Agenda packet — Gilroy City Council, October 5, 2026 (part 2 of 5)

CITY OF GILROY

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

USER AND REGULATORY FEE STUDY
ISSUED - JULY 2026
UPDATED – SEPTEMBER 2026
DRAFT

Page 159 of 685 ends

CONTENTS

REPORTING

1 TRANSMITTAL
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7 PROJECT ORIENTATION
12 IMPLEMENTATION

APPENDICES

I FEE COMPARISON

II COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
DRAFT

Page 160 of 685 ends

7960 B Soquel Drive, Suite 363, Aptos, California 95003 831.288.0608 CLEARSOURCEFINANCIAL.COM
September 2026

CITY OF GILROY
Attention: Sharon Goei | Community Development Director 7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, California 95020

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - USER AND REGULATORY FEE STUDY Dear Ms. Goei:

ClearSource Financial Consulting submits the following report describing the findings of our preparation of a Community Development Department User and Regulatory Fee Study for the City of Gilroy.

This report incorporates preliminary feedback provided by the City Council as part of the New Business Item presentation to City Council on September 14, 2026. Specifically, less than full cost recovery is proposed for minor residential permits for:
• Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning installation or change-out (including electrification of gas systems)
• Water heater installation or change-out (including electrification of gas systems) Please refer to the Executive Summary for the key findings of the analysis and estimated impacts to City funds.

The balance of the report and its appendices provide the necessary documentation to support those outcomes.

Thank you for the opportunity to serve the City on this topic. We are happy to continue discussion on this study as the need arises or consult with you on additional topics.

Sincerely,
TERRY MADSEN, PRESIDENT | CLEARSOURCE FINANCIAL CONSULTING PHONE: 831.288.0608
EMAIL: [email protected]
DRAFT

Page 161 of 685 ends

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF GILROY | 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STUDY OVERVIEW
The City of Gilroy provides many services to ensure safe, orderly, and aesthetically pleasing development and construction within City limits. Broad categories of these services include, but are not limited to, project entitlement review, planning permitting, map review, building plan review and construction permitting. User fees and regulatory fees are the mechanism by which the City may recoup a portion of, or all, the costs associated with these services.

The City of Gilroy has completed a User and Regulatory Fee Study focused on the City’s Development Services Fees. California cities regularly conduct these studies to inform fee amounts imposed and to optimize the overall portfolio of revenues available to the municipality to fund its services.

Industry practice and fiscal conditions in the state have led most cities to link cost recovery for services of individual action, cause, or benefit to that same individual through user fee revenue, relieving the agency’s general revenues as much as possible for use toward services of broader community benefit.

USER AND REGULATORY FEES
Cities derive annual revenue from a number of sources. These include, but are not limited to, property taxes, sales taxes, license fees, franchise fees, fines, rents, and user and regulatory fees. User and regulatory fees are intended to cover all, or a portion of, the costs incurred by the City for providing fee-related services and activities that are not otherwise provided to those not paying the fee.

California law provides guidance regarding the amounts the City may charge for fee-related services and activities. Specifically, in order to avoid being considered taxes, the fees charged shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services , activities, or materials for which fees are charged.

At its conclusion, this study proposes for City Council review and consideration at public hearing a new Schedule of Fees and Charges for application and continued update in subsequent years.

COST RECOVERY POLICY AND PRACTICE
Recovering the costs of providing fee-related services directly influences the City’s fiscal health and increases the City’s ability to meet the service level expectations of fee payers.

The services for which the City imposes a user or regulatory fee typically derive from an individual person or entity’s action, request, or behavior. Therefore, except in cases where there is an overwhelming public benefit generated by the City’s involvement in the individual action, a fee for service ensures that the individual bears most, if not all, of the cost incurred by the City to provide that service . When a fee targets “100% or full cost recovery,” the individual is bearing the entirety of the cost. When a fee targets less than full cost recovery, another City revenue source – in most cases, the General Fund – offsets the cost of the individualized activity.

Generally, fees for service are targeted to full cost recovery, inclusive of operating, direct, indirect, and capital costs, except in cases where the City Council cites a public interest in lower fees. The City may also be influenced by market conditions, comparing to municipalities of similar size and service profile.

DRAFT

Page 162 of 685 ends

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF GILROY | 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FEES EXAMINED AS PART OF THIS STUDY
This study is limited to review of user and regulatory fees collected by the Community Development Department. Fees examined as part of this study include:
• Planning Fees, such as entitlement review and review for compliance with the zoning code • Building Fees, such as permitting of new construction or modifications to existing structures • Fire Prevention and Hazardous Materials Review Fees, such as review of new construction and annual inspections conducted to ensure compliance with the Fire Code • Code Enforcement Fees, such as investigation and re-inspection fees • Housing Fees, such as housing project reviews, and administration of housing related agreements • Specialized Business License Review Fees, for businesses requiring review by Building and/or Fire Prevention divisions prior to issuance of a business license.

FEES, FINES, AND TAXES NOT EXAMINED
Fees, fines, and taxes NOT examined as part of this study include:
• Assessments
• Development Impact Fees
• Fines or Penalties
• Franchise Fees
• Taxes
• Utility Rates and Services Charges
These items are subject to different approval thresholds or are not subject to the same cost of service limitations as the fees examined as part of this study. Consequently, they are specifically excluded from the scope of this study.

OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
No new regulations are proposed as a result of this study: Any fees proposed to be updated or added to the City’s fee schedule are intended to align to existing regulations outlined in the California Building Code, Fire Code, City of Gilroy Municipal Code, etc. Fee adjustments are simply intended to recover all, or a portion of the costs, of enforcing existing regulations.

The City may adjust fees and enhance cost recovery, without positioning itself as an outlier to comparable communities. Comparison information is included Appendix I.

Full cost recovery is targeted from most proposed fees due to the regulatory nature of the fees and the high level of direct benefit resulting from construction activities including enjoyment of property enhancements, increased property values, and the desire to avoid having other Gilroy residents and businesses subsidize an individual's private construction activities. Detailed cost of service information is included Appendix II.

To encourage residential electrification projects, permitting for minor residential projects, and community participation in the entitlement review process, less than full cost recovery is recommended for:
• Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning installation or change-out (including electrification of gas systems)
• Water heater installation or change-out (including electrification of gas systems) • Appeal filing
The fiscal impact of the reduced cost recovery target(s) is illustrated in the following table.

DRAFT

Page 163 of 685 ends

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF GILROY | 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1 – Fiscal Impact of Targeting Less Than Full Cost Recovery for Various Permits/Filings Revenue
at Full Cost Recovery
Revenue
at Proposed Fees
Amount Required
from Other City Resource
(e.g., General Fund)
$128,000 $54,000 $74,000
Fees have been restructured to enhance the correlation between services provided and fees collected.

Fee Changes for City Council consideration are illustrated in categories:
• Fees proposed to decrease
• Fees proposed to remain unchanged
• Fees with changes that vary based on project criteria. In these instances fees may decrease, remain unchanged, or increase depending on the project criteria. • Fees proposed to increase
• New fees proposed.

The following provides a summary of primary changes the City Council is being asked to consider as part of this study.

Table 2 – Summary of Changes to Fees Examined
Description Count Percentage
Fees Proposed to Decrease 13 6.5%
Fees Proposed to Remain Unchanged 19 9.5%
Fees with Changes that Vary Based on Project Criteria
(May Result in Increase or Decrease)
64 32.0%
Fees Proposed to Increase 81 40.5%
New Fees 23 11.5%
Total Fees Examined 200 100.0%
Fees Proposed to Decrease
• Approximately 7% percent of fees are proposed to decrease. The City periodically performs comprehensive studies to calculate the City’s costs of providing fee-related services. In years between studies, fees are typically adjusted by the annual change in regional cost inflation. Studies, like this one, provide the opportunity to recalibrate fees to reflect current City practices and cost of service on a more refined basis.

Fees Proposed to Remain Unchanged
• Approximately 10% percent of fees are proposed to remain unchanged. These are primarily fees established by the State of California, or fees that are examined and updated as part of separate studies.

DRAFT

Page 164 of 685 ends

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF GILROY | 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fees With Changes that Vary Based on Project Criteria
• Approximately 32% of fees are proposed for adjustment that varies based on project criteria. These are primarily fees for services that are recovered on a “Time & Materials” or “Pass-Through” basis. In these instances, the City collects an initial deposit and periodically replenishes or refunds unused deposit amounts at project completion. Full cost recovery is targeted for these services.

Fees Proposed to Increase
• Approximately 41% percent of fees are proposed fees are proposed to increase. These are primarily adjustments to align fees to the City’s current cost of service (i.e., full cost recovery). o Full cost recovery is commonly targeted from development-related fees due to the regulatory nature of the fees and the high level of direct benefit resulting from construction activities including enjoyment of property enhancements, increased property values, and the desire to avoid having other Gilroy residents and businesses subsidize an individual's private construction activities. o Additionally, when the City recovers the costs of these regulatory activities from the receiver of the service, the City’s General Fund tax dollars are more readily available to be directed towards services providing broader benefit to the community at-large (e.g., public safety, public works, park maintenance services, etc.)
New Fees
• Twenty-three (23) new fees are proposed. An overview of the proposed fees is listed below:

Table 3 – New Fees
Description Count Overview
Building Fees 5 1) Civil On-Site Plan Review
2) Special Inspection Agency or Fabrication
3) Permit Processing Fee
4) Meter Release Fee
5) Generator Permit Fee
Planning Fees 5 1) Habitat Conservation Permit Processing for Nitrogen-Deposit Only (NDO)
2) Planning Re-Inspection Fee
3) Expedited Plan Review of Building Permits
4) Zoning Verification – Additional Research
5) Home Occupation Permit
Fire Prevention & Hazardous
Materials Fees
5 1) Fire Prevention Expedited Plan Review
2) Fire Clearance Consultation
3) Special Event Plan Review
4) Special Inspection Request/Required
5) Fireworks Vendor Storage Permit
Code Enforcement Fees 3 1) Sidewalk Vending Impound Fee 2) Abatement Fee
3) Code Enforcement Hourly Billing Rate for
Miscellaneous Services
DRAFT

Page 165 of 685 ends

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF GILROY | 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 3 – New Fees (Continued)
Description Count Overview
Housing Fees 5 1) Loan Demand Payoff Fee
2) Loan Underwriting Fee
3) Loan Processing Fee
4) Loan Subordination Request Review
5) Housing Hourly Billing Rate for
Miscellaneous Services
Total 23

FISCAL IMPACT
The anticipated fiscal impact of the proposed changes included in the fee schedule update is $558,000 in additional annual General Fund cost recovery. This is an estimate only, based on the impact of the proposed fee adjustments to average actual collections over a multi-year period. The actual fiscal impact will vary from year-to-year depending on construction and development activity.

It is important to note that while adjusting fees and billing rates will provide a fiscal impact in the form of additional revenue, the revenue is not intended to be used to fund new services, rather the revenue is intended to offset the costs of providing existing services that are recoverable from fees. Consequently, while fees may rise annually, typically labor costs (the primary driver of fee-related costs) also rise annually.

Recalibration of these fees simply provides an offset of existing expenditures/needs rather than a source of funding for expanded service levels.

DRAFT

Page 166 of 685 ends

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF GILROY | 7

PROJECT ORIENTATION

SCOPE OF STUDY
The City of Gilroy has completed a User and Regulatory Fee Study for Development Services Fees, which represents an external review of prevailing practices and development of a new Schedule of Development Services Fees and Charges . ClearSource Financial Consulting has prepared this analysis using City organizational information and will be available to answer questions as the City proceeds in implementing findings as it chooses.

Key tasks expected by the City from this study included the following:
 Review eligible fee-related services to establish the reasonable relationship between current fees for service and the underlying costs of service.
 Calculate the full cost of service, including estimated Citywide overhead costs.  Recommend fees to be charged for each service.
 Recommend cost recovery strategies and best practices in setting fees, while considering the complexities and demands of responsible programs or departments.  Identify underlying billable rates for cost recovery opportunities and as the basis for user fees.

DIRECT SERVICES UNDER REVIEW

FEE CATEGORIES
 Planning – Services include, but are not limited to, entitlement review, and review for project compliance with the City’s Zoning Code.
 Building and Fire Review – Services include, but are not limited to, Building plan review, permitting, and inspection for construction and sub-trades to determine compliance with California Building Code and Fire Code.
 Code Enforcement, Housing, and Specialized Business License Review

REASON FOR STUDY
Cities derive annual revenue from a number of sources. These include, but are not limited to, property taxes, sales taxes, franchise fees, fines, rents, and user and regulatory fees. User and regulatory fees are intended to cover all, or a portion of, the costs incurred by a City for providing fee-related services and activities that are not otherwise provided to those not paying the fee.

California cities regularly conduct fee studies to inform fee amounts imposed and to optimize the overall body of revenues available to the municipality to fund its services. Widespread industry practice and fiscal conditions in the state have led most cities to link cost recovery for services of individual action, cause, or benefit to that individual through user fee revenue, relieving the agency’s general revenues for services of broader community benefit.

DRAFT

Page 167 of 685 ends

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF GILROY | 8

PROJECT ORIENTATION

PREVAILING GUIDANCE
The objectives of this study, the methodology used to complete the study, and the formulation of outcomes and recommendations for future consideration were significantly influenced by Article 13C of the California Constitution and Section 66014 of the California Government Code.

Article 13C states that the local government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payer bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payer’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. Additionally, Article 13C identifies the following as items that are not defined as taxes:
 A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payer that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.  A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payer that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.
 A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.  A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property.
 A fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government, as a result of a violation of law.
 A charge imposed as a condition of property development.  Assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D.

Section 66014(a) of the California Government Code includes the following, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency charges fees for zoning variances; zoning changes; use permits; building inspections; building permits; …the processing of maps under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act…; or planning services…; those fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee charged in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue.

The outcomes and recommendations of the study are intended to comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws including providing confirmation that the proposed fees (“charges”) recommended as a result of this study are not taxes as defined in Article 13C of the California Constitution and that the proposed fees are no more than necessary to the cover the reasonable costs of the City’s activities and services addressed in the fees. Additionally, this report is intended to show that the manner in which the costs are allocated to a payer bear a fair and reasonable relationship to the payer’s burdens on, or benefits received from the activities and services provided by the City.

DRAFT

Page 168 of 685 ends

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF GILROY | 9

PROJECT ORIENTATION

METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES
This study calculated the estimated reasonable cost of providing various fee-related services across the City organization. Generally, the estimated reasonable cost of providing the fee-related services and activities examined in this study can be calculated as the product of the composite fully-burdened hourly labor rate of the division responsible for providing services and the estimated labor time required to process a typical request for service. This calculation is illustrated in Exhibit 1 .

EXHIBIT 1 | COST OF SERVICE CALCULATION
The composite fully-burdened hourly rates calculated in this study are based on the estimated annual hours spent providing fee related services, and estimated labor, services and supplies, and Citywide overhead expenditures, sourced as follows:
 Labor expenditures for in-house personnel were based on budgeted salary and benefits expenditures.
 Contract service personnel and other services and supplies related costs were based on adopted budgets and anticipated costs.
 Citywide overhead cost allocations were calculated using the federal de minimis rate.

The service time estimates were developed as follows:
 Multiple interviews with City staff directly responsible for the various permit issuance, plan review, and inspection activities to understand the typical level of effort associated with various services provided.
 Application of interview results and time estimates to various prototypical projects likely to occur within Gilroy to determine reasonableness of estimates as compared to historical precedent.

DRAFT

Page 169 of 685 ends

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF GILROY | 10

PROJECT ORIENTATION
Once cost of service levels are identified, the City may use this information to inform targeted cost recovery from fees. Fees set at the cost of service target full cost recovery. Fees set at any amount less than the cost of service target less than full cost recovery.

An illustration of the methods used in this analysis is shown in Exhibit 2.

EXHIBIT 2 | STEPS IN ANALYZING COSTS OF SERVICE AND USER FEES DRAFT

Page 170 of 685 ends

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF GILROY | 11

PROJECT ORIENTATION
Additional information may be found in the appendices of this report. Information provided in the appendices includes:
• Appendix I: Illustrative sample of current and proposed fees to comparable cities. • Appendix II: Detailed cost of service information for the services examined in this study, including:
o Divisional cost of service and cost recovery information o Calculation of fully-burdened hourly rates
o Service time estimates
o Cost of service calculations and current cost recovery information for the various fee-related services provided by the divisions
o Proposed fee and proposed cost recovery information for the various fee-related services provided by the divisions.

DRAFT

Page 171 of 685 ends

CLEARSOU RCE REPORT T O THE CITY OF GILROY | 12

IMPLEMENTATION

CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
If the City decides to adopt or otherwise utilize outcomes generated through this study, it should:
 Update Systems for Fee Outcomes - Ensure that City staff begin using updated fees and associated outcomes once the updated schedule of fees becomes effective. Values should be included in all official fee schedules used throughout the City (e.g., departmental pamphlets, counter schedules, and online information). Additionally, ensure collections processes are updated, which may include coding in billing systems and training for personnel who handle fees directly with the public.
 Actively Monitor the Use of Fees - In order to recover accurate and eligible amounts expected, the City should be diligent about tracking time to projects for time and materials billings and ensuring fees are applied in the correct amount and using the correct and intended basis for fixed fee billings.  Monitor Feedback and Permit Statistics - Monitor permit and application volume and applicant feedback to determine if fee modifications are resulting in any unanticipated changes in project frequency and to increase the level of detail available for revenue forecasting.  Annually Review and Adjust Fee Values - In order to generally maintain pace with regional cost inflation and/or the City's salary cost inflation, the City should adjust its fees on an annual basis.

A commonly used, reasonable inflation index is the annual change in the all-urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) representative of the region.
 Periodically Perform Comprehensive Analysis - A comprehensive fee study should be conducted periodically (e.g., every three to five years) to ensure fee levels remain at or below legal limits and are consistent with evolving service practices and local conditions.

DRAFT

Page 172 of 685 ends

APPENDIX I

FEE COMPARISON
DRAFT

Page 173 of 685 ends

REGIONAL FEE COMPARISON
Similar fees are collected by communities throughout the region and the State. The proposed fee amounts do not exceed the City’s cost of service and are in-range of amounts charged by other jurisdictions.

In order to provide the City Council with additional information as it considers potential adjustments to fees, current and proposed fees were compared to amounts collected by other agencies. For sampling purposes, the fee comparison examined fees for:
• City of Burlingame
• City of Hollister
• City of Marina
• City of Millbrae
• City of Morgan Hill
• City of Mountain View
• City of Pacific Grove
• City of Palo Alto
• City of San Bruno
• City of San Mateo
• City of Sand City

The City of Gilroy, consistent with other cities throughout the State, has an existing fee schedule that contemplates hundreds of potential unique requests for service. Consequently, an exhaustive comparison of all scenarios is unrealistic. Instead, comparison information for several targeted fee categories (e.g., high volume categories, fee categories of particular interest to community, etc.) are provided in order to provide the City Council with a reasonable sense of changes expected. For Gilroy, outcomes will show that new fees may range from low, mid, to upper end of regional fee spectrum depending on the service provided. This is common among municipalities due to differing levels of service and review included among various fee categories. Scenarios considered range from smaller scale projects to larger scale projects. Examples are illustrated in the charts on the following pages.

DRAFT

Page 174 of 685 ends

APPENDIX I
* Information included is for illustrative purposes only. Figures are not intended to be exact. Amounts shown are based on consultant interpretation of agency fee schedules. Agencies may provide differing services and differing service levels for fee amounts shown. * Information included is for illustrative purposes only. Figures are not intended to be exact. Amounts shown are based on consultant interpretation of agency fee schedules. Agencies may provide differing services and differing service levels for fee amounts shown. $572
$691
$724
$816
$1,003
$1,024
$1,234
$1,284
$1,304
$1,793
$1,936
$1,966
$2,308
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500
MARINA

SAND CITY

GILROY - CURRENT

GILROY - PROPOSED

SAN BRUNO

MORGAN HILL

MOUNTAIN VIEW

SAN MATEO

BURLINGAME

PACIFIC GROVE

MILLBRAE

PALO ALTO

HOLLISTER
Building Permit Fee - $25,000 Project
$943
$1,036
$1,291
$1,325
$1,428
$1,536
$1,734
$1,990
$2,030
$2,609
$2,793
$2,835
$2,948
$3,770
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 MARINA

GILROY - CURRENT

SAND CITY

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

GILROY - PROPOSED

MORGAN HILL

SAN BRUNO

SAN MATEO

MOUNTAIN VIEW

BURLINGAME

PACIFIC GROVE

MILLBRAE

PALO ALTO

HOLLISTER
Building Permit Fee - $50,000 Project
DRAFT

Page 175 of 685 ends

APPENDIX I
* Information included is for illustrative purposes only. Figures are not intended to be exact. Amounts shown are based on consultant interpretation of agency fee schedules. Agencies may provide differing services and differing service levels for fee amounts shown. * Information included is for illustrative purposes only. Figures are not intended to be exact. Amounts shown are based on consultant interpretation of agency fee schedules. Agencies may provide differing services and differing service levels for fee amounts shown. $1,454
$1,469
$2,034
$2,448
$2,885
$3,072
$3,135
$3,491
$3,622
$4,042
$4,095
$4,293
$5,218
$5,795
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000
MARINA

GILROY - CURRENT

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

GILROY - PROPOSED

SAN BRUNO

MORGAN HILL

MOUNTAIN VIEW

SAND CITY

SAN MATEO

MILLBRAE

PALO ALTO

PACIFIC GROVE

BURLINGAME

HOLLISTER
Building Permit Fee - $100,000 Project
$3,941
$4,237
$4,638
$6,065
$6,528
$7,371
$7,526
$8,279
$8,877
$10,202
$14,293
$18,762
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000 $20,000

SAND CITY

GILROY - CURRENT
MARINA

MILLBRAE

GILROY - PROPOSED

PALO ALTO

SAN MATEO

SAN BRUNO

BURLINGAME

MOUNTAIN VIEW

PACIFIC GROVE

HOLLISTER
Building Permit Fee - $500,000 Project
DRAFT

Page 176 of 685 ends

APPENDIX I
* Information included is for illustrative purposes only. Figures are not intended to be exact. Amounts shown are based on consultant interpretation of agency fee schedules. Agencies may provide differing services and differing service levels for fee amounts shown. * Information included is for illustrative purposes only. Figures are not intended to be exact. Amounts shown are based on consultant interpretation of agency fee schedules. Agencies may provide differing services and differing service levels for fee amounts shown. $5,991
$7,172
$8,048
$12,240
$12,288
$13,331
$15,312
$16,380
$17,695
$24,547
$24,673
$25,293
$32,514
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000

SAND CITY

GILROY - CURRENT
MARINA

GILROY - PROPOSED

MORGAN HILL

SAN MATEO

MILLBRAE

PALO ALTO

MOUNTAIN VIEW

BURLINGAME

SAN BRUNO

PACIFIC GROVE

HOLLISTER
Building Permit Fee - $1,000,000 Project
$720
$700
$1,019
$1,254
$1,514
$2,007
$2,131
$2,676
$2,855
$3,637
$20,796
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000

MORGAN HILL - NON-APPLICANT

SAND CITY

GILROY - APPEAL TO PC - CURRENT

GILROY - APPEAL TO CC - CURRENT

HOLLISTER - APPEAL TO PC

GILROY - APPEAL TO PC - PROPOSED

MARINA - APPEAL TO PC

GILROY - APPEAL TO CC - PROPOSED

MARINA - APPEAL TO CC

HOLLISTER - APPEAL TO CC

MORGAN HILL - APPLICANT
Appeal
Target 50% cost recovery for
application filing fee. Public agencies
frequently target less than full cost
recovery for appeal filing fee.

DRAFT

Page 177 of 685 ends

APPENDIX I
* Information included is for illustrative purposes only. Figures are not intended to be exact. Amounts shown are based on consultant interpretation of agency fee schedules. Agencies may provide differing services and differing service levels for fee amounts shown. * Information included is for illustrative purposes only. Figures are not intended to be exact. Amounts shown are based on consultant interpretation of agency fee schedules. Agencies may provide differing services and differing service levels for fee amounts shown. $960
$2,453
$2,609
$2,687
$5,538
$29,873
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000

SAND CITY

GILROY - PROPOSED
MARINA

GILROY - CURRENT

HOLLISTER

MORGAN HILL
Minor Deviation Variance Review
$960
$5,212
$5,538
$5,992
$7,582
$29,873
$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000

SAND CITY
MARINA

HOLLISTER

GILROY - CURRENT

GILROY - PROPOSED

MORGAN HILL
Variance Request
DRAFT

Page 178 of 685 ends

APPENDIX I
* Information included is for illustrative purposes only. Figures are not intended to be exact. Amounts shown are based on consultant interpretation of agency fee schedules. Agencies may provide differing services and differing service levels for fee amounts shown. * Information included is for illustrative purposes only. Figures are not intended to be exact. Amounts shown are based on consultant interpretation of agency fee schedules. Agencies may provide differing services and differing service levels for fee amounts shown. $1,575
$13,022
$13,223
$13,603
$28,752
$57,504
$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 SAND CITY (T&M AFTER 2 REVIEWS)

GILROY (MAP) - CURRENT

HOLLISTER

GILROY (MAP) - PROPOSED

MORGAN HILL MAP (W/GPA OR ANNEX)

MORGAN HILL MAP (STAND-ALONE)
Zoning Map Amendment
$1,270
$1,400
$4,014
$5,494
$5,877
$10,139
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000

GILROY - CURRENT
SAND CITY (T&M AFTER 2 REVIEWS)

GILROY - PROPOSED
MARINA

HOLLISTER

MORGAN HILL
Minor Use Permit
DRAFT

Page 179 of 685 ends

HOLLISTER

GILROY - CURRENT

GILROY - PROPOSED

MORGAN HILL - NO NEW CONSTRUCTION

MORGAN HILL - NEW CONSTRUCTION
Conditional Use Permit
DRAFT

Page 180 of 685 ends

APPENDIX II

COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
DRAFT

Page 181 of 685 ends

Cost of Service Analysis
Appendix II: p. 1 DRAFT

Page 182 of 685 ends

Description Page
Community Development Administration 3
Building Fees 5
Planning Fees 19
Fire Prevention and Hazardous Materials Fees 30
Code Enforcement Fees 40
Housing Fees 45
Business License Fees for Specialized Licenses Requiring Community Development Department Review 49 City of Gilroy
Cost of Service Analysis
Community Development Department
Appendix II: p. 2 DRAFT

Page 183 of 685 ends

Cost of Service Analysis
Community Development Administration
Appendix II: p. 3 DRAFT

Page 184 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Allocation - Community Development Administration Operating Expenses [a]
Fund No Fund Desc Div Div No Acct No Acct Desc Total Adjust Total Note 100 General Fund 4000 CD Admin 50110 SALARIES $738,412 $0 $738,412 100 General Fund 4000 CD Admin 50205 WORKERS COMP $2,557 $0 $2,557 100 General Fund 4000 CD Admin 50210 RETIREMENT (FULL TIME) $79,748 $0 $79,748 100 General Fund 4000 CD Admin 50212 DEFERRED COMPENSATION $1,728 $0 $1,728 100 General Fund 4000 CD Admin 50213 UAL RETIREMENT $141,039 $0 $141,039 100 General Fund 4000 CD Admin 50220 MEDICARE $10,707 $0 $10,707 100 General Fund 4000 CD Admin 50225 HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS $85,321 $0 $85,321 100 General Fund 4000 CD Admin 50230 LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS $1,222 $0 $1,222 100 General Fund 4000 CD Admin 50235 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROG $951 $0 $951 100 General Fund 4000 CD Admin 50255 MISC DISABILITY INSURANCE $1,295 $0 $1,295 100 General Fund 4000 CD Admin 50270 CONTRA PERSONNEL EXPENSE ($85,889) $0 ($85,889) 100 General Fund 4000 CD Admin 51110 EMPLOYEE TRAINING $4,100 $0 $4,100 100 General Fund 4000 CD Admin 51120 EMPLOYEE TRAVEL, FOOD,LODGE $3,900 $0 $3,900 100 General Fund 4000 CD Admin 51420 TELECOMMUNICATIONS $2,646 $0 $2,646 100 General Fund 4000 CD Admin 51510 PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT $2,440 $0 $2,440 100 General Fund 4000 CD Admin 52110 OFFICE/COMPUTER SUPPLIES $9,820 $0 $9,820 100 General Fund 4000 CD Admin 54130 FLEET SERVICE CHARGE $1,591 $0 $1,591 100 General Fund 4000 CD Admin 54140 FACILITY SERVICE CHARGE $71,265 $0 $71,265 Total $1,072,853 $0 $1,072,853
Allocation of Central Services
Description Indirect Rate Mod Op Exp Total Note
Citywide Overhead Rate 15% $1,072,853 $160,928 [b]
Total $160,928
Total Costs for Allocation
Description Total Note
Direct Costs $1,072,853
Citywide Overhead Costs $160,928
Total $1,233,781
Allocation to Direct Service Units
Division Total Note
Planning 35% $431,823 [c]
Building Safety 35% $431,823 [c]
Fire Prevention 20% $246,756 [c]
Code Enforcement 5% $61,689 [c]
Housing & Comm Serv 5% $61,689 [c]
$1,233,781
[a] Source: FY 26/27 adopted expenditures.
[b] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate (de minimis rate). [c] Allocation intended to represent a reasonable estimate. Amounts vary from year to year based on City Council priorities, development cycle, and changes in legislation.

Appendix II: p. 4 DRAFT

Page 185 of 685 ends

Cost of Service Analysis
Building Fees
Appendix II: p. 5 DRAFT

Page 186 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Building Division
Position Hourly FTE Yearly
Total Hours Per
FTE
Less: Holiday &
Leave
Productive
Hours Per FTE
Total
Productive
Hours Note
Building Official $101 1.00 $210,260 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Building Inspector I $64 3.00 $401,244 2,080 216 1,864 5,592 [a],[b] Permit Technician $52 3.00 $322,356 2,080 216 1,864 5,592 [a],[b] Total 7.00 $933,860 13,048
Contract Services
Description Total Est Hrly Cost Total Hours Note
Annual Contract Services $469,071 $140 3,351 [c]
Total Productive Hours Total Note
In-House 13,048
Contract 3,351
Total 16,399
Allocation of Hours Share Total Note
Indirect 25% 4,100 [b]
Direct 75% 12,299 [b]
Total 100% 16,399
[a] Source: FY 26/27 authorized positions.
[b] Direct/Indirect hours are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year-to-year depending on activity, projects, and City Council priorities. [c] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates of market rates for contract service providers.

Appendix II: p. 6 DRAFT

Page 187 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost Recovery and Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Development - Building Division Recurring Expenditures [a]
Fund No Fund Desc Div Div No Account Acct Desc Budget Adjust Total Note 100 General Fund 4030 Building 50110 SALARIES $872,794 $0 $872,794 100 General Fund 4030 Building 50205 WORKERS COMP $9,620 $0 $9,620 100 General Fund 4030 Building 50210 RETIREMENT (FULL TIME) $94,262 $0 $94,262 100 General Fund 4030 Building 50212 DEFERRED COMPENSATION $2,520 $0 $2,520 100 General Fund 4030 Building 50213 UAL RETIREMENT $166,707 $0 $166,707 100 General Fund 4030 Building 50220 MEDICARE $12,656 $0 $12,656 100 General Fund 4030 Building 50225 HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS $124,518 $0 $124,518 100 General Fund 4030 Building 50230 LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS $1,265 $0 $1,265 100 General Fund 4030 Building 50235 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROG $1,386 $0 $1,386 100 General Fund 4030 Building 50255 MISC DISABILITY INSURANCE $1,547 $0 $1,547 100 General Fund 4030 Building 50270 CONTRA PERSONNEL EXPENSE ($103,903) $0 ($103,903) 100 General Fund 4030 Building 50310 APPAREL, BOOTS, PPE $1,400 $0 $1,400 100 General Fund 4030 Building 51110 EMPLOYEE TRAINING $9,600 $0 $9,600 100 General Fund 4030 Building 51120 EMPLOYEE TRAVEL, FOOD,LODGE $7,100 $0 $7,100 100 General Fund 4030 Building 51420 TELECOMMUNICATIONS $5,040 $0 $5,040 100 General Fund 4030 Building 51510 PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT $4,580 $0 $4,580 100 General Fund 4030 Building 51630 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $469,071 $0 $469,071 100 General Fund 4030 Building 52110 OFFICE/COMPUTER SUPPLIES $750 $0 $750 100 General Fund 4030 Building 52610 PROGRAM EXPENSES $2,850 $0 $2,850 100 General Fund 4030 Building 54130 FLEET SERVICE CHARGE $13,566 $0 $13,566 100 General Fund 4030 Building 54140 FACILITY SERVICE CHARGE $103,929 $0 $103,929 100 General Fund 4030 Building 54145 INFO TECH SERVICE CHARGE $25,375 ($25,375) $0 [b] Total $1,826,633 ($25,375) $1,801,258
Allocation of Central Services
Description Indirect Rate Mod Op Exp Total Note
Citywide Overhead Rate 15% $1,801,258 $270,189 [c]
Total $270,189
Allocation of Total Costs
Description Total Note
Direct Expenses $1,801,258
Allocation of Citywide Overhead $270,189
Department Administration $431,823
Total $2,503,270
Appendix II: p. 7 DRAFT

Page 188 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost Recovery and Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Development - Building Division Revenue Summary
Fund Desc Acct Desc
FY 21/22
Actual
FY 22/23
Actual
Multi-Year
Average Note
General Fund BUILDING PERMITS $1,443,772 $1,488,520 $1,466,146 [d] General Fund PLAN CHECK FEES $627,860 $525,137 $576,498 [d] General Fund INSPECTIONS AND ANALYSIS $101,525 $135,630 $118,577 [d] General Fund MISC REVENUES $27,389 $32,687 $30,038 [d]
Total $2,200,546 $2,181,974 $2,191,260
Description Total
Average Revenue $2,191,260
Expenditures $2,503,270
Cost Recovery Rate 88%
General Fund Amount $312,010
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total Note
Costs $2,503,270
Direct Hours 12,299 [e]
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate $204
[a] Source: FY 26/27 adopted expenditures.
[b] Recovered via separate fee.
[c] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate (de minimis rate). [d] Amounts are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year to year depending on development activity. [e] See separate worksheet.

Appendix II: p. 8 DRAFT

Page 189 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Service Time Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change $ Charge Basis Note
Building Inspection Fees
1 Inspections for Which No Fee is Specifically Indicated 1.00 x $204 = $204 $166 81% $204 100% $38 Per Hour, Minimum Half Hour
2 Inspections Outside of Normal Business Hours - Building a) Base Fee (Up to 3 hours) 3.50 x $245 = $857 $980 114% $857 100% varies Fixed Fee b) Each Additional Hour 1.00 x $245 = $245 $249 102% $245 100% varies Per Hour 3 Building Re‐Inspection
a) Base Fee (Up to 1.5 hours) 1.50 x $204 = $306 $262 86% $306 100% $44 Fixed Fee [a] b) Each Additional Hour 1.00 x $204 = $204 $166 81% $204 100% $38 Per Hour [a] 4 Building Damage Survey Inspection and Report
a) Base Fee (Up to 2 hours) 2.50 x $204 = $510 $320 63% $510 100% $190 Fixed Fee b) Each Additional Hour 1.00 x $204 = $204 $166 81% $204 100% $38 Per Hour Building Plan Review Fees
5 Building Plan Review
a) Up to Three Rounds of Review varies x $204 = 95% 75% 79% 95% 100% varies % of Building Permit Fee b) Each Additional Resubmittal 1.00 x $204 = $204 $166 81% $204 100% $38 Per Hour 6 Building Civil On-Site Plan Review n/a - new n/a - new Actual Cost + 15% 100% n/a - new Time & Materials [b] 7 Building Deferred Plan Review
a) Base Fee (Up to 2 hours) 2.00 x $204 = $408 $149 37% $408 100% $259 Fixed Fee b) Each Additional Hour 1.00 x $204 = $204 $166 81% $204 100% $38 Per Hour 8 Building Revision Plan Review 1.00 x $204 = $204 $149 73% $204 100% $55 Per Hour 9 Building Expedited Plan Review 150% of Building
Permit fee
150% of Building
Plan Review Fee
No Change Fixed Fee
10 Plot Plan Review/Lot Change, each 4.00 x $204 = $816 $670 82% $816 100% $146 Fixed Fee 11 Special Inspection Agency or Fabrication
a) Initial Review 3.00 x $204 = $612 n/a - new n/a - new $612 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee b) Prior to Expiration 2.00 x $204 = $408 n/a - new n/a - new $408 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee 12 Alternative Materials and Methods Review, each type 5.00 x $204 = $1,020 $1,034 101% $1,020 100% ($14) Fixed Fee [a] Re-inspection fees apply at the third re-inspection. [b] For "Time & Materials" billings the City will bill hourly for services provided and/or pass-through the actual cost of Building support services, including a 15% administrative fee to recover the costs of staff facilitation of any 3rd party services provided.

Appendix II: p. 9 DRAFT

Page 190 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Service Time Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change $ Charge Basis Note
13 Building Valuation Table / Building Permit Fees
a) $1 - $2,000 1.50 x $204 = $306.00 $284.39 93% $306.00 100% $21.61 Fixed Fee b) 2,001 - $25,000
i) Base fee for first $2,000 2.00 x $204 = $408.00 $325.38 80% $408.00 100% $82.62 Fixed Fee ii) Incremental fee for each additional $1,000 or fraction of, to and including $25,000
$17.74 $17.31 98% $17.74 100% $0.43 Fixed Fee
c) $25,001 - $50,000
i) Base fee for first $25,000 4.00 x $204 = $816.00 $723.68 89% $816.00 100% $92.32 Fixed Fee ii) Incremental fee for each additional $1,000 or fraction of, to and including $50,000
$24.48 $12.49 51% $24.48 100% $11.99 Fixed Fee
d) $50,001 - $100,000
i) Base fee for first $50,000 7.00 x $204 = $1,428.00 $1,036.02 73% $1,428.00 100% $391.98 Fixed Fee ii) Incremental fee for each additional $1,000 or fraction of, to and including $100,000
$20.40 $8.66 42% $20.40 100% $11.74 Fixed Fee
e) $100,001 - $500,000
i) Base fee for first $100,000 12.00 x $204 = $2,448.00 $1,468.95 60% $2,448.00 100% $979.05 Fixed Fee ii) Incremental fee for each additional $1,000 or fraction of, to and including $500,000
$10.20 $6.92 68% $10.20 100% $3.28 Fixed Fee
f) $500,001 - $1,000,000
i) Base fee for first $500,000 32.00 x $204 = $6,528.00 $4,236.86 65% $6,528.00 100% $2,291.14 Fixed Fee ii) Incremental fee for each additional $1,000 or fraction of, to and including $1,000,000
$11.42 $5.87 51% $11.42 100% $5.55 Fixed Fee
g) $1,000,001 and Greater
i) Base fee for first $1,000,000 60.00 x $204 = $12,240.00 $7,171.72 59% $12,240.00 100% $5,068.28 Fixed Fee ii) Incremental fee for each additional $1,000 or fraction of $7.43 $3.89 52% $7.43 100% $3.54 Fixed Fee 14 For permits requiring plumbing, electrical, or mechanical review, the following percentages shall be added to the base permit fee, inlieu of individual fees based on fixture types and counts a) Plumbing 18% 18% varies varies 18% 100% varies Fixed Fee b) Electrical 20% 20% varies varies 20% 100% varies Fixed Fee c) Mechanical 17% 17% varies varies 17% 100% varies Fixed Fee Appendix II: p. 10 DRAFT

Page 191 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Service Time Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change $ Unit Note
15 Permit Processing Fee
a) Permits or Submittals 1.00 x $204 = $204 n/a - new n/a - new $204 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee b) Permit Extension or Renewal Requests 1.50 x $204 = $306 n/a - new n/a - new $306 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee c) Electrical, Mechanical, or Plumbing Supplemental Fee, each

0.50 x $204 = $102 n/a - new n/a - new $102 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee d) Supplemental Fee for Residential Heat Pump, HVAC, and Water Heater (Fees 52a, 52b, and 58a)

0.50 x $204 = $102 n/a - new n/a - new No Charge 0% n/a - new City of Gilroy Standard Permit Fees
16 Community Planning Fee 13% 13% No Change This fee is assessed on the combined total of permit
fees and plan review fees
(excludes solar)
[a]
17 Building Technology Fee 5% 5% No Change This fee is assessed on the combined total of permit
fees and plan review fees
(excludes solar)
[b]
State of California Fees
18 CA Strong Motion instrumentation and Seismic Hazard
Mapping Fees (SMIP) State Fees
[c]
a) Category 1 ‐ Residential, 1st to 3rd Story Valuation x

0.00013; $0.50
minimum fee
Valuation x

0.00013; $0.50
minimum fee
No Change [c]
b) Category 2 ‐ All Other Buildings Valuation x

0.00028; $0.50
minimum fee
Valuation x

0.00028; $0.50
minimum fee
No Change [c]
19 Building Standards Administration Special Revolving Fund (BSASRF) - Permit Valuation
[c]
a) $1 to $25,000 $1 $1 No Change [c]
b) $25,001 to $50,000 $2 $2 No Change [c]
c) $50,001 to $75,000 $3 $3 No Change [c]
d) $75,001 to $100,000 $4 $4 No Change [c]
e) Every $25,000 or fraction thereof above $100,000 Add $1 Add $1 No Change [c] [a] Fee will be applied to permit and plan review fees for all new construction, additions, and additions with alterations for residential and commercial projects, excluding solar. [b] Fee will be applied to all permit and plan review fees, excluding solar. [c] Fee is intended to mirror amounts established by the State of California. In the case of discrepancies, fees established by the State of California shall supersede amounts shown in this schedule.

Appendix II: p. 11 DRAFT

Page 192 of 685 ends

0.50 x $204 = $102 $55 54% $102 100% $47 Fixed Fee
26 Certificate of Occupancy ‐ Reproduction, each 0.50 x $204 = $102 $91 89% $102 100% $11 Fixed Fee 27 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Bond Application 5.50 x $204 = $1,122 $1,126 100% $1,122 100% ($4) Fixed Fee 28 Utility Bond Application 2.00 x $204 = $408 $323 79% $408 100% $85 Fixed Fee 29 Construction Performance Bond Application 2.00 x $204 = $408 $323 79% $408 100% $85 Fixed Fee 30 Bond Based on
Construction
Valuation
Based on
Construction
Valuation
No Change
Appendix II: p. 12 DRAFT

Page 193 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Service Time Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change $ Unit Note
Photovoltaic (Solar) Permit Fees
31 Solar Photovoltaic - Residential Permit
a) 15 kW or less $450 $450 No Change Fixed Fee [a]
b) More than 15 kW (i + ii)
i) Base Fee for up to 15kW $450 $450 No Change Fixed Fee [a] ii) Fee per kW above 15kW $15 $15 No Change Fixed Fee [a] 32 Solar Photovoltaic - Non-Residential Permit
a) 50 kW or less $1,000 $1,000 No Change Fixed Fee [a]
b) 51 kW ‐ 250 kW
i) Base Fee for up to 50kW $1,000 $1,000 No Change Fixed Fee [a] ii) Fee per kW above 50kW and less than 250kW $7 $7 No Change Fixed Fee [a] c) More than 250 kW
i) Base Fee for up to 250kW $2,400 $2,400 No Change Fixed Fee [a] ii) Fee per kW above 250kW $5 $5 No Change Fixed Fee [a] Solar Thermal Permit Fees
33 Solar Thermal - Residential
a) 10 kWth or less $450 $450 No Change Fixed Fee [a]
b) More than 10 kWth
i) Base Fee for up to 10kWth $450 $450 No Change Fixed Fee [a] ii) Fee per kWth above 10kWth $15 $15 No Change Fixed Fee [a] 34 Solar Thermal - Non-Residential
a) 30 kWth or less $1,000 $1,000 No Change Fixed Fee [a] b) 31 kWth – 260 kWth
i) Base Fee for up to 30kWth $1,000 $1,000 No Change Fixed Fee [a] ii) Fee per kW above 30kWth and less than 260kWth $7 $7 No Change Fixed Fee [a] c) More than 260 kWth
i) Base Fee for up to 260kWth $2,610 $2,610 No Change Fixed Fee [a] ii) Fee per kWth above 260kWth $5 $5 No Change Fixed Fee [a] Photovoltaic Energy Storage System Permit Fees
35 Building Energy Storage System ‐ Permit Fee, each
a) Permit 2.25 x $204 = $459 $113 25% $459 100% $346 Fixed Fee b) Plan Review
i) Plan Review - Building (if required) 1.00 x $204 = $204 $166 81% $204 100% $38 Per Hour ii) Plan Review - Fire (if required; See Fire Prevention and Hazardous Materials Fees)

1.00 x $250 = $250 $170 68% $250 100% $80 Per Hour
Appendix II: p. 13 DRAFT

Page 194 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Service Time Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change $ Unit Note
Roofing Permit Fees
36 Residential Re-Roof Overlay or Prep Old Roof, Felt
(No New OSB/Sheathing)
a) First 25 squares or Fraction Thereof 1.50 x $204 = $306 $213 70% $306 100% $93 Fixed Fee b) Each Additional 25 squares or Fraction Thereof 0.25 x $204 = $51 $147 288% $51 100% ($96) Fixed Fee 37 Residential Conversion or Tear-off of Plywood, Felt (New OSB/Sheathing)
a) First 25 squares or Fraction Thereof 1.75 x $204 = $357 $295 83% $357 100% $62 Fixed Fee b) Each Additional 25 squares or Fraction Thereof 1.00 x $204 = $204 $180 88% $204 100% $24 Fixed Fee 38 Non-Residential Re-Roof See Bldg Valuation
Table; Based on
valuation or
contract price,
whichever is
greater
See Bldg Valuation
Table; Based on
valuation or
contract price,
whichever is
greater
Fixed Fee [b]
Swimming Pool Permit Fees
39 Pool Replaster Surface 2.50 x $204 = $510 $361 71% $510 100% $149 Fixed Fee 40 Pool Demolition (a + b)
a) Base Fee
i) Demo: Vinyl 2.75 x $204 = $561 $377 67% $561 100% $184 Fixed Fee ii) Demo: Gunite 4.00 x $204 = $816 $492 60% $816 100% $324 Fixed Fee b) Pre-Treatment Discharge Permit 1.00 x $250 = $250 $86 34% $250 100% varies Per Hour, Minimum Half Hour
Demolition Permit Fees
41 Demolition Permit (Fee Includes Building Plan Review) a) Up to 500 SF 3.00 x $204 = $612 $401 66% $612 100% $211 Fixed Fee b) 501 SF and Greater 5.75 x $204 = $1,173 $1,090 93% $1,173 100% $83 Fixed Fee Wall / Monument Sign or Art Sculpture Permit Fees
42 New Sign / Art Sculpture See Bldg Valuation
Table; Based on
valuation or
contract price,
whichever is
greater
See Bldg Valuation
Table; Based on
valuation or
contract price,
whichever is
greater
Fixed Fee [b]
43 Structural Footings for Monument Sign/Art Sculpture, each 1.25 x $204 = $255 $397 156% $255 100% ($142) Fixed Fee Appendix II: p. 14 DRAFT

Page 195 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Service Time Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change $ Unit Note
Electrical Stand-Alone Fees (fixture based)
In Addition to Permit Processing Fee
44 Temporary Power Service
a) For a temporary service power pole or pedestal including all pole or pedestal‐mounted receptacle outlets and
appurtenances, each

1.75 x $204 = $357 $33 9% $357 100% $324 Fixed Fee
b) For a temporary distribution system and temporary lighting and receptacle outlets for construction sites, decorative light, Christmas tree sales lots, firework stands, etc., each

1.75 x $204 = $357 $136 38% $357 100% $221 Fixed Fee
45 Lighting Fixtures
a) For lighting fixtures, sockets or other lamp-holding devices (adding or replacing only):
i) First 20 or Fraction Thereof 1.00 x $204 = $204 $34 17% $204 100% $170 Fixed Fee ii) Each Additional 20 or Fraction Thereof 0.25 x $204 = $51 $27 53% $51 100% $24 Fixed Fee b) For pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures (adding or replacing only):
i) First 10 or Fraction Thereof 1.25 x $204 = $255 $34 13% $255 100% $221 Fixed Fee ii) Each Additional 10 or Fraction Thereof 0.25 x $204 = $51 varies varies $51 100% varies Fixed Fee c) For theatrical-type lighting fixtures or assemblies (adding or replacing only):
i) First 10 or Fraction Thereof 1.00 x $204 = $204 $34 17% $204 100% $170 Fixed Fee ii) Each Additional 10 or Fraction Thereof 0.25 x $204 = $51 varies varies $51 100% varies Fixed Fee 46 Receptacle, Switch, and Lighting Outlets (currently used or controlled, except services, feeders and meters)
a) First 20 or Fraction Thereof 1.25 x $204 = $255 $34 13% $255 100% $221 Fixed Fee b) Each Additional 20 or Fraction Thereof 0.25 x $204 = $51 $27 53% $51 100% $24 Fixed Fee 47 Carnivals, circuses, or other traveling shows or exhibitions utilizing transportable-type rides, booths, displays and attractions
[c]
a) For a generator and electrically driven ride
i) First ride 1.00 x $204 = $204 $36 18% $204 100% $168 Fixed Fee [d] ii) Each additional ride 0.25 x $204 = $51 $36 71% $51 100% $15 Fixed Fee [d] b) For mechanically driven rides and walk‐through attractions or displays having electric lighting, each

1.00 x $204 = $204 $29 14% $204 100% $175 Fixed Fee
c) Site area and booth lighting 1.75 x $204 = $357 $15 4% $357 100% $342 Fixed Fee 48 Electrical Services
a) Main Electrical Service
i) 400 amps or less 2.50 x $204 = $510 $422 83% $510 100% $88 Fixed Fee ii) Over 400 amps 4.50 x $204 = $918 $771 84% $918 100% $147 Fixed Fee b) Sub-Panels
i) 200 amps or less 1.00 x $204 = $204 $193 95% $204 100% $11 Fixed Fee ii) Over 200 amps 1.50 x $204 = $306 $294 96% $306 100% $12 Fixed Fee c) Meter Pedestal 2.25 x $204 = $459 $321 70% $459 100% $138 Fixed Fee Appendix II: p. 15 DRAFT

Page 196 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Service Time Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change $ Unit Note
49 Generator Permit Fee 0.75 x $204 = $153 n/a - new n/a - new $153 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee [d] 50 Cell Tower (fee includes 1st and 2nd plan review)
a) New Cell Tower Permit, each 6.75 x $204 = $1,377 $1,137 83% $1,377 100% $240 Fixed Fee b) Alteration of Existing Cell Tower 5.00 x $204 = $1,020 $1,137 111% $1,020 100% ($117) Fixed Fee 51 Electrical Vehicle Charging (EVC) (fee includes 1st and 2nd plan review)
a) EVC - Residential 1.75 x $204 = $357 $301 84% $357 100% $56 Fixed Fee b) EVC - Residential Multi-Family See Bldg Valuation
Table; Based on
valuation or
contract price,
whichever is
greater
See Bldg Valuation
Table; Based on
valuation or
contract price,
whichever is
greater
Fixed Fee [b],[e]
c) EVC - Non-Residential See Bldg Valuation
Table; Based on
valuation or
contract price,
whichever is
greater
See Bldg Valuation
Table; Based on
valuation or
contract price,
whichever is
greater
Fixed Fee [b],[e]
Mechanical Stand-Alone Fees (fixture based)
In Addition to Permit Processing Fee
52 Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
a) Residential (New) Furnace and/or AC / Condenser / Heat Pump / Ductless / Split / Mini-Split Systems

1.75 x $204 = $357 $363 102% $200 56% ($163) Fixed Fee
b) Residential existing (Replace) Furnace and/or AC /
Condenser / Heat Pump / Ductless / Split / Mini-Split Systems

1.50 x $204 = $306 $210 69% $200 65% ($10) Fixed Fee
c) Residential (New, Adding, Replacing and/or Relocating) Ducts and Vents, each

0.25 x $204 = $51 $29 57% $51 100% $22 Fixed Fee
d) Non-Residential (New) Furnace and/or HVAC / Condenser 3.50 x $204 = $714 $540 76% $714 100% $174 Fixed Fee e) Non-Residential existing (Replace) Furnace and/or HVAC / Condenser

2.50 x $204 = $510 $401 79% $510 100% $109 Fixed Fee
f) Non-Residential (New, Adding, Replacing or Relocating) Ducts and Vents, each

1.00 x $204 = $204 $33 16% $204 100% $171 Fixed Fee
53 Forced Air Furnace or Burner, for the installation or relocation of each
a) Up to 100,000 btu/h 1.75 x $204 = $357 $20 6% $357 100% $337 Fixed Fee b) Over 100,000 btu/h 2.50 x $204 = $510 $20 4% $510 100% $490 Fixed Fee 54 Floor Furnace, for the installation or relocation of each, including vent

1.75 x $204 = $357 $17 5% $357 100% $340 Fixed Fee
55 Suspended Heater, Recessed Wall, Floor-Mounted Unit Heater, for the installation or relocation of each

1.75 x $204 = $357 $17 5% $357 100% $340 Fixed Fee
Appendix II: p. 16 DRAFT

Page 197 of 685 ends

3.25 x $204 = $663 $83 13% $663 100% $580 Fixed Fee
57 Appliance Not Listed, for each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code but not classed in other appliance categories or for which no other fee is listed

2.00 x $204 = $408 $14 3% $408 100% $394 Fixed Fee
Plumbing Stand-Alone Fees (fixture based)
In Addition to Permit Processing Fee
58 Water Heater & Water Softener Permit Fees
a) Water Heater, Tankless, Natural Gas or Heat Pump, each 1.25 x $204 = $255 varies varies $150 59% varies Fixed Fee [f] b) Water Softener 1.25 x $204 = $255 $160 63% $255 100% $95 Fixed Fee 59 Waterline, Sewer or Gas Permit Fees
a) Residential repipe waterline or gas (interior) 1.50 x $204 = $306 $290 95% $306 100% $16 Fixed Fee b) Residential repipe from house to main waterline or gas (exterior)

1.25 x $204 = $255 $202 79% $255 100% $53 Fixed Fee
c) Residential repipe sewer (interior) 2.00 x $204 = $408 $387 95% $408 100% $21 Fixed Fee d) Residential repipe from house to main sewer (exterior) 1.50 x $204 = $306 $289 94% $306 100% $17 Fixed Fee e) Non-Residential repipe waterline or gas (interior/exterior) See Bldg Valuation Table; Based on
valuation or
contract price,
whichever is
greater
See Bldg Valuation
Table; Based on
valuation or
contract price,
whichever is
greater
Fixed Fee [b]
f) Non-Residential repipe sewer (interior) 4.00 x $204 = $816 $783 96% $816 100% $33 Fixed Fee g) Non-Residential repipe from building to main sewer
(exterior)

3.50 x $204 = $714 $490 69% $714 100% $224 Fixed Fee
60 For Each Backflow Protective Device Other Than Atmospherictype Vacuum Breakers0.50 x $204 = $102 $15 - $28 varies $102 100% varies Fixed Fee 61 For Atmospheric-type Vacuum Breakers:
a) 1 to 5, each 0.50 x $204 = $102 $15 15% $102 100% $87 Fixed Fee b) Over 5, each 0.25 x $204 = $51 $2 4% $51 100% $49 Fixed Fee [a] California Government Code Section 66015.
[b] Fees calculated using building valuation table / building permit fee table. [c] For permanently installed rides, booths, displays and attractions, use the mechanical permit fees. [d] Generators using propane tanks or exceeding 55 gallons of diesel fuel require a Hazardous Materials Plan Review and Inspection. [f] If converting and/or relocating, building plan review and building inspections fees are also applicable. [e] EVC installations using lithium-ion battery backup require a Hazardous Materials Plan Review and Inspection.

Appendix II: p. 17 DRAFT

Page 198 of 685 ends

1.00 x $204 = $204 $166 81% $204 100% $38 Per Hour
Appendix II: p. 18 DRAFT

Page 199 of 685 ends

Cost of Service Analysis
Planning Fees
Appendix II: p. 19 DRAFT

Page 200 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Planning Division
Position Hourly FTE Yearly
Total Hours Per
FTE
Less: Holiday &
Leave
Productive
Hours Per FTE
Total
Productive
Hours Note
Planner I $64 1.00 $133,748 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Planner II $71 1.00 $147,740 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Planning Manager $92 1.00 $190,719 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Planning Technician $52 1.00 $107,452 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Senior Planner $85 2.00 $351,980 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 [a],[b] Total 6.00 $931,639 11,184
Contract Services
Description Total Est Hrly Cost Total Hours Note
Annual Contract Services $17,865 $135 132 [c]
Total Productive Hours Total Note
In-House 11,184
Contract 132
Total 11,316
Allocation of Hours Share Total Note
Indirect 25% 2,829 [b]
Direct 75% 8,487 [b]
Total 100% 11,316
[a] Source: FY 26/27 authorized positions.
[b] Direct/Indirect hours are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year-to-year depending on activity, projects, and City Council priorities. [c] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates of market rates for contract service providers.

Appendix II: p. 20 DRAFT

Page 201 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost Recovery and Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Development - Planning Division Recurring Expenditures [a]
Fund No Fund Desc Div Div No Account Acct Desc Budget Adjust Total Note 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 50110 SALARIES $826,399 $0 $826,399 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 50205 WORKERS COMP $2,862 $0 $2,862 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 50210 RETIREMENT (FULL TIME) $89,251 $0 $89,251 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 50212 DEFERRED COMPENSATION $2,160 $0 $2,160 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 50213 UAL RETIREMENT $157,845 $0 $157,845 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 50220 MEDICARE $11,983 $0 $11,983 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 50225 HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS $150,922 $0 $150,922 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 50230 LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS $1,221 $0 $1,221 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 50235 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROG $1,188 $0 $1,188 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 50255 MISC DISABILITY INSURANCE $1,563 $0 $1,563 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 50260 RETIREE MEDICAL $3,600 $0 $3,600 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 50270 CONTRA PERSONNEL EXPENSE ($101,900) $0 ($101,900) 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 51110 EMPLOYEE TRAINING $4,000 $0 $4,000 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 51120 EMPLOYEE TRAVEL, FOOD,LODGE $6,900 $0 $6,900 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 51420 TELECOMMUNICATIONS $1,714 $0 $1,714 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 51510 PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT $1,900 $0 $1,900 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 51610 ADVERTISING-PUBLICITY $1,800 $0 $1,800 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 51630 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $15,965 $0 $15,965 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 52110 OFFICE/COMPUTER SUPPLIES $1,150 $0 $1,150 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 52610 PROGRAM EXPENSES $500 $0 $500 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 54130 FLEET SERVICE CHARGE $1,727 $0 $1,727 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 54140 FACILITY SERVICE CHARGE $89,082 $0 $89,082 100 General Fund 4020 Planning 54145 INFO TECH SERVICE CHARGE $362,505 ($362,505) $0 [b] Total $1,634,337 ($362,505) $1,271,832
Allocation of Central Services
Description Indirect Rate Mod Op Exp Total Note
Citywide Overhead Rate 15% $1,271,832 $190,775 [c]
Total $190,775
Allocation of Total Costs
Description Total Note
Direct Expenses $1,271,832
Allocation of Citywide Overhead $190,775
Department Administration $431,823
Total $1,894,431
Appendix II: p. 21 DRAFT

Page 202 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost Recovery and Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Community Development - Planning Division Revenue Summary
Fund Desc Acct Desc
FY 21/22
Actual
FY 22/23
Actual
Multi-Year
Average Note
General Fund SERVICE CHARGE $655,261 $668,785 $662,023 [d] General Fund MISC REIMBURSEMENTS $24,235 $8,951 $16,593 [d] Total $679,496 $677,736 $678,616
Description Total
Average Revenue $678,616
Expenditures $1,894,431
Cost Recovery Rate 36%
General Fund Amount $1,215,815
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total Note
Costs $1,894,431
Direct Hours 8,487 [e]
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate $223
[a] Source: FY 26/27 adopted expenditures (amended).
[b] Recovered via separate fee.
[c] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate (de minimis rate). [d] Amounts are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year to year depending on development activity. [e] See separate worksheet.

Appendix II: p. 22 DRAFT

Page 203 of 685 ends

Page 204 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Planning Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Service Time Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change $ Charge Basis Note
Design Review
8 Architectural and Site Review - Residential
a) Residential Flat New Construction
i) 2 to 3 units 18.00 x $223 = $4,014 modified structure varies $4,014 100% varies Fixed Fee ii) 4 to 50 units
a) Base Fee for Up to Ten Units 58.50 x $223 = $13,046 $9,087 70% $13,046 100% $3,959 Fixed Fee b) Fee for Each Additional Unit (Between 11 and 50) 1.78 x $223 = $396 modified structure varies $396 100% varies Fixed Fee iii) 51 to 100 units
a) Base Fee for First 50 Units 129.50 x $223 = $28,879 modified structure varies $28,879 100% varies Fixed Fee b) Fee for Each Additional Unit (Between 51 and 100) 0.90 x $223 = $201 modified structure varies $201 100% varies Fixed Fee iv) 101 to 300 units
a) Base Fee for First 100 Units 174.50 x $223 = $38,914 modified structure varies $38,914 100% varies Fixed Fee b) Fee for Each Additional Unit (Between 101 and 300) 0.45 x $223 = $100 modified structure varies $100 100% varies Fixed Fee v) More than 300 Units
a) Base Fee for First 300 Units 264.00 x $223 = $58,872 modified structure varies $58,872 100% varies Fixed Fee b) Fee for Each Additional Unit 0.22 x $223 = $50 modified structure varies $50 100% varies Fixed Fee b) Residential Hillside (RH) New Construction (RH Zone) i) Single Custom Home 25.50 x $223 = $5,687 $4,965 87% $5,687 100% $722 Fixed Fee ii) 2 to 3 units 27.00 x $223 = $6,021 modified structure varies $6,021 100% varies Fixed Fee iii) 4 to 50 units
a) Base Fee for Up to Ten Units 81.00 x $223 = $18,063 modified structure varies $18,063 100% varies Fixed Fee b) Fee for Each Additional Unit (Between 11 and 50) 2.40 x $223 = $535 modified structure varies $535 100% varies Fixed Fee iv) 50 to 100 units
a) Base Fee for First 50 Units 177.00 x $223 = $39,471 modified structure varies $39,471 100% varies Fixed Fee b) Fee for Each Additional Unit (Between 51 and 100) 1.20 x $223 = $268 modified structure varies $268 100% varies Fixed Fee v) More than 100 units
a) Base Fee for First 100 Units 237.00 x $223 = $52,851 modified structure varies $52,851 100% varies Fixed Fee b) Fee for Each Additional Unit 0.60 x $223 = $134 modified structure varies $134 100% varies Fixed Fee c) Residential Hillside/Multifamily Remodel/Additions 13.00 x $223 = $2,899 $1,285 44% $2,899 100% $1,614 Fixed Fee d) Residential Accessory Structure over 12 feet high OR twostories

23.50 x $223 = $5,241 modified structure varies $5,241 100% varies Fixed Fee, Plus Public Noticing [b] 9 Architectural and Site Review - Industrial
a) New Construction (up to 10,000 sq.ft.) 54.50 x $223 = $12,154 $8,388 69% $12,154 100% $3,766 Fixed Fee b) New Construction (each additional 10,000 sq.ft. or
fraction thereof)

5.50 x $223 = $1,227 $661 54% $1,227 100% $566 Fixed Fee c) Industrial Remodel/Additions 16.00 x $223 = $3,568 $2,511 70% $3,568 100% $1,057 Fixed Fee Appendix II: p. 24 DRAFT

Page 205 of 685 ends

8.00 x $223 = $1,784 $1,015 57% $1,784 100% $769 Fixed Fee c) Commercial Remodel/Additions 16.00 x $223 = $3,568 $2,901 81% $3,568 100% $667 Fixed Fee 11 Historic Resource Review (Staff) 7.25 x $223 = $1,617 $3,217 199% $1,617 100% ($1,600) Fixed Fee, Plus Consultant Fees, Plus 15% Staff Review,
Plus 12% Administrative Fee,
Plus Attorney Fees, Plus 10%
Contingency, Plus Public
Noticing
[a],[b]
12 Historic Resource Review, Demolition, or Significant Alteration(s) (Planning Commission) - Additional Fee

16.25 x $223 = $3,624 varies varies $3,624 100% varies Fixed Fee, Plus Consultant Fees, Plus 15% Staff Review,
Plus 12% Administrative Fee,
Plus Attorney Fees, Plus 10%
Contingency, Plus Public
Noticing
[a],[b]
13 Historic Resource Review, Demolition, or Significant Alteration(s) (City Council) - Additional Fee

25.25 x $223 = $5,631 varies varies $5,631 100% varies Fixed Fee, Plus Consultant Fees, Plus 15% Staff Review,
Plus 12% Administrative Fee,
Plus Attorney Fees, Plus 10%
Contingency, Plus Public
Noticing
[a],[b]
14 Las Animas/Murray Overlay Fee 18.25 x $223 = $4,070 $1,558 38% $4,070 100% $2,512 Fixed Fee, Plus Public Noticing [b] 15 Minor Modification 1.50 x $223 = $335 $350 105% $335 100% ($16) Minimum Fee, Plus Public Noticing, Time & Materials
[a],[b]
Environmental
16 Categorical Exemption 5.00 x $223 = $1,115 $588 53% $1,115 100% $527 Fixed Fee 17 EIR/MND/Initial Study/Environmental Consultation Pass Through 100% Pass Through, Plus 15% Staff Review,
Plus 12%
Administrative Fee,
Plus 10%
Contingency, Plus
Attorney Fees, Plus
Public Noticing
100% varies Pass Through [a],[b]
18 Habitat Plan Review Pass Through 100% Pass Through, Plus 15% Staff Review,
Plus 12%
Administrative Fee,
Plus 10%
Contingency
100% varies Pass Through [a],[b]
19 Habitat Conservation Permit Processing for Nitrogen-Deposit Only (NDO)

2.00 x $223 = $446 n/a - new n/a - new $446 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee 20 Habitat Agency Fee Pass Through Pass Through 100% No Change Pass Through [a] Appendix II: p. 25 DRAFT

Page 206 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Planning Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Service Time Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change $ Charge Basis Note
General Plan Amendment
21 General Plan Map Amendment
a) Up to 10 acres
i) Base Fee (Includes up to 70 hours of staff review) 70.00 x $223 = $15,610 $17,096 110% $15,610 100% ($1,486) Fixed Fee, Plus Attorney Fees, Plus Public Noticing
[a],[b]
ii) Each Additional Hour, if applicable 1.00 x $223 = $223 modified structure varies $223 100% varies Per Hour b) Over 10 acres
i) Base Fee (Includes up to 100 hours of staff review) 100.00 x $223 = $22,300 $17,096 77% $22,300 100% $5,204 Fixed Fee, Plus Attorney Fees, Plus Public Noticing
[a],[b]
ii) Each Additional Hour, if applicable 1.00 x $223 = $223 modified structure varies $223 100% varies Per Hour 22 General Plan Text Amendment
a) Base Fee (Includes up to 140 hours of staff review) 140.00 x $223 = $31,220 $17,096 55% $31,220 100% $14,124 Fixed Fee, Plus Attorney Fees, Plus Public Noticing
[a],[b]
b) Each Additional Hour, if applicable 1.00 x $223 = $223 modified structure varies $223 100% varies Per Hour Inspections
23 Planning Inspections 1.00 x $223 = $223 Divisional hourly rate
varies $223 100% varies Per Hour, Minimum 1 Hour
24 Special Services/Inspections 1.00 x $223 = $223 Division(s) hourly rate
varies $223 100% varies Per Hour, Minimum 3 Hours
25 Planning Inspections Outside of Normal Business Hours 1.00 x $268 = $268 $522 195% $268 100% varies Per Hour, Minimum 2 Hours 26 Planning Re‐Inspection
a) Base Fee (Up to 1.5 hours) 1.50 x $223 = $335 n/a - new n/a - new $335 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee [c] b) Each Additional Hour 1.00 x $223 = $223 n/a - new n/a - new $223 100% n/a - new Per Hour [c] Pre-Application
27 Pre‐Application Development Review Group (DRG) Review 17.50 x $223 = $3,903 $3,819 98% $3,903 100% $84 Fixed Fee 28 Pre-Application: SB 330 Review 9.00 x $223 = $2,007 varies varies $2,007 100% varies Fixed Fee Plan Review of Building Permits
29 Planning Plan Review of Building Permits 1.00 x $223 = $223 Divisional hourly rate
varies $223 100% varies Per hour
30 Expedited Plan Review of Building Permits n/a - new n/a - new 1.5x base fee 100% n/a - new Per hour Public Noticing
31 Print Media Publication $1,237 varies $729 100% ($508) Fixed Fee 32 Public Notice Preparation and Mailing 4.00 x $223 = $892 varies varies $892 100% varies Fixed Fee Appendix II: p. 26 DRAFT

Page 207 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Planning Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Service Time Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change $ Charge Basis Note
Signs
33 Sign Permit
a) First sign 1.50 x $223 = $335 $321 96% $335 100% $14 Fixed Fee b) Each additional sign or refacing 0.50 x $223 = $112 $139 125% $112 100% ($28) Fixed Fee 34 Temporary Banners 0.33 x $223 = $74 varies varies $74 100% varies Fixed Fee 35 Master Shopping Center Sign Program 9.00 x $223 = $2,007 $2,437 121% $2,007 100% ($430) Fixed Fee 36 Modification of Sign Program 7.00 x $223 = $1,561 $556 36% $1,561 100% $1,005 Fixed Fee Tentative Maps
37 Tentative Parcel Map (up to 4 lots) 45.00 x $223 = $10,035 $11,234 112% $10,035 100% ($1,199) Fixed Fee, Plus Attorney Fees, Plus Public Noticing
[a],[b]
38 Tentative Tract Map (5 or more lots)
a) 5 ‐ 12 lots 76.00 x $223 = $16,948 $20,857 123% $16,948 100% ($3,909) Fixed Fee, Plus Attorney Fees, Plus Public Noticing
[a],[b]
b) Each lot over 12 lots, Flat lot 2.50 x $223 = $558 $331 59% $558 100% $227 Fixed Fee, Plus Attorney Fees, Plus Public Noticing
[a],[b]
c) Each lot over 12 lots, Hillside lot 4.50 x $223 = $1,004 $961 96% $1,004 100% $43 Fixed Fee, Plus Attorney Fees, Plus Public Noticing
[a],[b]
39 Tentative Tract Map Extension 7.00 x $223 = $1,561 $841 54% $1,561 100% $720 Fixed Fee, Plus Attorney Fees, Plus Public Noticing
[a],[b]
Tree Removal
40 Tree Removal Permit 2.00 x $223 = $446 $329 74% $446 100% $117 Fixed Fee, Plus Public Noticing [b] 41 Tree Removal Permit (dead tree) 0.50 x $223 = $112 $329 295% $112 100% ($218) Fixed Fee Temporary Use Permit
42 Temporary Use Permit
a) Base Fee (Includes up to 9 hours of staff review) 9.00 x $223 = $2,007 $2,272 113% $2,007 100% ($265) Fixed Fee b) Each Additional Hour, if applicable 1.00 x $223 = $223 modified structure varies $223 100% varies Per Hour 43 Minor Temporary Use Permit
a) Base Fee (Includes up to 2 hours of staff review) 2.00 x $223 = $446 $1,683 377% $446 100% ($1,237) Fixed Fee b) Each Additional Hour, if applicable 1.00 x $223 = $223 modified structure varies $223 100% varies Per Hour Urban Service Area Amendment
44 Urban Service Area Amendment 225.00 x $223 = $50,175 $31,980 64% $50,175 100% $18,195 Fixed Fee, Plus Attorney Fees, Plus Public Noticing
[a],[b]
Appendix II: p. 27 DRAFT

Page 208 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Planning Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Service Time Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change $ Charge Basis Note
Use Permits
45 Conditional Use Permit 35.00 x $223 = $7,805 $6,059 78% $7,805 100% $1,746 Fixed Fee, Plus Attorney Fees, Plus Public Noticing
[a],[b]
46 Minor Use Permit 18.00 x $223 = $4,014 $1,270 32% $4,014 100% $2,744 Fixed Fee 47 Downtown Special Use Permit 22.00 x $223 = $4,906 varies varies $4,906 100% varies Fixed Fee 48 Downtown Use Permit 18.00 x $223 = $4,014 varies varies $4,014 100% varies Fixed Fee Variance
49 Minor Deviation Variance Review 11.00 x $223 = $2,453 $2,687 110% $2,453 100% ($234) Fixed Fee, Plus Attorney Fees, Plus Public Noticing
[a],[b]
50 Variance Request 34.00 x $223 = $7,582 $5,992 79% $7,582 100% $1,590 Fixed Fee, Plus Attorney Fees, Plus Public Noticing
[a],[b]
Wireless Facilities
51 Wireless (new facility) 17.00 x $223 = $3,791 varies varies $3,791 100% varies Fixed Fee 52 Wireless Eligible Facility Request / Zoning Clearance 3.50 x $223 = $781 varies varies $781 100% varies Fixed Fee Zoning
53 Planned Development 69.25 x $223 = $15,443 $17,753 115% $15,443 100% ($2,310) Fixed Fee, Plus Arch & Site Fee, Plus Attorney Fees, Plus
Public Noticing
[a],[b]
54 Zoning Map Amendment
a) Up to 10 acres 61.00 x $223 = $13,603 $13,022 96% $13,603 100% $581 Fixed Fee, Plus Attorney Fees, Plus Public Noticing
[a],[b]
b) Over 10 acres 84.00 x $223 = $18,732 $13,022 70% $18,732 100% $5,710 Fixed Fee, Plus Attorney Fees, Plus Public Noticing
[a],[b]
55 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 103.00 x $223 = $22,969 $15,797 69% $22,969 100% $7,172 Fixed Fee, Plus Attorney Fees, Plus Public Noticing
[a],[b]
56 Zoning Verification 1.50 x $223 = $335 $438 131% $335 100% ($104) Fixed Fee 57 Zoning Verification - Additional Research 4.00 x $223 = $892 n/a - new n/a - new $892 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee Other Review and Service Fees
58 Community Planning Fee 20% 20% No Change % of Planning Application Fee 59 Entitlement Approval Time Extension 1.00 x $223 = $223 $449 201% $223 100% ($226) Fixed Fee, Plus Public Noticing [b] 60 Public Hearing Continuation Request by Applicant 2.50 x $223 = $558 Div Hourly Rate $558 100% varies Fixed Fee, Plus Public Noticing [b] 61 Home Occupation Permit 1.00 x $223 = $223 n/a - new n/a - new $223 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee Appendix II: p. 28 DRAFT

Page 209 of 685 ends

1.00 x $223 = $223 $166 74% $223 100% $57 Per hour
[a] "Time & Materials” and "Pass Through" fees include all costs including consultant costs, outside agency costs, noticing costs, etc. Additional fees may be assessed, as determined by the Community Development Director, based upon complications due to environmental review, three or more resubmittals, applicant initiated project revisions, continued public hearings, additional publishing costs, and applicant delays, etc. [b] For those projects involving multiple applications, the publishing costs will be reduced to a single charge when it is determined, and reasonably possible, that the public hearing applications can be processed together. For any user fee service request that is outside the scope, or for services for which there is no fee currently set, the City can charge the Division Hourly Rate. [c] Re-inspection fees apply at the third re-inspection.

Appendix II: p. 29 DRAFT

Page 210 of 685 ends

Cost of Service Analysis
Fire Prevention and Hazardous Materials Fees
Appendix II: p. 30 DRAFT

Page 211 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Fire Prevention
Position Hourly FTE Yearly
Total Hours
Per FTE
Less: Holiday
& Leave
Productive
Hours Per FTE
Total
Productive
Hours Notes
Fire Marshal (Non-Safety) $92 0.60 $114,431 2,080 216 1,864 1,118 [a],[b] Senior Hazardous Materials Inspector $78 0.35 $57,119 2,080 216 1,864 652 [a],[b] Hazardous Materials Inspector I $64 1.00 $133,748 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Total 1.95 $305,298 3,635
Contract Services
Description Total
Est
Hrly Cost
Total
Hours Notes
Annual Contract Services $105,000 $135 778 [c]
Total Total Notes
In-House 3,635
Contract 778
Total 4,413
Allocation of Hours Share Total Notes
Indirect 20% 883 [b]
Direct 80% 3,530 [b]
Total 100% 4,413
[a] Source: FY 26/27 authorized positions.
[b] Direct/Indirect hours are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year-to-year depending on activity, projects, and City Council priorities. [c] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates of market rates for contract service providers.

Appendix II: p. 31 DRAFT

Page 212 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Allocation - Fire Prevention
Operating Expenses [a]
Fund No Fund Desc Div Div No Acct No Acct Desc Total Adjust Total Note 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 50110 SALARIES $289,115 $0 $289,115 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 50205 WORKERS COMP $2,328 $0 $2,328 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 50210 RETIREMENT (FULL TIME) $31,224 $0 $31,224 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 50212 DEFERRED COMPENSATION $702 $0 $702 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 50213 UAL RETIREMENT $55,222 $0 $55,222 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 50220 MEDICARE $4,192 $0 $4,192 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 50225 HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS $40,999 $0 $40,999 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 50230 LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS $392 $0 $392 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 50235 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROG $386 $0 $386 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 50255 MISC DISABILITY INSURANCE $467 $0 $467 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 50270 CONTRA PERSONNEL EXPENSE ($34,423) $0 ($34,423) 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 50310 APPAREL, BOOTS, PPE $660 $0 $660 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 51110 EMPLOYEE TRAINING $6,100 $0 $6,100 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 51120 EMPLOYEE TRAVEL, FOOD,LODGE $6,200 $0 $6,200 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 51420 TELECOMMUNICATIONS $3,210 $0 $3,210 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 51510 PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT $2,520 $0 $2,520 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 51610 ADVERTISING-PUBLICITY $4,220 $0 $4,220 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 51630 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $105,000 $0 $105,000 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 52110 OFFICE/COMPUTER SUPPLIES $2,950 $0 $2,950 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 52610 PROGRAM EXPENSES $1,200 $0 $1,200 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 52620 NUISANCE ABATEMENT $1,400 $0 $1,400 100 General Fund 4040 Fire Prevention 54140 FACILITY SERVICE CHARGE $28,952 $0 $28,952 Total $553,016 $0 $553,016
Allocation of Central Services
Description Indirect Rate Mod Op Exp Total Note
Citywide Overhead Rate 15% $553,016 $82,952 [b]
Total $82,952
Appendix II: p. 32 DRAFT

Page 213 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Allocation - Fire Prevention
Total Costs for Allocation
Description Total Note
Direct Costs $553,016
Citywide Overhead Costs $82,952
Department Administration $246,756
Total $882,725
Average Annual Revenues
Acct No Acct Desc
FY 22/23
Actual
FY 23/24
Actual
Multi-Year
Average Note
41120 BUILDING PERMITS $88,768 $106,767 $97,767 [c]
41130 HMSO PERMITS $189,115 $284,667 $236,891 [c]
41140 UFC PERMITS $124,752 $68,199 $96,476 [c]
41150 OTHER LICENSES & PERMITS $72,465 $115,616 $94,041 [c] 45110 PLAN CHECK FEES $83,117 $89,279 $86,198 [c]
45115 INSPECTIONS AND ANALYSIS $113,670 $181,565 $147,617 [c] 47810 MISC REVENUES $38,172 $32,331 $35,251 [c]
Total $710,058 $878,424 $794,241
Current Cost Recovery
Description Total
Revenue $794,241
Expenditures $882,725
Cost Recovery Rate 90%
General Fund Amount $88,484
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total Note
Costs $882,725
Direct Hours 3,530 [d]
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate $250
[a] Source: FY 26/27 adopted expenditures (amended).
[b] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate (de minimis rate). [c] Amounts are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year to year depending on development activity. [d] See separate worksheet.

Appendix II: p. 33 DRAFT

Page 214 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fire Prevention and Hazardous Materials Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Service Time Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Est. Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change $ Charge Basis Note
Fire Prevention - Construction and Single Use
1 Fire Prevention Plan Review
a) Up to 3 Rounds of Reviews 2.50 x $250 = $625 $588 94% $625 100% $37 Fixed Fee b) Beyond 3 rounds, each resubmittal 1.00 x $250 = $250 n/a - new $250 100% n/a - new Per Hour 2 Fire Permit (Construction) See Bldg Valuation
Table
See Bldg Valuation
Table
No Change Fixed Fee
3 Fire Prevention Expedited Plan Review n/a - new n/a - new 150% of Fire Plan Review Fee
100% n/a - new Fixed Fee
4 Fire Prevention Re‐Inspection
a) Base Fee (Up to 1.5 hours) 1.50 x $250 = $375 varies varies $375 100% varies Fixed Fee [a] b) Each Additional Hour 1.00 x $250 = $250 varies varies $250 100% varies Per Hour [a] 5 Fire Clearance Inspection
a) Up to 2 Hours 2.00 x $250 = $500 $410 82% $500 100% $90 Fixed Fee b) Each Additional Hour 1.00 x $250 = $250 n/a - new $250 100% n/a - new Per Hour 6 Fire Clearance Consultation
a) Up to 2 Hours 2.00 x $250 = $500 n/a - new n/a - new $500 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee b) Each Additional Hour 1.00 x $250 = $250 n/a - new n/a - new $250 100% n/a - new Per Hour 7 Fire Sprinkler Permit 2.50 x $250 = $625 varies varies $625 100% varies Fixed Fee 8 Fire Flow Per Hydrant 2.25 x $250 = $563 $503 89% $563 100% $60 Fixed Fee 9 Fire Energy Storage System ‐ ESS having capacities
exceeding 20 KWh
a) Inspection 1.00 x $250 = $250 $151 60% $250 100% $100 Per Hour b) Plan Review 1.00 x $250 = $250 $231 92% $250 100% $20 Per Hour c) Consultant Fee and Contract Administration Pass Through, Plus 15% Administrative
Fee
100% varies Time & Materials
10 Fire Alternate Materials and Methods Review, each type (Consultant)
Division Hourly
Rate + Contractual
Costs
Pass Through, Plus
15% Administrative
Fee
100% varies Time & Materials
11 Fire Alternate Materials and Methods Review, each type (Staff)
a) Application and Review 5.00 x $250 = $1,250 $326 26% $1,250 100% $924 Fixed Fee b) Each Additional Review/Inspection 1.00 x $250 = $250 n/a - new n/a - new $250 100% n/a - new Per Hour Appendix II: p. 34 DRAFT

Page 215 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fire Prevention and Hazardous Materials Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Service Time Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Est. Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change $ Charge Basis Note
12 Special Event Plan Review
a) Up to 2 Hours 2.00 x $250 = $500 n/a - new n/a - new $500 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee b) Each Additional Hour 1.00 x $250 = $250 n/a - new n/a - new $250 100% n/a - new Per Hour 13 Special Event Inspection
a) Up to 2 Hours
i) During Regular Business Hours 2.00 x $250 = $500 $426 85% $500 100% $74 Fixed Fee ii) Outside of Regular Business Hours 2.00 x $300 = $600 $426 71% $600 100% $174 Fixed Fee b) Each Additional Hour
i) During Regular Business Hours 1.00 x $250 = $250 n/a - new n/a - new $250 100% n/a - new Per Hour ii) Outside of Regular Business Hours 1.00 x $300 = $300 n/a - new n/a - new $300 100% n/a - new Per Hour 14 Special Inspection
a) Application and Review 1.00 x $250 = $250 n/a - new n/a - new $250 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee b) Each Additional Review/Inspection 1.00 x $250 = $250 n/a - new n/a - new $250 100% n/a - new Per Hour c) Consultant Fee and Contract Administration Pass Through, Plus 15% Administrative
Fee
varies Time & Materials
Fire Prevention - Operational (Annual)
15 Fire Code Operational Permit 2.00 x $250 = $500 $473 95% $500 100% $27 Fixed Fee 16 Fire Operational Compliance Re‐Inspection
a) Up to 1.5 Hours 1.50 x $250 = $375 varies varies $375 100% varies Fixed Fee b) Each Additional Hour 1.00 x $250 = $250 varies varies $250 100% varies Per Hour 17 State Fire Marshal Mandated Inspections - Apartments a) 3‐7 units 1.00 x $250 = $250 $280 112% $250 100% ($30) Per Parcel b) 8-16 units 1.50 x $250 = $375 $280 75% $375 100% $95 Per Parcel c) 17‐32 units 2.00 x $250 = $500 $363 73% $500 100% $137 Per Parcel d) 33‐100 units 2.50 x $250 = $625 $447 72% $625 100% $178 Per Parcel e) 101-199 units 3.00 x $250 = $750 $613 82% $750 100% $137 Per Parcel f) 200 plus units 5.00 x $250 = $1,250 $613 49% $1,250 100% $637 Per Parcel 18 State Fire Marshal Mandated Inspection - Other Regulated Sites (Schools, Hotels/Motels, Licensed Care Facilities, Institutions)
a) Less than 10,000 sq. ft. 1.50 x $250 = $375 $548 146% $375 100% ($173) Per Parcel b) 10,000 sq. ft. or greater 2.50 x $250 = $625 $548 88% $625 100% $77 Per Parcel Appendix II: p. 35 DRAFT

Page 216 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Fire Prevention and Hazardous Materials Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Service Time Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Est. Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change $ Charge Basis Note
CUPA/Hazardous Materials - General Fees
19 Spill Investigation, Response/Cleanup oversight 1.00 x $250 = $250 Division hourly rate varies $250 100% varies Per Hour 20 Facility Closure
a) Up to 2 Hours 2.00 x $250 = $500 $491 98% $500 100% $9 Fixed Fee b) Each Additional Hour 1.00 x $250 = $250 n/a - new n/a - new $250 100% n/a - new Per Hour 21 CUPA/Hazardous Materials - Construction
a) Hazardous Materials Plan Review (Construction)
i) Up to 2 Hours 2.00 x $250 = $500 $751 150% $500 100% ($251) Fixed Fee ii) Each Additional Hour 1.00 x $250 = $250 n/a - new n/a - new $250 100% n/a - new Per Hour b) Hazardous Materials Inspection (Construction)
i) Up to 1 Hour 1.00 x $250 = $250 n/a - new n/a - new $250 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee ii) Each Additional Hour 1.00 x $250 = $250 n/a - new n/a - new $250 100% n/a - new Per Hour 22 Underground Storage Tank (UST) Installation
a) 1-3 tanks per site 25.00 x $250 = $6,250 $3,663 59% $6,250 100% $2,587 Fixed Fee b) Over 3 tanks, each
i) Up to 8 Hours 8.00 x $250 = $2,000 n/a - new n/a - new $2,000 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee ii) Each Additional Hour 1.00 x $250 = $250 n/a - new n/a - new $250 100% n/a - new Per Hour 23 UST Repair/Modification
a) Piping and tank system repair only
i) Up to 2.5 Hours 2.50 x $250 = $625 $512 82% $625 100% $113 Fixed Fee ii) Each Additional Hour 1.00 x $250 = $250 n/a - new n/a - new $250 100% n/a - new Per Hour 24 UST Closure and Removal
a) Removal, per tank - Up to 8 Hours 8.00 x $250 = $2,000 $1,613 81% $2,000 100% $387 Fixed Fee b) Each Additional Hour 1.00 x $250 = $250 n/a - new n/a - new $250 100% n/a - new Per Hour 25 UST Testing, per tank 2.00 x $250 = $500 $292 58% $500 100% $208 Per Tank 26 CUPA/Hazardous Materials Re‐Inspection
a) Base Fee (Up to 1.5 hours) 1.50 x $250 = $375 varies varies $375 100% varies Fixed Fee [a] b) Each Additional Hour 1.00 x $250 = $250 varies varies $250 100% varies Per Hour [a] Appendix II: p. 36 DRAFT

Page 217 of 685 ends

1.25 x $250 = $313 $288 92% $313 100% $25 Fixed Fee
b) HMSO2 (threshold limits: up to 5,000 lbs, solids; 55- 550 gal, liquids; 200-2,000 cu. ft. at STP for compressed gas)

1.75 x $250 = $438 $421 96% $438 100% $17 Fixed Fee
c) HMSO3 (threshold limits: 5,001-25,000 lbs, solids; 551- 2,750 gal, liquids; 2,001-10,000 cu. ft. at STP for
compressed gas)

2.75 x $250 = $688 $686 100% $688 100% $2 Fixed Fee
d) HMSO4 (threshold limits: 25,001-50,000 lbs, solids;
2,751-5,500 gal, liquids; 10,000-20,000 cu. ft. at STP for compressed gas)

3.75 x $250 = $938 $883 94% $938 100% $55 Fixed Fee
e) HMSO5 (threshold limits: > 50,000 lbs, solids; > 5,500 gal, liquids; > 20,000 cu. ft. at STP for compressed gas)

4.25 x $250 = $1,063 $1,016 96% $1,063 100% $47 Fixed Fee 29 Hazardous Waste Generator (HWG) Annual Permit
a) HWG0–Retail/Episodic (less than 100 kg/month) 1.25 x $250 = $313 $263 84% $313 100% $50 Fixed Fee b) HWG1 (less than 2.5 tons/year) 1.25 x $250 = $313 $288 92% $313 100% $25 Fixed Fee c) HWG2 (greater than 2.5 to less than 5 tons/year) 1.50 x $250 = $375 $353 94% $375 100% $22 Fixed Fee d) HWG3 (greater than 5 to less than 25 tons/year) 2.25 x $250 = $563 $553 98% $563 100% $10 Fixed Fee e) HWG4 (greater than 25 to less than 50 tons/year) 3.25 x $250 = $813 $751 92% $813 100% $62 Fixed Fee f) HWG5 (greater than 50 to less than 250 tons/year) 4.00 x $250 = $1,000 $951 95% $1,000 100% $49 Fixed Fee g) HWG6 (greater than 250 to less than 500 tons/year) 4.50 x $250 = $1,125 $1,149 102% $1,125 100% ($24) Fixed Fee h) HWG7 (greater than 500 to less than 1,000 tons/year) 5.50 x $250 = $1,375 $1,348 98% $1,375 100% $27 Fixed Fee i) HWG8 (greater than 1,000 to less than 2,000
tons/year)

6.25 x $250 = $1,563 $1,547 99% $1,563 100% $16 Fixed Fee 30 Hazardous Waste Conditional Exempt (CE) Annual Tiered Permit

1.75 x $250 = $438 $421 96% $438 100% $17 Fixed Fee
31 Hazardous Waste Conditional Authorization (CA) Annual Tiered Permit

3.00 x $250 = $750 $686 91% $750 100% $64 Fixed Fee
32 Hazardous Waste Annual Tiered Permit by Rule (PBR) 5.50 x $250 = $1,375 $1,348 98% $1,375 100% $27 Fixed Fee, Plus Recording Fees
33 California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CAL‐ARP Facility) Annual Permit

5.00 x $250 = $1,250 $686 55% $1,250 100% $564 Fixed Fee, Includes 5-year Audit
34 CAL‐ARP Facility Audit Fee for New Facilities
a) Staff Audit 17.75 x $250 = $4,438 $2,774 63% $4,438 100% $1,664 Fixed Fee b) Consultant Audit Pass Through, Plus
15% Administrative
Fee
Time & Materials
Appendix II: p. 37 DRAFT

Page 218 of 685 ends

1.75 x $250 = $438 $421 96% $438 100% $17 Fixed Fee
b) Tier 2 (Containers greater than 5,000 gallons and no more than 10, 000 gallons. Cannot have an aggregate
total storage of more than 10,000 gallons.)

2.00 x $250 = $500 $486 97% $500 100% $14 Fixed Fee
c) Non‐qualifying Facility (Containers greater than 10,000 gallons)

2.50 x $250 = $625 $553 88% $625 100% $72 Fixed Fee
36 Underground Storage Tank (UST) Annual Operating Permit a) 1-3 tanks per site 5.25 x $250 = $1,313 $1,296 99% $1,313 100% $17 Fixed Fee b) 4 or more tanks per site, per tank 3.00 x $250 = $750 $1,487 198% $750 100% ($737) Fixed Fee 37 UST Compliance Re‐inspection (Operational) 2.25 x $250 = $563 $514 91% $563 100% $49 Fixed Fee Fire Prevention and Hazardous Materials Miscellaneous
Fees
38 Fire Prevention/Hazardous Materials Technology Fee modified structure varies 5% varies % of Permit and Plan Review Fees
39 Late Fee 1.00 x $250 = $250 $343 137% $250 100% ($93) Fixed Fee 40 Fire Prevention and/or CUPA/Hazmat Inventory and
Equipment Review
a) Up to 2 Hours 2.00 x $250 = $500 $349 70% $500 100% $151 Fixed Fee b) Each Additional Hour 1.00 x $250 = $250 n/a - new n/a - new $250 100% n/a - new Per Hour 41 Flammable/Combustible Materials Above‐Ground Storage Tank (over 10,000 gallons) and new technological hazards

8.50 x $250 = $2,125 $2,097 99% $2,125 100% $28 Per Address Fireworks Fees
42 Fireworks Fire Engine Standby
a) During Normal Business Hours $1,901 varies Dept Divisional Hourly Rate(s)
100% varies Per Hour
b) Outside of Normal Business Hours varies varies OT Dept Divisional Hourly Rate(s)
100% varies Per Hour
43 Fireworks Public Display Inspection Permit (includes inspection and Fire Code Operational Permit)

4.00 x $250 = $1,000 $615 62% $1,000 100% $385 Fixed Fee 44 Fireworks ‐ Retail Sales, per booth 3.50 x $250 = $875 $830 95% $875 100% $45 Fixed Fee 45 Fireworks Vendor Storage Permit (includes Fire Code
Operational Permit)

7.50 x $250 = $1,875 n/a - new n/a - new $1,875 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee Appendix II: p. 38 DRAFT

Page 219 of 685 ends

1.00 x $250 = $250 $170 68% $250 100% $80 Per Hour
[b] Fee is intended to mirror amounts established by the State of California. In the case of discrepancies, fees established by the State of California shall supersede amounts shown in this schedule. [a] Re-inspection fees apply at the third re-inspection.

Appendix II: p. 39 DRAFT

Page 220 of 685 ends

Cost of Service Analysis
Code Enforcement Fees
Appendix II: p. 40 DRAFT

Page 221 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Code Enforcement Division Position Hourly FTE Yearly
Total Hours
Per FTE
Less: Holiday
& Leave
Productive
Hours Per FTE
Total
Productive
Hours Notes
Supervising Code Enforcement Officer $74 1.00 $153,810 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Code Enforcement Officer $64 4.00 $534,992 2,080 216 1,864 7,456 [a],[b] Total 5.00 $688,802 9,320
Allocation of Hours Share Total Notes
Indirect 30% 2,796 [b]
Direct 70% 6,524 [b]
Total 100% 9,320
[a] Source: FY 26/27 authorized positions.
[b] Direct/Indirect hours are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year-to-year depending on activity, projects, and City Council priorities. [c] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates of market rates for contract service providers.

Appendix II: p. 41 DRAFT

Page 222 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Allocation - Code Enforcement
Operating Expenses [a]
Fund No Fund Desc Div Div No Acct No Acct Desc Total Adjust Total Note 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 50110 SALARIES $412,666 $0 $412,666 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 50205 WORKERS COMP $6,114 $0 $6,114 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 50210 RETIREMENT (FULL TIME) $44,568 $0 $44,568 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 50212 DEFERRED COMPENSATION $720 $0 $720 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 50213 UAL RETIREMENT $78,821 $0 $78,821 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 50220 MEDICARE $5,984 $0 $5,984 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 50225 HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS $70,635 $0 $70,635 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 50230 LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS $461 $0 $461 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 50235 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROG $594 $0 $594 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 50255 MISC DISABILITY INSURANCE $616 $0 $616 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 50270 CONTRA ($50,271) $0 ($50,271) 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 50310 APPAREL, BOOTS, PPE $1,800 $0 $1,800 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 51110 EMPLOYEE TRAINING $600 $0 $600 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 51120 EMPLOYEE TRAVEL, FOOD,LODGE $1,800 $0 $1,800 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 51420 TELECOMMUNICATIONS $2,961 $0 $2,961 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 51510 PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT $690 $0 $690 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 51610 ADVERTISING-PUBLICITY $1,200 $0 $1,200 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 52110 OFFICE/COMPUTER SUPPLIES $200 $0 $200 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 52610 PROGRAM EXPENSES $1,500 $0 $1,500 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 52620 NUISANCE ABATEMENT $15,000 $0 $15,000 100 General Fund 4035 Code Enforcem't 54140 FACILITY SERVICE CHARGE $44,541 $0 $44,541 Total $641,200 $0 $641,200
Allocation of Central Services
Description Indirect Rate Mod Op Exp Total Note
Citywide Overhead Rate 15% $641,200 $96,180 [b]
Total $96,180
Appendix II: p. 42 DRAFT

Page 223 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Allocation - Code Enforcement
Total Costs for Allocation
Description Total Note
Direct Costs $641,200
Citywide Overhead Costs $96,180
Department Administration $61,689
Total $799,069
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total Note
Costs $799,069
Direct Hours 3,530 [d]
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate $226
[a] Source: FY 26/27 adopted expenditures (amended).
[b] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate (de minimis rate). [c] Amounts are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year to year depending on development activity. [d] See separate worksheet.

Appendix II: p. 43 DRAFT

Page 224 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Code Enforcement Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Service Time Hourly Rate Cost of Service Current Fee Current Est. Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change $ Unit Note
1 Code Enforcement Plan Review 1.00 x $226 = $226 $98 43% $226 100% $128 Per Hour, Minimum 2 Hours 2 Code Re-inspection Fee 1.00 x $226 = $226 $98 43% $226 100% $128 Per Hour 3 Sidewalk Vending permit application $944 $944 No Change Fixed Fee 4 Sidewalk Vending permit renewal (annual) $223 $223 No Change Fixed Fee 5 Sidewalk Vending Impound Fee 2.00 x $226 = $452 n/a - new $452 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee 6 Code Enforcement Investigation 1.00 x $226 = $226 Varies Varies $226 100% Varies Per Hour, Minimum 2 Hours 7 Notice Recordation or Expungement Fee 1.00 x $226 = $226 Varies Varies $226 100% Varies Per Hour, Minimum 2.5 Hours 8 Code Enforcement Bond Application 2.00 x $226 = $452 Varies Varies $452 100% Varies Fixed Fee 9 Code Enforcement Bond Amount is
determined by the
extent and
estimated cost of
correcting Building
Code violations
Amount is
determined by the
extent and
estimated cost of
correcting Building
Code violations
10 Abatement 1.00 x $226 = $226 n/a - new $226 100% n/a - new Per Hour 11 Code Enforcement Division Standard Hourly Billing Rate and Hourly Rate for Services Not Identified in this Schedule

1.00 x $226 = $226 n/a - new $226 100% n/a - new Per Hour Appendix II: p. 44 DRAFT

Page 225 of 685 ends

Cost of Service Analysis
Housing Fees
Appendix II: p. 45 DRAFT

Page 226 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Housing Division
Position Hourly FTE Yearly
Total Hours
Per FTE
Less: Holiday
& Leave
Productive
Hours Per FTE
Total
Productive
Hours Notes
HOUSING & COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER $92 1.00 $190,719 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] HOUSING & COMMUNITY SERVICES COORDINATOR $64 1.00 $133,748 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 [a],[b] Total 2.00 $324,467 3,728
Allocation of Hours Share Total Notes
Indirect 30% 1,118 [b]
Direct 70% 2,610 [b]
Total 100% 3,728
[a] Source: FY 26/27 authorized positions.
[b] Direct/Indirect hours are intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year-to-year depending on activity, projects, and City Council priorities. [c] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates of market rates for contract service providers.

Appendix II: p. 46 DRAFT

Page 227 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Allocation - Housing
Operating Expenses [a]
Fund No Fund Desc Div Div No Acct No Acct Desc Total Adjust Total Note 100 General Fund 4070 Housing 50110 SALARIES $275,557 $0 $275,557 100 General Fund 4070 Housing 50205 WORKERS COMP $954 $0 $954 100 General Fund 4070 Housing 50210 RETIREMENT (FULL TIME) $29,760 $0 $29,760 100 General Fund 4070 Housing 50212 DEFERRED COMPENSATION $720 $0 $720 100 General Fund 4070 Housing 50213 UAL RETIREMENT $52,632 $0 $52,632 100 General Fund 4070 Housing 50220 MEDICARE $3,996 $0 $3,996 100 General Fund 4070 Housing 50225 HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS $21,405 $0 $21,405 100 General Fund 4070 Housing 50230 LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS $404 $0 $404 100 General Fund 4070 Housing 50235 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROG $396 $0 $396 100 General Fund 4070 Housing 50255 MISC DISABILITY INSURANCE $521 $0 $521 100 General Fund 4070 Housing 50270 CONTRA ($31,063) $0 ($31,063) 100 General Fund 4070 Housing 51110 EMPLOYEE TRAINING $1,500 $0 $1,500 100 General Fund 4070 Housing 51120 EMPLOYEE TRAVEL, FOOD,LODGE $1,200 $0 $1,200 100 General Fund 4070 Housing 51420 TELECOMMUNICATIONS $693 $0 $693 100 General Fund 4070 Housing 51510 PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT $1,050 ($1,050) $0 100 General Fund 4070 Housing 51630 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $13,500 ($13,500) $0 100 General Fund 4070 Housing 52610 PROGRAM EXPENSES $250 ($250) $0 100 General Fund 4070 Housing 54140 FACILITY SERVICE CHARGE $29,694 $0 $29,694 Total $403,169 ($14,800) $388,369
Allocation of Central Services
Description Indirect Rate Mod Op Exp Total Note
Citywide Overhead Rate 15% $388,369 $58,255 [b]
Total $58,255
Total Costs for Allocation
Description Total Note
Direct Costs $403,169
Citywide Overhead Costs $58,255
Department Administration $61,689 [c]
Total $523,114
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total Note
Costs $523,114
Direct Hours 2,610 [c]
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate $200
[a] Source: FY 26/27 adopted expenditures (amended).
[b] Amount intended to serve as reasonable estimate (de minimis rate). [c] See separate worksheet.

Appendix II: p. 47 DRAFT

Page 228 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Housing Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Service Time Hourly Rate Cost of Service Current Fee Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change $ Unit Note
1 Mobile Home Rent Review
a) Tenants (i + ii)
i) Base Fee 2.50 x $200 = $500 $5,514 $500 100% Varies Fixed Fee ii) Initial Deposit $2,500 100% Varies Deposit
b) Landlord (i + ii)
i) Base Fee 2.50 x $200 = $500 $5,514 $500 100% Varies Fixed Fee [a] ii) Initial Deposit $2,500 100% Varies Deposit [a]
2 Housing Project Review 25.00 x $200 = $5,000 $3,583 72% $5,000 100% $1,417 Fixed Fee, Plus Attorney Fees 3 Housing Related Agreement 50.00 x $200 = $10,000 $6,672 67% $10,000 100% $3,328 Minimum Fee, Plus Attorney Fees 4 Loan Demand Payoff Fee 1.00 x $200 = $200 n/a - new $200 100% n/a - new Per Hour, Minimum 2 Hours 5 Loan Underwriting 1.00 x $200 = $200 n/a - new $200 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee, Plus Attorney Fees 6 Loan Processing 3.00 x $200 = $600 n/a - new $600 100% n/a - new Fixed Fee, Plus Attorney Fees 7 Loan Subordination Request Review 1.00 x $200 = $200 n/a - new $200 100% n/a - new Per Hour, Minimum 2 Hours, Plus Attorney Fees
8 Housing Division Standard Hourly Billing Rate and Hourly Rate for Services Not Identified in this Schedule

1.00 x $200 = $200 n/a - new $200 100% n/a - new Per Hour [a] Landlord is required to pay fee when the tenants have paid per Arbitration Fee Code 14A.9.

Appendix II: p. 48 DRAFT

Page 229 of 685 ends

Cost of Service Analysis
Business License Fees for Specialized Licenses
Requiring Community Development Department Review
Appendix II: p. 49 DRAFT

Page 230 of 685 ends

City of Gilroy
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Business License Fees for Specialized Licenses Requiring Community Development Department Review Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description
Fire Service
Time
Building
Service Time
Planning
Service Time
Fire Hourly
Rate
Building
Hourly Rate
Planning
Hourly Rate Cost of Service Base City Fee
Total Cost of
Service Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change $ Unit Note
1 Business Licenses - New/moved/change
in location or ownership
a) Commercial/Industrial - Fire
Inspection Required

1.50 0.00 0.00 x $250 $204 $223 = $375 + $201 = $576 $481 84% $576 100% $95 Fixed Fee [a] b) Commercial/Industrial - Building
Inspection Required

0.00 1.50 0.00 x $250 $204 $223 = $306 + $201 = $507 $497 98% $507 100% $10 Fixed Fee [a] c) Pretreatment Inspection Required 0.50 0.00 0.00 x $250 $204 $223 = $125 + $0 = $125 $26 21% $125 100% $99 Fixed Fee [a] [a] Subject to other standard fees - see business license fees.

Appendix II: p. 50 DRAFT

Page 231 of 685 ends

10.1. City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Consideration of the Approval of the 2026 Update to the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan and Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report
Meeting Date: October 5, 2026
From: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Department: Public Works
Submitted by: John Doughty, Public Works Director
Prepared by: Ryan Osenton, Project Manager
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution:

1. Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopting required CEQA findings including Statements of Overriding Consideration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the 2026 update of the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan; and

2. Adopting the 2026 update of the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ELS Architecture and Urban Design, under contract with the City, has completed preparation of the 2026 update of the Gilroy Civic Center Center Master Plan (Master Plan). The updated Master Plan is intended to replace, in its entirety, the 2002 Civic Center Master Plan. EMC, as a subconsultant to ELS, prepared an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with the project. Staff is seeking City Council approval of the Master Plan and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.

Page 232 of 685 ends

10.1. The Master Plan is a long-range, community-driven vision for the Civic Center. It is not a construction project, a funding commitment, or an appropriation. Adoption establishes the framework within which future City Councils may consider individual elements, such as a Multi-Generational Community Center, a Recreation & Aquatics Center, or a new City Hall, as separate projects, each subject to its own design, funding, and Council approval. Like the 2002 Civic Center Master Plan, under which the Police Headquarters (2007) and Library (2012) were delivered over approximately a decade, this plan is expected to be implemented incrementally as community priorities and funding capacity allow.

BACKGROUND
With Civic Center facilities aging, reflecting deferred maintenance and lacking modern amenities, the City Council, in Fiscal Year 2023-24 (FY24), appropriated $750,000 and directed staff to prepare a comprehensive update. Staff developed a scope of work and solicited professional services for the update of the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan.

In November 2024, the City Council awarded a contract to ELS Architecture and Urban Design to lead a comprehensive study of its three-block, 14-acre Civic Center. The approved scope of work included a robust public outreach effort and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report through a subconsultant, EMC Planning Group.

The civic center area currently houses the following City-owned public facilities and essential services:
• City Hall – constructed in 1979.
• City Hall Annex – constructed in 1965.
• Wheeler Gymnasium (also referred to as Wheeler Center and Wheeler Auditorium) – constructed in 1940.
• Senior Center – originally constructed in the 1950’s. • Library – constructed in 2012.
• Police Headquarters – constructed in 2007.
• Seven parking lots of various sizes (one of which includes covered PV collection system).
• One single-family home.
• Various small turf and landscaped areas which provide recreational and aesthetic benefits.

Beginning in December 2024, ELS commenced work on a Facility Assessment to establish the remaining life cycle of each building within the civic campus, see how current and expected future staffing levels work for each department within their current building, identify the overall functionality of each space, and review traffic patterns around City Hall to help determine the best functionality of the civic footprint. The consultant concluded that the City should forgo major renovations to City Hall, Annex,

Page 233 of 685 ends

10.1. Wheeler Center and Senior Center and instead focus on the pursuit of full replacement of each. The Assessment noted that anticipated costs of making renovations to meet community expectations and bringing each building up to current code would equal or exceed the anticipated costs of building modern facilities which more fully meet the needs of a larger and more diverse community.

The consultant focused additional time on evaluating the Wheeler Center given its listing in the local historic register and hearing some community hesitancy. It was ultimately determined that Wheeler Center no longer meets the needs of the community as it is not large enough to support the City’s recreation needs and requires major renovations, including a structural retrofit, major ADA upgrades, and the full replacement of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems (including the addition of central air conditioning). As with other buildings, the cost to renovate Wheeler Center to meet today's community needs would exceed the cost of a new recreation facility. This issue is also discussed below as part of the environmental review.

Upon completion of the Facilities Assessment, City staff and ELS organized, planned, and hosted three separate Community Workshop Days to gather initial community feedback. These workshops were followed by several other workshops and study sessions. Chapter IV of the 2026 Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan includes a summary of outreach (see Attachment 1, Exhibit C).

Following preparation of the draft 2026 Civic Center Master Plan, EMC commenced the environmental review process in accordance with CEQA. The consultant determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was necessary due to the Master Plan recommending the demolition of Wheeler Gymnasium (see Analysis section below for more information). Otherwise, all identified potential environmental impacts could be mitigated to a level of insignificance.

To date, over 500 community members have contributed to re-imagining the Gilroy Civic Center.

ANALYSIS
The Civic Center Master Plan serves as the guiding policy document for development and investment decisions within the Civic Center. Approval of the Master Plan is not a guarantee or formal commitment to any of the civic elements recommended. The Master Plan provides future City Councils with a roadmap should there be community support and capacity to fund one, two, or all the elements. The Master Plan intentionally does not include a phasing plan, as that decision will be driven by community desires, funding capacity, support of funding, and ongoing evaluation of capital repair and replacement needs of existing facilities.

Doing nothing is not without cost. Other than the Gilroy Library and Gilroy Police Headquarters, the coming 5 to 10-year period will require the investment of significant

Page 234 of 685 ends

10.1. funds to address deferred maintenance, lifecycle-related repairs, and the need to modernize--all of which led the City Council in 2024 to initiate an update of the Civic Center Master Plan.

I. Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan
The 2026 update of the Civic Center Master Plan is the result of a process that has been driven largely by the community, the very people who use the existing site and will experience the benefits from the site’s development. The Draft Civic Center Master Plan represents the City of Gilroy’s vision of a modern, inclusive, and vibrant hub that honors the city’s heritage while embracing contemporary practices in programming and sustainability. As noted, the updated Master Plan is intended to supersede and replace the 2002 Civic Center Master Plan.

For context, the 2002 Civic Center Master Plan called for the construction of a new library, a new police facility, a roundabout at Hanna Street, and a central plaza adjacent to the library, with a walkway connecting Hanna Street, to the library. These key enhancements were completed between 2002 and 2013. The 2002 Civic Center Master Plan also called for the expansion and renovation of three existing buildings: an addition to Wheeler Center, an addition to the Senior Center, and the renovation and modernization of the existing City Hall, City Hall Annex, and Senior Center. These elements of the Master Plan have yet to be implemented.

The top priorities for the civic center identified by the community, are a new recreation & aquatics center, increased youth and senior services and a multi-purpose community center. The recommended Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan reflects the top priorities identified and affirmed by community members through the outreach efforts.

Conceptually, the new civic facilities are as follows:

1. Recreation & Aquatics Center. A two-story structure with approximately 42,600 square feet with amenities such as a lap pool and activity pool, dedicated pool locker rooms, full-size indoor basketball court, three multi-purpose rooms, an indoor weight room, dedicated fitness classroom, dedicated gym locker rooms, indoor elevated walking track, and Parks & Recreation office space.

2. Multi-Generational Community Center. A two-story structure with approximately 41,600 square feet with amenities such as a new senior lounge, dedicated senior activity room, auditorium/theater for the performing arts with balcony seating, updated dining facility with indoor/outdoor seating, newly created youth center, dedicated youth activity room, dedicated art studio, art multi-purpose room, and a half-gymnasium for activities, events, and parties.

3. City Hall. A two-story structure of approximately 47,500 square feet with new City Council chambers, improved public assistance counters, and expanded office and meeting space to allow for consolidation of City administrative functions under a single

Page 235 of 685 ends

10.1. roof.

4. Civic Park. The addition of an outdoor green space to connect the Civic Center with downtown Gilroy. Approximately the size of a football field, the civic park will include a shaded paseo for community events, provide immediate access to all new onsite facilities, an outdoor walking loop, and possibly an interactive water feature.

5. New parking. The addition of new on-site parking and expansion of on-street parking within the adjoining rights of way of 6th, 7th and Church Streets equaling approximately 425 stalls, with the ability to add 180 additional spaces with a parking structure. The project would provide for multi-modal activity including by transit and bicycle vehicles.

The Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan is intended to be a dynamic document. Minor changes to design, amenities and square footages are anticipated over time. Major changes to the Master Plan would likely necessitate a similar update process as is being considered today, including CEQA review.

II. Environmental Impact Report
Following completion of final conceptual design, EMC was tasked with preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan. This report, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, describes both beneficial and adverse environmental impacts generated by the project and suggests measures for mitigating any significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the development. There were 17 items identified in the report, with six items being “No Impact”, ten items being “Less-Than-Significant Impact”.

One item was identified as being a “Significant and Unavoidable Impact” which was directly related to the loss of Wheeler Auditorium (aka Wheeler Center). The City received numerous letters from individuals and groups which were seeking to have the Master Plan modified to retain the Wheeler building. The consultant responses to these letters are contained in the Final EIR (Attachment 1 - Exhibit A). The Master Plan concept plan is based entirely on the ultimate removal of the Wheeler building. The FEIR includes mitigation measures which require a qualified architectural historian document the Wheeler Center in accordance with the guidelines established by the Historic American Building Survey and upon completion, the historian to submit all documents to the California Historical Resources Information System. Finally, the City is required to incorporate a public educational display regarding the Wheeler Center in the new community center.

Subsequently, the City sought a second opinion from a subject matter expert. Mark Hulbert a Preservation Architect concluded that the "Wheeler Auditorium" is a stand alone, individual resource with no direct contextual associations, and does not appear to have any direct associations to historic events" (Attachment 2).

Page 236 of 685 ends

10.1. The Draft Environmental Impact Report, as required under CEQA, included an evaluation of two project alternatives which are:

1. No Project – under this alternative, the Civic Center Master Plan would not be adopted or implemented. Therefore, redevelopment of the civic center site would not occur. Existing uses at the civic center would continue as is under the 2002 Civic Center Master Plan.

2. Retain Wheeler Auditorium in Place and Redesign Proposed Project – under this alternative, Wheeler Center would remain in place as is. As a result, the proposed recreation and aquatics facility could not be constructed, and the new public park would be significantly reduced in size to accommodate the existing Wheeler Center footprint.

The FEIR consisting of the Draft EIR and response to comments is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 1. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is included as Exhibit B, Attachment 1). The Resolution (Attachment 1) includes specific CEQA findings including those necessary allow the current draft Civic Center Master Plan to be approved.

Implementation of Master Plans
Staff recognizes that a key consideration in adopting the Master Plan is how it would ultimately be implemented and financed. Although tonight's action does not appropriate funds or commit the City financially, the following section provides context on how longrange plans of this kind are typically implemented over time.

Master plans identify a community’s long-term needs so that individual investments, made over many years, fit a coherent whole. They are not designed to be built in a single phase. The City’s Water, Sewer, and Storm Drain Master Plans follow the same model: they identify build-out infrastructure needs over a 20-plus-year horizon, and the City funds individual projects through the Capital Improvement Program as demand materializes and as rate and funding capacity allow. No city is built in a single phase, and no civic campus should be expected to be.

Single-phase delivery of the full program is neither fiscally nor operationally practical.

Many considerations go into delivery, including financing capacity, bond spending requirements (tax-exempt bonds must spend 85% within three years), service continuity (Sequenced construction allows existing services to remain until replacement opens), and overall community direction.

ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could choose not to certify the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan EIR based upon CEQA-related reasons including the Wheeler Center removal. This alternative is not recommended as the 2026 update of the Gilroy Civic Center Master

Page 237 of 685 ends

10.1. Plan, as drafted, could not be adopted absent EIR certification which includes Statements of Overriding Consideration for ultimate removal of the Wheeler Center.

The City Council could defer certification of the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan EIR under the "Retain Wheeler Center in Place and Redesign Proposed Project" EIR alternative. This decision would necessitate the commitment of additional funds to modify the Master Plan document and potentially the EIR. This alternative is not recommended as the Wheeler Center has been determined to not be a significant historic resource, requires significant upgrades and will never be able to offer the recreational amenities included in the current Master Plan.

The City Council could choose to table indefinitely both the certification of the EIR and approval of the updated Civic Center Master Plan document. This would leave the 2002 Civic Center Master Plan as the controlling document. This alternative, while preserving Wheeler Center, is not recommended as the community has identified the need for a multi-generational community center and modern recreation center with pool. The 2002 Civic Center Master Plan does not include the amenities requested by the community.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The Consulting Services Agreement with ELS was awarded in the amount of $749,899.

As of August 2026, the project has used 95% of the allotted funding. Absent major redesign there is sufficient funding available to complete the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan and EIR process.

At present, staff is not seeking additional funds. Ultimately, funding is required for Phase 2 which includes preparation of conceptual level plans for pricing as well as analysis of funding options such as grants, donations and general obligation bonds.

The original scope of work anticipated financing and bonding consultation through a subconsultant to ELS with the anticipation of going to the community for support of a bond or advisory measure in fall, 2026. Staff met with the subconsultant to discuss financing and bonding. During the course of the plan preparation and community conversation, it became evident that it would be premature to consider placing any measure on the November 2026 ballot. Instead, staff identified the need for additional outreach efforts including the addition of a Spanish-language focused event at San Ysidro Park.

For context, Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) total cost is projected at $230 million, inclusive of soft costs. The Master Plan is expected to be implemented incrementally.

Phased delivery increases total nominal cost through construction escalation and remobilization. However, it allows each element to be sized, funded, and approved on its own merits, aligns spending with priority and available resources, and maintains continuity of public services during construction.

Page 238 of 685 ends

10.1. PUBLIC OUTREACH
There has been extensive outreach over the last two years, with more than 500 community members participating. This is outlined in Chapter IV of the 2026 Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan. Certain workshop materials in the Master Plan appendix reference a goal of a November 2026 ballot measure; that timeline was deferred pending adoption of the Master Plan and completion of a phasing and financing strategy, and no ballot measure is proposed at this time.

NEXT STEPS
Staff will include Civic Center Master Plan Implementation as a potential project for the upcoming Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. Timing and funding are subject to the scope of work and ultimately the direction of Council through its upcoming priority and goal-setting process and approval of City Council in June 2027.

Attachments:

1. Resolution including Exhibits

2. Wheeler Auditorium - Historic Architectural Considerations

Page 239 of 685 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY APPROVING THE 2026 UPDATE OF THE

GILROY CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN AND

CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT INCLUDING FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION
OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#
2025091066), FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE

GILROY CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy City Council adopted the 2002 Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan and determined that the documents need an update to address the increasing demands of the community, underutilized spaces, and aging facilities; and WHEREAS, in fiscal year 2023-24 the City of Gilroy City Council allocated $750,000 towards a future project to begin the comprehensive planning process for the update to the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2024, at a regularly scheduled meeting, the City of Gilroy City Council awarded a contract to ELS Architecture and Urban Design to lead the master plan process; and
WHEREAS, a community meeting was held to present the draft Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan and draft EIR on February 25, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy hosted three community workshops (March 4, 2025, April 8, 2025, and May 20, 2025) where community members had the opportunity to review concepts, share their ideas, priorities, and concerns; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan includes demolition of the existing City Hall, Wheeler Auditorium, City Hall Annex, Senior Center, Civic Center parking lot, and Hanna Street, and construction of a new City Hall, multi-generational recreation center with outdoor swimming pool, multi-generational community center, and a paseo and civic park, as well as 425 parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, the existing police station and library would remain, on-site trees would be removed, and there would be 206,389 square feet of sidewalks and planting areas; and WHEREAS, the function and intensity of some uses (e.g., City Hall) will not increase even though there will be a net increase in building square footage compared to existing conditions; and

Page 240 of 685 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Civic Center Master Plan EIR
City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026

Page 2 of 15 ends

WHEREAS, the Wheeler Auditorium is the only structure on-site that is designated historic (designated historic on August 15, 1983) by the City of Gilroy City Council; and WHEREAS, the City determined that the appropriate level of review for the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan would be an EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was circulated to trustee and responsible agencies, members of the public, and other interested parties, the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, and the State Clearinghouse from September 23, 2025 to October 22, 2025 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, and two comment letters were received from the California Department of Transportation District 4 and the Department of Toxic Substances Control; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15087(d) and (f), the City posted a Notice of Availability with the Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder on February 2, 2026, and posted said notice to its website on February 2, 2026, published the Notice of Availability in the San Jose Mercury News on February 2, 2026, submitted a Notice of Completion to the State Clearinghouse on February 3, 2026, and mailed the Notice of Availability to those agencies and organizations on the City’s distribution list believed to potentially have an interest in the proposed Gilroy Civic Center Mater Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Draft EIR and posted it to the City’s website on February 3, 2026, and made it available for public review at the Gilroy Planning Division counter and the Santa Clara County Public Library – Gilroy Branch, and circulated it for public review with direct mailing and through the State Clearinghouse from February 3, 2026 to March 27, 2026 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15087 and 15105; and WHEREAS, the City received thirty-six (36) comment letters from individuals, organizations, and agencies, and responded to those comments in a final environmental impact report dated August 7, 2026, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15089 and 15132, and provided a copy of the responses to commenters on September 17, 2026, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b); and
WHEREAS, a Planning Commission meeting was held to present the draft Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan and draft EIR on May 7, 2026 not for any recommendation but as a courtesy review; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, inclusive of the draft and final volumes, on October 5, 2026; and

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF GILROY CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY make the following findings with respect to the significant effects on the environment of the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, and statements of overriding considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093:

Page 241 of 685 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Civic Center Master Plan EIR
City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026

Page 3 of 15 ends

The findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City Council in regard to environmental impacts and mitigation measures related to the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan, and incorporate the draft and final environmental impact report, appendices. The findings represent the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Gilroy.

The City Clerk's office of the City of Gilroy, at 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020 shall be the custodian of documents and record of proceedings on which the decision is based;
The City makes the following findings, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), regarding significant impacts that are mitigated to a less-than-significant level; i.e. that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

The following findings relate specifically to the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report:

Air Quality
Impact: Operation of Construction Equipment Could Expose Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants
Mitigation Measure:

AQ-1. With each construction project, the City of Gilroy shall prepare a Construction Management Plan to include the following measures to reduce TAC emissions during construction:
a. Heavy-duty diesel vehicles will have 2010 or newer model year engines, in compliance with the California Air Resources Board’s Truck and Bus Regulation; b. Idling of construction equipment and heavy-duty diesel trucks will be avoided where feasible, and if idling is necessary, it will not exceed three minutes; c. All construction equipment will be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications and will be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; and
d. All non-road diesel construction equipment will, at a minimum, meet Tier 3 emission standards listed in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 89, Subpart B, §89.112. Further, where feasible, construction equipment will use alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas, propane, electricity, or biodiesel.

Finding:

Changes or alterations have been required in the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR. Specifically, the abovementioned mitigation measure imposed upon the project mitigates the impact to a less-than-significant level. (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)

Page 242 of 685 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Civic Center Master Plan EIR
City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026

Page 4 of 15 ends

Facts in Support of Finding:

The dust control measures identified in Mitigation Measure AQ-1 have been recommended by the air district over time as best management measures for reducing emissions from diesel equipment used during construction activities. Diesel particulate matter contained in those emissions can be a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. Imposition of the measures as contractor specifications is a common CEQA mitigation approach. The measures will sufficiently reduce diesel emissions from construction activities such that this potentially significant impact will be reduced to less than significant.

Biological Resources
Impact: Potential disturbance of Roosting Sites Occupied by Special-Status Bats During Construction Activities Could Results in the Loss or Harm to Species Mitigation Measure:

BIO 1. Special-Status Bat Species. Within 14 days prior to tree removal, vegetation clearing, building demolition, grading, or the initiation of any construction activity in any area of the project site, a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats and potential roosting sites in trees to be removed, in buildings and trees within 50 feet of the construction footprint, and surrounding structures situated within 50 feet of disturbance activities by the project. In the event that construction activities are suspended for 14 consecutive days or longer, these surveys shall be repeated.

Surveys shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and a search for presence of guano within the project site, construction access routes, and 50 feet around these areas. Cavities, crevices, exfoliating bark, and bark fissures that could provide suitable potential nest or roost habitat for bats shall be surveyed.

Assumptions can be made on what species is present due to observed visual characteristics along with habitat use, or the bats can be identified to the species level with the use of a bat echolocation detector such as an “Anabat” unit. Potential roosting features found during the survey shall be flagged or marked.

Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or from public areas.

If no roosting sites or bats are found, a letter report confirming absence shall be submitted by the biologist to the City of Gilroy Community Development Department, Planning Division, where it will be kept on file, and no further mitigation is required.

If bats or roosting sites are found, a letter report and supplemental documents shall be provided by the biologist to the City of Gilroy Community Development Department, Planning Division, prior to ground disturbance activities and the following monitoring, exclusion, and habitat replacement measures shall be implemented:
a. If bats are found roosting outside of the nursery season (May 1 through October 1), they shall be evicted as described under (b) below. If bats are found roosting during

Page 243 of 685 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Civic Center Master Plan EIR
City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026

Page 5 of 15 ends

the nursery season, they shall be monitored to determine if the roost site is a maternal roost. This could occur by either visual inspection of the roost bat pups, if possible, or by monitoring the roost after the adults leave for the night to listen for bat pups. If the roost is determined to not be a maternal roost, then the bats shall be evicted as described under (b) below. Because bat pups cannot leave the roost until they are mature enough, eviction of a maternal roost cannot occur during the nursery season. Therefore, if a maternal roost is present, a 50-foot buffer zone (or different size if determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife) shall be established around the roosting site within which no construction activities including tree removal or structure disturbance shall occur until after the nursery season.
b. If a non-breeding bat hibernaculum is found in a tree or snag scheduled for removal or on any structures within 50 feet of project disturbance activities, the individuals shall be safely evicted, under the direction of a qualified bat biologist. If preconstruction surveys determine that there are bats present in any trees or structures to be removed, exclusion structures (e.g., one-way doors or similar methods) shall be installed by a qualified biologist. The exclusion structures shall not be placed until the time of year in which young are able to fly, outside of the nursery season.

Information on placement of exclusion structures shall be provided to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to construction. If needed, other removal methods could include: carefully opening the roosting area in a tree or snag by hand to expose the cavity and opening doors/windows on structures, or creating openings in walls to allow light into the structures. Removal of any trees or snags and disturbance within 50 feet of any structures shall be conducted no earlier than the following day (i.e., at least one night shall be provided between initial roost eviction disturbance and tree removal/disturbance activities). This action will allow bats to leave during dark hours, which increases their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation.

Finding:

Changes or alterations have been required in the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Specifically, the abovementioned mitigation measure imposed upon the project mitigates the impact to a less-than-significant level (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
Facts in Support of Finding:

If special-status bat species are present during construction activities, including tree or building removal, the project could result in the disturbance of roost sites occupied by special-status bat species if the activities were to occur on or adjacent to the project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to special-status bat species to less than significant by requiring a habitat assessment for bats and potential roosting sites in trees or buildings within 50 feet of the construction easement within 14 days prior to issuance of tree removal, vegetation clearing, building demolition, grading, or the initiation of any construction activity in any area of the project site. If bats or roosting sites are found, bats shall not be disturbed

Page 244 of 685 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Civic Center Master Plan EIR
City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026

Page 6 of 15 ends

and a notice shall be sent to the City of Gilroy Community Development Department, Planning Division as well as a specific notice to, and consultation with, California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Therefore, this impact is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Impact: Potential disturbance to Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors During Construction Could Results in the Loss or Harm to Species
Mitigation Measure:

BIO-2. To avoid impacts to nesting birds during the nesting season (February 1 through September 15), construction activities that include any tree removal, vegetation clearance, or ground disturbance (such as grading or grubbing), shall be conducted between September 16 and January 31, which is outside of the bird nesting season. If construction activities must commence during the bird nesting season, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for nesting birds to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project construction.
a. Two surveys for active nests of such birds shall occur within 10 days prior to start of construction, with the second survey conducted within 48 hours prior to start of construction. Appropriate minimum survey radius surrounding the work area is typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors. Surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate times of day to observe nesting activities. Evidence of completion of the preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the Gilroy Community Development Department, Planning Division, where it will be kept on file, prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities. b. If the qualified biologist documents active nests at the project site, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g., defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. This measure shall be implemented by the City of Gilroy prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities.

Finding:

Page 245 of 685 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Civic Center Master Plan EIR
City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026

Page 7 of 15 ends

Facts in Support of the Findings:

If nesting birds and raptors protected by state and federal regulations are present during soildisturbing or construction activities including vegetation removal and site preparation, the proposed project may directly result in loss of active nests, or indirectly result in nest abandonment and thereby cause loss of fertile eggs or nestlings. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors to less than significant by requiring preconstruction surveys prior to construction in and adjacent to the project site. If nesting activity is observed, measures to protect the nest(s) shall be implemented. Therefore, this impact is less than significant with mitigation incorporated
Impact: The Project May Require Removal of Protected Trees Mitigation Measure:

BIO-3. Prior to approval of each construction project, the City of Gilroy shall prepare a Landscape Plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department, Planning Division indicating the location, size and species of existing trees found within the project site boundaries. The plan shall indicate which trees are planned for removal. Based on review of the Landscape Plan, the City shall determine which trees, if any, are “significant.”
If significant trees are determined to be located on the project site, they shall be retained, to the greatest extent feasible. The dripline of significant trees to be retained shall be fenced prior to grading activities to prevent root damage. If retention of all significant trees on the project site is infeasible, a written report shall be prepared by a certified arborist including the number and location of each significant tree to be removed, the type and approximate size of each significant tree, the reason for removal, and specifications for replacing significant trees to be removed. The written report shall be prepared prior to the commencement of grading activities, subject to approval by the City of Gilroy Community Development Department, Planning Division, and a tree removal permit shall be obtained if needed.

Prior to commencement of construction activities, the protected zone (one to 1.5 times the distance from the trunk to the dripline, depending on the tree species) of any trees or groups of trees to be retained shall be fenced to prevent injury to the trees during construction. Soil compaction, parking of vehicles or heavy equipment, stockpiling of construction materials, and/or dumping of materials shall not be allowed within the protected zone. The fencing shall remain in place until all construction activities are complete. The City of Gilroy shall submit evidence of the locations and extent tree protection measures to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, where it will be kept on file, prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities.

Finding:

Changes or alterations have been required in the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Specifically, the abovementioned

Page 246 of 685 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Civic Center Master Plan EIR
City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026

Page 8 of 15 ends

mitigation measure imposed upon the project mitigates the impact to a less-than-significant level. (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
Facts in Support of the Findings:

If there are significant/protected trees on the project site, implementation of the proposed project could result in the loss of said trees. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to protected trees to less than significant by requiring the preparation of a landscape plan prior to approval of each construction project. The landscape plan will identify the location, size, and species of existing trees found within the project site boundaries and which are planned for removal. Based upon this plan, the City will determine which trees are considered “significant.” If significant trees are found on the site, the landscape plan will outline the measures to take in order to retain these trees, to the greatest extent feasible. Therefore, this impact is less than significant with mitigation incorporated
Cultural Resources
Impact: Potential Loss of or Damage to Unique Archaeological Resources During Construction Mitigation Measure:

CUL-2. In the event archaeological resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities; contractor shall temporarily halt or divert excavations within a 50 meter (165 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated. All potentially significant archaeological deposits shall be evaluated to demonstrate whether the resource is eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources, even if discovered during construction. If archaeological deposits are encountered, they shall be evaluated and mitigated simultaneously in the timeliest manner practicable, allowing for recovery of materials and data by standard archaeological procedures. For precontact and indigenous archaeological sites, this data recovery involves the hand‐excavated recovery and non‐destructive analysis of a small sample of the deposit. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance by a qualified archaeologist. Unique archaeological cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone (ground and flaked), bone, organic materials, ceramics, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts. Features include hearths, cairns, middens, and postholes.

Finding:

According to General Plan EIR Figure 3.5-1, Archaeological Sensitivity, the project site is in a low archaeological sensitivity zone, which is consistent with a recent review of Northwest Information Center files from previous searches of Gilroy. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure CUL2 is designed to ensure that, if unknown unique archaeological resources are accidentally

Page 247 of 685 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Civic Center Master Plan EIR
City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026

Page 9 of 15 ends

uncovered during construction activities, appropriate measures are taken to protect and treat the resources. This is standard mitigation that ensures the potential impact on unique archaeological resources, if present, are reduced to less than significant.

Impact: Potential to Disturb Native American Human Remains During Construction Mitigation Measure:

CUL-3. In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the project site, Public Resource Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed. All grading or earthmoving activities shall immediately stop within 50 meters (165 feet) of the find. The Santa Clara County Corner will be notified immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b). Section 7050.5 requires that excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If human remains are determined as those of Native American origin, the City of Gilroy shall comply with the state relating to the disposition of Native American burials that fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (Public Resource Code [PRC] § 5097). The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to determine the most likely descendant(s) (MLD). The MLD shall complete his or her inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD will determine the most appropriate means of treating the human remains and associated grave artifacts, and shall oversee the disposition of the remains. In the event the NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being granted access to the site, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity within the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify the MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being allowed access to the site; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Finding:

Mitigation Measure CUL-3 is designed specifically to provide direction for actions to be taken if human remains, rather than other cultural resource artifacts, are uncovered during construction.

This is standard mitigation that will ensure potential impacts on Native American human remains, if present, are reduced to less than significant.

Page 248 of 685 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Civic Center Master Plan EIR
City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026

Page 10 of 15 ends

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact: Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions During Operation of the Project Mitigation Measure:

GHG-1. The following GHG emissions reduction performance measures shall be incorporated into the final project designs and plans for each development project:
a. No permanent natural gas infrastructure shall be permitted; no natural gas shall be made available through permanent natural gas infrastructure. The project shall be all electric; and
b. Electric vehicle infrastructure (e.g., elective vehicle parking spaces, charging station infrastructure, chargers, etc.) consistent with the CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the time building permits are issued shall be included in the project.

Final plans for the development shall be reviewed by the City of Gilroy Community Development Department, Planning Division Director or his/her designee prior to approval of project entitlements to ensure that all performance standards are incorporated into the project design. Verification of development consistent with the performance standards shall be assured prior to approval of occupancy permits.

Finding:

Changes or alterations have been required in the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Specifically, the abovementioned mitigation measure imposed upon the project mitigates the impact to a less-than-significant level. (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
Facts in Support of the Findings:

The standards for eliminating natural gas infrastructure and implementing electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure are not explicitly stated as part of the proposed project or in other City regulations that apply to future development within the project site. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 is required to ensure that all future projects constructed on the project site will be all electric (no natural gas), and parking lots will incorporate EV infrastructure consistent with CALGreen Tier 2 standards. This mitigation ensures that the project’s greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to less than significant.

Impact: Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation for Reducing Greenhouse Gases Mitigation Measure:

GHG-1. See above.

Finding:

Changes or alterations have been required in the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Specifically, the abovementioned

Page 249 of 685 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Civic Center Master Plan EIR
City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026

Page 11 of 15 ends

mitigation measure imposed upon the project mitigates the impact to a less-than-significant level. (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
Facts in Support of the Findings:

With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed project would meet the four performance standards identified by the air district in the 2022 CEQA Thresholds guidance as necessary to find GHG impacts to be less than significant. Therefore, with mitigation implemented, the project would not conflict with the applicable plan for reducing GHG emissions.

Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
The City, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), makes the following findings that specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed use outweigh significant loss of a historic resource that may not be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level:

Impact: The Proposed Recreational Center Would Result in the Loss of the Historic Wheeler Auditorium, which is on the City of Gilroy’s List of Historic Resources Mitigation Measure:

CUL-1.a. Prior to issuance of any demolition permit, a qualified architectural historian shall document the Wheeler Auditorium at 7377 Church Street in accordance with the guidelines established for the Historic American Building Survey (HABS). Documentation shall consist of the following components:

1. Drawings – Prepare sketch floor plans.

2. Photographs – Digital photographic documentation of the interior, exterior, and setting of the buildings in compliance with the National Register Photo Policy Fact Sheet.

Photos must have a permanency rating of approximately 75 years.

3. Written Data – HABS written documentation in short form.

An architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards shall oversee the preparation of the sketch plans, photographs and written data.

The existing DPR forms shall fulfill the requirements for the written data report.

The City of Gilroy’s Historian shall review the documentation, and then file the documentation with the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, the repository for the California Historical Resources Information System. All documentation shall be submitted on archival paper.

CUL-1.b. The City shall develop the material prepared in CUL-1 into a public educational display within the new community center.

Finding:

The proposed project includes the demolition of several of the existing on-site structures, including the Wheeler Auditorium. The Wheeler Auditorium is the only structure on-site that is designated

Page 250 of 685 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Civic Center Master Plan EIR
City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026

Page 12 of 15 ends

as historic. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will provide some mitigation relief; however, there are no mitigation measures that would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level. Therefore, even with the mitigation measures presented above, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable) Facts in Support of the Finding:

Documentation of the Wheeler Auditorium pursuant to the Historic American Building Survey and displaying this documentation in a public educational display within the new community center would help preserve information about the building but cannot offset or replace the loss of the resource itself. Therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable.

The City makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable environmental impact (Loss of a Historic Resource):

The City finds and determines that the benefits of the proposed project are sufficient to make a finding that the environmental effect that is not reduced to a level of less than significant is acceptable and justify the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The following Findings cite substantial evidence in the record and state the City of Gilroy’s specific reasoning (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b). In the event that any finding is declared unenforceable or inadequate as a matter of law, such finding will be considered deleted, and the remaining findings shall remain in full force and effect.

The proposed project, as set forth in the City’s Findings, would feasibly and inclusively achieve all of the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits identified below. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council finds that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects that would result from its implementation, and that the adverse environmental effect listed above is considered acceptable, for the specific reasons set forth below:
 Although the Wheeler Auditorium is on the City of Gilroy list of historic resources, it is a stand-alone, individual resource that does not have any direct contextual associations, nor does it appear to have any direct associations to historical events.  The architecture is otherwise and evidently basic, plain and minimal, without a site or site features of historical character. The interior architecture, excluding the minimal extension into the lobby, is architecturally utilitarian.
 The original architects and builders, Binder & Curtis and George Renz, respectively, may be noteworthy yet are not of limited historic importance.  The historical association to the Wheelers is supportive yet in name only as that association does not translate into physical forms or features (Preservation Architecture August 2026).  The proposed recreation center would offer more opportunities for youth, adult, and senior programs, include gym facilities, aquatics programming, and arts and crafts workshops for all age groups, than currently available in the Wheeler Auditorium.  The aquatic facility would provide a public aquatic center for the southern and eastern parts of Gilroy, as there is no facility in the immediate area available to the public.

Page 251 of 685 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Civic Center Master Plan EIR
City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026

Page 13 of 15 ends

The proposed project is anticipated to capably serve the full range of municipal services demanded by the City of Gilroy. As set forth above, the proposed project provides significant benefits to the City and the community of Gilroy as a whole. The City Council has weighed the benefits of the proposed project against the significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project identified in the Final EIR and listed above. The City Council hereby determines that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impacts of the proposed project, and further determines that the significant and unavoidable cultural/historic resources impact is acceptable.

Accordingly, the City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, recognizing that a significant and unavoidable impact will result from implementation of the proposed project.

Having adopted all feasible mitigation measures as discussed in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and Findings; rejected infeasible alternatives to the proposed project as discussed in the Draft and Final EIR, the Findings, and this Statement of Overriding Considerations; and recognized the significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project, the City Council hereby finds that each of the separate benefits of the proposed project, as stated herein, is determined to be unto itself an overriding consideration, independent of other benefits, that warrants approval of the proposed project and outweighs and overrides its significant and unavoidable impact, and thereby justifies the approval of the proposed project.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF GILROY CITY COUNCIL FURTHER RESOLVE to certify the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2025091066) attached as Exhibit A in its entirety pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, and adopts a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, attached at Exhibit B, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091(d) and 15097.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF GILROY CITY COUNCIL DOES FURTHER RESOLVE to approve the 2026 update to the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan attached as Exhibit C.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of October 2026 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:
___________________
Greg Bozzo, Mayor

Page 252 of 685 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Civic Center Master Plan EIR
City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026

Page 14 of 15 ends

ATTEST:
_______________________
Kim Mancera, City Clerk

Page 253 of 685 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Civic Center Master Plan EIR
City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026

Page 15 of 15 ends

CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK
I, KIM MANCERA, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2026-XX is an original resolution, or true and correct copy of a City Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on Monday, October 5, 2026, with a quorum present.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this Tuesday, October 6, 2026
____________________________________
Kim Mancera
City Clerk of the City of Gilroy

Page 254 of 685 ends

Final Environmental Impact Report
Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan
SCH # 2025091066
August 7, 2026
Prepared by
EMC Planning Group
Exhibit A

Page 255 of 685 ends

Page 256 of 685 ends

This document was produced on recycled paper.

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

GILROY CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
SCH# 2025091066

PREPARED FOR
City of Gilroy
Ryan Osenton, Project Manager
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
Tel 408.846.0277
[email protected]

PREPARED BY
EMC Planning Group Inc.
601 Abrego Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Tel 831.649.1799
Fax 831.649.8399
Shoshana Lutz, Senior Planner
[email protected]
www.emcplanning.com
August 7, 2026

Page 257 of 685 ends

Page 258 of 685 ends

EMC Planning Group Inc.

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1-1

1.1 CEQA Requirements....................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose of Public Review ............................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Final EIR............................................................................................................................ 1-3

2.0 DRAFT EIR COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ........................................................2-1

2.1 CEQA Requirements....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Written Comments on the Draft EIR........................................................................... 2-1

3.0 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR...........................................................................3-1

3.1 CEQA Requirements....................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Changes to Section 1.0 Introduction............................................................................. 3-1

3.3 Changes to Section 4.0 Project Description................................................................. 3-2

Page 259 of 685 ends

Page 260 of 685 ends

Section 1.0 Introduction 1-1 EMC Planning Group
Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026

1.0 Introduction

1.1 CEQA Requirements
Before approving a project that may cause a significant environmental impact, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the City of Gilroy (“City”), acting as the Lead Agency under CEQA, to prepare and certify a final environmental impact report (“final EIR”). The contents of a final EIR are specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, which states that:

The final EIR shall consist of:
a) The draft EIR or a revision of the draft;
b) Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR; d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

All comments addressing environmental issues received on the draft EIR during the public review period from February 3, 2026 to March 27, 2026 have been addressed in this final EIR. The draft EIR is incorporated by reference.

CEQA Guidelines section 15204(a) states that in reviewing a draft EIR, persons and public agencies should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible, in light of factors such as the magnitude of the project at issue, the severity of its likely environmental impacts, and the geographic scope of the project.

Per CEQA Guidelines section15204(a), CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters.

Likewise, a lead agency also need not respond to general reference materials submitted in support of comments, comments that repeat those already considered, or comments that are clearly irrelevant.

Page 261 of 685 ends

Section 1.0 Introduction 1-2 EMC Planning Group
Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
According to CEQA Guidelines section 15204(a), when responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR, as also described in CEQA Guidelines sections 15088(c) and 15132(d).

CEQA Guidelines section 15204(c) states that reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.

CEQA Guidelines section 15088 requires the lead agency to provide a written proposed response to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an EIR.

Written responses to comments have been prepared to address comments on the project and have been sent to the commenting agencies and organizations.

CEQA Guidelines 15095(a) also requires that the lead agency file a copy of the final EIR with the appropriate planning agency of any city, county, or city and county where significant effects on the environment may occur. A copy of this final EIR is available for review at the City of Gilroy Planning Department, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy.

1.2 Purpose of Public Review
CEQA Guidelines section 15200 indicates that the purposes of the public review process include the following:
 sharing expertise;
 disclosing agency analysis;
 checking for accuracy;
 detecting omissions;
 discovering public concerns; and
 soliciting counter proposals.

In compliance with CEQA public noticing requirements, the City prepared a draft EIR for the proposed project that was circulated for public review from February 3, 2026 to March 27, 2026.

The City received 36 comment letters/emails from organizations and individuals.

Page 262 of 685 ends

Section 1.0 Introduction 1-3 EMC Planning Group
Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026

1.3 Final EIR
This final EIR has been prepared to address timely comments received on the draft EIR in the manner specified in the Notice of Completion/Availability and, together with the draft EIR, constitutes the complete Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR. This final EIR is organized into the following sections:
 Section 1 - introduction to the final EIR;
 Section 2 - list of persons, organizations, and public agencies that commented on the draft EIR, written comments on the draft EIR and the responses to those comments; and  Section 3 - changes to the draft EIR made in response to comments on the draft EIR. Such changes clarify, amplify, or otherwise make modifications to the draft.

Page 263 of 685 ends

Section 1.0 Introduction 1-4 EMC Planning Group
Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
This side intentionally left blank.

Page 264 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-1 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026

2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses

2.1 CEQA Requirements
CEQA Guidelines section 15132(c) requires that a final EIR contain a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies that have commented on the draft EIR. A list of the correspondence received during the public review period is presented below.

CEQA Guidelines sections 15132(b) and 15132(d) require that a final EIR contain the comments that raise significant environmental points in the review and consultation process, and written responses to those comments. A copy of each comment letter or other form of correspondence received during the public review period is provided, with each letter identified by a number at the top of the first page. Individual comments to which responses are provided are numbered along the left margin in each letter. Responses corresponding to the numbered comments are presented immediately following each letter.

Where required, revisions have been made to the text or graphics of the draft EIR in response to comments. Comments that trigger changes to the draft EIR are so noted as part of the response.

2.2 Written Comments on the Draft EIR
The City received written comments from the following organizations and individuals during the public review period:

1. Gilroy Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee, February 17, 2026;

2. Chet Kirby, February 20, 2026;

3. Casey Estorga, February 21, 2026;

4. Michael Griffis, March 14, 2026;

5. Gilroy Historical Society, March 23, 2026;

6. Ruben Dario Villa, March 27, 2026;

7. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, March 27, 2026;

8. Rebecca Scheel, February 10, 2026;

9. Wells Wadleigh, February 23, 2026;

10. Gina Johnson, February 24, 2026;

Page 265 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-2 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026

11. Margaret Aron, March 27, 2026;

12. Cynthia Van Laar, Gilroy Gator Swim Team Board President, February 24, 2026;

13. Luis Ramirez, February 25, 2026;

14. Alexis Morales, February 26, 2026;

15. Yolanda Calimpong, March 14, 2026;

16. Peter Van Dyke, March 14, 2026;

17. Frank Sanchez, March 15, 2026;

18. Linda, March 15, 2026;

19. Dr. David Matuszak and Mrs. Maureen M. Hunter, Gilroy Historical Society, March 15, 2026;

20. Maretta Juarez, March 16, 2026;

21. Corina R. Deleon, March 16, 2026;

22. Judy Garcia, March 20, 2026;

23. Edward Aguirre, March 23, 2026;

24. Bernadette Rowlison, March 23, 2026;

25. Pat Reinhart, March 23, 2026;

26. Pamela Salter, Member of Gilroy Historical Society, March 23, 2026;

27. Teddy Goodrich, March 24, 2026;

28. Toby Echelberry, March 25, 2026;

29. Samantha Emburton, March 25, 2026;

30. Christine Flautt, March 25, 2026;

31. Kathi Orlando, March 25, 2026;

32. Conrad Calimpong, March 25, 2026;

33. Len Stimic, March 25, 2026;

34. Phil Stimic, March 26, 2026;

35. Len Stimic, March 26, 2026; and

36. Kathy Sullivan, March 27, 2026.

Page 266 of 685 ends

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

From: Gilroy BPAC
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Public Comment for Civic Center Master Plan Draft EIR (CIP 800930) Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 7:59:27 AM
Attachments: Civic Center Master Plan EIR_GilroyBPAC.pdf Ryan Osenton,
Attached is our public comment for Civic Center Master Plan Draft EIR (CIP 800930) 45-day public comment period ending March 27, 2026.
https://www.cityofgilroy.org/1063/Civic-Center-Master-Plan We also wanted to ask add the following to the Civic Center Maser Plan webpage to make it more clear how to provide public comment during the CEQA 45-day public period. This info below isn't on there but we saw it on social media and newsletters.

How to ParticipateReview the DEIR and submit written comments by email to [email protected] during the 45-day review period which closes March 27, 2026.

Community MeetingCity staff will present the Draft Master Plan and DEIR findings, followed by Q&A and discussion.

Date: Wednesday, February 25
Time: 6:00 PM
Location: Council Chambers
Thank you.

Gilroy Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (Gilroy BPAC) [email protected]
&RPPHQW/HWWHU
1

Page 267 of 685 ends

February 17, 2026
Re: Civic Center Master Plan Draft EIR
Project Number: (CIP 800930)
Project Title: Civic Center Master Plan
Project Applicant: City of Gilroy
Project Location: Spanning approximately 14 acres in central Gilroy, the Civic Center site is bordered by Sixth Street, Seventh Street, Dowdy Street, and Church Street.

Assessor Parcel No: N/A
Ryan Osenton,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Civic Center Master Plan Draft EIR. Comments below are based on the review of the Draft EIR. Additional comments may be forthcoming pending final review. This project will have a direct impact in the City of Gilroy by achieving our goal to reduce air emissions from on-road motor vehicles and future developments. Improve air quality by encouraging our residents, commuters, employees to mode shift from vehicles to cycling, increase walking as alternatives to driving for short and first/last mile trips, and add new riders to the transit system.

We are glad to see the inclusion of bike parking to further reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. With its convenient location to transit, shopping, and bike/ped facilities there are few barriers to reducing VMT at this project. With the recent adoption of our City’s General Plan 2040, we as a community called for bold actions that include continuing to promote cleaner modes of transportation. We encourage existing and proposed development to incorporate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures such as car-sharing, transit passes, and unbundling of parking (requiring separate purchase or lease of a parking space) where such measures will result in a reduction in vehicle miles traveled, reduction of required amount of parking or an increase in the use of alternate transportation modes. We suggest all new construction incorporate an all-electric model and be fossil fuel free in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

We are actively embracing, advancing ideas, and projects that promote the concept of freerange people in the City of Gilroy. We advocate for building and planning that considers future generations as well as current residents who don’t own cars. Advancing mobility options reflects what we are teaching the youth in our community through Safe Routes to School and why we are nationally recognized as a Bronze Bicycle Friendly Community from the League of American 1
2

Page 268 of 685 ends

Bicyclists, as well as recognized by the World Health Organization as an Age-Friendly Community. Continuing to leverage our Measure B Education & Encouragement (E&E) funding for established work plans/programs will further enhance Gilroy’s efforts. Measure B E&E Bike to Work Day, Community Bike/Walks Counts, Community Engagement, General, Online Media Campaign, and Safe Routes to School work plans.

While there might be portions of our city that are isolated from transit, this development is not in one of those areas. Gilroy has a fully connected bike network and transit options. We have a large population that works, visits, and attends schools in Gilroy that benefits from local transit and rideshare. Gilroy has the vision that the glass is half full, we have the ability to innovate, and adapt to programs that will further reduce our VMT.

Providing an incentive that rewards the effort of biking/walking/transit is important. This project connects to 6th St and Church St which are designated by the General Plan 2040 as a Pedestrian-Oriented Street. We thank city staff, consultant, and applicant for always prioritizing short and long term bike parking, transit options, TDM programs, street trees, and sidewalks.

We have the following recommendations and comments based on the Civic Center Master Plan Draft EIR and our General Plan 2040 MobilityThank you for recognizing Impact 8-1 Generate Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG-1. The following GHG emissions reduction performance measures shall be incorporated into the final project designs and plans for each development project:

Buildings
-No permanent natural gas infrastructure shall be permitted; no natural gas shall be made available through permanent natural gas infrastructure. The project shall be all electric.

Transportation
-Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. -Electric vehicle infrastructure (e.g., elective vehicle parking spaces, charging station infrastructure, chargers, etc.) consistent with the CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the time building permits are issued shall be included in the project.

REACH Code for Electric Vehicle (EV)- The adoption of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code pertaining to electric vehicle (EV) charging for new residential and non-residential construction REACH codes for EV’s applies to this project or CALGreen Tier 2 whichever requires more. Recommend Installation of Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging 2 3
2 cont'd

Page 269 of 685 ends

Stations as mitigation for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2022 Consistency with GHG Reduction Performance Standards Support
Staff, Recommend Shower, Locker, & Dressing Facilities- Provide staff showers and dressing areas for each gender. Provide dressing rooms for each gender and one locker for each required long-term bicycle parking space. Required lockers shall be located in relation to required showers and dressing areas to permit access to locker areas by either gender.

Recommend a Dero Bike Fixit Station with Air Kit Bike Pump and Public Outdoor FeatureWe recommend placing additional bike fixit stations near the required bike parking. This would add to the current network throughout the City. https://www.dero.com/product/fixit/ General Plan 2040 Mobility-The Mobility Element provides the framework for decisions in Gilroy concerning the citywide transportation system. It seeks to create a balanced transportation network that supports and encourages walking, bicycling, and transit ridership.

The goals and policies address a variety of topics, including multimodal transportation, complete streets, pedestrian facilities, bikeways, public transit, vehicular transportation, parking, and goods movement.

Goal of Mobility M4- Plan for efficient and convenient local and regional transit systems that respond to the changing needs of Gilroy. Mobility 4.2- Transit and Development require new developments to fully accommodate, enhance, and facilitate public transit, including pedestrian and bicycle access to transit. What has this development done to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to transit? Partnerships with cities are essential for improving access to public transit.

Mobility 1.7: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Reduce VMT and GHG emissions by developing a transportation network that makes it convenient to use transit, ride a bicycle, walk, or use other non-automobile modes of transportation. Support and we are excited to see the City of Gilroy implement their own Bike Parking Ordinance and VMT/TDM Ordinance so that future developments don’t have to continue to rely on VTA.

Policy M 4.2. Transit and Development. Require new development to fully accommodate, enhance, and facilitate public transit, including pedestrian and bicycle access to transit.

Support
Policy M 5.3: Promote Non-Auto Modes of Transportation. Consider offering incentives as part of a multimodal system approach, for projects that incorporate travel demand management techniques and promote transit ridership, biking, and walking in order to reduce air pollution, energy consumption, and GHG emission.

Existing Transit Services- The nearest VTA bus stops serving the development are Frequent Route 68 (15 minute headway Monterey Rd/7th Gilroy Transit Center) less than 1/4 mile east of the project site. Local Route 85 (1 hour headway 6th/Rosanna) serves the project site. Route 568 Rapid (30 minute headway) stops located at Gilroy Transit Center. You can take your bike 3

3 cont'd
5 7

Page 270 of 685 ends

with you or park it at an e-locker at the Gilroy Transit Center. This is a great opportunity to promote the use of public transit to the residents and visitors through outreach programs established in a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. Leverage the Measure B E&E funding the city has and the marketing outreach resources from Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)1
. Bus service between Santa Clara County and Monterey County with 4 round trips Mon-Fri on Bus Line 59 running between VTA’s Gilroy Transit Center and Salinas Intermodal Transit Center/AMTRAK.2

Sincerely,
Gilroy Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (Gilroy BPAC) [email protected]
https://www.facebook.com/GilroyBPAC
We are a community group actively embracing, advancing ideas, and projects that promote the concept of free-range people in Gilroy. We support building projects that are energy resilient and promote the reduction of greenhouse gasses (GHG). We are seeking your input whether you are a BMX rider, trail runner, recreational bike rider, MTB rider, walker, and hiker! #GilroyBPAC 2 https://mst.org/wp-content/media/59.pdf
1 https://www.vta.org/faq/how-do-i-start-riding-vta
4 7
cont'd

Page 271 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-8 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 1 – Gilroy Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)

1. The commenter requests that language be added to the master plan webpage to make it more clear how to provide public comment during the 45-day public review period.

The comment does not raise an environmental issue associated with the adequacy of the draft EIR. Therefore, no response is required. No change to the draft EIR is required.

2. The commenter states that the project will have a direct impact in achieving goals to reduce air emissions and improve air quality as well as encourage residents, commuters, and employees to shift from driving to cycling, walking, and transit use. The commenter notes support for increasing walking for short trips, first/last mile connections, and adding new transit riders. The commenter states that they are glad to see the inclusion of bike parking and that the site’s location near transit and bicycle/pedestrian facilities all reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The commenter encourages existing and proposed development to incorporate Transportation Demand Management measures and suggests that all new construction incorporate an all-electric model and be fossil fuel free to reduce GHG emissions. The commenter also notes that the project site is not in an area isolated from transit and discusses the benefits of local transit and rideshare in Gilroy.

Refer to Section 9.12, Transportation (beginning on page 9-23), of the draft EIR, which addresses VMT. As described therein, the VMT analysis prepared for the project, and included as Appendix D of the draft EIR, concluded that the proposed uses consist of localserving public facilities located within an established community. Such uses are expected to result in shorter trips and reduced travel distances, as they provide services that would otherwise be sought elsewhere. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant VMT impact and no transportation demand management measures are required. Although they cannot be required as mitigation measures, the City could choose to include them in the master plan.

Section 8.0, Greenhouse Gases (beginning on page 8-16), of the draft EIR, addresses building energy use and GHG emissions. As described therein, natural gas use is a source of direct GHG emissions, and all-electric development is identified as necessary to support State goals for carbon neutrality. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 requires that no permanent natural gas infrastructure be permitted and that all future development be constructed as all-electric.

No change to the draft EIR is required.

3. The commenter references draft EIR Impact 8-1 (GHG emissions) and acknowledges Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which requires the project to be all electric (no natural gas) and requires electric vehicle infrastructure (e.g., elective vehicle parking spaces, charging station infrastructure, chargers, etc.) consistent with the CALGreen Tier 2 standards. The commenter implies that they would also like the following additional mitigation added:
 Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping

Page 272 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-9 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

Refer to Section 8.0, Greenhouse Gases (beginning on page 8-16), of the draft EIR, which evaluates operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and concludes that impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. As described therein, project-generated GHG emissions would primarily result from transportation, energy use, water and wastewater, and solid waste.

The analysis applies Bay Area Air Quality Management District performance standards, which includes less than significant vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts, less than significant energy impacts, elimination of natural gas infrastructure, and incorporation of electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure. The analysis concludes that the project would achieve less than significant impacts related to energy use and VMT, and with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 (requiring all-electric construction and EV infrastructure consistent with CALGreen Tier 2 standards), the project would meet all applicable performance standards and reduce GHG impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the commenter’s recommended inclusion of the VMT-related performance standard is not necessary because the project already meets that performance standard. Refer to Section 9.12, Transportation, (as well as Appendix D for the Transportation analysis) for the VMT analysis, which concludes the VMT impact is less than significant.

No change to the draft EIR is required.

4. The commenter recommends that the project include staff showers and dressing areas for each gender and one locker for each required long-term bicycle parking space. The commenter also recommends the installation of bicycle repair stations near bicycle parking.

In theory, providing staff showers, lockers, and bicycle repair stations could encourage employees and visitors to ride a bicycle instead of driving a car. These measures cannot be added to the EIR as mitigation measures, as the impacts are already mitigated to a less than significant level. However, the City could choose to include them in the master plan.

No change to the draft EIR is required.

5. The commenter references the General Plan 2040 Mobility Element and asks what the development has done to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to transit.

As described in Section 9.12, Transportation, page 9-22 of the draft EIR, the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy M 4.2, which requires new development to fully accommodate, enhance, and facilitate public transit, including pedestrian and bicycle access to transit. The nearest bus stop is on 6th Street at the northeast corner of the project site. The proposed project would include walkways leading to this bus stop. Additionally, existing bicycle facilities on 6th Street from Dowdy Street and Hanna Street and on Church Street would not be removed or otherwise damaged thereby accommodating access to existing transit facilities.

No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 273 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-10 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026

6. The commenter references the General Plan 2040 Mobility Element and includes several policies that they support. The commenter also notes that they’re excited for the City to implement their own Bike Parking Ordinance and VMT/TDM Ordinance so the City doesn’t have to rely on VTA.

The comment does not raise an environmental issue associated with the adequacy of the draft EIR and, therefore no response is required. No change to the draft EIR is required.

7. The commenter identifies existing transit services serving the project area and notes proximity to the Gilroy Transit Center. The commenter states that transit access, bicycle accommodations, and connections to regional transit are available and encourages promotion of transit use through outreach and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs.

The comment does not raise an environmental issue associated with the adequacy of the draft EIR and no response is required. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 274 of 685 ends

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

From: [email protected]
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Civic Center Master Plan
Date: Friday, February 20, 2026 8:16:09 AM
Do we really need to do this? What is the justification for this plan? What is the estimated cost?
Where is the money coming from?
How long is the project expected to take once started?
What is the proposed start date?
What is the anticipated traffic impact during and after the project? Respectfully;
Chet Kirby
408-607-2023

BBBBBBBBBBBBB

BB

Comment Letter #2

Page 275 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-12 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 2 – Chet Kirby

1. The commenter asks what the estimated cost of the project is, the source of funding, and the anticipated project timeline once construction begins.

The comment does not raise an environmental issue associated with the adequacy of the draft EIR and, therefore, no response is required. No change to the draft EIR is required.

2. The commenter asks what the anticipated traffic impacts would be during and after the project.

Refer to Section 9.12, Transportation (beginning on page 9-22), which addresses transportation impacts. As described therein, the project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or programs related to circulation, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The project primarily consists of local-serving public facilities and does not include substantial roadway modifications, aside from removal of Hanna Street within the project site, and would not introduce new roadway extensions. The VMT analysis concludes that the project would result in a less than significant impact, as the uses would remain localserving and would support shorter trips within the community. In addition, all site access and circulation improvements would be designed in accordance with City standards and reviewed by applicable departments to ensure safe operation and adequate emergency access.

Therefore, transportation impacts associated with the project would be less than significant.

No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 276 of 685 ends

From: Casey Estorga
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Civic Center EIR - Question re: East Block Date: Saturday, February 21, 2026 8:54:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Ryan,
I could not find where the EIR considered how saturating the area adjacent to the East Block will impact circulation specifically with respect to the alley between Church Street and Rosanna Street.

That alley is a natural outlet as the Church Street at 6th Street intersection already has extensive traffic during its peaks. The alley is already in disrepair and has been for years (maybe decades). This includes damaged curb access on both ends, failing pavement throughout, and unmaintained landscaping in the public right of way. There are also blind spots as vehicles park illegally - both within the alley and on both ends.

These concerns do not apply to the Central Block or the West Block as they are not adjacent to an intersection with activity similar to that of Church Street at 6th Street.

The alley already gets increased traffic when Wheeler Auditorium is active with events. How does the City plan to mitigate the negative impacts to the alley as it undoubtedly becomes a cut-through (aka a desire path) when the Civic Center is fully built-out, including with a high-traffic Recreation and Aquatics Center at the corner? As the EIR notes, people would be advised to park along 6th Street to access these amenities. Is part of the Civic Center plan to revitalize the alley so it can handle more intensified traffic (of all modes)? Thanks!
Truly,
Casey
1 Comment Letter #3

Page 277 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-14 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 3 – Casey Estorga

1. The commenter states that they could not find where the EIR considered circulation impacts adjacent to the East Block, specifically with respect to the alley between Church Street and Rosanna Street. The commenter states that the alley functions as an outlet due to traffic at the Church Street and 6th Street intersection and experiences increased traffic during events at Wheeler Auditorium. The commenter further states that the alley is in disrepair, including damaged curb access, failing pavement, and unmaintained landscaping within the public rightof-way. The commenter also notes blind spots caused by illegal vehicle parking within the alley and at both ends. The commenter clarifies that these concerns do not apply to the Central Block or West Block as they are not adjacent to an intersection with similar activity.

The commenter states that the alley would become a cut-through route when the Civic Center is built out, including the Recreation and Aquatics Center, and asks how the City plans to address potential increases in traffic. The commenter references that the draft EIR states that people would be advised to park along 6th Street to access project amenities and questions how this would affect use of the alley and whether the Civic Center plan includes improvements to the alley so it can accommodate increased traffic and use.

A vehicle miles traveled analysis was prepared for the project as required per CEQA. The evaluation of traffic operations and vehicular congestion is no longer required under CEQA.

However, the City could choose to prepare an operations analysis evaluating off-site facilities at some point, but it is not required for CEQA compliance.

No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 278 of 685 ends

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

From: Mike Griffis
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Comments Against the Demolition of Wheeler Auditorium as Part of the Civic Center Master Plan Date: Saturday, March 14, 2026 6:22:56 AM
I was appalled to read in a recent Dispatch article that the City was even considering tearing down Wheeler Auditorium.

Wheeler Auditorium was constructed in the 1940's, and was designated as a Historic Structure by the City Council in 1983.

The City of Gilroy 2040 General Plan calls for public and private efforts for the preservation of historic and architecturally significant buildings. Under the Historic and Cultural Resources section, it states that "The policies in this section strive to preserve Gilroy's historic and cultural resources to preserve its local heritage for future generations. " And lists Goal NCR 5 "Preserve significant historic buildings, sites, and resources to enrich the sense of place and appreciation of the city's history."
The above is about complying with the city's 2040 Plan, but what about doing the morally right thing for our community. The Historic Wheeler Auditorium has provided recreational and cultural activities to generations of the people of Gilroy. In my own personal experiences, I have seen my children and grandchildren participate in recreational activities in the Auditorium. Just the thought that our City Council would consider demolishing the Auditorium is beyond belief to me.

Don't destroy a part of our history just to provide for some new shiny buildings.

Michael Griffis
3/14/2026
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
1 2
Comment Letter #4

Page 279 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-16 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 4 – Michael Griffis

1. The commenter states that the Wheeler Auditorium was constructed in the 1940s and was designated as a Historic Structure by the City Council in 1983. The commenter also references the City of Gilroy 2040 General Plan and that it calls for preservation of historic and architecturally significant buildings, including policies and goals related to preserving historic and cultural resources.

Preservation Architect prepared a memo on August 6, 2026 providing their historic architectural considerations of the Wheeler Auditorium and concluded that the Wheeler Auditorium is a stand-alone, individual resource as it does not have any direct contextual associations and does not appear to have any direct associations to historical events. While there is an established basis for a finding of historic importance, the architecture is otherwise and evidently basic, plain and minimal, without a site or site features of historical character (Preservation Architect 2026).

Also refer to Section 7.0, Cultural Resources, of the draft EIR, which provides an analysis of the project’s impacts to cultural resources. The draft EIR concludes that demolition of the Wheeler Auditorium would result in a significant and unavoidable impact even with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1.a and CUL-1.b, which requires that a qualified architectural historian document the auditorium in accordance with the guidelines established for the Historic American Building Survey; an architectural historian meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards shall oversee the preparation of the plans, photographs, and written data; the City’s Historian shall review the documentation and file it with the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, the repository for the California Historic Resources Information System; and requires developing all of this material into a public educational display within the new community center.

Section 13.0, Alternatives, of the draft EIR discusses Alternative #2, which would retain the historic structure in place and require a redesign of the project. The conclusion states that this alternative is the environmentally superior alternative as it would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact. However, this alternative meets the fundamental project objectives to a lesser degree because the intent of the project is to maximize site uses and meet space needs for applicable City staff and programming at City buildout. As discussed in Section 12.0, Significant and Unavoidable Impacts, of the draft EIR, if the City Council approves the project, they would be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, finding that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts.

No change to the draft EIR is required.

2. The commenter states that Wheeler Auditorium has provided recreational and cultural activities to generations of the community and references personal experiences associated with the facility. The commenter also states opposition to the potential demolition of Wheeler Auditorium as part of the project.

The comment does not raise an environmental issue associated with the adequacy of the draft EIR and, therefore, no response is required. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 280 of 685 ends

From: Steve Brady
To: Ryan Osenton; Mayor Greg Bozzo; Council Member Carol Marques; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Tom Cline; Council Member Terence Fugazzi; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Kelly Ramirez; Matt Morley
Cc: Joanie M. Lewis; Connie Rogers; Linda; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: EXTERNAL - GHS Comments to Civic Center Master Plan/Draft EIR - Wheeler Auditorium Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 1:36:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Mr Osenton, City Council Members & City Administrator,
See the attached letter containing the Gilroy Historical Society’s comments and position on the subject Master Plan/Draft EIR, particularly regarding the demolition of the historic Wheeler Auditorium.

Please do not hesitate to contact our President Ms Joanie Lewis regarding our concerns as expressed in the letter. Hard copies of the letter will be hand carried to the city administration offices today.

Sincerely,
Steve Brady
GHS Vice President
$PNNFOU-FUUFS

Page 281 of 685 ends

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Page 282 of 685 ends

@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@

DPOUhE

Page 283 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-20 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 5 – Gilroy Historical Society

1. The commenter states that the Draft EIR identifies demolition of Wheeler Auditorium as a significant and unavoidable impact and states that this outcome is unacceptable. The commenter states a preference for Alternative #2, the “Retain Historic Wheeler Auditorium in Place and Redesign the Proposed Project” alternative identified in the draft EIR. The commenter states that Wheeler Auditorium is listed on the City’s Historic Resources list and describes its architectural style as Moderne (also described as Art Deco) and states that while the interior may need renovation, the exterior is worth preserving. The commenter states that Wheeler Auditorium has been used for community events, including plays, dances, concerts, weddings, and classes, and that it is accessible to the community and provides a sense of place. The commenter states that the building can continue to fulfill its purpose if the interior is remodeled to better meet current needs. The commenter further states that demolition of the building would result in a loss of a major part of Gilroy’s history that cannot be retrieved or replaced.

See response to letter 4, comment 1. No change to the draft EIR is required.

2. The commenter states that locating an aquatics center in or next to a new recreation building would increase traffic on 6th Street and Church Street and that it would be difficult to accommodate this increase, even with additional parking. The commenter believes that people would rather not swim next to two very busy streets.

Refer to Section 9.12, Transportation (beginning on page 9-22), of the draft EIR, which addresses transportation impacts. As described therein, the project would modify site access and circulation but would be designed in accordance with City standards and reviewed by applicable City Departments to ensure safe operation. Additionally, the VMT impacts evaluated in the draft EIR are concluded to be less than significant because although the building square footages would increase compared to existing conditions, the intensity of these uses would not increase and all proposed uses would continue to be local-serving public services. The VMT analysis (Appendix D of the draft EIR) concludes that the project’s public services improve people’s proximity to recreational and other community services resulting in shorter trips and a decrease in VMT (p. 2). Therefore, transportation impacts overall would be less than significant.

No change to the draft EIR is required.

3. The commenter states that the recreation/aquatics center facility would result in a negative impact of noise and traffic on the character and quality of life of the surrounding neighborhood. The commenter states opposition to locating the facility at the proposed location and indicates a preference for locating such a facility at other sites, including Christmas Hill Park or Christopher High School.

Refer to Section 9.8, Noise (beginning on page 9-17), of the draft EIR, which addresses noise impacts. As described therein, construction noise would be temporary and limited to hours permitted by the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, and operational noise associated

Page 284 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-21 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
with the project would be minimal and consistent with existing conditions. The project would also be required to comply with applicable noise standards ensuring that noise levels do not exceed established thresholds. Therefore, construction and operational noise impacts associated with the project would be less than significant. Refer to the response under comment 2 above for a discussion about traffic impacts. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 285 of 685 ends

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

From: Ruben Dario Villa
To: Ryan Osenton
Cc: All Council Members
Subject: EXTERNAL - RE: Comments on Public Review Draft EIR – Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan (SCH# 2025091066) Date: Friday, March 27, 2026 12:20:41 AM
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Staff,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan. These comments are submitted on behalf of community organizations and stakeholders engaged in arts, culture, and downtown vitality in Gilroy, including SV Creates, Gilroy Foundation, Gilroy Downtown Business Association, Gilroy Arts Alliance, and Gilroy Arts Roundtable among others.

We appreciate the City’s effort to plan comprehensively for the future of the Civic Center and downtown. The Civic Center will serve as a defining civic space for Gilroy for decades to come, and thoughtful planning now will help ensure the project successfully supports community use, cultural programming, and downtown vitality.

We also note the City Council’s recent approval of the Community Event Support Program.

As the number of events continues to grow, it becomes increasingly important that civic spaces like Civic Park are designed to support recurring events efficiently—minimizing cost and logistical barriers while providing consistent, well-designed environments for safe community use.

As organizations and community leaders actively involved in arts, culture, and downtown programming in Gilroy, we are particularly interested in how the Civic Center’s design will support public events, cultural programming, and community gatherings over time.

Purpose of Comment
The purpose of these comments is to help ensure the Final EIR clearly describes how the proposed Civic Center will function once fully activated and to clarify key assumptions related to event programming, the intended role of Civic Park, and peak-use conditions. + + +

1. Civic Park Programming and Performance Infrastructure The Civic Center Master Plan describes Civic Park as a flexible open space capable of hosting community gatherings such as farmers markets, performances, and civic events. However, the plan does not clearly define whether outdoor concerts or amplified music events are intended uses of the park. This creates uncertainty about whether the park’s design is aligned with its intended function.

Previous iterations of the Master Plan included a stage or designated performance area within Civic Park. It was only during recent public discussions associated with the Draft EIR that stakeholders became aware this element had been removed, reportedly due to acoustic considerations. In response, we re-engaged with participating organizations and community stakeholders to confirm whether there remains support for outdoor performance infrastructure. 1 2
Comment Letter #6

Page 286 of 685 ends

There is strong and consistent support for including a permanent stage or integrated performance platform as part of the park design.

If Civic Park is intended to function as a venue for performances, concerts, and cultural events —as described in the Master Plan—then the project should include a permanent stage or integrated performance platform as part of the park design.

Purpose-built performance infrastructure would allow the City to orient sound appropriately, reduce repeated temporary stage installations, and lower logistical costs for community event producers. It would also allow acoustic considerations to be addressed proactively through design rather than reactively through temporary solutions. From a practical standpoint, the presence—or absence—of basic performance infrastructure directly affects the feasibility and quality of civic programming.

While acoustic considerations present real design challenges, they are commonly addressed through site orientation, sound engineering, and operational guidelines. The removal of performance infrastructure, rather than its thoughtful design, risks limiting the Civic Center’s ability to achieve its stated goals of supporting community programming and cultural activation.

A clearly defined program, supported by appropriate infrastructure, will help ensure Civic Park becomes an intentional and well-activated public space.

Requested Clarification for the Final EIR
The Final EIR should clearly state whether Civic Park is intended to support outdoor performances and, if so, should reflect the inclusion of a permanent stage or integrated performance infrastructure as part of the project design. + + +

2. Operational Noise and Event Programming
The Draft EIR concludes that operational noise increases associated with the Civic Center redevelopment would be minimal and generally consistent with existing civic uses. However, the project description anticipates community programming and public gatherings.

If the Civic Center is intended to support events such as markets, festivals, and performances, the noise analysis should clearly reflect those uses. Event programming can introduce conditions that differ from typical daytime civic operations, particularly where amplified sound is involved.

Requested Clarification for the Final EIR
The Final EIR should clearly describe the assumptions used in the noise analysis, including the anticipated frequency, timing, and amplification of community events, to ensure the analysis reflects the reasonably foreseeable use of the civic campus. + + +

3. Transportation and Parking – Peak Use Conditions
The Draft EIR relies primarily on a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening approach and concludes that the project would not result in significant transportation impacts. While 2 cont'd
3 4

Page 287 of 685 ends

consistent with current CEQA practice, this approach does not fully address how the Civic Center campus will function during peak-use conditions.

The Master Plan envisions a more active civic campus with expanded programming and community use. However, the analysis does not clearly describe how the site will operate during periods of higher activity, such as evenings, weekends, or special events when multiple uses may occur simultaneously.

Requested Clarification for the Final EIR
The Final EIR should clarify the assumptions used to conclude that project intensity would not increase and should include a qualitative discussion of how the Civic Center will accommodate peak-use conditions, including overlapping civic uses and community events. + + +
Conclusion
The Civic Center Master Plan represents a significant opportunity to shape the civic heart of Gilroy. Providing additional clarity around event programming, the intended role of Civic Park, and peak-use conditions will strengthen the Final EIR and help ensure the project’s design aligns with its long-term civic goals.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully submitted,
Silicon Valley Creates
Alexandra Urbanowski, Executive Director
Gilroy Foundation
Jaclyn Muro, Executive Director
Gilroy Downtown Business Association
Amber Attebery, Co-Chair
Gilroy Arts Alliance
Marianne Eichenbaum, President
Sharon Albert, Vice President
Gilroy Arts Roundtable Steering Committee
La Ofrenda Festival / Casa de Cultura y Arte
Ruben Dario Villa, Executive Director
MANOS Folklórico
Mina Castañeda, Director
The Neon Exchange
Toni Bowles, CEO
Ruben Dario Villa
5 4
cont'd

Page 288 of 685 ends

Chair, Arts and Culture Commission
Luis Ramirez
Commissioner, Parks and Recreations Commission

Page 289 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-26 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 6 – Ruben Dario Villa

1. The commenter acknowledges the opportunity to comment on the draft EIR and states appreciation for the City’s effort to plan for the Civic Center and downtown. The commenter states that the Civic Center will serve as a defining civic space and should support community use, cultural programming, and downtown vitality. The commenter references the City’s Community Event Support Program and states that as events increase, civic spaces should be designed to support recurring events efficiently and reduce logistical barriers. The commenter states that the purpose of the comments is to ensure the Final EIR clearly describes how the Civic Center will function once fully activated, including assumptions related to event programming, the role of Civic Park, and peak-use conditions.

The comment is introductory to the comments in the letter and does not raise an environmental issue. Therefore, no response is required. No change to the draft EIR is required.

2. The commenter states that the Master Plan describes Civic Park as a flexible space for community gatherings but does not clearly state whether outdoor concerts or amplified music events are intended uses. The commenter states that previous versions of the Master Plan included a stage or designated performance area, which has been removed. The commenter states that there is support for including a permanent stage or integrated performance platform and requests that the Final EIR clarify whether Civic Park is intended to support outdoor performances and reflect inclusion of performance infrastructure if applicable. The commenter states that if Civic Park is intended to support performances and events, the project design should include appropriate infrastructure and clearly defined programming.

While the amphitheater was considered in earlier design options, it is not currently proposed as part of the master plan, and therefore, the noise associated with an amphitheater was not evaluated in the draft EIR. The reference to the amphitheater was inadvertently left in the EIR project description. Section 4.0, Project Description, of the draft EIR has been revised to remove reference to the amphitheater, which is no longer part of the project design. Refer to Section 3.0, Changes to the draft EIR, of this final EIR. If the City does decide to add an amphitheater or music venue to the civic center, supplemental environmental analysis would be required.

3. The commenter states that the draft EIR concludes operational noise would be minimal but that the project anticipates community programming and public gatherings. The commenter states that event programming, including markets, festivals, and performances, may introduce different noise conditions, particularly where amplified sound is involved. The commenter requests that the Final EIR describe the assumptions used in the noise analysis, including frequency, timing, and amplification of community events.

The proposed master plan includes a Multigenerational Community Center that would include a community theatre seating up to 200 people for music, drama, dance, and spokenword performances. The master plan does not contemplate large outdoor music gatherings.

Page 290 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-27 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Refer to Section 9.8, Noise, on page 9-17, of the draft EIR, which discusses operational noise impacts of the proposed project. The proposed project would be subject to compliance with City Municipal Code standards for noise to ensure that events and activities conducted at the site would not exceed such standards. The assumptions for what types of activities and events may occur at the project site are identified within Section 4.0, Project Description, of the draft EIR. Refer also to the response under comment 2, above.

No change to the draft EIR is required.

4. The commenter states that the draft EIR relies on a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening approach and does not fully address how the Civic Center would function during peak-use conditions. The commenter states that the analysis does not clearly describe how the site would operate during periods of higher activity, such as evenings, weekends, or special events when multiple uses may occur simultaneously. The commenter requests that the Final EIR clarify assumptions related to project intensity and include discussion of how peak-use conditions and overlapping uses would be accommodated.

See response to letter 3 regarding traffic operations. No change to the draft EIR is required.

5. The commenter states that additional clarity regarding programming, Civic Park role, and peak-use conditions would help align the project with long-term civic goals.

Comment acknowledged. Refer to the response under comment 4, above. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 291 of 685 ends

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

From: Crighton, Triana
To: Ryan Osenton
Cc: Swierk, Robert; plan.review; Bus.Stop
Subject: EXTERNAL - VTA Comments on Draft Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan & Draft EIR [GI2601] Date: Friday, March 27, 2026 3:48:28 PM
Attachments: Outlook-av2pcmgn.png
VTAComments_GI2601_GilCivicCenter_MasterPlan_EIR.pdf
Ryan,
VTA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and public review draft for the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan.

Our formal comment letter is attached.

Thank you again for the opportunity to review this plan. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me if any clarification is needed.

Best,
Triana K. Crighton (she/her)
Senior Transportation Planner || Land Use and Development Review Phone: 408-321-5691
Comment Letter #7

Page 292 of 685 ends

March 27, 2026
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
Attn: Ryan Osenton
Dear Ryan,
VTA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and public review draft for the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan, shared with VTA staff by City Council Member Zachary Hilton on February 13, 2026.

VTA has reviewed the documents and has the following comments:

Overall Plan Area Design
VTA supports the Master Plan’s intent to strengthen and modernize the public service and recreational uses of the Plan Area. The planned three new civic buildings and the new Civic Center Park will help create an environment that is connected, vibrant, and active – providing green spaces, recreational uses, and public services. With residential areas, downtown Gilroy shops and restaurants, and public transit services nearby, the reimagined Gilroy Civic Center will contribute to the kind of work-live-play environment that VTA encourages and supports.

Active Transportation Connectivity to Downtown Gilroy
Acknowledging the current Plan Area’s Walk Score of 90, VTA staff still encourages the City to consider what active transportation improvements can be planned and implemented to better connect the new Gilroy Civic Center to downtown Gilroy along 6th Street and 7th Street. For example, intersection improvements at West 7th and Church Street, and dedicated/striped bicycle lanes on either 6th Street or 7th Street would help improve safety and comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Manual
As it applies to the future specific design of the Master Plan Area, VTA encourages the City to utilize VTA’s Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Manual to inform the Plan Area's design. The CDT guidelines provide strategies for shaping the built environment and parking layouts to promote pedestrian activity, support transit, and enhance community character.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures
VTA supports the Gilroy Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee’s comment letter regarding incorporating TDM measures within the Master Plan. Acknowledging that the buildout of the Plan Area will not produce significant VMT impacts, VTA still encourages the City consider TDM measures that can enhance and complement non-automobile modes of travel to and around the Plan Area.

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

BBBBBBBBBBB

BBBBBBBBBBBBB

Page 293 of 685 ends

sd>ĂŶĚhƐĞΘĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚZĞǀŝĞǁ
WĂŐĞϮŽĨϮ
Bus Stop Improvements
VTA’s Local Bus Route 85 services West 6th Street along the Plan Area. Local Route 85 connects several key areas such as downtown Gilroy and the Gilroy Caltrain Station. VTA has two existing bus stops on the Plan Area frontage:
x 6th & Hanna
x 6th and Rosanna
As specific streetscape design proceeds for the Plan Area, please coordinate with the VTA Passenger Facilities Team via e-mail at [email protected]. Additionally, VTA would like the opportunity to review future specific site plans to ensure the placement of driveways, landscaping and any other features do not conflict with bus operations. VTA’s Transit Passenger Environment Plan provides design guidelines for bus stops. VTA’s Bus Stop Placement, Closures and Relocations Policy details VTA’s policies for these topics.

Proposed Parking Reconfiguration on 7th Street
The Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Civil Conceptual Narrative states (on Appendix B, page 109) that “The existing parallel parking on 7th Street between Church and Hanna however is proposed to be converted to angled parking. This will require the curb to be shifted into the site thereby eliminating the existing planting strip.” VTA recommends that the City carefully consider how this proposed parking reconfiguration would affect safety and comfort of pedestrians and cyclists along 7th Street, as well as pedestrians and cyclists approaching the Civic Center area on Rosanna Street from the south.

Thank you again for the opportunity to review this plan. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected], or the VTA Land Use and Development Review team at [email protected]
Sincerely,
Triana Crighton
Senior Transportation Planner
GI2601

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

Page 294 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-31 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 7 – Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

1. The commenter states support for the Master Plan’s intent to strengthen and modernize public service and recreational uses and notes that the project would create a connected and active environment with access to transit, residential areas, and downtown uses.

The comment does not raise an environmental issue associated with the adequacy of the draft EIR and, therefore, no response is required. No change to the draft EIR is required.

2. The commenter encourages the City to consider active transportation improvements to better connect the Civic Center to downtown along 6th Street and 7th Street, including intersection improvements and dedicated or striped bicycle lanes.

Although active transportation improvements cannot be required as mitigation measures because there is no significant adverse transportation impact, the City could choose to include them in the master plan. No change to the draft EIR is required.

3. The commenter encourages the City to utilize VTA’s Community Design and Transportation Manual to inform future design of the Plan Area, including strategies for pedestrian activity, transit support, and parking layout.

Although strategies for pedestrian activity, transit support, and parking layout cannot be required as mitigation measures because there is no significant adverse transportation impact, the City could choose to include them in the master plan. No change to the draft EIR is required.

4. The commenter supports incorporation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures and encourages the City to consider measures that enhance non-automobile modes of travel to and around the Plan Area.

Refer to response to letter 1, comment 3. No change to the draft EIR is required.

5. The commenter states that VTA Route 85 serves the project area and identifies existing bus stops along 6th Street. The commenter requests coordination with VTA on future site design to ensure compatibility with bus operations and references applicable VTA design guidelines and policies.

The comment does not raise an environmental issue associated with the adequacy of the draft EIR and, therefore, no response is required. No change to the draft EIR is required.

6. The commenter references proposed conversion of parallel parking to angled parking on 7th Street and recommends that the City consider potential effects on safety and comfort for pedestrians and cyclists.

The comment does not raise an environmental issue associated with the adequacy of the draft EIR and, therefore, no response is required. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 295 of 685 ends

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

From: REBECCA SCHEEL
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Gilroy Civic Center questions
Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 8:19:46 AM
Good morning Ryan,
I’ve communicated with you before, I’m a Gilroy resident who swims laps regularly, currently at Gavilan College. I’m interested in the Pool options in the Plan.

Can you pls tell me how many lanes there will be in the outdoor Pool & the length of the lanes (for lap swimming)?
Also, it’s very hard to tell from the photos but it looks like the play area/non-lap area is connected to the Lap Pool without a wall or separation. Is it the same body of water or are there two separate pools?
If it’s the same water, I’m concerned about the water temperature & other unpleasant things which little kids do in the water which causes pools to close for cleaning. (It happens at the Morgan Hill YMCA indoor pool regularly.)
If the temperature of the play area pool is kept warmer, the lap lanes will be too warm for workouts. Gavilan College has temperature issues since they changed their 2 pools to 1 pool with a swim-way/isle. The lap pool & the lower level pool (for aquatics) are separated by an swim-way/isle. They did it to save money on heating the pool but they have regretted it.

Thank you,
Rebecca
Rebecca Scheel
[email protected]
mobile: 408.930.8805
1 Comment Letter #8

Page 296 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-33 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 8 – Rebecca Scheel

1. The commenter asks questions about the proposed pool, such as how many lanes will be provided and the length of the lanes for lap swimming. The commenter expresses concern that if the pools are combined, differences in water temperature and maintenance issues could affect lap swimming conditions.

The comment is regarding specific pool design and does not raise an environmental issue and, therefore, no response is required. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 297 of 685 ends

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

From: Wells Wadleigh
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Comments on Civic Center plan
Date: Monday, February 23, 2026 8:41:55 AM
Hello
I am very concerned about the plan for PARKING near the library. The planners seem to be unaware of the location of the main entrance to the library. Please go to the site as it currently exists and look again.

The planners have placed a swimming pool east of the library in an area that currently provides a number of parking spots that are essential for library patrons. Seniors will be especially inconvenienced and even discouraged from using the library if they have to walk all the way from the west side. Are you planning to create another entrance for the library? I don't see that in the plans. Users of the pool will be taking many of the parking places that are now used by library patrons. And I suspect that the average pool user will be occupying a parking space much longer than the average library user.

Sincerely yours,
Wells Wadleigh
2901 Grassland Way
Gilroy
1 2
Comment Letter #9

Page 298 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-35 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 9 – Wells Wadleigh

1. The commenter states concern regarding the location and availability of parking near the library and indicates that the proposed placement of the swimming pool would remove existing parking spaces used by library patrons. The commenter states this may inconvenience users, including seniors.

The comment does not raise an environmental issue and, therefore, no response is required.

No change to the draft EIR is required.

2. The commenter asks whether a new library entrance is proposed and states that the plans do not appear to show an additional entrance. Additionally, the commenter notes that pool users may occupy parking spaces for longer durations than library users.

The comment is on the parking design and does not raise an environmental issue and, therefore, no response is required. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 299 of 685 ends

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

From: Gina Johnson
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Civic Center master plan
Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 7:59:54 PM
Hi I do not think the Wheeler Civic Center should be torn down. It was built in 1940 and is aesthetically pleasing. Getting rid of older buildings makes cities loose their charm. Plus the buildings on the plan look like the police station which is not very attractive. It would be cheaper to fix the existing buildings rather than to tear them down and build new ones. There is also the debris from the buildings that would fill our land fills. I also don’t think we need another pool. There are 3 in Gilroy plus the aquatic center at Gilroy gardens. There is also the pool center in Morgan Hill and the indoor pool at the CRC. There is also the added cost of maintaining the pool, insurance for liability, and opens the city up to lawsuits. There is also the cost of this project. Where is the money coming from? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to remodel what we have since in the plan it says that the square footage of City Hall would not change much from the current building.

Thanks
Gina Johnson
1 2
3 4
Comment Letter #10

Page 300 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-37 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 10 – Gina Johnson

1. The commenter states opposition to the demolition of Wheeler Auditorium, noting its age and aesthetic value, and states a preference for repairing existing buildings rather than constructing new ones.

See response to letter 4, comment 1. No change to the draft EIR is required.

2. The commenter states that the debris from the buildings would fill the landfills.

Section 9.14, Utilities and Service Systems of the draft EIR beginning on page 9-127, addresses solid waste generation and concludes the project would comply with applicable regulations related to solid waste disposal and recycling, and sufficient landfill capacity exists to accommodate project-generated waste. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant.

No change to the draft EIR is required.

3. The commenter states that an additional pool is not needed and expresses concern regarding maintenance costs, insurance, and liability associated with the proposed pool.

The comment does not raise an environmental issue and, therefore, no response is required.

No change to the draft EIR is required.

4. The commenter asks about the cost of the project, the source of funding, and questions the need for redevelopment given that the plan indicates City Hall square footage would not change substantially.

The comment does not raise an environmental issue and, therefore, no response is required.

No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 301 of 685 ends

From: Margaret Aron
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - civic center
Date: Friday, March 27, 2026 5:54:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Hello, Here are some concerns that I have.

The parking garage. It is surrounded by homes and at two stories is too tall.

Limited safety at night.

The crosswalk at 6th and Hanna is used by children from the elementary school, church goers, and folks going to the senior center and is very busy adding another dirveway would be dangerous.

The Wheeler auditorium should be left in place. It is historic. It is listed.

It is being used for many activities now so must meet standards to be used.

After attending the meetings the design is nice if we were a new city. Gilroy is not and should try and honor the previous civic members who developed the center over time The center was also redesigned during the development of the library and police station. It is wasteful to start all over again even as the new trees and landscaping are still very young.

The buildings we have are functional. If the HVAC needs updating do so.

Sadly , I do not think we would ever get the pool so please don't use it as a selling point.

Thank you for your time. Margaret Aron
1 2
Comment Letter #11

Page 302 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-39 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 11 – Margaret Aron

1. The commenter states concern regarding the proposed parking garage, including its height, proximity to surrounding homes, and safety, and states that an additional driveway at 6th Street and Hanna Street would be dangerous due to existing pedestrian activity.

Refer to Section 9.1, Aesthetics (beginning on page 9-1), which addresses aesthetic impacts including height. As described therein, the proposed two-level parking garage is planned to be 25 feet, which complies with the height limits of the Civic/Cultural Arts Zoning District (minimum of 25 feet at street front and maximum of 50 feet). No change to the draft EIR is required.

Refer to Section 9.12, Transportation (beginning on page 9-22), which addresses circulation and hazards. As described therein, all circulation improvements would be designed in accordance with City standard specifications for safe and efficient facility design, including requirements for emergency access, sight distance, and vehicle movement. In addition, circulation improvements would be subject to review by the City’s Public Works, Fire, and Police Departments to ensure safe operation for vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and emergency responders. Therefore, the project would not result in increased hazards and impacts would be less than significant. No change to the draft EIR is required.

2. The commenter states that Wheeler Auditorium should remain in place, identifies it as a historic resource, and states that it is currently used for activities. Additionally, the commenter states that existing buildings are functional and questions the need for redevelopment, including replacement of relatively recent improvements. Lastly, the commenter states that the pool may not be constructed and should not be relied upon as part of the project.

Refer to response to letter 4, comment 1. The remainder of the comment does not raise an environmental issue associated with adequacy of the draft EIR and, therefore, no further response is required. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 303 of 685 ends

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

From: Cynthia Van Laar
To: Ryan Osenton
Cc: Parks and Recreation Commissioner Luis Ramirez; Parks and Recreation Commissioner Emily Miller; Parks and Recreation Commissioner Javier Martinez; Parks and Recreation Commissioner Jesse Jimenez; Parks and Recreation Commissioner Greg Felios; Parks and Recreation Commissioner Andrew Brinton; Mayor Greg Bozzo; Council Member Tom Cline; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Terence Fugazzi; Council Member Carol Marques; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Kelly Ramirez Subject: EXTERNAL - Written Comments Related to DEIR
Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 8:56:08 PM
Hello Mr. Osenton,
After reviewing the City of Gilroy DEIR, I’m writing to encourage thoughtful consideration of the long-term benefits of building a larger-scale aquatic center in Gilroy, rather than limiting the project to an 8-lane facility.

The proposed facility is substantially smaller than both high school pools, significantly limiting growth and pool-use opportunities for Gilroy. Gilroy High School has an 11- lane competition pool and a 4-lane instructional pool, and Christopher High School has a 14-lane pool with a sloped instructional area. An 8-lane pool significantly limits our ability to host sanctioned swim meets and regional competitions. A 16-lane competition pool (50 meters by 25 yards) and 6-lane instructional pool would position Gilroy to host meets that bring athletes, families, and spectators into our community, generating economic activity for local restaurants, hotels, and businesses while elevating Gilroy’s visibility as a regional destination.

In comparison, the Morgan Hill Aquatics Center and the Baler Aquatic Center in Hollister provide recreational programs across the lifespan and host regional shortand long-course meets, generating revenue for their communities while also meeting recreational needs.

Beyond economics, a larger pool increases equitable access for our local swim teams, as well as adult and youth programs. Lane availability is already limited in Gilroy. Expanding capacity ensures more opportunities for training, competition, and skill development without overcrowding or restricted schedules.

This is not simply a recreational amenity; it is an investment in youth development, public health, and community growth. If we are going to build, we should build with the future in mind.

I respectfully urge you to consider the long-term community and economic benefits of a larger aquatic center that fully supports Gilroy’s athletes and families.

Thank you for your time and leadership on this important decision.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Van Laar
Gilroy Gator Swim Team Board President
1 Comment Letter #12

Page 304 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-41 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 12 – Cynthia Van Laar

1. The commenter states that the proposed 8-lane pool is smaller than existing high school pools and would limit pool use and opportunities, including the ability to host swim meets and regional competitions that could generate economic activity and increase visibility. The commenter references aquatic centers in Morgan Hill and Hollister and states that these facilities support recreational programs and host competitions. The commenter states that a larger pool would increase access for swim teams and community programs and address limited lane availability. Lastly, the commenter states that a larger aquatic facility would support youth development, public health, and community growth and encourages consideration of long-term benefits.

The comment does not raise an environmental issue and, therefore, no response is required.

No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 305 of 685 ends

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

From: Luis Ramirez
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Civic Master Plan
Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 6:35:39 PM
Hello Ryan
I am not in favor of retaining Wheeler Auditorium for a variety of reasons. Although it may have historical significance to a minority part of our community, it would severely alter the plan of the civic center and defeat the purpose of creating the plan.

Luis Ramirez
1 Comment Letter #13

Page 306 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-43 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 13 – Luis Ramirez

1. The commenter states opposition to retaining Wheeler Auditorium and indicates that doing so would alter the Civic Center plan and defeat the purpose of the plan.

The comment does not raise an environmental issue associated with the adequacy of the draft EIR and, therefore, no response is required. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 307 of 685 ends

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

From: Alexis Morales
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Civic Center Master Plan Input
Date: Thursday, February 26, 2026 12:16:38 AM
Hello Mr. Osenton,
I would like to submit a recommendation during the Civic Center Master Plan review period.

I strongly encourage the city to include a new playground within the proposed civic park with the removal of the existing play structure next to Wheeler Civic Auditorium. The current plan appears to show a large open grass area without a defined recreational use. While open lawn space has value, similar areas at other parks (such as Miller park in front of Brownell Middle School) are not utilized as much as they may have originally been intended. During the summer, families tend to gather under the trees at each end of the park and avoid the open grass field due to the extreme heat for birthdays or casual time together. It shows that having large open space without shade or clear intended use often results in wasted space. This presents an opportunity to create a more functional, family focused area in the new civic park.

After speaking with other Gilroy families, it’s clear that a well designed playground is one of the most important missing elements in this remodel. Families in Gilroy are looking for safe, engaging spaces where children of all ages can play, explore, and spend time outdoors together. The collective feedback is that two play areas, one for toddlers and young children, and one for older elementary aged children, would best meet the needs of local families. Given how hot Gilroy’s summers can be, shaded play structures, through trees and/or canopies, would be essential to ensure the space remains functional, safe, and usable throughout the year.

Adding a thoughtfully designed playground would turn the civic park into a vibrant, multigenerational destination where families can gather, children can play, and the community can thrive. This is a rare opportunity to make a lasting, positive impact for families in Gilroy, and it’s important to explore all possibilities to make this remodel the best it can be! I look forward to hearing how this community feedback will be weighed into the drafting of the final plan!
Sincerely,
Alexis
1 Comment Letter #14

Page 308 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-45 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 14 – Alexis Morales

1. The commenter recommends inclusion of a playground within the proposed civic park and states that the current plan appears to show a large open grass area without defined recreational use. The commenter states that shaded play areas and multiple play areas for different age groups would better serve families and improve usability of the space.

The comment does not raise an environmental issue and, therefore, no response is required.

No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 309 of 685 ends

From: Yolanda Calimpong
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Do Not Tear Down Wheeler Auditorium! Date: Saturday, March 14, 2026 12:07:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Please consider every alternative for not tearing down Wheeler Auditorium.

What other alternatives can be considered? Could the iconic outside be preserved? 6th & Church facade for example? Inside and other walls & inside could be retrofitted to meet the Civic Center vision & communities needs?
Respectfully submitted.

Yolanda Calimpong
Sent from my iPhone
1 Comment Letter #15

Page 310 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-47 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 15 – Yolanda Calimpong

1. The commenter requests consideration of alternatives to demolishing Wheeler Auditorium, including preserving portions of the exterior façade and retrofitting the interior to meet project needs.

Refer to response to letter 4, comment 1. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 311 of 685 ends

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

From: Peter Van Dyke
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Wheeler Auditorium
Date: Saturday, March 14, 2026 3:16:56 PM
You need to come up with a better plan than tearing down the Wheeler Auditorium and replacing it with something that looks like it should be in New Jersey or San jose. The City leadership is and has been ruining the once quaint sustainable town of Gilroy. The rampant poorly planned development, the expansion into the only fertile cropland left in the county, the mowing down of Gilroy's history and the utter disregard for the downtown and the wishes of the inhabitants is not what the people desire. Gilroy used to be a community and we are desperately trying to hold on to that. The city is making that harder by turning us into the kitchen, bedroom and toilet for the "Silicon Valley." The tearing down of Wheeler Auditorium is just another lurch towards the detached internal malignancy that Gilroy leadership has become.

Peter Van Dyke.
1 Comment Letter #16

Page 312 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-49 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 16 – Peter Van Dyke

1. The commenter states opposition to demolishing Wheeler Auditorium and expresses concern regarding the proposed replacement and broader development patterns in the City.

Refer to response to letter 4, comment 1. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 313 of 685 ends

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

From: franksanchez20.fs
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Wheeler Auditorium
Date: Sunday, March 15, 2026 6:24:04 PM
The Auditorium is more than historical it is part of the fabric of Gilroy. It would be like tearing down Old City Hall, just restructure the existing building and keep the memories alive.

If you have a sayso in this project please use your influence to stop the demolition.

Thank You
Sent from my Galaxy
1 Comment Letter #17

Page 314 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-51 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 17 – Frank Sanchez

1. The commenter states opposition to demolishing Wheeler Auditorium and recommends restructuring the existing building to retain its historical and community value.

Refer to response to letter 4, comment 1. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 315 of 685 ends

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

From: Linda
To: Ryan Osenton
Cc: Mayor Greg Bozzo; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Terence Fugazzi; Council Member Carol Marques; Council Member Tom Cline; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: EXTERNAL - Wheeler auditorium
Date: Sunday, March 15, 2026 3:19:34 PM
I want to express my disappointment that the auditorium is being considered for demolition.

We have lost too many of our historic buildings (the Strand Theater, Dick Bruhn's/Robinson Hardware, Hall's, and likely soon, the Creamery) without giving thought to their still valuable place in our downtown.

As shown by the continual use of the Auditorium it is still functional with the possibility/probability to continue. Why spend many dollars to demolish and replace when no good reason exists?
When will we start to recognize the value of our historic resources? Sent from my Galaxy
1 Comment Letter #18

Page 316 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-53 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 18 – Linda

1. The commenter states opposition to demolition of Wheeler Auditorium, references the loss of other historic buildings, and states that the auditorium remains functional and should be retained.

Refer to response to letter 4, comment 1. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 317 of 685 ends

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

From: Dmatuszak2
To: Ryan Osenton
Cc: Connie Rogers; Joanie Lewis; Linda White; [email protected]; Eileen Cavallaro; Gilroy Museum; Babs Holiday; Dan Donovan; Pam Salter; Steve Brady; Russell Sosa; Diana Johnson; Mayor Greg Bozzo; Council Member Dion Bracco; [email protected]; Council Member Carol Marques; Council Member Kelly Ramirez; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council Member Tom Cline Subject: EXTERNAL - Wheeler Auditorium
Date: Sunday, March 15, 2026 3:01:18 PM
Mr. Osenton:

We are opposed to the demolition of Wheeler Auditorium as part of the City Hall Campus Master Plan.

The building has historical significance, is in good condition, and is used for a wide variety of community functions, especially for small and mid-sized events.

Wheeler Auditorium is one of the few historic buildings left standing that honors our past and inspires our future. It should be incorporated into the new campus as a revered symbol of the past while the library and police station display our commitment to the present. The new City Hall and other buildings that comprise the new campus will showcase our vision for the future.

Linwood Wheeler, highly respected local businessman and philanthropist, donated $60,000 in 1940 to construct a combined assembly hall, civic center, and armory. The completed building was highlighted as an example of the Streamlined style of Architecture by the Pacific Coast Architecture Database.

It was a built as a symbol of hope for the future as the City was pulling out of the Great Depression.

Wheeler Auditorium is on the National Register of Historic Places because of its contribution to Gilroy's past -- we need to ensure that it is part of Gilroy's future, too! Sincerely,
Dr. David J. Matuszak and Mrs. Maureen M. Hunter
Gilroy Historical Society
Members of the Board of Directors
Sent from AOL on Android
1 Comment Letter #19

Page 318 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-55 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 19 – Dr. David Matuszak and Mrs. Maureen M. Hunter, Gilroy Historical Society

1. The commenter states opposition to demolition of Wheeler Auditorium, noting its historical significance, continued use, and condition, and states that it should be incorporated into the proposed Civic Center plan.

Refer to response to letter 4, comment 1. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 319 of 685 ends

From: maretta j
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Save Wheeler Auditorium
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 5:47:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

Dear Mr. Osenton,
I am a lifetime resident of Gilroy. I was born and raised in this beautiful town. I grew up when this town was mostly agricultural lands and orchard groves. Our Downtown Monterey Road was the Highway. I have raised my children here, and my grandchildren have been residents.

Wheeler Auditorium is an iconic historical landmark. When I was in my teens, I took recreational classes there.

When I had children, my kids were enrolled in the preschool that was operating. My grandchildren went to that preschool. My children also participated in dance classes and played youth league basketball offered by Parks and Rec at the auditorium. I used to sell arts and crafts during the annual Christmas faire. Many wonderful family and community events creating precious generational memories.

Save Wheeler Auditorium! Please find an alternative!
Respectfully submitted,
Maretta Juarez
Sent from my iPhone
1 Comment Letter #20

Page 320 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-57 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 20 – Maretta Juarez

1. The commenter states opposition to demolition of Wheeler Auditorium, identifies it as a historical landmark, and references its use for community and recreational activities.

Refer to response to letter 4, comment 1. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 321 of 685 ends

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

From: corina deleon
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Wheeler Auditorim
Date: Monday, March 16, 2026 12:19:10 PM
I was raised in Gilroy since 1966 and agree to keep this historical building for our future generations as a historical gem for our youth can learn and enjoy this treasure.

I’m suggesting a different location!
A concerned citizen.

Corina R Deleon
MFT
1 Comment Letter #21

Page 322 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-59 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 21 – Corina R. Deleon

1. The commenter states support for retaining Wheeler Auditorium as a historical building and suggests considering a different location for the proposed project.

Refer to response to letter 4, comment 1. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 323 of 685 ends

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

From: judy garcia
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Wheeler Auditorium Destruction
Date: Friday, March 20, 2026 8:37:53 AM
Ryan, I know that Wheeler Hospital is on the National Registry of Historical sites. What about the auditorium that will be torn down? Will the hospital be spared? Could the architecture of the new auditorium blend with hospital? Many of the new/old towns I visit integrate the new and old architecture. How will Gilroy blend the new with the existing historical buildings?
Thank you,
Judy Garcia
7531 Church St
669-205-2697
1 Comment Letter #22

Page 324 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-61 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 22 – Judy Garcia

1. The commenter states that Wheeler Hospital is on the National Register of Historic Sites and asks whether the auditorium will be torn down and whether the hospital will be spared. The commenter asks whether the architecture of new development will blend with existing historic buildings and references integrating new and old architecture.

The Wheeler Hospital is located at 650 5th Street, which is outside of the project boundary.

Therefore, the proposed project does not impact the Wheeler Hospital.

Refer to response to letter 4, comment 1. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 325 of 685 ends

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

From: El Lalo
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Demolition of Wheeler Auditorium
Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 3:26:00 PM
Dear Mr. Osenton,
I would hope you would do whatever you can to preserve this one! So many fond memories of Saturday Night Dances, Battle of the Bands, etc. This place has lots of history so why not prevserve it! Spend the money it would take to knock it down, to renovate it instead!
Thank you and regards,
Concerned Citizen and long time resident
Edward Aguirre ...
1 Comment Letter #23

Page 326 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-63 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 23 – Edward Aguirre

1. The commenter states support for preserving Wheeler Auditorium, references past community uses, and recommends renovating the building instead of demolishing it.

Refer to response to letter 4, comment 1. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 327 of 685 ends

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

From: Bernadette Rowlison
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Please consider saving Wheeler Auditorium from demolition Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 1:14:45 PM
Mr. Osenton - City Project Manager,
I was a resident of Gilroy from 1972 to 1990 until I moved away to attend a four-year university. Gilroy has a unique history as it sits on the crossroads of California State Route 152 and U.S. Route 101. Gilroy is quintessentially small-town America; it is historically and culturally a farm town. This charm is found in such places as the Carnegie Library, Wheeler Hospital, Wheeler Auditorium, The Grange Hall (whose land was donated by Lin Walker Wheeler, the same philanthropist as the hospital and auditorium are named after) ought to be preserved.

For perspective, the U.S. has a penchant for generic building patterns; Walmart the second largest company in the U.S. has built over five thousand "big box" stores. Only one of those (which I have visited while on active duty in the U.S. military) has architecture that is aesthetically pleasing; Woodland Park, Colorado is designed like a Swiss Chalet to blend in with the mountain landscape. Wheeler Auditorium has classy Art Deco design and holds special history for past and present residents.

In the 1970's, I took ballet and tap dance lessons at Wheeler Auditorium from Greta Tegel (provenance: Manchester, England) through Gilroy Parks & Recreation. (For the record, Misty Copeland retired American Ballet Theater prima ballerina was discovered at a Parks & Recreation ballet class in southern California.) In the 1980s, I took ballet and jazz lessons at Le Grande E'tage (near historic Strand Theater) on the second floor of a stately building with ornate ceilings in the grand ballroom located on the east side of Monterey Street in Gilroy. (Tragically, it has since burned down in a suspected arson case). In the following years, my mother served on Gilroy City Council and rotated as Mayor Pro Tempore. Additionally, my father was a Gilroy Rotarian and the senior pastor of Gilroy Presbyterian Church for 34 years. He began his pastorate in 1972 at the historic church on 5th & Church streets, but eventually the congregation exceeded the building capacity. The new site at 6000 Miller Avenue was not dedicated until 1988, so in the interim Wheeler Auditorium allowed GPC to hold Easter services. My family was and still is vested in the community and its landmarks. All this is to say that there is economic potential for the Gilroy regarding historic preservation. Please do not let Gilroy turn into a cookie cutter strip mall. If I hold these fond memories, it is highly likely that there will be thousands of more Gilroyans who share my sentiments. Please consider our pleas. 1 Comment Letter #24

Page 328 of 685 ends

Very Respectfully,
Former SSG Rowlison, Bernadette
1363 Woodland Avenue
Chico, California 95928
[email protected]
(530) 897-0226 land line
(719) 828-3885 mobile

Page 329 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-66 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 24 – Bernadette Rowlison

1. The commenter states support for preserving Wheeler Auditorium, references its historical and architectural value, and states that it should be retained as part of the City’s historic resources. The commenter also recounts memories spent at the Wheeler Auditorium.

Refer to response to letter 4, comment 1. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 330 of 685 ends

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

From: [email protected]
To: Ryan Osenton
Subject: EXTERNAL - Wheeler Auditorium
Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 1:05:21 PM
Having lived in Gilroy for seven years, I realize the historical importance of Wheeler Auditorium.

It is a recognized Gilroy landmark! Instead of demolishing it, I'd love to see the exterior
maintained, with any necessary improvements made to the interior.

Pat Reinhart
1 Comment Letter #25

Page 331 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-68 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 25 – Pat Reinhart

1. The commenter states that Wheeler Auditorium is a recognized landmark and recommends maintaining the exterior while making improvements to the interior rather than demolishing the building.

Refer to response to letter 4, comment 1. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 332 of 685 ends

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

From: Pamela Salter
To: Ryan Osenton; Mayor Greg Bozzo
Subject: EXTERNAL - Wheeler Auditorium Civic Center
Date: Monday, March 23, 2026 4:02:25 PM
Dear City Project Manager - Ryan Osenton,
I would like to express my frustration, anger, and sadness on the master plan proposal for the new Gilroy Civic Center. The Planning Committee has not vetted this enough throughout the Gilroy community, and I believe it to be a huge mistake.

Wheeler Auditorium is a landmark in Gilroy. It was constructed in 1940 by William Binder. It was a combined assembly hall, civic center, and armory in 1940.

This building has been long treasured by the citizens of Gilroy and on the city’s list of Historic Resources.

I do not see why the planning committee is not planning the new center around Wheeler Auditorium. It needs to be saved. It is part of our history. The building has so many memories for many of the community. At one time it hosted craft fairs, local business, tiny tots tumbling, gymnastics, Taekwondo, cooking class, dance and much more. It used to have a day care. It currently is a place where young people can play basketball and other indoor sports.

Stop demolishing the historical buildings in Gilroy. Preserve what you can and renovate the interiors. Same goes for the Creamery before we lose it completely.

Do something NOW!!!!
Pam Salter
Resident of Gilroy and member of Gilroy Historical Society 555 5th Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
408-406-8954
[email protected]
1 Comment Letter #26

Page 333 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-70 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 26 – Pamela Salter

1. The commenter states opposition to demolition of Wheeler Auditorium, identifies it as a historic landmark, and states that it should be preserved and incorporated into the Civic Center plan rather than replaced.

Refer to response to letter 4, comment 1. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 334 of 685 ends

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

From: Teddy Goodrich
To: Ryan Osenton; Mayor Greg Bozzo; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Tom Cline; Council Member Terence Fugazzi; [email protected]; Council Member Carol Marques; Council Member Kelly Ramirez Subject: EXTERNAL - Wheeler Auditorium
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2026 3:54:07 PM
Wheeler Auditorium should be renovated and preserved. Donated by philanthropist Linwood Wheeler in 1940, it is an important part of Gilroy History. It has served the community in countless ways since its construction, and if the inside was repaired and the outside renovated, it could continue to act as a place for community meetings, school plays, and classes. The possibilities are limited only by our imagination.

Please preserve this important part of the history of our community. We don't need more "cleaned up, cookie cutter" civic buildings!
Teddy Goodrich
1 Comment Letter #27

Page 335 of 685 ends

Section 2.0 Draft EIR Comments and Responses 2-72 EMC Planning Group Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Final EIR August 2026
Letter 27 – Teddy Goodrich

1. The commenter states that Wheeler Auditorium should be preserved and renovated, notes its historical significance, and states that it could continue to serve community uses.

Refer to response to letter 4, comment 1. No change to the draft EIR is required.

Page 336 of 685 ends

From: City Historian Toby Echelberry
To: Ryan Osenton
Cc: Kim Mancera
Subject: Civic Center Master Plan and Wheeler Civic Auditorium Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 1:15:39 PM
Ryan,
This email is in response to the Civic Center Master Plan as it relates to the Wheeler Auditorium. As you are quite aware the City of Gilroy has an existing HRI outlining each of the most important existing structures in the city. The Wheeler Auditorium has been recognized as one of those buildings. Wheeler Auditorium may not have fanfare and publicity as many other state HRI properties, but nonetheless the Wheeler Auditorium has been a constant contributor to the community for the past eight decades. This structure was recognized by the Gilroy City Council on August 15, 1983, as local historic building that needs to be protected.

In March 1936 the Common Council and Mayor created a special committee to develop plans for the creation of the Armory and Auditorium. This committee by September had determined that there was great public interest and a municipal auditorium was desired for assembly as well as convention hall. On October 27, 1936, a special election was held (by Ordinance No. 419) to raise $31,000 in municipal bonds to pay for the acquisition, construction and completion of the Auditorium. The overall response was favored by 93% of the votes cast.

In 1940 L. M. Wheeler, chairman of the Auditorium-Armory Building Committee pushes forward with the construction. At this time, Binder & Curtis were retained to develop the plans and specifications, and the municipal bonds were issued for this $60,000 project. Money was also donated by Linwood Wheeler as well the entire project was supported by a Public Works Administration (PWA) grant as part of the New Deal relief program. Various meetings were held and reported back to Council with updates.

An interesting find is in the City Clerk’s minutes of April 19, 1940, where it was approved to add reinforcing steel and concrete floors to put in a rifle range. In July 1940 a communication was read to install floodlighting to the rear of the facility so the grounds can be used as a drill ground and parking area for the National Guard.

In the City Clerk’s minutes of October 21, 1940, it had been decided by Council and Captain Cecil Carlyle, chairman of the auditorium dedication committee that the auditorium be redesignated as “Wheeler Civic Auditorium.” At the same meeting the matter of a cornerstone was ordered as well. In November of 1940, is when the lease was finally signed by Adjutant General of the State of California for the National Guard.

Mrs. Hall S. Schrader presented the flag to hoist over the Wheeler Civic Auditorium. In December 1940, the Council passed Resolution No. 128 marking the Notice of Completion of the Wheeler Civic Auditorium.
1 Comment Letter #28

Page 337 of 685 ends

Gilroy City CouncilOctober 5, 2026

Gilroy City Council
October 5, 2026