund
Revenue
Adjustment
Expenditure
Adjustment
1 Administration Jumpstart CalOESGrant 2027 100- General Fund $ 90,000 $ - 2 CommunityDevelopment BuildingPermit Fees 2027 100- General Fund (450,000) - 3 CommunityDevelopment BlueSkies Initiative 2027 100- General Fund 50,000 - 4 Finance Transient OccupancyTax 2027 100- General Fund (400,000) 5 Finance Utilities User Tax 2027 100- General Fund (400,000) - 6 Fire CountyEmergencyMedical Dispatch 2027 100- General Fund - 77,000 7 Police CountyAnimal ShelteringServices 2027 100- General Fund 224,000 8 Police Overtime 2026 100- General Fund - 500,000
9 Public Works RecologyImplementation Funds CityFees 2027 100- General Fund 83,412 - 10 Public Works RecologyImplementation Funds 2027 203- Solid WasteManagement Fund 795,000 - 11 Public Works Environmental Program costs 2027 203- Solid WasteManagement Fund - 345,000 12 Public Works
Environmental Program Positions - One
Management Analyst and Two Maintenance Worker 2027 203- Solid WasteManagement Fund - 450,000 13 Police DOJBulletproof Vest Grant 2027 225- PoliceGrants Fund 12,157 12,157 14 Administration
California Youth CommunityAccess
Program 2026 290- CommunityRecreation 83,209 83,209
15 Public Works GatewaySr Apt Pedestrian (800730) 2027 400- Capital Projects 350,000 350,000 16 Public Works CitywideTreeplantingproject 2027 420- Street TreeDevelopment - 198,000 17 Public Works/Fleet ReserveFireEngine 2026 600- Fleet Fund - 50,000 18 AdministrativeServices FY27LAWCXpremium increase 2027 605- Workers Compensation - 37,580 19 AdministrativeServices FY27Risk pool 2027 610- LiabilityInsurance - 269,750

11.2. City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Introduction and Adoption of an Urgency Ordinance Amending Chapter 8B of the Gilroy City Code Relating to Voluntary Campaign Expenditure Ceilings
Meeting Date: June 15, 2026
From: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted by: Harjot Sangha, Assistant City Administrator Prepared by: Harjot Sangha, Assistant City Administrator STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:

RECOMMENDATION

1. Introduce the ordinance by title only and waive the further reading; and

2. Adopt an urgency ordinance amending Chapter 8B of the Gilroy City Code relating to the voluntary campaign expenditure ceiling and making the finding that immediate implementation of the amendments is necessary to provide certainty to candidates and committees participating in the upcoming 2026 election cycle and to promote orderly election administration.

BACKGROUND
Chapter 8B of the Gilroy City Code establishes local campaign finance regulations, including contribution limits and voluntary expenditure ceilings. Following the City's transition to district-based elections, Council directed staff to evaluate whether the City's contribution limits and existing voluntary expenditure ceiling should be modified to better reflect district-level campaigns while maintaining simplicity and administrative efficiency.

ANALYSIS
On June 1, 2026, the City Council reviewed campaign finance laws and provided

11.2. direction to amend Chapter 8B of the Gilroy City Code. Specifically, Council directed staff to maintain the City's existing campaign contribution limit of $750 per election while modifying the voluntary campaign expenditure ceiling structure to reflect the City's district-based election system. The proposed ordinance establishes a voluntary expenditure ceiling of $25,000 for candidates seeking election to a district City Council seat, retains the existing citywide $1-per-resident voluntary expenditure ceiling for mayoral candidates, and provides for biennial Consumer Price Index adjustments to the district expenditure ceiling.

It is important to note that, per the City Charter, adoption of an urgency/emergency ordinance requires five affirmative votes from the City Council.

ALTERNATIVES
N/A.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Nominal impact for legal review and advertising costs is incurred and will be accommodated within existing budgetary appropriations.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
The subject has been included in the adopted biennial budget as a workplan item and in the publicly noticed City Council meeting agendas. Pending Council approval, staff will incorporate the revised limits into the candidate guide and make it available on the City’s website for potential candidates seeking to run for the office.

NEXT STEPS
If adopted, the ordinance shall become effective immediately as an urgency ordinance.

Attachments:

1. Ordinance

ORDINANCE NO.2026-xx

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF GILROY AMENDING CHAPTER 8B OF THE

GILROY CITY CODE RELATING TO VOLUNTARY

CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE CEILING
WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act") set forth in California Government Code section 81000 et. seq. governs the conduct of campaigns, and sections 81013 and 85703 grant local agencies the power to enact certain ordinances that govern the financing of local elections so long as the requirements do not interfere with a person's compliance with the Act; and
WHEREAS, monetary contributions and expenditures relating to political campaigns are a legitimate form of participation in the American political process, but large contributions and expenditures may have an undue influence on candidates or create the appearance of undue influence in the political process, and regulations are needed to prevent such undue influence; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 8B of the Gilroy City Code currently sets forth a monetary voluntary expenditure ceiling that a candidate may agree to, which ceiling is based upon the entire City population;
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy adopted ordinance 2025-04 to establish the election of members of the City Council by six districts; and
WHEREAS, the election for the office of Mayor continues to remain an at-large election; and
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2026, the City Council reviewed the City's campaign finance regulations and directed amendments to the City's voluntary campaign expenditure ceiling provisions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that immediate implementation of these amendments is necessary to provide certainty to candidates and committees participating in the upcoming 2026 election cycle and to promote orderly election administration; and WHEREAS, the subject ordinance amendment is covered under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as an activity that can be seen with certainty to have no possibility for causing a significant effect on the environment WHEREAS, this ordinance is adopted pursuant to the City's police powers and applicable provisions of the Political Reform Act.

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

1) SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF SECTION 8B.4(a)
Gilroy City Code Section 8B.4(a) governing voluntary expenditure ceiling is hereby amended to read as follows:
a) The city council does hereby establish a voluntary campaign expenditure ceiling as follows:
i) City Council District Elections. A candidate for the office of City Councilmember and for any and all controlled committees of such candidate, who voluntarily agrees to a campaign expenditure ceiling, shall not make qualified expenditures exceeding Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) per election. Should a candidate who has elected to comply with the voluntary campaign expenditure ceiling exceed that ceiling, he/she shall immediately notify all opponents and the city clerk by telephone and confirm the same in writing the day that such expenditure ceiling is exceeded. ii) Biennial Adjustment. Beginning in January 2028, the City Clerk shall, in evennumbered years, adjust the expenditure ceiling amount established in subsection (i) based solely upon the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Area, or successor index. The adjustment called for by this section shall be the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) computed by reference to the CPI as indexed from a base year that commences in October 2025. (By way of example, in January 2028, the City Clerk will adjust the voluntary expenditure ceiling amounts by determining the increase in CPI from October 2025 to October 2027). The adjustment to the voluntary expenditure limit shall be adopted by the City Council by resolution. The adjusted amount shall be rounded to the nearest one hundred dollars ($100).
iii) Mayoral Elections. A candidate for the office of Mayor and for any and all controlled committees of such candidate, who voluntarily agrees to a campaign expenditure ceiling, shall not make qualified expenditures exceeding one dollar ($1.00) multiplied by the population of the City of Gilroy as established by the most recent annual population estimate published by the California Department of Finance and as acknowledged by the City Council by resolution.
2) SECTION 2. REMAINING PROVISIONS UNCHANGED
Except as specifically amended by this ordinance, all other provisions of Chapter 8B of the Gilroy City Code shall remain in full force and effect. All references in other provisions of the Gilroy City Code to Chapter 8B or to the election campaign finance shall continue to apply to Chapter 8B as amended by this ordinance.
3) SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.

4) SECTION 3. URGENCY FINDINGS
The City Council finds that this ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare because immediate implementation is required to provide certainty to candidates, committees, election officials, and the public regarding applicable campaign finance rules for the upcoming election cycle and to ensure orderly administration of municipal elections. Accordingly, this ordinance will go into effect immediately as an urgency ordinance under state law and an emergency ordinance under Gilroy Charter Sections 602 and 608(d). As a fully separate basis upon which the ordinance will go into effect immediately, this ordinance is also an “ordinance calling or otherwise relating to an election” within the meaning of Gilroy Charter Section 602(a). 5) SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption pursuant to the urgency ordinance provisions of applicable law and the City Charter.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Gilroy on the 15th day of June 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:

Greg Bozzo, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kim Mancera, City Clerk

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Consideration of Options for Amending the Architectural and Site Review Permit Process (FAIR Memo – Marques and
Ramirez)
Meeting Date: June 15, 2026
From: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Department: Community Development
Submitted by: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director Prepared by: Michael Fossati, Planning Manager
Sharon Goei, Community Development Director
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to enhance public outreach and initiate the process to amend the Gilroy Zoning Code to require Planning Commission review and approval for development projects that require an Environmental Impact Report and have significant and unavoidable impact(s).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In January 2026, Councilmembers Carol Marques and Kelly Ramirez submitted a Future Agenda Item Request (FAIR) Memo requesting staff to review the Architectural and Site Review Permit process and propose ways to increase public engagement. See Attachment 1. In March 2026, after staff presented a brief report providing the current Architectural and Site Review Permit process and initial considerations, the City Council directed staff to return with options. This staff report outlines options for City Council consideration and recommends implementation of Options 1 and 2.

BACKGROUND
On January 25, 2026, Councilmembers Kelly Ramirez and Carol Marques submitted a FAIR Memo to the City Administrator requesting a review of the Architectural and Site

Review Permit process. This request was prompted by community concerns about the Gilroy Data Center in an industrially zoned area.

The Gilroy Data Center site has been designated General Industrial in the General Plan and zoning designation, and has been for many years, so no General Plan amendment or rezoning was required to allow the proposed use. Since the applicant did not propose a subdivision, a Tentative Map was not required. Therefore, the only discretionary City approval necessary was an Architectural and Site Review Permit. Furthermore, if the application addresses and adequately meets the requirements of the Zoning Code, the project should be approved. The decision to grant, deny, or condition an Architectural and Site Review permit is an administrative determination and does not require a hearing or public notice.

The City Council requested that staff present options regarding which applications may be appropriate to require public hearings and which decision-making body — staff, Planning Commission, or City Council — may be appropriate to conduct them, to ensure residents have a meaningful opportunity to participate. On March 16, 2026, after staff presented a brief report providing the current Architectural and Site Review Permit process and initial considerations, the City Council directed staff to return with options for consideration. This staff report fulfills that directive.

ANALYSIS
Current Architectural and Site Review Permits
Under Gilroy Zoning Code Section 30.50.40 (see Attachment 2), the intent of Architectural and Site Review is to “maintain or improve the character and integrity of a neighborhood or area by promoting excellence in development, preventing undue traffic hazards or congestion, and encouraging the most appropriate development and use of land in harmony with the surrounding environment and in accordance with the general plan.” An Architectural and Site Review Permit is required to construct, install, or significantly remodel a structure in an industrial, commercial, professional office, public facilities, or open space zoning district. An Architectural and Site Review Permit is also used for new, single-family and multifamily residential development. Between 2015 and 2025, the City of Gilroy processed an average of 30 Architectural and Site Review Permits annually.

The City has administratively approved several large-scale Architectural and Site Review Permits in accordance with the Zoning Code, without public notice or hearings, including the following:
• Performance Food Group at 5480 Monterey Road: a 347,651 square foot industrial building.
• McCarthy Industrial Buildings at 6500, 6503, 6601 Cameron Blvd. and 901–1001 Venture Way: one 183,600 square foot industrial building and one 198,965

square foot industrial building, totaling 382,565 square feet. • Gilroy Data Center by Amazon Web Services: a facility with two data center buildings at 218,000 square feet each and a 2,500 square foot security building, totaling 438,500 square feet. The Zoning Code does not define or classify “data centers” as a separate land use. Therefore, data center projects are reviewed under the same Architectural and Site Review process as general industrial developments.

Current Noticing Protocol
Staff currently supports community engagement by providing information through several channels. On the City’s website, staff maintains an online current planning and development project list, which is a project log of planning applications currently under review. Since 2023, staff has been creating webpages for projects of interest, showing project description, location, and status, along with a site plan and/or rendering.

Decision Making and Appeals
Zoning Code Section 30.50.41 assigns review and decision-making authority for Architectural and Site Review Permit applications to the Community Development Director or their designee. A public hearing and review by the Planning Commission or City Council is required in clearly-defined situations, as shown in the table on the following page. Decisions by staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission and those of the Planning Commission to the City Council. Anybody may file an appeal and appeals are subject to a City appeal fee.

Current Architectural and Site Review Approval Authority

OPTIONS
The staff recommendation includes implementation of two options for City Council consideration, each with outlined pros and cons. The Council may wish to approve the staff recommendation or modify it based on the included information.

Option 1: Increase Public Outreach upon Architectural and Site Review Permit Completeness, which includes Enhanced Public Notification and Applicant-Led Neighborhood Noticing and Community Meeting Implementation Under this option, the City would enhance public notification through several methods.

Upon receipt of a complete Architectural and Site Review Permit application, staff would:
• Update the City’s online development project list to provide current information Application Type Administrative
Staff Approval
Planning
Commission
Approval
City Council
Approval
Public
Hearing
Architectural and Site Review
Permit (unless indicated below) Decision Appeal Appeal No (unless appealed) Architectural and Site Review
Permit for Accessory Structure
over 12-feet high or two-stories
Decision Appeal Yes
Architectural and Site Review
Permit on Historic Site or
Historic Neighborhood
Decision Appeal Yes
Architectural and Site Review
Permit within the Murray / Las
Animas Overlay District
Decision Appeal Yes
Architectural and Site Review
Permit with another entitlement
that requires public hearing (e.g.

Planned Unit Development)
Recommend Decision Yes
Architectural and Site Review
Permit with another entitlement
that requires public hearing (e.g.

Tentative Map)
Recommend Decision Yes

on projects.
• Continue to create a webpage for large non-residential and multi-family residential projects with information on the project description, approval points, and opportunities for appeal of project approval.
• Add another public outreach component by including the project in the weekly email newsletter (i.e. Email Express) to provide early notice to the community. • Establish a policy requiring applicants to notify nearby property owners and residents when an application for an Architectural and Site Review Permit is deemed complete. The policy would follow current noticing procedures for projects requiring public hearings, except the notice need not be published in the local newspaper.
• Require applicants to mail notices and host a community meeting. The community meeting would provide a forum for the applicant to present the project, respond to questions, and gather feedback prior to a formal decision.

These policies would be codified through a Zoning Code amendment. • Require applicants to document community engagement efforts and submit to staff for inclusion in the project file to support transparency and potential appeals.

This option would moderately increase project costs, processing time, and staff oversight. Applicants would be responsible for costs related to noticing and community meetings. Standardized procedures and templates would promote consistency and reduce administrative burden.

Option 1 Pros and Cons
Pros Cons
• Increases community awareness and
transparency in the review of largescale or impactful projects without fundamentally altering the approval
process.
• Allows applicant to directly engage
with community members to explain
the project details and address
concerns in real time, potentially
improving project design and
community acceptance.
• Reduces the City’s direct staff costs
for noticing and meeting
administration by placing the
responsibility on the applicant.
• Preserves some certainty, in
comparison to public hearings, for
prospective developers considering
investment in Gilroy.
• Increases costs and processing time
relative to current procedures,
potentially affecting the City’s
competitiveness for attracting
industrial and commercial
development.
• May lead to inconsistencies in the
quality and effectiveness of
community meetings and community
experiences across projects,
depending on the applicant’s
approach.
• Staff oversight is necessary to ensure
compliance, which may increase
administrative complexity.
• Quality of applicant-led community
meetings may vary, even with
standardized requirements.

Option 2: Establish CEQA Thresholds for Planning Commission Review and Approval
The option would amend the Zoning Code to require Planning Commission review and approval for Architectural and Site Review Permit applications for projects that require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and would result in one or more significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA.

All other Architectural and Site Review Permit applications would continue to be reviewed administratively by the Community Development Director or their designee.

Decisions by staff may be appealed to the Planning Commission and those of the Planning Commission to the City Council.

This approach limits discretionary public hearing review to the most environmentally consequential projects, while maintaining a faster and more predictable administrative review process for all other development proposals. Administrative review is generally more efficient and less costly for applicants, whereas projects with significant and unavoidable impacts warrant a higher level of public review and decision-making.

Adoption of this approach would increase staff time and processing costs for the limited number of projects subject to Planning Commission review because those applications would require public hearing scheduling, agenda management, and additional administrative support.

Option 2 Pros and Cons
Pros Cons
• Maintains administrative, streamlined
process for Architectural and Site
Permit Review projects that do not
require an EIR.
• Applies uniformly to all projects that
have significant and unavoidable
impacts within the EIR.
• CEQA threshold allows City to
reserve Planning Commission time
and public hearing resources for
projects with environmentally
significant and unavoidable impacts.
• Elevating projects with statements of
overriding considerations to Planning
Commission aligns the level of review
with their environmental significance.
• Projects that may be locally visible or
controversial but do not trigger an EIR
with significant and unavoidable
impacts would be decided
administratively, offering fewer
opportunities for neighbors to
participate through a Planning
Commission hearing, unless the
project is appealed.
• Could create uncertainty for
prospective developers considering
investment in Gilroy. As a result, the
City’s ability to attract industrial and
commercial development could be
affected.
• CEQA threshold may create a
potential barrier to market-rate
housing production and economic
development due to the addition of
the public hearing step.

Option 3: Propose Other Options
Option 3 allows the City Council to direct staff accordingly. This option may or may not require a Zoning Code amendment.

ALTERNATIVES
City Council may:
• Select staff’s recommendation or one of the options presented above and direct staff to proceed accordingly.
• Propose other options.
• Take no action.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
If City Council accepts the staff recommendation, staff would perform a Zoning Code amendment, which would mainly involve staff time for research, ordinance and report preparation, public hearings, and legal review from the City Attorney. The funding source for the Zoning Code amendment is the General Fund.

For long-term fiscal impact, fee schedule adjustments for application/permit fees will be necessary to offset additional staff time. Implementing the staff recommendation would increase costs and project processing time for applicants, ranging from a few to several months.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Implementing the staff recommendation would require a duly noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council pursuant to Gilroy Zoning Code requirements and applicable provisions of Government Code Section 65853.

NEXT STEPS
If City Council accepts the staff recommendation, staff would draft Zoning Code amendment language as directed, schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission, and then return to City Council for adoption.

ATTACHMENTS

1. FAIR Memo (Councilmembers Ramirez and Marques, January 25, 2026)

2. Gilroy Zoning Code Section 30.50.40 – 47 Architectural and Site Review

January 25, 2026
Fair Memo: Review the City Zoning Code, Section 30.50.1.

Given the recent public concerns regarding the AWS data center that was approved by city staff, Councilmember Marques and I feel it is worth bringing up for review the Zoning Code that allows the Planning Director to approve an Architectural and Site Permit of a project without a public hearing.

In the case of the AWS Data Center, because the site has been designated as Industrial in the General Plan and zoned Industrial for many years, no general plan or rezoning was required. Nor, since the applicant was not planning to subdivide, was there a Tentative Map approval required. Thus, for this particular project, the only necessary discretionary City approval required was the Architecture and Site Review Permit.

This is due to a provision of the City Zoning Code that has been in place for many years.

Section 30.50.41 of the Zoning Code provides that a project to build new structures in an industrial zone requires an Architecture and Site Review Permit. That permit is granted or denied by the Planning Director, with appeal to the Planning Commission (per GCC section

30.50.47. We would like to propose for consideration, asking that staff be directed to return to council with options as to what hearings should be appropriate for certain application, and by which body (i.e., staff, Planning Commission, or City Council) to allow residents the opportunity to be engaged in the process.

We request that this be agendized for a council meeting in March, 2026.

Submitted by Councilmembers Kelly Ramirez and Carol Marques Financial impacts to publicize findings/mitigations and holding public hearings will be determined by staff.

30.50.40 Architectural and site review.

The intent of architectural and site approval is to maintain or improve the character and integrity of a neighborhood or area by promoting excellence in development, preventing undue traffic hazards or congestion, and encouraging the most appropriate development and use of land in harmony with the surrounding environment and in accordance with the general plan. (Ord. No. 2016-03, § 1, 3-7-16)

30.50.41 Review.
(a) Architectural and Site Review Permits. The community development director or designee shall review and decide applications for architectural and site approval, and shall be bound by any uniform standards adopted by the city council or planning commission relating to the intent, scope or review of architectural and site approval requirements. The community development director or designee shall review and may issue architectural and site approval for the following uses:
(1) Construction, installation, or major remodeling of structures in an industrial, commercial, professional office, public facilities or open space zone. Installation includes the location of trailers and mobile units on a site, unless such structures are temporary in nature in compliance with Article XLVII, Temporary Uses. Major remodeling includes building additions, as well as alterations within any twelve (12) month period exceeding fifty percent (50%) of the floor area, facade or value of the existing building. The value shall be determined by the city building department. Major interior remodeling projects may be exempt from review if they are determined by the director of planning not to be significant in terms of potential impacts to surrounding land uses and meet all other minimum city standards.
(2) Residential developments having two (2) or more total units on a parcel, unless otherwise exempted under this chapter.
(3) Relocated or moved buildings.
(4) Changes in historic site or neighborhood combining districts which the planning director determines are not significant, and thereby do not require further review, may receive an administratively approved architectural and site review permit, either through a new architectural and site review permit or through a minor modification process pursuant to subsection (b) of this section. The historic heritage committee shall review and make recommendations to the planning commission on applications for architectural and site approval which involve significant changes, and shall be bound by any uniform standards adopted by the city council or planning commission relating to the intent, scope or review of architectural and site approval requirements. The planning commission shall review and may issue architectural and site approval for the following uses:
a. Remodeling or construction in a historic neighborhood combining district, as defined in section 30.27.40(a), involving significant changes, as determined by the planning director. b. Remodeling or construction in a historic site combining district, as defined in section 30.27.40(b), involving significant changes, as determined by the planning director. (5) Development of four (4) or more single-family residential parcels which have been created from the same parcel map, tentative map or final map.
(6) Site improvements in commercial and industrial districts intended to allow for establishment of a new use or expansion of an existing use on property for which prior legal improvements have not been installed. Such new improvements could include, but not be limited to, grading, paving and fencing. 2/23/26, 3:09 PM Zoning 30.50 PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATIONS https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Gilroy/#!/Gilroy30/Gilroy3050.html#30.50 1/7

(7) Use of a lot for outdoor uses or storage purposes, except for exterior storage in private residential yards that conforms to other provisions of the municipal code.
(8) Homes and accessory structures requiring building permits within the residential hillside zoning district, except for those accessory structures approved under the minor modification provisions in subsection (b) of this section. (9) Building demolitions, except for the following:
a. Demolition of a nonhistoric single-family home for which building permits have been issued for a replacement single-family house. For the purposes of this section, a historic home shall be any home in the historic neighborhood combining district, a designated historic site, or any structure meeting the criteria established in section 30.27.30.
b. Demolition or removal of a building which the city building official has determined to be an immediate threat to public health or safety.
c. Demolition or removal of a building that has been ordered to be removed or demolished by the code enforcement appeals hearing board or by a court of law. d. Demolition or removal of residential accessory structures, except for historic properties (subject to section

30.27.50), and subject to the provision of on-site parking. e. Demolitions of nonresidential buildings no greater than one thousand (1,000) square feet that are approved through the minor modification process.
f. Demolitions that, due to their size, nature, condition, or other factors, are determined by the community development director or designee to not require an architectural and site permit. (10) The creation, on or above ground, through installation, construction, or replacement, of two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet or more of impervious surface, except that single-family detached residences that are not within the residential hillside zoning district, a planned unit development overlay district, or the historic neighborhood combining district are not subject to the architectural and site permit process. For purposes of this section, the calculation of the two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of new or replaced impervious surface shall represent the total of all newly created impervious surfaces, whether on structures, pavement, or any other surface.
(11) Changes identified in subsection (b) of this section that are not approved as a minor modification.

Any other remodeling, except as indicated above or as indicated in subsection (b) of this section, shall be exempt from architectural and site or minor modification approval. For changes requiring a minor modification or architectural and site review permit, a building permit shall not be issued until architectural and site or minor modification approval is obtained from the community development director or the planning commission, if appealed. (b) Minor Modifications. A minor modification may be conducted only where such approval would be consistent and comply with all applicable local laws in effect at the time of issuance, including without limitation the city’s general plan and the provisions of the City Code. The intent of the minor modification process is to facilitate minor changes that maintain or improve the aesthetic, historic, architectural, landscape, or other qualities of properties. Minor modifications consistent with this section may, without limitation, be conducted to implement section 30.26.50(b), 30.50.47(d), or 30.50.50(g). No proposals requiring a new negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report as clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act shall be allowed through the minor modification process.
2/23/26, 3:09 PM Zoning 30.50 PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATIONS https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Gilroy/#!/Gilroy30/Gilroy3050.html#30.50 2/7

The community development director or designee may, at the director’s sole discretion, approve a minor modification for the following elements, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this section:
(1) Changes to previously approved development permits but only for minor modification of architectural elements, exterior lighting or landscape details (including but not limited to minor storefront alterations, relocation of doors, equipment screening, minor landscape furniture and structures, benches, small trellises, and planters) which do not affect the use, intensity, general character, architectural style, circulation or other site function of the project. (2) The creation, on or above ground, through installation, construction, or replacement, of less than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of impervious surface, except that single-family detached residences that are not within the residential hillside zoning district, a planned unit development overlay district, or the historic neighborhood combining district are not subject to the minor modification process. For purposes of this section, the calculation of the maximum square feet of new or replaced impervious surface shall represent the total of all newly created impervious surfaces, whether on structures, pavement, or any other surface. (3) The replacement, repaving, reconfiguration, or restriping of parking spaces on existing surfaces. (4) Building additions or accessory structures of less than one thousand (1,000) square feet or less than twenty percent (20%) of the building area prior to the addition in area, whichever is smaller, to nonresidential buildings. (5) Building additions or accessory structures of two hundred fifty (250) square feet in total area or less, or less than twenty percent (20%) of the total building area prior to the addition, whichever is smaller, to hillside singlefamily residences, residences in planned unit development overlay zones, a duplex, or a multiple-family building; provided, that current parking regulations are being met and would continue to be met after the completion of any addition and provided that site amenities are not adversely impacted. (6) Above ground storage tanks of two thousand (2,000) gallons or less in zoning districts other than industrial zoning districts and an above ground storage tank of ten thousand (10,000) gallons or less in an industrial zoning district.
(7) Demolition of nonresidential buildings less than one thousand (1,000) square feet. (8) For properties designated as a historic site or within a historic neighborhood combining district, minor modifications can be processed and approved for the following:
a. Minor modifications of architectural elements, landscape details (including but not limited to equipment screening, minor landscape furniture and structures, benches, small trellises and planters), or installation of new or additional pavement that do not affect the historic significance, use, intensity, general character, architectural style, circulation or other site function of the property. b. Accessory structures or building additions that do not exceed two hundred fifty (250) square feet in area and that are consistent with historic compatibility criteria and applicable design guidelines and standards. (9) Other similar minor items, as determined by the community development director.

The decision to grant, deny or condition a minor modification is an administrative determination and requires no hearing or public notice. The action of the community development director or designee shall be final, and nothing herein shall be deemed or construed to confer on an applicant a right to a minor modification or to require the director to issue a minor modification. If the community development director denies a minor modification, nothing herein shall preclude the applicant from thereafter filing an application for an appropriate development permit. 2/23/26, 3:09 PM Zoning 30.50 PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATIONS https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Gilroy/#!/Gilroy30/Gilroy3050.html#30.50 3/7

Where property was developed prior to the requirement of an architecture and site permit, minor modifications for projects as set forth in this subsection (b) may be approved without the necessity of the issuance of a full site architecture and site permit. The minor modification process may, at the community development director’s discretion, also be used to make the above-noted modifications to an approved planned unit development permit. (Ord. No. 2016- 03, § 1, 3-7-16; Ord. No. 2019-08, § 28, 10-7-19)

30.50.42 Filing of application.

Applications for architectural and site approval shall be filed with the planning department. The department shall prescribe the form and content of the application. A site development plan and architectural design drawings shall accompany the application. If development is to be carried out in stages, each stage shall be shown on a master plan of development. (Ord. No. 2013-08, § 2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13)

30.50.43 Scope of review.

The planning director shall review the application to insure that the development addresses and adequately meets requirements for the following:
(a) Traffic Safety and Efficiency.
(1) Traffic volume and conditions on abutting or access streets. (2) Street improvements, including lighting.
(3) Circulation patterns within the development, including the locations and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exits, drives, walkways, buildings and other related facilities. (4) Adequacy of off-street parking.
(5) Surfacing, lighting and landscaping of off-street parking facilities. (6) Location, quantity, height of materials, and shape of landscaped areas. (7) Adequacy, location, arrangement and dimensions of truck loading and unloading facilities. (b) Outdoor Advertising and Signs.
(1) Potential traffic hazards.
(2) Appearance.
(3) Harmony with adjacent development.
(4) Favorable image of the city.
(5) Number, area, bulk, shape, height, location, separation, clearance, projection, illumination, color and landscaping of such signs.
(c) Site Development.
(1) Physical characteristics of the site.
(2) Existing and proposed easements.
(3) Appearance and harmony of buildings with adjacent development, the character of the neighborhood, and existing and projected public improvements.
2/23/26, 3:09 PM Zoning 30.50 PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATIONS https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Gilroy/#!/Gilroy30/Gilroy3050.html#30.50 4/7

(4) Location, appearance and orientation of structures, open spaces and activities. (5) Determination of boundaries, building setbacks and uses intended. (d) Landscaping.
(1) Harmony with adjacent development.
(2) Concealment of storage areas, utility installations, or other unsightly development. (3) Quantity, location, height and materials of walls and fences, hedges, screen planting and landscaped areas. (4) Planting of ground cover or other surfacing to prevent erosion and reduce dust. (5) Unnecessary destruction of healthy trees.
(6) Facilities and methods of insuring continued maintenance of landscaping. (e) Drainage and Flood Control and Health Standards.
(1) Effect on flood control and storm and surface water drainage facilities. (2) Additional flood control and drainage improvements required. (3) Minimum health standards.
(4) Consistency with the city’s adopted flood plain management ordinance. (f) Fire Protection.
(1) Additional fire protection improvements required.
(2) Location, number and type of such improvements.
(3) Adequacy of the water supply for fire protection purposes. (g) Environmental Impacts.
(1) Consistency with the city’s adopted environmental review procedures and process. (2) Consistency with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The planning director may request any information, including maps, impact reports, and/or design criteria, deemed necessary to evaluate the application. (Ord. No. 2013-08, § 2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13)

30.50.44 Conditions.

The granting of architectural and site approval may include such conditions as the planning director deems reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to carry out the requirements of the zoning district and the intent of architectural and site approval, and to insure that the development will meet the requirements enumerated in section 30.50.43. The following conditions shall be standard on all architectural and site approvals, where applicable:
(a) Landscaping. Landscaping plans including specifications for an irrigation system shall be approved by the planning director in accordance with Article XXXVIII, prior to issuance of a building permit. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in an orderly, live, healthy, and relatively weed-free condition, in accordance with the approved specific landscape plan.
2/23/26, 3:09 PM Zoning 30.50 PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATIONS https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Gilroy/#!/Gilroy30/Gilroy3050.html#30.50 5/7

(b) Trash Enclosures. All trash enclosures shall consist of visually solid fences and gates, six (6) feet in height, in accordance with the adopted City of Gilroy standard trash enclosure design plan, or a similar design approved by the planning director. All trash enclosures shall be located in accordance with the approved site plan and the Uniform Fire Code. In addition, recycling areas must be provided within the trash enclosures, in accordance with the following regulations:
(1) Areas for recycling shall be adequate in capacity, number, and distribution to serve the development project. (2) Dimensions of the recycling area shall accommodate receptacles sufficient to meet the recycling needs of the development project.
(3) An adequate number of bins or containers to allow for the collection and loading of recyclable materials generated by the development project should be located within the recycling area. (c) Exterior Lighting. No unobstructed beam of exterior lighting shall be directed outward from the site toward any residential use or public right-of-way. Lighting shall be constructed or located so that only the intended area is illuminated and off-site glare is fully controlled.
(d) Mechanical Equipment. Mechanical equipment to be located on the roof of a building shall be screened by an architectural feature of the building such that it cannot be seen from ground level at the far side of the adjacent public right-of-way.
(e) Outdoor Storage. All outdoor storage and loading areas must be screened from public view with a combination of landscaping, solid fencing, and building design and orientation. (f) All backflow devices shall be painted an earth tone color, so that they blend with their surroundings, and shall be heavily landscaped.

Other conditions may include, but are not limited to, conditions regarding site planning, architecture, engineering, landscaping, street dedication, flood control and drainage, street drainage and flood control improvements, building setbacks, off-street parking, off-street loading, outdoor advertising, street lighting, survey of property, fire protection, excavation, grading, sewage disposal, water supply, geological engineering, and environmental concerns.

Such conditions may also include the execution of a land development agreement with the city to fulfill the conditions of architectural and site approval within a specified period of time. Said agreement may be secured by a good and sufficient improvement security. A liability insurance policy in amounts and form may be required. (Ord. No. 2013-08, § 2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13; Ord. No. 2019-08, §§ 29, 30, 10-7-19)

30.50.45 Inspection prior to use and occupancy.

The conditions of an architectural and site approval may prohibit a building, structure or land use to be occupied until an inspection has been made and it is found that the building, structure or land use complies with all the conditions required to be completed prior to occupancy. If a building permit is issued for a building or structure which is subject to an architectural and site approval, the building inspector shall not approve a final inspection of such building or structure until the planning director or an authorized representative has inspected the building or structure and approved the use and occupancy. (Ord. No. 2013-08, § 2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13)

30.50.46 Notification of approval.

Upon the grant of an architectural and site approval, the planning department shall prepare and deliver a letter of approval with any conditions attached thereto to the applicant. The planning director shall report to the planning commission all approvals and disapprovals. (Ord. No. 2013-08, § 2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13)

30.50.47 Terms of approval.
2/23/26, 3:09 PM Zoning 30.50 PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATIONS https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Gilroy/#!/Gilroy30/Gilroy3050.html#30.50 6/7

(a) Time Limits. If any development for which architectural and site approval has been granted has not obtained building permits within one (1) year from the date of notification of approval, the approval shall be deemed automatically revoked.

Upon application, an extension of time may be granted by the planning director. (b) Transfer. Architectural and site approval shall be deemed revoked if the use for which the approval is granted is changed unless, upon application to the planning director, the approval is transferred. The planning director shall transfer the approval to the new use if the previous approval meets the requirements of this section for the changed use.

If the planning director does not reissue the approval, a new application must be filed. (c) Conformance to Approval. Development for which architectural and site approval has been granted shall conform to the approval and any conditions attached thereto.
(d) Modification. Upon request of the applicant, modifications of the approved plan, which meet the requirements of this chapter, may be approved by the planning director.
(e) Appeal. Anyone so desiring may appeal the decision of the planning director by written request to the planning commission and payment of the appeal fee within twenty (20) days of the planning director’s determination. (Ord. No. 2013-08, § 2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13)
2/23/26, 3:09 PM Zoning 30.50 PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPLICATIONS https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Gilroy/#!/Gilroy30/Gilroy3050.html#30.50 7/7