Gilroy City Council
October 5, 2026

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 207
• A few people wondered about how to strengthen the connection to Downtown; one person wondered about creating a greenway between the Civic Center and Monterey • Several people asked about a more significant Outdoor People Place, larger than the existing plaza
• Several people asked about an Amphitheater, potentially like the one at Morgan Hill’s Community Cultural Center --- www.morganhill.ca.gov/221/Community-Cultural-Center • A few people asked about lots of Trees, potentially in strong Allies, as well as around the Civic Center’s perimeter; nearby Miller is a nice Gilroy example • The idea of a New Multigenerational Community Center and a New City Hall was widely supported; One attendee mentioned combining both
• The idea of a new cohesive Civic Center was widely supported • Attendees I talked with are OK replacing Wheeler
• Several people mentioned consolidating parking; Several people wondered about garages or underground parking [note that the mixed-use building at Monterey & Lewis has underground parking]

END OF NOTES
▪ Avoiding random green strips
o Shaded seating areas
o Getting teens involved
• One resident suggested making the city hall more pronounced, the entry way should face the busier streets as opposed to facing away from. (*should be noted the previous city hall was designed to face a road that ran through the middle of the site but has since been removed.)
Notes by Marco Esposito:
• Asked most people that stopped by Boards 4 and 5 (Context and Site) whether they go to the Civic Center, and most mentioned going to the library, a few to Wheeler (for example basketball and martial arts; and teen dances a long time ago) and fewer to the Senior Center; several neighbors and city staff stroll through the civic center, from either home or city offices
• Asked most people how they get to the Civic Center, and about 1/2 walk and 1/2 drive • Asked drivers where they park, and most park alongside the library, starting in the lot parallel to the library, and if full then west or east around the library, and then if full on street along 6th
• Asked drivers whether they can find parking, and all said they can . . sometimes not right at the library entrance
• A few people, especially with small children, mentioned that walking in the existing layout is interrupted by drives and parking
• One attendee mentioned that a handful of homeless people alongside the library make early morning and evening walks less comfortable
• Many people asked whether the PV canopies being installed are a long-term obstacle, and I shared that the city is OK with moving.
• Many people asked whether the city is interested in purchasing the three homes on Dowdy • A few people mentioned that the Police building feels a bit fort-like • One person asked whether existing trees, for example around City Hall, would be kept going forward
• One person mentioned that the area where Wheeler is used to be a lumber yard • A few people mentioned that the parking zone south of the City Hall Annex used to include a county building and 1-2 homes (visible in 1998 and 2002 Google Earth aerials) • One person mentioned that a parking garage was planned as part of the library project [not sure if true]
• One person mentioned that the YMCA operates certain Rec programs for the city, maybe including at Wheeler [not sure if true]
• A few people noted that the city owns the small parking lot (and maybe a house) south of 7th St [we should tint that as well when showing the site] • Several people mentioned going to Camino Coffee, either from City offices or nearby homes • A few people mentioned that parking for special events Downtown can overflow in the Civic Center area

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 208

GILROY CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
March 17, 2025

MEETING AGENDA

COUNCILMEMBER UPDATES
Community Engagement Process
- Three Step Community Process
o Gallery Walk
▪ City Council Check In #1
o Alternative Concept Master Plans
▪ City Council Check In #2
o Preferred Concept Master Plan
- Commissions Input
- City Council Final Review before CEQA Effort
Concept Design Process - 4 to 6 Civic Master Plan Ideas - Program
o New Community Functions
▪ Seniors
▪ Recreation/Wellness
▪ Aquatics
▪ Arts/Theater
o New City Hall
o Parking
o New Downtown Civic Park
- Big Moves – Civic Park + New Buildings + Existing Buildings - Initial Floor Plan Exploration
- Establishing ROM Development Cost
COUNCIL MEMBER UPDATES - 03.16.25

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 209
7/11/2025
1 Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Community Engagement + Concept Design
March 2025
City Councilmember Update Sessions
Community Engagement Process
• Three Step Community Process
Concept Design Process - 4 to 6 Civic Master Plan Ideas • Approach
• Program
• Big Moves – First Thoughts
• Budget Sketch

AIMING FOR CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL IN JULY/AUGUST

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS CITY COUNCIL UPDATE CITY COUNCIL UPDATE

COMMISSION HEARINGSCITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
WORKSHOP 1

GALLERY WALK
ISSUES
TOPICS

INFORMATION SHARING

TUESDAY
MARCH 4TH
WORKSHOP 2

PRESENTATION

CHARRETTE

CONCEPT

ALTERNATIVES

TUESDAY
APRIL 8TH
WORKSHOP 3

PRESENTATION

PREFERRED

CONCEPT
DESIGN

TUESDAY
MAY 20TH
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1
Gallery Walk/Open House
Tuesday, March 4th
CHARRETTE – ALTERNATE CONCEPTS
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2
Tuesday, April 8th
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3

PREFERRED CONCEPT
Tuesday, May 20th
Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Approach
Civic Center Precedents
South San Francisco
Civic Complex
123
456
789

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 210
7/11/2025
2 Newark Civic Center Redwood City Veterans Memorial
Senior and Recreation Center
Redwood City Veterans
Memorial Senior and
Recreation Center
Redwood City YMCA and Aquatic Center Redwood City Veterans Memorial Senior and
Recreation Center
Rengstorff Aquatic Center
City of Mountainview
Rengstorff Aquatic Center
City of Mountainview
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
10 11 12
13 14 15
16 17 18

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 211
7/11/2025
3 Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Program – What’s in the Civic Master Plan?
Community Center Functions
Performing Arts City Hall
City Hall Focus Community Center Focus
Gilroy Civic Master Plan
First Thoughts
19 20 21
22 23 24
25 26 27

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 212
7/11/2025
4 City Hall Focus Community Center Focus
1 1
CHURCH
DOWDY
7TH

LIBRARY CIVIC PARK

COMMUNITY CITY
HALL

PARKING
2 2

CIVIC PARK
CHURCH
DOWDY
7TH

LIBRARY

COMMUNITY
CITY
HALL

PARKING
28 29 30
31 32 33
34 35 36

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 213
7/11/2025
5 3 3
CHURCH
DOWDY
7TH

LIBRARY

CIVIC PARK

COMMUNITY
CITY
HALL

PARKING
Below Grade
4 CHURCH
DOWDY
7TH

LIBRARY
4 CIVIC PARK

COMMUNITY
CITY
HALL

PARKING
X X
CHURCH
DOWDY
7TH

LIBRARY CIVIC
PARK

COMMUNITY CITY
HALL

PARKING
Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Budget Sketch - What will it cost?
The New Gilroy Civic Center Components
Recreation Center $64.5 MM
37,900 sf
Seniors Center $34.1 MM
20,000 sf
Youth Center $24.4 MM
14,300 sf
Performing Arts Center $43.2 MM
25,400 sf
Aquatics Center $26.2 MM
10,000 sf + Two Community Pools
City Hall $68.1 MM
40,000 sf
Parking Structure @ 400 Spaces $21.8 MM
3 Levels (Grade + 2 Levels Above Grade – Two Story Height Equivalent) Redeveloped Site Area $35.7 MM
7 Acres of Redeveloped Area
2025 Dollars – escalation not included
Budget Sketch
Projected Development Cost
Gilroy Civic Master Plan
March 19, 2025
City Councilmember Update Sessions
37 38 39
40 41 42
43 44 45

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 214
Option C
• There is concern about the park's security due to the adjacency to 6th Street; including children running into the streets or cars easily accessing the site.

General Comments
• Provide sufficient outdoor electrical outlets to support outdoor events. • Will the park include elevation changes: berms, planters, etc. • Identify key bus stops or propose bus stops for access to the site. • Can the Council Chambers be more flexible in use?
Evening SessionOption A
• The orientation of the amphitheater is a noise concern.

Option B
• The position of the park set between the Community Center and the City Hall is favorable in addressing security and noise concerns. However, the orientation of the amphitheater is still a concern for noise towards buildings located along Church Street.

Option C – Preferred Option
• Geometric form is appealing.

General Comments
• Identify key features of the park. Will it include a children’s playground, splash zones, etc. • Will the park include elevation changes: berms, planters, etc. • How will traffic be assessed? What streets will be impacted going to the Civic Center? • Would prefer to see the City Hall built first to allow the Aquatic Center to be built sooner.

Notes by Susan Vutz
Morning SessionOption C – Preferred Option
• The park is more prominent, therefore option C is preferred • This option also includes a heavier mass of buildings • Paseo inclusion is appreciated
• Seems more welcoming-it’s more inviting
Option B
• A positive statement for the city of Gilroy
• Hardens the corner at Church and 6th streets
Option A

GILROY CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
April 8, 2025
MEETING NOTES – WORKSHOP #2 – 9AM AND 6PM
Facilitators:

City of Gilroy: ELS & SWA:

Ryan Osenton
Rachelle Bedell
David Masenten
Clarence Mamuyac
Susan Vutz
Angelo Razo
Aylin Casas Mejia
Kenneth Lorreto
Marco Esposito
Meeting Overview:

The second community workshop for the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan was held at the Wheeler Center in Gilroy with morning and evening sessions. Attendees were seated at round tables. The session began with a slideshow presentation outlining the master plan process to date and showcasing three different proposed schemes. Each table was provided with boards containing the three plans and attendees were invited to discuss the plans with others at the table. Each table included a facilitator from the design team to answer questions. Finally, each group selected a spokesperson who presented the table’s findings to the larger group. Both morning and evening sessions were attended by residents and city employees. Comments from attendees, as noted by each design team member are summarized below. Comments are organized into two sections, morning and evening workshops, as each workshop group responded differently to the three schemes presented.

Notes by Angelo Razzo:

Morning SessionOption A – Preferred Option
• The location of the amphitheater is a cause for noise concern. Reorienting the stage and direction of sound would be ideal.
• The position of the park set between the Community Center and the City Hall is favorable in addressing security and noise concerns. The large public space also makes the City Hall and Community Center more accessible.
• The Council Chamber should be relocated to the west of City Hall to make the park more open towards Church Street.

Option B
• The position of the park set between the Community Center and the City Hall is favorable in addressing security and noise concerns. However, the orientation of the amphitheater is still a concern for noise towards buildings located along Church Street. • Ideal to have the Council Chambers attached to the City Hall.

WORKSHOP 2 MEETING - 04.08.25

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 215
General Comments
• Excited to have the swimming pools.
• Greater interest in building the Rec Center and swimming pools first. Current options for swimming are limited. Keep the community here in Gilroy. • Amphitheater and City Hall would be the priorities.
• The Community Center and Rec Center would provide places for the younger generation to go, which we never had growing up as a kid in Gilroy.
• Like the Paseo and the idea of farmer’s markets.
• Is there too much parking? People who live close by can ride bikes or walk. • Like the amphitheater and rec center.
• Build the Community Center first.
• Provide dog stations in the park, with poop bags.
• Integrate this project with community spaces that already exist in the police station and library.
• There should be no single-use spaces.
• Be aware of the requirements for barricades and security during daily activities and special events.
• There is a concern about the possibility of building City Hall before the Rec Center or pool. • The City could have the option to rent space elsewhere during construction of City Hall. • All spaces should be multi-purpose.
• Build City Hall and Community Center first.
• The aquatic center is not a priority. The Community Center is a greater priority since 38% of the community is under 24.
• Like swimming pools. The City needs to offer swimming lessons to people on the east side of the city.
• Build the community center first, then City Hall
Notes by Kenneth Loretto:

Morning SessionOption A &* B– Preferred Option combined with Option B • Council chambers should be integrated into the City Hall building, not detached. • All the schemes have multiple exits in the event of a wildfire which is good. • Options A and B have buildings which bracket the park which is a nice idea. The buildings provide security and create a ‘civic’ space.
• Option A but with the council chamber integrated with City Hall. • Option B but re-orient the amphitheater aligned with the paseo. • City Hall is better located at the south side of the park. • Community Center is best located at the north side of the park • There is a problem with the orientation of the amphitheater because of the western sun. The amphitheater needs to be oriented north-south rather than east-west because otherwise the late afternoon sun will be a problem for either the performers or the audience. Option A is out because of the orientation of the amphitheater
General Comments
• Need to Provide lighting and power for lots of vendors. • For the amphitheater, shading for the audience is needed, but there are line of site considerations. Provide shade for performers.
• Buildings can have overlap in terms of their use—multi-purpose spaces. • It would be nice to have a bubbler fountain/ splash pad • Provide a dog park
• Mixed reviews on the separate council chambers. Glass council chambers could symbolize transparent government.
• Pools: Consider whether a lap pool is needed. I like the splash pad and kiddie pool. • Where will money come from to run the pool?
• Build the City Hall and Community Center first.
• Provide outside restrooms and a dog park.
• No pools.
• Why aren’t we acquiring the three residential properties along Dowdy Street? • Overall, the preference was for Option C (5 people) and Option B (one person) Evening SessionOption B – Preferred Option
• Like the paseo and the idea of a farmer’s market
• Don’t like separate council chambers. It would be more cohesive to keep it as a part of City Hall.
• Good to have the library on 6th St. and the Community Center on 7th to balance activity. • Gallery space
Option A
• Prefer separate council chambers
• We liked Option A with the buildings flipped—preferred the park in Option A. • We preferred the shape of the park in A, and liked the idea of the City Hall as a stage. • Like a hybrid of A and B
• Like the park from C and would reorient it like A.
• Would take City Hall from Option A and flip it.

Option C
• Like this option due to access from downtown

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 216
Notes by Aylin Casas Mejia:

Morning SessionOption C – Preferred Option
• 5/6 of group members preferred option C
Option A
• 5/6 of group members preferred detachment of city hall meeting room • Appreciated the idea of a “Transparent Government”
Option B
• Approve of amphitheater placement
• Bridges the gap between government and the community
General Comments
• Concern over the sun facing guests during a performance for scheme A • Need for the placement of lights around the park and plaza space o Importance of light fixtures each with their own individual outlets • Slight confusion in the topography of the amphitheater and whether or not there would be gentle hill or slope on site
• Overall need for shade coverage near/around the stage (while still ensuring no views are blocked)
• Proposal for: the community center to be reserved for seniors in the first level and then occupied by the youth on the second level
• Proposal for: dog park
• Desire for: creating a line of site from the dining hall into the park, and minimizing trees to prevent any obstruction of views
• Condensing Program: condensing the program to only include splash pads (fun water) focusing on the younger kids, as opposed to maintaining the fun and still water. o Christopher High School was mentioned as a reference point to how hard it has been to hire and upkeep the facility due to monetary issues • Passing comments about relocating the city hall to 6th street, ensuring there was a continued access point for the senior center.

Evening SessionOption A & B - Preferred Option
• Appreciate the community center being in close proximity to the library. • Well balanced but prefer circular park space as opposed to a rectangular one • Well balanced with the city hall and community center bordering the civic park space. • Prefer A&B hybrid because the buildings bracket the park, create a civic space, provide security.

Option C
• Large park for Option C is nice.
• Others thought Option C is the least favorite. The park is too open.

General Comments
• Build the Community Center first.
• Not enthusiastic about locating City Hall at the north side of the park. • First built should be the Community Center – Senior Center. • Some concerns about restroom locations. Where are they? Porta-potties would be provided for large events.
• Provide for event loading at the park.
• The downtown needs work. Park proximity to downtown is important so the location at east end of the plan is preferred.
• Multi-use green spaces should be provided.
• Park the east side edge.
• The library is a primary draw for the existing campus. • Short walkable distances along the accessible Paseo are a nice feature. • Indoor/ outdoor green spaces would be a nice amenity.

Evening SessionOption D (Ryan Osenton’s Proposal)
• Locate City Hall adjacent the Police Depart. It makes sense for “Administrative” functions to be in close proximity.

Option B
• The buildings at north and south side of the park would buffer the neighbors.

Option C
• The park is too open to neighbors.
• Options A & B bracket the park and would buffer acoustics. • Acoustics are a concern w event noise being an issue for neighbors. • Be mindful of the orientation of the amphitheater and mitigate acoustic issues for the neighbors.
• The Council Chambers may be in conflict with an active park setting. Evening activity in the park would be distracting for meetings in the chambers. • Theater loading is required for the Community Center.

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 217
• Community Center should be Phase 1. About 38% of City's population is under 24 years old—providing community functions first makes sense.
• Phasing: Existing school pools are sufficient for now in general; the Aquatic Center can come later.
• Attendees want to have gallery space. We have a lot of local artists. Could be on the second floor of the Community Center. Outdoor art along the paseo and sculpture areas are also appreciated
• Suggestion for a dinner theater/dining terrace?
• Underground parking that serves city staff during the day and the public during festivals/events works well—Sunnyvale? was mentioned as a good example. • Green space should offer more than just lawn, lawn is boring; the reference image from #1 Workshop Board 08 shows the right feeling
• Questions arose concerning the capacity of park's event space—how many people can it accommodate?
• No need for a pool; a splash pad or simple water feature is sufficient. • Necessary inclusion of Electrical plug-ins/power access is important. • Restrooms with outdoor access is important.
• Desired Dog park
• Switch the Community Center to 7th for easier parking access • Opposed to a separate Council Chamber building.
• Love to have pools; could offer swim classes to East Gilroy residents. • Overall walkability is appreciated.
• Like the Paseo
• Like the idea of parks framed by buildings on both sides • Interest in dog stations and making the site dog-friendly (on leash). • Concern that a stand-alone Council Chamber with only single use is inefficient • The Community and Rec Centers should be the first phase. If in the future City Hall is replaced at its current location, City staff could temporarily relocate to leased office space Evening SessionOption A
• We like a two-story parking structure to ensure sufficient parking. • Strong support for an aquatic center --- we now go to other towns to swim • Prefer amphitheater stage facing inward, rather than toward the neighborhood (as in Concept A).
• Amphitheater in Concept A faces the wrong direction for sunlight • Amphitheater noise conflicts with Library use
Option B
• Buildings can serve as sound buffers for nearby residential areas • Preferred in terms of ample parking for city hall.

Option C
• Suggestion to reduce greenery around city hall to include some parking. • Concern for parking to building connection (for city hall and community building).

General Comments
• The youth wanted to prioritize the community center along with the city hall, they did not want the city hall to have to rent a temporary space and allocate more money in finding the space.
• They were also conflicted on the city hall meeting room being attached or unattached but ultimately agreed for it to be disconnected (in a circular shape). • In all schemes in the evening meeting, the group wanted to maximize parking • Youth wanted to maintain the aquatic center (both pool and splash pad) • It was mentioned that Christopher High Pool center is often unavailable when they would like to occupy the facilities and is typically only available during the summer.

Notes by SWA:

Morning SessionOption A
• In A, people coming down the paseo can distract from performances. • The sun orientation is important! Concept A has poor sun direction for the park; a northsouth orientation is preferred. • Preference for a hybrid of Concepts A and B
• In Concept A, suggest flipping the City Hall and Community Center so City Hall feels more inclusive, it’s part of us
Option B
• Concept B’s amphitheater setting is better with City Hall building as backdrop • B’s elliptical park feels smaller than A’s square layout. We want more open park space • Overall layout creates opportunity for Movie nights
Option C
• Prefer parks framed by buildings, C is too open to the street, with noise, not safe for children • C was the least favorite.
• Concerns about sun orientation for the park
General Comments

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 218
Option C
• Concepts A and C, due to the separated Council Chamber. We have meetings after 5pm.

Evening meetings conflict with park activity
• We like the park layout in Concept C, with City Hall and Community Center buildings buffer the south edge, helping to block heat and sound
• Appreciated that all building components are close together General Comments
• Suggested layout: business functions on the left side of the campus, “parties” on the right • Recommend Community Center + Youth Center as Phase 1
• Parking location is difficult/far for seniors.
• Suggested layout: centralized parking (where the Aquatic Center is located). • Parking is stressful for seniors, especially angled street parking—feels exposed and stressful to backup.
• Consider a parking lot in the middle, on the existing City Hall site • Want City Hall to be built first (maybe to get pools sooner, since shown on City Hall site?) • Consider the playground
• Consider the newly built solar panels structure to be reused • Recreation and Youth center could share some programs and be phase 1

END OF NOTES

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 219
7/11/2025
1 Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Plan Maestro Cívico de Gilroy
April 8, 2025
Community Workshop #2
Welcome! / ¡Bienvenido!
Community Engagement + Concept Design
I. Welcome + Opening Remarks
II. Concept Design - 3 Civic Master Plan Ideas
•What is being considered?
•A, B, C
III. Your thoughts….your reactions, your ideas!
•Review in teams
•Report your findings
IV. Next Steps…
20 Minutes
50 Minutes
10 Minutes
10 Minutes
90 Minutes

AIMING FOR CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL IN JULY/AUGUST

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS

COMMISSION HEARINGSCITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
WORKSHOP 1

GALLERY WALK
ISSUES
TOPICS

INFORMATION SHARING

TUESDAY
MARCH 4TH
WORKSHOP 2

PRESENTATION

CHARRETTE

CONCEPT

ALTERNATIVES

TUESDAY
APRIL 8TH
WORKSHOP 3

PRESENTATION

PREFERRED

CONCEPT
DESIGN

TUESDAY
MAY 20TH
Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Program – What’s in the Civic Master Plan?
Plan Maestro Cívico de Gilroy
Programa – ¿Qué hay en el Plan Maestro Cívico?
Civic Park
Parque Cívico
Civic Park
Parque Cívico
Seniors Center
Centro de día
Seniors Center
Centro de día
Youth Center
Centro de Juventud
123
456
789

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 220
7/11/2025
2 Youth Center
Centro de Juventud
Arts Center
Centro de Artes
Arts Center
Centro de Artes
Recreation Center
Centro de Recreación
Recreation Center
Centro de Recreación
Aquatics Center
Centro Acuático
Aquatics Center
Centro Acuático
Aquatics Center
Centro Acuático
City Hall
Ayuntamiento
10 11 12
13 14 15
16 17 18

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 221
7/11/2025
3 City Hall
Ayuntamiento
Civic Center Park….Bringing it all together
Parque del Centro Cívico.... Reuniendo todo Elk Grove Civic Center City of Elk Grove
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Three Concepts…..A, B and C
Plan Maestro Cívico de Gilroy
Tres conceptos..... A, B y C
19 20 21
22 23 24
25 26 27

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 222
7/11/2025
3 City Hall
Ayuntamiento
Civic Center Park….Bringing it all together
Parque del Centro Cívico.... Reuniendo todo Elk Grove Civic Center City of Elk Grove
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Three Concepts…..A, B and C
Plan Maestro Cívico de Gilroy
Tres conceptos..... A, B y C
19 20 21
22 23 24
25 26 27

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 223
7/11/2025
5 P A S E O GILROY CIVIC
PARK

COMMUNITY
CENTER

CITY HALL
REC + AQUATICS

PARKING

MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY CENTER

ARTS/SENIORS/YOUTH PROGRAMMING

MULTIGENERATIONAL RECREATION AND

AQUATICS CENTER
Morgan Hill
Amphitheater
(Approx Size)
Potential
Parking Garage
180 Cars

P A S E O

COMMUNITY
CENTER

CITY HALL
REC + AQUATICS
GILROY

CIVIC PARK

PARKING

MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY CENTER

ARTS/SENIORS/YOUTH PROGRAMMING

MULTIGENERATIONAL RECREATION AND

AQUATICS CENTER
Morgan Hill
Amphitheater
(Approx Size)
Potential
Parking Garage
180 Cars

P A S E O
COMMUNITY
CENTER CITY HALL REC + AQUATICS
GILROY
CIVIC
PARK

PARKING

MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY CENTER

ARTS/SENIORS/YOUTH PROGRAMMING

MULTIGENERATIONAL RECREATION AND

AQUATICS CENTER
Morgan Hill
Amphitheater
(Approx Size)
Potential
Parking Garage
180 Cars
Your turn……
su turno…..

Questions:

Which is your favorite concept and why?
Which is least favorite concept and why?
What is your favorite feature of the civic master plan? What would you like to see built first?
37 38 39
40 41 42
43 44 45

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 224
7/11/2025
6 25 Minutes: Review and Discuss Three Concepts
Elect a Team Presenter
25 minutos Revisar y discutir tres conceptos
Elegir un presentador de equipo
25 Minutes: Team Presenters give a 2-to-3-minute recap of their table’s findings
25 minutos Los presentadores del equipo hacen un resumen de 2 a 3 minutos de los hallazgos de su mesa
Next Steps
• Narrow to a preferred concept direction
• Refine to a Final Draft Concept
• Present the Final Draft Concept at Community Workshop #3 on May 20th
• Refine Final Draft for presentation to Commissions
• Prepare Final Concept Master Plan for City Council Approval in July/August 2025
• Initiate CEQA process and complete by Spring 2026
• Goal: Phase One Ballot Measure in November 2026
Thank you! / ¡Gracias!
We hope to see you again on
Tuesday, May 20th for
Workshop #3
46 47 48
49

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 225
7/10/2025
April 21, 2025 Council Member Updates - Post Workshop 2 1 Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Plan Maestro Cívico de Gilroy
Week of April 21, 2025
Mayor and Councilmember Updates, Post-Community Workshop #2 Welcome! / ¡Bienvenido!
Community Engagement + Concept Design
I. Welcome + Opening Remarks
II. Concept Design - 3 Civic Master Plan Ideas
•What is being considered?
•A, B, C
III. Your thoughts….your reactions, your ideas!
•Review in teams
•Report your findings
IV. Next Steps…
20 Minutes
50 Minutes
10 Minutes
10 Minutes
90 Minutes

AIMING FOR CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL IN JULY/AUGUST

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS

COMMISSION HEARINGSCITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
WORKSHOP 1

GALLERY WALK
ISSUES
TOPICS

INFORMATION SHARING

TUESDAY
MARCH 4TH
WORKSHOP 2

PRESENTATION

CHARRETTE

CONCEPT

ALTERNATIVES

TUESDAY
APRIL 8TH
WORKSHOP 3

PRESENTATION

PREFERRED

CONCEPT
DESIGN

TUESDAY
MAY 20TH
Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Program – What’s in the Civic Master Plan?
Plan Maestro Cívico de Gilroy
Programa – ¿Qué hay en el Plan Maestro Cívico?
Civic Park
Parque Cívico
Civic Park
Parque Cívico
123
456
789
COUNCIL MEMBER UPDATES - 04.21.25

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 226
7/10/2025
April 21, 2025 Council Member Updates - Post Workshop 2 2 Seniors Center
Centro de día
Seniors Center
Centro de día
Youth Center
Centro de Juventud
Youth Center
Centro de Juventud
Arts Center
Centro de Artes
Arts Center
Centro de Artes
Recreation Center
Centro de Recreación
Recreation Center
Centro de Recreación
Aquatics Center
Centro Acuático
10 11 12
13 14 15
16 17 18

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 227
7/10/2025
April 21, 2025 Council Member Updates - Post Workshop 2 3 Aquatics Center
Centro Acuático
Aquatics Center
Centro Acuático
City Hall
Ayuntamiento
City Hall
Ayuntamiento
Civic Center Park….Bringing it all together
Parque del Centro Cívico.... Reuniendo todo Elk Grove Civic Center City of Elk Grove
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
19 20 21
22 23 24
25 26 27

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 228
7/10/2025
April 21, 2025 Council Member Updates - Post Workshop 2 4 Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Three Concepts…..A, B and C
Plan Maestro Cívico de Gilroy
Tres conceptos..... A, B y C
ONLY
10%+/-
GREEN

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING SENIORS

LIBRARY

POLICE CITY HALL

WHEELER

LIBRARY
&
POLICE
REMAIN

LIBRARY
POLICE

WHEELER
PHASE 1 ?
PHASE 1 ? PHASE 1
?
28 29 30
31 32 33
34 35 36

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 229
7/10/2025
April 21, 2025 Council Member Updates - Post Workshop 2 5

P A S E O GILROY CIVIC
PARK

COMMUNITY
CENTER
CITY HALL REC + AQUATICS

PARKING

MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY CENTER

ARTS/SENIORS/YOUTH PROGRAMMING

MULTIGENERATIONAL RECREATION AND

AQUATICS CENTER
Morgan Hill
Amphitheater
(Approx Size)
Potential
Parking Garage
180 Cars

P A S E O

COMMUNITY
CENTER

CITY HALL
REC + AQUATICS
GILROY

CIVIC PARK

PARKING

MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY CENTER

ARTS/SENIORS/YOUTH PROGRAMMING

MULTIGENERATIONAL RECREATION AND

AQUATICS CENTER
Morgan Hill
Amphitheater
(Approx Size)
Potential
Parking Garage
180 Cars

P A S E O
COMMUNITY
CENTER CITY HALL REC + AQUATICS
GILROY
CIVIC
PARK

PARKING

MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY CENTER

ARTS/SENIORS/YOUTH PROGRAMMING

MULTIGENERATIONAL RECREATION AND

AQUATICS CENTER
Morgan Hill
Amphitheater
(Approx Size)
Potential
Parking Garage
180 Cars
37 38 39
40 41 42
43 44 45

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 230
7/10/2025
April 21, 2025 Council Member Updates - Post Workshop 2 6 Your turn……
su turno…..

Questions:

Which is your favorite concept and why?
Which is least favorite concept and why?
What is your favorite feature of the civic master plan? What would you like to see built first?
Next Steps
• Narrow to a preferred concept direction
• Refine to a Final Draft Concept
• Present the Final Draft Concept at Community Workshop #3 on May 20th
• Refine Final Draft for presentation to Commissions
• Prepare Final Concept Master Plan for City Council Approval in July/August 2025
• Initiate CEQA process and complete by Spring 2026
• Goal: Phase One Ballot Measure in November 2026
Thank you! / ¡Gracias!
Next up……
Tuesday, May 20th
Workshop #3
46 47 48
49 50 51
52

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 231
7/11/2025
1 Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Plan Maestro Cívico de Gilroy
May 14, 15, and 16, 2025
City Council Updates, Pre-Community Workshop #3
Welcome! / ¡Bienvenido!
Community Engagement + Concept Design

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS

CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
WORKSHOP 1

GALLERY WALK
ISSUES
TOPICS

INFORMATION SHARING

TUESDAY
MARCH 4TH
WORKSHOP 2

PRESENTATION

CHARRETTE

CONCEPT

ALTERNATIVES

TUESDAY
APRIL 8TH
WORKSHOP 3

PRESENTATION

PREFERRED

CONCEPT
DESIGN

TUESDAY
MAY 20TH
Aiming
for
City Council
Approval on
June 16th

CAFECITO

PRESENTATION
FRIDAY
MAY 9
Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Program – What’s in the Civic Master Plan?
Plan Maestro Cívico de Gilroy
Programa – ¿Qué hay en el Plan Maestro Cívico?
Civic Center Park….Bringing it all together
Parque del Centro Cívico.... Reuniendo todo
Civic Park
Parque Cívico
Civic Park
Parque Cívico
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Civic Park
Parque Cívico Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Civic Park
Parque Cívico Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Civic Park
Parque Cívico
123
456
789
CITY COUNCIL UPDATES - 05.14.25

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 232
7/11/2025
2 Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Civic Park
Parque Cívico Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Civic Park
Parque Cívico
Seniors Center
Centro de día
Seniors Center
Centro de día
Youth Center
Centro de Juventud
Youth Center
Centro de Juventud
Arts Center
Centro de Artes
Arts Center
Centro de Artes
Recreation Center
Centro de Recreación
10 11 12
13 14 15
16 17 18

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 233
7/11/2025
3 Recreation Center
Centro de Recreación
Aquatics Center
Centro Acuático
Aquatics Center
Centro Acuático
Aquatics Center
Centro Acuático
City Hall
Ayuntamiento
City Hall
Ayuntamiento
Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Community Engagement + Concept Design
RECAP
19 20 21
22 23 24
25 26 27

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 234
7/11/2025
4 ONLY
10%+/-
GREEN

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING SENIORS

LIBRARY

POLICE CITY HALL

WHEELER

LIBRARY
&
POLICE
REMAIN

LIBRARY
POLICE

WHEELER
City Hall Focus Community Center Focus
6 CONCEPT IDEAS: Post Workshop #1
1 2 3
4 X
5 CONCEPT IDEAS: Post Workshop #1
ABC
3 CONCEPT IDEAS – Workshop #2
28 29 30
31 32 33
34 35 36

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 235
7/11/2025
5 Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Preferred Direction
Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Today…..Preferred Concept

WEST BLOCK
POLICE + PARKING

CENTRAL BLOCK
LIBRARY + CITY HALL

EAST BLOCK
PARK + RECREATION

PASEO GILROY CIVIC PARK
6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy Street
Church Street
NORTH
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove

WEST BLOCK
POLICE + PARKING

CENTRAL BLOCK
LIBRARY + CITY HALL

WEST BLOCK
PARK + RECREATION

PASEO GILROY CIVIC PARK
6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy Street
Church Street
NORTH

WEST BLOCK
POLICE + PARKING

CENTRAL BLOCK
LIBRARY + CITY HALL

WEST BLOCK
PARK + RECREATION 6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy Street
Church Street
NORTH

PASEO GILROY CIVIC PARK
37 38 39
40 41 42
43 44 45

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 236
7/11/2025
6 PASEO GILROY CIVIC PARK
6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy Street
Church Street

RECREATION & AQUATICS
CENTER

GYMNASIUM/TRACK

WELLNESS/FITNESS
POOLS

MULTIGENERATIONAL

COMMUNITY CENTER

THEATER/ARTS/SENIORS/YOUTH

GILROY CIVIC PARK

PARKING

PARKING
6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy Street
Church Street
NORTH

RECREATION & AQUATICS
CENTER

GYMNASIUM/TRACK

WELLNESS/FITNESS
POOLS

MULTIGENERATIONAL

COMMUNITY CENTER

THEATER/ARTS/SENIORS/YOUTH

GILROY CIVIC PARK

PARKING

PARKING
6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy Street
Church Street
NORTH

RECREATION & AQUATICS
CENTER

GYMNASIUM/TRACK

WELLNESS/FITNESS
POOLS

MULTIGENERATIONAL

COMMUNITY CENTER

THEATER/ARTS/SENIORS/YOUTH

GILROY CIVIC PARK

PARKING

PARKING
6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy StreetChurch Street
NORTH

LIBRARY
PASEO

CITY HALL

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING
6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy Street
Church Street
NORTH
PASEO
POLICE

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING
6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy Street
Church Street
NORTH
46 47 48
49 50 51
52 53 54

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 237
7/11/2025
7 RECREATION AND AQUATICS CENTER
First Floor

RECREATION AND AQUATICS CENTER
Second Floor

MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY CENTER
First Floor

MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY CENTER
Second Floor

CITY HALL
First Floor

CITY HALL
Second Floor
Thank you! / ¡Gracias!
Next up……
Tuesday, May 20th
Workshop #3
55 56 57
58 59 60
61 62

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 238
Evening Session-
• Concerned about privacy from the second level into neighboring homes. • Adress the safety of transparent walls with reflective glass or ballistic glass. • Consider coordinating with downtown merchants, referring to the Downtown Business Organization.
• Will the park require a fee for food trucks and farmers’ market? • Implement the design of the library façade into adjacent buildings. • Apply solar panels on the police department building
• Provide sufficient security lighting
• Senior Center area appears too small. Provide more square footage. • Provide a senior store for selling community crafts.
• Provide accessible paths for seniors.
• Consider curb less curbs – easy transitions between different elevations. • How will parking for seniors be managed?
• Provide tall trees with large canopies for shading.
• Design cool gardens if trees are overly expensive.
• Support the idea of a communal space.
• Provide ramps for accessibility.
• Enjoy the implementation of large openings allowing natural light into buildings • Provide a parking garage.
• Include seating along the paseo.
• Include space for food trucks along the paseo.
• Could the pool be indoors?
• Provide terraced landscape, berms and swales.
• Support the multigenerational spaces for people to engage in enlightening conversations. • Provide 2 level parking.
• Include emergency call boxes throughout the park.
• Include a community garden.
• Design a playground to further encourage children and parents to use the park. • Include “garlic chairs” or furniture symbolic of Gilroy Notes by Aylin Casas Mejia:

Morning Session-
• Concern over accumulated traffic existing and entering from Dowdy st. • Redesign of parking lot so that it is more distributed throughout the site, as opposed to accumulated in one corner
• Appreciated the parking designated for both the police building and the city hall • Replace some parking with tree coverage and more green space opportunities • Attendee mentioned outlet inclusion for night lights along the open space • Concern over light and noise pollution onto neighbors of the site Evening SessionGILROY CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
May 20, 2025
MEETING NOTES – WORKSHOP #3 – 9AM AND 6PM
Facilitators:

City of Gilroy: ELS & SWA:

Ryan Osenton
Rachelle Bedell
Clarence Mamuyac
Angelo Razo
Aylin Casas Mejia
Kenneth Lorreto
Marco Esposito
Meeting Overview:

The final community workshop was held at the same location as the previous workshops, Wheeler Center in Gilroy, with morning and evening sessions. The workshop format similar to Workshop #2, in that community members were seating around several round tables. The session began with a slideshow a slideshow outlining the master plan process to date and the evolution of one preferred concept design. Attendees were then asked to critique and discuss the preferred concept within their table groups, before presenting their findings to the larger group. Both morning and evening sessions were attended by residents and city employees. Comments from attendees, as noted by each design team member, are summarized below. Comments are organized into two sections for morning and evening workshops, as each workshop group responded differently to the preferred concept.

Notes by Angelo Razzo:

Morning Session Comments-
• There are concerns about traffic along Church St.
• Consider the strategic location of electrical outlets and drinking fountains throughout the park for public use and for events.
• Consider shading devices placed over the proposed outdoor amphitheater area. • Explore different elevations for landscape, particularly along Church St. where berms or swales can serve as safety features.
• Can entry into the park include an archway or signage? • Provide van parking for seniors.
• Support the idea of “porosity” – connection between indoor and outdoor • Confirm there is ample room for food trucks and delivery trucks for farmers’ market. • Consolidate the theater and council chamber into one room. • Provide truck access to the theater for delivery of equipment • Conduct a traffic study.
• Include public art. Confirm with the city if there are any public art requirements WORKSHOP 3 - 05.20.25

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 239
• Individuals expressed a desire for incorporated art work onto the public open space • Some want to keep the council chamber and city hall separate • Appreciated the separation of more recreational services on the right most part of the site, and civil services reserved to the left more part of the site • Excited about the pool incorporation to the Master Site Plan • Proposed blue emergency phones throughout the site to ensure safety • Curious about potential seating areas around the paseo and open space • Too few parking spots near the senior center
• Potential to reserve parking sports for seniors, near the senior center • Minimize some trees so that the dining room would have direct eye access to the civic park • Activate larger green spaces by incorporating play structures • Move the current solar panels to the rooftop of the police station Notes by Kenneth Loretto:

Morning Session-
• As the group listened to community comments. They expressed: We like what we see. • The central space (paseo?) would be good for farmers markets and community gatherings.

Suggest – power and data for market vendors.
• Lots of glass makes it feel inviting and open.
• Suggest perimeter bollards for security.
• Consider for traffic flow is needed.
• Consider the neighbors surrounding the site
• Suggest outdoor activities, courts.
• Consider adding in art in the park. Make it integral to the park, not an afterthought. • Good walkable pedestrian access to the park from downtown and vice versa. • We anticipate 2-3k people at amphitheater events.
• The park is at the threshold between east side and west side Gilroy. • Consider parking for seniors and accessibility
• Overall groups seemed to like the scheme presented.
• Farmers market might also be located offsite.
o Consider access for trucks along the market route.
• Consider theater loading and access.
• Might the council chambers and theater be dual purpose? • Consider sound and odors when planning for kitchen/ auditorium adjacency. • Consider a bandshell at amphitheater in the park.
• Consider wide stepped terraces with park like seating for the amphitheater.

Evening Session-
• Dual, multi-purpose spaces, such as the amphitheater, works for performance and picnicking, community gatherings, and see you Thursdays. • Consider sight lines for tables and chairs on terraced amphitheater seating. • Is the senior dining area bigger than the existing?
• Consider an indoor/ outdoor pool.
• Parking – may need additional levels at the assigned parking area. • Need to keep in mind that street parking fills up.
• Consider lighting along the paseo.
• Mitigate heat island effect of parking.
• Manage parking to make the most efficient use of spaces. • Consider a garden like feel for the paseo.
• Consider solar panels for parking areas – energy generation and shade over the lot. • Community gardens, playgrounds, and Garlic chairs!

END OF NOTES

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 240
7/18/2025
1 Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Plan Maestro Cívico de Gilroy
May 20, 2025
Welcome! / ¡Bienvenido!
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #3

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS

CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
WORKSHOP 1

GALLERY WALK
ISSUES
TOPICS

INFORMATION SHARING

TUESDAY
MARCH 4TH
WORKSHOP 2

PRESENTATION

CHARRETTE

CONCEPT

ALTERNATIVES

TUESDAY
APRIL 8TH
WORKSHOP 3

PRESENTATION

PREFERRED

CONCEPT
DESIGN

TUESDAY
MAY 20TH
Aiming
for
City Council
Approval on
June 16th

CAFECITO

PRESENTATION
FRIDAY
MAY 9
Looking ahead…..
• Refine and Finalize Preferred Concept + Cost Estimate for City Council Direction • Present to City Council in June; Seek Approval to Advance to CEQA process • Initiate CEQA process and complete by Spring 2026
I. Welcome + Opening Remarks
II. Recap of Workshop #2 +
Preferred Concept Design
III. Your thoughts….your reactions, your ideas!
•Review in teams
•Report your findings
IV. Next Steps…
20 Minutes
50 Minutes
10 Minutes
10 Minutes
90 Minutes
FOR TODAY…
123
456
789

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 241
7/18/2025
2 Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Program – What’s in the Civic Master Plan?
Plan Maestro Cívico de Gilroy
Programa – ¿Qué hay en el Plan Maestro Cívico?
Civic Center Park….Bringing it all together
Parque del Centro Cívico.... Reuniendo todo
Civic Park
Parque Cívico
Civic Park
Parque Cívico Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Civic Park
Parque Cívico Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Civic Park
Parque Cívico
Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Civic Park
Parque Cívico Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Civic Park
Parque Cívico Elk Grove Civic Center
City of Elk Grove
Civic Park
Parque Cívico
10 11 12
13 14 15
16 17 18

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 242
7/18/2025
3 Seniors Center
Centro de día
Seniors Center
Centro de día
Youth Center
Centro de Juventud
Youth Center
Centro de Juventud
Arts Center
Centro de Artes
Arts Center
Centro de Artes
Recreation Center
Centro de Recreación
Recreation Center
Centro de Recreación
Aquatics Center
Centro Acuático
19 20 21
22 23 24
25 26 27

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 243
7/18/2025
4 Aquatics Center
Centro Acuático
City Hall
Ayuntamiento
City Hall
Ayuntamiento
Gilroy and Morgan Hill……Neighbors

MORGAN HILL

POPULATION
45,500

LAND AREA
8,200 ACRES
GILROY

POPULATION
58,100

LAND AREA
10,350 ACRES

MORGAN HILL

COMMUNITY

CULTURAL CENTER
&

AMPHITHEATRE

CENTENNIAL

RECREATION
CENTER

MORGAN HILL

AQUATIC
CENTER
12 miles from
Gilroy Civic Center

MORGAN HILL

AMPHITHEATRE

COMMUNITY
AND

CULTURAL CENTER

CENTENNIAL

RECREATION
CENTER

MORGAN HILL

AQUATIC
CENTER
MORGAN HILL DOWNTOWN AMPHITHEATRE + CULTURAL CENTER
25,500 sf
Amphitheater
35,000 sf
Cultural Center

MORGAN HILL CENTENNIAL RECREATION CENTER
66,000 sf
Gym
Pool
Multipurpose
Seniors
Teen
28 29 30
31 32 33
34 35 36

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 244
7/18/2025
5 MORGAN HILL AQUATICS CENTER
21,000 sf of Water
• 50m Pool
• 6 lane x 25-yard Pool
• Fun Water Pool
• Splash Pad

MORGAN HILL

COMMUNITY CENTER
37,000 sf

RECREATION CENTER
66,000 sf

AQUATICS
25,000 sf
GILROY

SENIOR CENTER
12,000 sf

WHEELER CENTER
15,000 sf

AQUATICS
0 sf
TODAY

MORGAN HILL

COMMUNITY CENTER
37,000sf

RECREATION CENTER
66,000sf

AQUATICS
25,000sf
GILROY

COMMUNITY CENTER
35,000sf

RECREATION CENTER
42,000sf

AQUATICS
6,000sf

CIVIC MASTER PLAN
Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Community Engagement + Concept Design
- The Site
- Concepts A, B & C
- Preferred Concept
ONLY
10%+/-
GREEN

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING SENIORS

LIBRARY

POLICE CITY HALL

WHEELER
ANNEX

LIBRARY
&
POLICE
REMAIN

LIBRARY
POLICE

WHEELER
ANNEX
37 38 39
40 41 42
43 44 45

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 245
7/18/2025
6 Gilroy Civic Master Plan
Today…..Preferred Concept

WEST BLOCK CENTRAL BLOCK EAST BLOCK

PASEO GILROY CIVIC PARK
6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy Street
Church Street
NORTH

RECREATION
+

AQUATICS

COMMUNITY

SENIORS, YOUTH, ARTS

CITY HALL

LIBRARY
POLICE

PASEO GILROY CIVIC PARK
6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy Street
Church Street
NORTH

WEST BLOCK CENTRAL BLOCK EAST BLOCK

RECREATION
+

AQUATICS

COMMUNITY

SENIORS, YOUTH, ARTS

CITY HALL

LIBRARY
POLICE
6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy Street
Church Street
NORTH

PASEO GILROY CIVIC PARK

WEST BLOCK CENTRAL BLOCK EAST BLOCK

RECREATION
+

AQUATICS

COMMUNITY

SENIORS, YOUTH, ARTS

CITY HALL

LIBRARY
POLICE

PASEO GILROY CIVIC PARK
6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy Street
Church Street

RECREATION
+

AQUATICS

COMMUNITY

SENIORS, YOUTH, ARTS

CITY HALL

LIBRARY
POLICE
46 47 48
49 50 51
52 53 54

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 246
7/18/2025
7 RECREATION & AQUATICS
CENTER

GYMNASIUM/TRACK

WELLNESS/FITNESS
POOLS

MULTIGENERATIONAL

COMMUNITY CENTER

THEATER/ARTS/SENIORS/YOUTH

GILROY CIVIC PARK

PARKING

PARKING
6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy Street
Church Street
NORTH

RECREATION & AQUATICS
CENTER

GYMNASIUM/TRACK

WELLNESS/FITNESS
POOLS

MULTIGENERATIONAL

COMMUNITY CENTER

THEATER/ARTS/SENIORS/YOUTH

GILROY CIVIC PARK

PARKING

PARKING
6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy StreetChurch Street
NORTH

RECREATION AND AQUATICS CENTER
First Floor
42,500 sf
6,000sf

RECREATION AND AQUATICS CENTER
Second Floor
42,500 sf

RECREATION & AQUATICS
CENTER

GYMNASIUM/TRACK

WELLNESS/FITNESS
POOLS

MULTIGENERATIONAL

COMMUNITY CENTER

THEATER/ARTS/SENIORS/YOUTH

GILROY CIVIC PARK

PARKING

PARKING
6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy StreetChurch Street
NORTH

MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY CENTER
First Floor
35,000 sf
55 56 57
58 59 60
61 62 63

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 247
7/18/2025
8 MULTIGENERATIONAL COMMUNITY CENTER
Second Floor
35,000 sf

LIBRARY
PASEO

CITY HALL

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING
6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy Street
Church Street
NORTH

CITY HALL
First Floor
48,000 sf
TODAY – 40,000 sf

CITY HALL
Second Floor
48,000 sf
TODAY – 40,000 sf
PASEO
POLICE

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING
6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy Street
Church Street
NORTH

MORGAN HILL

COMMUNITY
AND

CULTURAL CENTER

CENTENNIAL

RECREATION
CENTER

MORGAN HILL

AQUATIC
CENTER
PASEO
POLICE

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING
6TH Street
7TH Street
Dowdy Street
Church Street
NORTH

RECREATION & AQUATICS
CENTER

GYMNASIUM/TRACK

WELLNESS/FITNESS
POOLS

MULTIGENERATIONAL

COMMUNITY CENTER

THEATER/ARTS/SENIORS/YOUTH

LIBRARY

CITY HALL
Average 60-year old person walks 4.25 feet/second
64 65 66
67 68 69
70 71 72

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 248
7/18/2025
9 25 Minutes: Review and Discuss Preferred Concept
Elect a Team Presenter
25 minutos Revisar y discutir tres conceptos
Elegir un presentador de equipo
25 Minutes: Team Presenters give a 2-to-3-minute recap of their table’s findings
25 minutos Los presentadores del equipo hacen un resumen de 2 a 3 minutos de los hallazgos de su mesa
73 74 75
76 77 78
79 80 81

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 249
7/18/2025
10 Next Steps
• Refine and Finalize Preferred Concept + Cost Estimate • Prepare Final Concept Master Plan for City Council Approval in June 2025
• Initiate CEQA process and complete by Spring 2026
Thank you! / ¡Gracias!
82 83

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 250

GILROY CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN
June 11, 2025

MEETING AGENDA/NOTES
Via ZOOM – In attendance: Ryan Osenton, Sharon Goei, Clarence Mamuyac

1. EIR Status – Provided by Shoshana Lutz, EMC
a. EMC Update
i. Draft NOP went to Susan Vutz (ELS) and Ryan Osenton (City) on 5/30. When I receive comments back, I can incorporate and finalize the NOP for the City to post with the County Clerk, upload to the State Clearinghouse, and send copies to those on the City’s distribution list. The City will provide feedback by early next week.
ii. Tribal consultation offer letters were signed by Ryan and sent out by the City on April 10th. The tribes had 30 days to respond, which ended in mid-May. If any responses were received by the City please send them my way. The city received one request from the tribal consultation offer letter period via email for a map, which he responded to directly. The requester had an issue with the distribution of the mail, as they did not receive their notice letter until May 24th. Does this glitch in the US Mail process require us to extend the 30- day window?
iii. The VMT study and parking analysis by Hexagon Transportation Consultants should be done by the end of July. On track, no comment iv. Current schedule has the admin draft EIR being complete at the end of August. The draft EIR is underway. On track, no comment

2. Model
a. ELS advised that the model is coming in between $45K and $50K b. ELS will produce buildings via 3D printer. The model base and trees will be produced by a third-party model maker.
c. The City wants to re-evaluate the need for the model, as the cost are exceeding their anticipated expenditure. The model is on HOLD until further direction is provided by the City. If the model moves forward, it will be needed in early September.

3. Draft Report – ELS gave a summary of the items below, essentially stating all is progressing as planned. The final report is targeted at the end of July. a. Technical reports from consultants in progress
b. Parking counts pending from Hexagon
c. Additional drawings and renderings
d. Additional text in progress
End of Meeting Notes
TEAM MEETING - 06.11.25

REFERENCE MATERIALS

Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan ELS | 252
List of Reference Drawings and Documents
The following information was provided to the design team for use in preparing this report:

DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS

1. City of Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan, Draft, WLC Architects, April 25, 2002

2. Gilroy Recreation Facility & Program Needs Assessment, Pros Consulting and ETC Institute, 2020

3. City of Gilroy 2040 General Plan Land Use Map

4. Gilroy City Code, Chapter 30, Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map

DRAWINGS

1. City Hall:
a. Irrigation Plan, January 28, 1975 by John Blevins & Assoc. b. Original building plans by the Architectural Office of William W.

Hedley Jr, Morris Arthur Stark Associate Architect, 8/1/76 c. Expansion of Gilroy City Hall, plans by the Hawley, Peterson & Snyder Architects, 3/19/90
d. Electrical as-built drawings, 1/15/91
e. Expansion of Gilroy City Hall, plans by CSS Associates Architects, 2/1/92
f. Planting and Irrigation plans, Aitken Associates Landscape Architects, 10/1/93
g. Landscape Plans, Aitken Associates Landscape Architects, July 1994
h. Mechanical Modifications, Parks & Rec Dept., McCracken & Woodman Consulting Mechanical Engineers, 9/19/95
i. Accessibility upgrades, Harris & Associates Architects, 1997 j. Gilroy City Hall HVAC Assessment, Turley & Associates Mechanical Engineering, 1/26/2020

2. Old Police Department Building
a. Jail and Police Facility original building plans, Akol and Associates Architects & Engineers and Hughan and Hughan Architects, 2/25/65
b. Gilroy Police Facility Remodel, Hughan & Hughan Architects and Planners, 8/25/76
c. Emergency Generator drawings, Fehr Engineering Company, 1/16/83
d. Front Desk Remodel, Duerr Architect, 4/16/84
e. Mechanical and Structural modifications, Hughan & Hughan Architects and Planners, 9/3/85
f. City of Gilroy Police Department Addition, Clark, Stromquist & Sandstrom Architects 2/10/86
g. Mechanical modifications, McCracken & Woodman Consulting Mechanical Engineers, 1995 and 1996
h. Dog kennel drawings, 2015

3. Old City Hall, renovation dated 10/26/92 by Architectural Resources Group

4. Senior Center
a. Gilroy Senior Center Expansion Project, Duerr Architect, 1/22/87
b. ADA Improvements, 4/30/96

1315 Walnut St., Berkeley, CA 94709
510 418 0285 [email protected]
August 6, 2026
David Masenten
ELS
2040 Addison St.

Berkeley, CA 94704
re: Wheeler Auditorium Gilroy – Historic architectural considerations David: This documentation intends to summarize the historical status of and historical considerations about the Wheeler Auditorium based on the current record and related information.

At this juncture, it is understood that the Auditorium is an identified historic resource. The EIR consultant stated as such as it is on the City of Gilroy Historic Inventory. Consequently, the Wheeler Auditorium is also listed on the State's historic inventory. The latter listing formally identifies it as an "historic resource" under CEQA. As the EIR consultants concluded, under CEQA, its demolition would necessarily be a substantial adverse effect.

While there is an established basis for a finding of historical importance – the Wheeler Auditorium is a civic building that was built in 1940, designed in a period style and that historically and still houses civic uses – the architecture is otherwise and evidently basic, plain and minimal, without a site or site features of historical character. It is even arguable whether this is an Art Deco style building, as its spare design leans towards the Moderne style. Nonetheless, it is an early-mid-20th century architectural style and which is sufficient for a basic finding of architectural importance.

In sum, the Wheeler Auditorium is a stand-alone, individual resource as it does not have any direct contextual associations – the adjoining civic center developed more recently and without direct ties to the Auditorium – and does not appear to have any direct associations to historical events. Its basic historic significance is embodied in the building's historic use and form and in its historic exterior architectural features, which are focused at the front facade with minor ornamental elements at its sides. The spare design minimally extends into the entry lobby, yet the remainder of the interior, including the auditorium space, is architecturally utilitarian. The original architects and builder, 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.

That's about all I can muster to state about what is evidently a basic building of limited importance.

Yet hoping these few comments help. In turn, any questions or comments are welcome Signed:

Mark Hulbert
Preservation Architect

10.2. City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Adopt a Resolution Approving New City of Gilroy Flag Policy Meeting Date: October 5, 2026
From: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Department: Public Works
Submitted by: John Doughty, Public Works Director
Prepared by: Matt Jones, Deputy Public Works Director
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION
The City Council adopt a resolution rescinding Resolution No. 2022-09 and approving a new City of Gilroy Flag Policy.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Gilroy currently has a "Flying Flags at City Facilities Policy" that was adopted by Resolution No. 2022-09. The existing policy includes a process for commemorative flag requests and display at City Hall. The City Council, as part of a Fair Memo process, directed staff to install a third flagpole at City Hall and prepare revisions to the flag flying policy. The revised policy addresses two distinct issues: 1) establishing a new process for the review, authorization, display, and removal of commemorative flags at City Hall; and 2) formalizing a process for lowering flags at all City-owned facilities.

BACKGROUND
On February 7, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-09, which rescinded Resolution No. 2021-17 and adopted the Amended and Restated Flying Flags at City Facilities Policy. The existing policy established procedures for the display of flags at City facilities, including the United States flag, State of California flag, Sister City flags, and commemorative flags authorized by the City Council.

10.2. On February 23, 2026, the City Council directed staff to return with options to amend the City’s Flag Flying Policy and consider the installation of a dedicated commemorative flagpole. On May 4, 2026, Council reviewed those options and directed staff to return with an updated policy removing the application fee and signature requirements and providing for a third flagpole at City Hall.

The 2022 policy includes an application-based process for commemorative flags, including required application materials, signatures from registered voters in Gilroy, an application fee, and City Council consideration.

ANALYSIS
For commemorative flags, the policy establishes an annual submittal and review process for each calendar year. Applications will be accepted beginning on the first business day of October for a period of 10 working days. Staff will review requests for compliance with the policy and prepare a report to the City Council. No later than the first meeting in December, the City Council will consider requests for the upcoming calendar year and set the display calendar. The City Council may approve one or more commemorative flags by resolution for a period not to exceed 30 days.

The policy recognizes that there may be times in which the Mayor or a Council Member may wish to initiate unanticipated requests during the year. As drafted, staff is suggesting a request be submitted through the City’s established FAIR memorandum process. The City Council may wish to consider a less formal approach to such a request.

The proposed policy includes a basis for application information including the name and description of the proposed flag, the purpose or period of recognition, the proposed display month or dates, and a commitment by the requesting party to provide a flag that is in good condition and meets City size requirements. Upon adoption, staff will create an application form. The United States flag, Gilroy City flag and a Sister City flag can be flown at any time on one of the three City Hall flagpoles.

The policy includes criteria and restrictions for commemorative flags. The policy allows for a commemorative flag when the display recognizes or commemorates an event, cause, organization, or period of significance that the City Council determines is consistent with the City’s official values, priorities, or interests. The policy also identifies categories of flags that may not be displayed, including flags that promote or oppose political campaigns, religious context, commercial interests, unlawful activity, or content inconsistent with City policy.

Commemorative flags may only be displayed on the designated flagpole at City Hall, must comply with federal and state flag display requirements, and may not be larger than 3 feet by 5 feet.

10.2. For flag lowering, the proposed policy provides that flags at City-owned facilities shall be lowered in accordance with applicable orders or proclamations issued by the President of the United States, the Governor of California, or another authorized federal or state official. The City Council may also direct flags to be lowered in recognition of a solemn occasion. When timely City Council action is not practical, the City Administrator, in consultation with the Mayor, may authorize flags to be lowered with notification to the City Council.

Adoption of the proposed resolution would rescind Resolution No. 2022-09 and replace the current policy with the updated City of Gilroy Flag Policy.

ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may:

1. Direct staff to revise the proposed policy and return at a future meeting; or

2. Take no action and leave the existing policy in place.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with adopting the updated policy.

Minor staff time will be required to review commemorative flag requests, prepare City Council reports and resolutions, coordinate approved flag displays, and coordinate the lowering and raising of flags when authorized.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach is not required.

NEXT STEPS
If the City Council adopts the resolution, staff will prepare an application form, update the City's website and advertise the Calendar Year 2027 commemorative flag submittal period. Given we are slightly past the October 1 deadline, staff will push the 10-day period forward and, if applications are submitted, plan to return December 14 for consideration. There will be no fee attached to this year's application submittal process.

For flag lowering, the City Administrator or designee will coordinate the lowering and raising of flags at City-owned facilities consistent with federal or state orders, City Council direction, or City Administrator authorization in consultation with the Mayor

10.2. when timely Council action is not practical.

If directed, staff will initiate a fee study and return to City Council during the annual fees and fines review early next calendar year.

Attachments:

1. Attachment 1: Flag Policy

2. Attachment 2: Resolution Commemorative Flag Policy

City of Gilroy Flag Policy
Purpose
The purpose of this policy is twofold. First, to establish a clear and uniform process for the review, authorization, display, and removal of commemorative flags at City Hall.

Second, to formalize a policy for the lowering of flags at all City-owned flagpoles.

City-owned flagpoles are maintained for official City use and are not intended to serve as a public forum or limited public forum. The display of any commemorative flag shall constitute government speech and an expression of the official sentiments of the City Council.

Section I. Commemorative Flag Display

1. Authorization for Display
Commemorative flags may be displayed only at City Hall on the designated flagpole and only when authorized by resolution of the City Council. A majority (4 members) of the City Council must vote affirmatively on the resolution.

2. Request for to Display
On the first business day of October, each year, the City will begin accepting requests for commemorative flag display for the upcoming calendar year (January to December).

Requests will be filed on a form provided by the City with required application materials and any applicable fee established by the City Council.

Staff will accept requests for a period of 10 working days. Staff will review all requests to ensure compliance with this policy and prepare a report to the City Council.

3. Consideration of Requests
No later than the first meeting in December, the City Council will consider requests for commemorative flag display for the upcoming calendar year and set the display calendar. The City Council may approve one or more commemorative flags by adoption of a resolution for a period not to exceed 30-days. As with any resolution, a majority vote of the City Council is required.

4. Councilmember-Initiated Requests
In addition to the annual consideration process, a Councilmember may seek display of an additional commemorative flag during the year. Any Councilmember request must be submitted through the City’s established FAIR memorandum process.

5. Required Information for Consideration
A request to display a commemorative flag is to include, the following information:
a. The name and description of the proposed commemorative flag; b. The purpose, event, or period of recognition associated with the flag; c. Commitment by the requesting party to provide the commemorative flag and that the flag to be displayed is in good condition and meets the size requirements of this policy;
d. The proposed display month or dates;
e. Any additional information requested by the City

6. Criteria and Restrictions
The City Council may approve the display of a commemorative flag when the display recognizes or commemorates an event, cause, organization, or period of significance that the City Council determines is consistent with the City’s official values, priorities, or interests.

The City shall not display commemorative flags that:
a. Promote or oppose a political party, political candidate, ballot measure, or campaign activity;
b. Promote or oppose a specific religion, religious belief, or religious organization; c. Contain language, images, or symbols that are discriminatory, obscene, profane, or inconsistent with City policy;
d. Promote commercial advertising or a private business interest; e. Advocate for unlawful activity;
f. Are damaged, faded, torn, or otherwise in poor condition; or g. Are inconsistent with federal law, state law, or City policy.

7. Type, Location and Manner of Display
Commemorative flags shall only be displayed on the designated flagpole at City Hall and in a manner consistent with federal and state flag display requirements.

No commemorative flag shall be larger than 3 feet x 5 feet.

8. Duration of Display
Commemorative flags are not to be displayed for more than thirty days, with the flag being displayed on the morning of the first business day following the beginning of the month and removed on the first business day following the end of the month.

The City Council may, as part of the approval resolution, adjust the duration of display as needed.

If multiple commemorative flags are authorized to be displayed in a given month, staff shall recommend to the City Council a term of display for each flag.

9.. No Obligation to Display
Nothing in this policy requires the City Council to approve the display of any commemorative flag.

The City Council retains full discretion to determine whether a commemorative flag will be displayed, the location of display, and the approved display period.

10. Administration
The City Administrator or designee is responsible for administering this policy, including coordinating approved displays, ensuring compliance with this policy, and removing commemorative flags at the conclusion of the approved display period.

The City Attorney may review proposed commemorative flag requests as needed prior to City Council consideration.

11. Exceptions
In the absence of an otherwise authorized commemorative flag, the City may choose to display a City Flag, Sister Cities Flag or other civic and governmental flags deemed acceptable by the City Administrator.

Section II. Lowering of Flags at City-Owned Flagpoles

1. Purpose
The purpose of this section is to establish a process for lowering flags at City-owned flagpoles.

2. Federal and State Orders
Flags at City-owned facilities shall be lowered in accordance with any applicable order or proclamation issued by the President of the United States, the Governor of California, or other authorized federal or state official.

3. City-Authorized Lowering of Flags
The City Council may direct flags at City-owned facilities to be lowered to half-staff in recognition of a solemn occasion, including the death of a current or former City official,

City employee, public safety officer, military service member, or other event of significance to the City of Gilroy.

When timely City Council action is not practical, the City Administrator, in consultation with the Mayor, may authorize flags to be lowered. The City Council shall be notified of the action.

4. Duration
Unless otherwise directed by a federal or state order, City Council action, or the City Administrator, flags lowered under this section shall be returned to full-staff at the close of business on the final day of the approved recognition period.

5. Administration
The City Administrator or designee shall coordinate the lowering and raising of flags at City-owned facilities.

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2022-09 AND

ADOPTING THE CITY OF GILROY FLAG POLICY
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy displays and handles flags at City facilities in accordance with applicable federal and state law; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-09, which rescinded Resolution No. 2021-17 and adopted the Amended and Restated Flying Flags at City Facilities Policy; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt an updated City of Gilroy Flag Policy to establish a clear and uniform process for the review, authorization, display, and removal of commemorative flags at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the City Council also desires to formalize a process for the lowering of flags at all City-owned flagpoles; and
WHEREAS, City-owned flagpoles are maintained for official City use and are not intended to serve as a public forum or limited public forum; and WHEREAS, under the updated policy, commemorative flags may be displayed only at City Hall on the designated flagpole and only when authorized by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the updated policy establishes an annual request period, City Council consideration process, and criteria for the display of commemorative flags; and WHEREAS, the updated policy provides that Council member-initiated requests during the year must be submitted through the City’s established FAIR memorandum process; and WHEREAS, the updated policy establishes a process for lowering flags at City-owned facilities in accordance with federal or state orders, City Council direction, or City Administrator authorization in consultation with the Mayor when timely Council action is not practical; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that adoption of the updated City of Gilroy Flag Policy will provide clarity, consistency, and administrative direction regarding commemorative flag displays and the lowering of flags at City-owned facilities.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.

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

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Short Title
City Council Regular Meeting | Date

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

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

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, Date, 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 5th, 2026.
____________________________________
Kim Mancera
City Clerk of the City of Gilroy

10.3. City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Gilroy Sports Park Ice Skating Facility – Ad Hoc Committee Update and Recommendation
Meeting Date: October 5, 2026
From: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted by: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Prepared by: Harjot Sangha, Assistant City Administrator STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:

RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee recommend that the City Council:

1. Receive the report of the Gilroy Sports Park Ice Skating Facility Ad Hoc Committee with the finding that no economically feasible path currently exists to construct the Gilroy Sports Park Ice Skating Facility, discontinue active pursuit of the project, and sunset the Ad Hoc Committee.

2. Reaffirm annexation of the Gilroy Sports Park property as a standing Council priority and direct staff to continue processing the annexation through the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), so that the site remains positioned for future development consistent with the Gilroy Sports Park Master Plan.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On August 18, 2025, the City Council formed the Gilroy Sports Park Ice Skating Facility Ad Hoc Committee, consisting of Council Members Tom Cline, Terence Fugazzi, and Zach Hilton, supported by City staff, to determine whether the long-planned Gilroy Sports Park Ice Skating Facility could be preserved in light of significantly changed financial conditions.

10.3. Over the following year the Committee met periodically and, working with the City’s municipal advisor and with Sharks Sports & Entertainment LLC (SSE), examined each avenue reasonably available to the project: three facility design alternatives at differing scale and cost; revised operating pro formas and bond financing structures; alternative project delivery through a private master developer; the addition of co-tenants to share the cost of the facility; and outside funding from state, philanthropic, and corporate community-benefit sources. Each of these avenues was pursued in good faith by both parties, and none closed the funding gap.

At its final meeting on August 26, 2026, the Committee concluded that the project cannot proceed and directed that a wrap-up report be brought to the full Council. The Committee’s conclusion rests on three findings: the cost estimates contemplated at the outset had been outpaced by construction cost escalation; the City’s own site and infrastructure obligation of approximately $10 million is not fully funded; and the facility’s projected net operating revenues cannot support the debt required to build it.

The Committee therefore recommends that the Council discontinue active pursuit of the Facility, conclude the Committee’s work, and redirect the City’s effort toward annexation of the Sports Park property so that the site remains available for future development.

BACKGROUND
The Gilroy Sports Park Ice Skating Facility has been contemplated for several years as a component of the Gilroy Sports Park Master Plan. The City Council previously approved a term sheet with SSE for a two-sheet ice facility of approximately 100,000 square feet, together with a restaurant, snack bar, pro shop, and ancillary uses, on an approximately 9.1-acre portion of the City-owned Sports Park site.

Under the structure then contemplated, the City would contribute the land and deliver a construction-ready pad, debt would be issued to construct the facility, and the annual debt service would be paid from facility operating revenues under a long-term lease with the Sharks. No General Fund contribution toward debt service was contemplated. The City’s financial participation was limited to the site improvements and the expenditures the Council had already approved.

Two assumptions underlying that structure changed materially in the years that followed. First, the cost of borrowing rose substantially with interest rates. Second, construction costs escalated well beyond the 2021–2022 estimates on which the term sheet was based. By mid-2025 it had become apparent that the project as structured was no longer financially self-supporting and a related update to City Council was provided in June 2025. Subsequently, the City Council formed the Ad Hoc Committee to determine whether the project could be preserved.

Between its formation and the conclusion of its work, the Ad Hoc Committee convened five times. Those meetings were supported by numerous staff-level working sessions

10.3. with SSE, the City’s municipal advisor, and prospective development and funding partners. Over that period the Committee reviewed multiple facility design and cost alternatives, updated operating pro formas and bond financing scenarios, an alternative project delivery structure proposed by a prospective master developer, and several avenues for outside funding. The Committee concluded its review at its final meeting in August 2026.

ANALYSIS
Design and Cost Alternatives
The Committee reviewed three facility designs. The base design prepared by the project architect carried a total project cost estimate of approximately $64 million. A larger alternative adding approximately 1,500 seats of event capacity was estimated at approximately $84 million. A third, more basic concept modeled on a facility under construction in another state was estimated at approximately $57 million once adjusted for California construction conditions. Both parties ultimately agreed to set the third concept aside and to focus on the base design (preferred design), with the added seating treated as a possible later phase.

Financing Capacity and the Funding Gap
At the Committee’s direction, the Sharks updated their operating pro forma so that the maximum debt supportable by facility net revenues could be tested in current dollars.

The City’s municipal advisor determined an initial maximum bonding capacity of approximately $41 million. Following a collaborative exercise with the Sharks to adjust financing assumptions, that figure was improved to approximately $49 million. This represents the most aggressive supportable capacity. It leaves a funding gap of approximately $15 million against the base design and approximately $35 million against the larger design. The analysis further showed the facility operating at negative cash flow in its early years of operation.

Alternative Project Delivery and Partners
The Committee explored removing the City from the construction and financing role altogether, under a concept in which the City would deliver a construction-ready site and lease the land long term while a private entity financed and built the facility. In spring 2026 the Committee met with a prospective master developer proposing a substantially larger mixed-use sports and entertainment district on the site. Staff and the Committee reviewed that proposal together with the municipal finance questions it raised, including City investment, asset ownership, use of the City’s bonding capacity, property tax abatement, and creation of a tax increment district. The proposal was larger in scope, more expensive, and on balance less favorable to the City than the arrangement already contemplated, and it would have required forms of public participation the Committee was not prepared to recommend.

Co-tenancy and Outside Funding
Both parties pursued outside participation to close the remaining gap. The Sharks

10.3. sought additional co-tenants who might share facility cost and strengthen the revenue base, and engaged assistance to explore state and philanthropic funding. The City explored external contribution opportunities, including grants, private and corporate community-benefit sources. None of these efforts produced a commitment of a scale capable of closing the gap.

Site and Infrastructure Obligations
Separate from the facility itself, the City is responsible for site preparation and infrastructure — utilities, site improvements, street improvements, and related work — estimated at approximately $10 million, in addition to the land the City would contribute.

The City has various capital funding sources that could contribute toward portions of this work, including storm drain, water and sewer, and traffic for the applicable components.

A gap nonetheless remains in fully funding the City’s obligations, and staff’s review indicates these costs have trended higher since they were first estimated.

Annexation
The Sports Park property is not within the City limits. Annexation requires LAFCO approval, and that process remains incomplete. The Committee gave weight to the fact that the City would be committing a major capital expenditure on property whose jurisdictional status is not yet settled.

Committee Findings
Taken together, the Committee identified three compounding conditions that make the project economically unviable at this time:

1. Early cost assumptions have been outpaced by the market. The cost estimate contemplated when the partnership was first discussed — in the range of $30 million, informed by a comparable facility built some years earlier — has not kept pace with construction cost escalation. Current estimates for the base design are substantially higher.

2. The City’s infrastructure obligation is not fully funded. Separate from the facility itself, the City remains responsible for approximately $10 million in site and infrastructure improvements. While the City has capital funding sources that could contribute toward portions of this work, a gap remains in fully funding the obligation, and these costs have trended upward over time.

3. The project is not financially feasible. Facility net revenues do not support the debt required to build it. Even under the most aggressive supportable financing assumptions, a gap of $15 million or more remains. Closing that gap would require a General Fund commitment that the City is not in a position to make, particularly alongside competing capital priorities.

Staff concurs with the Committee’s assessment. The Committee and staff also note that the Sharks engaged constructively throughout, and that the same construction cost pressures have affected comparable projects elsewhere in the region. The recommendation reflects present financial reality rather than any failure of the

10.3. partnership. The Sharks team remains interested if conditions change.

ALTERNATIVES
The Council may:

1. Direct further negotiation and continue the Ad Hoc Committee. Not recommended. The Committee and staff have examined the design, financing, delivery, partnership, and outside funding avenues available, and no remaining variable is of sufficient magnitude to close the gap. Continuing the process would incur additional predevelopment cost and prolong community uncertainty without a reasonable prospect of a different outcome.

2. Direct staff to develop a City-funded project. Not recommended at this time. This would require the City to commit to debt service and operating support from the General Fund, on property not yet annexed, and alongside competing capital priorities including the new fire station.

3. Defer the decision pending completion of annexation. Not recommended.

Annexation is being pursued regardless of the Facility, and deferral would leave the project, the Sharks, and the community in an indefinite holding position without changing the underlying financial findings.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The recommended action has no direct fiscal impact and no appropriation is requested.

Predevelopment costs incurred to date, estimated to be over $1 million — for design, technical studies, cost estimating, and municipal advisory services — have been funded through previously approved appropriations. The City will retain the current architectural designs for the Facility. Discontinuing active pursuit of the project avoids further predevelopment expenditure.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
This item was noticed as part of the City Council agenda in accordance with the Brown Act. The project has been long anticipated and has attracted sustained community and media interest. Over recent months staff communicated regarding the facility’s financial feasibility challenges. If the Council accepts the recommendation, staff will communicate the outcome and the reasons for it, and will confirm that annexation and the Sports Park Master Plan remain active City priorities.

NEXT STEPS

10.3. If the Council accepts the recommendation, staff will:

1. Notify Sharks Sports & Entertainment LLC, in writing of the Council’s action and thank the organization for its participation;

2. Conclude the work of the Ad Hoc Committee and retain the project document repository for future reference;

3. Continue to process annexation of the Sports Park property through LAFCO and report progress to the Council; and

4. Return to the Council should conditions change materially — including any significant shift in City revenues or renewed private interest — such that a facility could be reconsidered.

Attachments:

None

11.2. City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Consider Adopting an Urgency Interim Ordinance Imposing a Temporary 45-Day Moratorium on Applications and
Entitlements for Detention and Custodial Facilities on Private Property, and on Public Property to the Extent Permitted by Law; and a Resolution Adopting a City Council Policy
Prohibiting the Use of City Property for Civil Immigration Enforcement Activities; and Provide Direction Regarding Submission of a City Viewpoint to Federal Agencies
Meeting Date: October 5, 2026
From: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted by: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Prepared by: Harjot Sangha, Assistant City Administrator STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:

RECOMMENDATION

1. Determine that the actions of adopting the Urgency Interim Ordinance and the Resolution are not a project under, and are in any event exempt from, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378, 15060(c)(2), and 15061(b)(3);

2. Adopt an Urgency Interim Ordinance, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858, imposing a temporary moratorium, citywide, for a period not to exceed 45 days, on the filing, acceptance, processing, and approval of applications and entitlements for the establishment, expansion, or change of use of Detention and Custodial Facilities on private property, and on public property to the extent permitted by federal and state law, with certain exemptions, and make the findings incorporated in the ordinance that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare (Attachment 1);

3. Adopt a Resolution adopting a City Council Policy prohibiting the use of Cityowned and City-controlled property as a staging area, processing location, or

11.2. operations base for civil immigration enforcement activities (Attachment 2); and

4. Provide direction to staff on whether, and in what form, the City should submit a formal “viewpoint” regarding the proposed Holsclaw Property facility to the U.S.

General Services Administration (GSA), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as discussed in this report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A federal immigration enforcement and detainee holding facility has been proposed on the Holsclaw Property, a 25-acre site in unincorporated Santa Clara County immediately adjacent to Gilroy. A federal court preliminarily enjoined (halted) construction on September 11, 2026, but the litigation is unresolved and federal agencies remain under a DHS directive to bring a nationwide network of new detention and processing facilities online by November 30, 2026. Staff has prepared two complementary actions for Council consideration, modeled on measures adopted by San José and Mountain View.

First, an urgency interim ordinance under Government Code Section 65858 would impose a 45-day moratorium on applications and entitlements for detention and custodial facilities within the City, on private property and on public property to the extent permitted by law, while the Community Development Department and Planning Commission study how the Gilroy City Code should define and regulate such uses.

Second, a resolution would adopt a City Council Policy prohibiting the use of Cityowned and City-controlled property as a staging area, processing location, or operations base for civil immigration enforcement, consistent with the Council's June 1, 2026 resolution opposing the South County detention facility.

Lastly, staff seeks Council direction on submitting a formal “viewpoint” on the Holsclaw Property.

BACKGROUND
The Holsclaw Property was used for approximately 30 years for agricultural research. In January 2025, GSA entered into a 20-year lease with the private owner, ECG6 LLC, for development and operation of the site by ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations division. Construction began in April 2026.

On June 1, 2026, the City Council adopted a resolution opposing the development of a federal detention facility in South Santa Clara County.

On June 10, 2026, the State of California and Santa Clara County sued to stop the project, alleging that the federal defendants (1) failed to conduct the environmental review required by the National Environmental Policy Act before beginning construction

11.2. on a site with a documented history of hazardous waste violations; (2) violated the Immigration and Nationality Act by not first considering existing detention facilities before building a new one; (3) failed to consult with state and local governments as required by the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act; and (4) sited the facility on land zoned for exclusive agricultural use and restricted under the Williamson Act. In the litigation, the plaintiffs allege the facility's blueprints show holding rooms for up to 150 detainees, along with detention and processing areas, weapons and ammunition rooms, and tactical equipment storage; the federal defendants estimate average daily occupancy of roughly 120 people, including personnel, visitors, and detainees.

On June 24, 2026, the County of Santa Clara filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the case seeking to enjoin construction of the detention facility at the Holsclaw Property.

On August 12, 2026, the U.S. Government filed its Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which was supported by, inter alia, the declaration of the Acting Deputy Field Office Director for ICE’s San Francisco Field Office, who declared under penalty of perjury that, after a multi-year search for a new facility in and around Santa Clara County, federal officials selected the Holsclaw Property near Gilroy because of its central location within the San Francisco Field Office’s area of responsibility. The official said the Holsclaw Property was selected because Gilroy is approximately one and a half to two hours from four other Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”) offices, which would allow those offices to assist one another more efficiently and reduce travel time for emergency response, routine transportation, and the movement of individuals in ERO custody.

On September 11, 2026, the Hon. Eumi K. Lee granted a preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claim that the federal agencies improperly relied on a NEPA categorical exclusion and that construction creates a likelihood of irreparable environmental harm. The order pauses construction pending further order of the Court, requires the parties to meet and confer and file a joint proposed order or status report by September 30, 2026, and expressly states that the defendants are not enjoined from preparing an environmental assessment or impact statement or from soliciting regional, state, and local viewpoints on their plans for the site.

ANALYSIS
The federal Detention Expansion
On February 13, 2026, DHS circulated a directive entitled the “ICE Detention Reengineering Initiative,” outlining the acquisition and development of eight large-scale detention centers, sixteen processing sites, and ten turnkey facilities nationwide, with all facilities to be active by November 30, 2026. ICE has publicly described California detention centers as “crucial to ICE's detention network on the West Coast” and recently acquired two facilities in the State, at Otay Mesa and California City. The Holsclaw Property is the local expression of that initiative. The September 11 injunction is a significant development, but it is preliminary, may be narrowed or modified after the September 30 meet-and-confer, and does not prevent the agencies or their private

11.2. landlords and contractors from pursuing alternative sites in the region. Because Gilroy is the closest city to the enjoined site and has industrial and warehouse properties of the kind converted elsewhere, the possibility of a proposal inside City limits is not hypothetical. Experience in other jurisdictions shows such proposals move forward with little or no notice to local government, leaving cities to litigate after construction has begun.

Urgency Interim Ordinance (Attachment 1)
Government Code Section 65858 authorizes the Council to adopt an interim ordinance prohibiting uses that may conflict with a zoning proposal the City is studying, provided the ordinance contains findings of a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Staff reviewed Chapter 30 of the Gilroy City Code and confirmed that it does not define “detention and custodial facility,” “jail,” or “correctional facility,” and that no such use appears in the residential, commercial, or industrial use tables. The Code does, however, contain broad, undefined classifications that could capture a government-operated facility as a permitted use without a conditional use permit or hearing: “Public Facility” is permitted by right in the PO, C1, C3, and CM commercial districts; “Publicly Owned Building or Facility” is permitted by right in every residential district; and in the PF Park/Public Facilities District, “all facilities owned or leased, and operated or used, by . . . the government of the United States . . . or any other governmental agency” are permitted uses (Section 30.25.20(a)(1)).

The ordinance therefore states expressly that the moratorium applies notwithstanding those classifications and suspends similar-use determinations for detention and custodial facilities during its term, and the Contemplated Zoning Proposal includes clarifying that those classifications do not encompass such facilities. The proposed ordinance directs the Community Development Department and Planning Commission to study a Contemplated Zoning Proposal that would define the use, identify appropriate zoning districts and review procedures, and establish siting, operational, water and wastewater, traffic, security, and emergency-response standards. The ordinance takes effect immediately on adoption and expires on November 19, 2026, unless extended after notice and public hearing (initially for up to 10 months and 15 days, and thereafter for one additional year, for a maximum of two years). A written report on measures taken to address the conditions leading to adoption is due to the Council at least ten days before expiration, on or before November 9, 2026. The City Attorney has been asked to evaluate intergovernmental-immunity exposure arising from the broader definition, in light of GEO Group v. Newsom (9th Cir. 2022), which struck California's ban on private detention as applied to ICE contractors, and GEO Group v. City of Tacoma (W.D. Wash. 2019), which upheld generally applicable local zoning of detention facilities.

Information in the public record suggests that an application to build a detention facility within the Gilroy city limits is imminent. In the litigation over the Holsclaw Property facility, an ICE official stated under penalty of perjury that Gilroy’s central location offers significant operational advantages within the San Francisco Field Office’s area of

11.2. responsibility. The official went as far to say that ICE spent multiple years looking at areas near Santa Clara County, and, after that exhaustive search, decided on Gilroy because its central location would allow various ICE offices to better coordinate their operations. The unequivocal statements made by the ICE official strongly suggest that the federal government sees Gilroy as a desirable location for a detention facility. The statements also suggest ICE could pursue another site within the City limits if the Holsclaw Property facility does not go forward or faces continued delays. Because the federal court has granted a preliminary injunction in that case, continued delays appear likely, meaning ICE may submit an application to construct an ICE detention center in Gilroy at any time.

Resolution Adopting a Council Policy (Attachment 2)
The resolution adopts a City Council Policy providing that no City-owned or Citycontrolled property shall be used as a staging area, processing location, or operations base for civil immigration enforcement. It builds on the Council's June 1, 2026 resolution opposing the South County facility by addressing the City's own property. The City acts here in its proprietary capacity as owner of its property, not as a regulator of federal agencies. The Policy defines civil immigration enforcement, criminal law enforcement activity, and federal immigration authority; and confirms that it does not restrict criminal law enforcement or judicial warrants, emergency response, other lawful uses of City property or the presence of federal agents in areas open to the public on the same terms as the public, the City's obligations under the California Values Act, or property of other public agencies. Property subject to existing leases or agreements is grandfathered unless the parties agree otherwise. The Policy contains no separate implementation program; its operational provision directs that the use limitation be included in future leases, licenses, and agreements involving City property wherever possible and permitted by law. The resolution requires a majority vote and takes effect on adoption.

The “Viewpoint” Direction
The Court's order expressly states that the defendants are not enjoined from soliciting regional, state, and local viewpoints regarding their plans for the site. A City viewpoint could take the form of a letter from the Mayor to GSA, DHS, and ICE identifying the City's concerns (public safety and emergency-service coordination, traffic and site access, water and wastewater, the site's environmental history, and community impacts) for the administrative record and for any future NEPA review. Staff seeks direction on:

1. Whether the City should submit a viewpoint at all; and

2. If so, whether it should be limited to the environmental and public-safety concerns already in the litigation record, or also address community-trust and local-economy concerns raised by residents.

Regional context
San José adopted its moratorium unanimously on September 15, 2026, and is expected

11.2. to consider a revised ordinance, with a public-property amendment, on September 29, 2026. City of Los Altos adopted one on September 22, 2026, and the City of Mountain View is going to be considering one. San Mateo has adopted similar moratoria, and Napa County is considering one. Santa Clara County, VTA, Campbell, Mountain View, San José, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale have adopted property-use policies. Rep.

Liccardo's office has circulated a regional toolkit describing both approaches and hosted a coordination session. State legislation (SB 1367, Cervantes/Solache) that would restrict new local land-use approvals for detention facilities statewide remained on the Governor's desk as of the date of this report.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt the resolution and Council Policy only, and direct staff to return with a nonurgency ordinance addressing detention and custodial facilities. This alternative would delay any restriction on applications until the notice and hearing procedures for a standard zoning ordinance are completed, during which time an application could be filed and required to be processed under current regulations.

2. Adopt the urgency interim ordinance only, and defer the Council Policy. City property would remain without an express restriction on its use for civil immigration enforcement staging or processing.

3. Adopt the ordinance limited to private property, omitting the public-property provision.

4. Take no action at this time.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Adoption of the ordinance and resolution has no direct fiscal impact. Studying and drafting the Contemplated Zoning Proposal will require Community Development Department staff time. Staff will report on capacity and any consultant needs. Adoption of the Council Policy has no fiscal impact; preparation of a viewpoint, if authorized, is expected to be absorbed within existing staff resources.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
California Government Code Section 36937 provides that urgency ordinances are exempt from the advance notice and waiting period required for standard ordinances and may be adopted immediately, by a four-fifths vote, at a regular or special meeting when the Council determines there is an urgent need to protect the public peace, health, or safety. This item was noticed on the regular agenda for the October 5, 2026 meeting in accordance with the Brown Act. Any extension of the moratorium beyond 45 days will require a noticed public hearing under Government Code Section 65858.

11.2. NEXT STEPS
• If adopted, the ordinance takes effect immediately and expires November 19, 2026 unless extended. The Community Development Department will begin the Contemplated Zoning Proposal study, and the City Administrator will present the Section 65858(d) report by November 9, 2026, with any extension hearing scheduled for the November 16, 2026 meeting.
• If adopted, the Council Policy takes effect immediately. • Based on Council direction, staff will prepare a proposed City viewpoint for consideration at a future meeting.
• Staff will continue to monitor the federal litigation and will report to Council as warranted.

Attachments:

1. Attachment 1 - Urgency Ordinance

2. Attachment 2 - Resolution Regarding Use of City Property for Civil Immigration Enforcement

3. Attachment 3 - Court Order Granting Preliminary Injuction

ORDINANCE 2026-XX

AN URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY IMPOSING A

TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE FILING,

ACCEPTANCE, PROCESSING, AND APPROVAL OF

APPLICATIONS AND ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE

ESTABLISHMENT, EXPANSION, OR CHANGE OF USE OF

DETENTION AND CUSTODIAL FACILITIES ON PRIVATE

PROPERTY, AND ON PUBLIC PROPERTY TO THE

EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL AND STATE LAW,

CITYWIDE, WITH CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS, FOR A
PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS, AND

SETTING FORTH THE FACTS CONSTITUTING SUCH

URGENCY
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy (“City”) is a municipal corporation duly organized as a Charter City under the California Constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City Council has broad discretion pursuant to the California Constitution Article XI, Sections 5 and 7, and the general laws of the State, including but not limited to the California Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code Section 65000 et seq.), to legislate for public purposes and for the general welfare, including matters of public health and safety and the regulation of land use within the City; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65858 authorizes the City Council, as an urgency measure adopted by not less than a four-fifths vote, to adopt an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning commission, or planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65858, subdivision (c), provides that the City Council shall not adopt or extend an interim ordinance under that section unless the ordinance contains legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to the public health, safety, or welfare; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2026, the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) circulated a directive entitled the “ICE Detention Reengineering Initiative,” outlining the acquisition and development by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) of eight large-scale detention centers, sixteen processing sites, and ten turnkey facilities nationwide, and stating ICE’s intention to have all such facilities active by November 30, 2026; and WHEREAS, ICE has publicly stated that detention centers in California are “crucial to ICE’s detention network on the West Coast,” and ICE has recently acquired two detention facilities

Ordinance No. 2026-XX
Detention and Custodial Facility Urgency Interim Ordinance City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026 Page 2 of 11 in California, the Otay Mesa and California City facilities, demonstrating an active and ongoing federal effort to expand detention and processing capacity within this State; and WHEREAS, in January 2025, the United States General Services Administration (“GSA”) entered into a twenty-year lease with a private landowner, ECG6 LLC, for an approximately 25- acre former agricultural research site in unincorporated Santa Clara County immediately adjacent to the City, known as the “Holsclaw Property,” for development and operation by ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations division as an immigration enforcement and detainee holding facility; construction and demolition activity commenced at the Holsclaw Property on or about April 23, 2026; plaintiffs in the litigation described below allege that the facility’s blueprints depict holding rooms capable of accommodating up to 150 detainees, together with detention and processing areas, weapons and ammunition rooms, and tactical equipment storage; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2026, the State of California and the County of Santa Clara filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, styled County of Santa Clara, et al. v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement, et al., Case No. 26-cv05604-EKL, alleging that the responsible federal agencies failed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Holsclaw Property facility under the National Environmental Policy Act, sited the facility on land zoned for exclusive agricultural use and subject to the Williamson Act, and failed to cooperate with state and local governments as required by the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2026, the County of Santa Clara filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin construction of the detention facility at the Holsclaw Property, and on August 12, 2026, the U.S. Government filed its Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction; the U.S. Government’s Opposition was supported by, inter alia, the declaration of the Acting Deputy Field Office Director for the ICE San Francisco Field Office, who declared under penalty of perjury that the Holsclaw Property was selected because of its central location within the San Francisco Field Office’s area of responsibility, approximately one and a half to two hours from four other Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”) offices, which would allow those offices to assist one another more efficiently and reduce travel time for emergency response, routine transportation, and the movement of individuals in ERO custody.

WHEREAS, on September 11, 2026, the Honorable Eumi K. Lee, United States District Judge, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the responsible federal agencies acted arbitrarily and capriciously in relying on an improper categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act, and that construction and use of the Holsclaw Property — previously used for approximately thirty years for agricultural research and subject to a documented history of hazardous waste violations — creates a likelihood of irreparable environmental harm; the Court’s order pauses construction, demolition, and development at the Holsclaw Property pending further order of the Court, but does not resolve the underlying litigation and does not prevent federal agencies from identifying and pursuing alternative sites for detention and processing facilities elsewhere in the region, including within the City of Gilroy; and

Ordinance No. 2026-XX
Detention and Custodial Facility Urgency Interim Ordinance City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026 Page 3 of 11 WHEREAS, on June 1, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-34, opposing the development of a federal detention facility in South Santa Clara County, reflecting the City Council’s determination that such a facility is inappropriate for the South County area and its concern regarding the facility’s impacts on the Gilroy community; and WHEREAS, the experience of the Holsclaw Property and of jurisdictions across the United States demonstrates that proposals for detention and custodial facilities may move forward with limited or no advance notice to local governments, leaving local jurisdictions little or no opportunity to evaluate potential land use, infrastructure, environmental, public safety, and community impacts before significant project decisions have been made, and in some cases causing local governments to turn to litigation only after development activity was already underway; and
WHEREAS, detention and custodial facilities can impose substantial and distinct impacts on surrounding communities and local resources, including water supply and wastewater capacity; vehicle trips and traffic generated by staff, detainee transport, visiting family members, and legal counsel; and demands on local law enforcement, traffic management, crowd management, and emergency response resources associated with large demonstrations and public gatherings, such as those that have already occurred in the region in response to the Holsclaw Property proposal; and
WHEREAS, reports issued by the California Attorney General have found that detention facilities in California have been overcrowded, have failed to provide adequate medical and mental health care, and have frequently failed to meet applicable federal detention standards, to the detriment of the health and safety of the persons held in them; and WHEREAS, detention and custodial facilities differ from typical commercial, industrial, or administrative uses in that persons in custody are housed overnight and function in some respects as a residential population, such that the siting of such a facility in an industrial zoning district may present operational challenges and incompatibility with sensitive receptors, including children, pregnant women, and medically vulnerable individuals, who may be exposed to noise, vibration, air pollutants, hazardous materials, and heavy truck traffic typically associated with industrial districts, while siting in or near residential or commercial districts raises distinct compatibility, traffic, security, and neighborhood quality-of-life concerns; and WHEREAS, the Gilroy City Code (Chapter 30, Zoning Ordinance) does not define “Detention and Custodial Facility,” “jail,” “correctional facility,” or any similar term in Article II (Definitions), does not list any such use in the Residential Use Table (Section 30.11.10(c)), the Commercial Use Table (Section 30.19.10(c)), or the Industrial Use Table (Section 30.23.10(c)), and contains no zoning, siting, development, or operational standards specific to such facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Gilroy City Code nevertheless contains broad, undefined classifications under which a detention and custodial facility could potentially be processed as a permitted use without a conditional use permit or public hearing, including “Public Facility,” a permitted use in the PO, C1, C3, and CM commercial districts (Section 30.19.10(c)); “Publicly Owned Building or

Ordinance No. 2026-XX
Detention and Custodial Facility Urgency Interim Ordinance City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026 Page 4 of 11 Facility,” a permitted use in the RR, R1, R2, R3, R4, and RH residential districts (Section

30.11.10(c)); and, in the PF Park/Public Facilities District, “all facilities owned or leased, and operated or used, by the City of Gilroy, the County of Santa Clara, the State of California, the government of the United States, . . . or any other governmental agency,” a permitted use under Section 30.25.20(a)(1); and for any use not listed in a use table, Sections 30.11.10(b), 30.19.10(b),

30.23.10(b), and 30.25.20 authorize the Planning Commission or its designee to determine administratively, upon written request, whether the use is similar in character to a listed use, such that a detention and custodial facility proposed in an industrial or other district could be approved through an administrative similar-use determination and ministerial building permits, subject only to plan approval by the Director of Planning under Section 30.45.10; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to study and prepare recommended amendments to the Gilroy City Code that would (i) define “Detention and Custodial Facility” as a distinct land use, (ii) identify the zoning districts, if any, in which such a use may be appropriately located and the level of discretionary review and public hearing that should apply, and (iii) establish appropriate siting, separation, development, operational, security, water and wastewater, traffic, emergency-response, and community-impact standards for such facilities, and (iv) clarify that the “Public Facility,” “Publicly Owned Building or Facility,” and PF-district governmental-facility classifications, and the similar-use determination procedures, do not encompass Detention and Custodial Facilities (collectively, the “Contemplated Zoning Proposal”); and WHEREAS, absent a temporary moratorium, the City may be required to accept, process, and approve applications and entitlements for the establishment, expansion, or change of use of detention and custodial facilities within the City under regulations that do not define or address such uses, before the City has had the opportunity to study and adopt the Contemplated Zoning Proposal; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is a generally applicable land use regulation adopted in the exercise of the City’s police power and its authority over the issuance of City permits and entitlements; it does not regulate or discriminate against the United States, the State of California, or their agencies, and applies to property owned or occupied by a governmental agency only to the extent permitted by federal and state law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, based on the evidence in the record — including the DHS directive and ICE statements described above, the development activity at and litigation concerning the Holsclaw Property, the documented impacts of detention and custodial facilities in other jurisdictions, and the staff report accompanying this Ordinance — that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents arising from the potential establishment, expansion, or change of use of detention and custodial facilities within the City under the City’s current regulations, and that the approval of applications and entitlements for such uses under the City’s current regulations would result in that threat; and WHEREAS, within a reasonable time, the City Council, Planning Commission, and/or Community Development Department is considering, studying, or intends to study the Contemplated Zoning Proposal to address the foregoing concerns, with which detention and custodial facility uses may be in conflict; and

Ordinance No. 2026-XX
Detention and Custodial Facility Urgency Interim Ordinance City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026 Page 5 of 11 WHEREAS, on October 5, 2026, in accordance with State law, the City Council provided due consideration of all evidence presented and provided in the entire administrative record and held a duly noticed public meeting and took testimony regarding this urgency interim Ordinance.

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

SECTION I. Recitals.

The above recitals are true and correct and are hereby adopted as the City Council’s findings.

SECTION II. Purpose and Authority.

In the interest of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Gilroy, it is the purpose and intent of this urgency interim Ordinance to place a temporary moratorium on the filing, acceptance, processing, and approval of any application or entitlement for the establishment, expansion, or change of use of a Detention and Custodial Facility on Private Property, and on Public Property to the extent permitted by federal and state law, citywide, while the City studies and adopts the Contemplated Zoning Proposal. The City Council has authority to adopt this Ordinance pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 as an urgency measure prohibiting any use that may be in conflict with the Contemplated Zoning Proposal that the City is considering or studying, and pursuant to its police power under Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution.

SECTION III. Findings.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858, subdivision (c), the City Council hereby finds and determines that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare of the City of Gilroy that warrants the establishment of this temporary moratorium, and that the approval of applications and entitlements for Detention and Custodial Facilities under the City’s current regulations would result in that threat. The following findings are based upon the recitals included herein as well as the following:
(a) The proliferation of detention and custodial facilities across the nation with limited or no notice to, or collaboration with, local governments, as reflected in DHS’s February 13, 2026 “ICE Detention Reengineering Initiative” directive calling for eight large-scale detention centers, sixteen processing sites, and ten turnkey facilities to be active by November 30, 2026.
(b) The express intention of DHS and ICE to expand detention capacity in California, which ICE has described as “crucial to ICE’s detention network on the West Coast,” including the recent acquisition of the Otay Mesa and California City facilities and the lease, development, and construction activity at the Holsclaw Property immediately adjacent to the City.
(c) Information in the public record suggests that an application to build a detention facility within the Gilroy city limits is imminent. In the litigation over the Holsclaw Property

Ordinance No. 2026-XX
Detention and Custodial Facility Urgency Interim Ordinance City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026 Page 6 of 11 facility, an ICE official stated under penalty of perjury that Gilroy’s central location offers significant operational advantages within the San Francisco Field Office’s area of responsibility. The official went as far to say that ICE spend multiple years looking at areas near Santa Clara County, and, after that exhaustive search, decided on Gilroy because its central location would allow various ICE offices to better coordinate their operations. The unequivocal statements made by the ICE official strongly suggest that the federal government sees Gilroy as a desirable location for a detention facility. The statements also suggest ICE could pursue another site within the City limits if the Holsclaw Property facility does not go forward or faces continued delays. Because the federal court has granted a preliminary injunction in that case on September 11, 2026, continued delays appear likely, meaning ICE may submit an application to construct an ICE detention center in Gilroy at any time.
(d) The severe impacts that detention and custodial facilities can have on surrounding communities and local resources, including water supply, wastewater capacity, traffic and street conditions, law enforcement, traffic and crowd management, and emergency response.
(e) The documented history of overcrowding, poor living conditions, and substandard medical care at detention facilities in California.
(f) The potential incompatibility of siting detention and custodial facilities in industrial zoning districts, where persons in custody would be exposed to noise, pollution, vibration, hazardous materials, and heavy machinery, and the distinct compatibility, security, and quality-of-life concerns raised by siting in or near residential and commercial districts. (g) The absence in the Gilroy City Code of any definition of, or zoning, siting, development, or operational standards for, Detention and Custodial Facilities, combined with the presence of broad, undefined “Public Facility,” “Publicly Owned Building or Facility,” and PF-district governmental-facility classifications and administrative similar-use determination procedures, such that applications for such uses could be processed and approved — potentially without a conditional use permit or any public hearing — before the City completes the Contemplated Zoning Proposal.
(h) Without a moratorium on the establishment, expansion, or change of use of Detention and Custodial Facilities while these issues are examined and appropriate regulations developed, there remains a current and immediate threat that such uses will be established within the City and will result in the harms to the public health, safety, and welfare described herein.

SECTION IV. Definitions.

For purposes of this Ordinance, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) “Detention and Custodial Facility” means a temporary or permanent building, structure, set of buildings, or portion thereof that is designed, constructed, converted, or used to detain, confine, process, or house persons in custody, including without limitation persons detained or held in connection with the enforcement of the civil provisions of federal

Ordinance No. 2026-XX
Detention and Custodial Facility Urgency Interim Ordinance City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026 Page 7 of 11 immigration law. A facility is a Detention and Custodial Facility regardless of whether it is owned, leased, operated, or managed by a private person or entity, or by or on behalf of a governmental agency pursuant to a lease, contract, or other arrangement with a private property owner, developer, or contractor.
(b) “Establishment, Expansion, or Change of Use” means (i) the construction, conversion, tenant improvement, occupancy, or commencement of operation of a Detention and Custodial Facility that was not lawfully established and in operation as of the effective date of this Ordinance; (ii) any enlargement of the floor area, site area, holding capacity, or intensity of an existing Detention and Custodial Facility; or (iii) the conversion of any existing building, structure, or use, in whole or in part, to a Detention and Custodial Facility.
(c) “Application or Entitlement” means any application for, or the issuance of, any permit, license, approval, or entitlement, whether ministerial or discretionary, that would authorize, facilitate, or be required for the Establishment, Expansion, or Change of Use of a Detention and Custodial Facility, including without limitation any general plan amendment, zoning amendment, specific plan, conditional use permit, architectural and site review, variance, subdivision map, grading permit, demolition permit, building permit, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical permit, encroachment permit, certificate of occupancy, business license, or City utility service connection.
(d) “Private Property” means real property within the City that is not owned by a governmental agency, including real property that is owned by a private person or entity and leased, licensed, or otherwise made available to a governmental agency. (e) “Public Property” means real property within the City that is owned by a governmental agency, including the City, the County of Santa Clara, the State of California, the United States, and any of their respective agencies, districts, or instrumentalities.

SECTION V. Moratorium Imposed.

A temporary moratorium is hereby established and imposed, citywide, on the filing, acceptance, processing, and approval of any Application or Entitlement for the Establishment, Expansion, or Change of Use of a Detention and Custodial Facility on Private Property. During the term of this Ordinance, no City officer, employee, board, commission, or the City Council shall accept, process, or approve any such Application or Entitlement, except as provided in Sections VI and VII of this Ordinance. This moratorium applies notwithstanding any provision of Chapter 30 of the Gilroy City Code under which such a facility might otherwise be classified as a permitted or conditional use, including without limitation the “Public Facility” classification in Section

30.19.10(c), the “Publicly Owned Building or Facility” classification in Section 30.11.10(c), and Section 30.25.20(a)(1), and during the term of this Ordinance no determination shall be made under Section 30.11.10(b), 30.19.10(b), 30.23.10(b), or 30.25.20 that a Detention and Custodial Facility is similar in character to any listed use.

Ordinance No. 2026-XX
Detention and Custodial Facility Urgency Interim Ordinance City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026 Page 8 of 11 SECTION VI. Application to Public Property.

To the fullest extent permitted by federal and state law, the moratorium imposed by Section V shall apply equally to any Application or Entitlement for the Establishment, Expansion, or Change of Use of a Detention and Custodial Facility on Public Property. This Ordinance is a generally applicable land use regulation and does not purport to regulate, and shall not be construed as regulating or discriminating against, the United States, the State of California, or any of their agencies in the performance of governmental functions. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to apply to any such agency, or to any property owned or occupied by any such agency, to the extent such application is preempted or prohibited by the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, or the laws of the State of California; in all other respects this Ordinance shall apply to the fullest extent permitted by law.

The use of property owned or controlled by the City for civil immigration enforcement purposes is separately addressed by City Council policy adopted by resolution.

SECTION VII. Exemptions.

The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance shall not apply to the following:
(a) Any facility providing rehabilitative, counseling, treatment, mental health, educational, or medical services to a juvenile that is under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. (b) Any facility providing evaluation or treatment services to a person who has been detained or is subject to an order of commitment by a court.
(c) Any facility providing educational, vocational, medical, or other ancillary services to an inmate in the custody of, and under the direct supervision of, the State Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or a county sheriff or other law enforcement agency. (d) A residential care facility licensed under state law. (e) Any school facility used for the disciplinary detention of a pupil. (f) Any facility used for the quarantine or isolation of persons for public health reasons under state law.
(g) Any facility for the purposes of execution of a punitive sentence imposed by a court. (h) Any temporary holding facility operated by the Gilroy Police Department, the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, or the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, in connection with criminal law enforcement or court proceedings, and the continued operation, maintenance, and repair of any such facility existing as of the effective date of this Ordinance.
(i) The continued operation, maintenance, and repair, without Expansion or Change of Use, of any Detention and Custodial Facility lawfully established and in operation within the City as of the effective date of this Ordinance.

Ordinance No. 2026-XX
Detention and Custodial Facility Urgency Interim Ordinance City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026 Page 9 of 11 SECTION VIII. Violation.

Except as otherwise permitted under this urgency interim Ordinance, the Establishment, Expansion, or Change of Use of a Detention and Custodial Facility in violation of this Ordinance is declared to be a public nuisance. Violations of this urgency interim Ordinance may be enforced by any applicable laws or ordinances, including, but not limited to, injunctions or administrative or criminal penalties under the Gilroy City Code.

SECTION IX. Report.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858, subdivision (d), the City Administrator, or designee, is authorized and directed to prepare a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of this urgency interim Ordinance, for presentation to the City Council no later than ten (10) days prior to the expiration of this Ordinance or any extension thereof (on or before November 9, 2026 for the initial term).

SECTION X. Term of Ordinance.

This urgency interim Ordinance shall be in effect from the date of adoption for a period of fortyfive (45) days, expiring on November 19, 2026, unless it is extended pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 or other applicable law, as approved by the City Council following notice and public hearing.

SECTION XI. Severability.

If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, or phrase of this urgency interim Ordinance, or its application to any person, property, or circumstance, is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise void or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this urgency interim Ordinance or its application to other persons, properties, or circumstances. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this urgency interim Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, and in particular declares that it would have adopted the moratorium as applied to Private Property irrespective of the validity of its application to Public Property.

SECTION XII. CEQA Determination.

This urgency interim Ordinance is not a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, and is in any event exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that this Ordinance has no possibility of having a significant effect on the environment, as it merely preserves the status quo in accordance with Government Code Section 65858 in the interest of evaluating and preventing potential harms related to detention and custodial facility land uses. This Ordinance does not authorize any

Ordinance No. 2026-XX
Detention and Custodial Facility Urgency Interim Ordinance City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026 Page 10 of 11 development, approve any land-use entitlement, or result in any physical change to the environment.

SECTION XIII. Effective Date.

This urgency interim Ordinance, passed by at least a four-fifths vote of the City Council, is declared to be an urgency interim Ordinance for preserving the public health, safety, and welfare and shall take effect and be enforced immediately upon adoption pursuant to Government Code Sections 65858(b) and 36937(b).

SECTION XIV. Publication.

The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be published one time within fifteen (15) days upon passage and adoption in a newspaper of general circulation, such as the Gilroy Dispatch.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular meeting duly held on the 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
ATTEST:
______________________________
Kim Mancera, City Clerk

Ordinance No. 2026-XX
Detention and Custodial Facility Urgency Interim Ordinance City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026 Page 11 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK
I, KIM MANCERA, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached Ordinance No. 2026-XX is an original ordinance, or true and correct copy of a City Ordinance, 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

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF GILROY ADOPTING CITY COUNCIL POLICY
PROHIBITING THE USE OF CITY-OWNED AND CITYCONTROLLED PROPERTY AS A STAGING AREA,

PROCESSING LOCATION, OR OPERATIONS BASE FOR

CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy (“City”) is home to people of diverse backgrounds, including a large immigrant population, and immigrants are valuable and essential members of the community who play a central role in the cultural, social, agricultural, and economic fabric of the City; and
WHEREAS, a strong and trusting relationship between the City and its residents contributes to the public safety and well-being of all residents, and actions that cause community members to fear reporting crimes, seeking health services, accessing City parks and facilities, sending children to City programs, or engaging in civic life detract from the safety and welfare of the entire community; and
WHEREAS, the City has observed events in other parts of the country and the State in which property owned or controlled by local agencies has been used or commandeered as a staging area, processing location, or operations base for federal civil immigration enforcement, which is solely the responsibility of the federal government; and WHEREAS, a federal immigration enforcement and detainee holding facility has been proposed on the “Holsclaw Property,” an approximately 25-acre site in unincorporated Santa Clara County immediately adjacent to the City, which is the subject of pending litigation, County of Santa Clara, et al. v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement, et al., Case No. 26-cv05604-EKL (N.D. Cal.), in which the Honorable Eumi K. Lee granted a preliminary injunction on September 11, 2026 pausing construction pending further order of the Court; and the Court’s order expressly provides that the federal defendants are not enjoined from soliciting regional, state, and local viewpoints with respect to their plans for the Holsclaw Property; and WHEREAS, on June 1, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-34 opposing the development of a federal detention facility in South Santa Clara County, and this Resolution is consistent with, and in furtherance of, the position the City Council expressed in that Resolution; and
WHEREAS, current City policies do not explicitly restrict federal civil immigration enforcement agencies from using City-owned or City-controlled land or facilities for operations, staging, or processing; and
WHEREAS, the use of City property to further civil immigration enforcement is inconsistent with the City’s role and function, would interfere with the City’s authority over and

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Council Policy — Use of City Property for Civil Immigration Enforcement City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026 Page 2 of 5 use of its own property for City purposes, and would undermine the environment of inclusiveness and trust between City government and its residents that the City seeks to foster; and WHEREAS, in adopting this policy the City acts in its proprietary capacity as the owner and manager of its own property, and not as a regulator of the federal government; regulating the use of City-owned and City-controlled property, without regulating the conduct of federal agencies, is a lawful exercise of municipal authority and an appropriate and necessary means of promoting public safety, community trust, and the responsible use of public resources; and WHEREAS, this policy does not restrict, limit, or interfere with any criminal law enforcement activity, the execution of any lawful judicial warrant, or any obligation of the City or its officers and employees under federal or state law, including the California Values Act (Government Code Section 7284 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, the City Council is separately considering, by urgency interim ordinance adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65858, a temporary moratorium on applications and entitlements for detention and custodial facilities within the City, and this Resolution is intended to complement, and is independent of, that ordinance; and WHEREAS, adoption of this Resolution is not a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, and is in any event exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15061(b)(3), because it concerns only the administrative use of City property and has no potential to cause a significant effect on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Gilroy that:

Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. The City Council hereby adopts City Council Policy entitled “Prohibiting the Use of City Property for Civil Immigration Enforcement Activities,” attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular meeting duly held on the 5th day of October 2026, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Resolution No. 2026-XX
Council Policy — Use of City Property for Civil Immigration Enforcement City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026 Page 3 of 5 APPROVED:
______________________________
Greg Bozzo, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Kim Mancera, City Clerk

Resolution No. 2026-XX — Exhibit A
City Council Policy
City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026 Page 4 of 5 Exhibit A
PURPOSE:

This Policy establishes limitations on the use of City-owned and City-controlled property as a staging area, processing location, or operations base for civil immigration enforcement activities.

The City adopts this Policy in its proprietary capacity as the owner and manager of its property, to preserve the use of that property for City purposes and to promote public safety, community trust, and the responsible use of public resources.

POLICY:

1. Definitions
a. “City Property” means any land, vacant lot, parking lot, parking garage, park, open space, trail, community center, library, corporation yard, or other facility, building, or structure that is owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by the City of Gilroy. “City Property” does not include public streets, sidewalks, and other public rights-of-way, which remain subject to their customary public use.
b. “Civil Immigration Enforcement” means any effort by a Federal Immigration Authority to investigate, interrogate, detain, arrest, hold, transport, or remove an individual for an alleged violation of the civil provisions of federal immigration law. Civil Immigration Enforcement does not include Criminal Law Enforcement Activity. c. “Criminal Law Enforcement Activity” means the enforcement of the California Penal Code or other federal or state criminal statutes, including the execution of lawful judicial warrants and participation in joint law enforcement task forces addressing criminal conduct, regardless of whether the individuals involved are also subject to civil immigration proceedings.
d. “Federal Immigration Authority” means the United States Department of Homeland Security, including United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement and United States Customs and Border Protection, and any officer, agent, or contractor thereof acting in a civil immigration enforcement capacity.
e. “Operations Base” means an area that is used to plan, coordinate, or execute Civil Immigration Enforcement activities.
f. “Processing Location” means an area that is used for the identification, intake, processing of documentation, detention, arrest, or temporary holding of individuals in connection with Civil Immigration Enforcement operations.
g. “Staging Area” means an area that is used to assemble, mobilize, park, or deploy vehicles, equipment, or materials, and related personnel, for the purpose of carrying out Civil Immigration Enforcement operations.

Resolution No. 2026-XX — Exhibit A
City Council Policy
City Council Regular Meeting | October 5, 2026 Page 5 of 5

2. Prohibition on Use of City Property for Civil Immigration Enforcement Activities No City Property shall be used as a Staging Area, Processing Location, or Operations Base for Civil Immigration Enforcement purposes.

3. Limitations on Scope
a. Existing Agreements. This Policy does not apply to City Property that is subject to an existing lease, license, operator agreement, or other contractual restriction entered into with the City before the effective date of this Policy, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties to that existing agreement.
b. Criminal Law Enforcement and Judicial Warrants. Nothing in this Policy shall be construed as restricting or interfering with the execution of lawful judicial warrants or judicial orders signed by a federal or state judge, or with Criminal Law Enforcement Activity by any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency, including participation by City officers or employees in joint task forces or investigations addressing criminal conduct. c. Emergency Response. Nothing in this Policy shall be construed as restricting emergency response activity reasonably necessary to protect life or safety. d. Other Rights Under State or Federal Law. Nothing in this Policy shall be construed as limiting the rights of any person or entity under state or federal law, or as directing any City officer or employee to violate any federal or state law. This Policy does not limit, narrow, or expand the City’s independent obligations under the California Values Act (Government Code Section 7284 et seq.), which continue to apply according to their own terms.
e. Other Lawful Uses. This Policy does not prohibit the lawful use of City Property for purposes other than the Civil Immigration Enforcement activities expressly prohibited hereunder, nor does it restrict any person or entity, including federal law enforcement agencies, from carrying out functions unrelated to those purposes on City Property, or from being present in areas of City Property that are open to the public on the same terms as other members of the public.

4. Future Agreements
Wherever possible and permitted by law, the City Administrator or designee shall direct that the use limitations set forth in this Policy be included in all future leases, licenses, operator agreements, permits, and other contracts involving the use of City Property.

5. Severability
If any portion of this Policy or its application is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, the same shall either be reformed to comply with applicable law or stricken if not so conformable, so as not to affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of this Policy. To this end, the provisions of this Policy, and each of them, are severable.

Effective Date: October 5, 2026 Resolution No. 2026-XX

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
United States District Court
Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION &
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 26-cv-05604-EKL

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION
Re: Dkt. No. 24
Plaintiffs the State of California and the County of Santa Clara bring this action to require the Federal Government and a private developer to halt construction of an immigration enforcement and detainee holding facility in Gilroy, California – an agricultural hub known as the “garlic capital of the world.” Among other claims, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants failed to analyze the potential environmental consequences of the construction and future use of the facility.

Plaintiffs submit that environmental harms are likely because the site of the proposed holding facility was used for 30 years to conduct agricultural research that resulted in known hazardous waste violations. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to pause construction of the holding facility, thereby providing enough time to conduct a proper environmental review. See Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 24 (“Mot.”). Defendants oppose the motion. Although Defendants offer no proof that they conducted a meaningful environmental analysis before starting construction, they assert that the environmental risks are exaggerated and outweighed by the Federal Government’s mission to enforce its immigration laws.

The Court reviewed the entire record and relevant legal authorities and heard argument on September 8, 2026. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction as set forth below.

Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 1 of 23

2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
I. BACKGROUND
Although the public has only recently learned of it, the project challenged by this lawsuit has been contemplated for years. On December 22, 2020, the Government Services Administration (“GSA”) – an agency responsible for managing and acquiring property for use by the Federal Government – posted a “pre-solicitation” notice indicating that GSA sought to lease office and detention space near San Jose, California. Zeligman Decl. Ex. A, ECF No. 54-3.

Similar notices were published in 2021 and 2022, see Zeligman Decl. Ex. B, but the project was put on hold due to lack of funding, Larson Decl. Ex. 3 at 1, ECF No. 57-3. After funds became available, GSA posted a solicitation notice on August 9, 2024. Murillo Decl. Ex. 12, ECF No. 29-12. Through this process, GSA identified three properties as candidates for the facility, which would be operated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) – specifically, its Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”) division. Larson Decl. Ex. 3 at 3. One of the three properties, the Holsclaw Property in Gilroy, California, was ultimately selected as the site for ICE’s immigrant detainee holding facility (“Gilroy Holding Facility”).

Defendant ECG6 LLC (“ECG6”) is the “corporate entity that holds and operates the Holsclaw Property.” ECG6 Opp. at 6, ECF No. 54. ECG6 is an investment vehicle of Elmwood Capital Group, “a Beverly Hills-based real estate investment firm consisting of three friends whose business is to procure and lease properties (sometimes after modifying them to meet government requirements) to federal agencies.” Id. Relevant here, ECG6 acquired the Holsclaw Property and entered into a lease with GSA in January 2025. Zeligman Decl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 54-2.

Over the 20-year lease term, ECG6 may receive up to $26,551,532.00 in rent payments from GSA. Id. ¶ 21; see also Tsang Decl. Ex. 1 at 1, 5, ECF No. 32-1 (“GSA Lease”). The lease was amended in March 2026 to approve certain construction costs, for which ECG6 will be reimbursed $8,656,150.69 “once the property is turned over to the government and is inspected.” Zeligman Decl. ¶ 23. The lease term begins once ECG6 completes this work to GSA’s satisfaction. Id. ¶ 24; GSA Lease §§ 3.07(a), 4.11. On April 23, 2026, ECG6 began developing the Holsclaw Property. See Notice, ECF No. 65. ECG6 planned to complete work by January 2027, Zeligman Decl. ¶ 32, but it has not submitted any evidence that it can meet this target.

Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 2 of 23

3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
ICE plans to use the Holsclaw Property in part as a holding facility. A holding facility “contains hold rooms that are primarily used for the short-term confinement of individuals who have recently been detained, or are being transferred to or from a court, detention facility, other holding facility, or other agency.” Arzy Decl. Ex. 3 § 3.2, ECF No. 34-3. Based on site plans obtained by the San José Spotlight, Plaintiffs allege that the facility will contain four small hold rooms and two larger ones that could hold up to 150 detainees in total. Compl. ¶¶ 132-133, ECF No. 1. Figures 1 and 2 are excerpts of ICE’s facility design guide showing that the rooms feature benches and a lavatory with a “suicide resistant grab bar.” Arzy Decl. Ex. 5, ECF No. 34-5.

Figure 1: Small Holding Room
Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 3 of 23

4 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
Figure 2: Large Holding Room
The ICE facility would host personnel, contractors, “individuals temporarily held in the hold room area, and members of the public who come to the site for interviews, check-ins, bondrelated matters, attorney or family visits, or to deliver medication, property, or other necessary items.” Bayardo Decl. ¶ 13, ECF No. 56. Defendants dispute that the facility could detain up to 150 people, but their counter-estimates are inconsistent and non-committal. ICE initially told ECG6 that the maximum detention capacity would be “fewer than 100” people, and that typically “fewer than 5” people would be detained on site. Zeligman Decl. ¶ 25 & Ex. F at 32-33, ECF No. 54-3. But now, ICE’s “best current estimate” is that 60 members of the public, 50 personnel, Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 4 of 23

5 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
and approximately ten detainees might be present at the Gilroy Holding Facility “over the course of the day during normal operations.” Bayardo Decl. ¶ 13. In sum, ICE expects the Gilroy Holding Facility to host at least 120 people over the course of a normal day once operations begin.

However, the ICE representative who offers this estimate has “not personally visited the Gilroy site,” and she concedes that ICE “will not be able to determine the maximum occupancy for the Gilroy facility hold room until work is completed and inspected.” Id. ¶¶ 7, 13. Thus, the number of detainees may be higher than currently estimated.

The Holsclaw Property was never previously used to hold immigrant detainees. Instead, the site was used to conduct agricultural research. See Zeligman Decl. ¶ 11 (explaining that the Holsclaw Property contains a “laboratory building, warehouse, and chemical storage building, as well as several greenhouses”). From 1993 to 2023, several agricultural research companies operated on the site, including Syngenta Seeds and its affiliates. Pierce Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 30; Gutierrez Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 26; see Gutierrez Decl. Ex. B at 2-3, ECF No. 26-2 (agricultural research permit). These agricultural research companies were permitted by the County as “hazardous waste generator facilities” due to their management of toxic chemicals including “pesticides such as thiram and Physan, chemicals used in DNA sequencing and extraction such as Puregene and ethidium bromide, calcium hypochlorite, solvents, acids, alkaline cleaners, and other laboratory reagents.” Pierce Decl. ¶¶ 10, 14-15 & Ex. D, ECF No. 30-4 (manifests of hazardous materials).

The County has documented numerous instances of hazardous material mismanagement at the Holsclaw Property. Balliet Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 25; Pierce Decl. ¶¶ 16-19. Inspections of the Holsclaw Property conducted by the County’s Public Health Department revealed “multiple violations indicating a release or threat of release of hazardous materials or waste.” Balliet Decl. ¶¶ 2, 6, 7. These violations included “unpermitted discharges of laboratory and process wastes into sinks and drains connected to the onsite septic system.” Id. ¶ 7. Syngenta Seeds acknowledged that a “key problem” affecting its compliance with hazardous waste laws at the Holsclaw Property was the “lack of internal training on the handling and disposal of hazardous Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 5 of 23

6 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
waste.”1 Balliet Decl. Ex. C, ECF No. 25-3. In 2023, the County discovered that the agricultural research companies operating at the Holsclaw Property had “vacated the site.” Pierce Decl. ¶ 22.

The companies failed to complete facility closure requirements that are “necessary to ensure that all remaining equipment, structures, and soil were properly decontaminated and that all hazardous wastes and hazardous waste contaminants were properly removed.” Id. ¶¶ 11, 21.

In late April and early May 2026, a County investigator observed demolition and construction work at the Holsclaw Property. Murillo Decl. ¶¶ 9-10, 14-23, ECF No. 29. On June 10, 2026, after learning that the Holsclaw Property was being developed into an immigrant detainee holding facility, the County “attempted to access the Holsclaw Property for an inspection” given the site’s history of hazardous waste violations. Pierce Decl. ¶ 27. ECG6 refused access “and referred [County] staff to the federal General Services [Administration] and Department of Homeland Security to coordinate any inspection.” Id.; see also Pierce Decl. Ex. I, ECF No. 30-9 (correspondence from ECG6 denying the County permission to enter); Murillo Decl. ¶¶ 9, 21, 30 (explaining that ECG6 used privacy fences to block access to the Holsclaw Property). To date, Defendants have not allowed Plaintiffs to inspect the Holsclaw Property.

Based on known hazardous waste violations at the Holsclaw Property, and the agricultural research companies’ failure to complete site closure requirements, the County’s Public Health Department has concluded that “the contamination of structures, soils, the septic system, and groundwater at the Holsclaw Property is likely if construction continues before the hazards are assessed and/or addressed.” Balliet Decl. ¶ 8; see also Pierce Decl. ¶ 28. Specifically, construction activities such as “demolition, interior gutting, excavation, and rebuilding” are “likely to disturb potentially contaminated structures, concrete foundations, soils, and septic components, creating a risk of hazardous substance releases at a facility that handled numerous hazardous materials for decades.” Balliet Decl. ¶ 11.
1 In connection with another facility in Gilroy, Syngenta Seeds was prosecuted for various hazardous waste violations, including illegal disposal “of more than 70,000 pounds of pesticide treated seeds” and “failure to train employees.” Balliet Decl. ¶ 9. Syngenta Seeds stipulated to a judgment and paid a fine to resolve the charges. Balliet Decl. Ex. E at 5, 12-17, ECF No. 25-5.

Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 6 of 23

7 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
On June 10, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this action against ECG6, as well as ICE and its acting Director, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and its Secretary, and GSA and its Administrator (together, “Federal Defendants”). Compl. ¶¶ 25-31. Plaintiffs assert violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.; the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1)-(2); the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (“ICA”), 31 U.S.C. § 6506(c); and the Williamson Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 51200 et seq.

Compl. ¶¶ 170-223. On June 24, 2026, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on their NEPA and ICA claims. The parties agreed to an extended briefing schedule and Defendants paused “construction, demolition, and development activities, except for such activities necessary to address immediate safety concerns, at the Holsclaw Property until September 9, 2026 or until further order from the Court.” Stip. & Order at 3, ECF No. 41. At the preliminary injunction hearing, the parties extended the pause through September 15, 2026. Min. Entry, ECF No. 64.

II. LEGAL STANDARD
In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) “he is likely to succeed on the merits,” (2) “he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” (3) the “balance of equities tips in his favor,” and (4) the “injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); All. for the Wild Rockies v.

Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). “Where, as here, the party opposing the injunctive relief is a government entity, the third and fourth factors – the balance of equities and the public interest – merge.” Hubbard v. City of San Diego, 139 F.4th 843, 854 (9th Cir. 2025) (citation modified).

III. DISCUSSION
Based on the record before the Court, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Federal Defendants failed to conduct the required environmental analysis under NEPA before undertaking the Gilroy Holding Facility project.2 Plaintiffs have also shown that 2 Because Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed on their NEPA claim, the Court does not reach the ICA claim at this stage. See Museum of Handcar Tech. LLC v. Transp. Agency for Monterey Cnty., 778 F. Supp. 3d 1065, 1079 n.8 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (A plaintiff “does not need to show a likelihood of success on every claim in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.”).

Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 7 of 23

8 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
irreparable environmental harms are likely to result if construction proceeds without considering the environmental risks. Because Plaintiffs have identified specific irreparable environmental harms, and Defendants have not shown how a delay of construction would materially impede immigration enforcement or cause substantial economic hardship, the balance of the equities and the public interest also favor an injunction.

A. Likelihood of Success

1. Statutory Framework
NEPA requires “the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures . . . to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony.” 42 U.S.C. § 4331. “NEPA’s dual mission is thus to generate federal attention to environmental concerns and to reveal that federal consideration for public scrutiny.” Churchill County v. Norton, 276 F.3d 1060, 1072 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation modified). “NEPA facilitates informed decisionmaking by requiring agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their actions.” Friends of Animals v. Burgum, 164 F.4th 738, 749-50 (9th Cir. 2026); see also Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 141 F.4th 976, 993 (9th Cir. 2025) (NEPA “requires the federal government to take a hard look at the environmental consequences before acting.” (citation modified)). “Informed public participation in reviewing environmental impacts is essential to the proper functioning of NEPA.” League of Wilderness Defs./Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Connaughton, 752 F.3d 755, 761 (9th Cir. 2014).

Before undertaking a “major Federal action,”
3 an agency must follow one of three paths to
comply with NEPA: (1) prepare a robust environmental impact statement (“EIS”); (2) prepare a more streamlined environmental assessment (“EA”); or (3) invoke a categorical exclusion. See 42 U.S.C. § 4336; Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 757 (2004). Where a proposed action would have a “reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human 3 It is presently uncontested that the Gilroy Holding Facility constitutes a “major Federal action” that triggers NEPA’s requirements. See 42 U.S.C. § 4336e(10)(A) (defining “major Federal action” as an action “subject to substantial Federal control and responsibility”). The parties instead dispute the degree of environmental review that was required for the project.

Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 8 of 23

9 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
environment,” the agency proposing the action must prepare an EIS. 42 U.S.C. § 4336(b)(1). An EIS is a “detailed statement” analyzing the action’s potentially significant environmental effects as well as a “reasonable range of alternatives” to the action. Id. §§ 4332(C), 4336(b)(1). By contrast, an EA is required when there is not a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment, or if the significance of the effect is unknown. 42 U.S.C. § 4336(b)(2). An EA is a “concise public document” that provides evidence that helps determine whether an EIS is ultimately necessary. Id.; Env’t Def. Ctr. v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., 36 F.4th 850, 872 (9th Cir. 2022). Regardless of whether the agency prepares an EIS or an EA, the document must:
(1) be made publicly available; (2) be conducted prior to undertaking the action; and (3) consider alternatives to the proposed action. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4336(b), 4332(C); see also Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 1233, 1245 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The alternatives provision of NEPA applies whether an agency is preparing an EIS or an EA.”).

An agency may forgo preparation of an EIS or EA if it invokes a valid categorical exclusion before undertaking the proposed action. See 42 U.S.C. § 4336(a)(2). A categorical exclusion is “a category of actions that a Federal agency has determined normally does not significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of [NEPA].” Id. § 4336e(1). “Categorical exclusions, by definition, are limited to situations where there is an insignificant or minor effect on the environment.” Alaska Ctr. for Env’t v. U.S. Forest Serv., 189 F.3d 851, 859 (9th Cir. 1999). Therefore, invoking a categorical exclusion is not proper if there are “extraordinary circumstances” indicating that a particular proposed action “may have a significant environmental effect, necessitating further environmental impact analysis.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Ilano, 928 F.3d 774, 781 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation modified); see also Arzy Decl. Ex. 4 § 5.2, ECF No. 34-4 (“GSA NEPA Desk Guide”) (providing that some categorical exclusions cannot be applied where “extraordinary circumstances” exist). Ultimately, “[w]hen an agency decides to proceed with an action in the absence of an EA or EIS” by applying a categorical exclusion, “the agency must adequately explain its decision.” Alaska Ctr. for Env’t, 189 F.3d at 859.

Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 9 of 23

10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
Courts review an agency’s compliance with NEPA under the standards set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Friends of Animals, 164 F.4th at 746. Under the APA, an agency action must be set aside if it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). “Agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Friends of Animals, 164 F.4th at 746 (citation modified). Ultimately, the question is “whether the agency action was reasonable and reasonably explained.” Seven Cnty. Infrastructure Coal. v. Eagle County, 605 U.S. 168, 180 (2025).

2. Application to the Gilroy Holding Facility
Here, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Federal Defendants’ conduct was arbitrary and capricious. The Federal Defendants did not prepare an EIS or an EA to comply with NEPA. Instead, GSA – the agency that leased the Holsclaw Property – merely completed a one-page “GSA Form 4002 (Automatic Categorical Exclusion NEPA Memo to File)” to invoke a categorical exclusion for the project. Larson Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 57. The only categorical exclusion that GSA invoked applies to the “[1] acquisition of space within an existing structure, either by purchase or lease, [2] where no change in the general type of use and [3] only minimal change from previous occupancy level is proposed.” Id. ¶ 14; see also Larson Decl. Ex. 2, ECF No. 57-2. The one-page standard form does not explain how the Gilroy Holding Facility project satisfies these conditions, and it is facially implausible that the categorical exclusion applies here.

First, the Gilroy Holding Facility project is not an acquisition of space within an existing structure, but rather a substantial demolition and construction project to create a new space. The scope of the contemplated demolition and construction work is discussed in greater detail below.

See infra Section III.B.1. Second, the use of the Holsclaw Property for “office and detention” purposes is a change in its general type of use given that it was previously used for agricultural Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 10 of 23

11 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
research and hazardous waste storage for 30 years.
4 Third, the planned occupancy of the Gilroy
Holding Facility – now estimated at 120 people each day, on average – is a significant change compared to its prior occupancy of just 40 daytime staff. Reply at 11, ECF No. 60. ICE produced no evidence to support its implicit position that a threefold increase is the type of “minimal change” in occupancy level contemplated by the categorical exclusion. 5 The arbitrary and
capricious standard of review is “deferential.” Env’t Def. Ctr., 36 F.4th at 871; see also Seven Cnty. Infrastructure Coal., 605 U.S. at 179 (“[T]he central principle of judicial review in NEPA cases is deference.”). But here, the record is devoid of evidence that the Federal Defendants engaged in any reasoned decision-making or considered material facts necessary to invoke the categorical exclusion. Therefore, based on the dearth of the agency record alone, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their NEPA claim.

Even if the Gilroy Holding Facility project theoretically fit within this categorical exclusion, Plaintiffs are likely to establish that extraordinary circumstances precluded the Federal Defendants from relying on the exclusion. See Ilano, 928 F.3d at 781. Both DHS and GSA recognize that “potentially significant effect[s] on public health or safety” and compliance with “requirements to control hazardous or toxic substances” are extraordinary circumstances that preclude invocation of a categorical exclusion. Arzy Decl. Ex. 2 at V-5 to V-6, ECF No. 34-2 (“DHS NEPA Manual”); see also GSA NEPA Desk Guide §§ 5.2, 5.9. Plaintiffs have shown a 4 Construction plans for the Gilroy Holding Facility include “six concrete-reinforced holding rooms for detainees with concrete benches, detainee processing areas, interview and visitation rooms, an armory for weapons and ammunition, and a tactical equipment storage room.” Mot. at 14-15; see Haghighi Decl. Ex. A, ECF No. 27-1. The agricultural research facility did not have these types of rooms. At the preliminary injunction hearing, Defendants asserted that the construction plans are not final, but they did not identify any specific inaccuracy. 5 The categorical exclusion form states that the proposed site was expected to host 75 personnel; it does not reflect the expected total occupancy of the site. Larson Decl. Ex. 2. The GSA representative who approved the categorical exclusion relied on this estimate to conclude that the project would not result in a “significant change from previous occupancy limits.” Larson Decl. ¶ 12. But GSA fails to explain how the initial estimate of 75 personnel is an insignificant change compared to the prior occupancy of 40 staff. Moreover, according to the Federal Defendants’ representations in this litigation, that estimate significantly understates the expected typical occupancy of the Gilroy Holding Facility. See Fed. Defs. Opp. at 1, 18, ECF No. 55; see also Bayardo Decl. ¶ 13 (ICE “will not be able to determine the maximum occupancy for the Gilroy facility hold room until work is completed and inspected.”).

Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 11 of 23

12 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
likelihood that these extraordinary circumstances are present here, but the Federal Defendants failed to consider them. For example, construction activities such as “land clearing, grading, vegetation removal, soil compaction, and new areas of concrete and asphalt” “will increase erosion, sedimentation, and runoff in Llagas Creek and significantly impact sensitive species.” Yap Decl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 36; see also Hamilton Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 28; Env’t Amici Br. at 9, ECF No. 47-1 (“Encroachment and over-aggressive removal and degradation of riparian areas have been identified as major drivers of declines in California’s freshwater and anadromous fish.”).

The intensified use of the Holsclaw Property at the scale currently contemplated “could also strain the wastewater treatment infrastructure that is currently on site for existing agricultural operations, causing an increase in the potential for sewage overflows and wastewater runoff.” Yap Decl. ¶ 14. “Sewage overflows pose a threat to human health and ecosystems. They can lead to increases in the presence of dangerous bacteria or pathogens, harsh chemicals used in cleaning and sanitation, nutrients like phosphorous and nitrogen (as ammonia) that can create conditions for eutrophication and harmful algal blooms, and other pollutant discharges.” Env’t Amici Br. at 9; see also Haghighi Decl. ¶ 12.

The Federal Defendants argue that they “reasonably determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist” because the lease requires ECG6 to “remove any hazardous waste encountered during demolition or construction ‘in accordance with Federal and state laws and requirements concerning hazardous waste.’” Fed. Defs. Opp. at 9 (referencing ECG6’s obligations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”)). But at most this lease provision addresses potential mitigation of environmental risk; it does not satisfy NEPA’s core requirement of assessing environmental risk before undertaking a project. Moreover, Defendants cite no authority for the proposition that a federal agency can fully outsource its NEPA compliance to a private developer. Cf. DHS NEPA Manual at IV-11 (“DHS remains fully responsible for NEPA activities performed by contractors[.]”). Nor is there any support for the proposition that a federal agency can determine that “no extraordinary circumstances exist” merely by imposing contractual obligations on a developer. See Fed. Defs.

Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 12 of 23

13 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
Opp. at 9.6In any event, ECG6 disavows any involvement in the NEPA process. Zeligman Decl. ¶ 6 (“We have not for this lease or any of our previous leases participated in GSA’s [NEPA] process.”). Thus, the Federal Defendants have no legal or factual support for abdicating their NEPA compliance obligations.

In sum, Plaintiffs will likely succeed on their NEPA claim because the Federal Defendants invoked an inapposite categorical exclusion and failed to consider whether extraordinary circumstances required a more robust environmental review.

B. Irreparable Harm
To be irreparable, harm must be “imminent and not remote or speculative.” Boardman v.

Pac. Seafood Grp., 822 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2016). Typically, irreparable harms are not quantifiable, and thus “cannot be fully remedied with a financial award.” See Novedades Y Servicios, Inc. v. Fin. Crimes Enf. Network, 181 F.4th 961, 977 (9th Cir. 2026). By contrast, “[t]he possibility that adequate compensatory or other corrective relief will be available at a later date, in the ordinary course of litigation, weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable harm.” Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974). “Environmental injury, by its nature, can seldom be adequately remedied by money damages and is often permanent or at least of long duration, i.e., irreparable.” Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 545 (1987). However, “there is nothing in NEPA that allows courts considering injunctive relief to put their ‘thumb on the scales’” in finding irreparable harm; rather, a plaintiff must still “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction” even if a NEPA violation is likely. Cottonwood Env’t L. Ctr. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 789 F.3d 1075, 1089 (9th Cir. 2015) (first quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 22; and then quoting Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 157 (2010)). 6 The Federal Defendants rely upon City of Oberlin v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 937 F.3d 599, 610 (D.C. Cir. 2019). That case does not suggest that a federal agency may delegate NEPA compliance to a private developer. In City of Oberlin, one federal agency conducted a “thorough analysis” of a project’s risks by considering another agency’s relevant safety standards. Id. Here, the Federal Defendants have not conducted any analysis of environmental risks under NEPA. Instead, they rely on a contractual provision that requires ECG6 to comply with another environmental law (CERCLA), and there is no record that ECG6 has done so.

Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 13 of 23

14 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
Here, Plaintiffs submitted extensive and largely unrebutted evidence identifying irreparable harms arising from both the construction of the Gilroy Holding Facility and its subsequent use by ICE. First, Plaintiffs have shown that hazardous materials are likely present on the Holsclaw Property, and ECG6’s construction is likely to disturb these materials and cause them to spread into the environment. Second, Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of environmental harm because the existing septic system would be overburdened by the threefold increase in occupancy of the Holsclaw Property, which may result in toxic backflow or dispersal of hazardous materials into the environment.7

1. Construction
The record reflects many instances of mismanagement of hazardous waste at the Holsclaw Property. See supra Section I. Despite this troubling record, the Holsclaw Property never underwent the closure procedure required for facilities that store hazardous materials that is intended to minimize or eliminate the “threat to public safety” posed by “residual hazardous materials.” Pierce Decl. ¶ 21. The closure process at Syngenta’s other nearby facility was extensive, “including decontamination and decommissioning of the warehouse building, laboratory, seed wash area, the [above ground storage tank], and underground piping from the seed wash area to the [above ground storage tank],” but it still left behind residual contamination.

Balliet Decl. ¶ 10. Because this process was never completed at the Holsclaw Property, “the County is unable to confirm the extent of contamination that may remain . . . and serious questions exist as to whether hazardous materials and hazardous wastes remain on site.” Pierce Decl. ¶ 23.

These questions persist to this day. The County, aware of the construction of the Gilroy Holding Facility and the long history of hazardous material mismanagement, attempted to inspect the Holsclaw Property on June 10, 2026, but was denied access. Pierce Decl. ¶ 27; Pierce Decl. Ex. I (reflecting that ECG6 denied access due to the pendency of this litigation). Accordingly, nothing in the record indicates that hazardous material concerns have abated. 7 Given the risk to human health, Plaintiffs need not establish that the spread of hazardous materials may also harm sensitive species in the area. See Mot. at 29-30; see also Chappell Decl. ¶¶ 10-13 (identifying a series of sensitive and protected species that may be present within two miles of the Holsclaw Property); Hamilton Decl. ¶¶ 4-7 (same); Yap Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, 8-11 (same).

Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 14 of 23

15 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
The record also reflects that ECG6’s construction and demolition work, which was only temporarily paused due to this litigation, increases the risk of releasing hazardous materials into the environment. See Mot. at 28; Balliet Decl. ¶¶ 11-12; Pierce Decl. ¶ 28. Construction activities may include “land clearing, grading, vegetation removal, soil compaction, and new areas of concrete and asphalt, which will increase erosion, sedimentation, and runoff.” Yap Decl. ¶ 12.

Moreover, “demolition, interior gutting, excavation, and rebuilding” are “likely to disturb potentially contaminated structures, concrete foundations, soils, and septic components, creating a risk of hazardous substance releases.” Balliet Decl. ¶ 11. It appears that construction has already begun in the same areas of the Holsclaw Property where hazardous materials were previously handled and improperly disposed. Pierce Decl. ¶¶ 26-27; see also Murillo Decl. ¶¶ 8-17, 22-23.

Defendants argue that the scope of construction work is limited, and they characterize the project as a simple “office move.” This assertion is absurd and contradicted by the record.8 Plaintiffs submitted evidence from a County investigator who observed heavy machinery on site, including a bulldozer moving concrete and other materials, and debris piles that are “consistent with demolition and construction work.” Murillo Decl. ¶¶ 12, 15 & Exs. D-E, ECF Nos. 29-4, 29-5. Additionally, ICE’s declarant concedes that “[t]he project is expected to involve renovation of some existing structures, demolition of some structures, and new construction to make the property suitable for ERO’s intended use.” Bayardo Decl. ¶ 15. ECG6 also acknowledges that the work includes “interior demolition and the removal of greenhouse space and addition of approximately 28 parking spaces.” Zeligman Decl. ¶ 29. Finally, the fact that the lease amendment provides for an $8.6 million payment to ECG6 for “tenant improvement construction costs” further undermines any suggestion that construction work will be minimal. See id. ¶ 23.

Defendants also contend that the presence of hazardous materials at the Holsclaw Property is speculative. See Fed. Defs. Opp. at 15. This argument is unpersuasive. The Federal Defendants have no factual basis to contest Plaintiffs’ evidence because they failed to conduct an 8 Incredibly, the Federal Defendants also argued that the development of the Gilroy Holding Facility is not a change in use of the Holsclaw Property because the existing agricultural research facility and the planned ICE facility both include “office” space. See Fed. Defs. Opp. at 8-9.

Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 15 of 23

16 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
environmental review before undertaking the project. It is true that Plaintiffs have not presented recent test results confirming the presence of hazardous materials. But the absence of more definitive evidence is due to Defendants’ refusal to allow the County to inspect the Holsclaw Property. See Pierce Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. I. In any event, Plaintiffs offer unrebutted circumstantial evidence of contamination based on a history of repeated hazardous material violations. The agricultural research companies’ failure to complete the mandatory closure process before vacating the Holsclaw Property further indicates that hazardous materials likely remain on site.

Plaintiffs have also submitted declarations from County officials who specialize in hazardous materials compliance explaining that construction and demolition work is likely to disturb these materials and endanger the environment. See Balliet Decl. ¶¶ 11-12; Pierce Decl. ¶ 28.

ECG6 represents that it hired a consultancy to “conduct studies analyzing the condition of the property,” which resulted in a 1,000-page report that “found that all chemicals were within the applicable regulatory limits for non-residential use.” Zeligman Decl. ¶ 17. This study purportedly “assured [ECG6] and [its] lender that the property complied with all relevant environmental regulations and that there were no environmentally related transaction risks.” Id. ¶ 18. But the Court cannot credit these supposed findings because ECG6 inexplicably declined to submit the report as part of the preliminary injunction record. ECG6’s conclusory description of the contents of the report is no substitute for the report itself.

As the record stands, Defendants have not submitted evidence that undermines the extensive history of hazardous material production, storage, and mismanagement at the Holsclaw Property.

2. Increased Occupancy
The primary environmental risk posed by the use and increased occupancy of the Holsclaw Property arises from the unavoidable strain on the septic system. The Holsclaw Property utilizes a septic system to manage its wastewater because there is no available sewer connection due to its rural location. Mot. at 10; Haghighi Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 27. Septic systems function by collecting raw wastewater through drains, separating solids from liquids in a septic tank, and then dispersing the liquid effluent into a designated underground area known as a dispersal field. Id. ¶ 6. There Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 16 of 23

17 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
are three septic systems on-site, but only one system serves the main building. Haghighi Decl. ¶ 7.

This septic system “consists of a 1,500-gallon two-compartment septic tank discharging to a [dispersal field] comprising a 500-linear-foot primary field and a 500-linear food secondary field.” Id.

Concerningly, County inspections found that hazardous materials were discharged to the Holsclaw Property’s septic system during Syngenta Seeds’ occupancy. Balliet Decl. ¶ 7; Pierce Decl. ¶¶ 16-17. For example, in 2005, a County inspection found that hazardous materials, including DNA sequencing and extraction waste, were being disposed of in the facility drains that were connected to the septic tank. Balliet Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. A. Additionally, in 2002, 2003, and 2005, sampling of septic system effluent detected the presence of hazardous materials such as formaldehyde and volatile organic compounds. Pierce Decl. ¶ 17 & Ex. F. In 2020, inspectors similarly observed hazardous materials such as bleach and acidic wash water being discharged to the septic system. Pierce Decl. ¶ 16. Because the septic system discharges this hazardousmaterial-containing liquid into the underground dispersal field, there is a risk that these underground toxic chemicals will migrate to groundwater, surface water, or the soil due to increased usage of the septic system beyond capacity. See Haghighi Decl. ¶¶ 6, 12-13; Pierce Decl. ¶¶ 16-17, 23; Balliet Decl. ¶ 8; Yap Decl. ¶¶ 14, 16.

The existing septic system was designed for a daytime workforce of approximately 40 people. Haghighi Decl. ¶ 7. Though the ultimate capacity of the Gilroy Holding Facility is disputed and unknown, the Federal Defendants assume that the main building will have a typical capacity of 120 people during normal operations. See Fed. Defs. Opp. at 6; Bayardo Decl. ¶¶ 13-14 (estimating 50 staff, 60 members of the public, and an average of 10 detainees). Because of this threefold increase in average occupancy, the septic system will become overburdened if it is not expanded; however, the size of an expanded dispersal field may be too large to be accommodated on the Holsclaw Property. Haghighi Decl. ¶¶ 9-11.

Either overburdening the existing septic system or constructing a new system pose a risk of irreparable environmental harm. An overburdened septic system presents “serious public health, safety, and environmental risks” because it can cause untreated sewage to “surface or back up into Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 17 of 23

18 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
structures” and can oversaturate the soil, causing the migration of pathogen-containing effluent beyond the dispersion field. Id. ¶ 12. Therefore, overburdening creates a risk that humans or wildlife could be directly exposed to the raw or partially treated effluent and that adjacent groundwater or surface water could become contaminated, harming all who rely on nearby groundwater wells (including the Holsclaw Property) and the quality of local aquatic environments. Id. The construction or expansion of the septic system to accommodate the increased flow – which requires a permitting process that has not been completed – poses the previously discussed risk of disturbing and disseminating the likely present hazardous materials within the septic system components. Id. ¶¶ 14-16; Balliet Decl. ¶ 11.

The Federal Defendants argue that concerns about overburdening the septic system are based on overestimates of the occupancy of the Gilroy Holding Facility. See Fed. Defs. Opp. at 16; ECG6 Opp. at 10. However, Defendants’ own estimate of 120 people places the occupancy at a minimum of three times the previous level of 40. See Bayardo Decl. ¶¶ 13-14; Haghighi Decl. ¶ 7. Based on the analysis of a County septic system official, even a far less substantial increase in occupancy would overwhelm the septic system. See Haghighi Decl. ¶ 11. Therefore, the record reflects that the existing septic system is insufficient even under Defendants’ estimate of future occupancy.

ECG6 argues that any required changes to the construction plan “to ensure that the wastewater treatment system operates within all regulatory limits can be easily accommodated, and will be.” ECG6 Opp. at 10. But it appears that ECG6 has already begun construction of the septic system, and it has not complied with the mandatory pre-construction permitting process.

See Haghighi Reply Decl. ¶ 3 (describing June 10, 2026 images of trenches that appear to be for the purpose of septic system piping); Haghighi Decl. ¶¶ 14-16 (describing pre-construction septic system permitting procedures that have not been undertaken). These actions present imminent risk of disturbing hazardous materials within the septic system. See Haghighi Reply Decl. ¶ 3; Balliet Decl. ¶¶ 11-12; Pierce Decl. ¶ 28. Ultimately, concerns about overburdening the septic system and releasing hazardous waste should have been addressed before construction began, not in response to litigation.

Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 18 of 23

19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
***
Defendants contend that the environmental risks are overstated and unlikely to materialize.

But “[p]art of the harm NEPA attempts to prevent in requiring an EIS is that, without one, there may be little if any information about prospective environmental harms and potential mitigating measures.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 23. Here, the Federal Defendants declined to prepare an EIS or an EA, and thereby avoided the process designed to identify potential environmental risks from the construction and use of the Gilroy Holding Facility. Moreover, Defendants have blocked Plaintiffs from accessing the Holsclaw Property to conduct their own environmental analysis.

Given that Defendants’ conduct is responsible for the state of the record, Plaintiffs cannot be faulted for relying on known information and making reasonable inferences based on their experience in regulating hazardous materials.

C. Balance of Equities and Public Interest
Courts must “balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Amoco Prod. Co., 480 U.S. at 542. “Both the economic and environmental interests are relevant factors, and both carry weight in this analysis.” Connaughton, 752 F.3d at 765. Courts “must consider only the portion of the harm that would occur while the preliminary injunction is in place.” Id.

Here, as discussed above, Plaintiffs face likely irreparable environmental harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. These injuries are imminent because they would be triggered by construction of the Gilroy Holding Facility, which may resume as soon as September 16, 2026, absent an injunction. See ECF Nos. 41, 64. The environmental harms triggered by use of the Gilroy Holding Facility are also imminent based on ECG6’s current plan to turn the property over to the Federal Defendants in January 2027. Zeligman Decl. ¶ 32. Under this timeline, the Holsclaw Property will be subject to a significant increase in occupancy and use before an environmental assessment or impact statement can be prepared.

The Federal Defendants emphasize that “there is a public interest in efficiently enforcing immigration laws.” Fed. Defs. Opp. at 18. However, the Federal Defendants fail to substantiate how the temporary delay of constructing one facility will materially impede their immigration Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 19 of 23

20 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
enforcement efforts. The Federal Defendants state generally that, without the Gilroy Holding Facility, they “would have to rely on existing facilities that are farther away and already supporting other operational needs.” Bayardo Decl. ¶ 16 (explaining that the Gilroy location “provides a closer alternative office” compared to others in the area). This would in turn “strain” ICE’s operations, “reduce” its ability to enforce immigration laws, and burden “individuals in removal proceedings who are out of custody and have reporting requirements.” Id. But ICE was already prepared to carry out its enforcement efforts for at least five months without the Gilroy Holding Facility, given that the lease on its current Morgan Hill facility expired in August 2026, and ECG6 does not expect to complete construction until January 2027. Larson Decl. ¶ 9. In fact, the Federal Defendants revealed at the preliminary injunction hearing that ICE has continued to operate the Morgan Hill facility despite the lease expiring, and it could possibly renegotiate a lease for that space. Moreover, the Gilroy Holding Facility project has been contemplated for years, so there was ample time to complete the required environmental review under NEPA without delaying construction. See Bayardo Decl. ¶¶ 8-9. Finally, there is significant tension between the Federal Defendants’ argument that the Gilroy Holding Facility will be used to temporarily hold a minimal number of detainees and their assertion that any delay in construction would jeopardize enforcement efforts more broadly. In sum, the record reflects that ICE can draw from other resources to carry out its duties, and a preliminary injunction would impose temporary logistical burdens at most.

ECG6 also identifies short-term financial hardship that it may face if an injunction is entered. ECG6 Opp. at 14-15. As explained below, the Court doubts that the financial hardship can be fairly attributed to an injunction. But even if ECG6’s financial hardship is fully credited, it is outweighed by the risk of irreparable harm to humans and the environment that may result absent preliminary relief. Environmental harms are more durable and broader in scope than the financial harm to ECG6, as exposure to hazardous materials and contamination could affect the health and welfare of many members of the public, detainees, and even ICE agents. 9 Ultimately,
9 ECG6 also argues that it cannot be held directly liable for a NEPA violation because it is not a federal agency. See ECG6 Opp. at 7-8. At this stage, the relevant question is whether ECG6 can Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 20 of 23

21 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
the “balance of equities tips toward . . . [P]laintiffs, because the harms they face are permanent, while the [Defendants] face temporary delay.” Connaughton, 752 F.3d at 765; see also Amoco Prod. Co., 480 U.S. at 545 (“If such [irreparable environmental] injury is sufficiently likely, therefore, the balance of harms will usually favor the issuance of an injunction to protect the environment.”).

D. Bond
In general, a court may issue a preliminary injunction only if the party requesting relief “gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 65(c). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) confers upon district courts “discretion as to the amount of security required, if any.” Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999). A movant’s strong likelihood of success on the merits may counsel “in favor of a minimal bond or no bond at all.” Cal. ex rel. Van De Kamp v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency, 766 F.2d 1319, 1326 (9th Cir.), amended by, 775 F.2d 998 (9th Cir. 1985). The party affected by the injunction bears the “obligation of presenting evidence that a bond is needed.” Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 321 F.3d 878, 883 (9th Cir. 2003).

Here, ECG6 asks the Court to impose a bond of $790,308.00 to compensate it for the “substantial costs and damages it will suffer if its project is wrongfully enjoined” for an estimated six-month period. ECG6 Opp. at 14-15. ECG6 contends that the injunction would delay its ability to collect rent under the lease because rent is not due until the lease term begins – i.e., when ICE takes over the Gilroy Holding Facility – and in the meantime ECG6 must pay interest on the loan it used to finance the project. Zeligman Decl. ¶¶ 34-35 (explaining that ECG6 stands to earn be enjoined, and the answer is yes. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) provides that an injunction may bind not only a party to the litigation, but also their “agents” and “other persons who are in active concert or participation” with the party. Thus, a developer may be enjoined regardless of its direct liability for a NEPA violation. Save Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers, 408 F.3d 1113, 1117-19 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming preliminary injunction entered against a private developer that “suspend[ed] development during the pendency of the litigation”). Here, ECG6 may be enjoined because its construction work is performed subject to a GSA lease for the benefit of ICE. See Zeligman Decl. ¶¶ 3, 24, 29 (“The lease requires that ECG6 is responsible for building the project to GSA’s specifications.”); see also Tsang Decl. Ex. 1.

Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 21 of 23

22 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
$101,718 in rent each month). Although hardships may be relevant when setting a bond, courts are not “required to set bonds that approximate actual damages.” Save Our Sonoran, Inc., 408 F.3d at 1126. To the contrary, the Ninth Circuit’s “long-standing precedent [is] that requiring nominal bonds is perfectly proper in public interest litigation.” Id.; see also California v. Azuma Corp., No. 2:23-cv-00743-KJM-DB, 2023 WL 5835794, at *14 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2023) (granting a preliminary injunction sought by the State of California and setting a nominal bond of $1,000 given “the strong public interest implicated” in the case), aff’d, No. 23-16200, 2024 WL 4131831 (9th Cir. Sep. 10, 2024).

Here, setting a bond based on delayed completion of the project is not appropriate for two reasons. First, ECG6 has not shown that it can complete construction and satisfy the preconditions of the lease by January 2027 even in the absence of an injunction. Instead, the record shows that parts of the construction plan are unsettled, and ECG6 has not applied for or obtained necessary permits to complete the work. See, e.g., Tsang Decl. ¶¶ 5-7, ECF No. 32; Haghighi Decl. ¶ 17.

Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that an injunction – rather than typical construction delays or lack of planning diligence – will delay the start of the lease term. Second, the lease states that the project is subject to NEPA requirements, and that GSA may determine that environmental mitigation measures are required. See GSA Lease § 3.52. The lease further provides that “[a]ll costs and expenses” for such measures “are the sole responsibility” of ECG6. Id. Therefore, ECG6 expressly accepted the risk of incurring costs associated with NEPA compliance. It is unfortunate for ECG6 that the Federal Defendants did not take greater care in evaluating environmental consequences before breaking ground, but their failure is no reason to require Plaintiffs to post a bond.

For these reasons, the Court will require Plaintiffs to post a nominal bond of $1,000.

IV. INJUNCTION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. At the hearing, Defendants requested an opportunity to meet and confer with Plaintiffs regarding the scope of the injunction based on the Court’s findings in this order. Accordingly, the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint proposed preliminary injunction order by September Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 22 of 23

23 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 United States District Court
Northern District of California
30, 2026. If the parties cannot agree, then by the same deadline the parties shall file a joint status report, not to exceed five pages, explaining the areas of disagreement and attaching the proposals.

While the parties confer, the Court enters the following provisional preliminary injunction based on the terms of the parties’ stipulated stay, ECF No. 41:

1. Defendants and their agents, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them, shall pause construction, demolition, and development activities, except for such activities necessary to address immediate safety concerns, at the Holsclaw Property.

2. Defendants are not enjoined from engaging in the preparation of an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment, or from soliciting regional, state, and local viewpoints with respect to their plans for the Holsclaw Property.

3. This order remains in effect pending further order of this Court.

4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), Plaintiffs shall post a bond in the amount of $1,000 with the Clerk of Court, and must file proof of the bond by September 18, 2026.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2026
Eumi K. Lee
United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-05604-EKL Document 66 Filed 09/11/26 Page 23 of 23