City Council - Regular Meeting

That's a little slow, right? It is right. The clock is right. Okay, we're going to call this meeting to session on Monday, September 14th at 5 p.m. Roll call, please.

Council Member Bracco. Here. Council Member Klein.

Here.

Council Member Fugazi. Here. Council Member Hilton.

Here.

Council Member Marks. Here. Council Member Ramirez. Here. Mayor Bozo.

Here. Then we're going to go to public comment before we go into closed session.

Okay, the item is item 1.4, conference first closed session.

There are three of them.

Conference with Labor Negotiators, Collective Bargaining Unit, pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 and Gilroy City Code 17A11-4. Collective Bargaining Unit, Local 2805, IAFF Fire Unit, representing Gilroy Firefighters. City Negotiators, Matt Morley, City Administrator, Michael Horta, Human Resources Director, Risk Manager, Leanne McPhillips, Extra Help Special Assistant, Human Resources, well, Risk Management. Anticipated issues under negotiation are wages, hours, benefits, working conditions, memorandums of understanding, city of Gilroy and Gilroy firefighters, local 2805. Second item, item 1.5, is conference with legal counsel and anticipated litigation. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph 2 of subdivision D and paragraph 1 of subdivision E of government code section 54956.9. Gilroy City Code Section 17A11-3B, one case. The third item, 1.6, is public appointment, public performance evaluation, Government Code Section 54957B1, Gilroy City Code Section 17A11-2, title city attorney. Now, we'll need to take a vote to go into closed session on item 1.5, but the first thing to do is ask if there's any public comment on any of the three items.

I have no speakers.

All right. In that case, we need to vote on item 1.5, conference with legal counsel. And I advise the counsel that it is my opinion that it would likely and unavoidably prejudice the position of the city not to go into closed session on this item. So we need a formal vote to do it. Looking for a thumbs up? Yes.

Okay.

Okay, the vote is unanimous to go into closed session. We will now go into closed session. The first item upon entering closed session will be to take a vote of the counsel on items 1.4 and 1.6, whether or not to stay in closed session. So we should now adjourn to closed session.

All right. Thank you, everybody. We're going to call this meeting to order. Monday, September 14th, 6.04 p.m. Roll call, please.

Council Member Bracco.

Here.

Council Member Klein.

Here.

Council Member Fugazi. Here. Council Member Hilton.

Here.

Council Member Marks. Here. Council Member Ramirez.

Here.

Mayor Bozo. Here.

Here. And before we go any further, we're going to have a report on our closed session.

Right. On the closed session, the only reportable action is that the vote to stay in closed session on items 1.4 and 1.6 was unanimous. Item 1.6 has been continued to the end of the meeting.

That concludes the report. Thank you very much. Item 3.3, City Clerk's Report on Posting of the Agenda, please.

Thank you, Mayor. This agenda was posted on Thursday, September 10th at 8.15 a.m.

Okay, thank you very much. Will you all rise, please, for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Marks. And please remain standing for invocation by Pastor Trevor Van Laar.

Salute the Pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty

Are you stepping in for Trevor? I don't see Pastor Van Laar, so I'm so glad to see you right now. Yeah, all right. Jesse, perfect timing.

the sermon God would be here this evening we pray God for the city council the mayor every council member here this evening we also pray for the first responders as always the fire medic law enforcement in our community as a whole that we would continue to move in a direction for the greater good of the city of Gilroy and also towards every budget need and whatnot we love you father we thank you in your name we pray amen

Thank you. Great timing. Okay, item number 3.6, orders of the day. This evening I will be moving item 10.3. I'm going to read it. Consider adopting an urgency interim ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing, and approval of applications and entitlements of a new data center facility citywide for a period of not to exceed 45 days. I'm going to be moving that up to the beginning of the agenda. Next, I'm going to jump right to employee introductions, item 3.7. And that first will be Community Development Director Sharon Goey. Thank you, Sharon.

Good evening, Mayor, council members, and members of the community. Tonight, I'm happy to share that our office assistant, Desiree De Leon, has advanced to management assistant. For the past two years, she has done an excellent job supporting all five divisions of our department. So we're very excited for her to continue her career growth in our department, her new role. So please join me in congratulating Desiree.

Thank you. Happy to continue serving the community.

I got two more. Also, I'm very glad to introduce to you our new office assistant, Andrea Canales. She was born and raised in Gilroy, and she actually started her career here two years ago as a student worker in Gilroy. So we're very happy she's able to join us full-time and come on board to our department. So please join me in welcoming Andrea.

I'm excited to be here. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you.

Last but not least, I'd like to introduce to you Troy Trujillo, our new co-enforcement officer. Troy comes to us from the city of Eureka, having served as a co-enforcement officer, and also has a track record of obtaining voluntary compliance. He's a certified co-enforcement officer, and he actually spent his formative years, many of his formative years, in Gilroy with his family, so he's happy to be back in the community. Please join me in welcoming Troy to our team.

Hi, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to serving our community. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, next we have another round of employee introductions. This will be by Utilities Director Derek Cray. Thank you, Derek.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, members of the audience. So I have Shannon B., I got four. New hires tonight. We're not competing, though. First up is Daniel Ordez. He is our utility maintenance worker for the water division. So Daniel comes with nine years of experience in water and wastewater, performing underground pipeline installation. He holds a HAZWOPER and confined space cert, which is a relevant cert to the industry that he's working in currently. He is a graduate of Elliott High School in Modesto. He has two kids, a son and a daughter, and he enjoys spending time with his family, hiking, and traveling internationally. So please welcome Daniel to the team.

Hello. Thank you for having me, and I'm just ready for this new chapter in my life and ready to serve the community in whatever way I can. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Up next, we have Benny Silva. He's going to be a utility maintenance worker for the wastewater division. He comes with eight years of experience. He was a lead foreman at a previous construction job. So he brings that experience to underground to the utilities department. He was born and raised in Watsonville and graduate of Pajaro Valley High School. He enjoys fishing and football. And I probably shouldn't say this, but he wanted me to. He's a lifelong fan of the Raiders, so. Anyways, welcome Benny to the team.

Thank you for the opportunity and I'm happy to be here. Thank you.

All right, next up is Adrian Espinoza. He is another utility maintenance worker for the Wastewater Division. He comes with seven years of experience in equipment maintenance, troubleshooting, and industrial manufacturing. He spent a significant amount of time also working at an EV plant where he learned about motor tuning, electronics, and robotics. He is a Gilroy native, graduated from Gilroy High. He has two children, and he enjoys taking family vacations to Washington and Arizona and then hanging out on the coast on his time off. So welcome, Adrian.

Thank you guys for the opportunity. I'm happy to serve the community. I grew up in. So thank you guys.

All right. We got one more left. Jose Vega is our utility maintenance worker, also for the wastewater division. He comes to us with years of experience in roofing, carpentry, plumbing, and solar installation. He earned certs already in water through Sacramento State University. Us in the industry call those Ken Curry certs. He enjoys the customer aspect portion of the job. He's another local. He grew up in Watsonville, graduated from Pacific Coast School. He enjoys spending time with his family. and taking his two-year-old daughter to the park. So welcome, Jose.

I just want to say thank you guys for the opportunity, and I'm ready to serve the community of Gilroy. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, thank you very much. Moving on to item number four, ceremonial items. We have a proclamation tonight. Alyssa, are you here, Alyssa? Okay, great. Yeah, come on up. I'll give it to you. So we have a proclamation tonight for Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, and I'll be reading the proclamation.

Thank you.

That's what happens when you come to us.

Perhaps you're a community person or a community person. Therefore, I, Greg Bozo, Mayor of the City of Peoria, am supporting the year of November 2026.

Good evening mayor members of the City Council and the Gilroy community My name is Jordan Thorpe. I'm the board president for Jacob's Heart Children's Cancer Support Services. I'm happy to be here today because as many of you may not know, Gilroy is the first community that Jacob's Heart started serving in Santa Clara County. And I'm proud to say we now serve every city, every zip code, and every portion of Santa Clara County. On behalf of Jacob's Heart and the kiddos and families we serve, thank you for recognizing September as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. and for standing in support alongside our families and community who face childhood cancer. When the words are said, your child has cancer, life suddenly stops. At Jacob's Heart, we walk alongside families from the moment of diagnosis and throughout their entire journey. Our families are navigating so much more than medical treatment. They may be traveling hours for specialized care, missing work to be at their child's bedside, struggling to put food on the table, trying to help siblings understand why life suddenly looks so different, or deciding between paying rent or paying medical bills. What I hope you remember tonight is that childhood cancer does not exist in a vacuum. It doesn't affect just one child. It impacts an entire family. It impacts an entire community. While we can't single-handedly eliminate childhood cancer, we can stand with our families in solidarity, provide support, and ensure they are not alone. By issuing this proclamation, the City of Gilroy is helping us bring greater visibility to childhood cancer, and most importantly, showing local families that their community sees them, remembers them, and stands with them. Thank you for going gold and recognizing Childhood Cancer Awareness Month and standing with the families and children of Jacobs Heart. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Moving on to item number five, we have some council correspondence. We received some correspondence from the Open Government Commission to approve a proclamation request and activities for Open Government Week, November 16th through the 20th, 2026. Thank you, Open Government Commission. And moving on to item number six, this is presentation to council. So this is public comment time for members of the public for items not on the agenda, but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city council. So as I've been doing since June, since there's a lot of new rules regarding public comment, I'm going to go ahead and review a couple of the rules just for the public. First and foremost, recall that public comment is not an exchange of ideas. This is public comment. So some folks, in case you didn't know, when you come in and do public comment, you may have questions. You will not. get answers back from council members while you're up here. It's just public comment. You will talk with your ideas for us, and I'll give you some time limit that you'll be able to do that with. Also, Kim will probably remind us this as well, but for each time on the agenda that we do public comment, once we get started and after the third speaker, then we will not be accepting any other speakers. So if you still want to get your ideas in by the time we get to the third speaker, please do so. And finally, public comment is a time that we are trying to remain respectful to everybody in the room. And just remember that there might be something that you feel really, really strongly about, but there might be someone else in the room that doesn't feel that strongly about. So this is why we ask the crowd not to clap loudly, because it's not clapping against us that we're worried about. It's clapping against your fellow community members. So please remember that. So with that being said, we're gonna move right on to item number six, 6.1, public comment. And Kim, how many speakers do you have so far?

I have 10 speakers currently.

10 speakers, and how about?

So nine in person, one on Zoom.

Okay, so right now, we will be at two minutes each, please. Recall, though, if we get additional speakers, I may have... No, we'll be at two minutes. Thank you. I may have to change it, but I think we'll be at two minutes the entire time. So thank you very much. So please, the first person.

I HAVE JULIANN SANDS FOLLOWED BY KYLE SHORT AND JOSE GONZALEZ. JUST A REMINDER TO THOSE ON ZOOM, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA, IF YOU COULD RAISE YOUR HAND NOW ONCE WE GET THROUGH THE THIRD SPEAKER, WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY MORE HANDS RAISED.

TWO MINUTES, PLEASE.

Hello, and thank you for having me. My name is Julianne Saenz, and I'm a resident of South County. I'm here today in representation of GARES. You may be wondering why there are people in this room wearing blue beanies. These beanies are meant to represent a five-year-old boy named Leon Conejo Ramos. Leon Conejo Ramos, who was born in Ecuador, and his father, Adrian Alexander Conejo-Aries, were detained on January 20, 2026, in Columbia Heights, Minnesota, while they were returning home from school. The detention was carried out by ICE agents during immigration operations, which had escalated in Minneapolis and St. Paul in preceding weeks. Liam is not a criminal. Liam is a child. Liam is a student who was just trying to come home from school. ICE took Liam into detention simply for the fact that he wasn't born in this country. It is not OK for ICE to have little kids living in fear of the unknown, the unknown of one day they come home to an empty house. We can't allow ICE to take our family members, our friends, or members of our community just for existing. In the same way we take pride in what Gilroy stands for is the same way we need to take pride in the safety of our children. So today we are standing here in solidarity with Liam and every Liam we have in our communities and every immigrant who is too afraid to stand up for themselves. In turn, we ask that you take a hard stance against ICE, a hard stance against the processing facility that they are trying to build, and a hard stance against any future project that they may attempt to create here or in any surrounding communities in the future. You are here to protect us, not ICE. We expect you to do your job and pass ordinances to protect our kids and community. Thank you.

Thank you. Kyle's next, please. And after Kyle, as Kyle's coming up, it will be Jose.

And then Rosa.

All right. Hi, Mayor and City Council. I've spoken before in front of City Council. My name's Kyle Short. I'm a teacher at Gilroy High School and a member of the Gilroy Teachers Association. Behind me, you can see some of the students I've taught in my years here in Gilroy. I'm once again asking the City Council to adopt a firm resolution against ICE, as well as the processing facility being built just down the road. ICE is here to fulfill a quota. They're not here to decide what is fair. They're not here to decide who's here legally and who is not. All they care about is fulfilling their quota. And they will grab anyone they think that meets that. So they're not here to check people's documents. They're just trying to match people based on who they think is going to fulfill that. And that includes people who are here legally. And when that happens, people are detained for a day, for days, until ICE decides, OK, well, we can't do anything about that, so we're going to release them. They don't release them into their homes or the places where they live. Very often, they drop them off wherever the hell they feel like it. This includes, as an example, a number of people who've been dropped off in Fresno, and they don't even live in Fresno. They don't know anyone in Fresno, and now they have to try to figure out how they're going to get home, how they're going to contact their family members and loved ones and tell them that they are okay. It's why the city council needs to adopt this resolution. It's why the city council needs to be firm against ICE, because they will terrorize our community, and they will terrorize the people we care about. So please, speak up. make a resolution, and stand against ICE. Thank you.

Thank you, Kyle. Next is Jose.

Jose, followed by Rosa, and then Ariel.

Buenas tardes, alcalde y miembros del concilio de Gilroy y la comunidad. Mi nombre es José González. Hoy y hoy estoy aquí para expresar preocupación. Todos hemos escuchado la gran noticia del centro de detención. de ICE. Esta preocupación está probablemente en pausa y la demanda ha tenido un resultado favorable. Pero quiero ser muy claro. Esta lucha no está completamente ganada. Ahora le toca a Gilroy demostrar que él realmente está con su Gente, les pido que trabajen en una política que proteja a nuestra comunidad y evite que ICE abuse de su poder dentro de Gilroy, dentro de las facultades legales de la ciudad. Ya basta del miedo, ya basta de que nuestras familias tengan temor de salir a trabajar y llevar a sus hijos a la escuela o simplemente vivir. Alcalde y miembros del concilio, cuando van a demostrar que acciones que nuestra comunidad Thank you. Thank you, Jose. Rosa, followed by Ariel.

And Janet.

Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Rosa y estoy aquí porque creo que nuestra comunidad merece sentirse segura. Muchas familias viven con miedo e incertidumbre y eso no debería ser así. Necesitamos una póliza clara para que no se establezca ni realice acciones en lugares públicos donde nuestra comunidad necesita sentirse segura. como escuelas, parques y otros espacios de nuestra ciudad. También necesitamos un plan de seguridad para nuestra comunidad. Queremos que nuestras familias sepan qué hacer. a donde acudir, a que no tengan miedo de salir de sus casas, llevar a sus hijos a la escuela o buscar ayuda cuando la necesiten. Nuestra comunidad no debe ser ignorada. Los latinos somos una parte muy importante de Gilroy. Trabajamos aquí, vivimos aquí, nuestros hijos crecen aquí, somos parte de esta comunidad. Por eso quiero pedirles algo muy sencillo. Escuchen a nuestra comunidad, protejan a nuestras familias y no esperen a que algo pase para actuar. No estamos pidiendo privilegios, estamos pidiendo seguridad, respeto, protección para nuestra gente. Nuestra comunidad cuenta, nuestras familias cuentan y merecemos ser escuchados. Muchas gracias.

Thank you.

Ariel followed by Janet and then Ashley.

Good evening Mayor Bozo and council members and members of Gilroy community. My name is Janet Ortega. I am with GARAS. Today I want to be very clear. Gilroy needs protection, a protection policy preventing DHS or ICE from establishing or operating a detention facility within Gilroy City limits. We recently heard the outcome of the federal court case. Santa Clara County did its part. Now we need Gilroy to do its part. I especially want to thank you, Mayor Bozo, for being present at federal court. We were all wondering for a minute, where is Gilroy? Other communities were there, but thank you, Bozo, for being there. We appreciate you being there and hearing firsthand what happened. it would have been very nice for everyone to be, would have been nice for you guys to be there and hear what had happened that day. But now, we need action. Mayor Bozo, you spoke to our Defense Soldiers Group about a proposal to protect Gilroy. Today, we are asking you to keep that commitment, and for this council to take action. I also want to recognize and thank Caras Defensoras who have been marching, raising their voices, protecting our community, and most importantly, refusing to give up. And that goes to the other community members, not just our Defensoras, other community members that have been there supporting this. Their courage has helped us remain strong and united. Gilroy Strong is not just a phrase. It is what we do when our neighbors need us to show up. Santa Clara County took a step. Our Defensoras and other community members have taken a step. Now it's Gilroy's turn. We ask you to stand with us, protect our community, and show once again that Gilroy Strong means standing together and taking action. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Janet.

Janet. Followed by Ashley and then Catwoman.

Hello, uh, Gary Roy, city council and mayor. My name is Surya. There was a mix up, so I'll be speaking right now. Ha ha. Yeah, no, I'm here in solidarity with immigrants right here, especially the immigrant Gilroy community, along with GARAS. And yeah, we're here in defense of the community right here. While just want to mention that over 50% of Gilroy's Latino population is, Gilroy's population is 50%. Latino and immigrant communities. That includes Chicanos, Central Americanos, and Mexicanos. And when you have such a high demographic, you've got to show your constituents that you are in support of them. You won't allow them to be brutalized by the federal government, especially under this Trump administration, which is constantly going against our community members right here. For example, this most recent threats of building a facility that while the federal government was saying that could hold up to 10 immigrant detainees at a time, which is a lie. And now with the most recent injunction, we got to show that all of city council along with the Santa Clara County is ready and prepared to join and fight against them with lawsuits. and not having all of Gilroy City Council present is disappointing. And so I'm here to stand up, and I want to ask everybody here who's in solidarity to stand up as well. We're all here. These are your constituents. We're asking that stronger policies and language be passed with resolutions. For example, like no public facilities being used, no staging. If other cities like San Jose and Santa Clara County were able to pass strong language, Gilroy should as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Great timing.

Ashley, followed by Catwoman, and then Mary Yates.

Hi, Council. My name's Ashley Antonich-Sorabia. I'm actually a resident of Eastside San Jose. I'm here today because I have been here since the detention facility, whatever we want to call it. We know it was ICE. We know they were going to hold people there since it was announced. I've been here at every city council meeting. I have not spoken. I have been here supporting your residents, making sure that they felt seen, heard, and loved. And with that, also to support the people of my city. Eastside San Jose has a large immigrant population. I grew up there. I love every single one of them. They've helped me in every single way. I'm so frustrated that the only person who showed up here on Tuesday was Mayor Bozo. Thank you. I do appreciate your efforts. It's a shame that the rest of you couldn't stand up with your residents. As it was just said, 50% of your population is Latino. They're at risk. And we shouldn't be here right now having to invoke the image of a five-year-old who was traumatized, terrorized, whatever you want to say it, to get your attention. Your residents need you. My city of San Jose, they stepped up. ICE cannot come onto our city properties. They can't use them to stage. They can't use them to detain people. You are safe if you come into my city. If I come here, any of the people in my city come here, they're not safe. You've done nothing. It's actually super disappointing. Even while I'm here supporting your residents more than you. I'm a single person. They elected all of you. I spend my free time doing this. I don't know why we have to keep doing this. This should be a simple ask. Oppose the current ice processing facility. Sign on to the amicus brief. Stop any from happening in the future. Take a hard stance against ice. Just please, just say it out loud. No ice, we don't want you. Stay the hell out of our communities. Anyways, and keep city resources focused on serving the people here because they need it. They're being targeted. You think it's only criminals being taken, but it's not. And even the criminals that have, I've seen them, the ones that have reformed and come back in this community, stronger members of this community than any of you. So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Catwoman followed by Mary and then Georgene.

As a reminder, as I was saying earlier, the reason why we're trying not to clap, because there might be other members in this room that might be intimidated by clapping. So it's not us that we're afraid of clapping against. It's the rest of your community. So please remember that those are the rules. Go ahead.

Okay, I'm ready. If you're in this room and you're intimidated by clapping, that means you're intimidated by democracy and hearing the voices of others that might be opposing to yours every once in a while. What is a country if not its people? I don't know where I heard that phrase at first, but I internalized it at a very young age and used it to justify to myself, I suppose, the violent existence of being a United States citizen. Each time that I was losing faith in who I was or where I was from, that's what I would tell myself. And yet, at the age I'm at now, I struggle to stand up when the Pledge of Allegiance is called for. I didn't stand up during the Pledge of Allegiance, and I didn't stand up during prayer, not because I don't have faith in the people of this nation, and not because I don't even believe in God. I pray on the regular, but I can't seem to do it in these environments because it doesn't feel like that's what we're really here to do. It doesn't really feel like that we're here to stand together as a community against the forces that pose a real threat against us. It doesn't feel like we're here to act in good faith under the watchful eyes of God. It feels like we are fearful, mistrustful, not standing together. And I'm running out of time here, so I'll just cut to the chase. When it comes to standing against ICE, when it comes to standing against the most fascistic presidential institution we've had in my lifetime, you guys have only been doing very light-handed work pointing vaguely in the correct direction. We need policy. We need a no-staging mandate. We need concrete action. Otherwise, we will fail in the faces of evil that have greater punching power than us. So do more, please.

Thank you.

Georgene, followed by Sally, and then Dash.

Good evening.

My name is Georgene Scott-Kodiga, founder of Americans for Transparency. I'd like to clarify something tonight regarding Administrator Morley's next-door post regarding the demand I gave to the city. The question before this council is not whether the city's documents are accurate. That is not in dispute. I agree that the Amazon grant deed accurately states that lot C, and I quote, was created in that certain document entitled City of Gilroy Certificate of Compliance number 2020-05 lot line adjustment. The problem is not the document. The problem is what the document describes. California Government Code Section 66412D, the Subdivision Map Act, provides that a lot line adjustment shall not be used to create new parcels. The city's own grant deed says a new parcel was created by a lot line adjustment. Americans for Transparency demands two things from the council. First, retract the false statement that no new parcel was created by this lot line adjustment. The city's own grant deed says otherwise. Second, explain to this council and to the public how creating a new parcel by a lot line adjustment is legal when California government code section 66412D explicitly says that it is not. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sally, followed by Dash, and then Ron Kirkish.

Mine is going to be very brief. I'd like to thank Mayor Bozo for attending the hearing at the federal court concerning the proposed ICE detention center in our backyard. You being there reassured us that you care about issues that impact everyone. This is a sign of a true leader. Thank you. The community appreciates you. It would have been nice if any of the rest of you would have shown up. You would have shown that you are a council for the community, not just for the chosen few. You could have shown that you care about our community had you shown up. This council didn't sign the amicus brief and only thought about what you couldn't do. Have you thought about what you can do and what you should be doing for your community? You should be looking for every possible way to support your community, which is in fear today. It's about time you step up. Don't be afraid. Do your duty. Represent all the people.

Thank you, Sally. Who's next?

Dash, followed by Ron Kirkish, then KP.

Hello, my name is Dash Leeds. I'm a Santa Clara County resident. I want to ask you all to take a moment and just empathize what it would feel like to have a family member of yours abducted off the street and ripped from your lives without warning and to imagine what you would do in that position to protect your family. Immigrants are our friends, our neighbors, our family, our coworkers. They deserve to live with peace and dignity, not in fear. And you deserve to protect them. They deserve your protection. So I'm asking you to listen to your community and take real concrete action. Thank you.

Thank you, Dash. John's next, please.

He's too tall. This weekend, I happened to mosey by City Hall, and I saw a bunch of fire trucks outside, beautiful fire trucks. And so I thought, well, I'm going to go over there, see if they're having a fire sale. But what they did was they had all of our firemen, all of our policemen, dressed up in their dress uniforms, and they looked awesome. And I just want to thank the fire chief and the police chief for taking the time on a day off to commemorate the loss of 3,000 American lives on 911. Thank you, guys. You were awesome.

Thank you, Ron. K.P.?

Hello, I'm Kevin, and I stand with the people with the blue beanies as well.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS CONCEPT OF NOT ALLOWING NEW INPUT AFTER THE THIRD SPEAKER. THIS IS LITERALLY A PUBLIC MEETING FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF PUBLIC INPUT.

I mean, a lot of people here, it's very nerve-wracking, the fact that you don't allow people to come in after the third speaker. I mean, people need time to build up courage. Sometimes I don't even know that I want to speak until the fifth or sixth, or even sometimes the last speaker. And the fact that we deny people chance to speak. I mean, this is the first and often the last time that residents get to speak on an issue that may affect them for the rest of their lives, and I think they should be allowed to say that. I mean, again, democracy is not intended to be efficient. If a thousand people want to come here, if 300 people, if 20 people want to come here with blue beanies and they want to say something and they want to say the same thing, they should be allowed to do so. That's what democracy is. The fact that so many people want to say the same thing actually is a statement in and of itself. Again, democracy is not supposed to be efficient. It's supposed to be representative. And it's supposed to be representative of the people, of the common people. That's literally what democracy means. And I think that rather than try to cut down the number of speakers because of timing, because they're late, or because they're nervous, I think that we should give everyone equal opportunity to speak. And to the mayor, I want to say another thing. I've heard this, and I always remember it, which is you can pretend to care. You can pretend to care, but you can't pretend to be there. And that's why showing up is so important. Thank you.

I have one speaker on Zoom, Gerardo. I am going to allow you to speak now. You can unmute yourself.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Dear Mayor Bozo and members of the City Council, as a member of Americans for Transparency, I formally ask the City today for a written evidence-based response concerning Certificate of Compliance 2020-5, recorded July 10, 2020, and the resulting parcels associated with the 8050 Camino Arroyo address. Note a formal demand for initiation of notice of violation proceedings. under Government Code Section 66499.36, has previously been submitted by our organization. I am now asking the City respectfully to explain the factual and legal basis for its own conclusion. Recall, the Certificate of Compliance states that the lot line adjustment did not create new parcels, yet the survey exhibit incorporated therein labels three resulting lots, Lot A-New, Lot B-New, and Lot C-New. Three separate grand deeds were then recorded, one for each of those resulting lots. If the city believes the transaction was lawful, then the parcel history and legal analysis should establish that clearly. If the city cannot establish that, then I respectfully again ask the city... to initiate the statutory process necessary to determine whether a violation occurred. Also, I ask the City respectfully not to issue additional discretionary approvals that depend on the validity of the challenged parcel configuration until this issue has been formally resolved. Lastly, I request an immediate preservation of all records relating to the certificate of compliance, the 2020 lot line adjustment, the survey, the resulting parcels, the three conveyance deeds, Project A.S. 20-23, and communications concerning this alleged violation. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

I have no further speakers.

Thank you, Kim. So that concludes Item 6.1, Presentations to Council. Thank you, everybody, for coming and speaking. Moving on to item number seven, reports of council members. I'm going to start with council member Bracco.

Yes, I have a report on the library. I just wanted to let everybody know the Dolly Parton Imagination Library has been a huge success. Since January, we have 8,063 new kids have signed up. And Santa Clara County leads. We're at the top of the list. The next county is Monterey, and they're only at 2,700. So the Imagination Library is doing very well. And we have 22,234 kids have signed up for the Imagination Library since January. So it continues to grow and it's doing well. And the library district has recently partnered with the Sharks. So if you need a library card or you want to just trade yours in for a new Sharks one, this is what they look like. They have the Sharks logo on it. This one here says Turn it to you. So go down and get your sharks. Library card.

All right.

Thank you.

Council Member Fugazi.

Nothing to report.

Council Member Marks. No report.

Council Member Hilton. Thank you. From the Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee, happy transit month. VTA has an active transit-oriented development TOD program which partners with developers to build TOD projects on VTA-owned properties at transit stations. These TOD sites serve as gateways to the VTA transit system, offering significant potential to attract new transit riders. The Gilroy Transit Center serves as a key hub for multiple transit for multiple transit options. The VTA-owned 7.8-acre site on the west side of the tracks is identified for future mixed housing, mixed income TOD, and will contribute to Gilroy's RHNA allocation of 1,773 housing units by 2031. MTC staff presented the Draft Transit Priority Network, or the TPN, for discussion and feedback. MTC is collecting feedback on the TPN through September 2026. MTC's public draft TPN aligns with VTA's strategic plan by focusing transit priority investments on the corridors where they most often effectively improve transit speed, reliability, ridership, and access. SUPPORTING VTA'S BUSINESS PLAN GOAL OF FAST, FREQUENT, RELIABLE TRANSIT. TRANSIT PRIORITY HELPS ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE BY MAKING TRANSIT FASTER AND MORE RELIABLE, ENCOURAGING MORE PEOPLE TO CHOOSE TRANSIT OVER DRIVING AND REDUCING TRANSPORTATION RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. A TRANSIT PRIORITY POLICY IMPLEMENTS MANY OF OUR CITY'S GENERAL PLANS. WE RECOMMENDED THAT THE VTA BOARD ADOPT THE 2027 TRANSIT SERVICE PLAN WHICH IS VTA'S PLAN FOR BUS AND LIGHT RAIL SERVICE DURING THE 2027 CALENDAR YEAR. staff developed the 2027 plan starting with a draft proposal shared with the community city staff and board members over a six-week engagement period this year's plan reflects two plans to address distinct planning needs the applicable plan will depend on the outcome of the connect bay area transit revenue measured or trm on the november november ballot the base service plan would be implemented should the measure not pass. This plan includes essential adjustments to align VTA schedules and the anticipated reduction in BART and Caltrain service expected to take effect beginning of January, 2027. The local investment service plan presents a set of series enhancements consistent with initial phases of the visionary network that VTA could pursue with new TRM revenues. Adoption of this plan sets out what these enhancements would be, their implementation, however, would occur only as part of the future TRM expenditure action by the board, which would determine the timing and funding sequence for their timeline. For the vice mayor role, as part of the expanded role, I've created a listserv with booth tabling and vendor opportunities for upcoming special event permits and city-sponsored events to all city council members, the Gary Unified School District Board, and commissions. I encourage you all to come play a critical role in our local government. Each of us have been a part of so many actions that our respective council boards and commissions have voted on, or we will be voting on. Lastly, the more we are out there talking with the public about these actions we are taking, the less we will hear that the public feels left out of the process. Providing constituent services, marketing, and community engagement is at the core of what we all do. Tabling brings us directly to the people in parks, community centers, festivals, and farmers markets. It's a great opportunity to get real-time input on community issues like public safety, our work plans, budget, ballot measures, development, and neighborhood concerns. Being physically present in the community helps build trust and shows the public we are accessible. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Council Member Ramirez.

Yes, thank you. It's been a busy couple of weeks. I attended an SV Home elected official roundtable in San Jose and learned more about the tenant preference policy for low-income housing. I continue to participate in the unhoused ad hoc committee meetings. I attended the City of Gilroy's Car Show at the Senior Center, which was unfortunately a rainy day, so a lot of people did not want to bring out their beautiful cars in the rain. But it was still a great event. I attended an opening of Sun Palace in downtown Gilroy. I attended, along with the mayor, the Appliance Regulation Briefing and advocated for delaying the implementation of band replacement of gas furnaces until 2028. Last Thursday was a very busy day. I spent the most of the day until 4 30 at the I am participating in the focus agricultural class and that is held by the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau and we visited three different wineries and learned about the challenges and how they run their business And then I headed up to Sunnyvale to attend the City's Association Legislative Action Committee meeting and the City's Association Board meeting. We received a briefing on legislative bills on Governor Newsom's desk waiting for either signature or veto, and also had an update on Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority. On Friday, kudos to the city, to our fire department, to our police department. I attended a powerful and heartfelt 9-11 memorial. Both city fire and police, along with city staff, provided a truly moving remembrance to those who were killed and the loved ones in the . So let's never forget that. And on Saturday, I had a great time attending the Gilroy POA Boots and Badges

Thank you very much. Next, Councilmember Klein.

I was also able to attend the Friday ceremony, and it was a moving ceremony outside the police. I also recently was invited, along with nine other electeds, to tour Israel. It was the San Francisco consulate reached out to us. It was the area of Pacific Northwest. There were two two mayors and two council members from Idaho, a supervisor from Montana, a council member from Washington, a council member from Vacaville, a supervisor from Yolo County, and then a council member from Fremont, and also myself. And we spent, we left, it was from, let's see, August 28th to September 4th. It was around just traveling through Israel. We were guided, visiting the first day, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and meeting with two ambassadors and just getting an idea of what they're doing both in the Middle East but also with the relationship with the United States. We also visited Yad Vashem, which is Israel's official memorial to the victims of the Holocaust located in Jerusalem. The name means a memorial and a name from Isaiah 56.5. And then that afternoon, we were given a guided tour of the old city of Jerusalem, which was really spectacular, and it was a beautiful day. The next day, we visited the Nova Festival site, where 378 concertgoers were killed on October 7th. And additionally, 44 people were taken hostage from the pestle grounds in the surrounding area. We also toured the kibbutz of Nizor, where 47 were killed on October 7th, while an additional 271 were killed inside the Kitzbim, the multiple farming communities along the Gaza border. That afternoon we visited to save a child's heart, really a moving group of people that take kids in from all over the world to take care of their needs at that moment. On Wednesday, we visited the Alma Research and Educational Center on the northern border of Lebanon. And then we had a guided tour in the afternoon in Hapa, the third largest city in Israel. On Thursday, it was kind of seeing the tech side of Israel, going to the City Innovation Center and touring that. And then we met with Tel Aviv Global on how to become a global city. It's their tourism department. And finally, we were... Basically, the Startup Nation Central highlighting all that they're doing with tech in Tel Aviv and throughout the world. It was quite a trip. And I just want to say it was a privilege and an honor to be able to not only represent Gilroy, but also represent the United States and California. And going on that, and I appreciate the time that I spent there and just want to share that with you. So thanks.

Thank you very much. I have nothing to report this evening. Moving on to item number eight. It's a consent calendar. We have items 8.1 through 8.11. Any questions from council?

I'd like to pull 8.4 for further discussion and consideration.

Okay. Pull item 8.4 and then we'll go to public comment. If we have any public comment on 8.1 through 8.11. No speakers. Okay. Thank you very much. So I'm going to take some action on items 8.1 through 8.11 excluding 8.4. Can I get a motion? Second. A motion by Council Member Bracco and a second by Council Member Hilton for items 8.1 through 8.11, excluding 8.4 on the consent calendar. Roll call, please.

Council Member Bracco? Yes. Council Member Klein? Yes. Council Member Fugazi? Yes. Council Member Hilton?

Aye.

Council Member Marks? Yes. Council Member Ramirez? Yes. Mayor Bozo? Aye.

Yes, motion passes 7-0, sorry. Okay, then we're going to go back to item 8.4. Who will we ask to come up with that? Okay. Thank you, John. It's okay. Yeah, so Council Member Fugazi has a couple questions on 8.4, please.

THE LAST MEETING WE OBVIOUSLY WENT OVER THIS QUITE A BIT WITH MATT JONES REGARDING THE EXTENT OF THE FENCING AND AT THE TIME YOU DIDN'T HAVE A MAP THAT WAS UP TO DATE AND REFLECTING WHAT WE HAD AND THEN ALSO I HAD ASKED WASN'T THERE OTHER FENCING AND DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THERE WAS AND Can you tell me how we came to get 900 more feet now of fencing in a couple of weeks? Ryan was actually the staffer for that one, so I just wanted to be clear.

Matt was the one who came up and spoke. Ryan actually presented, but in any event, this is my staff. Bottom line is that we messed up. There was a large area, that entire second area there, that was not calculated into the original scope of work. And it should have been. And it was missed.

Which I completely understand. And I thought, obviously, for asking the questions, that it might have been. So the next question I have is, why not have a map in our packet because that would have been easy for me not to pull this and recommend that maybe we bring it back even another time because it is a large expenditure. It's not really something that is a contingency. It's a third of the original ask. So does that seem reasonable to want to ask that?

Very reasonable. And I apologize for that. If you'll recall, unfortunately, well, I don't even know if you're aware, we pulled up by mistake, an older presentation during the last council meeting. The appropriate staff item and presentation had both areas shown on the map, and this kind of led to a lot of the conversation that occurred. But we should have included that in retrospect with this packet item.

And to have it as a contingency versus, you know, what would it be, an addendum or something like that, why was it chosen to be done in that manner.

I suppose expeditious would be the most appropriate term for this. We were already in process. We were at a point where we could still, we had not proceeded with this, we could still address this and we were hopeful that the linear footage would be less than what we anticipated it would be included in the and be covered within the contingency amount. Obviously, it was not. And obviously, I think it was pretty clear that that would not be fully covered by that contingency.

I don't have any other questions, Mayor. Okay.

Any other questions for John?

Okay.

Then I'm going to need action. I'm going to go to a public comment.

I have no speakers.

Okay.

Then... How might I move to bring this back with the proper, what I think is an addendum and a map so that the public knows exactly what we're getting for the extra 100,000? Is that, I don't know procedurally how we would do that.

So you could move to continue the item to a future date, and we could bring it back at a future date. Alternatively, you could approve the item with the requirement that staff post on the project website a map of the project, including both what was awarded originally and what is awarded in this second go-around. Your call. Freedom to do what the council needs to do on this one.

I move to move this to a later date and also request that this be categorized not as contingency, but as an addendum and have the proper documentation.

And I'll second that for discussion. And just to add on that, I think that would help because I've already been contacted to you by a couple of people that have tried to identify things and when I don't even know and I don't want to send them off to staff yet. So this would really help provide clarity where anybody that says it, you could just send it to them. Like, hey, they are doing this part. They are doing this part.

But this come back, though, at the next meeting, so this whole process isn't delayed?

Yes. Yes.

Okay. You have a second.

Yeah, so I have a motion by Councilmember Fregazzi and a second TO DELAY ITEM 8.4 AND COME BACK AT A SOONER DATE, PLEASE, WITH THE ITEMS THAT WERE SUGGESTED BY THE MOTION AND THE SECOND.

MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD ON THIS. THIS WILL DELAY THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROJECT SLIGHTLY BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT TO ORDER THE THE MATERIALS AND THEN ADD TO THAT MATERIAL ORDER, SO WE WANT TO GET ONE SINGULAR MATERIAL ORDER. IT SHOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE DELIVERY DATE AND THE PROJECT DELIVERY DATE, BUT IT WILL SLIGHTLY CHANGE THAT DELIVERY DATE.

IN THEORY, THREE WEEKS OR SO. OKAY. SO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. A ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROCKO. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER KLEIN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER FUGAZI.

YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER HILTON. AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER MARKS. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER RAMIREZ. YES.

Yes, motion passes 7-0. Thank you. Okay, as stated earlier, I mentioned that I was going to be moving item 10.3 to the top of the list. So we're going to join now to item 10.3. I'm going to read it out. Consider adopting an urgency interim ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing, and approval of applications and entitlements of a new data center facilities citywide for a period not to exceed 45 days. Staff report, please.

All right. For you tonight is an urgency interim ordinance that would place a 45-day citywide moratorium on the establishment of new data centers. Here's the situation that brings this item forward. As you know, Guillory has one large-scale data center with construction that is already in progress. The Dory City Code does not define data center as a land use in and of itself. These facilities are permitted in the industrial zone under the generic classification for data processing establishments with no standards addressing aesthetic, massing, grid capacity, water consumption generation, emissions noise, screening, truck traffic, and commissioning, et cetera. The city has now received a pre-application for a second AWS facility near Highway 152 in Camino Arroyo. Further, on August 17th, the council directed staff to return with objective design standards for data centers. The moratorium would create the time to do that work before another application vests under the current rules. Three points on the scope of this. The ordinance reaches new data centers only. It does not affect the existing facility that's under construction or its entitlement. And it defines data centers by a threshold for the sake of this interim ordinance as 15,000 square feet or one megawatt. So ordinary business server rooms would not be swept into it. And it takes effect immediately upon adoption. And that adoption would require a four-fifths vote of the city council. The 45 days is a state law compliance element for urgency ordinances. It would expire on October 29th, 45 days after today. And the state law does allow the council to extend following a notice, hearing and a written report for a period of 10 months and 15 days and then further another year after that point with the same requirements. Staff recommends adoption and I'm happy to take questions and staff is available for any questions.

I'll start with Council Member Bracco.

Matt, how will that affect the second data center that we got the pre-application on.

So this this would affect it would affect anything for which we do not have a formal application. So pre-application is not a formal application. So any other data centers that come in from now on. So to be clear the current site where the data center is currently under construction is two phases. Both of those are entitled so that would not be impacted. It would be any future application that the city receives.

Other questions at this time?

Council Member Fugazi?

So we haven't, just to be clear, we haven't received any other formal applications since this was put on the agenda on the 10th? That's correct. So in the staff report, the contemplated zoning proposal obviously defines the use and standards and whatnot. Is it also going to include You know looking at the current industrial designation on those parcels given the other three parcels are all commercial and that one happens to be industrial.

So the direction from council is to look at design standards for data centers. So objective design standards that would be the process that we would go forward with. If there is an idea to rezone a particular parcel then we would need specific direction on rezoning as part of part of the direction.

So could part of the standards be that even though something is zoned industrial, if you intend to have a data center there, it can't be within x feet of commercial property?

Yeah, I think that's a great idea for what the potential design standards could be. So, for instance, on this particular property, and I don't want to presuppose any outcome, but as an example, the frontage along sort of the important roadways, Camino Arroyo and Pachico Pass, could be required to be commercial. So if any particular industrial site is abutting an important roadway, CORRIDOR FOR THE COMMUNITY, THAT THAT WOULD BE ZONED COMMERCIAL OR SOME OTHER USE OTHER THAN INDUSTRIAL OR DATA CENTER USE. SO, YES, THAT WOULD BE A FEASIBILITY WITHIN THE DESIGN STANDARDS.

AND THEN A PARTICULAR APPLICANT WHO MAY OR MAY NOT OWN SUCH A PIECE OF PROPERTY COULD CHOOSE TO APPLY TO LOT SPLIT AND CHANGE ZONING ON ONE PIECE OF IT OR ANOTHER? THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER RAMIREZ?

COULD IT BE A CONDITION and part of the process to require a data center on that property if somebody were to apply for it to have them build that commercial space that you just kind of mentioned or just allow it to be built

So I think we're getting way into what the design standards might look like.

Could that be a design?

There could be, yes. There are quite a few, and I'd want to have a significant public process to make that happen, so there would be engagement, community input along the way to identify what the scope looks like.

Okay, thank you. My question was that.

Okay. COUNCILMEMBER FUGATI SORT OF BROUGHT IT UP AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID, BUT I'M GOING TO GO FOR IT FOR A THIRD TIME. A PRE-APPLICATION IS NOT AN APPLICATION, CORRECT?

THAT IS CORRECT.

FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? WE HAVE A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENT TONIGHT, SO IT LOOKS LIKE WELL OVER 20, SO WE'RE GOING TO GO TO ONE MINUTE, PLEASE, ON PUBLIC COMMENT. AND KIM, TAKE IT AWAY.

THANK YOU, GEORGINE, FOLLOWED BY COLLEEN AND THEN CINDY.

Good evening, Georgene with the Americans for Transparency again. I formally requested this exact ordinance on June 5th, June 13th, and July 7th of this year. On June 15th, Andy Faber told us from this dais, and I quote, I don't think there's an urgency ordinance right now. What's changed? What's changed? You had the pre-application since April. April 24th, I believe. What has changed since then other than three news media outlets have reported on Gilroy's actions of what they've done with the land and all that? So I don't understand why we are doing an urgency ordinance right now. Because you've had that pre-application for, what, five, six months? Yes. So could you please explain to us what's changed? I think that we don't need a last minute ordinance designed to distract the public and paper over a legal problem that this council created. So I would appreciate it if we could have a, we need an investigation and we need an audit over all the actions that are going on. Thank you.

Ready?

Yeah, sorry, go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Colleen Crewe, and I'm proud to call Gilroy my home. I'm here tonight to strongly support the proposed moratorium on any new data centers in Gilroy. I believe this moratorium is not only necessary, it's responsible. We have already learned a great deal from the Amazon Center on Arroyo Circle. A project of this size forces us to ask some important questions about our community's future. How much water will these facilities require? How much electricity will they consume? What will the demands on our infrastructure be? What will the impacts be on our neighborhoods, our environments, our roads, and our quality of life? And perhaps most importantly, is this really the direction that we want Gilroy to go? We should not answer those questions one project at a time. A moratorium gives us something incredibly valuable. Time. Time to study the impacts. the true costs and benefits, and to listen to the Gilroy residents, and time to establish clear rules that protect Gilroy before another data center is proposed and we find ourselves trying to catch up. This is also about trust. We learned about this after it was too late. We have an opportunity tonight to do things differently, a moratorium, before we approve another project. Let's stop, listen, study, and plan.

Thank you. Your one minute has already passed. Thank you very much, Colleen.

Cindy Smith followed by Hutton and then Serena.

I'd like the same walk-off music, by the way. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Gilroy has been known for years as the garlic capital of the world. I know this to be true because wherever we've traveled in the country, when we say we're from Gilroy, the first word we hear is garlic. There are many people who worked hard for years to attain that distinction. Now we're another tag on a US map noting where its citizens are against a data center that their city leaders approved without their input and without clear knowledge. In a short article in the Dispatch, 8-20-2020, there is a mention of the land purchased by Amazon. At that time, quote, Amazon's plans for the property is an unknown. A spokesperson declined to comment on the acquisition, unquote. Quote, Amazon has a practice against commenting on our future roadmap, unquote, the spokesperson said. Some say we knew it was coming to Gilroy. Someone knew, but it wasn't us. It was those who were elected to sit in this room and some who were hired by our city. Approve the emergency interim ordinance and enact the 45-day moratorium, then renew it, renew it, and renew it again. We do not want a data center.

Thank you very much.

Evening, Mayor, council members. My name is Jason Hutton. I'm with Smart Local 104. We are a sheet metal union. We specialize in HVAC, sheet metal, flashings, so forth. If we do have a, let's call it a timeout, Then let's get community standards, let's get labor standards at the forefront of this meeting. Let's get community groups, union developers working together at the same table. It's been done before, we could do it again. 104 has been building and maintaining data centers throughout Silicon Valley for over a decade. I would strongly advise that Gilroy take a strong look at San Jose for labor and community standards. Thank you. Thank you, Jason.

Serena followed by Kim Noodle and Lauren Houseman.

Okay. Good evening, Council Members. My name is Serena. Last month I wrote to all seven of you asking for a moratorium on new data centers. Two of you wrote me back. Council Member Marks and Council Member Ramirez, thank you sincerely. I'll get right into it. You have to see what's stacked against you, a corporation worth more than most countries with lawyers, financial analysts, and a lot more practice than Gilroy has. Amazon already has done this in Oregon. 15 years later, families there have unsafe wealth, miscarriages reported, and rare cancers. Amazon just wrote this year a $20.5 million check to walk away and admitted nothing. Morgan Hill saw what was happening to us, passed a moratorium, and landed 600 jobs the same month building power equipment for data centers. They're getting the jobs and we're getting experimented on. So three things tonight.

Thank you.

Kim followed by Lauren and then Connie.

I'm a Gilroy resident and I'm here about the moratorium. And I'm asking you to really take a look at what's going on. I know we're doing AI for the tech bros and we're in Silicon Valley, but they don't care about any of us. All of us will be gone if it's up to them with their little games that they're playing. We need to think about also the pollution and the use of water. If we do care about the kids with cancer, the last thing we need is a data center. That will get them more than anything else. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Lauren's next.

Followed by Connie and then Catwoman.

Hello. I'm urging all of you to approve this moratorium for the health of our children. and future generations and to help the wildlife stay healthy. Thank you.

Thank you, Lauren.

Connie, followed by Catwoman, and then Will.

Good evening, council members. It's nice to be here. not be protesting I want to thank you very very much for putting the moratorium on your agenda and of course I certainly would hope that you would all vote in favor of it because I do believe the need is urgent I do believe that we should wait and see what the effects of the one under construction are before we should allow another one you read in the paper this morning that even the CEOs of the companies that need these data centers say it's time to slow down. And I agree with that, and I also hope that during the public input process, we are able to share with you some of the many things we've learned about data centers while we were going through this difficult period. So again, thank you, and especially thank you for your vote.

Thank you, Connie.

Catwoman followed by Will Smith and Trella Davis.

I'm ready. Where do you even begin with this one? I can understand not having all the details on data centers. internalize in your mind before it comes to your town. It's a fairly complicated subject. But I think by now you guys have all had the time to look up more information, watch a YouTube video or two to understand why these data centers are bad and why communities are fearful and why we are organizing in small towns and cities all across the United States against their construction. So I'm not going to go over the details because you guys should be doing your homework, and I'm going to trust that you did that. What I will say though, is the lack of action, the lack of transparency and hopefully in the future change to impose the moratorium and extend the moratorium to at least two years as it should be.

One minute today, sorry. Thank you.

Do more. Will Smith followed by Trella Davis and Dash Leeds.

Good evening, Mayor Bozo and members of the City Council. My name is Will Smith. I'm a business rep for IBEW Local 332, representing over 3,500 electrical workers here in Santa Clara County. definitely support data centers but we understand the need of this moratorium and if you guys approve this moratorium today we want to make sure that it is including strong labor standards these jobs these data centers have the opportunity to create great union jobs leading for wonderful pathways into the middle class we've been working very closely with the city of san jose staff to make sure that we develop a policy that is going to make sure It addresses all the concerns of the community. This policy will have strong labor standards to make sure it creates good union jobs. It has strong environmental standards to make sure it protects the community. Data centers will generate large tax revenues, and it includes a stipulation where part of that is managed by the community that is being built in. Thank you. Thank you.

Trella, followed by Dash, and then Britt Smith.

good evening council members most cities in the United States have not done their homework with regard to data centers I have most of you have got a copy of this latest version of the report data centers local costs it goes into some very disturbing details that everybody needs to know. County Clerk Kim has received a prior version of this report back in July, and unfortunately, Gilroy has become one of my case studies in this report. These data centers do not need water to cool. It is cheap. These data centers waste over 90% of the electricity they pull in because their average CPU or GPU usually compute rates are at 5%. This has been a longstanding problem for nearly 30 years. They have been wasting the majority of their electricity. Please do your homework and avoid mass tort lawsuits.

Thank you very much.

Dash followed by Britt and then Debbie.

Hello, my name is Dashial Leeds. I'm the conservation coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta chapter. I'm a San Jose resident. They're working on their own standards and they're running into issues. We strongly support the moratorium. With regards to what you do afterwards, there are certain things that standards can't protect the community from. It's like diesel backup generators as an example. Air District regulates those. They can run during an unlimited amount of time during an emergency run. And who gets to define that? The data center operator. Infrasound, low frequency sound that affects our bodies over the long term, penetrates solid barriers. Only way you can mitigate that is to not build it in the first place. So I urge you, when you create your standards, consider a permanent prohibition. Put that on the books as well, please. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Britt, followed by Debbie, and then Landon.

Nine months, 256 days. That's how long it's been since this community has demanded that city council take action to stop construction of the Amazon Web Services Hyperscale Data Center. I wanted to thank city staff for putting this urgency interim ordinance together, for listening to us. And now I want to make sure that the city council listens to us by voting to adopt the ordinance. This is a step in the right direction, but it's not the end of our march. AWS has begun the process to establish a second data center. It's not that Amazon doesn't know how we feel, it's that they simply don't care. Just like Amazon has not cared about unions consistently busting efforts for labor standards and collective bargaining. So now it is up to the people before me to show us that you care. My concern is that some members of this council have spoken with the press to say, knowing all they know now, including how their constituents feel, if given the opportunity to approve a data center, they would. Council Member Fugazi and Council Member Ramirez, I am hopeful that tonight you will vote with your neighbors instead of against us. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Debbie and I'm a Gilroy resident. I'm speaking in favor of the proposed urgency interim ordinance. This ordinance has tiered options and I ask that the council utilize its power beyond the 45 days. This long view will enable better understanding of the impact to our community while continuing to create comprehensive design standards once the center is online. This is how we protect our community. It's hard to legislate the unknown. We deserve transparency from this council. You have a tool to protect this community. Please use it to its fullest extent and demonstrate your shared opposition to more data centers. 45 days is not a substantial effort to support the concerns of our community unless used as the required first step to expand the moratorium. Thank you.

Thank you, Debbie.

Landon, followed by Mary Yates and Annador Kushner.

Good evening council members and to those in the gallery. My name is Landon Sepulveda and I am here today to implore you after nine months of my hard work and hard work of others within my group and outside to vote yes on this moratorium. Not only that but after 45 days continue this moratorium to give the community ample time to use their voice and their rights to oppose any data centers within Gilroy. The community has made their thoughts clear and this is the first real step this council has taken to address their concerns and for that I thank you and I thank you very much for my time.

Mary?

Good evening, council members. Although it is not perfect and is rather behind, I hope you will adopt the urgency ordinance tonight. Gilroy is no longer a sleepy rural town. We are a major town now with 60,000 people or almost that. Besides the encroachment of the predator Amazon and their data center, we now have developers battle over our Hecker Pass area. THIS SHOULD BE A WAKE-UP CALL TO YOU AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. ORDINANCES AND OTHER PLANS NEED TO BE UPDATED NOW TO REFLECT THESE TIMES IF WE ARE TO PRESERVE THE IDEALIC SCENERY AND AGRICULTURAL HERITAGE WE HAVE SO ENJOYED THUS FAR. The city can no longer afford people who just read something and rubber stamp it. The time is now for employees to question and managers to listen and ask themselves, is this something that will continue and or enhance the quality of life and surrounding habitat for us? Now is the time to act and I hope you will. I stand ready to serve as I have on the Garlic Festival. and the bond committee for the library. And I feel sure there are other people in our community who would help as well if you will only ask. Thank you.

Ann Adore followed by Diane and then Victor.

Hi, council members, Mayor. Thank you so much for putting this on the agenda. Much appreciated. And I just wanted to encourage all of you to vote for this moratorium. And to remind everybody that this is actually a perfect win-win situation because you get to demonstrate that you are listening to your constituents and you're really making something happen for all of us. At the same time, you are not voting on a ban for data centers, so you're not actually disappointing the business at large. So this is a great compromise, and it just buys us time. That's really what you're voting on, not a for or against. This is just pause. Thank you very much. I encourage everybody to say yes.

Thank you.

Good evening, counsel. I want to say thank you for putting the moratorium up for a vote. We're hoping that you're all going to vote unanimously to have time to start studying to make sure that we are not making mistakes or leaving loopholes that can cause problems down the road. Those who fail to plan, plan to fail. Don't fail.

Thank you.

Victor, followed by Basil and Armando.

Took the time. to prepare this for when I came up to the council, but one minute's not going to do. Luckily, a lot of people have spoke to the council about my concerns about why all of a sudden the city is concerned about our public health and welfare. They didn't seem to be concerned the first time around. I don't know what quite has changed out of the media attention. But yeah, it's very concerning. I don't know. how you plan for changing requirements i've heard numerous numbers for water usage electricity consumption all these things there's been nothing consistent through this time other than the fact that you know we've heard that they're going to use recycled water but that's probably twenty thirty before that waters available So what about our concerns for water now? I've heard up to 7.5 million gallons of potable water is going to be used in that time period each year.

Basil, followed by Armando, and then Pete.

Good evening, Mayor, Council. My name is Basil Merrill, Gilroy resident with IBW Local 332. I represent Journeyman Wiremen, sound and communication technicians, and material handlers. If data centers are coming to Gilroy, we support good standards on data centers. In San Jose, our union has worked with cities to establish strong, uniform standards covering labor, environmental protections, community benefits, and transparency. Gilroy needs that same framework. Our members have built and maintained Silicon Valley data centers for over a decade. We know what it takes to build them right, setting good standards, guarantees these projects deliver high quality local jobs while protecting our community, power grid, and infrastructure. Let's give labor community members and developers a seat at the table, follow San Jose's lead, and mandate good standards. Thank you.

Thank you, Basil.

Good evening, council members. So I urge you to adopt this resolution or this moratorium on all new data center applications. It's a reasonable and responsible step for Gilroy. The city's moratorium would apply to projects that can be extremely large and have significant demands for electricity, water, land, infrastructure, and public services. Before the city could consider another data center, you are making the right decision for Gilroy that they have clear standards in place for those types of projects. The city's proposals give city staff and the council an opportunity to step back, review those standards, identify where they need to be strengthened, and give the community an opportunity to participate in the process. The proposed moratorium is about making sure that the future projects are evaluated under standards that are appropriate for their size and intensity. It gives the city a pause to do the planning work that should come before the next application. I urge the council to approve the 45-day moratorium and to use the time to develop strong protection standards that protect Gilroy's waters, meet energy resources and infrastructure. Thank you.

Thank you, Armando.

Pete, followed by KP.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Pete Seabird and I'm a Gilroy resident and also the proud business manager representing over 3,500 members of IBW Local 332. Our union members have been building Silicon Valley for over 114 years. Everything from housing to hospitals, schools to sports stadiums, technology office centers to data centers. In fact, we've been building data centers here in Silicon Valley for 30 years. Construction work between Gilroy and Silicon Valley employs approximately 100,000 individuals, supporting their families, feeding them, housing them, and raising their families. Many of these concerns being brought up tonight in this conversation are valid, and they deserve your attention to address them. At the same time, though, the families that make their living and they house and feed their kids and raise their families on the wages during construction work and building data centers. Deserve your attention. That was really quick. Sorry, I was fast. All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, I guess my question is why are we using the government ordinance government code to ask for an urgency request. I mean, the urgency request is just a delay at most, 45 days. Any extension would need new facts, which you're not going to get as long as your planning staff is acting as an approval staff. At some point, you need to address the issues of the community. I think that you could have a much longer moratorium by saying, we want a climate action plan. We want an ordinance that ensures that we've got closed, that we require closed-loop cooling for water, that requires that we use energy from clean sources, carbon neutral. And until you have that, you're going to raise rates for everybody. I come from Santa Clara. Santa Clara, we have 60 out of 180 of all the data centers in this area, in all of Silicon Valley. And at some point, we need to know how much the electricity is going to be. I would like a report from staff that shows how much electricity we're going to bring in and compare that to the rest of the electricity and the water use for the entire population. I would guess that for this data center, the electricity that we need is twice as much as the entire population of Gilroy. Your garlic is great, it's your policies that stink.

Thank you.

I have three speakers on Zoom that had their hands raised before the third person spoke. I'm going to allow Eric to speak first. Go ahead, Eric.

Thank you, and hello. Good evening, Council Members. I'm Eric Negomir with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, representing our regional innovation economy. First, we'd like to acknowledge the immense challenges you face in this time of rapid change, and we'd like to thank you for your work to grow Gilroy's economy while supporting the local community. Whether or not you decide to move forward with this temporary moratorium, know that SVLG and our members are here as a resource for you. Done right, data centers deliver significant tax revenues and infrastructure upgrades without harming local residents' quality of life. Silicon Valley's leading companies are deploying innovative and at-scale solutions to drastically reduce water consumption and address other key concerns about these facilities. We ask for your participation in a thoughtful, timely dialogue between government and your industry partners to ensure Gilroy can harvest the fruits of progress in a sustainable and community-centered way. Thank you.

Gerardo?

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, can you hear us?

Yes, thank you. Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. I wanted to thank you for moving this item up in recognition of the community's strong feelings on this. And in light of that, I also ask that you vote in favor of the moratorium. What's at stake is the community's water and soil. In Oregon, Amazon had a $20 billion settlement over nitrate pollution to the water, which made it unsafe to drink. It's clear that we don't have all the information that we think we have and that we need more time to collect it and to set in protections. So please vote in favor of this moratorium.

AND NOAH. NOAH, CAN YOU UNMUTE YOURSELF?

HELLO, CITY COUNCIL, CAN YOU HEAR ME?

YES.

Um, the irony should not be lost on us that the Amazon data center is being built in the backyard of not one, but two healthcare facilities in our town. It also doesn't take a genius to understand that with Amazon's compliance with ice through their ring cameras, that the issue of this data center and the proposed ice facility in our vicinity are intertwined. The economic benefits are also short-sighted. This moratorium to prevent future data centers is the bare minimum you can implement. I HOPE YOU CONTINUE TO LISTEN TO THE OVERWHELMING OPPOSITION TO DATA CENTERS AND WORK TOWARDS A BAN IN OUR CITY. THANK YOU.

I HAVE NO FURTHER SPEAKERS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL. AND SO FAR, I HAVE COUNCILMEMBER FUGATSI ON THE BOARD. SO GO AHEAD.

SO I JUST WANT TO SAY, I MEAN, FIRST AND FOREMOST, IN FAVOR OF A MORATORIUM AND POINT OUT THAT, AGAIN, A MORATORIUM IS NOT A BAN. And to that end, I would not support an outright ban of these types of business. I think there's standards like many different types of businesses in a city that have to be established and they have to change with the times. We have to look at what has happened and demand out of companies that they meet certain standards, but they have to be reasonable standards. And banning outright is not, in my opinion, a reasonable standard. So I think it's a good opportunity for us to take a pause, take a look at what we think as a community are important standards, look at what is happening across the country, get some professional advice on things. The infrasound thing is infrasound, for instance, is real. There's a lot of pseudoscience around the effect of infrasound with data centers. So we have to be able to sift through what the facts are and what much of the pseudoscience is around this. I think that might take some time. So you probably can expect an extension on this. I don't think anything is going to happen in 45 days. And I think we probably will find certain things out that will require us to make such an extension. That's just... prediction on my part. But for now, I think this is the right thing for the community and I would be in support of it.

Thank you very much. Council Member Hilton.

Thank you. Thank you all for coming out tonight to speak. I too am in favor of the moratorium. I like the, I want to go into a little bit of detail just on uniform standards and best practices just to kind of like drop that here right now because I do agree that 45 days is probably not going to be enough time FOR US TO DO THIS, BUT I DO AGREE WITH WHAT COUNCILMEMBER FUGAZI SAID ABOUT TRYING TO LOOK AT ESPECIALLY THOSE AREAS THAT ARE INDUSTRIAL MEETS COMMERCIAL, WHERE WE COULD PARSE OFF OR AT LEAST hide any of these industrial projects, whatever they end up being, with some commercial to match the matching commercial, I think would be a great idea. Also, just on the basic of the uniform standards and best practices for data center and large load projects, I really want to make sure that we pay attention to a lot of the community benefits associated with these, like public space improvements, clean energy programs. Labor standards is something that is really important to me, and it's important to the community members that live here. The current data center that's being constructed by Union Labor are from our brothers and sisters that live here in Gilroy and raising families here in Gilroy. Local hiring and workforce development opportunities, affordable housing, and opportunities to generate additional use tax revenue so we can provide services to this growing community. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to Council Member Klein, then Council Member Ramirez.

I SUPPORT THIS MORATORIUM, TEMPORARY MORATORIUM. I DO AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER PAGASI AND COUNCILMEMBER HILTON IN LOOKING AT THIS AND MOVING FORWARD. IT'S GOING TO BE LONGER THAN 45 DAYS, BUT IT'S A PROCESS WE NEED TO DO. I FAVOR THAT, AND IT'S A CHANCE TO REALLY GET IT RIGHT MOVING FORWARD, SO I'M FOR IT. COUNCILMEMBER RAMIREZ.

So I agree that there are benefits to data centers, but that putting a pause and looking at what kind of standards we can put forth is the great way to go. And what I also like about this is it allows for community input, conversation, and engagement. So that's great.

Great. I think that I'll go ahead and comment. I'm for this ordinance as well. As everybody has already said and was mentioned a lot in public comment, is that there's a lot of reasons why we're doing this now, and one of them is because of you, the community. And it's important that you guys know this, that we have heard from the community, and Gilroy wants to do things, City Council wants to do things with more transparency, more input, and more feedback from the community. So I heard that specifically from a couple of the speakers, Armando and Colleen, I believe, I wrote down your names, is that those are the things that you mentioned. It's that community input that City of Gilroy wants to be a part of, and we want you to be a part of it too. So you've heard from many of the council members up here that those are why, and we all believe that, and this is why we're doing this. So any further comment from council members? Okay, I'm going to go ahead and entertain a motion.

second Sorry you made a read it off It would be appropriate to do a motion as indicated on the agenda for item one first Which is the sequel do that as a separate motion? Do two as a separate motion and then three and four together so three separate motions would be appropriate Okay, I'm gonna start with one

Okay, so I'll start with determine the action of adopting the urgency interim ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, pursuant to section 15061B3 of the CEQA guidelines. So that's the first one.

We had a motion by Bracco, and who was the second? I was. Council Member Marks. Roll call, please.

Councilmember Bracco. Yes. Councilmember Klein. Yes. Councilmember Fugazi. Yes. Councilmember Hilton.

Aye.

Councilmember Marks. Yes. Councilmember Ramirez. Yes. Mayor Bozo.

Yes. Motion passes 7-0. Next one is introduce the ordinance by title only and waive further reading. A motion.

Second.

There's a motion by Councilmember Klein and a second by Councilmember Ramirez.

Councilmember Bracco? Yes. Councilmember Klein? Yes. Councilmember Fugazi? Yes. Councilmember Hilton? Aye. Councilmember Marks? Yes. Councilmember Ramirez? Yes. Mayor Bozo? Yes. And I will read the ordinance by title only. Please do. An urgency interim ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy imposing a temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing, and approval of applications and entitlements for a new data center facility citywide for a period not to exceed 45 days.

All right, number three is adopt an urgency interim ordinance imposing a temporary Okay, so number three and four together. Yes, thank you. Adopt an urgency interim ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium citywide on the acceptance, processing, and approval of applications and entitlements for new data center facilities for a period not to exceed 45 days pursuant to California government code section 65858 and make findings as incorporated in the ordinance that adoption of the ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety, and welfare of the city and its residents.

So moved. I never get to do that, so.

It's second.

So there's a motion by myself and a second by Council Member Ramirez.

Council Member Rocco.

Yes.

Council Member Klein. Yes. Council Member Fugazi. Yes. Council Member Hilton.

Aye.

Council Member Marks. Yes. Council Member Ramirez. Yes. Mayor Bozo.

Yes. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you, Council Member Hilton. All right. Now we're going to jump back to item 9.1. This is an introduction of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending specified provisions of Article 8 of Chapter 13 of the Gilroy City Code relating to tobacco retailer permits, compliance, enforcement, and penalties.

Sorry, one moment. So this is what's popping up. And when I go to the viewer, this is what I get. They closed Zoom. Oh, wait. There it is.

OK. Yeah, and it's almost free. That's typical. OK. Kelly, Kelly.

Can mayor and council, sorry about that. I had a little technical difficulty.

Yeah. Hi, members of the audience. Connie, Connie, Lauren, members of the audience.

Andrew. It's an opposite.

Okay, thank you very much. We will resume. Thank you very much, Bryce. Take it away.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. So this is a culmination of work started in 2025 with the Council's legislative agenda item on tobacco ordinance and potential moratorium related density and tobacco retailers. Over time, as the Council had discussion over the past year, it has changed a little bit based on the understanding of the community needs and the Council's focus on the correct changes to tobacco retailer permit process. The code language that's proposed tonight has been considered for tonight is the same that was presented to council on June 1st. Council provided no direction or changes to be made, so that is the code language that's coming back to you tonight for introduction. What the code language proposed does is it places two different enhancements. So the first one, the enforcement enhancements on the permit requirements. Requires compliance with all federal and state laws that are in place. No illegal products may be sold. It further defines that, which is a weakness in the code language currently. Requires consent for inspections. If an inspection is resisted, then that is actually on its own grounds for suspension or revocation of their permit. It includes chronic nuisance activity as a prohibition and that those can be used, not just a violation in the sale of the tobacco itself as a means to enforced compliance and enforced against those code requirements. Then all persons with control over business operations must be identified in applications for TRPs, such as the business owner. Penalties are also addressed in the code language. Each violation of any permit requirement is a separate violation, so instead of being lumped together, each individual action accumulates both fines and fees and is a record of process towards suspension or revocation. Adds enforcement actions like injunctions, temporary restraining orders, in addition to our existing enforcement tools. Expands penalties to all violations. A lot of the suspension and revocation language is specifically tied to use sales. So that's removed so any violation can trigger. Adds the ability to impose emergency summary suspensions that in consultation with the city attorney's office, should those situations involving life, safety be severe enough, we can immediately suspend the operations of a tobacco retailer and have the hearing process happen afterwards. And then finally it prohibits TM transfers, tools to potentially evade enforcement by basically false sales of their business in order to get around our enforcement provisions. So Council has alternatives. It can modify or reject the ordinance or provide other directions it may see. Any modifications, depending on the intensity of the modification, may result in a restart of the public hearing process. Fiscal impact, there's a minimal cost, mostly advertising for this public hearing. No additional appropriations are needed. There'll be staff time permit at this point to do education once the ordinance is adopted and becomes effective with our tobacco retailers. And the next steps would be formal adoption, implementation of the ordinance if council approves introduction tonight and the subsequent adoption. So the recommendation is for Council to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading, and then to introduce the ordinance amending Chapter 13 of the Gary City Code relating to tobacco retailer permits, compliance enforcement, and penalties. That completes the presentation. Happy to address any questions. I'll start with Council Member Fugazi.

Great stuff on this. I think we've come a long ways. Just one question. In terms of these additional aspects to enforcement, given our last year of this particular experience, and obviously without naming any businesses or what have you, how would you see, if this was in place before, how would it have helped us through the years prior in order to, well, to have a better city in terms of tobacco and tobacco enforcement?

Yeah, I think it provides additional triggers to review. So before, like I said, most of the provisions were use sales as far as suspension revocations. Illegal products were on there, but it wasn't really clearly defined in the ordinance. So it enhances the definitions to make it very clear about what those violations are. It adds a couple things like nitrous oxide, a couple of other products that are illegal but weren't really identified or addressed in our code. And then it adds the other tools as well, so we can look at mandating security programs for business. So not just illegal products, but let's say a tobacco retailer that is generally selling legal products, but has a few material weaknesses. Instead of going straight to revocation or suspension, we can address this with some of the other tools. You know, allow to be business friendly while at the same time making sure that compliance is reached.

So maybe you can give me an example on the one that allows for immediate revocation or what have you in terms of health and safety. So if somebody were selling like they have been, let's say, packets of magic mushroom, whatever gummies or whatever they happen to be, Does that alone create that because clearly somebody could ingest, you know, an entire package of that and that's health and safety. Would that qualify or is there some other example you'd give me?

It would qualify. So one of the, when looking through this ordinance and preparing the possible options, we talked to the city attorney's office and we do have to be careful about the emergency suspensions or urgent suspensions. But it is, that is actually the type of case that would trigger. So illegal products are being sold if there's, you know, let's say even it's legal products, but we find out they're being mixed with something that is potentially lethal or toxic, then we can step in at that point, suspend the operation immediately, and then address the hearing, find out the causes of it, and have their due process, but without illegal products being sold in that interim period.

Excellent. Love it. Thank you.

Other questions for staff? No, thank you. Any public comment? Or excuse me, open the public hearing for public comment.

I have no speakers.

Okay, I'll bring it back. Any further? Go ahead.

Yeah, go ahead. I wish the community was here. Hopefully they'll come back and watch it because This also too is a huge story, but we'll go into that in another documentary. But first, I want to give some thanks, because I want to give thanks to staff. Bryce, you've been here the longest in many multiple different seats, and you've always had the patience to work with this topic on tobacco prevention. So I appreciate that and I appreciate the rest of the staff for all you've done to get us to this point. I'm very confident that we will do an excellent job from here on out. I've already seen it. I've already seen it without even asking for updates. um number two is i want to thank um this council for having the courage to take this on because last summer um as with any new council we're all being pulled in different directions want to do different things and we were doing a lot of big stuff at the same time right district elections and a whole bunch of other stuff and this was an opportunity provided to provided by public health department with grant funding. And it's really hard to try to tell a story about where we need to fill in gaps when we don't really, maybe we're not experienced with it or maybe we don't see it. But then slowly all seven of us saw it and we started hearing reports and we started seeing it for ourselves. And we started listening to what advocates were telling us in the community. So I appreciate you all for getting it to this point and for being patient. Council Member Fugazi, you know, I want to give you some credit too because when we came, you know, when we were both introduced to each other last, or two Decembers ago, we immediately battled on the first night. And for those new incoming council members, watch that meeting because it'll show you what two candidates thought that they, the relationship ended up being. And we both decided it is not going to work for us. And for some reason, this topic itself on tobacco was something that me and you tackled and found common sense language and enforcement in the middle of it. So I appreciate that. I appreciate the public health department and especially Jesse right there from Cadiz. Thank you for... FOR FOCUSING THE YOUTH AROUND THIS TOPIC. THANK YOU FOR ALL THE GROUNDWORK THAT YOU ALL DID. AND SORRY TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT YOU GUYS DIDN'T COME UP THIS TIME, SO I'M GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS YOU GUYS WERE HERE. I APPRECIATE YOU HOSTING AND OPENING UP CATA'S DOORS FOR MULTIPLE TOWN HALLS ON THIS, AND WE APPRECIATE IT. AND I THINK I SAID ALL MY THANK YOU. SO IF NOBODY ELSE HAS ANYTHING TO SAY, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO PUT A MOTION. GO AHEAD.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THIS TO ME IS WHEN GOVERNMENT IS WORKING. SOMETIMES IT'S PAINFUL AND I KNOW STAFF HAD SOME PAIN AROUND THIS AND THERE WERE SOME UGLIES AROUND IT AND THINGS THAT PROBABLY NOBODY REALLY WANTED TO NECESSARILY DIG INTO RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE IT DIDN'T SHOW THE BEST SIDE THAT WE COULD BE. For me, when you have an issue and then you try to legislate a quick knee-jerk reaction to whatever that thing is, and there were other reasons this came around, different ones from the mayor and different ones from Councilmember Hilton, it's better to step back, look to see what it is you're trying to solve and what you really want to get to and what the real problems are and figure out a way to work together to get to that core and to work with staff through it and I think as a city this is an example of a win for people who didn't want smoke shops. Smoke shops went away and they didn't go away because we banned smoke shops. They went away because we already had regulations that were in place that just needed to be enforced refine now slightly and make a place that's not welcome due to market conditions for those businesses to be operating here. And it's a win altogether on this. And yes, working together with people who you would traditionally see as not being aligned on many issues is very important in government. And I'm quite proud that we were able to do that. Thank you very much.

I'm going to tell my story, too, because you talked about having a documentary. I have to tell a story because Here we were talking about doing policy, and it just took a year and a year and a half to do this. But I have to go back to one morning when a smoke shop was trying to set up shop in Gilroy. And things were moving so quickly by text and email and things like that. And we had a shop illegally setting up a smoke shop in downtown Gilroy, in our downtown corridor. And it was so great to watch our community development department, Sharon Gouet, operating from the command center down here with her people in a matter of 12 hours. You know, you stopped this smoke shop from getting started in Gilroy very quickly, and the most heinous, ugly sign that somebody was about to hang in downtown Gilroy that represented a smoke shop, and they tried to use garlic as a symbol to do it, and it would have been horrible. So, Sharon, thank you very much for handling that day. I appreciate it. Thank you. And I'm going to call you guys out, too. Jesse, I thought for sure you'd be up here. I waited for you, especially. But you guys have been doing great, bringing the kids in, speaking. Okay, with that being said, who wants to do a motion?

So I guess the first motion would be to read the ordinance by title only and wait for the reading? Yeah.

Sorry, so moved.

Second.

So I have a motion by Councilmember Hilton and a second by Councilmember Ramirez. Second.

Councilmember Bracco. Yes. Councilmember Klein. Yes. Councilmember Fugazi. Yes. Councilmember Hilton. Aye. Councilmember Marks. Yes. Councilmember Ramirez. Yes. Mayor Bozo.

Yes. Motion passes 7-0.

I'm going to read the ordinance by title only.

I was just saying how many people voted.

An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending specific provisions on Article 8 of Chapter 13 of the Gilroy City Code relating to tobacco retailer permits, compliance, enforcement, and penalties.

So I'll make the motion to introduce an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending specified provisions of Article 8 of Chapter 13 of the Gilroy City Code relating to tobacco retail permits, compliance, enforcement, and penalties.

I'll second it. So we have a motion by Councilmember Hilton and a second by the Mayor. Roll call, please.

Councilmember Bracco. Yes. Councilmember Klein. Yes. Councilmember Fugazi. Yes. Councilmember Hilton. Aye. Councilmember Marks. Yes. Councilmember Ramirez. Yes. Mayor Bozo.

Yes. Motion passes 7-0. Okay, we are going to take a brief break. Thank you very much, everybody. Good time for it. Thank you very much. We're going to get restarted. Thank you, everybody. Okay, we are moving on to item 10.1. It's the introduction of new business. Presentation of a development services fee study. Staff report by Sharon Goye, please. Community Development Director.

Good evening, Mayor, Council Members, and members of the community. Sharon Goyi, Community Development Director. Tonight we're presenting to you a recently completed development service fee study. As part of our community development department's work plan, we completed a focused fee study of development services user fees to achieve better cost recovery. The fees that we study are the types of fees collected by all the different divisions in our department to cover staff time and costs associated with the services that we provide directly to an applicant. So examples are planning application fees, building permit and review fees, fire prevention inspection fees. For development activities, because our services are provided for each individual project, the project applicant directly benefits from those services. So it makes sense for the project applicant who directly received the services to bear the cost of those services. So through this fee study, we have tried to derive fees that reflect the cost of services for individual benefits. We also recognize during this process that we have a pretty complicated fee schedule, so we utilize this opportunity to simplify and streamline our fee structures to increase transparency and to improve efficiency in the permitting process for both the applicant and city staff. Staff conducted many working sessions to analyze the fees in detail. You'll see that our proposed fees aim to accomplish full cost recovery, but they do not exceed the cost of services. And later in the presentation, you'll see some fee comparisons with other jurisdictions in the region. Our proposed fees are within the range of fee amounts charged by other jurisdictions. In terms of public outreach, we conduct a very robust outreach, and it's a collaborative effort among all the members of our team. In May, we had a developer roundtable where we shared the preliminary results, and they were the same results that you see in front of you. In early August, we created a really comprehensive project web page where we posted a fee study reports, and there are charts in there, too. It also includes an online comment form. And we held two more community information sessions, one on August 19, one on August 20, to share this information. And throughout August, we sent out several messages through the email express and also direct emails to the development community regarding these efforts and to solicit feedback. And now I'm going to introduce our consultant, Terry Masson, with ClearSource Financial Services. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor and members of the City Council, for allowing me to speak with you this evening. I know you've had a very full agenda, so I will do my best to avoid being long-winded. I'll move quickly through this presentation and then open it up to Council feedback Q&A. And I won't be duplicative on slides that the director has already sort of walked through. So if you see me skipping, it's just to avoid being duplicative. Generally, for the next handful of slides, we're going to talk through some background as it relates to user and regulatory fees in California, some fundamentals and terminology that are common to this topic, and then what we see and are recommending generally for the City of Gilroy specifically. So just by way of reminder, communities typically use their tax dollars, those general fund dollars that we see, sales tax, property tax, and so forth, to fund services that provide broad community-wide benefit. We most commonly think of this as like public work services, public safety service, park maintenance type services. And when we provide direct services, we frequently have a direct cost recovery mechanism, and that's commonly fees and charges We mentioned that this study is specifically limited to service-based fees. So it's typically permitting, plan review, inspection efforts. There is no examination or proposed consideration of any taxes here, any assessments, any utility rates, or even development impact fees, the infrastructure mitigation type fees. So the things that we think of most frequently as citizens on a day-to-day basis are taxes and so forth. They are not part of this discussion, and this discussion is limited from a fee world to service-based fees. The primary reasons that Gilroy performs this type of study periodically and your neighbors perform the same type of study periodically is to conform to legal requirements. Because these are fees and not taxes, you want to ensure that you are not in the profit-making business. These are what we would consider like cost recovery fees. So you're eligible to recover your cost of service, but not beyond that. And I think this final bullet point really matters. When you collect fees that offset your cost of service, it positions Gilroy to continue to meet the service level expectation of the community. These fees are dealing with regulations of the California Building Code, the California Fire Code, your own municipal code, your zoning code. subdivision map deck and so forth. So these are regulations that the city of Gilroy is required to enforce and the state of California has given you a mechanism via fees and charges to recover those costs of enforcement. They're acknowledging that that enforcement has been delegated to you and there's a mechanism for recovery of those costs. Throughout the study that's in your agenda packet, we reference this concept of cost of service, cost recovery, and cost that would be offset by some other city resource. Because these are service-based fees, we're really thinking about time. So what is the value of our time, and is something complex or relatively simple? If something's relatively simple, it would have a lower time required to deal with it, and so it would have a lower cost of service. If something's more complex, it would have a higher cost of service. Your cost of service represents your ceiling, what you are eligible to charge. And philosophically, what councils think through and what Gilroy has historically thought through is if something is a clear, direct benefit to the receiver of service, you target higher cost recovery levels. If you see a community benefit, you would target lower cost recovery levels. So in this case because these fees are regulatory in nature because you see a direct receiver of service you have historically directed a target of full cost recovery for these services. What you want to remember is the cost is the cost. So if there is a cost of regulation of let's say a thousand dollars for a particular activity and Gilroy chooses to collect seven hundred dollars it has still incurred a cost of $1,000. You have recovered 700 from the receiver of service. The remaining 300, it needs to be paid from some other Gilroy resource and that would typically be your city's general fund. So that's the idea behind understanding what is your cost of service and then making policy decisions around how much of that do we want to recover from the receiver of service. Everything you've just heard is common to California. It applies to more to your neighbors in Morgan Hill Hollister Monterey You name it Southern California Northern California what we're going to talk through the remainder of this presentation is specific to Gilroy So specific to Gilroy for the fee categories we examine these development services related fees we see room to enhance cost recovery and To align to your historical City Council direction. These fees are primarily regulatory in nature We do see a clear benefit that results from these construction activities if I choose to add square footage to my home I am the receiver of the benefit of that additional square footage I am the receiver of those property enhanced property values and so forth when when the city recovers the costs of regulating that construction and you are by definition saying to my neighbors, they don't have to pay for a portion of my square footage addition or other businesses aren't paying for another business's improvements and so forth. From a city council perspective, we're dealing with about 200 fees and so we try and present information to you at a 30,000 foot level. You have information regarding each of these 200 fees in the agenda packet. But in summary form, what we'd say is there are some fees that are proposed to decrease. There are some fees that are proposed to remain unchanged. Some fees, they could decrease or increase depending on project criteria. About 40% of the fees are proposed to increase, and there are 22 new fees proposed These are for services you already provide, but there's not a corresponding fee identified in the fee schedule. So they're not new services or new requirements. It's simply identifying services we perform without a clear fee identified in the schedule. These findings are consistent with what we would expect for an agency that has done this only periodically, right? You do this type of study every five years, something like that. And in the interim years, you adjust fees by regional cost inflation. But because it's been five years and because we met with staff and thought through state regulations, the way the world looks today, the applicant submittals that you're receiving today and so forth, it's not uncommon to see some fees decrease, some fees increase, some fees remain unchanged and so forth. A lot of times the city council says, fundamentally, I understand what I'm being asked to consider. Philosophically, I follow. And they say, to help me make a decision, is there a way I could understand if I said yes to this proposal, would I align to the region or would I be positioning Gilroy as some sort of regional outlier? What we want to tell you is we have prepared this study independent of what your neighbors charge. We have prepared this study based on Gilroy's cost of service and Gilroy's organizational structure. And secondarily, we have gone through and said if the council cared about whether these proposed fees aligned to the region or not, let's give them that information. But it was not the influencer of any outcomes. It is subsequent to our analysis. What we can tell you is there are like I said, about 200 fees. So it's unrealistic to compare all 200 fees. But what we can say is let's compare some high volume fees at the low end of the spectrum, like minor type projects. Let's look at some significant type projects. Let's look at some projects where you could see like an apples to apples comparison. This word means the same thing in a neighbor's fee schedule as it means in Gilroy's fee schedule. And generally what we're seeing is The fees proposed today would not position Gilroy as a regional outlier. You would align to the region for these building permits. What we see, we looked at a broad spectrum of Santa Clara County. We looked at your immediate neighbors. We thought through a lot of populations and thinking through populations that had suburban population plus a commercial population and so forth. And what we would say is today we see Gilroy at sort of the lower end of the spectrum. from fees, even when we move ourselves, we would just move ourselves into alignment with the region. We would not be positioning ourselves as an outlier. And like I said, there's 200 fees, so I am sure that you could pick one of 200 fees, and Gilroy might be near the upper end of the spectrum, a different fee you might be at the lower end of the spectrum, and another fee you might be in the mid-range. This is intended to help you see generally where is the tide going. And what we would see generally, the tide is saying that Gilroy is at the lower to mid-range of the regional spectrum at this moment, and you would just simply be moving yourself into the mid-range of the regional spectrum. Again, it was not a forced outcome. It was just an analytical outcome. So that is the idea here. We thought through a couple of fees that sometimes councils consider like an appeal where a council might say, For the most part, I target full cost recovery, but for very specific situations, I might want less than full cost recovery to make sure that somebody doesn't see it as like a prohibitive process. So there is an area where I have said over and over, we're looking to full cost recovery with an exception of appeal fees, and this is for the filing itself. If somebody had a significant legal-related cost associated with the appeal, the applicant would be required to cover those, but for the appeal filing itself, less than full cost recovery is proposed. And what you'll see is that's consistent with what we see throughout the region as well. In terms of fiscal impact, we would anticipate it would depend on what comes through the door, but we would anticipate about $630,000 in additional cost recovery. This is to offset costs that Gilroy is already incurring. So this is not Service level enhancements. This is not new positions. This is cost that exists today that are just simply under recovered I Will turn it back over to the director now for the conclusion of this presentation

Thank you Terry. So we have several steps in order to implement the new fee schedule. We'll need to update our permit system to configure the new fees in there. We'll be tracking projects for time and materials charges. We'll monitor feedback and permit statistics to be prepared for any future adjustments. And in accordance with the current city code, the existing city policy, the fee schedule will be adjusted every July 1st with the CPI increase. And well-structured fees support staffing who provides the timely services, and all of this leads to long-term economic growth for the community. So staff's recommendations for you to receive the presentation and direct staff to schedule a public hearing for the next meeting to adopt the fees. Thank you.

Council Member Fugazi has first question.

Did we not have CPI increase before or you're just stating that it exists?

Yeah, we're stating that it exists.

So it existed before as well?

Correct.

And on some of those charts where we saw huge discrepancies is that simply because they didn't have as good a firm as we had hired and picked the wrong number? Because it's like nine times as much, for instance, for an appeal in Morgan Hill than it is here, which if it's full cost recovery, how could there be such a discrepancy?

You know, I can speak to that. We don't know because we did not prepare Hollister or Morgan Hills fee study, but we would say to you that we always caution sort of a reliance on fee comparisons in terms of we don't know whether they did target full cost recovery or not, and we don't know what the underlying assumptions were in their fee. I would think just looking at this, if I saw this... let's say like a variance request in this slide that caught your attention, I think is what caught your attention.

That was one of them.

There's three or four, yeah. This absolutely indicates that Morgan Hill believes there is a significant level of time and expenditure associated with dealing with and reviewing a request for a variance. As I mentioned, we asked staff In Gilroy, what does it take you to deal with, you know, six out of ten times when you receive a request for a variance, what does it take you to sort of review that variance request? And your outcomes were more consistent with what we would have expected to see. So we saw the Morgan Hill number subsequent to our analysis, but we didn't want to be influenced by that number.

Right. So it begs the question, did we include the right things? But evidently you're saying we did. And it just means, I guess, in some of these, especially with the fees, we just end up being more competitive. And if I'm correct, you did all that analysis, then you went back and looked at all of it. How did you choose which cities?

We chose... We tried to choose your contiguous neighbors and then other populations in Santa Clara County that we felt like were in this, you know, the San Jose proper region. And then we thought through your population size and thought through other populations that we felt like, hey, they have residential, they're not exclusively residential. You have some populations in Santa Clara County that might be like almost exclusively residential. We excluded those and said, Let's look at populations that have residential and commercial populations and think through that way.

Further questions? I have a question. You talked, part of your presentation, I heard cost recovery a lot. At one point, I heard you mention a little bit about in cases where you don't go for cost recovery. Can you elaborate that on a little bit more?

Yeah. So I would say if you look at one hundred ninety nine fees in this schedule ninety nine percent of them are targeting full cost recovery based on the historical direction of the city council and the idea that these fees are regulatory in nature. and that's consistent with what we would see in other communities, there might be a handful of fees where you are deliberately targeting less than full cost recovery. We called one out here, this appeal idea. Appeals are very rare, right? Your hope is that you might not even receive an appeal because your staff's gonna walk the potential appellant through, why did we make this decision? They're gonna show them the zoning code that informed the decision and all these things. But if an appeal does come through the door, there is a significant amount of effort that is going to be required of staff to get ready to actually have the planning commission review it or the city council review it to the tune of thousands and thousands of dollars. Agencies throughout the state acknowledge that. They say, you know, an appeal is intense in Gilroy. An appeal is intense in Morgan Hill and any of your other neighbors. But frequently, if you look at an appeal filing fee, it's not tens of thousands of dollars. Some agencies might say, you can file an appeal for $500. It doesn't mean that's what it costs them. It means philosophically that is what the council has chose to ask for the appeal filing fee. And so what we're saying is we believe the costs of even accepting an appeal filing is more than what is being proposed as a fee here. this would be an example of less than full cost recovery. You could just say as a council, we actually want full cost recovery and it appears like maybe Morgan Hill might be an example of somewhere where they are saying, I target full cost recovery for an appeal. We don't know because we didn't set that fee, but you can see it's a different number than the remainder of these communities.

So, so far you talked about appeals and variances. Could you think of any building practices that communities that you see in your trade, that communities oftentimes feel like doing it themselves is a little bit better than going out and paying the fee to get the permit. And therefore, that's where your community benefit comes back in, that you should target certain building practices.

Give me just a moment. So occasionally we do we do see less than full cost recovery if you're asking where would we occasionally see less than full cost recovery. We would see it in two or three areas. Sometimes you see it in like a minor sign permitting world where you're saying I want to encourage signage in a downtown region maybe like a minor temporary use permit. I want Christmas tree lots to show up in December and I do have to regulate them and it's It's not actually easy. There's a cost to that regulation or nonprofit groups that you might want to encourage, something like that. That would be a few instances where we see like less than full cost recovery. I think what Gilroy has done is sort of attempt to scale fees so you have very minor categories, more significant categories. You treat hillside stuff different than flatland. So you try and acknowledge different levels of effort in your fees. Historically, There were moments in time where we saw communities on the building permit side try to incentivize rooftop solar installations. And they would say, I'm going to give a reduced permit fee for rooftop solar. But I think the state has sort of clarified permitting requirements for rooftop solar. So we just don't see it as much as we used to see it.

WHAT I WAS ALSO THINKING ABOUT IS SOME OF THE SMALL PROJECTS THAT YOU HEAR ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE SMALL ELECTRICAL PROJECTS AND SMALL GAS PROJECTS. THERE'S A FINE LINE OF THE CONTRACTOR OR THE HOMEOWNER NEEDS A PERMIT AND DOESN'T NEED A PERMIT. IT SEEMS LIKE THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER COMMUNITY BENEFIT AND SUBSIDIZING SO THAT We don't have those situations where people, they need to switch out their water heater or that small electrical job that turns into, no, it's not 120, it's 240. And then those are where those accidents happen, where the gas leaks because they didn't get a simple test.

So this is not a decision-making meeting. This is a meeting to receive. the presentation and provide some general feedback and potentially direct a public hearing for a future date. But what you're saying is you would be open as a city council to, at the public hearing, seeing potentially less than full cost recovery for some of these very minor permits where you're trying to encourage compliance if it felt reasonable and rational.

Perhaps, yeah. Okay. Council Member Ramirez, you had your hand up, but then maybe the question get answered.

I think that... but I also want to know, in your professional experience and opinion, is there any place where you felt that we are not capturing full recovery where we should?

We can't hear you. THERE YOU GO. I JUST NEED TO GET THESE.

SO IS THERE ANY AREA WHERE PERHAPS MAYBE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHERE WE REACHED FULL RECOVERY OR CLOSER TO FULL RECOVERY WHERE WE'RE PERHAPS LEAVING MONEY ON THE TABLE? CERTAINLY THERE ARE AREAS LIKE THE MAYOR JUST BROUGHT UP WHERE THERE WOULD BE COMMUNITY BENEFITS TO NOT DOING SO. Given how it does take, like you said, to your point where it does take from the general fund to subsidize this when there are so many needs that our general fund is trying to... I just want to make sure that we're not leaving something on the table that we should be calling.

So that has been discussed and thought through, and that is the reason that there are fees proposed to increase in this analysis. So when we thought through what is the fee today, what do we believe the city's actual cost of service is, we are recommending in the vast, vast majority of circumstances to adjust your fees to that full cost recovery.

And in your professional experience, we're capitalizing on what we should be.

Correct.

If there's no further questions, we'll go to public comment.

I have no speakers.

Okay, bring it back to council. Well, I'll have a couple ideas, thoughts, recommendations for staff. One, I think staff should keep in mind something that Councilmember Ramirez talked about earlier. She and I attended the Bay Area Air District meeting recently, and there are going to be significant changes coming to all over the nine counties, especially Gilroy, and there are going to be recommendations about Switching out our gas water heaters to electric water heaters, and I this is one of the excuse me Most likely yeah But I just think this is one of those items that we might want to consider What you what you said about? community benefit because Because switching out a gas water heater to electric water heater. I don't think it's a typically a huge cost and In the old days of going from gas to gas, it's not. But going from gas to electric, it's going to be. And I have a feeling that this is going to be a place where people just think, this is the time I'm not going to get a permit. But this is a time that's more important than ever because now there's a chance for a slow leaking gas with an electrical ignition soon thereafter. And I just think that that's something that we should think about. AND I'LL ALSO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, AND I WOULD LIKE TO GET FEEDBACK FROM COUNCIL, IS WE'RE HEARING ABOUT SOME OF THESE COSTS, WE'RE KIND OF IN THE LOWER, MID TO LOWER, IS THAT DO WE WANT OUR STAFF TO CONSIDER, I KNOW YOU WERE SAYING THAT THESE ARE NOT SERVICE LEVELS, RIGHT? THESE ARE NOT SERVICE LEVELS, BUT DO WE WANT OUR STAFF TO CONSIDER SERVICE LEVELS? These are some of the things that I would imagine that other cities could say, well, our costs are higher because we give more one-on-one service. We're focusing on economic development and business development, so therefore it costs a little bit more, but we're going to give them more. Do we want to do that?

We'd want to consider that at least, right?

Something to think about.

Yeah, something to think about. So 100% follow your comment about the idea of like a potential change out from a gas to electric appliance and what goes with that, like identifying that as a minor permit and potentially reduced permit fees. In terms of service levels, I just want to make sure that I spoke clearly and that we're speaking the same language. These fees are proposed based on the service levels as they exist today. I think if you said I want to re-examine this analysis based on service levels as they could potentially exist, what you're going to do is significantly delay this process. So if you're interested in enhancing your cost recovery, I think you have a couple solutions or strategies. One is you could authorize a public hearing. And if you decided you wanted to move forward with the proposed fees, you would say, I would like to move forward with the proposed fees based on what is presented and the costs that were analyzed. You could then direct council to say, I would like you to strategize with the city leadership team in terms of are there potentials for enhancements to our service levels and what would be the ripple effects to cost of service and fees based on those enhancements. But now you would, that would be a secondary layer. YOU SAID THAT BETTER THAN I COULD.

I AGREE. SO OUR GOAL IS TO GIVE GUIDANCE TONIGHT. WE'RE NOT TAKING ACTION ON THIS. IS THAT THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF GUIDANCE AT THIS POINT FOR YOU, SHARON? SO BACK TO IF IT'S OKAY WITH COUNCIL, I LIKE THE IDEA OF EXPLORING NOT ONLY WATER HEATER permits, but whole house heater permits because that will also be on the furnaces. That's also going to be integrated into the Bay Area Air District's mandated changes from gas to electric. And these are the things that you hear horror stories about. Someone makes a change, there's a small leak, it gets all into the attic and it blows up and takes everyone with them. So I think it's important that we take a look at that.

Yeah, definitely. Staff can take a look at that. And actually, I looked at some numbers, you know, for water heater replacement, the current fee is $210 and our proposed $255. So we can bring back to council whether just to keep fees at the existing fee level, you know, and estimate the number of permits per year, and that will be the fiscal impact, you know, for that adjustment, for example. And also looking at furnace replacement, AC replacement type of permits. Yeah.

And I think when you bring that back, I think we do have those numbers, right, of projected numbers and past numbers of water heaters already. So we would be able to say, like, okay, well, you know, let's reduce it down to 100 because we've only put in 700, right? I think that would be good for us to be able to analyze, to know the actual numbers that we've been putting in and projected.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sharon.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Terry. Okay. Sorry. Lost my space. Item 10.2 is an update on the homeless encampment at 6th Street and Camino Arroyo Drive. Staff report, please.

Matt. Thank you. So way back on February 9th, the day that I started my first meeting was a conversation about the homeless encampment and council issued a 90-day stay at that point. Right at the end of that 90-day stay towards May 4th, Council again discussed it and moved the encampment on 6th Street to a month-to-month basis, barring issues associated with the encampment. The conversation included self-management of the encampment to ensure the burden on the community did not grow. And there was a commitment that the encampment would receive services, toilets, housing transition, other things similar. Over time, as is normal in encampments, we've seen a slow degradation in the environment around the encampment, largely through the accumulation of material, various things that the residents at the camp have gathered and brought back with them, which tends to create piles of accumulated things in general. There's been some missing components associated with the encampment, including cleanup of the surrounding area, like adjoining properties. It may have happened a couple of times, but you can see as you walk the area that along the sidewalk, it's definitely accumulated litter in the area. There's been a little control on the expansion of the individual tents of the tents have grown in size from sort of being focused on individuals to having tarp spread across them. So very very much larger infrastructure some sort of foundational pallet foundational infrastructure and then As much as we thought and hoped there would be a reduction in the number of residents, it doesn't appear to be the case. There seems to be in the 25 to 35 number of residents out there now. All that said, there has been some success, I think. So the primary one from a staff perspective is that we're not having to move people around the community. So prior to the encampment, these folks would be distributed throughout the community and we would receive complaints and move them from one location to the next in what was an ongoing process that really had no end to it, no final outcome. So having them in one location helps from that perspective, including, for example, the accumulation of materials where that happens if an individual is in one particular place for any amount of time and that material has to be cleaned up and disposed of ultimately. The camp has stayed for a large part within the boundary that was established for it. There's a nice access path that goes through the center of it, so it's accessible in and out. So there's enough room in there for people to move about. So from that perspective, it seems to be working and fairly constrained in its footprint. And it is, like I said, 25 to 35 people who are not distributed throughout the town. But because of this large accumulation of trash and because there is less and less self-management of the encampment, we thought it'd be a good opportunity to bring it back and have a discussion with council about the future. I will point out, obviously, this has significant overlap with the mayor's ad hoc committee on homelessness that is continuing and will have its final discussion shortly with ultimately a recommendation I would expect sometime later this year to the full council from that ad hoc. So that sort of provides a summary of what's going on at the 6th Street encampment, and it concludes staff report.

So, Council Member Ramirez, sorry, I know you put your hand up. I don't see you.

Before the Council Member Ramirez goes, Matt, can you also expand upon your staff report? Because you did give recommendations, did you not?

Thank you for that. So there's several opportunities that I identified. The obvious ones are to leave it as it is and continue to allow it to self-manage, knowing that there continues to be a little bit of a challenge there. The extreme to that would be to end the encampment and to move it along and to vacate that property in its entirety. I think that leads to a distribution of the individuals that are there. And then the other option that I threw in as sort of a middle of the road was to clean the encampment. So to essentially bring it back to parade rest to where it started and to allow those that are there to move back into it once it's cleaned so that they could have a place that was free of the accumulation of material. I will say that it's difficult, I think, clearly for them the individuals to self-manage. We put a 40-yard dumpster out there a week and a half ago or so with the request that they fill it up with the accumulation of unwanted material that they have in addition to the regular garbage service that we provide. And it's now about half full. So a little bit of effort, but I wouldn't say a great bit of effort involved with that. So I would have expected that it could have been filled fairly quickly. which tells me that the accumulation is more important than disposal. So I think some assistance in solving for that could be useful. So I'll stop there.

Thank you. Okay, Council Member Ramirez.

So thank you for bringing this back, because we did ask that it be brought back if it was. I sit on the ad hoc committee, and we are working diligently and as quickly as possible to bring something back to council. I have to say I'm a little disappointed with the growth when we asked to not do it. I understand the social . But I have some questions, and I'm not quite sure whether I'd rather do that or to the chief or Sharon. So I'm going to throw out the questions and then . Perfect. If we were to abate this, is there any data or any EXPERIENCE THAT SAYS THAT THE 25, 30, WHATEVER NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE, THAT THEY WOULD LEAVE GILWOOD?

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN SAY THAT THERE'S A NUMBER THAT WOULD LEAVE. I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT MAYBE A COUPLE OF THEM WOULD LEAVE, PROBABLY NOT RIGHT OFF THE BAT, BUT AS THEY'RE MOVED AROUND THE CITY, I SUSPECT THAT THEY MIGHT LOOK FOR A LOCATION WHERE THEY'RE NOT IMPACTED QUITE SO MUCH. IT MIGHT EVEN BE JUST OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS TO AN AREA WHERE We're not managing it.

Is there, but you don't anticipate that to be a significant number?

I would not anticipate it to be a large number.

And then the, so basically we go back then to having these additional 25, 30, 35 people. Our staff would then be playing the whack-a-mole game with these people as well.

Correct. Correct.

And you did say that it grew, but Do you have numbers on how many, because one of the arguments that was given to us and one of the reasons that, for me, that I approved Camp Hope was because we have been told that it's easier to provide housing if they're in one area they can be found. Are there numbers that have shown that that has happened, even though it has grown? Have there been people that were originally there, have they been housed? And do we have the number?

We do not have that information.

Do you know if housing has happened at all? Or you just don't have the number?

The nonprofits that I'm sure you may hear from could provide some insight to that. I suspect that a few have been housed. It does provide a significant advantage having them in one location. I think the planning and the housing efforts needs to be deliberate. but we all know that there are not enough housing spaces to account for all of those who need it. Sure, okay.

And there's going to be a significant, if we decide we want to abate this camp, completely abate it, there's going to be a significant cost associated with it, I'm assuming, to have an organization come in and fully abate and get rid of the hazardous materials.

I would expect, yes. Okay.

Is there a cost associated with, you had made reference when you were giving your presentation about the accumulation of items that typically happen, you've seen it in Camp Hope, but you made reference to that happening in individual campsites or smaller campsites. If you don't get to them in a reasonable amount of time and they start to accumulate and then there's this, larger. When we do get to them and do abate them, there's a larger cost associated with those individual sites as well.

And that's correct.

And when I read through this, I got the impression that it would be less impactful on our staff and our city resources if we did a reset and to completely abate. Am I reading that correctly?

I think so, yes.

Thank you.

I'm going to move on to Council Member Fugazi. Thank you.

So based on the population of the homeless in Gilroy, what percentage is this?

So it's a question we've been discussing at the ad hoc committee and wrestled with. We have one piece of data, right? Our pit count is in the 700 range. I thought it was 900 last time. You guys can help me with that. So we'll go with 700, 900. What is the actual on the street number? We suspect it's somewhere in the 300 range.

So the county got it wrong?

No, they count people that are living in garages and their cars and sleeping on sofas.

So there's a lot of elements that go into it that are assumptions. And I think the assumptions compound based on the count. So if you count, for instance, an RV, They automatically count that there's more than one person in an RV, and that may or may not be the case. As Council Member Bracco said, they count people who are couch surfing, that kind of a thing as well. So there seems to be less than 900 or less than 700 that are on the street that we can see.

So if there's only 40 in Morgan Hill, they really have nine? I mean, we have to go with numbers that we happen to have there. As far as the situation in the particular camp that's on city property, would our building inspector or our fire inspector, you know, go through there and feel pretty comfortable? With pallet buildings and the fire issues? I mean, I know if I had that on my property, I would probably get red-tagged or have an issue. Would that be fair?

I think that's a fair statement.

So the situation there you said has degraded and we think there's 35. Did we actually do any counts? Have we ever done any counts?

So the chief may be able to help with the quality of life numbers. I've spent a couple of times sort of counting tents and again sort of pit countish from that theory doing a little extrapolation. I think there's

25 to 30 tents if you figure that most of those are single occupancy, but some of them are double occupancy gives you about about 35 individuals in the encampment But our conditioning on this the last time was really based around not growing the camp but we really don't have a an official way wouldn't you say that we've been counting to make sure that that would be the case or not the case? Correct

A few times that I've been down there and walked through, some of the campsites that you're referring to are vacant. They've been housed, and it's just left there.

Well, that's an interesting anecdote, I know, but there's no official count. There's no official count.

But maybe the chief has quality of life.

Or they abandoned it for some other reason. Maybe they didn't like their neighbor. I don't know. You were asking about numbers. Well, point in time. Yeah, go ahead, Chief.

Brandon Sanchez, Chief of Police. Thank you. So what I've gotten from our quality of life officers is the number does fluctuate. It depends on kind of the day of the week, time of the day. Our numbers are between 25 and 30. Some of those have been because they've been arrested, so they're no longer there when they've gone in to do the count. People migrate, they come in, they come out. So at any given time, you have about 25 to 30 that are there, but that number moves.

We had individuals arrested, not in the camp, but somewhere else, is that what you're saying? In the camp. So we have had people arrested? For one arrest, yes. Okay. I think that was one of the conditions also that was up to that we wouldn't have any problems like that in the camp. The systems that we have, Chief, in place for identifying when we have incidents, do they use GPS in terms of when we have an incident to know within 20 or 50 feet where that incident happened, or do they just put in a location in those records?

So up until recently, they were just using location 6 in Arroyo. We had to put into our... computer-aided dispatch Camp Hope as an actual site for us to be able to track the data better because we really didn't have that as a location for us to track better. So within the last month and a half, we've been able to establish that as an actual site so we can collect our data a lot better. Before that, it was just the area in and around 6th and Communal Arroyo.

And how many calls for service in that new area in the last month and a half?

In the last month and a half? I can give you the totals for the year. So we've had 77 total calls in and around, six in Arroyo, 54 associated with Camp Hope specifically.

Okay.

But most of those calls were officer-initiated calls. Those are us creating the call, going down and doing patrol checks.

But we have had arrests there.

Yeah, we've had warrant arrests. People that we've contacted who have had warrants have been arrested. But we didn't receive calls because of them.

Right. Got it. I'll hold my next questions after the next council member.

Council Member Bracco and then Council Member Marks.

Chief, have we had any violent crime over there?

We've had one call of domestic violence, but I don't believe there was an arrest made on that call. Aside from that, there's been no calls of violence.

Thank you. I want to point out, because I'm on the subcommittee also, And when we originally did this. You know those of you that know Aubrey is a super nice guy. But he's not a site manager for that place and we we didn't set it up for fail for success by not. Having some kind of management.

Why don't we hold that for after for deliberations and go on to further questions by Councilman Mark, sorry.

In May, when we heard about Camp Hope and the people and they came, it did tear at your heartstrings because where were they going to go? And we had given very specific instructions. We were told at that time there were 15 tents. They were going to be decreased with housing. Now I'm hearing there's a lot more. Along with the 15 tents, we were led to believe there was around 15 people. And please correct me if I'm incorrect on that. Now it's 25 to 30. We also said we wanted to hear if there was any crime in the camp and we were expecting a monthly report. And now I sit here listening about the crime. We told Aubrey and we told the members of Camp Hope who came that night, we wanted the land kept clean. They had stipulations that they had to live by.

And I feel like if we... You've got to get to a question at some point, sorry. Oh, okay. This will be deliberations for after, unless you have a question now.

Oh, yeah, you're right, you're right. Okay, I guess my question would be, why would we continue the camp when they did not, you know, live up to what we expected? That's it. I mean, I don't expect an answer from you. I'm just...

Yes, I'm that's a thought. That's not a question for you chief. Sorry, Council Member Marks. I have a question. Go ahead, Council Member Rocco. I was leading up to a question.

Sorry. Matt. What could we do about the management of Camp Hope? I know we don't have anybody specifically for that position. But can we do something in-house where we go and inspect it once a week or every other week or whatever it would take and try to keep it clean and get the people to pick up around there and do what they said they were going to do?

The short answer is yes, we could do that. I think we would need resources in order to make that happen, and that's probably why we didn't go there to begin with, right? The idea was we didn't want to start managing a camp without having policies in place, procedures in place, and thus the ad hoc committee and the work that the ad hoc committee is doing. So with a staff member to be able to do that management, I think that's something that could happen, yes. Thank you.

I have a question. Back to one of your recommendations where you said conduct a cleanup and a reset. So... IT'S PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY, BUT I'M ASSUMING WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT IS YOU WOULD SEND IN THE CONTRACTORS, NOT OUR TYPICAL CITY STAFF, THE CONTRACTORS THAT DO OUR CLEANUP AND ABATEMENTS ELSEWHERE, AND THAT YOU, AGAIN, I'M READING FROM YOUR WORDS HERE, CLEANUP AND RESET. YOU WOULD GO IN, YOU WOULD THROW AWAY EVERYTHING AND TAKE THE 6th STREET ENCAMPMENT BACK TO WHERE IT WAS WHEN IT STARTED.

CORRECT.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBERS, FORGOT YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS? I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU.

Yeah, so I'll follow up on that. So by that, what you mean is move everybody out, clean up the whole site back to original, and then let them move back in? Is that what that means? That's what that means. Okay.

Then I have a question. So then every two weeks, you go back and do it again?

Are you still have a question, Council Member Fugazi? Go ahead. Go ahead, Council Member. All right.

So then in two weeks' time, you would go back and reset it again, move everyone out, and you do this in two-week intervals? Because I'm sorry, I'm not real impressed with what I'm hearing today. I mean, would that be the plan?

So it's it started it started in February and we're in September. So we made it seven months before it sort of reached this point where it's gone gone maybe beyond beyond where we're comfortable. So I would think maybe a six month cycle would be would be reasonable maybe a four month cycle if we wanted to be more aggressive. I don't know that two weeks would be something that would be manageable.

Back to council member Fugazi.

So Then you have to determine standards now of what's reasonable or not reasonable. And we now create like the data center objective standards for homeless encampments. And then we go in and enforce those. And that sounds to me like we're managing a homeless camp without the resources assigned to managing a homeless camp. Yeah, it sounds like that. Okay.

Council Member Ramirez.

You and Council Member Bracco and I sit on the ad hoc committee. We have our final meeting tomorrow. When do you anticipate coming back to Council with something?

Early November?

So that's two months away. Obviously if Council decides on a direction it would take a while. This would be then a

LIKE IT'S BEEN. AT THIS POINT, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE.

BRITT FOLLOWED BY RON AND ANNE-MARIE.

And you guys have three minutes.

Thank you. I have my neighbors on the council in the gallery and watching online. In February, I first heard of Camp Hope and the importance the site has for neighbors that live there. At the time, residents described before this council how they self-governed to ensure community guidelines are followed. In the months that have followed, Camp Hope has remained intact, and according to the staff report, has not had calls for service from police or fire. From the staff report, it seems like the major complaints concerning Camp Hope are coming from PG&E, not residents of our community. The tents may have expanded, which doesn't make sense considering we're experiencing record-setting heat waves and there's no shade at that site. The complaints are not related to safety, but rather to property. And if cleanliness is a concern, that can be managed without disrupting the lives of Catholic Camp Hope residents. Weekly cleanups do happen at this site. Dispersing the campus that exists, even if residents can return, will disrupt the lives of those already exceptionally vulnerable. You're talking about unilaterally tossing the only material possessions that some folks have. From what I've heard from community members that work with Camp Hope, about 10 of the original residents have found permanent housing. Because no permanent unhoused community shelter exists, Camp Hope is a critical step to ensure that services can reach residents in a consistent manner and the ultimate goal of Camp Hope can be achieved by having lasting permanent housing for all. If you do not have a lasting solution, it is important to work with what we have. Maintain Camp Hope. As a shameless plug, Hillary Community Action is hosting a Miller Slough Creek cleanup nearby and will be distributing resources to Camp Hope this Saturday at 9 a.m. Hope to see you all there.

Can we check the mic to make sure it's on, please? Hold on, Ron. We'll reset your time. Maybe it's batteries. Britt has a booming voice. We couldn't tell if it was on or off. Thank you. Great. That sounds better. Okay, Ron, you have 12 seconds. Go ahead.

Testing. Can you hear me now? Okay. Since the beginning, I guess it was February, the parlance around the city was to call this Camp Hope. City Hall. Everywhere. Camp Hope. However, as you know, I'm pretty prolific in providing information to the city. And I decided, I wasn't gonna bring it up tonight, but now that we're discussing this, I decided to go ahead. I am going to change the parlance of my own call. And it's my intention to call it Camp Junkyard. I think we all understand that it's not a camp for hope. It's dirty. It's so dirty that there is a significant rodent problem, rats. Rats bring disease. I'm going to speak about that in a minute. We've also noticed that there's been calls for service as time goes by. So we are now, in my mind, camp junkyard, and we have a problem with rats. We have a problem around the whole state in San Jose with diseases, and these are called, what do you call them? Old time diseases. Where are they? I did a lot of work on this. We have the bubonic plague. We have typhus, hepatitis A, trench fever, tuberculosis. They also have syphilis. in Shigala. That's what these things do. And with the rat problem that we have, they're going to poop, they're going to urinate, and they're going to be a source for all these diseases, guys. This is what you're setting up for our community. It's Camp Junkyard. It's not Camp Hope. So I appeal to you. You said, do we want to abate it? It's time. Thank you.

Anne-Marie, followed by Vanessa, and then Justin.

Well... We have gotten a lot farther than we have in the past. So thank you guys. Whatever you guys decide tonight, I mean, we're definitely making progress. The numbers are a mess, Terrence. I went on the point in time count. So there's a lot of problems with all of this. And I'm not defending it. And I had a great conversation with Carol today. That wasn't always like that. So sometimes in helping other people, we make ourselves better people. And I appreciate what you guys are doing. TO ALLOW CAMP HOPE TO CONTINUE DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU'RE APPROVING OF THE CONDITIONS OR ANYTHING THAT'S GOING ON THERE. IT JUST MEANS THAT IT'S AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S EASIER TO HAVE PEOPLE IN ONE PLACE INSTEAD OF MORE SMALL CAMPS ALL OVER THE CITY. SO THERE'S GOING TO BE RATS AT EVERY CAMP IN THE CITY BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE TO OTHER LITTLE CAMPS. THERE'S GOING TO BE PEOPLE WITH IN OTHER CAMPS AROUND THE CITY, THERE'S GOING TO BE CALLS AROUND THE CITY. SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S GOING TO CHANGE ANY OF THAT. IT'S JUST EASIER TO MANAGE IT IN ONE PLACE. AND MAYBE, LIKE KELLY SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WORKING ON SOME GOOD IDEAS A COUPLE MONTHS. clean up I don't know I mean you guys are in charge here but I just think abating it in its entirety is not the best solution I do not have a dissertation prepared tonight I would like to say though that

Camp Hope has already exceeded anything that I realistically thought it could when they landed in November. I also want to point out that people in houses get arrested for warrants all the time. We send task force SWAT team flashbangs. So that's not indicative of because they're at Camp Hope. I can attest to the fact that a significant number of the original residents are now in permanent supportive housing because I helped them get what was required to get there. And there is one individual that we went to Social Security and the DMV five separate times who is still in the process of being pulled. He still has not gotten moved in. Other people have now settled in Camp Hope who are also now in the process of permanent supportive housing. So those people really did move up and out into permanent supportive housing or interim shelter, which is why sometimes they leave their tent behind because you can't take anything into interim shelter. So then they wait until they get their keys, they take their belongings. I do not agree that Camp Hope is functioning the way that it did in November, in February, or May. And I also want to say, in defense of Camp Hope, my position with Carry the Vision ended in July. My full-time position ended, and so did Aubrey and Sam's. That covered hours out there, right? So there were many times that because of the grants and contracts we had, I would be out there for 40 to 50 hours a week. That has not happened. Compassion Center cannot drive up there to provide services because the gate is locked and has been locked. So now the expectation is the people go to the pop-up. What happened when the stable people who were housed or moved into housing is now we have the disabled, the elderly, the more vulnerable who are not capable of dragging all their stuff to the dumpster. So it falls back on people like Aubrey, who to be fair, has been carrying this as much as he could since November. And like Dion said, he's not a camp manager. He's not a site manager. We don't have anybody with those qualifications, so they're doing the best they can to compensate for people who are not able-bodied. The one call for domestic violence, if it's the same call, I spoke directly with the officers. We all tried to pinpoint, did that come from Camp Pope? Did I know who it could be? We went out and checked. We were never able to verify that anyone at Camp Pope had a domestic violence incident, either the police or any of us. So I am not, sorry.

Thank you. You're welcome. Justin.

Thank you so much, Council. My name is Justin Swett. I'm a former employee of the Bill Wilson Center Transitional Housing Program in San Jose. I can speak to the mentality of people who live with homelessness or have unstable or unsustainable housing situations. A lot of the times what we consider garbage, they consider things that they need to hoard for rainy day situations, such as water bottles, and other detritus that they can store things in. It's not like these people have credit cards. It's not like they have Amazon accounts. A lot of times when they pick something up off the street, they think, I'll be able to use this later. This is important for me to live. So what we consider garbage might be things that they consider in their state of constant fight or flight, which a lot of homeless people are in, they consider that, you know, something that they need to hold onto. And that is, you know, Tough to manage as a city, I understand. And to that end, I think that you have a lot of young and energized people who would happily volunteer to help clean up that site and help manage that. I think that getting rid of the camp in general is not a good use of resources if we're talking purely from a logistical standpoint. These people are essentially living in a state of decay. It is hard for them to find jobs. It is hard for them to get any sort of income It's hard for them to find food, to find water, to find medicine if they need it. So if we are telling them that they don't have a place to congregate, we are relegating them to the places where they're going to have to be picked up by police officers and either criminalized for the fact that they are vagrant or moved somewhere else and made another city municipality's problem. If we are saying that our goal in breaking up this camp is just to move them along in the effort to pretend that they don't exist, that is not a good use of our resources in my opinion. I think that a better use of our resources would be to utilize the very engaged community that we have here who are very invested in these people. who can help provide them the services that they need to transition from homelessness to eventual stability. And I think right now, you know, especially because it's been so hot this summer, a lot of them have been moving around a lot. A lot of them have been abandoning the tents that don't have insulation, don't have good airflow. You know, of course, when there are strong environmental impacts, people are not going to stay rooted in one place. And a lot of them move around in the hopes of finding work or in the hopes of finding whatever it is they're looking for, but when you don't have housing, you don't have a stable routine. So, you know, thinking of these people as a drain on our resources rather than people who need support and need services that I think a lot of our community is prepared to engage with and prepared to provide would be a misallocation of our empathy in general and our resources. And I thank you for your time.

I have no further speakers.

Thank you, Justin. All right, bring it back to council. Some thoughts? I'm going to go with Bracco first. Sorry, he's had his hand up. And then I'll go Fugazi, and then Council Member Marks.

Well, since we're, our subcommittee is wrapping up, I would propose that we go ahead and have Matt deal with getting it cleaned up, and then we'll be coming back with a recommendation from the subcommittee and then take it up then and make a decision on a long-term plan of what we want to do.

Thank you. Council Member Fugazi.

First of all, to address the subcommittee issue, I definitely support the ad hoc committee's work and I definitely want to get the recommendations, but It's a committee about homelessness citywide. This is about this particular site. We had a deadline in February. We had one in May. We've seen it fail. Not really interested in waiting to see what we might come up with that might still take another six to ten months to implement and require budget we may or may not have right now. I'll also say that I don't have an issue per se with having a homeless camp. that supports people and it gives them hope and the resources that they need. I have an issue with a homeless camp that is not run by the city on city property in opposition to an existing code that we have against the camping in the city. It provides an unequal application of the law. You have people who are not city officials deciding who can and cannot go into this particular camp on city property, which is also another issue in multiple ways. If it is such a successful way for us to be efficient in its 3% to 6% or 3% to 8% of the overall Gilroy homeless population, however you want to pick the number, maybe it's 9%, then why not let's invite another 10, another 20% over there and get them all together in the same spot and we'll make a giant homeless encampment. Find the other space. Hey, we got space over by the roundabout off of Thomas and over in that area on the other side of town over into over there. We can use that city property too. But I don't think that that's the right approach. I think that You know, when I looked at Matt's own words in his report, you know, there were things that said, you know, the camp could continue as long as it wasn't growing and there weren't any issues. We know it's growing and there are issues. We also heard back then, I remember, that we're going to try to move the people who are there out of there, okay, as they get housing and not cycle in new people into the camp. I don't know if you all remember that or not, but that was also part of the discussion at that time. So we wouldn't upset the people that are there, but not add new ones. We hope that the encampment would self-manage, but it hasn't come to fruition. You know, I want you to look really hard at the reset option, especially given some of the discussion we've had recently over risk and whatnot, because I think it's the most dangerous of the three that we could possibly go after. It means the city is going to clear our property. We're going to clean it. We're going to invite people back in. And it's no longer just us kind of tolerating this camp. It's we're basically... creating a camp now we are actually putting a camp in gilroy that we have to manage somehow or another we have to fund we have to figure it all out and in due time in some place in the city maybe we will do that um but getting there just ad hoc is i don't believe is is the way for us to go about it I do know that this will move people around, and I do know that there are people already getting moved around in the city. And I do know that the ad hoc committee is going to work hard in trying to find a way for us to improve stuff for homelessness in the city and working with the county and everything else. But these are different issues. This is an issue on city property against an ordinance that we have and against the kind of framework that we set up where the rest of you voted for it back then when I knew we'd be right here today. Thank you.

Council Member Marks.

I have to agree with Council Member Fregasi. You know, if we were to do a reset, who is going to be managing it after that? I agree with him. It's going to go right back to the condition that it's in. And when that video came out a few weeks ago, which got us all stirred up, it made it look really, really bad. I had no idea that all the garbage had accumulated. When Councilmember Ramirez and I went out and walked through Camp Hope a few months ago, Aubrey had everything I thought under control. It was pretty clean. I didn't realize he had lost his funding, so I understand that part of it. Why would he be doing anything there if he wasn't you know, getting paid for his services. If we reset it, we're going to go right back to where we are. We were supposed to be getting, I mean, it was a month-by-month basis, so in my mind, we were going to hear monthly. And no news was good news until the video came out that showed the tons of garbage. And we're talking about economic development. Is this what we want to see potential business owners or company owners, you know, coming to Gilroy to see what's here? and this is city property, I think that's reflection on us as a city, that we're not managing it. What is the answer? You know, at this point I don't know because we would be going ahead and moving the people around. On the other hand, what I would like to say, if we have it reset and cleaned up, it comes along with a manager, a site manager, and it stays it stays in order until we hear from the ad hoc committee. Because unless we have some really good supervision in whatever idea the ad hoc committee has come up with, we're going to be right back to where we are today. I'm just very disappointed. I had high hopes, you know, for Camp Hope back in May that everyone was excited on the same page and that it was going to work out.

Council Member Hilton.

Thank you. So I totally agree with Vanessa and many others. The arrests, drug abuse, all that kind of stuff, that's citywide. We already know that. The difference is that when we're able to, when we have places that have those type of effects, like in this case, the no news ended up being bad news, right? We kept being told every single day, like, you know, have some compassion. There's nothing happening at this camp. It is perfectly fine. Don't look at it. And now we know we've had, you know, dozens of contacts by GPD, arrests inside the camp. We've got a 40-yard dumpster that's out there now. We've blocked access, public access to the bike and ped trail. People aren't allowed to use it anymore because of that. And the difference is that when we actually manage something, when we manage conditional use permits, when we manage residential apartment buildings, even when we go inside single family neighborhoods, we all have codes that we're living by. And a perfect example is the Southern Gateway when the truck stop was having its issues and we said, well, let's start meeting with staff. Let's pull their conditional use permit. There's things that you can and cannot do. And we cleaned the place up. But we're stepping into this like we don't want to manage it. We do want to manage it. We hear risk about it and that we don't want to talk about the risk about it. And I just find it really hard watching the city and us go through this. I too agree that a permanent camp isn't allowed in this specific place anyways. It goes against our city code. It goes against that. So I am totally in favor of listening to what the ad hoc has to say, and a permanent encampment in Gilroy somewhere, I think that's totally fine. Something that's not affecting our infrastructure, something that's managed, I'm totally open to listening to that. I'm not in favor of a reset and letting people move back in. And the last thing that I want to say too is that YOU KNOW, WHEN I LISTENED TO THE VALLEY WATER BOARD MEETING ALMOST A YEAR AGO NOW, AND THE MAYOR WAS ON THERE PLEADING FOR THIS CAMP. THE DISTRICT SUPERVISOR WAS ON THERE ALSO TALKING ABOUT IT. Unfortunately, the labor group for Valley Water, I know they wanted to have compassion too, but the things that were going on at that camp bothered them so much that they spoke publicly about it. I know that was hard for them because they want to have compassion. BUT HEARING THE STORIES THAT CAME OUT OF THERE AND WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THAT CAMP AND THE SAFETY CONCERNS, THEY MIGHT NOT EXIST, ALL THOSE EXTREME EXAMPLES WITH THIS CAMP, BUT ONE OF OUR STAFF MEMBERS DID HAVE A NEEDLE STICK. AND UNFORTUNATELY, THIS STAFFER IS GOING TO BE HAVING TO GET CHECKED EVERY 30 DAYS NOW. for it try to do all the safety measures they could but when we're not having the professional encampment cleanup go in there and do that and we're just relying on staff I'm concerned that eventually by letting this sort of just don't look at it let it just let it continue that uh you know we are eventually going to walk down the road where we're going to force our own staff um TO COME FORWARD IN FRONT OF US. AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN. SO THAT'S ALL MY COMMENTS.

Councilmember Ramirez?

AGAIN, WE'RE FACED WITH A VERY COMPLEX SITUATION WITH NO EASY ANSWER. I CAN'T ARGUE WITH YOU, COUNCILMEMBER HUGHAZI. YOU BRING UP VALID POINTS. I CAN'T ARGUE WITH COUNCILMEMBER MARX. I CANNOT ARGUE WITH COUNCILMEMBER HILTON. My concern is, you know, and I appreciate the optimism that you have for the ad hoc, because I do think that we're going to bring something back that will probably be a unanimous vote and be something very good for this community. But we're not there yet, and government gets in the way of government, and things take time. I'm looking at this from a couple of different perspectives, though. I do not want to see business owners and homeowners have to deal with the however many people, 25, 30 different camps that are going to be set up throughout the city. If we abate this, they're going to go somewhere. You know, it's going to be our neighbors that are dealing with it, our businesses that are dealing with it. That would be problematic as well. And the other thing is looking at this from a pragmatic lens, I guess, is what is the least impact on the resources, the very limited resources that we currently have as a city, And from my understanding of the report and from the city administrator is that the least impactful would be to do a reset. But in hearing this conversation, I would like to have the reset kind of re-evaluated in terms of how that's done. Could it be possible that instead of pushing everybody aside, cleaning it up, and having them come back, Could we somehow work within what is there and clean up without removing them so that we don't run into the issue of who do we let back in? How many do we let back in? Right now, if there are empty tents, let's get rid of those. Do the cleanup around the tents and say, look, you can have this tent and you can have the or whatever, we're going to spray paint the ground, something similar to what San Jose had done, you know, and then say anything beyond that goes into the dumpster and then monitor it.

Can I ask you a question? So you said you don't want it to go out and disrupt the other businesses and the residents, right? The inverse of that logic would say, why don't you invite more people from the general community to come to Camp Hope because that's going to be beneficial to all the residents and the businesses because you'd be getting them out of... I don't understand where you're getting... Because there's 90%, okay, of Gilroy's homeless, or 80% even, whichever numbers you want to use, are not in Camp Hope. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear to you.

My request of this reset is instead of moving everything... No, I understood that part. ...starting over, keeping it so that nobody else can come in, and if there are empty tents, whatever, get rid of those and do not allow more to come in.

No, I understand, but you said the reason you don't want to just abate the camp was because these particular individuals would then be spread around the rest of the community. Correct. Right? And that would be bothersome to residences and businesses, because they would no longer be congregated in Camp Hope. They would be out and about. And the inverse of that logic is to say, well then, because the vast majority of the homeless are not in Camp Hope, and they're out there possibly disturbing residents and businesses, why not invite all of them into Camp Hope and make it bigger?

And hopefully, the ad hoc will come up with something like that.

And right now, we would make it better for everybody.

15 more, 25 more, 30 more is going to bother 25, 30, 15 more homeowners or business owners. And so I'm saying let's not add to what is already an issue by dispersing those that are in this.

Why don't we go on to Council Member Klein?

Well, I'd like to say I've supported this, naturally. I'm glad the ad hoc is doing the work working at those solutions. They're having those discussions. My challenge is we were supposed to reduce it, but we haven't reduced it. And things that we were supposed to do, we're not. And I don't know the solution of... cleaning it up, they're going to be displaced for a time because you're going to clean it up. So where are they going to go in that time in cleaning that up? That's the challenge there. And it's just, and also the sheer cost of doing that cleanup too. And it'll be a continual cost. So that's my challenge with this.

Okay. So, um, can I make a motion? No, I have some comments. Okay. Um, so council member Klein talked about the, um, THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT COSTS OF ABATEMENT IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR YEARS. THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I BROUGHT UP THE LAST TIME WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION. We continue to have these costs with dealing with the homeless community in Gilroy. And we have proven time and time again that abatement doesn't work. And that was the challenge that I had when I made my decision last time is that You know, like we just said before, I can't disagree with anybody here. Just like the members of the community just said, I'm not trying to rationalize this. I'm not trying to justify this. I'm not trying to blame people for this. This is the problem that we have inherited in Gilroy that has existed in Gilroy for well longer than we've had a quality of life officer team. And what I keep hearing from staff, and I believe them, is that SENDING THEM OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY IS GOING TO COST MORE THAN ALLOWING THEM TO STAY WHERE THEY'RE AT. SO GETTING BACK TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING AND WHAT I HEARD COUNCILMEMBER MARKS, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT SHE WANTED TO HEAR IS CAN WE DO A CLEANUP WITH LEAVING THE PEOPLE REMAINING IN PLACE? CAN WE DO A CLEANUP? CAN WE MONITOR BETTER? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DISAPPOINTED ABOUT. CAN WE MONITOR BETTER? AND AS COUNCILMEMBER BROCKO SAID, BRING THIS BACK IN TWO MONTHS WHEN WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE AD HOC. Would you be comfortable with doing that, Council Member Klein and Council Member Marks?

About one month.

Yeah.

I mean, I would like to have a report in one month. Looking back on this, we should have been asking for monthly updates and maybe taking walks. Ask for that.

Okay. Ask for that.

SO THE ONE SPRINKLE ON TOP OF ALL OF THIS IS WE'VE OBVIOUSLY ALL HAD SOME LEGAL INFORMATION AROUND OTHER POTENTIAL COSTS THAT WE HAVE THAT WE SHOULD NOT IGNORE. AND THIS SHOULDN'T BE JUST A COST EXERCISE HERE. because we're talking about city property, we're talking about a city ordinance that we're not just ignoring, we're talking about a situation where now we are actually more and more managing a homeless camp and not allowing one to just happen to congregate on our property. And we are increasing our risk, we are increasing our liability, we are telling the residents THE HOMELESS RESIDENTS, THE REST OF THEM, THE OTHER 80% OR WHATEVER IT IS, THAT YES, THAT'S GREAT FOR THEM, BUT NOT FOR YOU, WHICH IS INCREDIBLY UNFAIR. And if you believe that this is so much better and so much more cost effective, then why should we limit it at all at 20 or 30? We should go invite 40, 50, 80, 100, get them all out of town and put them right there next to Costco. That would be the most efficient way of doing all of this. But we all know that that's not what people will want, and we know that that's not what's the right thing to do. And so you're trying to piecemeal something together. And the ad hoc will come back with recommendations. And there will probably be some pretty good recommendations in there that will require some funding and other things. But government will take time. And we'll hit November. And every day that goes by, we'll assume more and more risk. We'll have more and more problems. And we'll have more and more things that come up out of this particular congregation of people. So, you know, I'd like to make a motion, if I may.

Hilton had his hand up first. Oh, okay. Council Member Hilton, do you want to let him?

No, go ahead and make your motion. I just want to really just double down on we're really trying to stay away from marking territories and telling who and who can come out of there because that starts getting into the management roadway and that's what we're trying to stay out of so we don't increase our risk. But go ahead with your motion.

So I'd like to move to direct staff to provide notice and discontinue the encampment at 6th Street and Camino Arroyo Drive, also known as Camp Hope, with the abatement completed no later than October 19th and coordinated with the service providers so that available shelter and services, if they are available, are offered to residents in advance and to return with the ad hoc committee's recommendation in October, obviously, as scheduled.

I'll second it.

For discussion. Yes, there's a motion from Council Member Fugazi and a second by... Council Member Hilton, is there any discussion on this motion? Right. So any discussion from Council Member Klein or Marks? You guys had questions? You had concerns?

There's always a concern where they're going to go. That's always the concern.

Just ask me if you have any more questions.

We're trying to get to a place where we get some solutions. I know that's what the ad hoc is doing. So that's the challenge with this.

But I think we already know too, right? Because we've been told this, and we already have heard it, that they're already moving people out of there when they don't want them in there. Right? They said that to us. I don't know. If we don't want them there, we'll make sure that they don't end up here. If they're causing trouble, then they'll get out of here. Or I guess in worst case scenario, you know, people get arrested inside there. But yeah, we've already been told that. So people have already been displaced out of there.

And it's moved away from self-management. RIGHT? THERE'S NO MANAGEMENT THERE.

STAFF MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO GET IT BACK TO WHERE IT WAS WHEN THIS STARTED. AND COUNCILMEMBER MARK HAS MADE SOME SUGGESTIONS ABOUT REPORTING. WELL, WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION ON A MOTION. SURE.

RIGHT?

THE ONE WHO SECONDED IT.

THAT WAY WE'LL GET CLEAR AND IF IT DOESN'T PASS OR WHAT HAPPENS. I WENT TO SOMEONE ELSE.

HE STILL HAD DISCUSSION ON YOUR MOTION. HE HAS A RIGHT TO DO THAT. DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON IT? Okay. Take a vote, please.

Council Member Bracco? No. Council Member Klein?

No.

Council Member Fugazi? Yes. Council Member Hilton?

Aye.

Council Member Marks? Yes. Council Member Ramirez? No. Mayor Bezzo?

No. Motion fails. Did you guys miss my speech earlier today? Please. Yeah. Well. So we still have to figure something out then.

I would like to make a motion, Mr. Mayor.

So I... Council Member Bracco would like to make a motion. You're welcome to second it or make an amendment, and we can have a discussion on it, just like we just did. Go ahead.

I would like to make a motion that we go with staff's approval and go ahead and clean up the camp and then see what happens when the subcommittee reports back and have... our city administrator, however he deems necessary, to try to put something together to manage it a little bit. It's not fair to try to make Arbery self-manage it over there and I think that's some of the problem is some people have moved in there. I mean, he's not a security guard. Poor guy. Right. Do we have a second?

Yeah. His motion. Do you want to repeat that motion in condensed and forget the part about Aubrey?

Okay. My motion is to have staff do what... Matt's recommending with cleaning it up reset however, he deems necessary to do it and then try to Come up with a plan to manage it.

Can I make a friendly amendment to that and add that we get a monthly report?

But I would also like to add something else to report from who about what about how it's going I

We can find out how many arrests are being made.

That would be good. Also, I would like to have Matt be able to tell us right now, is it possible to have someone from staff, like the motion is requesting, to manage that? Because if not, then we're back to zero one again.

I don't have anybody to manage it, but I can reach out to some of the people in the community to see if maybe there's a contract that we can put in place to provide some outcome-based management of the site.

So we have a motion so far by Councilmember Bracco. I will add one other point.

since we are discussing it. Go ahead. I do believe that the risks associated with this have not been adequately discussed. If this motion passes to not completely abate this camp, I will have to inform the council and the public with all of the risks that are associated around this camp.

Thank you. So there's a motion on the table by Council Member Bracco and a second by Council Member Ramirez. A friendly amendment. The motion is for staff to carry out a reset in the best management way that they can according to Council Member Bracco. We have a second by Council Member Ramirez who has a friendly amendment of monthly reporting from staff. Council Member Marsh, do you want to add anything to that, or is that monthly reporting work for you?

No, that would be fine.

Okay. I have a question. Yeah.

Are we saying two months?

I mean, we... Council Member Bracco said that we'll bring it back when we bring back the recommendation from the ad hoc.

November.

Someone had asked me earlier, and I had said November.

We want a date November. Yeah.

First meeting in November. Roll call, please.

Did we have a second? Council Member Bracco. Yes. Council Member Klein. No. Council Member Fugazi.

No.

Council Member Hilton.

No.