Category Created
% Closed
Within SLA Created
% Closed
Within SLA Created
% Closed
Within SLA Created
% Closed
Within SLA Created
% Closed
Within SLA
Animals 26 85% 8 88% 0 0 0
Blight 154 85% 149 85% 84 87% 49 86% 10 100%
Bollard Issue 3 67% 0 0 0 0
Chemical Spill 12 92% 8 100% 1 100% 1 100% 0
City Facility Damage 16 69% 13 77% 10 70% 2 50% 1 0%
Claim Form Request 5 60% 4 75% 3 100% 1 100% 0
Email the City 75 59% 54 64% 27 69% 18 82% 7 83%
Emergency Preparedness Presentation Request 1 0% 1 0% 0 0 0 Fire Engine Visit/Station Tour Request Form 1 0% 0 0 0 0 Fire Hydrants 9 44% 6 17% 4 0% 2 0% 1 0%
Flooding 13 31% 11 18% 6 33% 4 0% 4 0%
Food Trucks/Food Vendors 40 65% 32 72% 12 100% 6 100% 3 100% Garbage - In a Park 22 73% 12 67% 8 63% 6 50% 1 0%
Garbage - On Private Property 100 83% 60 83% 26 84% 12 91% 7 100% Garbage - On Public Right-of-Way 189 54% 138 52% 74 58% 36 44% 9 67% Graffiti - In a Park 70 34% 34 32% 17 29% 7 29% 1 100%
Graffiti - On City Property 80 84% 54 85% 39 92% 18 89% 7 86% Graffiti - On Private Property 158 70% 79 62% 24 70% 10 33% 4 100% Graffiti - On the Street/Sidewalk 45 51% 27 59% 19 63% 10 50% 3 100% Inoperable/Abandoned Vehicles - On Private Property 58 61% 34 65% 13 82% 8 75% 2 100% Inoperable/Abandoned Vehicles - On Public Right-of-Way567 57% 500 59% 262 79% 148 84% 77 91% Park Lighting Issue 0 0 0 0 0
Parking Issues - On Private Property 43 67% 43 67% 23 74% 7 71% 2 100% Parking Issues - On Public Right-of-Way 444 58% 370 58% 153 77% 88 79% 34 94% Parks 32 59% 14 57% 1 100% 0 0
Parks - Bench/Table Repairs 21 81% 14 86% 7 71% 3 67% 2 100% Parks - Irrigation 22 32% 18 33% 8 38% 4 25% 3 33%
Parks - Landscaping 66 89% 63 91% 47 91% 21 95% 7 86%
Parks - Play Structures 22 26% 17 25% 10 20% 8 0% 4 0%
Parks - Restrooms 6 50% 3 100% 1 100% 0 0
Parks - Trees 16 63% 11 55% 6 67% 4 100% 2 100%
Parks and Recreational Trails 0 0 0 0 0
Proclamation/Certificate Request 1 100% 0 0 0 0
Public Records Request 0 0 0 0 0
Recreational Vehicles - On Private Property 19 95% 16 94% 9 100% 5 100% 3 100% All Time Trailing 3 Months Trailing 30 Days
Gilroy's SLA Performance Overview
Exhibit C
Trailing 12 Months Trailing 6 Months
Recreational Vehicles - On Public Right-of-Way 196 42% 143 45% 26 92% 12 100% 9 100% Sewer Issues 7 71% 5 60% 2 50% 0 0
Shopping Cart - On Public Right-of-Way 93 75% 84 77% 51 84% 29 76% 7 100% Shopping Carts 0 0 0 0 0
Sidewalks 101 30% 68 43% 46 59% 28 75% 6 83%
Signs - On Private Property 45 76% 33 82% 11 91% 6 100% 2 100% Signs - On the Public Right-of-Way 65 60% 53 68% 8 75% 5 60% 4 75% Signs - Regulatory Broken/Damaged 26 23% 19 26% 9 22% 7 14% 4 0% Signs - Wayfinding Broken/Damaged 9 56% 5 80% 3 100% 3 100% 1 100% Smoking Violation 3 0% 3 0% 2 0% 2 0% 1 0%
Special Event Permit Process 2 50% 2 50% 2 50% 1 0% 1 0% Spills and Illicit Discharge 6 40% 6 40% 5 25% 3 50% 2 0% Storm Drains 11 55% 7 71% 5 80% 3 67% 1 100%
Streetlights 128 81% 101 89% 58 95% 20 89% 6 100%
Streets 303 57% 205 71% 122 78% 58 76% 13 92%
Tennis Court Issue 0 0 0 0 0
TEST 3 67% 1 100% 0 0 0
Traffic Calming Requests 53 38% 44 41% 22 68% 7 29% 1 100% Traffic Signals 145 86% 124 94% 64 97% 24 100% 12 100%
Trees 101 48% 79 51% 40 69% 24 75% 7 67%
Unhoused Encampments 265 68% 203 69% 96 83% 51 90% 16 94% Unpermitted Construction 28 80% 20 100% 8 100% 4 100% 1 Water Leak/Flow Issue 48 40% 38 34% 26 27% 19 26% 9 33% Weeds - In a Park 4 75% 2 50% 0 0 0
Weeds - On Private Property 60 82% 33 69% 19 40% 11 43% 5 100% Weeds - Street/Median 48 52% 26 46% 12 80% 7 100% 3 100% Weeds - Vacant Lots 18 38% 11 56% 10 50% 7 60% 2
TOTAL/AVERAGE 4104 62% 3108 65% 1541 76% 809 75% 307 83% *Data for this report was collected on July 23, 2026. This report includes all service request categories to date, including active categories, categories that have been removed, and informational categories
Exhibit D1
Benchmarking Overview Narrative
GilroyConnect Benchmarking Analysis – Key Summary
Staff conducted a benchmarking review of 21 California agencies using the SeeClickFix platform to evaluate how the City of Gilroy’s Service Level Agreements (SLAs) compared to peer jurisdictions. Eleven of these agencies actively use SLAs, though most apply them selectively and only to a limited number of request categories. Gilroy is one of the few agencies that assigns SLAs to all active service request categories, reflecting a more comprehensive approach to performance tracking.
Because agencies define and organize request categories differently, staff aligned categories based on the closest functional match. Many of Gilroy’s categories matched only a small number of peer cities, and SLA timelines varied widely, ranging from 7 to 30 days for comparable service types.
This comparison has limitations. Findings are approximate due to limited public information about other cities’ SLAs, differences in internal workflows, and variations in how jurisdictions define or close service requests.
Introduction and Methodology
To understand how Gilroy’s SLAs compare to regional and similar-sized jurisdictions, staff identified peer agencies using the SeeClickFix platform. Staff began by reviewing Bay Area and nearby cities, later expanding to other cities in the State, contacting them directly to request their SLAs.
SLA documentation is not publicly posted by agencies and required substantial follow‑up, including formal public records requests. Staff contacted 21 agencies; five provided information proactively, and sixteen responded to public records requests.
Among these 21 agencies, 11 agencies actively use at least one SLA, and 10 agencies do not use SLAs. This variation suggests differing approaches to service delivery, workflow management, and performance tracking. To see the full list of cities used in the benchmarking comparison and how staff obtained their SLA data please see Exhibit D2.
Category Alignment Approach
To compare SLAs across jurisdictions, staff aligned each city’s request categories with Gilroy’s to the extent possible. Because cities define, structure, and use categories differently, the comparison relied on identifying the closest functional match rather than a strict name match.
Only categories with an assigned SLA were included, since many agencies maintain numerous categories but apply SLAs to only one or a few. Staff identified comparable categories based on purpose, naming, and service type (e.g., graffiti, garbage, weeds).
When a peer city had a category similar to Gilroy’s but without an SLA, staff used the closest functional equivalent rather than selecting an unrelated category simply because it contained an SLA. Some peer categories could not be matched due to limited information or because a city used highly specific categories not comparable to Gilroy’s.
These categories were excluded to maintain reporting consistency.
Overview of Peer City SLA Structures and Alignment
Exhibit D3 compares the number of service request categories and assigned SLAs used by peer cities, and how many SLA categories could be aligned with Gilroy’s categories.
Key findings:
- Gilroy is one of three cities that assigns SLAs to all active categories. - Peer cities using SLAs maintain an average of 30 request categories but assign only 19 SLAs on average.
- At the time of benchmarking, Gilroy maintained 53 active request categories, all with assigned SLAs.
GilroyConnect also includes closed-submission categories used for informational purposes. Because the City does not have visibility into how peer jurisdictions organize informational-only categories, staff could not determine whether these were included in other cities’ data.
Cities varied significantly in their SLA strategies. Dublin, San Rafael, and Watsonville assign SLAs to all categories. In contrast, Diamond Bar and South San Francisco assign an SLA to only a single category. Seven of the eleven SLA‑utilizing cities use ten or fewer SLAs.
Cities with fewer categories or fewer SLAs often use broad classifications. For example, Gilroy uses four separate graffiti categories (park, city property, private property, street/sidewalk), while cities such as Diamond Bar, Lake Elsinore, and San Rafael use a single “Graffiti” category.
Category names do not guarantee alignment of underlying work. A “Trees” category may include routine trimming, hazardous limb removal, full removal, or aesthetic maintenance depending on the city, each with different urgency and staffing considerations. Similar category names do not mean that similar requests are grouped or handled under the same category at all agencies.
The number of matched SLA categories varied widely. One peer city’s service request categories aligned with 37 of Gilroy’s categories, while others aligned with only one.
Variation in SLA Timeframes
Exhibit D4 uses a color‑coding system to compare Gilroy’s SLAs with peer cities:
- Green (34 categories): Gilroy’s SLA is lower than the peer‑city average. - Yellow (3 categories): Gilroy’s SLA is above the average but below the highest. - Red (10 categories): Gilroy’s SLA is the highest or tied for highest. - Black (6 categories): No comparable SLA data available.
Gilroy’s SLA is lower than the average in 34 categories, indicating shorter expected completion timelines for most comparable service types. For example, Gilroy’s SLA for unhoused encampments is 20 days, compared to 45 days for a comparable agency.
Gilroy’s SLA is above the peer average in three categories (Email the City, Parking Issues – Public Right-of-Way, and Weeds – Vacant Lots) but remains below the highest SLA among peer agencies. Gilroy’s 20‑day parking SLA reflects staffing levels and workload balancing; peer agencies range from 6 days (Dublin) to 30 days (Alameda).
Several categories where Gilroy’s SLA is longer related to code enforcement, including blight and garbage on private property. These cases require private property‑owner compliance, additional follow‑up, and extended resolution timelines.
Across five categories, SLA timelines among peer cities ranged from 7 to 30 days, demonstrating substantial variation in service expectations. National City assigns a universal 7‑day SLA to all categories, while Gilroy uses category‑specific SLAs based on urgency, complexity, and resource availability.
Operational differences also influence SLA timelines. Some cities consider requests complete once they are forwarded to another system or after an initial response, resulting in shorter reported SLAs than cities that track requests through full resolution.
Overall, 32 categories aligned with three or fewer peer agencies, while 21 categories aligned with four or more. This limited alignment demonstrates the wide variation in how other agencies structure, name, and use service request categories.
Limitations
The benchmarking comparison is not a one‑to‑one comparison, as differences in how agencies define, structure, and apply service request categories are not known, limiting staff’s ability to create precise category alignment.
Exhibit D2
Method for Obtaining SLA Data from Peer Cities
City
Information
Released
Proactively
Records
Provided
through Public
Records
Request
Uses
SLAs
Does Not
Use SLAs
City of Alameda X X
City of Antioch X X
City of Berkeley X X
City of Camarillo X X
City of Coachella X X
City of Diamond Bar X X
City of Dublin X X
City of Emeryville X X
City of Hanford X X
City of La Mesa X X
City of Lake
Elsinore X
X
City of Milpitas X X
City of Morgan Hill X X
City of National City X X
City of Poway X X
City of San
Clemente X X
City of San Rafael X X
City of South San
Francisco X
X
City of Tustin X X
City of Walnut
Creek X X
City of Watsonville X X
5 16 11 10
Exhibit D3
Comparison of SLA Totals and Category Alignment
City Number of
Categories
Number of
SLAs
Number of SLAs Matched
to a City of Gilroy Category
City of Gilroy 53 53 N/A
City of Alameda 56 34 24
City of Camarillo 27 6 8
City of Diamond Bar 18 1 1
City of Dublin 58 58 37
City of Lake Elsinore 25 4 3
City of Milpitas 36 35 34
City of National City 31 10 17
City of San Rafael 17 17 29
City of South San
Francisco
26 1 1
City of Tustin 14 4 4
City of Watsonville 7 7 16
*City of Gilroy’s number of active categories at the end of 2025.
Categories City of Gilroy's SLAs Min SLA Days Max SLA Days Average SLA Days Number of Service
Request Categories
Matched Across Cities
Blight 30 7 30 18.5 2
City Facility Damage 4 2 30 11.2 5
Claim Form Request 2 0 0 #DIV/0! 0
Email the City 7 0.3 15 6.8 4
Emergency Preparedness Presentation Request 7 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 Fire Hydrants 5 14 14 14.0 1
Flooding 1 2 7 4.5 2
Food Trucks/Food Vendors 15 3 3 3.0 1
Garbage - In a Park 2 3 14 8.5 6
Garbage - On Private Property 30 7 30 12.8 5
Garbage - On Public Right-of-Way 3 3 14 8.5 6
Graffiti - In a Park 1 5 20 9.5 6
Graffiti - On City Property 20 5 20 9.5 6
Graffiti - On Private Property 25 7 30 16.8 4
Graffiti - On the Street/Sidewalk 7 5 20 9.5 6
Hazardous Materials 2 0 0 #DIV/0! 0
Inoperable/Abandoned Vehicles - On Private Property 30 7 30 18.5 2 Inoperable/Abandoned Vehicles - On Public Right-of-Way 20 4 7 6.0 3 Parking Issues - On Private Property 15 7 30 18.5 2
Parking Issues - On Public Right-of-Way 20 6 30 14.3 3
Parks 14 10 21 15.3 3
Parks - Bench/Table Repairs 7 4 21 11.7 3
Parks - Irrigation 1 10 30 19.0 4
Parks - Landscaping 14 10 30 17.2 5
Parks - Play Structures 1 10 21 13.7 3
Parks - Restrooms 1 1 21 9.3 4
Parks - Trees 15 10 30 17.2 5
Proclamation/Certificate Request 7 0 0 #DIV/0! 0
Recreational Vehicles - On Private Property 30 7 30 18.5 2 Recreational Vehicles - On Public Right-of-Way 20 6 7 6.5 2 Sewer Issues 1 2 30 15.7 3
Shopping Cart - On Public Right-of-Way 7 3 3 3.0 1
Sidewalks 10 10 30 20.0 5
Signs - On Private Property 20 30 30 30.0 1
Signs - On the Public Right-of-Way 10 14 15 14.5 2
Signs - Regulatory Broken/Damaged 2 5 30 21.7 3
Signs - Wayfinding Broken/Damaged 10 5 30 21.7 3
Exhibit D4
Benchmarking Comparison
Smoking Violation 10 10 20 15.0 2
Special Event Permit Process 7 0 0 #DIV/0! 0
Spills and Illicit Discharge 2 2 3 2.5 2
Storm Drains 7 10 30 18.0 3
Streetlights 14 5 30 15.0 3
Streets 14 5 30 15.8 5
Traffic Calming Requests 3 5 10 7.3 3
Traffic Signals 14 5 90 29.8 4
Trees 15 10 90 31.0 5
Unhoused Encampments 20 10 45 27.5 2
Unpermitted Construction 45 0 0 #DIV/0! 0
Water Leak/Flow Issue 1 2 2 2.0 2
Weeds - In a Park 14 10 45 22.0 5
Weeds - On Private Property 20 10 45 28.8 4
Weeds - Street/Median 14 10 45 21.0 5
Weeds - Vacant Lots 30 10 45 28.8 4
Number of Categories Color
34 Green
3 Yellow
10 Red
6 Black
Gilroy’s SLA is lower than the average SLA used by comparison cities.
Gilroy’s SLA is higher than the average but not the highest among comparison cities.
Gilroy’s SLA is the highest or tied for the highest among comparison cities.
No SLA data is available for comparison.
Legend
Description
*This table is based off the list of service request categories active at the end of 2025. These categories were used as the basis for the benchmarking analysis conducted.
Updated 2026-03-10
Exhibit E
GilroyConnect Standard Practices
1. Departments are Responsible for Assigning Their Own Tickets - Action: The Administration Department is no longer dispatching service requests.
Each department is responsible for assigning/recategorizing requests submitted into their department’s categories.
- If a request is submitted to your department in error, it is the receiving department’s responsibility to reassign and recategorize it appropriately.
2. No Cold Reassignments
- Action: When reassigning a request to another department/division staff must confirm with the next assignee that the request belongs to them before reassigning.
3. Provide a Resolution Plan
- Timeframe: Within five business days of submission
- Action: Share your plan to address the issue, including either an estimated resolution date, or the date you will provide the next status update.
4. Provide Regular Updates
- Timeframe: At minimum, updates must be provided once per week, unless a date for the next status update has already been provided to the requester. - Action: Inform the requester that the request is still in progress and provide any relevant updates.
5. Comments Limited to the Original Reporting Party, Managers, and Supervisors
- Action: Limit public comments by staff to managers and supervisors. Department head approval required for all other staff.
- Comments have been restricted to not allow outside constituents to speak on requests that are not theirs.
6. Close Tickets for Lack of Information
- Timeframe: One week after two requests for additional information have been sent and no response has been received.
- Action: Notify the requester that their service request will be closed due to lack of information and close the request.
Updated 2026-03-10
7. Close Tickets Referred to Outside Agencies
- Action: Service requests determined to be outside of the City’s jurisdiction should be referred to the appropriate external agency, with relevant information documented in the public comments, and then closed.
- City staff will not monitor or track the performance of outside organizations in the system; however, we will continue to provide guidance to individuals seeking information regarding outside agencies when appropriate.
8. Close Tickets Requiring Extended Resolution Timeframes - Action: Service requests involving long-term planning, evaluation, or queuing for future action, should be closed once the request has been reviewed, logged internally, and responded to.
- Examples: Traffic control measures (i.e., traffic signs, speed limit changes, stop signs/traffic signals), sidewalk and severe road damage (not including potholes), requests for new or enhanced facilities, unhoused encampments)
9. Close and Confirm Completion
- Timeframe: Immediately upon resolution
- Action: Close the request and provide a public comment detailing how the issue was resolved.
10.Request Submitted by Council Members
- Action: Treat requests from City Council members with the same urgency, professionalism, and communication standards as requests from other constituents.
11.Pictures of Complete Work
- Action: When possible, attach photos of complete work to show the requester/community the outcome of their requests and confirm resolution.
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Consider Recommended Actions Before Adopting a Zoning Code Amendment to Section 30.41.31 (Specific Provisions – Noise) (FAIR Memo – Hilton)
Meeting Date: August 3, 2026
From: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Department: Community Development
Submitted by: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director Prepared by: Michael Fossati, Planning Manager
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Not Applicable
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize action 1, or actions 2 and 3 concurrently, before final adoption of any Zoning Code amendment to Section 30.41.31 (Specific Provisions – Noise):
1. Direct staff to draft regulations addressing noise-generating uses near residential zones, such as drive-through facilities, for a Zoning Code amendment.
Or
2. Direct staff to prepare a Zoning Code amendment to Section 30.41.31; and
3. Direct staff to retain the services of a qualified acoustical engineer to conduct a technical analysis of the proposed amendment, quantify the actual reduction in noise levels experienced at residential property lines, and evaluate the feasibility of achieving the proposed standard without materially impacting commercial, industrial, and mixed-use development.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On February 10, 2026, Councilmember Zach Hilton submitted a FAIR Memo proposing amendments to Gilroy City Code Section 30.41.31 (Specific Provisions – Noise) within Article 30.41 (Performance Standards). On April 20, 2026, the City Council reviewed the FAIR Memo and directed staff to return with recommended actions for consideration
before adopting a Zoning Code amendment. This staff report provides initial analysis and action items. Staff recommends that Council direct staff to draft regulations addressing noise-generating uses near residential zones, such as drive-through facilities, for a Zoning Code amendment. Alternatively, staff recommends that two other actions be considered together by City Council so that the acoustical analysis is available to the Planning Commission and City Council before final adoption of any amendment.
BACKGROUND
Article 30.41 of the Gilroy City Code establishes performance standards that apply to all uses in the City. This includes noise. Section 30.41.31 governs noise emissions from any premises and currently provides, in relevant part, that no use shall produce noise exceeding 70 dBA (L10) at the property line of any residentially zoned property, except that the noise level may be exceeded for no more than 10 percent of the time.
On February 10, 2026, Councilmember Zach Hilton submitted a FAIR Memo (Attachment 1) proposing amendments to Gilroy City Code Section 30.41.31 (Specific Provisions – Noise) within Article 30.41 (Performance Standards). The proposal recommends three principal changes:
(1) Reduce the maximum noise level at the property line of any residentially zoned property from 70 dBA1(L102) to 60 dBA (L10) between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; (2) Remove the word “prohibited” from Section 30.41.31. (3) Prohibit the use of outdoor power tools, yard, landscaping, and similar equipment between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays, with no L10 exception.
Concerns with the current standards include the following:
(1) The 70 dBA daytime threshold is higher than the 60 dBA Ldn3 maximum outdoor noise level for residential properties established in Table 9-1 of the Gilroy 2040 General Plan Potential Hazards Element; and
1 dBA means is a decibel value that has been passed through an A-weighting filter, which de-emphasizes very low and very high frequencies to approximate the sensitivity of the human ear. 2 L10 means a statistical noise descriptor representing the A-weighted sound level exceeded for 10 percent of the measurement period, commonly used to characterize the upper range of fluctuating environmental noise such as traffic.
3 Ldn means the Day-Night Average Sound Level from the 24-hour average.
(2) The current language is unclear because it states noise is “prohibited” but then allows a 10 percent exception; and
(3) The standard does not adequately address outdoor power equipment used on the property of commercial or industrial areas during nighttime and early morning hours.
On April 20, 2026, the City Council considered the FAIR Memo drafted by Councilmember Hilton and directed staff to return for future discussion. This staff report responds to that directive.
ANALYSIS
Current Noise Performance Standards
Gilroy City Code Section 30.41.31 currently establishes a single citywide daytime maximum of 70 dBA (L10) at the property line of any residentially zoned property, with a 10 percent exception. The standard applies uniformly regardless of whether the noise source is located in an Industrial (M1, M2), Commercial (C1, C3), or other zoning district. The standard does not differentiate between long-duration steady noise sources (e.g., refrigeration units, HVAC) and short-duration intermittent sources (e.g., outdoor power tools).
Proposed Noise Performance Standards
Councilmember Hilton proposed a new Zoning Code amendment that would directly impact the existing performance standards regarding noise. Below is the language Councilmember Hilton has proposed under City Code Section 30.41.31 (b)(2).
Replaced text is shown as strikethrough and new text is shown underlined and in red. (b)(2) Commercial and Industrial Noise Impacting Residentially Zoned Properties.
Noise emanating from properties that are zoned for uses other than residential is limited to a maximum of 70 60 dBA (L10) or less measured at the residential property line. Such noise is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the maximum noise level to be exceeded no more than ten percent (10%) of the time. The outside use of power tools, yard, landscaping and similar equipment is prohibited (not subject to the L10) between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday and 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday.
If adopted, these new standards would limit noise from commercial and industrial businesses located near residentially zoned areas. Staff has attempted to provide a clearer explanation of the proposed standards.
• During the day (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.), noise from commercial and industrial properties may not exceed 60 decibels at the boundary of a residential property.
This decibel level is similar to normal conversation (approximately 55-65 decibel range) to moderate street noise (approximately 60-70 decibels). • At night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), the “L10“ standard allows occasional louder bursts of noise at 60 decibels, but the noise level may only exceed the limit up to 10% of the time. For a nine-hour period, the maximum noise level can be exceeded only up to 54 minutes. Noise would need to be measured continuously in order to determine if it has exceeded 60 decibels 10% of the time out of the nine-hour period.
• In addition, using power tools, landscaping equipment, or similar outdoor machinery would be prohibited during nighttime hours and certain morning hours. o Weekdays: 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
o Weekends: 10:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m.
There are a few concerns regarding the proposed 10 dB reduction. Although the change may seem small in numerical terms, it can be heard as a meaningful reduction in sound. Because sound levels are measured on a logarithmic scale, a 10 dB decrease represents a substantial drop in sound energy and a noticeable reduction in loudness, perceived roughly “as half as loud.”
Data from acoustical study (Monterey Gateway Senior Housing Residential Project Noise and Vibration Assessment) indicates that ambient daytime hourly noise levels along Monterey Road range from 60 to 70 dBA.
These measured and projected levels already meet or exceed the proposed 60 dBA (L10) daytime property-line threshold from transportation/traffic sources alone, which raises questions about the practical achievability of the proposed standard along Gilroy’s primary commercial and mixed-use corridors without further technical analysis.
Staff recommends making minor adjustments to the proposed language to improve sentence clarity, as demonstrated below:
(b)(2) Commercial and Industrial Noise Impacting Residentially Zoned Properties.
Noise emanating from properties that are zoned for uses other than residential is limited to a maximum of 70 60 dBA (L10) measured at the residential property line. Such noise is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and prohibited bBetween the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., the maximum noise level to may be exceeded no more than ten percent (10%) of the time. The outside use of power tools, yard, landscaping and similar equipment is prohibited (not subject to the L10) between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday and 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday.
Staff also recommends that, if City Council directs staff to draft a Zoning Code amendment, the direction should include retaining a qualified acoustical engineer to conduct a technical analysis of the proposed amendment language. This analysis should determine whether the proposed reduction can be achieved without materially impacting future commercial, industrial, and mixed-use development. See further details for Actions 2 and 3 below.
Alternatively, staff recommends that City Council consider additional land-use controls (e.g., prohibiting noise-sensitive uses next to residential neighborhoods) where noise levels exceed community expectations, to address noise concerns. For example, staff has received concerns in the past about noise from drive-through facilities near residential zones, especially menu-board speakers, order-confirmation displays, idling vehicles, and stacking queues. A workplan item to address noise impacts from drivethrough facilities near residential areas has also been carried forward from prior budget cycles. These impacts can be addressed with use-specific regulations for drivethroughs (i.e. reorienting the menu-board and order-confirmation speakers away from adjacent residential property lines and requiring directional speakers with volume limiters calibrated to ambient conditions and establishing site-planning standards for drive-through facilities near residential zones, including required setbacks from residential property lines), rather than lowering the city-wide property noise maximum limit. See further details for Action 1 below.
General Plan Consistency
Before amending the Zoning Code, the City Council must determine that the proposed actions align with the General Plan. General Plan Goal PH 6 directs the City to protect residents from excessive noise. General Plan Policies LU 4.4 and LU 5.1 also direct the City to ensure commercial and industrial development is compatible with surrounding uses, including residential neighborhoods.
Action 1: Prepare specific regulations for drive-through uses associated with noise generation near residentially zoned districts
The City Council has expressed a desire to address noise from drive-through uses near residentially zoned properties, as it has been a department workplan item carried forward from prior budget cycles.
As staff allocates resources for a comprehensive zoning code update, the City may prepare a zoning amendment in the meantime, to modify or, where appropriate, prohibit drive-through uses near residential properties that generate noise above typical residential levels, without lowering the citywide property-line noise maximum limit.
A use-specific approach would address the impacts identified in the FAIR Memo by applying targeted regulations to drive-through uses, rather than lowering the citywide property-line noise maximum limit. This would maintain the general performance standard in Section 30.41.31 for other sources and provide staff with clear, enforceable
tools to regulate drive-through operations near residential zones. An acoustical engineer may not be required if the City Council selects this option.
Action 1 Pros and Cons
Pros Cons
• Directly addresses the drive-through
noise impacts specifically identified by
City Council, targeting operational
sources (menu-board speaker
placement, order-confirmation
displays, stacking queues) rather than
the property line receptor for all uses.
• Partially advances a department
workplan item (Update Zoning Code
and Zoning Map, including noise
impacting residential properties and
drive-throughs near residential areas).
• Preserves the existing citywide 70
dBA (L10) performance standard for
commercial, industrial, and mixed-use
sources, ensuring operators’ prior
investments in equipment and site
design remain protected.
• Enables more flexible policy options
than a uniform decibel reduction, such
as prohibiting new drive-throughs
near residential zones when sitespecific mitigation cannot ensure acceptable noise levels.
• This approach alone would not
address noise impacts from nondrive-through uses within commercial, industrial, or mixed-use sources.
• Existing legally established drivethroughs would continue to operate under current entitlements. Usespecific standards would mainly apply to new drive-throughs, expansions,
and reconfigurations, which limits
near-term relief for residents currently
affected by existing operations.
• Additional community outreach with
existing drive-through operators,
franchise holders, and property
owners may be necessary. Vestedrights and takings considerations should be reviewed by the City
Attorney before adoption.
Action 2: Implement the FAIR Memo as Proposed by Councilmember Hilton Under this option, staff would prepare a Zoning Code amendment to Section 30.41.31 implementing the three changes identified in the FAIR Memo as written:
• Reduce the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) maximum noise level at the property line of any residentially zoned property from 70 dBA (L10) to 60 dBA (L10);
• Remove the term “prohibited” within City Code Section 30.41.31, and • Prohibit the outdoor use of power tools, yard, landscaping, and similar equipment between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and between 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays, with no L10 exception.
The amendment would apply uniformly citywide, regardless of zoning district. Existing operations that exceed the new standard would be subject to the City’s nonconforminguse provisions.
If the City Council directs staff to draft the Zoning Code amendment as proposed, staff will prepare a draft ordinance and schedule a noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission, followed by City Council introduction and adoption. The following table provides the pros and cons for directing staff to draft the Zoning Code amendment in its current form.
Action 2 Pros and Cons
Pros Cons
• Provides the strongest protection for
residential receptors by reducing the
daytime property-line maximum from 70
dBA to 60 dBA — approximately a onehalf reduction in perceived loudness. • Aligns the Zoning Ordinance directly with
the 60 dBA Ldn maximum outdoor noise
level for residential land uses established
in General Plan Table 9-1.
• Eliminates the existing ambiguity created
by the word “prohibited” followed by an
L10 exception, providing a clear and
objective standard.
• Implements General Plan Implementation
Program No. 3 (Zoning Ordinance Noise
Standards) directly and unambiguously.
• Applies uniformly citywide, providing one
consistent standard that is easier for
applicants, residents, and Code
Enforcement staff to understand and
apply.
• Significant potential loss of investment by
commercial retailers, restaurants, and
mixed-use operators. Existing operations
that have already invested in equipment,
building improvements, and site layouts
calibrated to the current 70 dBA standard
could face compliance costs to retrofit
equipment, install acoustic treatments,
modify hours, or relocate noisegenerating activities. In some cases, mitigation may not be feasible, and
operators could be required to curtail
activities or absorb a loss on prior
investment.
• Potential impact on economic
development. A uniform 10 dBA
reduction may discourage prospective
retailers, restaurants with outdoor uses,
and similar operators from locating or
expanding in commercial and mixed-use
corridors adjacent to residential zones,
with potential implications for sales tax
revenue and employment.
• Closes the long-standing gap on outdoor
power equipment by establishing clear
early-morning and weekend prohibitions.
• Does not differentiate between Industrial
sources (M1, M2) and Commercial
sources (C1, C3), even though the
operational character and the relationship
to surrounding residential uses can differ
substantially.
• Could create a large number of legally
nonconforming operations citywide,
requiring significant staff and City
Attorney resources to administer
transition periods and amortization
considerations.
• Background (ambient) noise levels in
some commercial corridors near U.S.
101, the UPRR/Caltrain corridor, or
arterial streets may already approach or
exceed 60 dBA, which can make
property-line attribution to a specific
commercial source difficult and may
increase enforcement and measurement
complexity.
• May increase enforcement challenges
and complexity, with corresponding fiscal
and staffing implications.
• Existing operations adjacent to residential
zones include grocery stores, restaurants
with outdoor seating, drive-through
facilities, automotive services, and similar
uses that generate routine operational
noise from refrigeration, rooftop HVAC,
loading activity, drive-through speakers,
and customer activity. Many of these
operators have made capital investments
calibrated to the current 70 dBA (L10)
standard.
• Several commercial corridors and mixeduse areas in Gilroy directly abut, or are across narrow streets from, residentially
zoned properties. Examples include
portions of the Downtown Specific Plan
area, the First Street commercial corridor,
the Monterey Street corridor, and various
neighborhood commercial centers,
making the proposed amendment as
written infeasible.
Action 3: Retain the services of a qualified acoustical engineer to conduct a technical analysis of the proposed amendment
If the City Council directs preparation of a Zoning Code amendment, staff recommends retaining a qualified acoustical engineer to review the proposed language and assess whether the reduction can be achieved without significantly impacting future commercial, industrial, and mixed-use development.
Action 3 Pros and Cons
Pros Cons
• Provides the City Council, Planning
Commission, and community with an
objective, technically defensible basis
for any decision on the FAIR Memo
amendment, rather than relying on
staff estimates and anecdotal
experience.
• Uses site-specific Gilroy monitoring
data rather than generalized
standards, including confirmation of
the preliminary findings drawn from
the Monterey Gateway Noise Study.
• Allows the amendment prepared
under Action 2 to proceed with greater
confidence or refined based on an
alternative technical approach
recommended by the acoustical
engineer.
• Supports meaningful public
engagement by giving residents,
commercial property owners, and
• Requires appropriation for
professional services. Based on
limited research, staff anticipates a
cost range of approximately $50,000
to $100,000 depending on the number
of monitoring locations, duration or
measurements, and scope of the
benchmarking analysis.
• Extends the overall timeline for any
Zoning Code amendment. A citywide
acoustical analysis and report
typically requires four to six months,
with additional time needed for peer
review, staff report preparation,
Planning Commission review, and
City Council action.
• May result in findings that recommend
a different technical approach than
the FAIR Memo proposal.
• Does not, by itself, provide immediate
noise relief. During the study period,
mixed-use operators a common
technical baseline for discussion at
future Planning Commission and City
Council hearings.
the existing 70 dBA (L10) standard and
current L10 exception language would
remain in effect.
As an alternative to Action 1, staff recommends that both Actions 2 and 3 be considered together by City Council so that the acoustical analysis is available to the Planning Commission and City Council before final adoption of any amendment.
ALTERNATIVES
City Council may:
• Authorize only Action 1 (direct staff to prepare a Zoning Code Amendment to address drive-through uses near residentially-zoned areas) where staff will proceed with drafting a Zoning Code Amendment.
• Authorize only Action 2 (direct staff to prepare a Zoning Code Amendment) and proceed without a citywide acoustical analysis.
• Authorize only Action 3 (retain an acoustical engineer) and defer preparation of any Zoning Code amendment until the engineer’s findings are received. • Direct staff to research best practices from additional comparable California jurisdictions and return with a revised recommendation. • Take no action.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Action 1 or 2 requires a Zoning Code amendment, which involves public notice, a Planning Commission hearing, and City Council introduction and adoption. Fiscal impacts include staff time for research, report preparation, public hearings, and legal review by the City Attorney’s Office. These costs can be absorbed within the existing budget.
Action 3 requires funding for acoustical engineering professional services. Based on similar citywide noise studies, staff estimates costs between $50,000 and $100,000. If the City Council approves Action 3, staff will present a proposed budget amendment and identify a funding source.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
This item was included on the publicly posted agenda for this meeting.
NEXT STEPS
Direct staff on preferred option.
ATTACHMENTS
1. FAIR Memo from Councilmember Hilton, dated February 10, 2026
2. Gilroy City Code Section 30.41.31 (Specific Provisions – Noise) within Article 30.41 (Performance Standards)
Contact: Zach Hilton
[email protected]
669-270-6232
February 10, 2026
Future City Council Initiated Agenda Item
City Code Chapter 30 Zoning Ordinance- I am requesting to place “City Code Chapter 30 Zoning Ordinance-Section 41 Performance Standards-Noise” on a future agenda with possible action to amend the code by ordinance with the goal of providing clear objective standards, when it comes to Commercial and Industrial Noise Impacting Residentially Zoned Properties. I am proposing two separate changes to the code.
Supporting Documentation:
We will continue to develop more residential units that are mixed use and near existing commercial and industrial developments. There are objective standards that we can put in place to make it clear what noises are allowed and what noises are limited in “Commercial and Industrial Noise Impacting Residentially Zoned Properties”.
Amend the code by ordinance to add under section 30.41.31 the following changes.
• Commercial and Industrial Noise Impacting Residentially Zoned Properties.
Noise emanating from properties that are zoned for uses other than residential is limited to a maximum of 70 60 dBA (L10) or less measured at the residential property line.
Such noise is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the maximum noise level to be exceeded no more than ten percent (10%) of the time.
• Commercial and Industrial Noise Impacting Residentially Zoned Properties. The outside use of power tools, yard, landscaping and similar equipment is prohibited (not subject to the L10) between the hours of 10pm-7am Monday through Friday and 10pm-9am Saturday and Sunday.
The word prohibited is misleading because of the L10 exception that is allowed from 10pm-7am. This happened in 2013 and 2019 when Chapter 30 Zoning code amendments took place and changes were made to Section 41. In 2013 they did a code adoption, and the yard equipment was in it, but just related to residential. The noise for commercial near residential hasn't changed. Then in Oct 2019 the wording for yard equipment in residential areas was removed, but the commercial and industrial impacting residential zones properties stayed the same. Changes are referenced in the current 30.41.31 (Ord. No. 2013-08, § 2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13; Ord. No. 2019-08, § 23, 10-7-19)
Sources Used:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Gilroy/#!/Gilroy30/Gilroy3041.html#30.41.10 1
30.41.31 Specific provisions—Noise.
It shall be unlawful to generate noise within the city limits that exceeds the limits established in this section. (a) Definitions.
“Decibel (dBA)” means a unit measuring the amplitude of sound or noise, weighted to the range of human hearing (A-weighting scale on a sound level meter).
“L10” means the maximum noise level to be exceeded no more than ten percent (10%) of the time. “Noise level” means measurement of sound in decibels (dBA) obtained by using a sound level meter at slow response.
“Sound level meter” means an instrument comprised of a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter and frequency weighing networks, used for measuring sound levels in decibel (dBA) units. (b) Maximum Outdoor Noise Levels.
(1) Residential Noise Impacting Residential Properties. Fixed-source outdoor mechanical equipment installed after July 1, 2007 (e.g., pool, spa, air conditioning or similar equipment) is limited to a maximum of sixty (60) dBA Ldn measured at the property line or seventy (70) dBA (L10) measured at the property line. (2) Commercial and Industrial Noise Impacting Residentially Zoned Properties. Noise emanating from properties that are zoned for uses other than residential is limited to a maximum of 70 dBA (L10) measured at the residential property line. Such noise is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
(c) Exceptions to the Exterior Noise Limits Listed in Subsection (b) of This Section. (1) Persons, equipment, vehicles, alarms or sirens utilized in essential activities necessary to preserve, protect or save lives or property from danger, loss or harm;
(2) Refuse and recycling collection vehicles when operating between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.; (3) Special events operating in compliance with an approved special events permit; and (4) City-approved activities on public properties. (Ord. No. 2013-08, § 2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13; Ord. No. 2019-08, § 23, 10-7-19)
Zoning 30.41 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1/1