City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, we're going to get this meeting started at 5 o'clock, October 5th, 2026. Roll call, please.

Here. Andy, would you take it away from here, please?

All right, welcome everybody we're gonna kick off this meeting and Monday, October 5th, 6.08 p.m. We'll start off with roll call, please.

Here. City Clerk, posting of the agenda, please.

Thank you very much. So we're going to go to Pledge of Allegiance and then invocation by Jesse Jimenez. Ready, begin.

All right, please remain standing. Sorry, I should have said that earlier. Take it away, Jesse. Thank you, Jesse. All right, let's jump to item, right to item 3.7. Employee introductions. The first employee introductions will be done by Assistant City Administrator, I believe, Harjo Sengha, who will introduce Lloyd Shand and Akil Miller.

Next, new employee introductions by Chief Brandon Sanchez, who will introduce Catherine Virgin, Salvador Zendejas, and Antonio de Santiago.

So next item is 4.1 ceremonial items, but I got to throw a little plug in for these two guys right here. So my son-in-law was in the same class as these two guys in the Sheriff's Academy that just graduated from recently. But going back to the middle of summer, early summer, my son-in-law was talking about four or five other kids that they were hanging out with. And one happened to be A kid right in my neighborhood who's going to work for Los Gatos. Another is a Gilroy kid who's going to work for Salinas. And then these two guys. So it was only four months ago that I had five guys in my baseme

Can't see. All right, thank you once again for employee introductions. I want to give you guys a hot tip. You have no obligation to stay all night, so feel free whenever you're ready to go. No one's going to give you a bad time. That includes you too, Akhil, so don't worry. You don't have to stay here all night. All right. I didn't think he'd go that fast. Never seen him run so fast. Okay, so that means there are now five additional seats up here for anybody that's looking for a seat. So feel free if you want to sit up front. Okay, moving on to item number 6.1. This is public comment by member

Thank you, Genevieve. That's your two minutes. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Nicole. Vanessa? And then Avery.

Moving on to reports of council members. Council Member Bracco. No report. Council Member Fugazi. No report at this time. Council Member Marks.

Yes, just a very short one. Santa Clara County Habitat Agency met with their implementation and their governing boards. It was a very short meeting for my last one. And all they did was approve the two consent calendars and just go over a fiscal report. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Council Member Hilton.

Thank you. From Silicon Valley Clean Energy, to adjust a plan change in the SVCE fiscal year, the board reviewed and approved a stub budget to close out 2026. SVCE is shifting from an October to September fiscal year to a January to December fiscal year. This shift required a stubbed budget to cover the period of October through December for this year. While SVC ends the 2025-2026 fiscal year in a strong position with adequate reserve balances, the stubbed budget anticipates drawing $27.6 million in reserves as revenues decline due to lower energy costs. Staff projects no major changes for 202

Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of items. Wrapped up our last unhoused ad hoc meeting and it's an honor to serve. Come on.

There you go. It was an honor to serve with a diverse group of very committed community members and look forward to presenting our ideas to council soon. Kudos to Mr. Horta and the entire HR team for an outstanding wellness fair for city staff. It was a lot of fun to attend and they had a very broad showing of different community resources. I attended the annual League of California conference down in Anaheim, served as the voting delegate for the city of Gilroy, and voted in favor for creating a diverse committee to bring back local control. It was a great opportunity to learn with sessions i

Yeah, I had the privilege, and it was a great Saturday, me and the mayor. WENT OUT TO THE RIBBON CUTTING FOR THE NEW URBAN AIR ADVENTURE PARK THAT JUST OPENED UP THIS LAST SATURDAY HERE IN GILROY. IT WAS A GREAT EVENT PUT ON BY NOT ONLY GILROY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, BUT THE URBAN ADVENTURE AIRPARK COMPANY. THEY SHARED, I'M GOING TO BREAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THEY SAID SO MANY POSITIVE THINGS ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCE IN GETTING THEIR BUSINESS HERE IN GILROY. AND SO THEY WERE VERY APPRECIATIVE STAFF AND JUST how much they helped them get their busines

Thank you. You stole my report, so I'm going to add on to it. Congratulations to Community Development and Economic Development. What I heard from the ownership group is that this is the fastest time they've ever turned a contract into opening the doors in the western region for urban air in the United States. And the representative of the ownership group said that that saved them $200,000. because they were paying the lease regardless and you guys got them open, so great job. In addition to the Urban Air, this is a shout out to our community, the Urban Air folks who are hiring a lot of young

Yeah, like on 8.1, it's just a small matter, which is it says the attendance on our study session was from Mayor Dave Bozo. I'm sorry? I thought you'd get a kick out of that one. Thank you. I don't know how that happened. Good catch. But in addition to that, 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5, I have a couple of questions on.

Okay, so you want to pull those? Yes, please. Okay. So we're going to pull those. So I'm looking for, okay, I'm going to go to public comment on consent. I'm going to go to public comment on consent.

Okay, so Council Member Fregasi, was that 345? Yes. Okay, so I'm going to entertain a motion for approval of the consent calendar of item 8.1, 8.2, 8.6, and 8.7. Motion. SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER KLEIN AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER RAMIREZ.

YES. SO COUNCILMEMBER FUGATSE, YOU HAVE A QUESTION. WHY DON'T YOU START WITH 8.3, PLEASE.

YES. SO STARTING WITH 8.3, AND I MIGHT HAVE BEEN BETTER TO CATCH THIS EARLIER ON, BUT IT'S FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY. specifically about repeated police service calls counting against, you know, deeming basically the business owner. I think there's a government code that covers this. I think it's, I've got down here Section 53165, basically not allowing to, penal decisions may weigh this, bars local agency from penalizing a resident owner or tenant or other person. including designating the property as a nuisance because someone summoned the police for a crime or emergency. For instance, even robb

I said that. That's why I prefaced it that way.

I'd have to go back and look. I think it's page 62 and 66 of our packet, not of the ordinance. Right.

In that case, I'll move to adopt 8.3 with that in mind when it comes around. You obviously have to now take this to the public, I guess, right?

Mm-hmm. Okay. No, we already had public comment. Yeah. Oh, you did? We did public on everything.

Oh, next one. Okay. Okay. On the EV chargers, specifically, there's a couple of things. First of all, we have to obligate this by the 31st of January. Are there any issues with us? We've had some timeline issues with a lot of projects in the past, and I know that that looked like a condition on it. Do you see that as not a problem?

And also there were, in some of the original documentation, it said there were six dual-part charging stations, but now it says that there are up to four of them.

Okay. All right, that's all the questions.

On 8.5, super happy to see it there. Just want to know if we can get on the record when we're expecting to see all those improvements be made. Is there a timeline that the public can expect?

So still within the school year? Still within the school year. Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you. So now I'm going to entertain a motion for approval on items 8.3, 4, and 5 of the consent calendar. I'll second it. Did I hear it first?

And just for clarity on 8.3, how is that going to be dealt with?

Okay. Okay? Do you have the first? I think you had the first.

Look over a second. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Hilton and a second by Council Member Fugazi to approve items 8.3, 4, and 5 of the consent calendar.

Yes, motion passes seven to zero. Thank you for those questions. Moving on to item number 9.1. It's a public hearing. Adopt a resolution updating and establishing various user fees in the comprehensive fee schedule. Sure.

On page 16 of actually the packet, under next steps, should it read that it will become effective January 1st, 2027?

Okay. Noted. We'll change that from 26 to 27. Thank you. Thank you very much. Staff report, please.

That concludes your staff report? Okay. I'm going to open it up to questions. First person up for questions is Council Member Fugazi.

Specific questions around the water heater electrification portion. Given the numbers that I saw here just off the top of my head, it looked like about 275 on average. per each, 74 divided by the 300 or what have you. Is that really reasonable in this new world of electrification where panels and all sorts of new conduit and cabling and all of these projects which have been estimated to be, some of them, $10,000, $12,000, $15,000 to electrify? Is that a reasonable estimate? And the $74,000, is it we are setting a flat fee for any one of these electrifications, or we're just reducing the percen

And that includes everything that it would possibly take to do that. So if it required a full panel update and everything else, that would normally be probably in $1,000 or $2,000, right, to get cost recovery with all of the inspections and everything. It's now going to be $150.

So to be clear the things they're trying to do at the state really isn't going to help people at the level that they're trying to propose it's going to help them because it's really only going to lower that one little portion. Got it. Thank you very much.

Additional questions. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. We have any public comment?

Okay, I'll close public hearing. I have a couple just quick comments. So thank you for addressing that. That was one of the things that I asked about regarding the electrification of water heaters and switch from gas to electrification on heating systems. I wanted to point out a couple things regarding the Bay Area Air District. You guys were talking about the need for switching out and upgrading to electrical. But to be clear for the public, that's only a requirement once your gas heater expires or your gas air system expires. I want the public to know that. It doesn't automatically, if you p

Great. In addition to, I know there's some significant cost concerns that come along with this, that the Bay Area Air District is also going to be offering plenty of opportunities for rebates and applications for seniors and things like that because they do understand that this is not going to be inexpensive for some houses. Some houses, it'll be quite easy. Other houses, as Council Member Fugasi said, it might be a panel upgrade, and that'll be tough.

Exactly. So thank you. Any other comments? Okay, I will entertain a motion. Sorry, I lost my space here. Yeah, yeah, sorry. Together?

Okay, I'm going to entertain a motion. This is a long one. Give me a moment. Adopt a resolution which includes the following. A, updating and establishing various user fees in the comprehensive fee schedule effective January 1st, 2027. It says 26, 27. The updated fees will be incorporated into the city's comprehensive fee schedule and the fees may be updated with the comprehensive fee schedule on July 1st, 2027. and follow the annual automatic consumer price index, otherwise known as CPI, thereafter in accordance with the existing city code. Motion? Somebody?

Okay, I have a motion by Council Member Klein. Second. And a second by Council Member Bracco. Roll call, please.

Yes, motion passes seven to zero. Thank you. Thank you very much. Goodbye. Thank you, Sharon.

He's out of here. Thank you. You don't waste any time. Okay, thank you. Moving on to item 10, unfinished business. 10.1, consideration of the approval of the 2026 update to the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan and certification of the final environmental impact report. Staff report, please.

Yeah, you got it. I'm gonna move from left to right now. So I'm gonna start with council member Ramirez and then go Hilton and then council member Fugazi to start it off.

I'M SURE IT WAS, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. SO I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. DID PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OR APPROVE THIS, GIVEN THAT IT WASN'T A PART OF THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN?

AND THEN JUST SO THAT THIS IS TO MAKE THIS CLEAR TO THE COMMUNITY ESPECIALLY, IF WE APPROVE THIS WHOLE THING TONIGHT AS RECOMMENDED, THIS COULD ALL CHANGE WITH FUTURE COUNCILS WHEN IT COMES TIME TO ACTUALLY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS AND START PUTTING FUNDING THROUGH THE PROCESS.

I just, I wanted to start it off before my question, just say thank you. This is a long process. We have a lot of newly engaged folks in the city that might be watching us or joining us. And for some, this might be like a big, huge deal. And if they don't see us reacting like that, it's because of all you've mentioned before, the 500 comments and the true community outreach that you all did with this to gain those. I just appreciate it and for the consultants too. Speaking about what Council Member Ramirez said, you know, we deal with the master plan process across all spectrums, like sports p

So when we look at the $230 million cost estimate, how is that derived in terms of obviously, is it today's dollars? Is it you've come up with some sort of a scale-in plan for which of these parts is happening, when, and then applied, you know, what might be an estimated inflation rate to it? How did you come to $230 million?

So as you said, it's going to cost more if we do it in phases? 10% more, 20% more, 50% more?

$230 today. We have to obviously bond to get the money to do this. And then we start to build it out. And in its entirety, if you built it all at once, it would take two years to do or three years to do. Probably three at least. It's not conceivable that we would do it all at once, right?

Right, so 230 isn't really a reasonable number to use because it would never happen that way, right?

It could be like a half a billion dollars by the time we finish. I'm not going to.

Right, right. So I'm somewhat confused. Maybe the public's somewhat confused. This is probably for the city attorney. When we talk about the significant and unavoidable, and then the staff report says it's not a significant historic resource, and then we read the letter and it says it's a significant historic resource and substantial adverse effect, And so there's all of these, you know, the Wheeler Center conflicting things when I read the report. How should the public understand that from the city attorney?

So you stated that saving it would cost too much money, and was that considered in the plan to save it and make it one of the options? And if so, how much was it going to cost to bring it up to standards?

So it really wasn't just the cost. It was, hey, this isn't really sitting in the right spot. This isn't sitting in the right spot. And so therein is what we did.

Do you already have a sequence of how you're going to roll these things out yet? There is no sequence. You haven't contemplated which thing we're going to do first?

Last question, I promise. The community really wanted to have a year-round pool. I've seen a lot of different things about that in the report. Also, even in recent emails that the council has gotten about having lap pools and an indoor pool and the right size pool and all of these things. You know, are we enclosing it? Are we not enclosing it? Everything I saw was it's an outdoor pool, right?

John, if an outside company came to Gilroy and said, we want to build this great big swimming pool in the middle of residential, would we let them do it? I guess it depends on the circumstances. I can answer that. There's no way we would let them do it because of the noise, the parking, just all kinds of stuff.

From the first meeting I was at with the consultants, they were against it and they didn't want to talk about it and they didn't want to hear about it. Wheeler Auditorium has a lot of significance to the people of Gilroy. And I believe the only way you will get a bond measure to do anything is if it includes Wheeler Auditorium.

OK, THANK YOU. WE'RE IN QUESTION MODE STILL, SO THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT COMMENTS. IS THAT OKAY? WE WILL MOVE ON. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

GO AHEAD. JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS NOT A COMPETITIVE SIZED POOL THAT WE COULD USE LIKE THE AQUATIC CENTER IN MORGAN HILL TO GENERATE SIGNIFICANT REVENUE.

I had a couple questions, but they were asked. Okay. I'll have comment.

Thank you. I'll go to public comment, please.

All right. Bring it back to council. Comments? Council Member Fugazi? Yeah, go ahead, Council Member Hilton, then I'll go Fugazi. Go ahead.

So I agree with the commenter. I really enjoyed this master planning process. I've been through a couple different master plans. This one was the most fun for me because it kind of brings along the hopes and dreams of the community, the hopes and dreams of us. I really appreciated, and this is something for our new city administrator to hear, I APPRECIATED LAST YEAR WHEN THIS COUNCIL GOT TOGETHER THAT SEVERAL OF US HAD ISSUES THAT WE WERE HAD IN COMMON AND SO WE MET IN SMALL GROUPS. AND WE WOULD EXPLORE IN THOSE SMALL GROUPS AND THAT SMALL GROUP MENTALITY LED US INTO THIS WORK, RIGHT? AND STAF

Yeah, I'm not a fan at this time of where Gilroy is. We have a lot of major concerns. And then when I look at what came out the other side, simply because, yes, the Wheeler part, yes, the parking part. Yes, the swimming pool that won't meet the needs of a number of people. Yes, the stage that's not there. Yes. I mean, there's many different reasons that I think that we could have done a better job on this. And then the ultimate is this is essentially going to raise the – to get even this passed, it's going to be – $1,000, $1,500 a year at least for the average homeowner or even renter whose re

Well, it said at the beginning this is a roadmap, and that's what I look at. This is just a roadmap of where we want to go potentially in the future with our city square and what we want that to look like. It doesn't lock us into anything other than GETS US IN A PLACE WHERE WE CAN CONSIDER THAT. BEING IN CONSTRUCTION MY ENTIRE ADULT LIFE, I'VE SEEN SO MANY DIFFERENT PROJECTS AND HOW THEY EVOLVE AS THEY GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PLANNING PROCESS. SO YOU START AT ONE POINT, FIGURE OUT THE NEEDS, AND YOU KEEP MOVING THAT TO MAKE EVERYTHING FIT. SO WE'RE A LONG WAY AWAY FROM BEING AT THAT PLACE. BUT I

I'll add to that, too, just being from construction. I see it all the time in landscapes. We get designs put in front of us from clients that the clients cannot afford it. It's something that they thought they wanted, but they can't afford it. And that's what we call value engineering. That doesn't mean that we throw away the entire plan and start over. We take the plan, and in this particular case, we could use that plan, consult with the community, consult with future councils, consult with the idea of how much money this community is ready to contribute through bonds, and then make those de

HOW WOULD THAT WORK GIVEN WHAT HE TOLD YOU WHICH IS THEY REALLY DID IT NOT BECAUSE OF THE COST BUT BECAUSE THEY NEEDED THE SPACE IN ORDER TO HAVE THE RIGHT FACILITIES. IT WOULD TOTALLY CHANGE THE FOOTPRINT OF THIS ENTIRETY.

WHICH FUTURE COUNCILS MAY HAVE TO DO THAT BASED ON WHAT YOU SAID IS THE COST OF THIS IS PHENOMENAL.

JUST REMEMBER, GOURMET ALLEY WAS VALUE ENGINEERED. IF YOU REMEMBER HOW THAT STARTED AND HOW IT ENDED.

So I agree. I think it's a roadmap. I 100% support a community center in Gila. I think it would be fabulous. But there are a lot of things that leave my opinion to be answered still. I would like to explore the cost of keeping Wheeler Auditorium. What does that mean? What does that redesign look like if we do that? I think we would be making a huge mistake by putting in a pool that does not offer us a significant amount of revenue in return, being able to use it not just for the community for lap swimming and lessons and things like that, but also competitive events that do bring in a signific

One of the things that concerns me about not exploring it further is what you brought up about the parking lot with the solar field. So it's not just the cost of preserving versus demoing Wheeler Auditorium. It's the cost, what do we not incur if we decide to preserve Wheeler Auditorium? There's a giant cost for additional parking needs if we decide to take it down. So if we decide to keep Wheeler Auditorium, there's going to be a savings by keeping the parking place in place. There's going to be a savings by not moving the solar field. And I think that's what we need to see. And that's why I

I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADOPTING REQUIRED SECRET FINDINGS INCLUDING STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION IN THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN, THE 2026 UPDATE OF THE GILRAY CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN.

I have a second by Council Member Marks. Roll call, please.

Yes. Motion passes 7-0. Council Member Hilton, you want to help me with number two?

I only have one sentence of it. Do you have more?

THAT'S ALL IT IS. WE NEED TO DO THAT ONE SEPARATE, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO ADD SOME LANGUAGE FOR NUMBER THREE. I'LL HELP WITH THAT ONE.

SO NUMBER TWO WOULD BE ADOPTING THE 2026 UPDATE OF THE CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN.

SECOND PLEASE A SECOND SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILTON AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER RAMIREZ ROLL CALL PLEASE COUNCIL MEMBER BACO YES COUNCIL MEMBER KLEIN YES COUNCIL MEMBER FUGAZI NO COUNCIL MEMBER HILTON AYE COUNCIL MEMBER MARKS YES COUNCIL MEMBER RAMIREZ YES MAYOR BOZO YES MOTION PASSES SIX TO ONE AND NUMBER THREE I'LL HELP WITH THIS REQUIRE STAFF TO RETURN TO COUNCIL WITH A COST ANALYSIS of demolition versus restoration of Wheeler Auditorium prior to any additional work on the Civic Center Master Plan. I'll second that. Okay, so I have a motion by myself and a second by Counci

Yes. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you guys for the great conversation. We're going to take a 10-minute break.

Thank you, everybody, for grabbing your seat. Okay, moving on to item 10.2, adopt a resolution approving a new City of Gilroy flag policy. Staff report, please.

I'll start with Council Member Ramirez, please.

Thank you, Chair. I just have one quick question in the report. Obviously, the existing policy, the application process would be now. And you have made arrangements to push those dates out to accommodate final approval. And I'm just wondering, are there plans to promote that to the community so that the community is aware of the new dates?

I'm going to go to Council Member Bracco and then Council Member Marks.

From the last time we talked about this, I want to make sure that it's going to happen. No fee and no signatures, right? That's what we agreed to at our meeting.

We agreed to. Okay, we'll reiterate. That's what he's looking for tonight.

I think what he's trying to say is that we already did that. We already provided that direction. We already voted on it so that it would be here tonight to approve it.

Okay, Council. So it sounds like we have some cleanup to do on that.

So when we make the motion, we'll just have to put in there, right? Matt? Yeah. Okay.

Yes. For the public's sake, you left out one really important part, I thought, of your report. So I'm going to use it. I'm going to ask it in the form of a question so you can answer it. Can any flag fly up there? Explain to the public. I think that's very important for them to know.

Correct. And can the council ever deny a flag?

Further questions for staff? Public comment?

Okay, let's bring it back to council and see if we can get some help. Greg, I have a question. Yeah, go ahead.

There he is. The last speaker said something about June. You can't reserve a month for ever, right? I mean, it's first come, first serve.

Greg, can I have a follow-up on that? So if we have three applicants for three worthy flags in June, how does it get decided? That would be at council's discretion and vote. Okay, so we could fly one for a week and another one for a week and another one for a week or something like that.

Maybe I misread it, but I thought your report said first come, first serve as long as the council approved it. Wasn't that in the report? Whichever hour.

Well, yeah, exactly. As long as it's reserved for the council to decide, then that's fine.

Council Member Ramirez, are you on the board for another comment? Or is that old? Okay. Council Member Hilton? So it seems like we're in agreement on the direction we want to go in, but we might want to reiterate some language that didn't get included from the past, correct? Yeah.

And I have one additional thing that I want to try to add to you, but let's summarize again. Thank you. Yeah.

I'm going to take a stab at this. So I move to adopt a resolution, rescinding resolution 202209 and approving a new city of Gilroy flag policy based on the previous agreement from this council that there will be no fees and no signatures required.

And I'll second that, and I have a friendly amendment. Just one additional thing that I'd like to add.

Okay, so there's a motion, there's a second. Council Member Bracco is okay with that language? Correct? Okay.

So the only thing I want to add is under number eight, duration of display, we ran into a couple of issues where staff interprets the raising of the flag in the morning of not coordinating with whoever has the application. And I think one of the things that we talked about last time around was to try to get other nonprofits or community organizations to take a part in this. And a lot of times that ends up being, you know, they wanna have like a little celebration or something when the flag is raised, right? Not just sort of like, I'm not quite sure when it's gonna be raised. So I'd like to put

You mean to help them with what they need out there, like tables, chairs?

Yeah, just a good customer service interaction. Like, hey, you guys want to come at 9, you want to come at 10, 1. I think that that would be much, much better than someone trying to chase around when that might may or may not happen.

is if I'm the applicant and I'm going to raise the sister city's flag for the month of, let's just say, Takamachi, I'm going to say, like, you know, hey, my group is going to come. I don't need you guys at all. My group's going to come at 8 a.m. Is there someone from facilities that can raise it at 8 a.m.? Sure. That doesn't mean that they have to stick around there for hours.

Why can't we just have a set time that flags are put out and raised, and that's when they happen, and if they want to coordinate to what the city's set time is, they coordinate to what it is, or they don't.

Because, so I don't know if that's the best customer service thing because the reason why is the same reason on why on Thursday we're having two different parks and trail master plan customer feedback things. One in the morning time because there's a group in this community that's up and available in the morning time. But then there's also students that have to go to school and maybe they want to participate in it. And so those organizations. One thing is raising a flag. Another thing is an event.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT AN EVENT. IT HAS TO BECOME AN EVENT.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT AN EVENT. I'M SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY WHETHER IT'S ONE PERSON THAT WANTED TO RAISE THE FLAG BUT TO COORDINATE WITH STAFF AT THAT TIME OF WHEN TO DO IT.

THEN WE HAVE ALL SORTS OF OTHER ISSUES THAT IF THE FIRST OF THE MONTH FALLS ON A FRIDAY AND WE'RE ON OUR NINTH.

THAT'S ALREADY IN THE POLICY. IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT. THAT'S ALREADY IN THE POLICY. IF IT COMES ON A WEEKEND, IT'S THE FIRST MONDAY.

And what about if this particular group loves 7 p.m.? This is what I think staff might be concerned with. It's this open-endedness. It's a little bit open-ended.

But isn't customer service normally a two-way street?

To a certain extent, yeah. No, I'm with you. I'm with you with customer service.

Hey, we can't be there at 7. Yeah, there you go.

That's where I was trying to get at is maybe there's some language for... And that's what I said.

Staff to coordinate flag-raising time with applicants. Why can't we coordinate that? You can make appointments with staff.

If I'm a developer and I'm scheduling an appointment with staff, they don't tell me they're going to attempt. What time do you work for you?

I'm okay with coordinate. After you said coordinate, you started suggesting times, and then someone down here said tables and chairs, and that's where I think we started going off in the wrong angle.

Yeah. No, you're okay. He's got a friendly amendment to your motion.

My friendly amendment would be under Section 8, Duration of Display Add. This is the language. Staff to coordinate flag-raising time with applicants. That's good.

There's a message of coordination means both parties work together. I can live with that.

100%. The same way they do in City Hall with everything else.

Okay. Mr. Morley, you want to comment on that as far as your operationally being able to deal with that or not?

Okay. So I have a motion and a second with a friendly amendment. Roll call, please.

Yes. Motion passes 7-0. Moving on to item number 10.3, Gilroy Sports Park Ice Skating Facility Ad Hoc Committee Update and Recommendation. Harjo, please.

Council Member Ramirez and then Council Member Marks and Council Member Fugatti.

Thank you. And thanks to everybody who's put such an enormous amount of effort into this. I'm still hopeful that at some point in the near future this can become a reality for our community. So Amazon has just announced their built together initiative. And there are several different pillars of this initiative. And one is the flexibility of a community where they build their data centers, the opportunity to identify some sort of a community benefit. And it says that Amazon is partnering with local nonprofit organizations and community foundations across the country to provide millions of dolla

Marjo, this was before your time, but do you, when you were looking at the records, do you remember how much the city of Gilroy paid to purchase the land that we had to mitigate? Because, see, that is also part of the city's expenses in this. And I was just wondering if the cost, I don't remember what that cost was. It was probably around 2020 or 2021.

All right. So then totaling everything up, we're about $2.5 million into this project just out of our funds.

Can you remind people what the original expected Gilroy outlay was for infrastructure that is now 10 million?

What was the original estimates and costs?

Right. And... I hear the word pause, but are we going to formally terminate the term sheet because it's so out of date and things have changed so much? We've got the negotiating. We have all these agreements. They seem all out of whack now compared to where we are today. Why pause versus just cut it off and start over if we come back to it?

And to be clear, it also helps because we don't have to give up that $113,000.

And to be clear, what's our total spend? I mean, when you include the extra dirt work examinations and all of the various.

And we probably have hundreds and hundreds of hours into this already, I'm sure, right? I saw part of this is that to continue, the second part there is to continue on the annexation for the park. That did come up before, right, in the history, the city history, right?

We pay property tax, obviously, to the county on that. Any estimate on what we pay on that? I don't have the exact...

And so the benefit also, to help the public understand too, is that if we do have a facility there, we then start to get taxed. from that facility and get a portion of the property and use tax and all of those things from that facility, and that's why we're so encouraged to want to do that.

Thank you. Other questions? Public comment?

Thank you. Okay, bring it back to council. Any comments? Council Member Klein?

I just, I like the idea of pausing it and not ending it. And starting all over again, it keeps things there. I know in all the conversations we've had with the sharks, they want this, but it's just getting there. And that's the challenge. So we just think it's critical the annexation is part of that puzzle, part of that puzzle to complete that and really make that... BETTER BUT REALLY DEVELOPING THAT SOUTHERN IN THAT SPORTS PARK IS CRITICAL TO EXPANDING AND WE TALK ABOUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT THAT CAN MEAN TO THAT SOUTHERN PART OF THE CITY AND IN THE DOWNTOWN AND WHAT WOULD BRING WITH

HAVE BEEN OR COULD HAVE BEEN IN THIS POSITION AND POSSIBLY WOULD HAVE TAKEN A DIFFERENT ROUTE AND MAYBE EVEN COME BACK TO COUNCIL LOOKING FOR $10 MILLION. AND YOU DO SEE STORIES ABOUT CITIES HAVING THESE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS. AND IT TOOK A LOT OF WHEREWITHAL AND PATIENCE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS, YOU THREE, WERE LOOKING AT FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY TO THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, NOT JUST TO BE LURED INTO SOMETHING THAT WE ALL WANT SO MUCH. especially in an era of the Olympics and there's this popular player you know from Canada and playing for the San Jose Sharks I think you guys

All right, so my motion would be to receive the report of the Gilroy Sports Park ice skating facility ad hoc committee with the finding that no economically feasible path currently exists to construct the Gilroy Sports Park ice skating facility, discontinue active pursuit of the project, and sunset the ad hoc committee, reaffirm annexation of the Gilroy Sports Park property as a standing council priority and direct staff to continue processing the annexation through the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO, so that the site remains positioned for future development co

I'll second it. So a motion by Council Member Hilton and a second by Council Member Klein. Roll call, please.

Yes. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you, everybody. Moving on to item 11.1, approval. of the International Association of Firefighters, Gilroy Firefighters Local 2805 Memorandum of Understanding and Related Salary Schedules for the period of July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2029. Staff report, please.

All right. Questions for staff? No questions? Public comment?

Okay, I'll bring it back. I don't think we have any comments, so I will entertain. I'm going to do two motions. First is approve the Memorandum of Understanding with IAFF and Gallery Firefighters Local 2805 for the period July 1, 2026 through July 30, 2029. Motion. I have a motion by Klein. Looking for a second. Second. A second by Fugazi. Roll call, please.

Yes. Motion passes 7-0. And adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy approving the September 1, 2026, July 1, 2027, July 1, 2028, July 1, excuse me, January 1, 2028, July 1, 2028, and January 1, 2029, salary schedules associated with the IAFF Gary Firefighters Local 2805 MOU. So moved. I got a motion by Council Member Fugazi and a second by Council Member Ramirez. Roll call, please.

Yes. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you, everybody. Moving on to Item 11.2. Consider adopting an urgency interim ordinance imposing a temporary 45-day moratorium on applications and entitlements for detention and custodial facilities on private property and on public property to the extent permitted by law, and a resolution adopting a city council policy prohibiting the use of city property for civil immigration enforcement activities, and provide direction regarding submission of a city viewpoint to federal agencies. So before the staff report goes, I would like to say a few things first. So the re

Questions? I'll start with Councilmember Bracco.

Looking through the staff report, it says that projects like this are approved by right.

And then it also goes on to say that normally what you've seen in other cities is the city doesn't know it's there until it opens and it's already operational.

But they don't need our permission, right?

Councilman? Sorry, we have such a long list, I don't see where anyone's names are, so go ahead and I'll just work my way down. Yeah, yeah.

So in order for us, and correct me if I'm wrong here, in order for us to do this moratorium, there has to be some eminence to it, right? And in the staff report, it says that there is, but it doesn't say what that is. It doesn't say how we established that there's an eminent need to do this. Is that something you can tell us now?

We don't have any pre-application or... We do not have a pre-application. We don't have any indication that they're trying to put a place into Gilroy at the moment. None of those kinds of things. Mr. Faber?

Now, there is also a carve-out, isn't there, for other agencies to be able to have detention facilities, county, sheriff, others in there. Does that create a legal problem for us if the government wants to have such a thing and we're going to allow them?

So why wouldn't we, and this is not to you necessarily, it's probably to the city administrator. why would we not do this in a more broad sense and say we don't want any detention facilities from anybody, county, state, anybody whatsoever to be in the city limits of Gilroy?

The moratorium's only on the federal one or it's on all detention facilities?

Sure, but if the county wanted to come in during this 45 day or if we extend it, wouldn't we, we would be set up to allow a county jail in here, would we not?

I'm moving from right to left at this point.

All right. First off, I want to say I'm with all of you people. I do not want an ICE detention center here at all, city limits, outside. But I was very concerned today when I spoke to the mayor because I didn't want any of you walking away with false hope because when I had read the staff report, when I had been Listening to other reports. It sounded like we didn't have a leg to stand on we got to get to a question I'm so sorry. Yeah, will you come back to me in the comment period of course?

Okay, then I'll hold my comment for your comment so far great To my left anybody councilmember mares.

So I just want to make sure this is very clear that That I'm I'm understanding the question I council member blocko and the answer so if we do this moratorium, we cannot, it does not necessarily prevent the federal government from coming in and doing it under the radar like they've done in other jurisdictions, but this moratorium would give us a legal leg if we found out about it and we could fight it in court. Is this what I'm understanding correctly?

THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION. SO FAR WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAME AND WOULD WE HAVE LEGAL STANDING TO ARGUE AGAINST THIS FACILITY IN OUR COMMUNITY. BUT THE OTHER CONCERN ALSO WOULD BE A PRIVATE DETENTION FACILITY. WOULDN'T WE HAVE EVEN ADDITIONAL STRENGTH? If it's a private facility?

Are there... I know that the county, you know, with the facility that is being built outside of Gilroy City limits in the county, that has been paused. The legal... Have there been any other cases similar where it has actually come to a final decision, one way or the other, that we are aware of?

Okay, any further questions for staff? Yeah, go ahead. Yeah.

All right, Andy, this is for you. So let's say that ICE comes in without our knowledge and they open up a facility. We find out about it and we decide to file a suit. Would ICE be paused right there and then, knowing that it could go into a lawsuit and they would have to give up that location while the court case was going? Does that make sense?

Yeah. Okay, I'm going to move to public comment. We have a lot of public comment tonight, so we're going to go right to one minute each, please. And Kim, why don't you kick it off?

Thank you, Guadalupe. You guys, we have about 25 speakers, and the clapping just prolongs it. So please, I love the snaps. Keep it up. Thank you. Go ahead, Emery.

Michael, you hit one minute. Thank you very much.

Spread compassion and respect. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Mia's next, I think, Rebecca. Mia's next.

It's time, José. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

That's over one minute already, Sally. Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ron. You don't have, there's not time for comments from the crowd for him.

All right, let's bring it back to council. I'm going to go right to Council Member Marks as her request.

You waited too long. I forgot what I was going to say.

I was. I was talking to the crowd. It's coming back to me a little bit. I'm glad I heard all the clarification from our city attorney because I didn't want any of you coming out tonight thinking that, you know, If we voted against the moratorium, that we were against you or not. I didn't want anyone walking away with false hope that we could actually do something about it. And then when I started talking to the city attorney before the meeting, he was giving me hope that, yes, there are things that we can do. Maybe ultimately in the end it won't work out. But we could be that little pebble tha

Thank you. So you know Mayor I appreciate you letting everybody know the actions that you've taken since you've been in office because the work you did around talking with the community also was last year too and I joined you on on several of those those community panels and you know one of the reasons why I came out January 1st, I think is what it was, in 2025 to really talk about the services of the community here, police department, fire department, city hall. We don't ask for your immigration status. Services are for everybody that's here. And I really wanted to make sure that I was there

I support the moratorium as well, given that it has legal legs, but I'm just... Procedural questions? We've been focusing our comments and questions on just the moratorium aspect.

So, I mean... There's a lot of conversation here tonight available, and I'm just wondering maybe we should compartmentalize this and take some action. If that's okay with the council, it feels like THAT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ACTION ON THE URGENCY ORDINANCE, AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE WITH THE OTHER CONVERSATIONS. ANYBODY OPPOSED TO THAT? ANYBODY OPPOSED TO THAT? OKAY. SO COUNCILMEMBER KLEIN HAS A COMMENT.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HAVING THE CONVERSATION AND TALKING THIS THROUGH AND GIVING THE TIME TO DO THAT. SO I'M OKAY WITH THAT ASPECT OF IT.

Let's do number one and number two together? Let's do number one together.

YEAH, I THINK SPLITTING IT UP IS A GOOD IDEA, RATHER THAN TRYING TO GO FOR A ONE-FOR-ALL, I THINK, ON THE MORATORIUM THING. I THINK I'D BE TOTALLY ON BOARD, BUT I'M MORE ON BOARD WITH HAVING IT BE UNIVERSAL. I think if we need to look at what we want to have as far as detention in the city look at Making sure that everything that is detention related It applies and not have the carve outs and that would be easy for me to get on board with for that first part So is that something that we can give guidance to staff when they go through the 45 days Andy?

Moratorium against what? That's what I'm trying to ask. Detention and custodial facilities.

That I understand, but as defined in the moratorium, it carves out still, right?

Right, and what I'm saying is that the moratorium itself should not carve those out, and I would be in support of that.

So would it be helpful if you do that motion, and then you just add the tag onto it with your words?

Unless it's by sheriff's detention center or other detention centers that it that it specifically carves out.

Well, if I can interject here, I think it goes back to what you were talking about before, too. What's the imminent threat? Right. And we know from the staff report that came out of that attorneys, but also briefings that I've been in with members of Congress that and them and their staffers are back in D.C. stating specifically exactly what Andy Faber said earlier, that they are imminently looking to expand. We know that the Sheriff's Department is not imminently looking to expand. The city of Gilroy is not imminently looking to expand, and the state isn't either. We actually have facts that

So does that kind of... Well, there is another case and I'd have to look it up here in my notes where not making it broad enough does reduce the capacity for us to enforce that and to support that legally. ESPECIALLY IF THE MOST LIKELY OUTCOME OF THIS IS AN EXTENSION AND IT GOES ON FOR SOME PARTICULAR AMOUNT OF TIME, THAT WE WILL BE UNDER THIS MORATORIUM AND IF WE HAD TO TAKE ACTION, KNOWING THAT WE WERE NOT EXCLUSIVE TO ICE FACILITIES, WOULD CERTAINLY BE BETTER THAN NOT, UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS A DESIRE TO HAVE OTHER FACILITIES HERE IN GILROY.

I THINK OUR STATE AND LOCAL AND REGIONAL PARTNERS THAT WE HAVE GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH HAVE NOT INDICATED ON ANY

That wasn't my point. That wasn't my point.

But we're doing something that is urgent, and that's what you talked about before.

Yeah, but my point is that by broadening the scope of it, then you are much more supported legally than you would otherwise without any negative byproduct. I don't understand why we want to keep that in there at all. If somebody can explain that, then, I mean, it's just as easy as taking it out.

Sorry. Say it specifically. Again, to make the moratorium, not the resulting zoning after the moratorium, to be broad enough to include all types, not just the ones that are specified and with the carve-out. So in there, it carves out the sheriffs, for instance. It carves out other entities. And again, I could look up if I wanted to. When you are being discriminatory against certain organizations, which will be obvious in this, it gives it less support. And on the other side, what do we lose by taking it out? I don't understand. If anybody can make an argument why it should be left in there, t

Does that mean that it might just come out for 45 days until the other language comes back?

I'm not understanding what you're saying.

Well, you're asking to change the language of the moratorium. And then we're going to go away for 45 days. We're going to come back with language possibly or an extension, like you said. But at that time, there's going to be further language and further findings. Sure.

And you'll have a lot more time to figure out whether or not you want to support it with only having ICE being the target as opposed to having it be more broad.

So can we not add that language that he's asking for, adding state and language?

It's not adding anything. It's actually taking it out.

I'm attempting to make this stronger, y'all.

Sorry, the more broad that you... The more broad that you make it, what are you restricting that we really want to keep in anyway? I mean, are we really anticipating, you know, having these things happen in the next 45 days? So do you want to strike H? Let's see, H is...

So let's start with H, because it's obvious that those are law enforcement, which is what?

I'd be fine with just H being struck. H, OK. I'd be fine with just section H struck. All right.

So you're saying you don't like the idea of striking H or the second half of H? You can strike the first part of H, which gives him the names of those organizations?

How can we move forward with that motion? Council Member Hilton.

All right, so number one, my motion would be to determine that the actions of adopting the urgency INTERM ORDINANCE AND THE RESOLUTION ARE NOT A PROJECT UNDER AND ARE IN ANY EVENT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CEQA PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15378, 15060C2, AND 15061B3.

THERE'S A MOTION. WE'RE LOOKING FOR A SECOND. I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HILTON AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER RAMIREZ. ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

Yes. Motion passes 7-0. Hold on, hold on everybody.

So number two, number two motion would be, my motion would be to adopt an urgency interim ordinance pursuant to the California Government Code Section 658, 5-8, imposing a temporary moratorium citywide for a period not to exceed 45 days on the filing acceptance, processing, and approval of applications and entitlements for the establishment expansion and change of the use of detention and custodial facilities on private property and on public property to the extent permitted by federal and state law with certain exemptions and make the findings incorporated in the ordinance that there is a cur

I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HILTON AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER RAMIREZ. WE NEED TO READ IT FIRST.

Okay, so have a motion to read the motion by title only Wait for a further reading. I'm looking for a second. I have a second by councilman Ramirez I

Yes. The motion passes 7-0. Okay. So now, hold on. A lot of work to do still. So now, we wanted to do that so we could kind of separate the conversation because there's two other items that are on the agenda. here this evening and that is consideration of a no staging policy and a conversation whether City Council wants The council wants to give the mayor some flexibility on doing a viewpoint regarding of where we are today with this agenda item and this policy that we've been dealing with for the past four months. So why don't I start with questions? If we want to start with questions. Yeah,

I'm going to ask the chief up, please. And, Mayor, I know you wanted to ask some of the questions I have for the chief, so just stop me when you want to jump in.

Okay, so if we move forward with a no staging policy, can you please walk us through what would happen if ICE agents or DHS, whatever, gathered on city pavement?

So, We have this no staging policy and basically all you can do is document. So you don't have the power, Gilroy Police Department, the city attorney, the city administrator, no one would have the power to remove them from the property.

Would there be a concern of yours, based on your experiences, if residents, activists were present, that the situation then could escalate because of the lack of understanding of that?

So if an ICE agent is arresting a member of our community and there is a perception that this should not be happening, whatever, unlawfully, whatever, what powers would your police department have? Could they intervene in any way during an ICE-initiated arrest?

Okay. And then... In your experience, if we pass this ordinance, could it be misleading to the public where they might misunderstand and think that GPT has the right to arrest and remove agents?

Even a police officer that has a city that has this policy on the books. Correct. I just have one more question. It's directed at the two of you, actually. If you could just share your experiences. You talked a lot about going out and speaking to the community.

Can you share? with us what the message was that you were trying to get across and how it was received.

Yeah, I'll start and then you can comment. So we never had an agenda when we went. Our agenda was to go and to listen. And inevitably, people would share with us their concerns, almost like public comment. In small groups, they would just get up and speak. In the large churches, they would pass the mic. And so we would hear from people sort of like tonight, but there were specific questions, right? Unfortunately, the public comment, they can't ask us questions, but there were specific questions. And there were questions varied from meeting to meeting. But one question... that somebody always a

And you had talked about, I'll see if I can answer that question. Help me answer that question. You talked about that in some of those meetings. I did. So talk about the power of your jurisdiction. And talk about the idea that there would be a concern of you interrupting someone being arrested with a felony warrant. You don't know that as you walk up. So talk a little bit about that.

Is that Gilroy or that's all law enforcement? That's all law enforcement. And you work for San Jose? And that was the same case there? Correct. San Jose? I have a question. Yeah. Right now it's questions for counsel. Right now it's questions for counsel to staff. Thank you. Any other questions?

Right. And I'm going to, I'll jump to you council council member Fugazi. Um, that's one of the concerns that I saw when we were speaking with the public is that there were some perceptions and expectations from the public and miss expectations and misperceptions from the public. And I think the public had a hard time understanding is that how is it that someone's in uniform who's the chief of police could not go out and arrest somebody for the perception of a crime. But breaking an ordinance on a local public property is not a crime It's a policy. It's an ordinance and a policy, but it's not a

Any questions? Council Member Bracco? None? Nothing? Go ahead. Yeah. No, this is it. We've already done public comment. So this is questions. This is deliberations. Yeah, sure. Sorry.

Yeah. So did you want to go ahead? As much as I agree with the concerns that everyone has and I see the news, I see it all. I AM CONCERNED THAT IT WOULD, THAT NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE WOULD UNDERSTAND, I MEAN, YOU SILENCED QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW AS WE'RE TALKING. TO ME, THAT SHOWS THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT JUST WAIT A MINUTE, THEY WANT TO ARGUE WITH, THEY WANT TO UNDERSTAND IT BETTER. IT'S NOT, IT'S VERY MISLEADING. AND I THINK THAT COULD BE PROBLEM.

IT'S OUR TIME TO SPEAK. WE LISTENED TO YOU GUYS FOR 35 MINUTES. IT'S OUR TIME TO SPEAK. YOU HAVE TO GIVE US THIS OPPORTUNITY. THIS IS THE PROCESS. THIS IS THE PROCESS. THIS IS NOT UNIQUE TO GILWAY. THIS IS EVERYWHERE, THIS PROCESS. SO PLEASE, WE LISTEN TO YOU. NOW LISTEN TO US DELIBERATE WITH OUR STAFF.

I AM CONCERNED THAT IT WOULD MISUNDERSTANDING IN THE COMMUNITY, AND IT COULD LEAD TO PROBLEMS. THAT'S MY CONCERN. UNLESS SOMEONE CAN CONVINCE ME THAT I'M WRONG.

I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE CHIEF. COUNCILMEMBER RAMIREZ ASKED YOU EARLIER IF THERE WAS A NO STAGING POLICY, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? AND YOU ANSWERED. YOU WOULD GO OUT AND MAKE CONTACT. IF THERE WAS NOT A NO STAGING POLICY, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

So the members of this community are hearing the chief of police saying that you are going to engage no matter what.

Yep. I'm going to go to Fugati, then I'll go to Brock.

The follow-up to that is... Do you feel this enhances your ability to work with the community and help them feel safer?

You think it will create enough situations to use more resource time to deal with it than doing it the method you're currently doing? Because of things like the misperception and I think some of the things that were brought up of activism and things of this nature.

It could have a negative perception on Gilroy PD if people believe that you can do something and you end up not doing anything, right?

I guess just to say this, I know I went a couple times with you and with the chief, with the churches, and I heard the message. And you could hear that, the fear, and working with some of the churches too, and you see the fear, and we've seen it here, I understand that. And so, but the dilemma is the symbolism of it, and I know it's symbolism, and just trying to find the fine line, and I appreciate the chief and what he's trying to do with what he has, so.

Yeah, this seems purely symbolic to me, and it, What really concerns me is that it gives folks a false sense of security. We've seen it all over the United States where community members go out and protest and get in the face of ICE officers because they think they're not supposed to be out there because they have an ordinance or something. And that really concerns me because, you know, people never... seem to take the time to get the whole story. They go by what they read online or what somebody told them. Excuse me. And they take that as that's the rules now. And it doesn't work that way. An

Okay, so I'm going to add one more comment, and unless there's any more, I'm going to ask the question. But the difference is...

Okay, sorry, go ahead then. I'm sorry. And I think that... as we've seen in other communities, if you challenge ICE, they're going to show up right now. We're not on their radar. And I think we should stay off their radar and not intimidate them.

Okay, so the comment that I was going to have is that the difference, the only part that I disagree with you is that, and he said it earlier, it sounds like to me the chief believes in relationships and And if he doesn't have a policy, he is still going to work the relationships that he has spent the last 28 years building while working in San Jose, and he is going to do his best to de-escalate and ask any type of federal authorities that come here to move on, just like you talked about early on and just like you did in San Jose.

Okay, so... I'm not sensing that I'm going to hear a motion from anybody.

I'm going to put a motion on the floor if we're done deliberating. So like I said in the beginning, this might be symbolic, but I think that there's a time for symbolism, and this is probably one of the most perfect times for it. I also believe in having guardrails. And I think that it's perfectly fine for us to be able to tell the chief what we set as policy and what we want. So there's a clear expectation from the chief on down that we do have a no staging policy. My motion, looking for a second, would be to adopt a resolution adopting a city council policy prohibiting the use of city-owned

Okay, I have a motion by Councilmember Hilton.

No second? Okay, the item dies. Moving on? Moving on? Moving on to the next item, final item of the evening. This is for council direction. Provide direction to staff on whether and in what form the city should submit a formal viewpoint regarding the proposed Holscott property facility to the U.S. General Services Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as discussed in the report.

So in this, are you just looking for a reaffirmation that the vote we took in June is still for sediment? Exactly, yeah. I don't think any of us are looking to reverse it.

No, no, I just, I mean, by providing a viewpoint, just a lot, the council is saying that, you know, like after tonight, maybe we write a press release from the mayor about the action that we took tonight. I don't... That includes, hold on, that includes some of what we did earlier in the summer, and the reason why, one of the reasons why is that we've had people come in here and do public comment that have... DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS TEACHERS AND EDUCATORS IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND THEY'VE ASKED US TO DO A RESOLUTION, EVEN THOUGH WE'VE ALREADY DONE A RESOLUTION. I'M JUST SAYING, THIS IS AN OPPORTUNI

I would basically take what we've already done, put it into a newsletter and send it out to everybody and say this is the stance that we took.

That's the viewpoint. Don't explain anything further than that.

Yeah, that's just a reiteration of what we did. There's no other editorial, there's no other anything other than I would just like to remind people that back in this meeting, we passed this and this is what it said.

Sorry, you explained it better than I did. I used the word reiterate. I thought I used the word reiterate. That's what I want to do.

I move to support the mayor writing a viewpoint that reiterates

THE RESOLUTION THAT WE PASSED IN JUNE WITHOUT FURTHER EDITORIAL. NOT EVEN TONIGHT'S ACTION?

Yeah, I'm not talking about a viewpoint. I'm talking about, I think it's entirely appropriate if your desire is to educate people that we have already addressed this situation, having a couple of lines saying we already addressed this situation and here it is, is about it, right? I don't know how to

I understand you in principle. I would only be comfortable if I had read it. And I think that if you have, you already have what you need in order to hand over to anybody as to what the position this council took.

I'm not going to the mat over this. This is something I thought that would be appropriate. If there's not enough support on council, let it die. Anyone else? Klein? Ramirez? Council Member Marks? Okay. It dies. It's okay. Thank you, Harjot. You had a huge night tonight. Thank you very much. Moving on to item number 12, the city administrator's report.

Moving on to item 13, city attorney's report. Ditto. No report. Okay, moving on to item 14, adjournment, and we need to move into closed session. Thank you very much for everybody. It's a long meeting.