HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-17 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Packet
August 12, 2020 12:40 PM City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Page1 MAYOR
Roland Velasco
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Marie Blankley
Dion Bracco
Peter Leroe-Muñoz
Carol Marques
Fred Tovar
Cat Tucker
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
CITY OF GILROY
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
7351 ROSANNA STREET
GILROY, CA 95020
REGULAR MEETING 6:00 P.M.
MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 2020
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE www.cityofgilroy.org
VIEW THE MEETING LIVE ON THE CITY WEBSITE www.cityofgilroy.org.
THE AUGUST 17, 2020 MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20
In order to minimize the spread of the COVID 19 virus the City Council is conducting
this meeting by web conference and will be offering alternative options for public
participation. You are encouraged to watch the City Cou ncil meeting live on the City of
Gilroy’s website at www.cityofgilroy.org or on Cable Channel 17. To view from the
website, select the Council Agendas and Videos button from the home page.
PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE
CITY COUNCIL. DURING THE MEETING: TO PROVIDE VERBAL PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AN
AGENDA ITEM DURING THIS MEETING, CALL ONE OF THE PHONE NUMBERS LISTED BELOW,
ENTER THE MEETING ID AND PASSWORD.
When the Mayor announces the item which you wish to speak
on, press *9 on your telephone keypad to raise your hand.
When called to speak, please limit your comments to three (3)
minutes, or such other time as the Mayor may decide, consistent
with the time limit for all other speakers for the particular agenda
item.
COMMENTS MAY ALSO BE EMAILED TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE MEETING TO
shawna.freels@cityofgilroy.org OR MAILED TO: GILROY CITY CLERK, 7351 ROSANNA STREET,
GILROY, CA. 95020, TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND BE INCORPORATED
INTO THE RECORD.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Governors Order N-29-20, the City will
make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk a minimum of 2 hours prior
to the meeting at (408) 846-0204.
Call in for Public Comment
1 (669) 900-9128
1 (346) 248-7799
1 (253) 215-8782
Meeting ID: 962 6131 2008
Password: 500244
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
08/17/2020 Page2 If you challenge any planning or land use decision made at this meeting in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing held at this
meeting, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public
hearing. Please take notice that the time within which to seek judicial review of any final
administrative determination reached at this meeting is governed by Section 1094.6 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure.
A Closed Session may be called during this meeting pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9 (d)(2) if a point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the City
on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a
significant exposure to litigation against the City.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the
agenda packet are available with the agenda packet on t he City website at www.cityofgilroy.org
subject to Staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.
The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Monday of each month, at 6:00 p.m. If a
holiday, the meeting will be rescheduled to the following Monday, with the exception of the single
meeting in July which lands on the first day of the month not a holiday, Friday, Saturday or
Sunday.
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE GILROY OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE
Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public.
Commissions, task forces, councils and other agencies of the City exist to conduct the
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the
people and that City operations are open to the people's review.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN
GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE, TO RECEIVE A FREE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE
OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE OPEN
GOVERNMENT COMMISSION STAFF AT (408) 846-0204 or
shawna.freels@cityofgilroy.org
I. OPENING
A. Call to Order
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Invocation
3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
4. Roll Call
B. Orders of the Day
II. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations
1. Proclamation Naming the Month of September Childhood Cancer
Awareness Month
III. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
08/17/2020 Page3 PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE
AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL PUBLIC COMMENTS MAY BE SUBMITTED BY EMAIL TO:
shawna.freels@cityofgilroy.org, (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to
address the Council on matters not on this agenda. The law does not permit Council action or
extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Council
action is requested, the Council may place the matter on a future agenda. Written material provided
by public members for Council agenda item “public comment by Members of the Public on items not
on the agenda” will be limited to 10 pages in hard copy. An unlimited amount of material may be
provided electronically.)
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
08/17/2020 Page4 IV. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco – Gilroy Downtown Business Association Board (alternate),
Gilroy Sister Cities Association (alternate), Santa Clara Co. Library JPA, SCVWD Joint
Council-SCRWA-Board Water Resources Committee, South County Joint Planning
Advisory Committee (alternate), South County Regional Wastewater Authority Board,
South County Youth Task Force Policy Team (alternate), Street Naming Committee
Council Member Tucker –CalTrain Policy Group, Cities Association of Santa Clara Co.
Board of Directors, General Plan Advisory Committee, Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Agency Governing Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board,
Street Naming Committee, Visit Gilroy Board
Council Member Blankley - ABAG (alternate), Cities Association of Santa Clara Co.
Board of Directors (alternate), Economic Development Corporation Board, Gilroy Sister
Cities Association, Gilroy Youth Task Force (alternate), SCVWD Joint Council-SCRWA-
Board Water Resources Committee, South County Regional Wastewater Authority
Board, VTA Board of Directors Alternate, VTA Policy Advisory Committee, VTA South
County City Group
Council Member Marques - Gilroy Downtown Business Association Board, Gilroy
Gardens Board of Directors, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board
(alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board (alternate), Silicon
Valley Clean Energy JPA Board (alternate), URM Task Force Sub-Committee, VTA
Committee for Transit Accessibility (alternate)
Council Member Tovar –Santa Clara Co. Expressway Plan 2040 Policy Advisory
Board, Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission, Santa Clara Co. Library JPA
(alternate), SCVWD Water Commission (alternate), Silicon Valley Clean Energy JPA
Board, South County Regional Wastewater Authority Board, South County United for
Health, Street Naming Committee, VTA Committee for Transit Accessibility, VTA Policy
Advisory Committee (alternate)
Council Member Leroe-Muñoz - ABAG, CalTrain Policy Group (alternate), Gilroy
Youth Task Force, Historic Heritage Committee, SCVWD Water Commission, Silicon
Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board, South County Youth Task Force Policy
Team, VTA Mobility Partnership
Mayor Velasco - Economic Development Corporation Board, General Plan Advisory
Committee, Historic Heritage Committee (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency
Governing Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board, South
County Joint Planning Advisory Committee, South County Regional Wastewater
Authority Board (alternate), URM Task Force Sub-Committee, VTA Mobility Partnership,
VTA South County City Group (alternate)
V. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine
and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
request is made by a member of the City Council or a member of the public. Any person desiring
to speak on any item on the consent calendar should ask to have that item removed from the
consent calendar prior to the time the Council votes to approve. If removed, the item will be
discussed in the order in which it appears.
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
08/17/2020 Page5
A. Minutes of the July 22, 2020 Special Meeting
B. Minutes of the August 3, 2020 Regular Meeting
C. Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Setting the
Tax Rate for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 for the Gilroy Community Library
Project Bonds
D. Transfer of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Measure B
Obligated Funds from the Buena Vista Interchange to the 10th Street/State
Route 152 Interchange Project
VII. BIDS AND PROPOSALS
A. Budget Amendment and Approval of an Agreement with StreetScan Inc. in
the Amount of $142,890 for the Citywide Sidewalk Network Inventory and
Assessment Services
1. Staff Report: Girum Awoke, Public Works Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
a) Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending the Fiscal
Year 2020-2021 budget and appropriating proposed expenditure
amendments.
b) Approve a contract with Streetscan, Inc. in the amount of $142,890, and
authorize the Interim City Administrator to execute the contract and
associated documents.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE
IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Standing Report on Operational Impacts and City/Community Efforts
Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic
1. Staff Report: Jimmy Forbis, Interim City Administrator
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Receive report.
X. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of the Historic Resource Inventory Update and Property Owner's
Guide to Historic Preservation
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
08/17/2020 Page6 1. Staff Report: Karen Garner, Community Development Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy accepting the Historic
Resource Inventory Update and Property Owner's Guide to Historic Preservation
as a guiding document for preservation of historic resources in the City of Gilroy
(M18-13).
B. Consideration of a Donation from the South Valley Garden Club to Design
and Maintain a Blue Star Memorial Garden with Flowers and a Plaque in
Front of the Gilroy Veterans Memorial Building on City-owned Property
Located at Sixth and Eigleberry Streets
1. Staff Report: Jimmy Forbis, Interim City Administrator
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Receive report and provide direction to staff.
C. Gilroy Economic Development Partnership Report and Proposed Initiatives
1. Staff Report: Jimmy Forbis, Interim City Administrator
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Receive report and provide direction to staff concerning support/implementation
of the Gilroy Economic Development Partnership initiatives.
XI. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
XII. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
XIII. CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
UNITS Pursuant to GC Section 54957.6 and GCC Section 17A.11 (4); Collective
Bargaining Units: Local 2805, IAFF Fire Unit Representing Gilroy Fire Fighters;
AFSCME Local 101 Representing Employees Affiliated with AFSCME, Local 101;
Gilroy Management Association (GMA); Gilroy Police Officers Association, Inc.
Representing Gilroy Police Officers;
City Negotiators: Jimmy Forbis, Interim City Administrator, LeeAnn McPhillips,
HR Director; Anticipated Issues(s) Under Negotiation: Wages, Hours, Benefits,
Working Conditions; Memorandums of Understanding: City of Gilroy and Gilroy
Fire Fighters Local 2805, City of Gilroy and AFSCME Local 101 Representing
Employees Affiliated with AFSCME, Local 101; City of Gilroy and the Gilroy
Management Association (GMA); City of Gilroy and Gilroy Police Officers
Association, Inc.
B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to GC
Section 54956.8 and GCC Section 17A.8 (a) (2) Property: 3050 Hecker Pass
Highway, APN’s 783-05-011; 783-05-012; 783-05-013;810-17-014;015; 021; 024;
025; 026; 029; 810-18-002; 010; 011;801-19 -005;007; 010; 011; 014 (Gilroy Gardens
Property); Negotiators: Jimmy Forbis, Interim City Administrator and LeeAnn
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
08/17/2020 Page7 McPhillips, HR Director; Other Party to Negotiations: Barbara Granter; Under
Negotiation: Lease Price and Terms
1. Public Comment on Closed Session
2. Adjourn to Closed Session
ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION
Report of any action taken in Closed Session and vote or abstention of each
Councilmember if required by Government Code Section 54957.1 and Gilroy Code
Section 17A.13 (a); Public Report of the vote to continue in closed session if required
under Gilroy Code Section 17A.11 (5)
ADJOURNMENT
MEETING DATES
AUGUST, 2020
17* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
24* Special Meeting/Study Session - 6:00 p.m.
SEPTEMBER, 2020
14* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
21* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
OCTOBER 2020
5* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
19* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
* meeting is webstreamed and televised
Proclamation of the City of Gilroy
WHEREAS, the character of our community is revealed in how we treat the most
vulnerable and each year, 1 in 285 children in our community are diagnosed with cancer; and
WHEREAS, cancer remains the leading cause of death by disease among children,
more than asthma, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, congenital anomalies, and AIDS combined; and
WHEREAS, families of children with cancer in the City of Gilroy receive essential
services from Jacob’s Heart Children’s Cancer Support Services, a local organization that has
gained national awards and recognition for improving the quality of life for hundreds of local
children with cancer and thousands of family members; and
WHEREAS, Jacob’s Heart holds the memories and honors legacies of hundreds of
children from our local community who have been lost to cancer, ensuring that their precious
memories will never be forgotten; and
WHEREAS, the oncology department at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at
Stanford has worked closely with Jacob's Heart for the past 22 years as a trusted community
partner in providing family-centered care that addresses the emotional, practical and financial
struggles of families of children with cancer in Gilroy; and
WHEREAS, it is important for all Gilroy residents to recognize the impact of
pediatric cancer on families within our community and honor the lives of children in our
community whose lives have been cut short by cancer.
NOW, THEREFORE I, Roland Velasco, Mayor of the City of Gilroy on
this 17th day of August, 2020, along with my colleagues on the City Council as Mayor, do
hereby proclaim the month of September, 2020 as
Childhood Cancer Awareness Month
in the City of Gilroy and do hereby honor Jacob’s Heart Children’s Cancer Support Services
for 22 years of outstanding support to our community and acknowledge the organization’s
contributions to Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, honoring children with cancer in our
community.
____________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
2.A.1
Packet Pg. 8 Communication: Proclamation Naming the Month of September Childhood Cancer Awareness Month (Proclamations, Awards, and
1
City Council Meeting Minutes
07/22/2020
City of Gilroy
City Council Special Meeting Minutes
July 22, 2020
I. OPENING
A. Call to Order and Roll Call
Mayor Velasco called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. He then announced the meeting
was being held under the Governor's Executive Order N-29-20 and described the
process of public participation.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Roland Velasco Mayor Remote
Marie Blankley Council Member Remote
Dion Bracco Council Member Remote
Peter Leroe-Muñoz Council Member Remote
Carol Marques Council Member Remote
Fred Tovar Council Member Remote
Cat Tucker Council Member Remote
II. CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
UNITS Pursuant to GC Section 54957.6 and GCC Section 17A.11 (4); Collective
Bargaining Units: Local 2805, IAFF Fire Unit Representing Gilroy Fire Fighters;
Gilroy Police Officers Association, Inc. Representing Gilroy Police Officers; City
Negotiators: Jimmy Forbis, Interim City Administrator, LeeAnn McPhillips, HR
Director; Anticipated Issues(s) Under Negotiation: Wages, Hours, Benefits,
Working Conditions;
Memorandums of Understanding: City of Gilroy and Gilroy Fire Fighters Local
2805 and City of Gilroy and Gilroy Police Officers Association, Inc.
B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to GC
Section 54956.8 and GCC Section 17A.8 (a) (2) Property: 3050 Hecker Pass
Highway, APN’s 783-05-011; 783-05-012; 783-05-013;810-17-014;015; 021; 024;
025; 026; 029; 810-18-002; 010; 011;801-19 -005;007; 010; 011; 014 (Gilroy Gardens
Property); Negotiators: Jimmy Forbis, Interim City Administrator and LeeAnn
McPhillips, HR Director; Other Party to Negotiations: Barbara Granter; Under
Negotiation: Lease Price and Terms
Mayor Velasco stated that there was an additional labor negotiation closed session item
to consider, that came to the attention of the City after the posting of the agenda.
Staff explained that AFSCME had submitted information to the City after 8:00 p.m. the
prior evening, and the information was urgent as it could affect layoffs that were
pending.
Motion: The Council has made the finding that there is a need to add the item to the
agenda to take immediate action on the item, and it is so imperative as to threaten
serious injury to the public interest if action were deferred to a subsequent special or
regular meeting, and that the need for action came to the attention of the local agency
subsequent to the agenda being posted
6.A
Packet Pg. 9 Communication: Minutes of the July 22, 2020 Special Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
2
City Council Meeting Minutes
07/22/2020
RESULT: ADOPTED [6 TO 1]
MOVER: Roland Velasco, Mayor
SECONDER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar, Tucker
NAYS: Bracco
ADDED ITEM:
C. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
UNITS Pursuant to GC Section 54957.6 and GCC Section 17A.11 (4); Collective
Bargaining Unit AFSCME Local 101 Representing Employees Affiliated with
AFSCME. Anticipated Issues(s) Under Negotiation: Wages, Hours, Benefits,
Working Conditions; MOU: City of Gilroy and AFSCME Local 101 Representing
Employees Affiliated with AFSCME
There were no public comments on closed session.
ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned to closed session at 6:12 p.m.
/s/ Shawna Freels, MMC
City Clerk
6.A
Packet Pg. 10 Communication: Minutes of the July 22, 2020 Special Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
1
City Council Meeting Minutes
08/3/2020
City of Gilroy
City Council Meeting Minutes
August 3, 2020
I. OPENING
A. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Mayor Roland Velasco
1. Pledge of Allegiance
The pledge of allegiance was led by Mayor Pro Tempore Tucker.
2. Invocation
The invocation was given by Pastor Greg Quirke of South Valley Community
Church.
3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
City Clerk Shawna Freels announced that the agenda was posted on July 29,
2020 at 2:30 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Roland Velasco Mayor Remote
Marie Blankley Council Member Remote
Dion Bracco Council Member Remote
Peter Leroe-Muñoz Council Member Remote
Carol Marques Council Member Remote
Fred Tovar Council Member Remote
Cat Tucker Council Member Remote
B. Orders of the Day
Mayor Velasco detailed the requirements of the Governors Order with regards to
the Council's remote participation, and provided details on the process of public
comment.
II. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations
There were none.
III. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL
Public comment was provided Danelle Collins who described problems with the
homeless in her neighborhood off of First and Church Streets, describing fear of
many of her neighbors of going outside.
Susan Mister of South Valley Garden Club asking the Council to donate the spot
in front of the VFW to the club to design and maintain a red, white and blue
garden as a Blue Stone Memorial Garden.
Public comment was then closed.
6.B
Packet Pg. 11 Communication: Minutes of the August 3, 2020 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
2
City Council Meeting Minutes
08/3/2020
IV. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Marques spoke on the Asian television station video contest
that the Downtown Association had and had taken 2nd place in.
Council Member Tovar gave thanks for all of the participation in the Garlic
Festival memorial events held the prior week.
Council Member Leroe-Muñoz spoke on the decision to not increase the
membership dues for ABAG member agencies.
Mayor Velasco thanked everyone for their work in coordinating the Garlic Festival
memorial events held the prior week.
V. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Velasco asked to agendzie the request of South Valley Garden Club to
allow them to use and maintain the spot in front of the VFW to design and
maintain a red, white and blue garden as a Blue Stone Memorial Garden.
The Council agreed to agendize the item.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar, Tucker
A. Minutes of the July 1, 2020 Regular Meeting
B. Minutes of the July 6, 2020 Adjourned Regular Meeting
C. Appointment of a Representative to the Sourcewise Advisory Council with
a Term Ending June 30, 2022
D. Approval of a Parcel Map and Right of Way Dedication for 95 Farrell Ave,
APN 790-07-007
VII. BIDS AND PROPOSALS
A. Approval of an Agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc. in the Amount of
$175,000 for Engineering Plan Review and Land Surveying Services
The item was presented by Public Works Director Awoke.
There were no public comments.
6.B
Packet Pg. 12 Communication: Minutes of the August 3, 2020 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
3
City Council Meeting Minutes
08/3/2020
Possible Action:
Approve an agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc. in the amount of
$175,000, and authorize the Interim City Administrator to execute the
agreement and related documents.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
SECONDER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar,
Tucker
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Consideration of the Report of Abatement of Weeds and Refuse Within the
City of Gilroy and Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Gilroy Confirming the Imposition of Assessment Liens Against the Land
The staff report was presented by Deputy Fire Marshal Crick.
There were no ex-parte communications.
The public hearing was opened; there being none, the public hearing was then
closed.
Possible Action:
Adopt a Resolution 2020-47 of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
confirming the report of the Chief of the Fire Department setting forth the
description of property, naming the owners thereof and the costs of
abating the nuisance caused by the growing of weeds and accumulation of
refuse on the property, and providing that such costs shall constitute
assessments against the land.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar,
Tucker
B. Consideration of the Placement of Special Assessment Liens for the Non-
payment of Charges for the Collection of Garbage, Rubbish, and Refuse on
Certain Properties Located in the City of Gilroy
The staff report was presented by Interim City Administrator Forbis.
There were no ex-parte communications.
The public hearing was opened; there being none it was then closed.
6.B
Packet Pg. 13 Communication: Minutes of the August 3, 2020 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
4
City Council Meeting Minutes
08/3/2020
Possible Action:
Adopt a Resolution No. 2020-48 of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
imposing special assessment liens for the costs of delinquent garbage
collection services for certain properties located in Gilroy, California.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar,
Tucker
IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Standing Report on Operational Impacts and City/Community Efforts
Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic
The staff report was presented by Interim City Administrator Forbis and was
further provided by Chief Wyatt.
There were no public comments.
Possible Action:
Receive the report.
X. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of a Supplemental Concession Agreement and Memorandum of
Understanding Extension with Gilroy Police Officers Association for the
Period of July 1, 2020 Through June 30, 2024 and Associated Salary
Schedules
The staff report was presented by Human Resources Director McPhillips.
There were no public comments.
Possible Action:
a) Approve and authorize the Interim City Administrator to execute a
Supplemental Concession Agreement and Memorandum of
Understanding Extension with the Gilroy Police Officers Association
regarding wages, hours and working conditions to reduce and postpone
ongoing payroll costs and avoid further layoffs.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar,
Tucker
6.B
Packet Pg. 14 Communication: Minutes of the August 3, 2020 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
5
City Council Meeting Minutes
08/3/2020
Possible Action:
b) Adopt a Resolution No. 2020-49 of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
approving the July 1, 2021, January 1, 2022, July 1, 2022, January 1,
2023, July 1, 2023, and January 1, 2024 salary schedules associated
with the Gilroy Police Officers Association Supplemental Concession
Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding Extension.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Leroe-Muñoz, Marques, Tovar,
Tucker
XI. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
Interim City Administrator Forbis reported on the outcome of the support Gilroy
campaign and spoke on the Chamber of Commerce report for marketing
planning. He detailed the upcoming community improvement project meeting,
and announced the Council study session Monday, August 10th.
XII. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
There was none.
XIII. CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
UNITS Pursuant to GC Section 54957.6 and GCC Section 17A.11; AFSCME Local
101 Representing Employees Affiliated with AFSCME and Local 2805 IAFF Fire
Unit Representing Gilroy Fire Fighters
Anticipated Issues(s) Under Negotiation: Wages, Hours, Benefits, Working
Conditions; City Negotiators: Jimmy Forbis, Interim City Administrator, LeeAnn
McPhillips, HR Director; MOU's: City of Gilroy and AFSCME Local 101
Representing Employees Affiliated with AFSCME; City of Gilroy and Gilroy Fire
Fighters Local 2805
B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to GC
Section 54956.8 and GCC Section 17A.8 (a) (2) Property: 3050 Hecker Pass
Highway, APN’s 783-05-011; 783-05-012; 783-05-013;810-17-014;015; 021; 024;
025; 026; 029; 810-18-002; 010; 011;801-19 -005;007; 010; 011; 014 (Gilroy Gardens
Property); Negotiators: Jimmy Forbis, Interim City Administrator and LeeAnn
McPhillips, HR Director; Other Party to Negotiations: Barbara Granter; Under
Negotiation: Lease Price and Terms
Public comment was opened; there being no comments it was then closed.
ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned to closed session at 7:50 p.m.
/s/ Shawna Freels, MMC
City Clerk
6.B
Packet Pg. 15 Communication: Minutes of the August 3, 2020 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Setting the Tax Rate for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 for the Gilroy
Community Library Project Bonds
Meeting Date: August 17, 2020
From: Jimmy Forbis, Interim City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Jimmy Forbis
Strategic Plan Goals
Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Neighborhood Services
☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy setting the tax rate for Fiscal
Year 2020-2021 with respect to general obligation bonds for the Gilroy Community
Library Project.
BACKGROUND
On November 4, 2008, the voters of the City of Gilroy approved ballot Measure F for
construction of public library improvements adjacent to City Hall. Measure F provided
for the authorization to issue general obligation bonds for up to $37,000,000. It was
anticipated that the authorization would be split between two series of bonds. The first
series was issued in May 2009 and the second series was issued in August 2010.
There is $3,000,000 in remaining, unissued authorization available to the City for future
use. The City has spent the majority of both the Series A and Series B bond proceeds
6.C
Packet Pg. 16
on the construction of the new library and other library facility improvements. There is
approximately $5 million remaining of the bond proceeds.
At the May 20th, 2019 regular meeting, Council authorized staff to refinance the bonds
(Series A and Series B) in July 2019 and January 2020. Those refinancings saved
property owners interest costs since the refinancing will include a lower interest rate on
the principal, thus lowering the required levy rate.
ANALYSIS
Staff recommends the FY21 tax rate of $0.019 per $100 of assessed valuation, which
represents a tax of approximately $19 per $100,000 of assessed valuation (after
applicable homeowner exemptions). As the assessed valuations of properties increase
over time, the ad valorem tax rate for the library bond will decrease. The prior year’s
rate was $0.020 per $100.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Adoption of the tax rate will slightly lower the levy amount for taxpayers but will not
hinder the repayment of the bonds.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Library Bond Tax Rate
6.C
Packet Pg. 17
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GILROY SETTING THE TAX RATE FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021 WITH RESPECT TO
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE
GILROY COMMUNITY LIBRARY PROJECT
WHEREAS, more than two-thirds of the electors voting at a special municipal
election held on November 4, 2008, voted for a proposition authorizing the issuance by
the City of general obligation bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $37,000,000
(the “Bonds”) for the purpose of providing funds for the acquisition, construction and
improvement of public library facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City has previously issued the initial series of the Bonds in the
aggregate principal amount of $10,500,000 on May 5, 2009 and the second series of the
Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $23,500,000 on August 3, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the City approved the refinancing of the two series of bonds on May
20, 2019 (providing for a reduction in bond debt service starting in tax collection year
2019/20) with the issuance of the 2019 Refunding General Obligation Bonds; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 43632 of the California Government Code, the
City Council is required annually to levy and collect a tax sufficient to pay the principal
of and interest on the Bonds coming due and payable before the proceeds of a tax levied
at the next general tax levy will be available; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that in order to provide sufficient funds to
pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds coming due and payable on February 1,
2021 and August 1, 2021, it is necessary to levy a tax upon all taxable property in the
City at the rate of 0.019% of assessed valuation, based on the estimated assessed values
for all rolls (secured, unsecured and utility) for fiscal year 2020-2021.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Gilroy as follows:
Section 1. Levy of Tax. The City Council hereby determines that the tax rate
necessary to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds coming due and payable on
February 1, 2021 and August 1, 2021, is 0.019% of assessed valuation, and such tax rate
shall be and is hereby levied in accordance with all applicable requirements of law.
Section 2. Collection of Tax. The Finance Director is hereby directed to
forward a copy of this Resolution to the Auditor-Controller of Santa Clara County, and to
the Board of Supervisors of the County, and to take such actions and execute such
documents as may be required to cause the tax rate set forth in Section 1 to be placed on
the 2020-2021 property tax bill and collected by the County.
6.C.a
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Resolution Library Bond Tax Rate (2955 : Library Bond Tax Rate)
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XX
Section 3. Application of Tax. As provided in Section 43634 of the California
Government Code, all taxes levied pursuant to this Resolution shall be used only for
payment of the Bonds and the interest thereon.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the
date of its passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City
of Gilroy on this 17th day of August 2020 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
6.C.a
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Resolution Library Bond Tax Rate (2955 : Library Bond Tax Rate)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Transfer of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Measure B Obligated Funds from the Buena Vista Interchange to
the 10th Street/State Route 152 Interchange Project
Meeting Date: August 17, 2020
From: Jimmy Forbis, Interim City Administrator
Department: Public Works Department
Submitted By: Girum Awoke
Prepared By: Girum Awoke
Gary Heap
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
Economic
Development
☐ Neighborhood Services
☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy directing the Interim City
Administrator to request that Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) redirect
Measure B obligated funds from the Buena Vista interchange to the US101/State Route
152-10th street interchange project for pre-design improvements.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Measure B (a 30-year half-cent transportation sales tax measure) was approved by
voters in Santa Clara County in 2016. The Measure B Highway Interchanges category
includes three projects in the Gilroy area: US 101/SR 152-10th Street ramp and
intersection improvements, US 101/Buena Vista Avenue interchange, and US 101/SR
25 interchange improvements. To date, the VTA has allocated $1,000,000 for the US
6.D
Packet Pg. 20
101/Buena Vista interchange project activities for future reimbursement of costs
associated with any design and pre-design activities. At the April 20, 2020 City Council
meeting, Council reviewed and approved staff’s recommendation to move currently
allocated funds from the Buena Vista interchange to the US 101/SR 152-10th Street
interchange.
Moving Measure B funds to the US 101/SR 152-10th Street ramp and intersection
improvements will improve regional access to a key gateway and commercial corridor
for the City of Gilroy and its local retail business. This will fulfill the City Council’s
direction to focus available regional and interagency resources on pro jects that have a
high impact on revenue driven economic development. T he urban growth boundary
measure (Measure H) has changed the potential return on investment for the US
101/Buena Vista Interchange Project. Since minimal growth will occur in the north
section of the City, funds and project development efforts can be redirected to higher
priority areas such as the Tenth street corridor.
BACKGROUND
On November 8, 2016, a 30-year half-cent transportation sales tax measure, referred to
as 2016 Measure B, was approved by Santa Clara County voters. The implementation
of the Measure was delayed due to a legal challenge. While, collection of the tax began
on April 1, 2017. On January 23, 2019, the last of the legal challenges to the Measure
were exhausted, allowing the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to
proceed with the implementation of the program. VTA will implement the program by
funding partner agency capital projects such as the cities and Santa Clara County. Over
the next 30 years, 2016 Measure B is anticipated to generate $6.3 billion in 2017
dollars. VTA will track the performance of 2016 Measure B projects and programs and
report how funding recipients are delivering on promises made to the taxpayers.
The following are Measure B program areas that are relevant to Gilroy:
Bicycle / Pedestrian
Caltrain Corridor Capacity Improvements
County Expressways
Highway Interchanges
Local Streets & Roads (LS&R)
Transit Operations
VTA has developed guidelines on how the program category funds should be allocated
and the City has adhered to them. In Gilroy, the first of the available LS&R funds will be
utilized in the upcoming Capital Pavement Maintenance project. Subject to competitive
award, Measure B funds will also be available to fund programs and projects such as
the Lions Creek Trail, the second phase of West Llagas Trail, and the trail between
Long Meadow Drive and Fitzgerald Avenue.
6.D
Packet Pg. 21
At the April 20, 2020 City Council meeting, staff made a presentation on this topic and
requested direction from Council. This item is presented to Council to formally adopt a
resolution to direct the City Administrator to work with the VTA to redirect the currently
available $1,000,000 funding from the US101/Buena Vista Interchange to the
US101/10th Street Interchange for design and pre-design activities.
ANALYSIS
The Measure B Highway Interchanges category includes three projects in the Gilroy
area: US 101/SR 152-10th Street ramp and intersection improvements, US 101/Buena
Vista Avenue interchange, and US 101/SR 25 interchange improvements. While VTA is
currently managing the US 101/SR 25 interchange improvements project through the
Mobility Partnership (a coalition of elected officials from Gilroy, Morgan Hill and San
Benito County), the City of Gilroy is the lead agency on all the other projects. To date,
the VTA has allocated $1,000,000 for the US 101/Buena Vista interchange project
activities for future reimbursement of costs associated with any design and pre -design
activities.
Given the urban growth boundary measure (Measure H) that passed in Gilroy in
November 2016, which will make the US 101/Buena Vista Interchange not as effective
as previously anticipated, staff explored a more effective use of the Measure B funds in
the next few years. Subsequently, staff determined that more funds should be directed
to the US 101/SR 152 10th Street ramp and intersection improvements for the following
reasons:
1. Traffic Congestion – The 10th Street corridor is one of the main east-west
thoroughfares in the city which provides complete access to the US 101 freeway.
This corridor serves both local and regional traffic and experiences heavy levels
of congestion, particularly in the morning and evening peak hours. More
immediate improvements to this interchange will not only improve traffic flow
along 10th Street but also on the US 101 mainline.
2. Economic Development – 10th Street/US152 east is also the gateway to one of
the main commercial activity centers in the city including Wal-Mart, Costco,
Target, Best Buy and numerous retail destinations, restaurants, gas stations etc.
In addition, there are several commercial parcels east of the US 101/SR 152
interchange that have not yet been developed and are partly delayed due to the
potential traffic impact mitigations required, including but not limited to the
widening of the 10th Street overcrossing bridge and ramp improvements. Any
additional funding that may be available for improving this interchange will reduce
the mitigation required of these future developments, thereby fostering more
enhanced economic development activity in the city.
3. Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Funds – The City’s Transportation System Master Plan
identifies the 10th Street bridge over US 101 with an estimated allocation of
6.D
Packet Pg. 22
approximately $3,500,000 towards this project. The total estimated cost for this
interchange improvement is estimated to range from $20 million to $25 million.
Though the amount in the TIF is not sufficient to build the entire project, it will
nonetheless pay for a portion of the project in concert with other funding sources.
Conversely it is likely that the upcoming Transportation Master Plan update (after
completion of the General Plan 2040 update) will have a much reduced scope for
the Buena Vista interchange given that the Urban Gro wth boundary limits
development to the south of Buena Vista.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
None.
Council’s direction to reallocate the currently available $1,000,000 of Measure B
Obligated Funding from the Buena Vista Interchange to the US101/SR152-10thth Street
Ramp and Interchange Improvements would not result in any new financial impacts to
the City, but instead reduce the amount of funding needed to complete this project
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council can deny the staff’s request and not approve the resolution to redirect
the funding from the US101/Buena Vista Interchange to the US101/SR152-10th Street
Interchange. This action would be in opposition to the previous action directed by the
City Council. STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND THIS OPTION.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Information regarding project activities and impacts will be coordinated with the City’s
Community Engagement Office to provide appropriate messaging and outreach.
Attachments:
1. Resolution VTA Measure B Funds
6.D
Packet Pg. 23
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GILROY DIRECTING THE INTERIM CITY
ADMINISTRATOR TO REQUEST THAT THE SANTA CLARA
VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA)
REDIRECT MEASURE B OBLIGATED FUNDS FROM THE
BUENA VISTA INTERCHANGE TO THE 10TH
STREET/SR152 INTERCHANGE FOR PRE-DESIGN
IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016, a 30-year half-cent transportation sales tax
measure, referred to as 2016 Measure B, was approved by Santa Clara County voters; and,
WHEREAS, one of the relevant Measure B program areas for Gilroy is the
Highway Interchanges Program; and,
WHEREAS, the Measure B Highway Interchanges Program category
includes three projects in the Gilroy area: US 101/SR 152-10th Street Ramp and
Intersection Improvements, US 101/Buena Vista Avenue Interchange, and US
101/SR 25-10th Street Interchange Improvements; and,
WHEREAS, the VTA has allocated $1,000,000 for the US 101/Buena
Vista Interchange project activities for future reimbursement of costs associated
with any design and pre-design activities; and,
WHEREAS, given the urban growth boundary measure (Measure H) that
passed in Gilroy in November 2016, the US 101/Buena Vista Interchange will not
be as effective as previously anticipated; and,
WHEREAS, subsequently, staff determined that more funds should be
directed to the US 101/SR 152-10th Street Ramp and Intersection Improvements
Project due to traffic congestion, economic development and traffic impact fee
(TIF) funds considerations.
6.D.a
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Resolution VTA Measure B Funds (2932 : Transfer of Gilroy Measure B Highway Project Funds)
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XX
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Interim City
Administrator shall request the VTA to redirect the currently allocated $1,000,000
funding from the US101/Buena Vista Interchange to the US101/SR152-10th Street
Ramp and Interchange Improvement Project for design and pre-design activities.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of August, 2020 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST: Roland Velasco, Mayor
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
6.D.a
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Resolution VTA Measure B Funds (2932 : Transfer of Gilroy Measure B Highway Project Funds)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Budget Amendment and Approval of an Agreement with StreetScan
Inc. in the Amount of $142,890 for the Citywide Sidewalk Network
Inventory and Assessment Services
Meeting Date: August 17, 2020
From: Jimmy Forbis, Interim City Administrator
Department: Public Works Department
Submitted By: Girum Awoke
Prepared By: Girum Awoke
Nirorn Than
Strategic Plan Goals
Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
Neighborhood Services
☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement
RECOMMENDATION
a) Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending the Fiscal
Year 2020-2021 budget and appropriating proposed expenditure amendments.
b) Approve a contract with Streetscan, Inc. in the amount of $142,890, and
authorize the Interim City Administrator to execute the contract and associated
documents.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City’s transportation network, consisting of 125 lane-miles of roads and adjacent
sidewalk and curb ramps, is the City’s biggest asset with a total value of more than
7.A
Packet Pg. 26
$220 million. It is important for the City to maintain safe sidewalks as an integral part of
the multi-modal transportation network. Although, the City performs a bi-annual
evaluation of the street network, the City has performed only three citywide sidewalk
assessments in the past 27 years. These previous sidewalk condition surveys lacked
critical information needed to effectively manage the City’s Sidewalk program.
The Public Works Department developed a Sidewalk Network Inventory and
Assessment Project to address this need which was approved and funded by Council in
spring 2019. The project elements include:
Assessing sidewalk and curb ramp condition of all facilities throughout the City
Preparing a report indicating the amount of deficient sidewalk and Americans
with Disabilities (ADA) Compliant curb ramps
Developing Citywide sidewalk repair zones that can be completed on an annual
basis, based on available budget
Creating a framework for determining the order of sidewalk repair
The Department solicited for proposals for this project and received one proposal. The
firm that submitted a proposal demonstrated not only a complete understanding of the
project but also provided a comprehensive approach to citywide sidewalk condition
assessment and development of a sidewalk management plan.
BACKGROUND
The City’s Sidewalk Repair Program was created in 1994 to assist property owners with
the cost of maintaining their sidewalks as required by state law. The current Fiscal Year
funding for this program is approximately $250,000. The program collaborates with
property owners in Gilroy to fund 50% of the cost of the sidewalk removal and
replacement, and for the City to pay 100% of the following costs:
Street tree removal and replacement
Pavement repair
Curb and gutter replacement
Driveway approach repair
ADA ramp removal and replacement
Some of the sidewalk damage is caused by tree roots that lift the sidewalk. In cases
where root growth contributes to sidewalk problems, the City Policy requires that these
trees be removed and replaced with sidewalk -friendly trees, which is also funded
through the program. In all property owner managed repairs, the property owner must
obtain three bids and contract with a licensed contractor to perform the work. After the
work is completed and the contractor has been fully paid by the property owner, the City
reimburses the property owner for the City’s portion of the work through the based on
the formula above. This reimbursement program works on a first come first served
basis. In recent years, the Sidewalk Repair Program has become very popular. For
instance, in FY 20, the program funding was exhausted a few months ahead of the end
7.A
Packet Pg. 27
of the fiscal year, resulting in numerous property owners having to defer replacing or
repairing their sidewalks until the next fiscal year.
City staff monitors sidewalks and issues repair notices to property owners. Letters are
also issued to property owners if the City receives a complaint or claim of a sidewalk trip
and fall. While many property owners participate in the program, others are not always
responsive to the City’s requests. The City's practice, with respect to sidewalk
maintenance, is based on the California Streets and Highways Code, Section 5610
which is excerpted below:
Section 5610. The owners of lots or portions of lots fronting on any portion of a
public street or place when that street or place is improved or if and when the
area between the property line of the adjacent property and the street line is
maintained as a park or parking strip, shall maintain any sidewalk in such a
condition that the sidewalk will not endanger persons or property and maintain it
in a condition that will not interfere with the public convenience in the use of
those works or areas save and except as to those conditions created or
maintained in, upon, along, or in connection with such sidewalk by any person
other than the owner, under and by virtue of any permit or right granted to him by
law or by the city authorities in charge thereof, and such persons shall be under
alike duty in relation thereto.
Section 5610 places the responsibility for sidewalk concrete replacement and repair on
the abutting property owner. Under the California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter
22, Division 7, Part 3, property owners are responsible for maintaining the sidewalk area
along their property frontage.
In past sidewalk evaluations (2008, 2012 and 2016), the City conducted sidewalk
surveys across the City utilizing a student intern, volunteers, and staff. During these
studies, a database was created, and later updated, listing properties with damaged
sidewalks. Following the survey, all property owners with damaged sidewalks were
sent notices that the sidewalk along their frontage was damaged, that they were
required to repair the damage to their sidewalks per the Streets and Highways Code,
and offered to participate in the City's Sidewalk Repair Program. The survey reviewed
13,452 properties and identified 4,622 properties with damaged sidewalks. As noted
above, all of the property owners were notified of the damage and were invited to
participate in the Sidewalk Repair Program.
It is worth noting that, with all three surveys, staff was only able to assign a “pass” or
“fail” grade for the properties surveyed. As a result, while it is possible to know how
many properties require maintenance, it is difficult to derive the quantity of the repair
needed from these surveys. As of 2016, five hundred fifty-five (555) property owners
have been contacted to participate in the Sidewalk Repair Program, of which 307 have
completed the repair work and have received reimbursement. The remaining property
owners have not yet responded to the notifications. Staff periodically issues reminders
to these owners.
7.A
Packet Pg. 28
To date, the City has subsidized $5,521,442 in the Sidewalk Repair Program. The table
below summarizes all of the items completed under this program for the past 27 years.
Sidewalk Program Summary Year completed 27 Quantity
Sites (ea)1354
Remove Trees (ea) (100% City)1510
Remove Tree Stumps (ea) (100% City)1557
Replace Trees (ea) (100% City)1251
Remove Parkstrip Concrete (sf) (100% City)46,128.4
Remove / Replace Driveway Approach (sf) (100% City)52,430.9
Remove / Replace Sidewalk (sf) (50% Owner / 50% City)316,743.8
Remove / Replace Curb & Gutter (lf) (100% City)40,868.4
Remove / Replace ADA Curb Ramp (sf) (100% City)15,257.0
Remove / Replace AC Pavmnt (sf) (100% City)86,581.8
Total Cost ($)7,546,614.00$
Property Owner Cost ($)2,025,172.00$
City Cost ($)5,521,442.00$
AN ALYSIS
Staff receives numerous concerns from residents regarding tripping hazards within the
City sidewalk infrastructure. With 27 years of investment, it is clear that the current
program has its limitations. These include:
• Residents have to pay up front – Residents are asked to fund both the property
owner’s and City’s portion of the construction costs and get reimbursed the City’s
cost only after construction is complete.
• Residents have to do most of the work – This includes getting three bids,
entering into a contract with the contractor, coordinating the construction work,
filing for necessary permits, managing the work, and submitting paperwork for
reimbursement.
• No consistency of repairs – Participation is not limited to one area of the City,
which results in a patchwork of new sidewalk and lack of consistency in a given
area.
• The City is not getting good value for its sidewalk repair dollars – Contractors bid
on small repair projects, doing one small property frontage at a time. This results
in bid prices that are extremely high per square foot due to the small scope of
work for these projects, and ultimately an inefficient use of City funds.
For this reason, in the spring of 2019, City Council funded a project to evaluate and
assess the amount of deficient sidewalk and curb ramps throughout the City as a first
step in an effort to update our current Sidewalk Repair Program . In the fall of 2019,
staff put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Citywide Sidewalk Condition
Assessment Project; only one firm submitted a proposal.
7.A
Packet Pg. 29
This firm proposes to use video and Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to assess
sidewalk and curb ramp condition of all facilities throughout the City. Unlike the previous
three surveys, this project will include quantities for all the damaged areas and
advanced 360-degree imagery of the damaged areas. The firm will also prepare a
report indicating the amount of deficient sidewalk, provide a GIS layer of the defective
locations, and assist in the development of sidewalk repair zones which will subdivide
the City into manageable areas, in accordance with available funding. The project will
also assist the City in developing a sidewalk management plan and create a framework
for determining the process and order of sidewalk repair projects.
Additionally, the firm will also assess and provide a separate report for sidewalk
deficiencies along the frontage of all City owned public facilities and parks. This
information will be used to program a phased City Facility Sidewalk repair project in the
City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Furthermore, a separate curb ramp
deficiencies report will be submitted to the City for use in development of the Citywide
ADA Assessment and Transitioning effort. This data collection and program evaluation
process is similar to that of the City’s Pavement Management Program.
ALTERNATIVES
. Council can reject the contract with StreetScan, Inc. STAFF DOES NOT
RECOMMEND THIS OPTION as this will result in lack of adequate information
on the state of City sidewalks and prevent the City from addressing the current
limitations of the Sidewalk Repair Program.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Sufficient funding is available from the Vehicle Registration Fee fund (Fund 225).
NEXT STEPS
When the Citywide sidewalk assessment is complete, staff will present the findings to
City Council.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Fund 225 Budget Amendment
2. Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement
7.A
Packet Pg. 30
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GILROY AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF
GILROY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-2021 AND
APPROPRIATING PROPOSED EXPENDTURE
AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, the City Administrator prepared and submitted to the City Council a budget for
the City of Gilroy for Fiscal Years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, and the City Council carefully
examined, considered and adopted the same on June 3, 2019; and
WHEREAS, City staff has prepared and submitted to the City Council proposed
amendments to said budget for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 for the City of Gilroy in the staff report
dated August 17th, 2020, for the Citywide Sidewalk Network Inventory and Assessment Services
Project 20-RFP-PW-435.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the appropriations for Fiscal Year 2020-
2021 in the Vehicle Registration Fees, Fund #225, shall be increased by $142,890.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of August, 2020 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
ATTEST: Roland Velasco, Mayor
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Resolution Fund 225 Budget Amendment [Revision 2] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
-1- 4845-6718-3385v1
LAC\04706083
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
(For design professional contracts over $5,000)
This AGREEMENT made this 17th day of August, 2020 between:
CITY: City of Gilroy, having a principal place of business at
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California
and CONSULTANT: StreetScan Inc., having a principal place of business at
ARTICLE 1. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement will become effective on 8/17/2020 and will continue in effect through
8/31/2023 unless terminated in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 2. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS
It is the express intention of the parties that CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not
an employee, agent, joint venturer or partner of CITY. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
interpreted or construed as creating or establishing the relationship of employer and employee
between CITY and CONSULTANT or any employee or agent of CONSULTANT. Both parties
acknowledge that CONSULTANT is not an employee for state or federal tax purposes.
CONSULTANT shall not be entitled to any of the rights or benefits afforded to CITY’S
employees, including, without limitation, disability or unemployment insurance, workers’
compensation, medical insurance, sick leave, retirement benefits or any other employment
benefits. CONSULTANT shall retain the right to perform services for others during the term of
this Agreement.
ARTICLE 3. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONSULTANT
A. Specific Services
CONSULTANT agrees to: perform the services as outlined in Exhibit “A” (“Specific
Provisions”) and Exhibit “B” (“Scope of Services”) within the time periods described in and
Exhibit “C” (“Milestone Schedule”).
B. Method of Performing Services
CONSULTANT shall determine the method, details and means of performing the above -
described services. CITY shall have no right to, and shall not, control the manner or determine
the method of accomplishing CONSULTANT’S services.
Burlington, MA 01803
151 S. Bedford St. #2,
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
-2- 4845-6718-3385v1
LAC\04706083
C. Employment of Assistants
CONSULTANT may, at the CONSULTANT’S own expense, employ such assistants as
CONSULTANT deems necessary to perform the services required of CONSULTANT by this
Agreement, subject to the prohibition against assignment and subcontracting contained in
Article 5 below. CITY may not control, direct, or supervise CONSULTANT’S assistants in the
performance of those services. CONSULTANT assumes full and sole responsibility for the
payment of all compensation and expenses of these assistants and for all state and federal income
tax, unemployment insurance, Social Security, disability insurance and other applicable
withholding.
D. Place of Work
CONSULTANT shall perform the services required by this Agreement at any place or location
and at such times as CONSULTANT shall determine is necessary to properly and timely perform
CONSULTANT’S services.
ARTICLE 4. COMPENSATION
A. Consideration
In consideration for the services to be performed by CONSULTANT, CITY agrees to pay
CONSULTANT the amounts set forth in Exhibit “D”. In no event however shall the total
compensation paid to CONSULTANT exceed
B. Invoices
CONSULTANT shall submit invoices for all services rendered.
C. Payment
Payment shall be due according to the payment schedule set forth in Exhibit “D”. No payment
will be made unless CONSULTANT has first provided City with a written receipt of invoice
describing the work performed and any approved direct expenses (as provided for in
Exhibit “A”, Section IV) incurred during the preceding period. If CITY objects to all or any
portion of any invoice, CITY shall notify CONSULTANT of the objection within thirty (30)
days from receipt of the invoice, give reasons for the objection, and pay that portion of the
invoice not in dispute. It shall not constitute a default or breach of this Agreement for CITY not
to pay any invoiced amounts to which it has objected until the objection has been resolved by
mutual agreement of the parties.
D. Expenses
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for all costs and expenses incident to the performance of
services for CITY, including but not limited to, all costs of equipment used or provided by
CONSULTANT, all fees, fines, licenses, bonds or taxes required of or imposed against
CONSULTANT and all other of CONSULTANT’S costs of doing business. CITY shall not be
$142,890.00 .
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
-3- 4845-6718-3385v1
LAC\04706083
responsible for any expenses incurred by CONSULTANT in performing services for CITY,
except for those expenses constituting “direct expenses” referenced on Exhibit “A.”
ARTICLE 5. OBLIGATIONS OF CONSULTANT
A. Tools and Instrumentalities
CONSULTANT shall supply all tools and instrumentalities required to perform the services
under this Agreement at its sole cost and expense. CONSULTANT is not required to purchase
or rent any tools, equipment or services from CITY.
B. Workers’ Compensation
CONSULTANT agrees to provide workers’ compensation insurance for CONSULTANT’S
employees and agents and agrees to hold harmless, defend with counsel acceptable to CITY and
indemnify CITY, its officers, representatives, agents and employees from and against any and all
claims, suits, damages, costs, fees, demands, causes of action, losses, liabilities and expenses,
including without limitation attorneys’ fees, arising out of any injury, disability, or death of any
of CONSULTANT’S employees.
C. Indemnification of Liability, Duty to Defend
1. As to professional liability, to the fullest extent permitted by law,
CONSULTANT shall defend, through counsel approved by CITY (which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld), indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officers, representatives, agents
and employees against any and all suits, damages, costs, fees, claims, demands, causes of action,
losses, liabilities and expenses, including without limitation attorneys’ fees, to the extent arising
or resulting directly or indirectly from any willful or negligent acts, errors or omissions of
CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT’S assistants, employees or agents, including all claims
relating to the injury or death of any person or damage to any property.
2. As to other liability, to the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall
defend, through counsel approved by CITY (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld),
indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officers, representatives, agents and employees against
any and all suits, damages, costs, fees, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, liabilities and
expenses, including without limitation attorneys’ fees, arising or resulting directly or indirectly
from any act or omission of CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT’S assistants, employees or
agents, including all claims relating to the injury or death of any person or damage to any
property.
D. Insurance
In addition to any other obligations under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall, at no cost to
CITY, obtain and maintain throughout the term of this Agreement: (a) Commercial Liability
Insurance on a per occurrence basis, including coverage for owned and non-owned automobiles,
with a minimum combined single limit coverage of $1,000,000 per occu rrence for all damages
due to bodily injury, sickness or disease, or death to any person, and damage to property,
including the loss of use thereof; and (b) Professional Liability Insurance (Errors & Omissions)
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
-4- 4845-6718-3385v1
LAC\04706083
with a minimum coverage of $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, and $2,000,000 aggregate;
provided however, Professional Liability Insurance written on a claims made basis must comply
with the requirements set forth below. Professional Liability Insurance written on a claims made
basis (including without limitation the initial policy obtained and all subsequent policies
purchased as renewals or replacements) must show the retroactive date, and the retroactive date
must be before the earlier of the effective date of the contract or the beginning of th e contract
work. Claims made Professional Liability Insurance must be maintained, and written evidence
of insurance must be provided, for at least five (5) years after the completion of the contract
work. If claims made coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another
claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the earlier of the effective date of the
contract or the beginning of the contract work, CONSULTANT must purchase so called
“extended reporting” or “tail” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of
work, which must also show a retroactive date that is before the earlier of the effective date of
the contract or the beginning of the contract work. As a condition precedent to CITY’S
obligations under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall furnish written evidence of such
coverage (naming CITY, its officers and employees as additional insureds on the Comprehensive
Liability insurance policy referred to in (a) immediately above via a specific endorsement) and
requiring thirty (30) days written notice of policy lapse or cancellation, or of a material change in
policy terms.
E. Assignment
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, neither this Agreement nor any duties or
obligations of CONSULTANT under this Agreement may be assigned or subcontracted by
CONSULTANT without the prior written consent of CITY, which CITY may withhold in its
sole and absolute discretion.
F. State and Federal Taxes
As CONSULTANT is not CITY’S employee, CONSULTANT shall be responsible for paying
all required state and federal taxes. Without limiting the foregoing, CONSULTANT
acknowledges and agrees that:
CITY will not withhold FICA (Social Security) from CONSULTANT’S
payments;
CITY will not make state or federal unemployment insurance contributions on
CONSULTANT’S behalf;
CITY will not withhold state or federal income tax from payment to
CONSULTANT;
CITY will not make disability insurance contributions on behalf of
CONSULTANT;
CITY will not obtain workers’ compensation insurance on behalf of
CONSULTANT.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
-5- 4845-6718-3385v1
LAC\04706083
ARTICLE 6. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY
A. Cooperation of City
CITY agrees to respond to all reasonable requests of CONSULTANT and provide access, at
reasonable times following receipt by CITY of reasonable notice, to all documents reasonably
necessary to the performance of CONSULTANT’S duties under this Agreement.
B. Assignment
CITY may assign this Agreement or any duties or obligations thereunder to a successor
governmental entity without the consent of CONSULTANT. Such assignment shall not release
CONSULTANT from any of CONSULTANT’S duties or obligations under this Agreement.
ARTICLE 7. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
A. Sale of Consultant’s Business/ Death of Consultant.
CONSULTANT shall notify CITY of the proposed sale of CONSULTANT’s business no later
than thirty (30) days prior to any such sale. CITY shall have the option of terminating this
Agreement within thirty (30) days after receiving such notice of sale. Any such CITY
termination pursuant to this Article 7.A shall be in writing and sent to the address for notices to
CONSULTANT set forth in Exhibit A, Subsection V.I., no later than thirty (30) days after
CITY’ receipt of such notice of sale.
If CONSULTANT is an individual, this Agreement shall be deemed autom atically terminated
upon death of CONSULTANT.
B. Termination by City for Default of Consultant
Should CONSULTANT default in the performance of this Agreement or materially breach any
of its provisions, CITY, at CITY’S option, may terminate this Agreement by giving written
notification to CONSULTANT. For the purposes of this section, material breach of this
Agreement shall include, but not be limited to the following:
1. CONSULTANT’S failure to professionally and/or timely perform any of the
services contemplated by this Agreement.
2. CONSULTANT’S breach of any of its representations, warranties or covenants
contained in this Agreement.
CONSULTANT shall be entitled to payment only for work satisfactorily completed through the
date of the termination notice, as reasonably determined by CITY, provided that such payment
shall not exceed the amounts set forth in this Agreement for the tasks described on Exhibit C”
which have been fully, competently and timely rendered by CONSULTANT. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, if CITY terminates this Agreement due to CONSULTANT’S default in the
performance of this Agreement or material breach by CONSULTANT of any of its provisions,
then in addition to any other rights and remedies CITY may have, CONSULTANT shall
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
-6- 4845-6718-3385v1
LAC\04706083
reimburse CITY, within ten (10) days after demand, for any and all costs and expenses incurred
by CITY in order to complete the tasks constituting the scope of work as described in this
Agreement, to the extent such costs and expenses exceed the amounts CITY would have been
obligated to pay CONSULTANT for the performance of that task pursuant to this Agreement.
C. Termination for Failure to Make Agreed-Upon Payments
Should CITY fail to pay CONSULTANT all or any part of the compensation set forth in Article
4 of this Agreement on the date due, then if and only if such nonpayment constitutes a default
under this Agreement, CONSULTANT, at the CONSULTANT’S option, may terminate this
Agreement if such default is not remedied by CITY within thirty (30) days after demand for such
payment is given by CONSULTANT to CITY.
D. Transition after Termination
Upon termination, CONSULTANT shall immediately stop work, unless cessation could
potentially cause any damage or harm to person or property, in which case CONSULTANT shall
cease such work as soon as it is safe to do so. CONSULTANT shall incur no further expenses in
connection with this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall promptly deliver to CITY all work done
toward completion of the services required hereunder, and shall act in such a manner as to
facilitate any the assumption of CONSULTANT’s duties by any new consultant hired by the
CITY to complete such services.
ARTICLE 8. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Amendment & Modification
No amendments, modifications, alterations or changes to the terms of this Agreement shall be
effective unless and until made in a writing signed by both parties hereto.
B. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Throughout the term of this Agreement, the CONSULTANT shall use due professional care to
comply fully with all applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“the
Act”) in its current form and as it may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall
also require such compliance of all subcontractors performing work under this Agreement,
subject to the prohibition against assignment and subcontracting contained in Article 5 above.
The CONSULTANT shall defend with counsel acceptable to CITY, indemnify and hold
harmless the CITY OF GILROY, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from and
against all suits, claims, demands, damages, costs, causes of action, losses, liabilities, expenses
and fees, including without limitation attorneys’ fees, that may arise out of any violations of the
Act by the CONSULTANT, its subcontractors, or the officers, employees, agents or
representatives of either.
C. Attorneys’ Fees
If any action at law or in equity, including an action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce
or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to reasonable
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
-7- 4845-6718-3385v1
LAC\04706083
attorneys’ fees, which may be set by the court in the same action or in a separate action brought
for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled.
D. Captions
The captions and headings of the various sections, paragraphs and subparagraphs of the
Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered nor referred to for resolving
questions of interpretation.
E. Compliance with Laws
The CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of all State and National laws and all municipal
ordinances and regulations of the CITY which in any manner affect those engaged or employed
in the work, or the materials used in the work, or which in any way affect the conduct of the
work, and of all such orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals having any jurisdiction or
authority over the same. Without limiting the foregoing, CONSULTANT agrees to observe the
provisions of the Municipal Code of the CITY OF GILROY, obligating every contractor or
subcontractor under a contract or subcontract to the CITY OF GILR OY for public works or for
goods or services to refrain from discriminatory employment or subcontracting practices on the
basis of the race, color, sex, religious creed, national origin, ancestry of any employee, applicant
for employment, or any potential subcontractor.
F. Conflict of Interest
CONSULTANT certifies that to the best of its knowledge, no CITY employee or office of any
public agency interested in this Agreement has any pecuniary interest in the business of
CONSULTANT and that no person associated with CONSULTANT has any interest that would
constitute a conflict of interest in any manner or degree as to the execution or performance of
this Agreement.
G. Entire Agreement
This Agreement supersedes any and all prior agreements, whether oral or written, between the
parties hereto with respect to the rendering of services by CONSULTANT for CITY and
contains all the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to the rendering of
such services in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no
representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by
any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no
other agreement, statement or promise not contained in this Agreement shall be valid or binding.
No other agreements or conversation with any officer, agent or employee of CITY prior to
execution of this Agreement shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations contained in
any documents comprising this Agreement. Such other agreements or conversations shall be
considered as unofficial information and in no way binding upon CITY.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
-8- 4845-6718-3385v1
LAC\04706083
H. Governing Law and Venue
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
California without regard to the conflict of laws provisions of any jurisdiction. The exclusive
jurisdiction and venue with respect to any and all disputes arising hereunder shall be in state and
federal courts located in Santa Clara County, California.
I. Notices
Any notice to be given hereunder by either party to the other may be effected either by personal
delivery in writing or by mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid with return receipt
requested. Mailed notices shall be addressed to the parties at the addresses appearing in
Exhibit “A”, Section V.I. but each party may change the address by written notice in
accordance with this paragraph. Notices delivered personally will be deemed delivered as of
actual receipt; mailed notices will be deemed delivered as of three (3) days after mailing.
J. Partial Invalidity
If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void
or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will nevertheless continue in full force without being
impaired or invalidated in any way.
K. Time of the Essence
All dates and times referred to in this Agreement are of the essence.
L. Waiver
CONSULTANT agrees that waiver by CITY of any one or more of the conditions of
performance under this Agreement shall not be construed as waiver(s) of any other condition of
performance under this Agreement.
Executed at Gilroy, California, on the date and year first above written.
CONSULTANT: CITY:
StreetScan, Inc. CITY OF GILROY
By: By:
Name: Name: Jimmy Forbis
Title: Title: Interim City Administrator
Social Security or Taxpayer
Identification Number
Salar Shahini
Chief Data Officer
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
-9- 4845-6718-3385v1
LAC\04706083
Approved as to Form ATTEST:
City Attorney City Clerk
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
-1- 4845-6718-3385v1
LAC\04706083
EXHIBIT “A”
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
I. PROJECT MANAGER
CONSULTANT shall provide the services indicated on the attached Exhibit “B”, Scope of
Services (“Services”). (All exhibits referenced are incorporated herein by reference.) To
accomplish that end, CONSULTANT agrees to assign Kevin Brown, who will act in the capacity
of Project Manager, and who will personally direct such Services.
Except as may be specified elsewhere in this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall furnish all
technical and professional services including labor, material, equipment, transportation,
supervision and expertise to perform all operations necessary and required to satisfactorily
complete the Services required herein.
II. NOTICE TO PROCEED/COMPLETION OF SERVICE
A. NOTICE TO PROCEED
CONSULTANT shall commence the Services upon delivery to CONSULTANT of a writ ten
“Notice to Proceed”, which Notice to Proceed shall be in the form of a written communication
from designated City contact person(s). Notice to Proceed may be in the form of e-mail, fax or
letter authorizing commencement of the Services. For purposes of this Agreement, Nirorn Than
shall be the designated City contact person(s). Notice to Proceed shall be deemed to have been
delivered upon actual receipt by CONSULTANT or if otherwise delivered as provided in the
Section V.I. (“Notices”) of this Exhibit “A”.
B. COMPLETION OF SERVICES
When CITY determines that CONSULTANT has satisfactorily completed all of the Services,
CITY shall give CONSULTANT written Notice of Final Acceptance, and CONSULTANT shall
not incur any further costs hereunder. CONSULTANT may request this determination of
completion when, in its opinion, it has satisfactorily completed all of the Services and, if so
requested, CITY shall make this determination within two (2) weeks of such request, or if CITY
determines that CONSULTANT has not satisfactorily completed all of such Services, CITY
shall so inform CONSULTANT within this two (2) week period.
III. PROGRESS SCHEDULE
The schedule for performance and completion of the Services will be as set forth in the attached
Exhibit “C”.
IV. PAYMENT OF FEES AND DIRECT EXPENSES
Payments shall be made to CONSULTANT as provided for in Article 4 of this Agreement.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
-2- 4845-6718-3385v1
LAC\04706083
Direct expenses are charges and fees not included in Exhibit “B”. CITY shall be obligated to
pay only for those direct expenses which have been previously approved in writing by CITY.
CONSULTANT shall obtain written approval from CITY prior to incurring or billing of direct
expenses.
Copies of pertinent financial records, including invoices, will be included with the submission of
billing(s) for all direct expenses.
V. OTHER PROVISIONS
A. CONSULTANT’S SERVICES TO BE APPROVED BY A REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
All civil (including structural and geotechnical) engineering plans, calculations, specifications
and reports shall be prepared by, or under the responsible charge of, a licensed civil engineer and
shall include his or her name and license number. Interim documents shall include a notation as
to the intended purpose of the document, such as “preliminary” or “for review only.” All civil
engineering plans and specifications that are permitted or that are to be released for construction
shall bear the signature and seal of the licensee and the date of signing and sealing or stamping.
All final civil engineering calculations and reports shall bear the signature and seal or stamp of
the licensee, and the date of signing and sealing or stamping.
B. STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP
CONSULTANT represents and warrants that it has the qualifications, skills and licenses
necessary to perform the Services, and its duties and obligations, expressed and implied,
contained herein, and CITY expressly relies upon CONSULTANT’S representations and
warranties regarding its skills, qualifications and licenses. C ONSULTANT shall perform such
Services and duties in conformance to and consistent with the standards generally recognized as
being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California.
Any plans, designs, specifications, estimates, calculations, reports and other documents furnished
under this Agreement shall be of a quality acceptable to CITY. The minimum criteria for
acceptance shall be a product of neat appearance, well-organized, technically and grammatically
correct, checked and having the maker and checker identified. The minimum standard of
appearance, organization and content of the drawings shall be that used by CITY for similar
purposes.
C. RESPONSIBILITY OF CONSULTANT
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and the
coordination of the Services furnished by it under this Agreement. The CITY’S review,
acceptance or payment for any of the Services shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of
any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this
Agreement, and CONSULTANT shall be and remain liable to CITY in accordance with
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
-3- 4845-6718-3385v1
LAC\04706083
applicable law for all damages to CITY caused by CONSULTANT’S negligent performance of
any of the services furnished under this Agreement.
D. RIGHT OF CITY TO INSPECT RECORDS OF CONSULTANT
CITY, through its authorized employees, representatives or agents, shall have the right, at any
and all reasonable times, to audit the books and records (including, but not limited to, invoices,
vouchers, canceled checks, time cards, etc.) of CONSULTANT for the purpose of verifying any
and all charges made by CONSULTANT in connection with this Agreement. CONSULTANT
shall maintain for a minimum period of three (3) years (from the date of final payment to
CONSULTANT), or for any longer period required by law, sufficient books and records in
accordance with standard California accounting practices to establish the correctness of all
charges submitted to CITY by CONSULTANT, all of which shall be made available to CITY at
the CITY’s offices within five (5) business days after CITY’s request.
E. CONFIDENTIALITY OF MATERIAL
All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, manufacturing procedures, data (including, but not
limited to, computer data and source code), drawings, descriptions, documents, discussions or
other information developed or received by or for CONSULTANT and all other written and oral
information developed or received by or for CONSULTANT and all other written and oral
information submitted to CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of this Agreement
shall be held confidential by CONSULTANT and shall not, without the prior written consent of
CITY, be used for any purposes other than the performance of the Services, nor be disclosed to
an entity not connected with the performance of the such Services. Nothing furnished to
CONSULTANT which is otherwise known to CONSULTANT or is or becomes generally
known to the related industry (other than that which becomes generally known as the result of
CONSULTANT’S disclosure thereof) shall be deemed confidential. CONSULTANT shall not
use CITY’S name or insignia, or distribute publicity pertaining to the services rendered under
this Agreement in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper or other medium without the express
written consent of CITY.
F. NO PLEDGING OF CITY’S CREDIT.
Under no circumstances shall CONSULTANT have the authority or power to pledge the credit
of CITY or incur any obligation in the name of CITY.
G. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIAL.
All material including, but not limited to, computer information, data and source code, sketches,
tracings, drawings, plans, diagrams, quantities, estimates, specifications, proposals, tests, maps,
calculations, photographs, reports and other material developed, collected, prepared (or caused to
be prepared) under this Agreement shall be the property of CITY, but CONSULTANT may
retain and use copies thereof subject to Section V.E of this Exhibit “A”.
CITY shall not be limited in any way in its use of said m aterial at any time for any work,
whether or not associated with the City project for which the Services are performed.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
-4- 4845-6718-3385v1
LAC\04706083
H. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY.
This Agreement shall not be construed or deemed to be an agreement for the benefit of any third
party or parties, and no third party or parties shall have any claim or right of action hereunder for
any cause whatsoever.
I. NOTICES.
Notices are to be sent as follows:
CITY: Attn: Nirorn Than
City of Gilroy, Public Works Department
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
CONSULTANT: Attn: Kevin Brown
4866 Santa Cruz Avenue
San Diego, CA 92107
J. FEDERAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS.
If the box to the left of this sentence is checked, this Agreement involves federal
funding and the requirements of this Section V.J. apply.
If the box to the left of this sentence is checked, this Agreement does not involve
federal funding and the requirements of this Section V.J. do not apply.
1. DBE Program
CONSULTANT shall comply with the requirements of Title 49, Part 26, Code of Federal
Regulations (49 CFR 26) and the City-adopted Disadvantaged Business Enterprise programs.
2. Cost Principles
Federal Acquisition Regulations in Title 48, CFR 31, shall be used to determine the allowable
cost for individual items.
3. Covenant against Contingent Fees
The CONSULTANT warrants that he/she has not employed or retained any company or person,
other than a bona fide employee working for the CONSULTANT, to solicit or secure this
Agreement, and that he/she has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a
bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or any other
consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or formation of this Agreement. For
breach or violation of this warranty, the Local Agency shall have the right to annul this
Agreement without liability or, at its discretion, to deduct from the agreement price or
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
-5- 4845-6718-3385v1
LAC\04706083
consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage,
brokerage fee, gift or contingent fee.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
-1- 4845-6718-3385v1
LAC\04706083
EXHIBIT “B”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City of Gilroy Citywide Sidewalk Network Inventory and Assessment Project includes the collection of
sidewalk geographical data, condition data, processing and analysis of recorded data, visualization and
management of a web-based GIS application backed by a geospatial database. This web-based software
shall contain tools that allow the City to actively manage, update, and track its ongoing sidewalk and curb
ramp maintenance program and conditions.
Proposals shall includes the following three areas:
1)The initial data collection procedures for developing a City-wide numerical Sidewalk Condition Index
(SCI) with a score of 0-100, where each roadway segment will receive a distinct SCI rating.
2)The initial data collection procedures for developing a City-wide curb ramp ADA compliance program of
pass or fail base on the following attributes: ramp slope, cross slope, road slope & cross slope, flare slopes,
ramp width, landing area, and tactile pad (truncated dome) per the 2018 Caltrans Standards.
3)A software solution to allow the City to manage the overall sidewalk condition and curb ramp database,
repair strategies and capital planning.
Additionally, the consultant shall include the following scopes:
Project Initiation/Kick-off – Consultant shall meet with City Staff and review existing data provided by
the City, review all possible database software options and integration with the City GIS software products
and asset management program. The consultant shall review previous maintenance program and practices,
etc.
Review Existing GIS Mapping –Vendor shall work with the City staff to ensure sidewalk and curb ramp
data can be integrated with the City’s GIS system and future asset management software (Cityworks).
Network Referencing – The consultant shall develop survey route maps and confirm the linkage of the
sidewalk segment to the City’s database and GIS. Consultant shall define the sidewalk network
segmentation in the most common way of intersection to intersection or per the City defined intervals.
Sidewalk Condition Data Collection – Consultant shall utilize a sensor-based data collection platform to
collect continuous sidewalk and curb ramp surface data. At a minimum, system should utilize the following
sensor technologies:
• 3-Dimensional surface imaging technology (not line scan).
• High-precision GPS enabled system for geo-locating of sidewalk and asset information.
• Geo-tagged 360-view optical camera systems providing high resolution full-color imagery.
• All systems and data streams should be geotagged and time synchronized with an approved interval.
• Distresses such as uplift, surface deterioration, bump, depression, distortions and cracking shall be
collected and rated on an approved sidewalk condition index based on a 0-100 scale. Consultant shall assist
the city in determining and selecting these criteria.
• Sidewalk variations (vertical and horizontal variations)
• All survey work shall be performed on dry sidewalk and in lighting conditions that assure usable data.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
• Sidewalk width shall be collected or calculated based on the high resolution image collected.
• Typically ADA slope tolerance shall be no more than +/- 1 degree or (1.7% grade).
• The consultant shall separately identify sidewalk, curb ramps, and paved (concrete) walking trails around
and within the City properties. This includes, but is not limited to, public parks, civic centers, city museum,
corporation yard, police stations, fire stations, water well sites, and public parking lots.
Data Processing and QA/QC – The consultant shall perform data reduction, analysis, and QA/QC of
collected data. The consultant shall submit a Quality Management Plan (QMP) for approval prior to the start
of work. The consultant shall re-survey at a minimum 10% of the sidewalk and curb ramp to perform quality
checks against the recent inspection data. No more than 15% of the resurveyed segments shall have a
difference in SCI of more than 15 points.
Data Formatting and Loading – The consultant shall create and format all data files to be loaded into any
existing or proposed database (GIS, and Maintenance Management System) and upload data to it. Data,
specifically, test result shall also be available in hard copy upon request.
Sidewalk Management System Configuration - The consultant shall review maintenance and repair
strategies with the City. This should include the recommendation and selection of appropriate treatments
such as replacement, edge grind and other methods. Unit costs (dollar/square ft.) from most recent sidewalk
and curb ramp projects will be made available to the consultant.
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program Development – The consultant shall use the Sidewalk
Condition Index (SCI) (0-100 scale) to provide recommended sidewalk maintenance treatment for each
segment with estimated cost for repair, also based on other factors such as route to school, and/or adjacency.
The maintenance and repair data should also be provided as a GIS layer and in tabular format.
Sidewalk Repair Analysis: The technology should address current and long-term sidewalk management
goals so that the City and the consultant team can jointly confirm the best sidewalk management strategy
based on the SCI value ranges and specific distress type and severity level. The consultant shall work with
the City to customize the software for the specific practice and procedures currently in use by staff. The
customization shall reflect the City’s sidewalk repair and maintenance program’s policies and practices. The
subtasks will include:
• Run the automated repair recommendation program and produce a list of repair/rehabilitation candidates.
• Acquire multi-year budget information and provide a draft multi-year rehabilitation program for review by
City staff. The consultant shall assist the City in reviewing, creating, and reporting a prioritization system
for this multi-year rehabilitation program.
• Work with staff to review the rehabilitation program and modify analysis parameters iteratively to produce
the final repair program required. 3 scenarios shall be included in the cost.
Asset Management Software- All results from the consultant shall be provided in a webased GIS
application. Software provided to the City shall have the following capabilities:
• ESRI Geodatabase which includes the following (at a minimum):
§ Use City’s Street Segment ID numbering system
§ Cross reference StreetName, FromStreetName and ToStreetName designations
§ Functional Road Classification
§ Length, Width, Area (sidewalk)
§ Photos hyperlinked to segment ID
§ Sidewalk Condition Index (SCI)
§ Recommended Repair
§ Cost Estimate to Repair
§ Cumulative Cost Estimate to Repair
§ Repair Priority (based on approved criteria)
§ Drawing showing the top ten locations needing repair
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
• Web-based- City shall have easy access to record of SCI from anywhere via the internet.
• Unlimited licenses- City shall be able to grant access to this software to as many users as desired.
• Zero-installation- City shall not be required to install any software to load the asset management software.
It shall be accessible using the common web browser such as Internet Explorer or Google Chrome.
• Imagery- For every a regular interval (minimum every 5 feet), images of the sidewalk should be available
in the software.
• Customizable- System shall be customizable based on City’s repair methods, budget, and management
goals.
• Data Importing/Exporting – Software shall support the ability to import and export data in GIS and
non-GIS formats (including .csv and .shp formats).
• Network Segmentation/SCI Reporting – Software should support the ability to report SCI on
customer-based road segmentation on arbitrary segment lengths and by lane. Additionally, software should
support the ability to re-segment and report SCI on new sidewalk and curb ramp segmentations without the
need to reacquire road surface measurement data.
• Visualization– The SCI data including sidewalk imagery, pothole, metal objects, and other defects should
be visualized in the software’s GIS environment.
• Repair Planning and Prioritization – Staff shall be able to use the software to get repair recommendations
and cost estimates for each road segment. Additionally, Software should prioritize repair projects or a
specific area of the Municipality based on SCI, traffic flow, road classification, life-cycle benefit to cost
analysis, and available budget.
• Budget Analysis– Users shall be able to run different sidewalk management scenarios using different
budgets. Software shall support the ability to download these scenarios in addition to adding them to the
software as additional layers for further analysis.
• Additional Assets – Software should support the capability of adding and managing other assets City might
want to add, including but not limited to traffic signs, street lights, and sidewalk markings.
• Fully Integratable – the provided software shall complement the asset management software that the City
may already have (Cityworks).
REPORTING DELIVERABLES
•SCI Report – Consultant shall provide a list of the Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Network SCI ratings and repair
costs in order of repair priority. The consultant shall provide a separate list of sidewalk and curb ramp
network SCI ratings and repair costs around and within for City facilities (sidewalks, curb ramps, and paved
walking trails). This includes, but is not limited to, public parks, civic centers, city museum, corporation
yard, police stations, fire stations, water well sites, and public parking lots. A final list of City facilities will
be provided during the kick-off meeting after Notice of Award.
•Sidewalk and ADA Curb Ramps Management Report – Consultant shall include an executive summary,
maintenance and rehabilitation distribution and costs, budgetary analysis, target SCI analysis, 5-year
planning analysis. The data collected shall be interpreted in report format with appropriate charts, graphs,
tables to present the condition assessment data.
A written report summarizing the results and recommendations from the above scope is required. The
consultant shall factor in a minimum of 3 rounds of revisions for the draft report. These revisions may be
structural, text edit, or graphic in nature. Any additional round of revisions shall be considered as extra-work
and shall be billed per Section III Additional Services of this RFP.
The consultant shall attend up to three meetings associated with this project. These can be meetings with City
Staff and/or City Council hearings. Kick-off meeting cost shall be included in Bid Item No. 4. Additional
meeting can be attended upon the City’s request and shall be billed per Section III Additional Services of this
RFP.
Deliverables associated with each of the project milestones shall be submitted to the City electronically (
Shape files, Excel and PDF format) within ten (10) business days of the completion of that milestone.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
Additional Services
The need for additional types of data collection services may be required during the term of the contract. The
consultant shall submit a fee schedule for key staff and equipment which may be directly involved in the
works outside of the scope of services above. This fee schedule shall be on an hourly basis.
Consultant shall not be entitled to compensation for any Extra Work unless the City authorizes, in writing, the
performance of such Extra Work prior to the performance of the work. The City shall not authorize payment
for work completed until all field equipment has been removed and the deliverable has been submitted.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
-1- 4845-6718-3385v1
LAC\04706083
EXHIBIT “C”
MILESTONE SCHEDULE
Project schedule and milestones shall be submitted to the City for approval within
10 days after the contract execution.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
-1- 4845-6718-3385v1
LAC\04706083
EXHIBIT “D”
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
S-M = Sidewalk mile
LS = Lump sum
Efficiency/Regional Group Discount shall be applied after data collection phase is completed to account for actual
total quantity.
Unit price provided shall be for the entirety of the project and shall not be adjusted for any decrease or increase of
quantity throughout the term of the contract.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Streetscan Inc. Service Agreement [Revision 1] (2901 : Citywide Sidewalk Condition Assessment)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Standing Report on Operational Impacts and City/Community
Efforts Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic
Meeting Date: August 17, 2020
From: Jimmy Forbis, Interim City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Jimmy Forbis
Strategic Plan Goals
Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Neighborhood Services
☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
☐ Workforce Stability Public Engagement
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The instabilities of the COVID-19 pandemic continues to play a major role in influencing
how local government responds to this current health and fiscal crisis. Timely and
accurate situational awareness is critical for elected officials to assist you in making
informed decisions on how best to allocate resources for maximum effectiveness within
the community.
This report serves as a standing Council discussion concerning the various impacts of
the pandemic. Presentations will be given on interconnected topics such as health and
safety, City finances, and business and economic recovery.
POLICY DISCUSSION
9.A
Packet Pg. 52
Discussions coming from the information contained in this report may include service
levels, fiscal decisions and employee relations, among others.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Fiscal impacts are directly tied to and occur as the result of pandemic conditions region -
wide, and within our community.
CONCLUSION
This standing report is to inform the City Council and to keep you updated on the
changes to COVID-19 conditions within the clinical and operational spheres of local
government.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public education and outreach regarding COVID-19 is a regular and ongoing feature of
the City’s community engagement efforts.
9.A
Packet Pg. 53
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Approval of the Historic Resource Inventory Update and Property
Owner's Guide to Historic Preservation
Meeting Date: August 17, 2020
From: Jimmy Forbis, Interim City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Karen Garner
Prepared By: Karen Garner
Julie Wyrick
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
Downtown
Revitalization ☐ Economic
Development
☐ Neighborhood Services
☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy accepting the Historic
Resource Inventory Update and Property Owner's Guide to Historic Preservation as a
guiding document for preservation of historic resources in the City of Gilroy (M18-13).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2018, the City contracted with DUDEK to update the City’s 1986 Historic Resource
Inventory (HRI), develop a Historic Context Statement, and create a Property Owner’s
Guide to Historic Preservation in Gilroy. The California Environmental Quality Act
requires buildings 50 years or older to be reviewed for potential historic significance.
The previous HRI was completed in 1986 and since that time many buildings have
reached or exceeded 50 years of age.
10.A
Packet Pg. 54
DUDEK conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of all properties over 45 years of age
within the city, surveying 3,374 properties. DUDEK documented each property with
notes and photographs, and made recommendations on properties to remain on the list,
to be removed from the list, and to be added to the eligibility list. The Historic Heritage
Committee and Planning Commission reviewed the documents prepared by DUDEK
and recommend that the City Council accept the HRI update and corresponding
documents as guidance for evaluating historic or potentially historic structures .
POLICY DISCUSSION
Updating the City’s HRI helps further the City Council Goals identified in the 2020 -2021
Strategic Plan, specifically Goal 3: Revitalize Historic Downtown. As noted in the Draft
Historic Context Statement, Gilroy’s Downtown grew in the late 1800s and was the
business center for the city. Many buildings still exist from this era and into the early and
mid 1900s. The HRI and associated documents will help members of the public, staff,
and decision makers understand the context of the buildings, the significance of the
architectural styles and architects/builders, and provide a clear path forward for
preservation, enhancement, and enjoyment of the downtown for years to come.
In addition to preservation of the Historic Downtown, the HRI covers buildings
throughout the entire city and will provide an aid in evaluating improvements to
residential structures as well. The HRI is a tool for staff to use for his toric buildings
seeking remodel or renovation, changes through the Architecture and Site Permit
entitlement process, or other improvements requiring review by the Historic Heritage
Committee and Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND
The HRI update was undertaken to enhance and streamline the City’s historic
preservation program by bringing consistency to preservation planning efforts. The HRI
includes a Historic Context Statement which provides the foundation for identifying and
evaluating historical resources and establishes a framework for grouping information
about resources that share common themes and patterns of historical development.
This document presents the history of the City of Gilroy’s built environment from pre -
history to present, identifies important themes, events, and patterns of development,
and describes the different property types, styles, builders, and architects associated
with these important periods and themes.
The City maintains an HRI that was updated in 1986. The intent of this docum ent was to
identify commercial, residential, and public buildings that are eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources
10.A
Packet Pg. 55
(CRHR), or of local significance. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) also
requires that properties 50 years or older, if part of a development project, be evaluated
for historical significance. Since the last update of the HRI almost 35 years ago, many
buildings in the City are now subject to review under CEQA
DUDEK conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of all properties within the city,
including those currently listed on the City’s HRI to determine if they retain requisite
integrity to remain eligible for the CRHR and NRHP. The team documented each
property with notes and photographs, and made recommendations on properties to be
added to the eligibility list, remain on the list, and to be removed from the list. DUDEK
incorporated the data into the HRI document, and converted the data to an Excel
Spreadsheet and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) map layers.
The Historic Heritage Committee (HHC) reviewed the HRI, associated documents, and
consultant recommendations at the regular meeting of May 20th, 2020, and took action
to recommend the acceptance of the documents to the Planning Commission at the
regular meeting of June 17th, 2020. The HHC recommended to include the retention of
the 5th Street Historic District, the addition of the Tudor homes cluster to the HRI or as a
district, and the consideration of inclusion of Gavilan Hills Memorial Park and Saint Mary
Cemetery.
The Planning Commission reviewed the HRI, associated documents, HHC and
consultant recommendations at the regular meeting of July 9 th, 2020, and by resolution,
recommended the City Council accept the HRI and Property Owner’s Guide to Historic
Preservation as guidance for evaluating historic or potentially historic structures. The
Planning Commission did not recommend the inclusion of the additional
recommendations by the HHC. Details on this analysis can be found in the July 9th
Planning Commission staff report, attached.
ANALYSIS
DUDEK surveyed 3,374 properties, with consideration to the NRHP, CRHR, and City of
Gilroy designation criteria, and the seven aspects of integrity established for the NRHP
and CRHR. Certain properties were excluded from the survey because they served as a
ubiquitous example of tract housing, were unremarkable, not visible from the public
right-of-way, or required additional research before they could be evaluated.
10.A
Packet Pg. 56
Of the 3,374 surveyed properties, 32 were found to be eligible for the NRHP and/or
CRHR1, with seven (7) of those properties already listed in the NRHP/CRHR. 1,560 of
the 3,374 properties appear ineligible for inclusion in the HRI, CRHR, or NRHP due to a
lack of integrity. With regard to the City’s existing HRI, DUDEK recommended that 224
of the 360 currently designated properties stay on the HRI, that 136 properties be
removed from the HRI, and that 55 additional properties be added to the HRI.
Additionally, DUDEK reviewed the City’s ten (10) designated Historic Districts,
recommending that seven (7) of the ten (10) districts be removed due to a lack of
integrity, however, many of the once-contributing properties will remain listed on the HRI
as individually significant properties. Those properties that are included in a district that
are not actually contributing properties or historically significant properties would be
subject to the historic review, so removal of the district designation limits historic review
to only those properties on the HRI.
The following existing districts are recommended for removal:
Bungalow Residential District
Alexander Street Residential District
Craftsman Bungalow District
Tudor/Period Revival District
Fifth Street Historic Residential District
Eigleberry Early Settlers District
Forest Street Bungalow District
The following districts are recommended to stay on the HRI:
Holmes Brothers Craftsman District
Pioneer Row Historic District
Monterey Road Downtown Commercial Historic District
Additionally, at the Planning Commission meeting of July 9 th, one of the Commissioners
recommended the inclusion of Roberta Howson Hughan to the Gilroy Historic Context
Statement and HRI document. At the writing of this staff report, this info rmation had not
yet been evaluated by the consultants for inclusion in the document.
1 Ten (10) of the 32 properties appear eligible for listing in the CRHR only
10.A
Packet Pg. 57
Additional information on these properties and historic districts is provided in Appendix
C of the HRI.
PROPERTY OWNER’S GUIDE TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION: The Property
Owner’s Guide is a separate document to the HRI. The purpose of the document is to
provide a quick reference for property owners seeking to understand the City’s historic
preservation program and associated requirements and benefits. It includes information
on the City’s Historic Heritage Committee and process, Frequently Asked Questions on
Historic Designation and Mills Act Contracts, and general guidelines for making
improvements in the Monterey Road Downtown Commercial Historic District.
This document is a work in progress and will be updated pursuant to changes to the
HRI, including the addition or removal of individual sites and districts from the HRI, as
recommended by the HHC and Planning Commission, and decided by the City Council
at future public hearings.
Environmental Assessment: Section 15331 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines, exempts from further environmental review, those projects
intended for maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preser vation,
conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards2. The Historic Resource Inventory Update and
Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation are draft documents intended t o be
resources to elected and appointed officials, City staff, and Gilroy property owners, and
would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no further
environmental assessment is necessary and a Notice of Exemption may be filed for th e
project.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could decide to not accept the Draft HRI and associated documents
and continue to rely on the 1986 HRI. Any building of 50 years old or older that had not
previously been evaluated would require an independent hist oric evaluation for
compliance with CEQA. Alternatively, the City Council could ask for additional analysis
regarding the properties surveyed.
2 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
10.A
Packet Pg. 58
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The City contracted with DUDEK for the HRI and associated documents for an amount
not to exceed $99,999.00. With this City Council meeting and any work resulting from
the City Council’s direction, that work is now complete and the monies expended.
Additional work related to individual properties would require staff time and potentially
paid for by future application fees.
Per Zoning Code Section 30.27.30: Establishment of historic site and neighborhood
combining districts - historic sites are established by zone change, and zone change
fees shall be waived for the establishment of, but not the removal of, either a historic
site or neighborhood combining district. Property owners would not be charged a f ee to
establish a historic site, and since this work is a part of a city sponsored project, the City
Council could waive fees for the removal of historic designation on sites recommended
for removal from the HRI.
CONCLUSION
The survey and documents provided by DUDEK update the 1986 HRI and provide city
staff with a baseline for analysis of historic and potentially historic resources.
Acceptance of these documents, the associated spreadsheets, and the GIS mapping
layers will allow staff to provide accurate information to property owners and applicants
interested in remodeling historic homes or redeveloping potentially historic sites. These
documents will also help preserve the City’s heritage by providing the historic context of
existing buildings and a path forward for new development within that historic context.
NEXT STEPS
Following the City Council’s review and decision, staff will prepare recommendations on
formally adding or removing buildings from the HRI. The City’s current process requires
an historic overlay rezone and CEQA analysis; therefore formal property owner
coordination, public notification, and public hearings at Planning Commission and City
Council will be required, consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Staff will also be
researching alternative methods that will encourage historic preservation and allow
more flexibility.
Additionally, since CEQA requires the analysis of structures 50 years of age or older for
impacts to potentially historic resources, it is recommended that this study take place
every five years to evaluate those buildings that have recently come of age.
10.A
Packet Pg. 59
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Local and regional experts were consulted during the preparation of the HRI update.
DUDEK worked closely with the Gilroy Historical Society and volunteers at the Gilroy
Historical Museum. Planning staff has started to reach out to individual property owners
whose properties are identified to be added or removed from the HRI.
Attachments:
1. Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final
2. Public Guide to Historic Preservation_Booklet_Draft
3. Reid Lerner Comment for Gilroy Historic Context Statement
4. July 9, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report - Historic Resource Inventory
Update and PC Resolution
5. May 20, 2020 Historic Heritage Committee Staff Report and public comments
6. Resolution Historic Resources Inventory
10.A
Packet Pg. 60
PREPARED BY:
Samantha Murray, MA, Sarah Corder, MFA, Kate Kaiser, MSHP
Fallin Steffen, MPS, Nicole Frank, MSHP, and Sarah Brewer BA
July 2020
725 Front Street, Suite 400
Santa Cruz, California 95060
PREPARED FOR:
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, California 95020
Contact:
Julie Wyrick, AICP
Planning Division Manager
CITY OF GILROY
Historic Context Statement
and Historic Resources
Inventory Update
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
City of Gilroy Historic Context Statement and
Historic Resources Inventory Update
Prepared for:
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, California 95020
Contact: Julie Wyrick, AICP, Planning Division Manager
Prepared by:
Samantha Murray, MA, Sarah Corder, MFA, Kate Kaiser, MSHP, Fallin Steffen, MPS, Nicole Frank, MSHP, and
Sarah Brewer BA
725 Front Street, Suite 400
Santa Cruz, California 95060
JULY 2020
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
11165
Table of Contents i July 2020
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Team ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 2
1.4 Survey and Research Methodology ....................................................................................................... 2
1.4.1 Survey ........................................................................................................................................ 2
1.4.4 Historic Context Statement ...................................................................................................... 5
1.5 How to Use This Document .................................................................................................................... 6
2 PREVIOUS SURVEYS AND STUDIES ............................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Previously Completed Local Inventories ............................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Gilroy Historic Resource Inventory (1986) .............................................................................. 7
2.1.2 Santa Clara County Heritage Inventory Update: South County (2003) ................................. 7
2.1.3 County of Santa Clara Historic Context Statement 2004 (rev. 2012) ................................... 8
2.2 Other Previous Studies ........................................................................................................................... 8
3 SIGNIFICANT PERIODS, THEMES AND PROPERTY TYPES ............................................................................. 9
3.1 Chronological Periods ............................................................................................................................ 9
3.2 Significant Themes ................................................................................................................................. 9
3.2.1 Residential Development ...................................................................................................... 10
3.2.2 Commercial Development ..................................................................................................... 10
3.2.3 Civic and Institutional Development ..................................................................................... 10
3.2.4 Transportation Infrastructure ................................................................................................ 10
3.2.5 Agriculture, Manufacturing and Industry .............................................................................. 10
3.3 Associated Property Types .................................................................................................................. 10
3.3.1 Residential Properties ........................................................................................................... 10
3.3.2 Commercial Properties .......................................................................................................... 11
3.3.3 Industrial Properties .............................................................................................................. 11
3.3.4 Civic and Institutional Properties .......................................................................................... 11
3.3.5 Transportation Properties ..................................................................................................... 12
4 HISTORIC CONTEXT ..................................................................................................................................... 13
4.1 Prehistory of Santa Clara County ........................................................................................................ 13
4.1.1 Paleo-Indian (10,000 BP or older) ........................................................................................ 14
4.1.2 Millingstone (5,500 – 10,000 BP) ........................................................................................ 15
4.1.3 Early (2,600 – 5,500 BP) ...................................................................................................... 15
4.1.4 Middle (950 – 2,600 BP) ...................................................................................................... 16
4.1.5 Middle-Late Transition (700 – 950 BP) ................................................................................ 17
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Table of Contents ii July 2020
4.1.6 Late (181 – 700 BP) .............................................................................................................. 18
4.2 Ethnohistoric Context .......................................................................................................................... 18
4.3 Spanish, Mexican, and Pioneer Period (1777-1868) ....................................................................... 19
4.3.1 Spanish Period (1777-1822) ................................................................................................ 19
4.3.2 Mexican Period (1822–1848) .............................................................................................. 21
4.3.3 Pioneer Period (1848-1868) ................................................................................................. 22
4.4 Initial Development (1868-1904) ...................................................................................................... 30
4.4.1 Residential Development ...................................................................................................... 36
4.4.2 Commercial Development ..................................................................................................... 38
4.4.3 Civic and Institutional Development ..................................................................................... 40
4.4.4 Transportation Infrastructure ................................................................................................ 46
4.4.5 Agriculture, Industry and Manufacturing .............................................................................. 47
4.5 Early and Mid-Twentieth Century Development (1904-1941) ......................................................... 52
4.5.1 Residential Development ...................................................................................................... 52
4.5.2 Commercial Development ..................................................................................................... 54
4.5.3 Civic and Institutional Development ..................................................................................... 56
4.5.4 Transportation Infrastructure ................................................................................................ 67
4.5.5 Agriculture, Industry and Manufacturing .............................................................................. 70
4.6 World War II and Post-War Development (1941-1975) .................................................................... 72
4.6.1 Residential Development ...................................................................................................... 72
4.6.2 Commercial Development ..................................................................................................... 74
4.6.3 Civic and Institutional Development ..................................................................................... 76
4.6.4 Transportation Infrastructure ................................................................................................ 80
4.6.5 Agriculture, Industry and Manufacturing .............................................................................. 80
4.7 Modern Gilroy (1975-Present) ............................................................................................................ 85
4.7.1 Residential Development ...................................................................................................... 85
4.7.2 Commercial Development ..................................................................................................... 86
4.7.3 Civic and Institutional Development ..................................................................................... 87
4.7.4 Transportation Infrastructure ................................................................................................ 88
4.7.5 Agriculture, Industry and Manufacturing .............................................................................. 89
5 ARCHITECTURAL STYLES ............................................................................................................................ 91
5.1 Residential Properties ......................................................................................................................... 91
5.2 Commercial Properties ...................................................................................................................... 100
5.3 Civic and Institutional Properties ...................................................................................................... 107
5.4 Industrial Properties .......................................................................................................................... 114
6 ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS .................................................................................................................... 117
6.1 Architects ........................................................................................................................................... 117
6.1.1 William H. Weeks (1864-1936) .......................................................................................... 117
6.1.2 William Binder/ Ernest N. Curtis / Binder & Curtis (1918-1953) ..................................... 118
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Table of Contents iii July 2020
6.1.3 Albert Roller (1891-1981) ................................................................................................... 119
6.1.4 Reid Brothers (1891-1932) ................................................................................................ 120
6.1.5 Samuel Newsom (1852-1908) with Wolfe & McKenzie ................................................... 121
6.2 Builders .............................................................................................................................................. 121
6.2.1 Orrin F. Hanson (1840-1921) ............................................................................................. 121
6.2.2 Holmes Brothers (circa 1918-1926) .................................................................................. 122
6.2.3 George Renz (1893-1988) .................................................................................................. 122
6.2.4 J. Howard Carl (1871-1944) ............................................................................................... 123
6.2.5 William Radtke Sr (1888-1969) ......................................................................................... 123
6.2.6 Howson Brothers Construction Company (1928-1962) .................................................... 126
6.2.7 Robert Grant (1844-1919) .................................................................................................. 127
6.2.8 Other Builders ...................................................................................................................... 127
7 GUIDANCE FOR ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE .............................................................................................. 129
7.1 Designation Criteria and Integrity Requirements ............................................................................ 129
7.1.1 National Register of Historic Places ................................................................................... 129
7.1.2 California Register of Historical Resources ........................................................................ 130
7.1.3 Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory .................................................................................... 131
7.2 Property Types and Registration Requirements .............................................................................. 132
7.2.1 Initial Development Period (1868-1904) ........................................................................... 132
7.2.2 Early and Mid-Twentieth Century Development (1904-1941) .......................................... 142
7.2.3 World War II and Post-War Development (1941-1975) .................................................... 153
8 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 163
8.1 Citywide Survey Findings ................................................................................................................... 163
8.1.1 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................... 163
8.1.2 City HRI Eligible/Listed Properties ...................................................................................... 163
8.1.3 CRHR and NRHP Eligible/Listed Properties ....................................................................... 174
8.1.4 Ineligible Properties ............................................................................................................. 174
8.1.5 Unevaluated Properties ....................................................................................................... 177
8.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 185
8.2.1 Additional Study ................................................................................................................... 185
9 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................................... 187
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Table of Contents iv July 2020
APPENDICES
A Confidential Records Search Results
B Master Spreadsheet of Findings
C Tables of Findings
D State of California DPR Forms
E Applicable Local Codes and Regulations
FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location ................................................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. Rancho Las Animas (left) and the three partitions of Rancho San Ysidro (right), circa 1859. Llagas Creek
divided the two Ranchos. John Gilroy’s portion of San Ysidro is the middle portion of three. Quintin Ortega’s
portion is the southern most of the three, and Isabel Ortega owned the northern-most portion (pink outline).
(Land Case Map F-316, Bancroft Library, University of California Berkeley) ................................................ 20
Figure 3. Inset from map south of Santa Clara County area, depicting “Gilroy” (left center) and “old Gilroy” (center)
locations, by Thompson & West, 1876 (David Rumsey Map Collection) ...................................................... 24
Figure 4. David Holloway’s Hotel, circa 1855 (Clyde Arbuckle Photograph Collection, San José Public Library,
California Room) ............................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 5. El Camino Real route as drawn by Mabel Emerton Prentiss, 1903 (UCLA Library Special Collections) ... 28
Figure 6. City of Gilroy town map, by Thompson & West, 1876 (David Rumsey Map Collection) ............................ 31
Figure 7. Gilroy’s Chinatown, 1896 (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical Museum) ........................................... 32
Figure 8. Looking west on 5th Street, Music Hall on left, early 1900s (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical
Museum) ............................................................................................................................................................ 34
Figure 9. Birds eye view of Gilroy by F.W. Blake. 1885 (Bancroft Library, University of California Berkeley) ........... 35
Figure 10. 1886 (left) and 1892 (right) Sanborn Fire Insurance maps of residential neighborhood just west of
Monterey Road. (Bancroft Library, University of California Berkeley) ........................................................... 37
Figure 11. Stationer’s storefront on 7400 block of Monterey Road, 1880 (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical
Museum) ............................................................................................................................................................ 39
Figure 12. Looking north on Monterey Road, with utility poles, 1895 (Shortridge 1895) ......................................... 41
Figure 13. Gilroy Public School, 1893 (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical Museum) ....................................... 42
Figure 14. Gilroy churches, 1895 (Shortridge 1895) ................................................................................................... 43
Figure 15. First I.O.O.F. Hall, no date (Gilroy Historical Museum) ............................................................................... 44
Figure 16. Southern Pacific Depot building, circa 1900 (California History Section Picture Catalog, California State
Library) ............................................................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 17. Dairying scene at George Rea’s farm, 1895 (Shortridge 1895) ............................................................... 48
Figure 18. Prune drying at B.F. Thomas farm. Circa 1900 (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical Museum) ...... 49
Figure 19. Gilroy Chinatown, looking south on Monterey Road towards 9th Street (Bancroft Library, University of
California Berkeley) ........................................................................................................................................... 51
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Table of Contents v July 2020
Figure 20. Postcard showing Residential Development along Eigleberry Street, c.1910s (California Historical
Society) .............................................................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 21. Hotel Milias in 1922 (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical Museum) ................................................. 55
Figure 22. The Strand Theatre as it appeared in 1931. The Masonic Temple designed by W.H. Weeks pictured at
the left. (Gilroy Historical Museum) ................................................................................................................. 56
Figure 23. The newly completed City Hall Building in 1907, prior to the installation of the clock faces in the tower
(California Room, San José Public Library) ...................................................................................................... 59
Figure 24. The Gilroy Free Library, c.1920, photo by Frasher Foto. (Pomona Public Library Online Archives) ........ 60
Figure 25. Postcard depicting Gilroy High School. Date Unknown. (California Room, San José Public Library) ...... 61
Figure 26. Wyckoff & White’s 1927 rendering of the 7th and 8th Grade Elementary School. (History San José) ..... 62
Figure 27. Wheeler Hospital Detail as it appeared in 2011, (NoeHill) ........................................................................ 65
Figure 28. Excitement at the Gymkhana. Unknown Date. (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical Museum) ....... 66
Figure 29. Photo Looking Down Monterey Road in 1911 before it was paved. (California State Library) ................ 67
Figure 30. Photo Looking south Monterey Road c.1920s after paving. (California State Library) ............................ 68
Figure 31. The New SPRR Gilroy Station, circa 1920. (Gilroy Historical Museum) .................................................... 69
Figure 32. Looking west on Monterey Road, c.1940s-1950s. (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical Museum). 74
Advertisements for new businesses visible on the side of building. ........................................................................... 74
Figure 33. New IOOF Building in 1954, Eigleberry Street, looking west. (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical
Museum) ............................................................................................................................................................ 75
Figure 34. Kiyoshi Hirasaki and part of his family outside their family home in Gilroy in 1945. The Japanese-style
building was originally part of an exhibition at the 1939 World’s Fair in San Francisco and was bought and
relocated to Gilroy by Kiyoshi. (War Relocation Authority Photograph Collection, University of California
Berkeley) ............................................................................................................................................................ 77
Figure 35. The Gentry Plant in 1962. (Gilroy Dispatch) ............................................................................................... 81
Figure 36. Men Shaping Sheet Metal, BeGe Manufacturing, c.1940s, (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical
Museum) ............................................................................................................................................................ 83
Figure 37. BeGe Manufacturing, c.1940s, (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical Museum) ............................... 83
Figure 38. Recently completed outlet mall, 1990 (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical Museum) .................... 86
Figure 39. Employees process garlic for Christopher Ranch Farms, c. 1980 (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical
Museum) ............................................................................................................................................................ 89
Figure 40. City of Gilroy Existing and Recommended HRI Properties ....................................................................... 165
Figure 41. City of Gilroy Existing and Recommended HRI Districts ........................................................................... 169
Figure 42. City of Gilroy NRHP and CRHR Eligible/Listed Properties ........................................................................ 175
Figure 43. City of Gilroy Properties Recommended Ineligible.................................................................................... 179
Figure 44. City of Gilroy Properties Requiring Additional Study ................................................................................. 183
TABLES
Table 1. California Central Coast Prehistoric Chronology............................................................................................. 13
Table 2. Architectural Styles for Residential Properties in Gilroy ................................................................................ 91
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Table of Contents vi July 2020
Table 3. Architectural Styles for Commercial Properties in Gilroy ............................................................................. 100
Table 4. Architectural Styles for Civic and Institutional Properties in Gilroy ............................................................. 107
Table 5. Architectural Styles for Industrial Properties in Gilroy ................................................................................. 114
Table 6. Significance Requirements for Residential Properties Built from 1868-1904 .......................................... 134
Table 7. Significance Requirements for Commercial Properties Built from 1868-1904 ......................................... 137
Table 8. Significance Requirements for Institutional Properties Built from 1868-1904 ......................................... 139
Table 9. Significance Requirements for Residential Properties Built from 1904-1941 .......................................... 144
Table 10. Significance Requirements for Commercial Properties Built from 1904-1941 ....................................... 147
Table 11. Significance Requirements for Institutional Properties Built from 1904-1941 ....................................... 150
Table 12. Significance Requirements for Residential Properties Built from 1941-1975 ........................................ 154
Table 13. Significance Requirements for Commercial Properties Built from 1941-1975 ....................................... 157
Table 14. Significance Requirements for Institutional Properties Built from 1941-1975 ....................................... 160
Table 15. Summary of Existing and Recommended HRI Historic Districts ............................................................... 167
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 1. Introduction 1 July 2020
1 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
The City of Gilroy Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) update project was undertaken
by the City’s Community Development Department to enhance and streamline the City’s historic preservation
program by bringing consistency to preservation planning efforts. Historic Context Statements provide the
foundation for identifying and evaluating historical resources and establish a framework for grouping information
about resources that share common themes and patterns of historical development. This document presents the
history of the City of Gilroy’s built environment from pre-history to present, identifies important themes, events,
patterns of development, and describes the different property types, styles, builders, and architects associated with
these important periods and themes. This document also develops registration requirements for resource
evaluation that is specific to the City of Gilroy, in consideration of both historical significance and integrity
requirements. Finally, this document concludes with a discussion of recommendations for future study/action by
the City to facilitate and streamline the historic preservation program.
1.2 Project Team
The Dudek project team responsible for this project include Principal Architectural Historian and Project Manager
Samantha Murray, MA; Senior Architectural Historian Sarah Corder, MFA; and Architectural Historians Kate Kaiser,
MSHP, Fallin Steffen MPS, and Nicole Frank, MSHP. The Historic Context Statement and all associated archival
research efforts was co-authored/completed by Ms. Kaiser and Ms. Steffen; and the citywide reconnaissance-level
survey effort was organized and led by Ms. Corder with assistance from Ms. Steffen. The entire Dudek team meets
the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in Architectural History, History, and/or Historic
Preservation. Additional support for the pedestrian survey was provided by Dudek cultural resources technicians
Ibeth Adame, B.A. and Jennifer De Alba, B.A; and Dudek Archaeologist Sarah Brewer, B.A. contributed to the
prehistory and ethnographic sections of the Historic Context Statement.
All project work was coordinated with Julie Wyrick, AICP, City of Gilroy Planning Division Manager; Pamela Wu, AICP,
Senior Planner; Sue O’Strander, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director; and Cindy McCormick, Senior
Planner of the Community Development Department. Dudek also worked closely with Connie Rogers, President of
the Gilroy Historical Society, and Tom Howard of the Gilroy Historical Museum. The Historic Context Statement was
also reviewed and recommended for adoption by the City’s Historic Heritage Committee (HHC).
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 1. Introduction 2 July 2020
1.3 Project Study Area
The study area for the Gilroy Historic Context Statement and HRI update project includes the entire City of Gilroy
(Figure 1). The City of Gilroy is located in Santa Clara County, approximately 16 miles south of San José and north
of San Benito County. The eastern half of the City contains the vast majority of all historic built environment
resources over 45 years old, with the western half of the City comprising mostly post-1960s and more recent
residential and commercial developments. All properties over 45 years of age (built in 1974 or earlier) within city
limits were surveyed as part of the project.
1.4 Survey and Research Methodology
1.4.1 Survey
Dudek collected publicly available parcel data from the Santa Clara County Assessor, which served as a baseline
for identifying properties over 45 years old within city limits. This was compiled into a spreadsheet that included
details such as Assessor parcel numbers, street addresses, dates of construction, zoning, and owner information.
Assessor data was supplemented with information obtained from the City’s list of designated HRI properties. These
combined data sources were used to create an ArcGIS web map viewer with color-coded parcels based on dates of
construction and current designation status. These data tools allowed surveyors to identify properties over 45 years
old in the field, and areas within the city where historic age buildings are clustered.
Throughout the course of the survey, numerous data gaps were identified pertaining to dates of construction.
Therefore, all properties within the downtown core of the City were visually assessed for an approximate built date.
In instances where the built date could not be verified by Assessor data or survey, aerial photography was reviewed
to determine an approximate date of construction. During the course of the survey, the project team also identified
properties that warranted additional research, were not visible from the public right of way, and were demolished
since the last citywide survey effort in the 1980s.
The survey was primarily conducted over a period of approximately five weeks between September and October
2018. The field survey included 4-6 individuals working in teams of two throughout the City. All pedestrian survey
was conducted from the public right-of-way. Properties not visible from the public right-of-way are documented in
the survey findings (Section 8.1.5). Properties were recorded using iPad field forms designed to replicate the
information required on State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Series 523A (Primary
Record), 523J (Location Map), and 523B (Building, Structure, and Object Record) forms. The iPad field forms
capture all required locational and descriptive information about each property, utilizing drop down menus, check
boxes, as well as custom text fields for inputting additional details. The iPad forms also captured photographs of
each property from multiple angles and produced custom Sketch Maps for each property.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Date: 1/7/2020 - Last saved by: cstarbird - Path: Z:\Projects\j1116500\MAPDOC\HistoricResourceReport\Fig_Project_Location.mxdCity of Gilroy
£¤101
Ä152
Ä25 Bloo m f i e l d AveF
erg
u
s
o
n R
d
W10thStW elburn Ave
Sant
a
T
e
r
e
s
a
B
l
v
d
Mantelli Dr
F
razier
Lake
R
dLeavesleyRd
BolsaRd
Pachec oPassHwyHollisterRd
H ec ker Pa ss H w y
E 10thStMo
n
t
e
r
e
y
R
d
1 s t S t
S Val
l
ey FwyProject Location
City of Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory Update
SOURCE: City of Gilroy, OpenStreetMap
0 1.2 50.6 25 Milesn
City of Gilroy Limits and CitywideSurvey Study Area
FIGURE 1
MapExtent
Gilroy
MorganHill
LosGatos
Campbell
Cupertino
SantaClara
San Jose
MilpitasPalo Alto
Monterey
Pacific Grove Marina Salinas
Hollister
Santa Cruz
Watsonville
Scotts Valley LosBanos
Gustine
New man
PattersonMenloPark
Capitola
San JuanBautista
M e r c e dCounty
M o n t e r e y
C o u n t y
S a nBen i t oCounty
S a n t a C l a r aCounty
S a n t a C r u zCounty
S t a n i s l a u sCounty
£¤101
ÄÆ1
ÄÆ85
ÄÆ82
ÄÆ87
ÄÆ218
ÄÆ183
ÄÆ237
ÄÆ17
ÄÆ33
ÄÆ140
ÄÆ84
ÄÆ236
ÄÆ68
ÄÆ130
ÄÆ156
ÄÆ9
ÄÆ152
ÄÆ25
§¨¦680§¨¦880
§¨¦5
§¨¦280
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 1. Introduction 4 July 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 1. Introduction 5 July 2020
1.4.4 Historic Context Statement
The Gilroy Historic Context Statement is arranged by chronological sections that relate to the major development
periods of Gilroy’s history from pre-history to the present. The organization of the document is based on the
preferred format laid out by the National Park Service (NPS) guidelines of National Register Bulletin No. 15 How to
Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation; National Register Bulletin No. 16A How to Complete the National
Register Registration Form; National Register Bulletin No. 16B How to Complete the National Register Multiple
Property Documentation Form; and National Register Bulletin No. 24 Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for
Preservation Planning. Additional California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) resources and guidelines were
also consulted, including the OHP Preferred Format for Historic Context Statements, Instructions for Recording
Historical Resources, and Writing Historic Contexts.
Research for the Gilroy Historic Context Statement was gathered from both primary and secondary sources held at
a variety of local, regional, state, national and online repositories. Archival materials were predominately assembled
from the Gilroy Historical Society and Museum collections, the San José Public Library (California Room), the
California Historical Society, and the Bancroft Library (University of California, Berkeley).
Primary sources consulted for the purposes of this project included historical maps, historic aerial photographs,
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps, measured architectural drawings, historical traveler’s guides, census data,
contemporary historical accounts, and historical photographs. Secondary sources include books, newspapers
articles, the 1986 Historic Resource Inventory forms, historical reports, surrounding area historic contexts, and
online repositories. Historical accounts, information, and photographs provided by the public on the City of Gilroy’s
Your Voice portal and during the course of Public Meetings were also incorporated into the Historic Context
Statement.
Dates of construction were largely derived from Santa Clara County Assessor records, however this data presented
some gaps. Many dates of construction for buildings built prior to 1904 were listed as “missing” in assessor data,
creating a data gap. Where data gaps were an issue, Dudek researchers tried to confirm a date of construction
from other available primary sources such as aerial photographs. The earliest available aerial photograph for the
Gilroy region dates to 1937, thus when no date of construction could be found through other means, buildings will
have a “pre-1937” construction date if they appeared on the aerial. Though Sanborn fire insurance maps also
existed for the City of Gilroy as early as 1886, these maps proved unreliable sources in distinguishing between
similar-plan buildings, such as commercial properties along Monterey or simple rectangular-plan houses on
residential streets.
The Historic Context Statement is divided into six chronological periods, each of which is further divided into
thematic subsections that reflect the significant themes identified in Gilroy (Section 3.2). The end of each Context
section includes a summary of the various property types and architectural styles associated with each period of
development and defines specific registration requirements for assessing historical significance and integrity.
The Historic Context Statement includes numerous historical images of and pertaining to the history of Gilroy that
were gathered from both primary and secondary sources during the course of research. The use of these images
within this Historic Context Statement is intended to be consistent with the U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Policy
which permits the use of copyrighted materials in the case of “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching,
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 1. Introduction 6 July 2020
scholarship, or research.”1 (Copyright Law of the United States (Title 17) / Chapter 1, 107. Limitations on exclusive
rights: Fair Use).
1.5 How to Use This Document
The Gilroy Historic Context Statement and HRI Update presents a detailed citywide context that identifies important
themes and patterns of development, property types, architectural styles, and registration requirements. This
document was designed to function as a tool for use by the City, its residents, and property owners to better
understand, interpret, evaluate, and protect the City’s historical resources. This document is organized into the
following major sections:
2. Previous Surveys and Studies summarizes all known previously conducted historic resource surveys,
inventories, and evaluations completed in Gilroy.
3. Significant Periods, Themes, and Property Types provides a framework for future property
evaluations by providing an overview of local, state, and national designation criteria; a summary of
significant themes; an overview of identified property types; and guidelines for evaluation of historic
significance and integrity.
4. Historic Context serves as a detailed narrative of Gilroy’s history broken-up into major chronological
periods of development that are supported by important themes and patterns of development.
5. Architectural Styles provides an overview of all major architectural styles identified as a result of the
city-wide survey. This section includes a representative photograph of each style (organized by property
type), the style’s associated period of significance in Gilroy, and a list of major character-defining
features.
6. Architects and Builders provides an overview of all identified architects and builders associated with
major periods of development in Gilroy.
7. Guidance for Assessing Significance provides a discussion of the national, state, and local
designation criteria and integrity requirements and also identifies associated property types,
architectural styles, and registration requirements for assessing historical significance in Gilroy.
8. Findings and Recommendations provides a summary of the citywide survey and HRI update,
including the results of the intensive-level building survey; recommendations for integration of the
survey data into existing City programs and processes; and recommendations for future work.
9. Bibliography: provides a complete list of references for all footnotes listed throughout the document.
1 United States Copyright Office. 2018. Copyright Law of the United States (Title 17) / Chapter 1, 107. Limitations on exclusive rights:
Fair Use.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 2. Previous Surveys and Studies 7 July 2020
2 Previous Surveys and Studies
2.1 Previously Completed Local Inventories
2.1.1 Gilroy Historic Resource Inventory (1986)
The City of Gilroy commissioned an HRI in 1986 from the Firm of Bonnie Bamburg in San José. The inventory
intended to capture city, county and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-designated resources located
within the City’s 1945 boundaries with a survey and documented properties on State of California DPR forms. This
inventory was designed to build upon a previous survey of pre-1926 structures conducted in the early 1980s.
Bamburg heavily utilized local citizens and student volunteers to accomplish the survey, training volunteers in
weekly meetings. The survey documented approximately 400 buildings and rated them from 1 to 5, with 1 being
most significant and 5 being least significant. The survey resulted in the identification of 75 commercial, 6
industrial, 11 civic, and 293 residential buildings.
The inventory has an accompanying report titled City of Gilroy Historic Preservation Survey 1985-1986, which
includes a brief historical background; a discussion of survey methods and results; recommendations for future
historic preservation work; recommendations for amendments to the City’s historic preservation program; and
includes a variety of appendices. The inventory also resulted in completion of a spreadsheet of properties and their
ratings, historic names, and property types as determined by the 1986 surveyors. Each surveyed property has an
accompanying DPR form that documents location, physical appearance, construction date, architect/builder, and
provides a short significance paragraph.
2.1.2 Santa Clara County Heritage Inventory Update: South County
(2003)
Following the establishment of the Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission in 1972, Santa Clara County
published an official inventory in 1975 called the Heritage Resource Inventory and updated this document in 1979.
Prior to the 2003 update, the most recent Heritage Resource Inventory was published in 1999 and limited listing
to properties located within unincorporated areas of the county.
The 2003 South County survey update consists of the re-survey of 57 properties listed in the Santa Clara County
Heritage Resources Inventory, and intended to update and re-evaluate properties in the unincorporated areas of
the county that were previously identified and listed in the Inventory, but that lacked technical supporting
documentation. While the historic context statement associated within this report discusses Gilroy, no resources
were identified within the city.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 2. Previous Surveys and Studies 8 July 2020
2.1.3 County of Santa Clara Historic Context Statement 2004 (rev.
2012)
This 2004 (rev. 2012) historic context statement for Santa Clara County served as accompaniment to previous
surveys as a means by which to evaluate buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts in unincorporated county
lands or county-owned parks for significance within their historic context. The context statement does provide
critical information for regions of the City of Gilroy that were historically unincorporated Santa Clara County, but
later annexed or incorporated into to the City of Gilroy.
2.2 Other Previous Studies
Some Resources in the City of Gilroy were individually documented through Historic American Buildings Survey
(HABS), National Register nominations, cultural resource investigations, technical studies, and individually prepared
DPR forms. Such documents were created by different consultants and were conducted within the City of Gilroy
between 1973 and 2018. These documents can be found at the City of Gilroy website, the Library of Congress, or
at the State of California Office of Historic Preservation’s Northwest Information Center (NWIC).
An NWIC records search of the entire City was completed on October 15, 2018. This search included their
collections of mapped prehistoric, historic, and built environment resources, Department of Parks and Recreation
Site Records, technical reports, and ethnographic references. Additional consulted sources include historical maps
of the study area, the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Historic Property Data File, the lists of California State
Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility.
The confidential records search results are provided in Confidential Appendix A.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 3. Significant Periods, Themes, and Property Types 9 July 2020
3 Significant Periods, Themes and
Property Types
This section presents an overview of the major chronological periods of the Historic Context Statement and a
summary of the significant themes and property types associated with these major periods of development. This
section also includes a discussion of applicable national, state, and local designation criteria and integrity
requirements that were used to assess historical significance citywide.
3.1 Chronological Periods
The Historic Context Statement divides the prehistory and history of the City of Gilroy into chronologically ordered
periods of development, which are further divided into overarching themes:
Prehistoric Period
Spanish, Mexican & Pioneer Period (1777-1868)
Initial Development Period (1868-1904)
Early Twentieth Century Period (1904-1941)
World War II and Post-War Development Period (1941-1975)
Modern Development Period (1975-2018)
3.2 Significant Themes
National Register Bulletin 15 defines a theme as a “means of organizing properties into coherent patterns based
on elements such as environment, social/ethnic groups, transportation networks, technology, or political
developments of an area during one or more periods of prehistory or history. A theme is considered to be significant
if it can be demonstrated through scholarly research, to be important to American history.”2 Important themes have
been distilled into residential development, commercial development, civic and institutional development,
transportation infrastructure, and agriculture industry and manufacturing. Themes related to architectural
significance are addressed in Architectural Styles (Section 5) and Architects and Builders (Section 6).
Each chronology section begins with a general historical overview of Gilroy for that given time period. The overview
will generally summarize events, persons, and overarching developments for each chronological period for the City
of Gilroy. The overview is followed by an in-depth analysis of themes associated with the chronological period.
2 NPS. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of the Interior, 1990: 8
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 3. Significant Periods, Themes, and Property Types 10 July 2020
3.2.1 Residential Development
This section will discuss the important persons or architects in a given period’s residential development. It will
include settlement patterns, population growth, additions to the City of Gilroy, architectural styles, and property
types associated with a given time period.
3.2.2 Commercial Development
This section will discuss major businesses and important business owners in the City of Gilroy for a given time
period. It will also briefly discuss outside influences that brought new commercial ventures to Gilroy or drove other
commercial ventures to fail. This section will also discuss the architecture and development of the commercial core
on Monterey Road.
3.2.3 Civic and Institutional Development
This section will discuss the growth of Gilroy’s city government as well as influential people and town institutions
such as schools, churches, clubs, and benevolent organizations. This section will categorize the establishment of
such institutions and discuss their associated property types for a given period.
3.2.4 Transportation Infrastructure
This section discusses major transportation themes for a given period. This includes the coming of the railroad and
its influence on Gilroy, major transportations routes, toll roads, and highways that connect Gilroy to the greater
Santa Clara County area, major cities, and the rest of the country.
3.2.5 Agriculture, Manufacturing and Industry
This section discusses Gilroy’s industries, from its beginnings in dairy and livestock, to its agricultural prowess, to
the establishment of major manufacturing businesses. This section also discusses local and immigrant workforces,
agricultural and labor associations, and their influence on industries in Gilroy.
3.3 Associated Property Types
The historic built environment serves as an illustration of significant themes in Gilroy within each period of
development. Therefore, a section for associated property types is included at the end of each development period
discussion. The discussion consists of relevant architectural styles and building types that are prevalent throughout
Gilroy during the identified period of development. The following property types were identified in Gilroy as part of
the citywide survey:
3.3.1 Residential Properties
Residential properties vary in size, scale, and style throughout Gilroy. Residential properties are most often
categorized as either multi-family residences or single-family residences. Single-family residences are easy to
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 3. Significant Periods, Themes, and Property Types 11 July 2020
identify and do not vary in their use patterns. However, multi-family residences are more complex and present in a
variety of ways in Gilroy. Some of the most common examples of multi-family residences are bungalow courts,
apartment buildings, and duplexes. While there were numerous examples of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
identified during the survey, single-family residences with these units to the rear of the main house are still classified
as single-family residences. Residential properties were also recorded as one property, even if multiple buildings
were present at the site. For example, a single-family residence, with a shed and garage on the same parcel were
all recorded as one residential property. Similarly, a bungalow court with multiple units and a rental office were all
recorded as one residential property.
3.3.2 Commercial Properties
Commercial properties also vary throughout Gilroy, but typically were 1-3 stories in height, and were the dominant
building on their parcel. Commercial uses were restricted to the Monterey Road corridor from the founding of the
city until 1949. After 1949, commercial buildings were allowed on Eigleberry Street and were typically mixed-use
with retail space on the first floor and office or residential space on the upper floors. As the twentieth century
progressed, some single-family residences on Eigleberry Street were converted into commercial offices spaces. The
second half of the twentieth century also showed a pattern of commercial expansion along First Street to the west
of Monterey Street, where boxy, mass produced building forms and strip malls began to dominate the commercial
landscape.
3.3.3 Industrial Properties
Industrial properties in Gilroy include any building where things are made, stored, or repaired. This includes
industrial buildings along the railroad corridor, related to Gilroy’s historical role as a shipping center for agricultural
goods. In Gilroy, industrial properties can be lumber mills, factories, canneries, creameries, and warehouses, as
well as automotive-related industries such as auto-repair shops and garages. Industrial properties were historically
limited to the areas near the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and depot, Monterey Road outside of the commercial
core, Hecker Pass Highway, Pacheco Pass Highway, and Old Gilroy Road for ease of shipping, but have since shifted
and spread into less developed areas to the southeast of the City limits and to the east of the 101 Freeway.
3.3.4 Civic and Institutional Properties
Institutional properties include any building where a public or civic function is performed. While usually city- or
publicly owned, they may be privately owned (such as fraternal organization halls), but usually have a public use,
and provide large, accessible spaces for people to congregate. In Gilroy, these may include libraries, city government
buildings, schools, churches, funeral homes, post offices, hospitals, public auditoriums, social halls, fraternal
society meeting halls, union halls, and utilities. Though not intensively surveyed during the citywide survey,
cemeteries, public parks, and recreational facilities also fall under this category. Institutional property buildings are
typically scaled much larger and more ornate than other property types. They are usually associated with the city or
other government entity (such as the United States Postal Service), or are associated with a particular group or
organization (such as Independent Order of Odd Fellows). Another important institutional property type seen in
Gilroy are religious buildings. Buildings from this category present in a variety of sizes, scales and styles throughout
Gilroy. The buildings range in style from Italianate to Contemporary and were constructed at various points during
Gilroy’s history. In most cases, institutional buildings, as a property type, were also more likely to have been
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 3. Significant Periods, Themes, and Property Types 12 July 2020
designed by an architect or engineer in Gilroy and many of them represent important elements of the City’s
architectural development patterns.
3.3.5 Transportation Properties
Transportation properties may be categorized as any building or structure that is solely associated with
transportation and includes depots, terminals, stations, roads, bridges, and road-related infrastructure such as
signposts. Transportation properties were rare among the recorded resources for this citywide survey, because
many automotive related properties are covered under commercial (e.g., gas stations, automotive stores, roadside
motels), or industrial (e.g., automotive repair shops). However, one transportation property, the Southern Pacific
Depot building, serves as an excellent example of the property type.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 13 July 2020
4 Historic Context
4.1 Prehistory of Santa Clara County
The prehistory of indigenous groups living within Santa Clara County follows general patterns identified within the
archaeological record of the greater Central Coast area of California. These patterns represent adaptive shifts in
settlement, subsistence strategies and technological innovation demonstrated by prehistoric people throughout
the Holocene period and earlier. The California Central Coast Chronology presents an overview of prehistoric life
ranging upwards of 10,000 years.3 Six temporal periods describe changes in prehistoric settlement patterns,
subsistence practices, and technological advances. (Table 1).
Table 1. California Central Coast Prehistoric Chronology
Temporal Period
Date (BC-
AD)*
Date
(BP)** Artifact Assemblage Example Sites
Paleo-Indian (highly-
mobile)
pre-8000 BC 10,000 BP
or older
Isolated fluted points, sparse lithic
scatters
Possibly SCL-178
and SCR-177
Millingstone/ Early
Archaic
(highly mobile)
8000 - 3500
BC
5,500 –
10,000 BP
Millingstones, handstones, core-cobble
tools, lancolate or large side-notched
projectile points, eccentric crescents,
Olivella beads: thick rectangular (L-series)
SCL-65, SCL-178,
SCL-237, SCR-7,
SCR-60/130, SMA-
134, MNT-229
Early
(sites in more varied
contexts)
3500 - 600
BC
2,600 –
5500 BP
Mortar and pestle introduced, formalized
flaked stone tools (Rossi Square-
stemmed and Ano Nuevo long-stem
points), Olivella beads: Spire-lopped (A),
End-ground (B2b and B2c), Cap (B4), and
Rectangular (L-series)
SCL-33, SCL-178,
SCL-163, SCR-7,
SCR-38/123, MNT-
108, MNT-238, MNT-
391, MNT-1918
Middle
(more long-term
residences)
600 BC to AD
1000
950 –
2,600 BP
Mortars and pestles (but still some
millingstone/handstones), contracting-
stemmed projectile points, greater variety
of Olivella shell beads, Haliotis
ornaments, circular shell fishhooks, bone
tools, grooved stone net sinkers
SCL-178, SCL-163,
SCL-613, SCR-9,
SMA-77, SMA-218,
MNT-101, MNT-229,
MNT-234, MNT-282
Middle-Late
Transition
(social
reorganization due
to Medieval Climatic
Anomaly)
AD 1000-
1250
700 – 950
BP
Mortars and pestles (but still some
millingstone/handstones), bow/arrow
technology introduced, Olivella shell bead
types: B2, B3, G1, G2, G6, and K1,
notched net sinkers, hopper mortars, and
circular shell fishhooks
SCL-690, MNT-1233,
MNT-281, MNT-
1754, MNT-745
3 T.L. Jones, N.E. Stevens, D.A. Jones, R.T. Fitzgerald and M.G. Hylkema. “The Central Coast: A Midlatitude Milieu.” In California
Prehistory Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, (Lanham, Altamira Press, 2007): 125-
146
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 14 July 2020
Table 1. California Central Coast Prehistoric Chronology
Temporal Period
Date (BC-
AD)*
Date
(BP)** Artifact Assemblage Example Sites
Late
(more permanent
residential sites with
additional seasonal
sites)
AD to 1250-
1769
181 – 700
BP
Mortars and pestles (but still some
millingstone/handstones), Cottonwood
(or Canaliño) and Desert Side-notched
arrow points, flaked stone drills, steatite
and clamshell disc beads, Haliotis disc
beads, Olivella bead types: E1, E2, B2,
B3, G1, G6, K1 types
SCL-119/SBN-24/H,
SCL-272, SCL-828,
SCL-341, SCR-177,
MNT-879, MNT-
1765, MNT-1485/H
MNT-1486/H
Source: Jones et al. 2007.
*BC-AD = Before Christ (BC) - anno domini (AD)
**BP = Before the Present
4.1.1 Paleo-Indian (10,000 BP or older)
The Paleo-Indian era represents people’s initial occupation of the region. These were highly mobile hunters who
focused subsistence efforts on large mammals. Multiple migrations into the region may have occurred both
terrestrially and by sea.4 Although no coastal Paleo-Indian sites in the Central California Coast region have been
discovered, they may have been inundated as a result of rising ocean levels throughout the Holocene.5
Evidence of this era was generally found through isolated artifacts or sparse lithic scatters.6 In the San Luis Obispo
area, fluted points characterizing this era were documented near the town of Nipomo7 and Santa Margarita,8 but
so far, no fluted points have been found in the Central Coast north of the greater Santa Barbara region. Possible
evidence for Paleo-Indian occupation was reported in buried contexts in CA-SCL-178 in the Santa Clara Valley and
at CA-SCR-177 in Scotts Valley9. The early radiocarbon dates from charcoal, however, pose questions of validity.10
4 J.M. Erlandson, M.H. Graham, B.J. Bourque, D. Corbett, J.A. Estes, and R.S. Steneck. The Kelp Highway Hypothesis: Marine Ecology,
the Coastal Migration Theory, and the Peopling of the Americas. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 2(2) (2007): 161–
174.
5 T.L. Jones and D. Jones. “Elkhorn Slough Revisited: Reassessing the Chronology of CA-MNT-229.” Journal of California and Great
Basin Anthropology 14 (1992): 159-179.
6 E. Bertrando. “Evidence and Models for Late Pleistocene Chronology and Settlement Along California’s Central Coast.” In Emerging
from the Ice Age: Early Holocene Occupations on the California Central Coast, edited by Ethan Bertrando and V.A. Levulett, (San Luis
Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional Papers no. 17, 2004): 93-105
7 .W. Mills, M.F. Rondeau, and T.L. Jones. “A Fluted Point from Nipomo, San Luis Obispo County, California.” Journal of California and
Great Basin Anthropology 25:214-220. (2005)
8 R.O. Gibson. Results of Archaeological Monitoring for Unocal Soil Testing Program along Pipelines near Santa Margarita, San Luis
Obispo County, California. Gibson’s Archaeological Consulting, Paso Robles. (Report submitted to UNOCAL CERT, San Luis Obispo,
2006)
9 R. Cartier. The Scotts Valley Site: CA-SCR-177. The Santa Cruz Archaeological Society, Santa Cruz (1993).
10 Jones et al. 2007.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 15 July 2020
4.1.2 Millingstone (5,500 – 10,000 BP)
Settlement in the Central Coast appears with more frequency in the Millingstone Period. Sites of this era have been
discovered in Big Sur,11 Moss Landing,12 Watsonville13 and in the Coyote Creek area of Santa Clara.14 Similar to the
Paleo-Indian era, people living during the Millingstone era were likely highly mobile. Assemblages are characterized
by abundant millingstones and handstones, cores and core-cobble tools, thick rectangular (L-series) Olivella beads,
and a low incidence of projectile points, which are generally lanceolate or large side-notched varieties.15Eccentric
crescents were also found in Millingstone components. Sites are often associated with shellfish remains and small
mammal bone, which suggest a collecting-focused economy. Stable isotope studies on human bone, from a coastal
Millingstone component at CA-SCR-60/130, indicate a diet composed of 70%–84% marine resources.16 Contrary
to these findings, deer remains are abundant at other Millingstone sites,17 which suggests a flexible subsistence
focus.
4.1.3 Early (2,600 – 5,500 BP)
The Early Period corresponds with the earliest era the “Hunting Culture” which continues through the Middle-Late
Transition.18 The Early Period is marked by a greater emphasis on formalized flaked stone tools, such as projectile
points and bifaces, and the initial use of mortar and pestle technology. Early Period sites are located in more varied
environmental contexts than millingstone sites, suggesting more intensive use of the landscape than practiced
previously.19
Early Period artifact assemblages are characterized by Large Side-notched points, Rossi Square-stemmed points,
Spire-lopped (A), End-ground (B2b and B2c), Cap (B4), and Rectangular (L-series) Olivella beads. Other artifacts
include less temporally diagnostic Contracting-stemmed and Año Nuevo long-stemmed points, and bone gorges.
Ground stone artifacts are less common relative to flaked stone tools when compared with Millingstone-era sites.
11 T.L. Jones. “Big Sur: A Keystone in Central California Culture History.” Pacific Coast Archaeological Quarterly. (1993); T.L. Jones.
Prehistoric Human Ecology of the Big Sur Coast, California. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research
Facility, Berkeley. (2003); R.T. Fitzgerald and T.L. Jones The Milling Stone Horizon Revisited: New Perspectives from Northern and
Central California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 21:65-93. (1999)
12 S.A. Dietz W.R. Hildebrandt, and T. Jones “Archaeological Investigations at Elkhorn Slough: CA-MNT-229 A Middle Period Site on
the Central California Coast.” Papers in Northern California Anthropology, Number 3. (1988); Jones and Jones 1992; R.J. Milliken,
Nelson, W.R. Hildebrandt, and P. Mikkelsen. The Moss Landing Hill Site: A Technical Report on Archaeological Studies at CA-MNT-
234 in 1991 and 1997-1998. (Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis 1999).
13 B.J. Culleton, R. H. Gargett and T. L. Jackson. Data Recovery Excavations at CA-SCR-60/130 for the Pajaro Valley Water
Management Agency Local Water Supply and Distribution Project. (Pacific Legacy, Santa Cruz, California., 2005)
14 W. Hildebrandt and P. Mikkelsen Archaeological Test Excavations at Fourteen Sites along Highways 101 and 152, Santa Clara
and San Benito Counties, California. (Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. Davis, California. 1993)
15 Jones et al. 2007.
16 S.D. Newsome, D.L. Phillips, B.J. Culleton, T.P. Guilderson, P. Koch. Dietary Reconstruction of an Early to Middle Holocene Human
Population from the Central California Coast: Insights from Advanced Stable Isotope Mixing Models. Journal of Archaeological
Science 31 (2004):1101-1115.
17 T.L. Jones, J.F. Porcasi, J.W. Gaeta, and B.F. Codding. “The Diablo Canyon Fauna: A Coarse-grained Record of Trans-Holocene
Foraging from the Central California Mainland Coast.” American Antiquity 73 (2008): 289–316.
18 D.B. Rogers. Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. (Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, 1929).
19 T.L. Jones, and G. Waugh. Climatic Consequences or Population Pragmatism? A Middle Holocene Prehistory of the Central
California Coast. In Archaeology of the California Coast During the Middle Holocene, edited by J.M. Erlandson and M.A. Glassow.
Perspectives in California Archaeology 4. (Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 1997): 111-128
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 16 July 2020
Early Period sites are common and often found in estuary settings along the coast or along river terraces inland.
Coastal sites dating to this period include CA-MNT-108,20 CA-SCR-7,21 and CA-SCR-38/123.22 Inland sites include
CA-SCL-33, CA-SCL-178 and CA-SCL-163.23
Archaeologists have long debated whether the shift in site locations and artifact assemblages during this time
represent either population intrusion as a result of mid-Holocene warming trends, or an in-situ adaptive shift.24 The
initial use of mortars and pestles during this time appears to reflect a more labor-intensive economy associated
with the adoption of acorn processing.25
4.1.4 Middle (950 – 2,600 BP)
The trend toward greater labor investment is apparent in the Middle Period. During this time, there is increased use
of plant resources, more long-term occupation at habitation sites, and a greater variety of smaller “use-specific”
localities. Artifacts common to this era include contracting-stemmed projectile points, a greater variety of Olivella
shell beads and Haliotis ornaments that include discs and rings.26 Bone tools and ornaments are also common,
especially in the richer coastal contexts,27 and circular shell fishhooks are present for the first time. Grooved stone
net sinkers are also found in coastal sites. Mortars and pestles become more common than millingstones and
handstones at some sites28. Important Middle Period sites include CA-MNT-282 at Willow Creek,29 CA-SCR-9 in the
20 G. Breschini and T. Haversat. Preliminary Excavations at CA-MNT-108, Fisherman’s Wharf, Monterey County, California. In
Archaeological Investigations of Some Significant Sites on the Central Coast of California, edited by H. Dallas, Jr. and G.S. Breschini.
(Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory No. 37, Salinas., 1992a.): 39–47.
21 D. Jones and W.R. Hildebrandt. Archaeological Investigation at Sand Hill Bluff: Portions of Prehistoric Site CA-SCr-7, Santa Cruz
County, California. (Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, 1990)
22 S. Bryne. Archaeological Monitoring of the Wilder Ranch Bike Path Construction and Mitigation Related to Archaeological Site CA-
SCR-38/123/H. (Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, 2002); D. Jones and W.R. Hildebrandt. Archaeological Investigations at Sites
CA-SCR-10, CA-SCR-17, CA-SCR-304, and CA-SCR-38/123 for the North Coast Treated Water Main Project, Santa Cruz County,
California. (Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., 1994)
23 Hildebrandt and Mikkelsen 1993
24 P. Mikkelsen, W.R. Hildebrandt and D.A. Jones. Prehistoric Adaptations on the Shores of Morro Bay Estuary: Excavations at Site
CA-SLO-165, Morro Bay, California. Occasional Paper No. 14, (San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society, San Luis Obispo,
California, 2000).
25 M.E. Basgall.” Resource Intensification Among Hunter-Gatherers: Acorn Economies in Prehistoric California.” Research in
Economic Anthropology 9 (1987): 21–52.
26 Jones 2003.
27 T.L. Jones and J.A. Ferneau. Prehistory at San Simeon Reef: Archaeological Data Recovery at CA-SLO-179 and -267, San Luis
Obispo, California. San Luis Obispo Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No. 16. (2002a); T.L. Jones and G. Waugh. Central
California Coastal Prehistory: A View from Little Pico Creek. Perspectives in California Archaeology No. 3, (Institute of Archaeology,
University of California, Los Angeles. 1995)
28 Jones et al. 2007.
29 Jones 2003; Z.S. Pohorecky. Archaeology of the South Coast Ranges of California. University of Archaeological Research Facility
34, (Berkeley 1976)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 17 July 2020
Santa Cruz Mountains,30 CA-SMA 218 at Año Nuevo,31 CA-SCL-613 at San Fransisquito Creek, and a continued
presence at SCL-178, SCL-163.32
The Middle Period is a continuation of the “Hunting Culture” because of the greater emphasis on labor-intensive
technologies that include projectile and plant processing.33 Additionally, faunal evidence highlights a shift toward
prey species that are more labor intensive to capture, either by search and processing time or technological needs.
These labor-intensive species include small schooling fishes, sea otters, rabbits, and plants such as acorn. Early
and Middle Period sites are difficult to distinguish without shell beads due to the similarity of artifact assemblages.34
4.1.5 Middle-Late Transition (700 – 950 BP)
The Middle-Late Transition corresponds with the end of the “Hunting Culture”.35 It also corresponds with social
reorganization across the region due to a period of rapid climatic change known as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly.36
The Medieval Climatic Anomaly is characterized by drastic fluctuations between cool-wet and warm-dry climatic
conditions.37 Archaeological sites are rarer during this period, which may reflect a decline in regional population.38
Artifacts associated with the Middle-Late Transition include contracting-stemmed, double side-notched, and small
leaf-shaped projectile points. The latter are thought to represent the introduction of bow and arrow technology to
the region. A variety of Olivella shell bead types are found in these deposits and include B2, B3, G1, G2, G6, and
K1 varieties, notched line sinkers, hopper mortars, and circular shell fishhooks.39 Sites that correspond with this
time are CA-MNT-1233 and CA-MNT-281 at Willow Creek,40 CA-MNT-1754, and CA-MNT-745 in Priest Valley41
(Hildebrandt 2006) and CA-SCL-690 in San José.42
30 M.G. Hylkema. Prehistoric Native American Adaptations along the Central California Coast of San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties .
Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Jose State University. (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 1991).
31 Ibid.
32 J. Rosenthal and J. Meyer. Landscape Evolution and the Archaeological Record: A Geological Study of the Southern Santa Clara
Valley and Surrounding Region. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publication Number 14. (Regents of the University of
California, Davis, 2004)
33 Jones et al. 2007; Rogers 1929
34 T.L. Jones and J. Haney. Archaeological Evaluation of CA-MNT-910, -1748/H, -1919, and -2182, Fort Hunter Liggett Military
Installation, Monterey County, California. (California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, 2005)
35 Rogers 1929.
36 S. Stine. Extreme and Persistent Drought in California and Patagonia during Medieval Time. Nature 369 (1994): 546-549.
37 T.L. Jones, G. M. Brown, L.M. Raab, J.L. McVickar, W.G. Spaulding , D.J. Kennett, A. York, and P.L. Walker. “Environmental
Imperatives Reconsidered: Demographic Crises in Western North America During the Medieval Climatic Anomaly.” Current
Anthropology 40 (1999): 137-170
38 T.L. Jones and J.A. Ferneau. “Deintensification along the Central Coast.” In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the
California Coast, edited by J.M. Erlandson and T.L. Jones. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology, (University of California, Los Angeles, 2002b): 205-232.
39 T.L. Jones. Transitions in Prehistoric Diet, Mobility, Exchange, and Social Organization Along California’s Big Sur Coast.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology (University of California, Davis, California, 1995); Jones et al. 2007.
40 Pohorecky 1976
41 W.R. Hildebrandt. Archaeological Evaluation of the Priest Valley Knoll Sites (CA-MNT-745), Eastern Monterey County, California.
(Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis. 2006)
42 M.G. Hylkema. Santa Clara Valley Prehistory: Archaeological Investigations at CA-SCL-690, The Tamien Station Site, San Jose,
California. (Center for Archaeological Research, Davis, California, 2007).
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 18 July 2020
4.1.6 Late (181 – 700 BP)
Late Period sites are found in a variety of environmental conditions and include newly occupied task sites and
encampments, as well as previously occupied localities. Artifacts associated with this era include Cottonwood (or
Canaliño) and Desert Side-notched arrow points, flaked stone drills, steatite and clamshell disc beads, Haliotis disc
beads, Olivella bead types E1 and E2, and earlier used B2, B3, G1, G6, and K1 types. Millingstones, handstones,
mortars, pestles, and circular shell fishhooks also continue to be used.43 Sites dating to this era are found in coastal
and interior contexts. Coastal sites dating to the Late Period tend to be resource acquisition or processing sites,
while evidence for residential occupation is more common inland.44 Late Period sites include CA-MNT-143 at
Asilomar State Beach,45 CA-MNT-1765 at Moro Cojo Slough,46 CA-MNT-1485/H and -1486/H at Rancho San
Carlos,47 and CA-SCR-177 at Davenport Landing.48 Late sites in Santa Clara County include CA-SCL-119/SBN-24/H,
CA-SCL-272, CA-SCL-341 and CA-SCL-828.49
4.2 Ethnohistoric Context
The City of Gilroy lies within the territory occupied by people called “Costanoan” by the Europeans at the time of
contact. Many modern descendants prefer to be called “Ohlone,” and are referred to as such hereafter. The Ohlone
spoke eight separate Penutian dialects and lived between the vicinities of what is now Richmond in the north to Big
Sur in the south. They were organized under approximately fifty autonomous polities or tribelets.50 At the time of
European contact, two separate Ohlone dialects were reportedly spoken within Santa Clara County. Speakers of the
Tamyen Ohlone dialect lived in the northern portion of the county in the vicinity of modern-day San José. People
who spoke the Mutsun Ohlone dialect lived in the Pajaro Valley watershed, which included the vicinity of Gilroy and
San Juan Bautista inland and the Watsonville and Moss Landing areas closer to the coast. Roughly 1,200 Tamyen
speakers and 2,700 Mutsun speakers were documented at the advent of the Mission system in 1770.51
Ethnographic accounts of Ohlone at the time of contact described them as living in permanent villages, but also
spending time in smaller camps to collect or process seasonal resources such as acorn or shellfish.52
43 Jones et al. 2007
44 Ibid.
45 R.J. Brady, Farquhar, T. Garlinghouse, and C. Peterson. Archaeological Evaluation of CA-MNT-143 for the Asilomar Boardwalk
Replacement Project, Asilomar State Beach, Pacific Grove, California. (Albion Environmental, Inc., Santa Cruz, 2009).
46 R.T. Fitzgerald, J.L. Edwards, J.M. Farquhar, and K. Loefler. Archaeological Test Excavation at CA-MNT-1765, for the Moro Cojo
Standard Subdivision Project (SH93001), Monterey County, California. (Biosystems Analysis, Inc., Santa Cruz, 1995)
47 G. Breschini and T. Haversat. Baseline Archaeological Studies at Rancho San Carlos, Carmel Valley, Monterey County, California.
(Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory No. 36, Salinas, 1992b)
48 R.T. Fitzgerald and A. Ruby. Archaeological Test Excavations at CA-SCR-117, the Davenport Landing Site. (Garcia and Associates,
San Anselmo, 1997)
49 Rosenthal and Meyer 2004.
50 R. Levy. Costanoan. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8. Edited by Robert F. Heizer. (Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
1978)
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 19 July 2020
4.3 Spanish, Mexican, and Pioneer Period (1777-1868)
4.3.1 Spanish Period (1777-1822)
The European presence in the Santa Clara County region began with the English explorer and privateer Sir Francis
Drake, who landed on July 17, 1579, in the San Francisco Bay Area and claimed the region for England. After
Drake's departure, it took nearly two centuries before any European power settled the region. Spanish explorers
operating out of Spanish-controlled Mexico first arrived in the Santa Clara County area in the 1770s. In an effort to
prevent the establishment of English and Russian colonies in northern Alta California, Don Gaspar de Portolá, the
Governor of Baja, sought to establish military and religious control over the area in 1769, leading to the
establishment of Presidio of San Diego. Padre-Presidente Franciscan Fr. Junípero Serra founded Mission San Diego
de Alcalá, the first of the 21 missions that established in Alta California. From San Diego, Portola and Serra
embarked on an overland exploratory mission that led to the establishment of three missions at the northern extent
of Spanish-held Alta California: San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo Mission (1770), and San Francisco de Asis,
Mission Dolores (1776), and Santa Clara de Asis Mission (1777).53
Soldiers and their families previously stationed at the Mission Dolores moved to the Santa Clara Mission at the
request of Father Tomas de la Pena, who led the effort to establish the mission, in the spring of 1777. The local
Native American groups, such as the Ohlone, were immediately pressed into service as “neophytes,” and forced to
build the mission church and auxiliary structures from local timber, limestone, and adobe, as well as cultivate wheat,
barley, beans, corn, and lentils for the mission Padres and soldiers. Mission Santa Clara de Asis’s lands from San
Francisquito Creek in present day Palo Alto to Llagas Creek in present day Gilroy, were dedicated largely to cattle
ranching, as the lands closer to the mission were given over to cultivation. In the fall of 1777, Spanish Governor
Don Felipe de Neve encouraged the establishment of San José de Guadalupe, two and a half miles from the Santa
Clara Mission, to increase the Spanish presence in the region. In 1782, Lieutenant Moraga was directed to partition
mission lands to nine Spanish settlers, close to San José.54
While settlement around San José grew to the north, the mission at Monterey was also parceling out lands to
settlers, mostly to former soldiers of various Presidios, Missions, or Pueblos in lieu of pay. In 1803, Viceroy Félix
Berenguer de Marquina of Spain awarded the 26,520-acre Rancho Las Ánimas to José Mariano Castro, a former
soldier stationed at the Monterey garrison. A few short years later in 1809, the former mayordomo at Mission San
Gabriel and another ex-soldier, Ygnacio Ortega was awarded the 13,066-acre Rancho San Ysidro by Governor José
Joaquín de Arrillaga (Figure 2). Both men primarily raised cattle on their lands. Non-Spanish settlers in the region
were rare. Often credited with being the first white settler in the region, in 1814, John Cameron emigrated from
Scotland to Monterey, before being baptized Juan Bautista Gilroy at the Carmelo Mission. Gilroy moved northeast
and married Maria Clara Ortega, daughter of Ygnacio Ortega in 1821. Another was Philip Doak, who disembarked
53 CIRCA. Historic Context Statement for the City of Morgan Hill. Prepared for the City of Morgan Hill. (San Francisco: CA: CIRCA
Historic Property Development, 2006), 19-20; Douglas E. Kyle. Historic Spots in California. 5th ed. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press, 2002); NPS (National Park Service). “Early History.” Santa Clara County: California’s Historic Silicon Valley: A NRHP Travel
Itinerary. Accessed November 6, 2018. https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/santaclara/history.htm; Eugene T. Sawyer. History of Santa
Clara County, California. (Los Angeles, CA: Historic Record Company, 1922), 46-48; Charles Shortridge. Santa Clara County and Its
Resources, Historical, Descriptive, Statistical: a Souvenir of the San Jose Mercury . (San Jose, CA: San Jose Mercury Publishing and
Print Company, 1895): 12-13.
54 Sawyer 1922: 35-36
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 20 July 2020
at Monterey in 1822, and lived on the Rancho Las Animas lands of José Mariano Castro as a block-and-tackle
maker, and Matthew Fellom, who traveled from Russian territory in the north to Santa Clara Valley in 1823.55
Figure 2. Rancho Las Animas (left) and the three partitions of Rancho San Ysidro (right), circa 1859. Llagas
Creek divided the two Ranchos. John Gilroy’s portion of San Ysidro is the middle portion of three. Quintin
Ortega’s portion is the southern most of the three, and Isabel Ortega owned the northern-most portion (pink
outline). (Land Case Map F-316, Bancroft Library, University of California Berkeley)
55 Sawyer 1922: 42, 292; J.P. Munro-Fraser. History of Santa Clara County, California. (San Francisco CA: Alley, Bowen & Co, 1881),
274; Truda Cooling Nelson. John Gilroy: A Biography. Master’s Thesis presented to the Department of Social Science= at San Jose
State University. (San Jose CA: San Jose State University, 1981): 30
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 21 July 2020
4.3.2 Mexican Period (1822–1848)
After more than a decade of intermittent rebellion and warfare, New Spain (Mexico and the California territory) won
independence from Spain in 1821. The newly established Mexican government began the process of secularizing
the area’s mission and within a few years, the Alta California missions and towns recognized Mexican rule. In 1822,
the Mexican legislative body in California ended isolationist policies designed to protect the Spanish monopoly on
trade, and decreed California ports open to foreign merchants, which increased foreign settlers in California. Both
Castro and Ortega successfully applied to the Mexican government to reconfirm their grants, enabling them to keep
their lands, and pass it to their heirs.56
When Castro died in 1828, his widow Josefa Romero de Castro received half of Rancho Las Animas lands, and his
eight children received an equal portion of the remaining lands (1/16th of total lands). Though Castro died in 1828,
it took until 1835 for the Mexican Governor José Figueroa to confirm the grant to his heirs. In 1847, three of Castro’s
children sold their lands to José Maria Sanchez, followed by their mother, Josefa Romera De Castro who sold her
half interest, and one other child, who sold their 1/16th interest in the rancho to José Maria Sanchez as well.
Sanchez was also the owner of Rancho Llano de Tesquisquita and Rancho Lomerias Muertas, south of present-day
Gilroy. The remaining four heirs’ shares, which amounted to one quarter of the original rancho, sold their shares in
the remaining years. In 1850, Vicente Castro sold his 1/16th to Alexander Godey, who sold it later the same year to
Thomas Rea. In 1858, Josefa Castro sold her 1/16th to Martin Murphy, and it passed to his daughter Johanna
Murphy Fitzgerald in 1860. In 1863, Encarnacion and Maria Lugarda Castro sold their combined 1/8th interest in
the rancho to Henry Miller.57
Ygnacio Ortega died in 1833, the same year that John (Juan Bautista) Gilroy, his son-in-law became a naturalized
Mexican citizen. Ortega’s Rancho San Ysidro was divided between Ortega’s adult children and their spouses. His
daughter Isabel Ortega and husband Julian Cantua received the northern-most 4,167 acres and renamed it Rancho
La Polka. Maria Clara Ortega and husband John Gilroy received the middle 4,167 acres. Quintin Ortega received
the largest and southern-most section, 4,439 acres. All three sections were confirmed by survey and received US
land patents in 1860. The line dividing Gilroy’s section from Quintin Ortega’s section was the old road from Gilroy
to Pacheco Pass, according to the survey, though their houses were reportedly close to one another, just across the
road. John Gilroy’s role eventually became that of a traditional Mexican ranchero, or landowner, and supplemented
his subsistence farming with his “industries” of soap making, onions, and flour from his gristmill business, while his
brother-in-law Quintin maintained livestock on the lands.58 Gilroy was also alcalde, or magistrate, of San Ysidro from
1836 to 1848.59
Julius Martin also arrived in the 1840s prior to the Gold Rush and the Mexican-American War. Martin, his wife, and
three daughters emigrated to the Gilroy region from Missouri. In 1844, Martin constructed a small horse-powered
flourmill in San Ysidro (Old Gilroy), at the intersection of the Pacheco Pass Road and El Camino Real (future
Monterey Road). Martin briefly left during the early months of the Gold Rush to seek his fortune, but left his family
in Gilroy. Another early businessperson was Thomas O. Larkin, who established a soap factory with partner José
Maria Sanchez at the eastern boundary of Rancho Las Animas, three miles from Martin’s mill and San Ysidro. Larkin
lived in Monterrey, but had multiple business dealings in the Gilroy area. José Maria Sanchez was Larkin’s major
56 NPS 2018; Kyle 2002; Munro-Fraser 1881: 78-79.
57 Kyle 2002: 442.
58 Munro-Fraser 1881: 274-276; Nelson 1981: 43.
59 Munro-Fraser 1881: 274; Nelson 1981: 44.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 22 July 2020
regional partner; however, other rancheros, including John Gilroy, regularly produced soap and other goods on their
ranchos between 1833 and 1848 to pay their debts to Larkin.60 According to letters between Larkin and his
business representative Talbot H. Green, there was apparently a single kettle for soap making shared among the
rancheros so they could produce the soap from the local tequesquite, an alkali substance for soap making. Larkin
marketed the soap in Monterey, but the trade was short-lived as Larkin and Sanchez’s partnership ceased in
1848.61 Larkin would go on to become the United States Consul to Mexico at Monterey in 1843.62
Immediately prior to the gold discoveries at Sutter’s Mill and California statehood, few other European or American
settlers moved to the region. Beginning in the 1840s, American settlers began to move west to Oregon via the
Oregon Trail. While most took the Salt Lake City-Humboldt River route, some took the Santa Fe passage via Los
Angeles, before turning north to the Territory of Oregon. This is how Martin Murphy, eventual purchaser of Josefa
Castro’s share of Rancho Las Animas, came to reside in Santa Clara County. Settlement of non-Mexican nationals
in California was also aided by the disarray of the Mexican government beginning as early as 1836. In 1842,
California Governor Alvarado and General Vallejo, who managed Alta California, declared California independent
and waged war with Mexico and General Micheltrona, who finally retreated in 1845. The victory was short-lived. In
1845, Captain John C. Frémont led the survey of Oregon and California, on orders from the United States. Accused
initially of stealing horses, Frémont’s expedition eventually retaliated and wrested control of the California away
from the newly formed Republic. In spring 1846, instigated by Frémont, American settlers in California revolted and
formed the Bear Flag Republic, which sparked the Mexican-American War. Though several battles in this war were
fought in Santa Clara County, there was little direct relationship with the City of Gilroy. The Mexican-American War
concluded in 1848 with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, just days before the announcement of the
gold discovery at Sutter’s Mill.63
4.3.3 Pioneer Period (1848-1868)
The Pioneer Period saw an influx of Americans after the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo turned over the State of
California to United States control. Many American settlers came for the promise of gold, while others came to profit
from the Gold Rush itself, selling goods and service. San Ysidro became increasingly known as “Gilroy,” after John
Gilroy, the proprietor of this portion of Rancho San Ysidro. When Gilroy was officially chartered in 1868, San Ysidro
became known as “Old Gilroy.”64 Sometime prior to 1850, after increased flooding from Llagas Creek, El Camino
Real was realigned from running through San Ysidro (Old Gilroy) to its present position along Monterey Road in
present day Gilroy (New Gilroy).65
Many of the well-known Gilroy pioneers and the first Anglo-Americans settlers in the region arrived in the 1850s.
One of the first Anglo-American settlers was James Houck, who is credited with building the first house at Gilroy in
1850, as well as a small roadside inn and stable intended to service travelers moving between Monterey and San
José on El Camino Real. Houck was followed by Lucien Everett, and the two formed a partnership running the inn.
Houck, noted as illiterate, was also credited as the first postmaster, collecting mail dropped along El Camino Real
for early residents. A Post Office was established in 1851 for a town of “Gilroy,” and consisted of a box on the side
60 Nelson 1981: 45
61 Munro-Fraser 1881: 276, 616-617; Sawyer 1922: 346.
62 Nelson 1981: 45, 73
63 Munro-Fraser 1881: 105-126, 274-275; Sawyer, 1922: 46-61.
64 Munro-Fraser 1881: 274
65 Leslie A. G. Dill, Kara Oosterhous, Charlene Duval. Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory Update. South County Survey
Report. (Los Gatos, CA: Dill Design Group, 2003): 13.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 23 July 2020
of Houck’s house where mail could be picked up by the mail stage. Houck remained postmaster until 1854, when
he was succeeded by A.C. Everett.66
After the inn was established, more Anglo-American settlers moved to the area. Julius Martin returned after attaining
his fortune in the 1848 Gold Rush and purchased 1,220 acres from John Gilroy in 1850, paying cash and settling
just a half mile from Old Gilroy. Lawrence O’Toole, James and John Fitzgerald, and M.T. Holsclaw also moved to San
Ysidro, opening various shops including Holsclaw’s blacksmith shop. Horace Willson, a bricklayer, moved to San
Ysidro in 1853 and is credited with some of the early brick construction in San Ysidro.67
West of Llagas Creek, a different settlement called “New Gilroy” started on Rancho Las Animas lands. After José
Maria Sanchez’s death in 1852 and the distribution of his shares of Rancho Las Animas to his heirs, more American
settlers arrived and purchased lands from Sanchez’s wife and children, or simply squatted on land with other Anglo-
Americans. John Eigleberry settled in Gilroy during this time, building a house in New Gilroy in 1852 at the present
location of 4th Street and Eigleberry Street. The same year, Lucien Everett expanded his holdings and established
a store at the present-day corner of Lewis Street and Monterey Road to support road traffic and travelers’ needs.
Within the next couple of years, David Holloway opened the first hotel in the winter of 1853-1854.68
In 1852, Thomas Rea emigrated from Wisconsin to San Francisco. Rea worked first in the gold mines in northern
California, then married and returned to California with his bride in 1853. In 1857, Rea and his wife moved to Gilroy
and bought a portion of Rancho Las Animas just outside of the town to establish a dairy business. Rea built a house
in the town of Gilroy and remained a present and active business owner and politician in the town. Thomas Rea’s
brother, Samuel Rea, soon joined him in 1859 and they co-operated the dairy.69
A number of settlers arrived over the course of the next decade, including prominent families for whom some streets
in Gilroy are named: Reither, Bell, Rea, Holloway, Wood, Zuck, Chappell, Patton, Anson, Thomas, Reynolds, Wentz,
Watson, Wilson, Doan, Dunn, and Hanna, to name only a fraction of the new settlers. Construction efforts continued
with a blacksmith shop (1853), and saddlery (1853), and a Methodist Church (1854). In addition to construction,
cross-streets were established along El Camino Real (now Monterey Road), and houses of more settlers were built
along them.70
Another early landowner, whose lands would eventually be absorbed into present day Gilroy, was “Cattle King”
Henry Miller. In 1859, Henry Miller (Heinrich Alfred Kreiser) purchased 1,800 acres of Rancho Las Animas from the
Sanchez heirs. The year before Miller had officially partnered with Charles Lux, and the partners began to purchase
large swaths of land in California from former Mexican landholders. At his Rancho Las Animas lands, Miller started
Bloomfield Ranch, which was to be a feeding stopover for cattle herds on their way to San Francisco market.71
In the 1860s, promoters did their best to present Gilroy as a town destined for importance, and local residents
began trying to attract the Santa Clara & Pajaro Railroad (later bought by Southern Pacific) to come through the
settlement. Freeman Rogers, a dentist, James C. Zuck, a lawyer, and W.L. Hoover another local speculator,
66 H.S. Foote. Pen Pictures from the Garden of the World or Santa Clara County, California. (Chicago, IL: Lewis Publishing, 1888):
202; Munro-Fraser 1881: 278-280.
67 Munro-Fraser 1881: 277-278; Sawyer, 1922: 292.
68 Sawyer, 1922: 292.
69 Foote, 1888: 336-337; Patricia Loomis. “Signposts Gilroy’s Pioneer Tom Rea: Short on Words—Long On Deeds.” San Jose News.
March 29, 1974, pg. 31; Munro-Fraser, 1881: 277-279, 624-625; Sawyer, 1922: 292.
70 Ibid.
71 G.S. Breschini., T. Harvest, and R.P. Sampson. A Cultural Resources Overview of the Coast and Coast-Valley Study Areas
[California]. (Salinas, CA: Coyote Press 1983); Dil et al. 2003: 13.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 24 July 2020
partnered in 1867 to form Zuck, Rogers & Hoover to purchase and develop real estate. The firm purchased 30
acres from Lafayette F. Bell on the east side of Monterrey Street, which would later facilitate the Southern Pacific
Railroad Line through the town. The firm also bought other small tracts and subdivided them into residential lots,
shaping the early streets along Monterey. The firm’s efforts attracted the attention of the state, and local physician
and master surveyor Dr. David Huber officially surveyed the town site in 1868. Huber ultimately confirmed street
locations and otherwise laid out the city.72
Residential Development
Settlement in the area of Gilroy began with two separate communities that grew out of Rancho San Ysidro and
Rancho las Animas, respectively (Figure 3). They are described in brief, below.
Figure 3. Inset from map south of Santa Clara County area, depicting “Gilroy” (left center) and “old Gilroy”
(center) locations, by Thompson & West, 1876 (David Rumsey Map Collection)
San Ysidro (Old Gilroy)
Old Gilroy was the settlement that grew out of the Rancho San Ysidro settlement of John Gilroy and his brother in
law Quintin Ortega. Old Gilroy was located east of Llagas Creek, two miles southeast of the future location of the
City of Gilroy. The town was first known as San Ysidro after the original rancho name, but this shifted to “Gilroy” and
then “Old Gilroy” as American settlers moved into the area.73 The first, permanent, American settler here was Julius
Martin, who arrived in 1843 with his wife and children.74 More settlers did not arrive until after the gold rush had
begun, which brought more travelers through on the main road, El Camino Real. Martin also won some success at
72 Munro-Fraser, 1881: 281.
73 Munro-Fraser, 1881: 278-279
74 Munro-Fraser, 1881: 276
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 25 July 2020
the mines and in 1850, purchased 1,220 acres from John Gilroy on Rancho San Ysidro, just west of Llagas Creek.75
New waves of American settlers came to San Ysidro, but renamed it Gilroy after John Gilroy. Small residential homes
were built along the main road, including some later residencies of brick, constructed by bricklayer Horace Willson.
Between 1854 and 1859. San Ysidro was renamed Gilroy and then “Old Gilroy” when New Gilroy was incorporated
as a town in 1868. It remained a separate, unincorporated town throughout this period.76
New Gilroy
Settlement in New Gilroy began with the construction of Julius Martin’s wood frame home just west of Llagas Creek
in 1850. Early settlers were mostly American and built homes in support of the inn and hotel businesses that served
the travelers on El Camino Real. Homes were typically wood frame structures, and were established along El Camino
Real (later Monterey Road) and just off the main road. Though side streets were established in this period, they
were not formalized until Gilroy was incorporated as a town in 1868.77
Commercial Development
Prior to the formal founding of the town of Gilroy in 1868, there were few commercial businesses in New Gilroy and
San Ysidro (Old Gilroy). As mentioned before, James Houck’s inn, established in 1850 was the first recorded
business in the area, and was set up to serve the travelers along El Camino Real. Just two years later, other
businesses that might be categorized as roadside services were established: Lucien Everett’s dry goods store
(1852), David Holloway’s blacksmith shop (1853), and Eli Reynold’s saddlery (1853). In the winter of 1853-1854,
Holloway also established a formal, 2-story hotel, with a saloon and eatery (Figure 4). As more settlers were
attracted to the area, businesses shifted from mostly traveler-oriented services, to services to benefit the settlers
at New Gilroy. As Gilroy grew, businesses along Monterey Road/El Camino Real began to include offices, saloons,
groceries, furniture stores, and general merchandise stores.78
75 Munro-Fraser, 1881: 277
76 Gilroy Dispatch. “San Ysidro Settled First.” (Gilroy, CA: Gilroy Dispatch, 1970), December 21, 1970
77 Munro-Fraser 1881: 279-281.
78 Munro-Fraser 1881: 280; Sawyer 1922: 292.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 26 July 2020
Figure 4. David Holloway’s Hotel, circa 1855 (Clyde Arbuckle Photograph Collection, San José Public Library,
California Room)
Civic and Institutional Development
Though Gilroy did not have an established government until 1868, some government services were available in the
Pioneer Period. According to most sources, the first Post Office in Gilroy (New Gilroy) was established in 1851, by
the hanging of a mailbox at James Houck’s residence. Prior to an order by Congress in 1857, mail services were
privately contracted and not guaranteed by law. The U.S. Postal Service began to guarantee mail service in California
in 1858, contracting with John Butterfield of the Butterfield Overland Mail Company that operated from 1858-1961.
Gilroy was along the Southern Route, also called the Butterfield Line, which advertised delivery from St. Louis to
San Francisco in fifteen days. The Overland Mail Company’s contract was guaranteed by an authorization by
Congress in 1857, specifically for this route, to better connect the disparate coasts of the country. After 1857, one
of the mail stations was managed by David Holloway from his home at Gilroy, on the east side of Monterey Road
between Lewis Street and Martin’s Lane. The other nearest mail stations along the route were at Pacheco Pass and
north in San José. Gilroy was also the home station and junction point for other mail routes for the state including
the Inland Route and the Coast Route.79
79 Roscoe P. Conkling and Margaret B. Conkling. The Butterfield Overland Mail 1857-1869. Volume 1. (Glendale, CA: Arthur H. Clark
Company, 1947): 129
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 27 July 2020
Transportation Infrastructure
El Camino Real (“the Royal Highway”), now Monterey Road, was a major transportation route, which linked Spanish
Missions, presidio outposts, and pueblos in the eighteenth century (Figure 5). The segment of El Camino Real that
passed through Gilroy facilitated all travel between Spanish California capital Monterey and the northern Spanish
and later Mexican and American establishments: San José, Sonoma, the northern Missions, and Sutter’s Fort. In
1822, the previously closed California was opened to trade by Mexico, and Monterey became a major port and
banking center for the region. As a result, El Camino Real brought regular foot and horse traffic through San Ysidro
in the Spanish period and was frequented by traders, travelers, and settlers after 1822. San Ysidro’s role in this
capacity was one of the stops that were no more than a day’s ride apart between Monterey and San José. In the
Pioneer Period, El Camino Real became a stage road and stops along it were often noted by mile marker (e.g. the
Morgan Hill stop was the “21-Mile House”). In the Mexican period, the Ortega rancho and John Gilroy’s home was
a stop called San Ysidro. In the early Pioneer Period, James Houck’s redwood house and inn was one of these stops.
The business from El Camino Real arguably brought the first businesses to San Ysidro/Old Gilroy: blacksmiths,
stables, hotels, stand stores. Consistent flooding a Llagas Creek, however, eventually prompted the realignment of
El Camino Real further west to pass through New Gilroy.80
80 Munro-Fraser 1881: 280, 272
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 28 July 2020
Figure 5. El Camino Real route as drawn by Mabel Emerton Prentiss, 1903 (UCLA Library Special Collections)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 29 July 2020
Pacheco Pass Road intersected El Camino Real and facilitated foot and horse traffic traveling east from Santa Clara
Valley to San Joaquin Valley, today called the Central Valley. It was originally surveyed by Lieutenant Gabriel Moraga
in 1805. The road became a toll road in 1854, after Andrew W. Firebaugh built a road through the pass over the
next four years. Firebaugh’s Pacheco Pass Turnpike Company organized in 1858, about the same time Butterfield
overland mail routes were being confirmed. The intersection of Pacheco Pass Road and El Camino Real at Gilroy is
often credited as the reason why Gilroy’s location was so successful.81
Agriculture, Industry, and Manufacturing
In the Spanish and Mexican periods, agricultural practice in the Gilroy region was dominated by cattle and horse
raising by the Spanish, and later Mexican rancheros. After Mexico gained California in 1822, the Mexican
government began to secularize the Mission lands, dividing each mission’s agricultural lands among political
favorites and military personnel as ranchos. Ranchos operated independently with the ruling family controlling
money and hiring a few skilled vaqueros to manage the day-to-day management of cattle. Cattle and stock raising
would remain a major economic driver in the region until a major drought in 1864.82
As more Anglo-American settlers arrived in the areas in the late 1840s and 1850s, wheat, dairy, dried fruits, wine,
brandy, and tobacco grew as popular agricultural products of the Gilroy area. Prominent dairymen include the Rea
family, the Reeve Brothers, Sargent & Butterfield, Donnelly & Laughlin, Bryant, Ellis, Watson, Rowland, Zuck, Dexter,
Doan, Eschenburg, Maze, A. Wilson, Davis & Cole, E.A. Davidson, and Henry Miller’s Bloomfield Ranch. Early grain
mills such as Julius Martin’s small grain mill at San Ysidro and J.M. Browne’s mill in Gilroy provided the first
processing centers for grain in 1844 and 1852 respectively. In 1859, J.D. Culp moved to Gilroy and by 1862 erected
a tobacco factory just two miles outside of Gilroy, when this factory burnt down, Culp built another in 1869 located
in the City of Gilroy, at Fourth Street between Church and Rosanna Streets.83
81 Dill et al. 2003: 14; Patricia Loomis. “Signposts: Old Indian Pass.” San Jose News, October 29, 1971. Copy held by the Gilroy
Historical Museum;. Conkling and Conkling 1947: 296-297.
82 Munro-Fraser, 1881: 272.
83 Munro-Fraser, 1881: 272; Gilroy Dispatch. “Dairy Industry Once a Major Gilroy Business.” Gilroy Dispatch. December 21, 1970. On
file at the Gilroy Historical Museum; Gilroy Dispatch. “Early Settlers Turn to Agriculture.” Gilroy Dispatch. December 21,
1970;“Tobacco Culture in Gilroy and the Consolidated Tobacco Company.” No date. From the Tobacco Subject File at the Gilroy
Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 30 July 2020
4.4 Initial Development (1868-1904)
The town site of Gilroy was officially surveyed by Dr. David Huber, at the request of real estate firm Zuck, Rogers &
Hoover in 1868. On February 18th, 1868 the Town of Gilroy was officially incorporated under California’s Act for the
Incorporation of Towns (1856) law (Figure 6). Approximately one month later, the first officials of the town were
elected: trustees, a treasurer, assessor, marshal and town clerk.84 The city limits after incorporation were recorded
as:
Beginning at a point situated south twenty degrees east forty-six chains from the center of Monterey
Street[sic]85 where the South side of Bodfish Street intersects the same, said point of beginning
being in the center of Monterey Street[sic]; thence running westerly and at right angles to Monterey
Street[sic] forty chains;86 thence northerly, and parallel to said Monterey Street, and in a straight
line, one hundred and ten chains; thence easterly and at right angles to the last-mentioned line,
eighty chains; thence southerly, and at right angles to the last-mentioned line, one hundred and
ten chains; and westerly at right angles, to the place of beginning.87
The town’s incorporation also involved the re-designation of earlier street names from older names to numbered
streets (e.g., renamed Sargent Street to 1st Street). New streets were also opened, including sections of Eigleberry
Street and Farman (6th) Street.88 Because of the new layout, a business district was focused along Monterey Road
to take advantage of proximity to the railroad and stage traffic along the established road to Monterey and San
José. Residential development took place west of downtown initially, along Eigleberry, Church, Rosanna, and Hanna
Streets, but there was also settlement east of Monterey along Alexander Street and Forest Street. The new town
charter called for wide roads, tree plantings, and wide, covered sidewalks along Monterey Road.89
84 Eugene T. Sawyer. History of Santa Clara County, California. (Los Angeles, Ca: Historic Record Company, 1922): 292.
85 In this initial document, and some historical documents the road is referred to as “Monterey Street.” In some other documents,
the road is also referred to as Monterey Road and Monterey Avenue. For consistency, the author has chosen to call this road
“Monterey Road” to avoid any confusion, and for consistency with the modern designation.
86 One chain is equal to 66 feet; 80 chains is equal to one mile; therefore Gilroy’s 1868 boundaries, as established, were one mile
wide from west to east, and 1.375 miles long from north to south, bisected from north to south down its center by Monterey Street.
87 J.P. Munro-Fraser. History of Santa Clara County, California; Including its Geography, Geology, Topography, Climatography and
Description. (San Francisco, CA: Alley Bowen & Co, Publishers, 1881): 282.
88 Munro-Fraser 1881: 283.
89 Ibid.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 31 July 2020
Figure 6. City of Gilroy town map, by Thompson & West, 1876 (David Rumsey Map Collection)
After the town’s official designation, the Santa Clara & Pajaro Railroad (SC&PRR) was extended from San José to
Gilroy. The entire town and a brass band turned out for the arrival of the first passenger train to Gilroy, marking the
beginning of sustained economic and population growth in Gilroy, and the ability to ship goods to and from San
José and beyond. In early 1870, the Southern Pacific Railroad Company (SPRR) purchased the SC&PRR.90 .
Southern Pacific opened an official depot in Gilroy as well, on land acquired by Zuck, Rogers & Hoover. Nearby
farms either had their own sidings along the new rail line, such as Henry Miller’s cattle loading stop three miles
south of town, or brought their crops to Gilroy for loading and shipping.91
With town lots for sale and the railroad coming through town, Gilroy’s downtown business district core was ready
for growth. In 1868, Adam Riehl and Jacob Reither established the Gilroy Brewery.92 The brewery would change
owners, but remain in operation until 1919, when Prohibition was passed.93 With the railroad and a depot came
travelers, and as a result several hotels were established along Monterey Road between 1869 and 1872. These
were located across from the railroad depot, and north along Monterey Road. Some of these hotels and boarding
90 CIRCA. Historic Context Statement for the City of Morgan Hill. Prepared for the City of Morgan Hill. (San Francisco, CA: CIRCA
Historic Property Development, 2006): 36; Gilroy Evening Dispatch. “Gilroy Celebrates Arrival of the Railroad in 1869.” (Gilroy, CA:
The Gilroy Evening Dispatch, 1969a). January 10, 1969, pg. 7A; Gilroy Dispatch. “Railroad Opens Up New Era.” (Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy
Dispatch, 1970). December 21, 1970
91 Ibid.
92 Both men would go on to serve as mayor of Gilroy. Adam Riehl in 1878-1880, and Jacob Reither for two terms from 1882-1886
93 Richard Barretta. N.D. Fifty Years of Beer: the Gilroy Brewery. (Gilroy, CA: Gilroy Historical Society, no date)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 32 July 2020
houses did not come with food, so eateries were also opened along Monterey Road. 94 Church congregations that
had previously met in houses or smaller buildings took the opportunity to build larger, official buildings, or relocate
to more prominent lots in town.95 Like churches, both public and private schools emerged from people’s homes
and one-room schoolhouses into more formal settings in the first years of the town.96
Other notable beginnings were the establishment of the Gilroy Advocate newspaper in 1869 by G.M. Hanson and
C.F. Macy. Another start-up was the William Hanna lumber mill on Church Street (1869) and the Gilroy Wagon and
Blacksmith shop (1869) opened on Monterey Road. Though not the first for the community, a third cemetery for
Gilroy citizens was established north of town on 25 acres land donated by Henry Miller in 1870; this consisted of
20 acres for a plotted cemetery and 5 acres for a potter’s field. The location of the town’s first cemetery is debated,
as it was built over and all buried there relocated, and the second was located at or near St. Mary’s Church.97
Between 6th and 9th Streets Chinese immigrants were concentrated in an informal Chinatown settlement. Prior to
the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which stifled immigration, many Chinese immigrants in Gilroy were employed as
seasonal agricultural workers, and others in year-round professions often associated with Chinese immigrants:
gardeners, cooks, and launderers (Figure 7).98
Figure 7. Gilroy’s Chinatown, 1896 (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical Museum)
94 Elizabeth Barratt. “Gilroy Gets Its First Hotels.” The Pinnacle: Yesterday & Today. (Gilroy CA: Elizabeth R. Barratt, 2003): 1-4.
95 Gilroy Evening Dispatch. “Religion Plays Prominent Role in Early Gilroy.” (Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy Evening Dispatch, 1969b). January
10, 1969, pg. 11A
96 Gilroy Dispatch. “Schools Grow From Modest Start into Unified District.” (Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy Dispatch, 1970). December 21
1970; Eugene F. Rogers. Gilroy School History: A Short Sketch of the Past and Present of the Gilroy Schools 1853-1888. Publisher
unknown, pamphlet held by California Historical Society (1888)
97 Sawyer 1922: 117; Munro-Fraser 1881: 285, 302; Cemetery History in Gilroy. No Date. Cemetery Subject File. Gilroy Historical
Museum
98 Sam Shueh. Images of America: South Santa Clara County. (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2008): 60-62.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 33 July 2020
In March 1870, an act was passed by the state legislature incorporating Gilroy as “City of Gilroy”, endowing it with
a mayor, tax collector, marshal, and city council.99 This was quickly followed by the incorporation of utilities such as
the Pacific Pneumatic Gas Company’s subsidiary, the Gilroy Gas Company (1870), Gilroy Water Company (1871),
the Fire Department (1872), and a new jail (1872). Despite the positive growth, the official recognition prompted
Henry Miller, owner of the Bloomfield Ranch and prominent California cattle man and developer, to dispute land
rights in Gilroy. The dispute over land rights was a hindrance to City growth. Individual partitions and boundaries
within Rancho Las Animas had not been officially filed with the state, making the boundaries set in land titles within
the city difficult to enforce. In 1871, Henry Miller filed a complaint against the 1,032 claimants to the Las Animas
Rancho, including the entire town of Gilroy (Henry Miller et. al. versus Massey Thomas et. al.). As a result of the
complaint, County Surveyor Herrmann surveyed and “set off” each owner’s interest in the land tract, and new
construction during this period was minimal until the issue of ownership was resolved.100
While the survey carried on, Santa Clara County suffered a damaging flood in 1872, and the effects of the
nationwide Depression were felt in 1873 and 1874.101 The town of Gilroy suffered three fires in one season in
1874, despite the urging for new fire equipment by the city Fire Chief. As a result, the mid-1870s saw sporadic
development along Monterey Road. The Gilroy Music Hall (later called the Opera House and the Armory) was erected
in 1874 (Figure 8).102 In 1878, the Gilroy Brewery built a brick building on Monterey Road, despite a saloon license
tax meant to discourage drinking passed the previous year.103 By 1880, the population of Gilroy had reached 1,621.
In 1883, the City bought the previously privately-owned Gilroy Water Works and began distributing their own water.
In 1886, the telegraph, a new utility, was introduced to Gilroy when Western Union received a permit to erect poles
and lines around Gilroy. The same year, Miller’s land dispute was settled and the town began to build new
buildings.104
99 California State Legislature. “Chapter 180: An Act To Incorporate the City of Gilroy.” The Statutes of California Passed at the
Eighteenth Session of the Legislature 1869-1870. (Sacramento, CA: D.W. Gelwicks, state printer, 1870)
100 Sawyer 1922: 292; Munro-Fraser 1881: 285-290.
101 The Long Depression began with the Panic of 1873 and lasted until 1879, and the economy remained relatively unstable until
1901; L.L. Paulson. Handbook and Directory of Santa Clara, San Benito, Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Mateo Counties . (San
Francisco, CA: L. L. Paulson, 1875) :23
102 Sacramento Daily Union. 1874. “City Intelligence: Incorporation.” )Riverside, CA: UCR California Digital Newspaper Collection, The
Sacramento Daily Union): April 7, 1874, pg. 3.
103 Munro-Fraser 1881: 290, 301; Foote, 1888: 203; San Jose Mercury Herald. “Ancient Gilroy Armory, Music Hall Goes Into Limbo
After 70 Years of Service.” (San Jose, CA: The San Jose Mercury-Herald., 1940): November 17, 1940, pg. 16.
104 Sawyer 1922: 292; Gilroy Dispatch. “Miller Plays Role in Town’s Development.” (Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy Dispatch, 1970). December
21, 1970; Phil Cox. Notes “Compiled from Gilroy City Council Minutes.” (Gilroy, CA: City of Gilroy City Clerk’s Office, N.D.)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 34 July 2020
Figure 8. Looking west on 5th Street, Music Hall on left, early 1900s (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical
Museum)
In the late 1880s, the downtown core was centered along Monterey Road between 4th Street and 7th Street, with
residential buildings on large lots on the surrounding streets (Figure 9). Up until this decade, Gilroy and the entire
South Santa Clara County area were dominated by agricultural industry. While cattle and dairying were the primary
agricultural industries, J.D. Culp’s tobacco farm and processing plant was also a significant agricultural enterprise.
However, in the 1870s an agricultural expansion began with the introduction of fruit orchards, and by the 1880s
fruit processing plants were established in Gilroy. Two of these plants were the Gilroy Fruit Packing Company (1888)
and the South Santa Clara Fruit Drying and Packing Company (circa 1890). The companies shipped stable fruits,
but also began drying soft and stone fruits such as raisins, prunes, and apricots for sale to the eastern states.105
Despite the expansion of the agricultural economic system in the 1880s, population growth still showed only a
marginal increase: from 1,621 in 1880 to 1,694 in 1890. Another utility was added in 1890: the Gilroy Telephone
Company, which erected poles and lines throughout the city. In the 1890s, the city turned towards its younger
citizens and the Daughters of Rebekah, a branch of the local Independent Order of Odd Fellows (I.O.O.F.)
organization, opened a children’s home in 1897.106 The next year the City of Gilroy opened bidding for a public high
school in a separate building.107
After these initial growing pains, and settling of utilities, schools, businesses and industries, Gilroy was ready to
begin a period of civic and economic expansion. In 1900, the population reached 1,820 and the city began again
to experience sustained growth. City Council adopted a resolution to fund a new City Hall building that included a
jail and courtroom. Around the city, local farmers and fruit growers joined the California Cured Fruit Association. In
105 Foote 1888: 340
106 Cox N.D.: 9; San Francisco Call. “Plans for the New Orphanage.” (San Francisco, CA: The San Francisco Call), January 16, 1897,
pg. 9
107 San Francisco Call. “Gilroy’s New High School.” (San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Call, 1898) April 9, 1898.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 35 July 2020
1902, another fruit packing plant was opened in Gilroy by Dunlap Realty & Produce Company, on land leased from
Henry Miller along the SPRR line.108
Figure 9. Birds eye view of Gilroy by F.W. Blake. 1885 (Bancroft Library, University of California Berkeley)
108 San Francisco Call. “Join the Fruit Association.” (San Francisco, CA: The San Francisco Call), March 14, 1900, pg. 9; San
Francisco Call. “Packing Plant for Gilroy.” (San Francisco, CA: The San Francisco Call), April 26, 1902, pg. 9.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 36 July 2020
4.4.1 Residential Development
Residential growth in this period was minimal. The overall population grew from 1,625 in 1870 to 1,820 in 1900.109
Minor additions were made to the city in the first decade after incorporation. These mostly comprised of large
residential lots subdivided by landowners that preceded the founding of the town such as Lewis Addition and Zuck
& Rogers Additions made on the east side of the SPRR tracks, while the Eigleberry Addition and Zuck, Rogers &
Hoover Additions were responsible for expanding the residential streets west of Monterey Road. Additions by Henry
Miller, Thomas P. Thomas, and J.P. Sargent in the 1870s and 1880s also free up residential, development allowing
more room for the small town to grow.110
According to the earliest Sanborn maps from 1886 and 1892, in the Initial Development Period (1868-1904),
residential development in this period typically consisted of a wood-frame 1 and 2-story dwellings and associated
outbuildings (outhouse, shed, stables) (Figure 10). In 1886, the western extent of town was at Hanna Street, the
southern extent was 7th Street, the northern extent was roughly at 3rd Street, but some sparse residences were
located as far north as 1st Street and the eastern boundary of settlement was Railroad Street.111 By the 1892 map,
residential settlement had expanded north to Broadway Street, South to 9th Street, and east to Chestnut Street.112
109 Bay Area Census. “City of Gilroy, Santa Clara County.” Accessed December 6, 2018.
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/Gilroy50.htm#1940 ; Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission. “Santa Clara
County Heritage Resource Inventory.” (San Jose, CA: SCC Historical Heritage Commission, 1979), pg. 63-66
110 Thompson & West. “City of Gilroy.” Map published in Historical Atlas Map of Santa Clara County. (San Francisco, CA: Thompson &
West, 1876) Accessed December 1, 2018. http://www.davidrumsey.com/maps33.html
111 Sanborn Map Company. “Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Gilroy, Santa Clara County, California.” Map. 5 sheets. (Sanborn Map Company,
August 1886). Accessed August 14, 2018. https://www.loc.gov/item/sanborn00566_001/
112 Sanborn Map Company. “Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Gilroy, Santa Clara County, California.” Map. 11 sheets. (Sanborn
Map Company, May 1892). Accessed August 14, 2018. https://www.loc.gov/item/sanborn00566_002/
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 37 July 2020
Figure 10. 1886 (left) and 1892 (right) Sanborn Fire Insurance maps of residential neighborhood just west of
Monterey Road. (Bancroft Library, University of California Berkeley)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 38 July 2020
4.4.2 Commercial Development
Just before and after the official incorporation of Gilroy, the downtown core established along Monterey Road,
concentrated between 4th and 7th Streets, with some businesses, hotels, churches, fraternal organization
clubhouses, and municipal buildings off of the main road on the side streets.113 In the earliest Sanborn, six
distinctive hotels,114 several saloons, the brewery, the Smith Bros. Flour Mill, and restaurants crowd Monterey Road
between 6th and 7th Streets.115 Between 5th and 6th Street, businesses along Monterey Road consisted of banks,
general merchandise, groceries, cobblers, clothiers (tailors, seamstresses, and millenaries), doctor’s offices,
barbers, livery and feed stores, and at least five saloons (Figure 11). Between 4th and 5th Streets, the buildings
transition from continuous blocks to individual buildings, but still contained groceries, saloons, a hotel, as well as
some intermixed dwellings, the Masonic Hall, some wagon shops, paint and tin shops, and hardware stores. These
buildings seemed to be mostly of wood frame construction, with occasional brick buildings according to the 1886
Sanborn.116 By the 1892 Sanborn map, Monterey Road gained a few more brick buildings, but was still dominated
by wood frame buildings.117
Off Monterey Road, a few large-scale businesses dominated the side streets. Between Church and Rosanna Streets
at 6th Street was the Gilroy Lumber and Planing Mill, originally started by William Hanna in 1869, but subsequently
owned by Whitehurst & Hodges in the 1880s. Along 6th Street, between Monterey and Church Streets, there were
a few mills, a wheelwright, a blacksmith shop, and several carpenters, all occupying stone buildings.118
113 “Commercial Building Survey.” Held by the Gilroy Historical Museum, 1985.
114 According to the 1886 Sanborn map these include the Gilroy Hotel, Swiss Hotel, Southern Pacific Hotel, and Union Hotel, the
William Tell Hotel and the Helvetia Hotel
115 Elizabeth Barratt. “Gilroy Gets Its First Hotels.” The Pinnacle: Yesterday & Today. (Gilroy Ca: Elizabeth R. Barratt, 2003): 1-4.
116 Sanborn 1886.
117 Sanborn 1892
118 Sanborn 1886; Patricia Loomis. “Hanna’s a Name Always Important in Gilroy.” (San Jose, CA: The San Jose Mercury, 1977),
December 7, 1977, pg, 30.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 39 July 2020
Figure 11. Stationer’s storefront on 7400 block of Monterey Road, 1880 (Photograph Collection, Gilroy
Historical Museum)
Hotels were of particular importance and abundance in Gilroy’s early years, and influenced where the city’s
downtown commercial core would be located. With the arrival of the railroad in 1869, several hotels opened
between 1869 and 1870. The arrival of the SPRR line and depot brought recreational traffic through Gilroy
beginning in 1869. The Williams Hotel and Exchange Stage Hotel were the first to be established in 1869, opening
on Monterey Road in close proximity to the SPRR depot. The next to open was the Gilroy Hotel at a new location at
6th Street and Monterey Road (1870). The Idaho Hotel opened in late 1870 opposite the SPRR Depot, with a saloon
and serving male travelers only.119 In 1871, the Railroad House opened on the neighboring lot. Two hotels stood
out as the fine establishments of Gilroy: the Williams Hotel (1869) and the Hanna House (1870), later the American
Hotel and eventually replaced by the Southern Pacific Hotel) which were both several stories, 40+ rooms apiece,
and billed as particularly fine accommodations.120 Hotels typically did not offer meal services, except at the more
upscale establishments, and saloons and restaurants such as the Eagle Chop House (1869) and T.N. Killey’s
119 Barratt 2003: 1-4.
120 H. Coffin. Gilroy as a Home: Its Geography, Climate, Location, Soil, Productions, and Institutions. (Gilroy, CA: Advocate Book and
Job Printing Office, 1873): 22-23
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 40 July 2020
Restaurant (1869) on Monterey Road opened as a result. Hotels also offered stage services to nearby towns and
to the Gilroy Hot Springs and Hotel (1864), a local resort nearly 15 miles from town limits.121
Other notable businesses established in the Initial Development Period (1868-1904) are the Gilroy newspapers.
The Gilroy Advocate, a weekly newspaper, was founded in 1867, operating from the second story offices above
Hall’s Clothing Store at 6th Street and Monterey Road as of 1868. Opening just a few years after the Civil War’s
Conclusion, the newspaper openly declared themselves a Union Republican Party-affiliated paper. Gilroy Advocate
was followed by the California Weekly Leader (1869) and the Enterprise (1871), a semi-weekly paper, in 1869. A
short-lived paper, the Gilroy Union operated from 1869-1872. The Enterprise became the Gilroy Telegram in 1870,
and then promptly closed after the 1872 political campaign, leaving only the conservative Gilroy Advocate paper.
As Gilroy grew more liberal, The Valley Record, another weekly paper opened in 1881, but changed its name in
1885 after a sale to the Gilroy Gazette. The Gilroy Advocate remained the principal conservative paper in town, but
the Gilroy Gazette became a more liberal-leaning paper as the nineteenth century drew to a close.122
4.4.3 Civic and Institutional Development
Gilroy established its government in 1868 after the official town incorporation. This afforded for a board of trustees,
a treasurer, assessor, marshal and town clerk.123 The first “mayor” of Gilroy was William Gill Mills, who had been
serving as president of the trustees prior to 1870.124 Elections were originally held annually, but after 1872, The
City of Gilroy transitioned to biennial elections.125 Many important business owners and influential landowners
would hold the role of mayor in the Initial Development Period (1868-1904). In the 1870 election, John M. Browne
was the first elected mayor, a dry goods shop owner and grain miller. He was succeeded by Volney Howard.126
William Furlong, a dairyman and landowner, succeeded Howard in 1874, then by William Hanna, owner of the
lumber mill on Church Street, in 1876. In 1878 Adam Riehl, the owner of the Gilroy Brewery, was elected mayor,
then John G. Otto in 1880, and Jacob Reither, another owner of the Gilroy Brewery in 1882.127 Reither served two
terms, and was succeeded by Thomas Rea, a dairyman, in 1886. Rea was followed by Louis Loupe in 1888 who
also served two terms. In 1892, Lyttleton A. Whitehurst, owner of the Whitehurst & Hodges Lumber Mill was elected
mayor, followed by Michael Casey in 1894. Heverland Rogers Chesbro, a prominent doctor, was elected Mayor in
1898, served three terms, and was succeeded by George Dunlap in 1904.128
Other than the establishment of the Gilroy town government, established in 1868, and altered when incorporated
as a city in 1870, Gilroy quickly established three utilities to serve residents: a Fire Department, a Water Company,
and a Gas Company. These services began as private entities with some city council oversight, and in the initial
period of development operated independently. The Gilroy Water Company (also known as Gilroy Water Works) was
given the City’s contract of supplying water in August 1870. The company built a dam on Uvas Creek and transported
water via flume to the city, then stored it in tanks, until it was supplied to customers via pipes. The Gilroy Gas
Company was a branch established in 1871 by the Pacific Pneumatic Gas Company of San Francisco. Gas was
stored at a warehouse on Railroad Street, and piped to customers. The Gilroy fire services ran on a volunteer basis
121 Barratt 2003: 3; Coffin 1873: 30-31.
122 Shortridge, 1895: 62; Foote, 1888: 106; Michael E. Melone. “Gilroy’s First Newspaper: The Advocate.” The Californian. Volume
12, No. 3. (Santa Clara, CA: California History Center Foundation, De Anza College, 1991): pgs. 6-9.
123 Sawyer 1922: 291
124 Cox, N.D.: 1-2.
125 Harrison, 1888: 7
126 Arbuckle, 1970: 4; Cox, N.D.: 4.
127 Arbuckle, 1970: 4; Cox, N.D.: 6-7.
128 Arbuckle, 1970: 4; Cox, N.D.: 10-11.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 41 July 2020
for the first two years, 1869 to 1871. The first organized fire company in Gilroy was the Eureka Hook & Ladder
Company, organized in 1871. It merged with the Neptune Hose Company in 1879 and operated from a building on
Monterey and 5th street.129 The City of Gilroy eventually attempted to purchase its other privately owned utilities. In
1882, the City tried to buy the Gilroy Water Company after a too-high water bill. Voters approved the purchase in
1883. After the purchase, Gilroy was the second city in the state to own its own water utility. The City of Gilroy voters
approved bonds in 1889 to improve the purchased water system and build cisterns within town limits. 130
In 1886, the Western Union Telegraph Company was granted permission to erect poles and string wires, connecting
Gilroy to San José. Poles were initially limited to Monterey Road when first constructed, but eventually branched
onto some side streets near the downtown core (Figure 12).131 In 1890, Western Union was followed by the Gilroy
Telephone Company, which received permission to erect separate poles and were contracted as a franchise for 25
years.132 In 1891, F.W. Swanton of Santa Cruz had an electric light franchise approved by the Council, and received
a 50-year franchise. Another utility, the Gilroy Gas Light Company also applied for a franchise with the city council
in 1899. The Gilroy Gas Light Company was eventually purchased by the city in 1902, buying out the franchise, and
again owning its utilities.133
Figure 12. Looking north on Monterey Road, with utility poles, 1895 (Shortridge 1895)
129 Munro-Fraser, 1881: 300-301; Coffin 1873: 28-29;
130 Cox, N.D.: 7-8
131 Cox, N.D.: 8.
132 Cox, N.D.: 9.
133 Cox, N.D.: 11.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 42 July 2020
The First Schools
The earliest account of a school was an unchartered schoolhouse, east of town, opened in 1853. The location
supposedly moved to Monterey Road, however, early Gilroy school records prior to 1867 were destroyed in a fire so
this could not be confirmed. In 1868, the building that was being used for a school was determined to be too small,
and an official, chartered public school was to be opened by the Gilroy Trustees (later the City Council). A new
building was funded and opened in 1869, and enlarged in 1873. Both the grammar school and high school
occupied this building until 1898 (Figure 13). In 1898, Gilroy’s first separate public high school building was built
on Church Street between 3rd and 4th Streets. By 1875, the school began accepting non-local students for a tuition
fee, and was again determined to be too small. The City Council and voters agreed to levy a tax to fund necessary
additions to the school.134
Figure 13. Gilroy Public School, 1893 (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical Museum)
Gilroy also had several private schools in its earliest years. In 1867, Sarah Severance opened a girl’s seminary and
boarding school, which operated until 1885.135 The Convent of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic School,
located one mile north of the center of town on Broadway and Monterey Road, opened in 1870. The Catholic School
took local girls and boys as well as boarders, and taught gender-separated classes. A private high school was
opened in 1872, and operated at the Methodist Episcopal Church—South until 1876 when it became a public
school. 136 By 1873, the town boasted four private schools, and primary schools were turning away students. In
1877, a new grammar school was organized and high school started, both housed in the Gilroy Public School
building built in 1875.137
134 Gilroy Dispatch, 1970; Rogers1888: 2-7;Sawyer 1922: 1138.
135 Gilroy Dispatch, 1970.
136 Rogers 1888: 9.
137 Gilroy Dispatch, 1970.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 43 July 2020
Churches
Though several churches had already established congregations in the Gilroy area at the beginning of the Initial
Development Period (1868-1904), the official establishment of the town of Gilroy marked a move to more
permanent buildings for the various religious denominations in Gilroy (Figure 14). For example the first Protestant
church met in W.R. Bane’s home, beginning in 1852. The Methodist Episcopal Church South was organized in 1853
and met for its first years in people’s homes. Its first building, built in 1855, was eventually razed and its permanent
church building was built in 1872. The Methodist Episcopal Church North was organized 1857 and moved from
meeting in private homes to its first official church building in 1872. The Christian (Campbellite) Church of Gilroy
was organized 1855 and met in a one-room church on 3rd Street built in 1857. The Christian Church moved the
building into its permanent location at Eigleberry Street and 5th Street location in 1887. The Presbyterian Church
was organized 1860, and its first building built 1869. The Catholic congregation first met at St. Martin’s Church,
erected in 1855, located north of Gilroy in what is now the town of San Martin. However, the Catholic congregation
living in Gilroy soon established its own church on Martin Murphy’s ranch lands, building St. Mary’s near Monterey
Road and Broadway in 1865 and adding a convent and school in 1870.138
Figure 14. Gilroy churches, 1895 (Shortridge 1895)
138 Gilroy Evening Dispatch. “Religion Plays Prominent Role in Early Gilroy.” (Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy Evening Dispatch, 1969b). January
10, 1969, pg. 11A; John T. Dwyer, rev. “St. Mary’s First Century.” In St. Mary’s Church (Gilroy, CA: St. Mary’s Church, 1965): 25;
Munro-Fraser 1881: 291-295.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 44 July 2020
Fraternal and Benevolent Organizations
Though churches did provide for portion of the social lives of Gilroy’s citizens, fraternal organizations, benevolent
societies, and social clubs provided opportunities for citizens of Gilroy to meet and engage in social activity as well
as socially beneficial programs for the poor or disadvantaged, widows and orphaned children, funeral and burial
services, integration of immigrant groups, and strengthening social and political bonds. Fraternal lodges and social
group clubhouses were also venues for entertainment, political groups, and speakers. Many fraternal organizations
founded their Gilroy chapters in the Initial Development Period (1868-1904).139
The first recorded fraternal organization to officially be established in Gilroy was the Free and Accepted Masons
(Freemasons), which chartered the Keith Lodge No. 187 in 1868. An earlier attempt to establish a Freemasons
lodge in 1862 was unsuccessful, and dissolved by 1864. The original Masonic Lodge building was built in 1869
and another built at Monterey and Lewis Streets in 1902, designed by master architect William H. Weeks.140
The Independent Order of Odd Fellows (I.O.O.F.) Gilroy Lodge 154 was founded in 1869. The first I.O.O.F. hall was
established on Monterey Road and Martin Street in 1869 (Figure 15). When this hall was demolished, another
would be built on Eigleberry Street in 1954. The women’s branch of I.O.O.F., called the Rebekahs, also played a
prominent in Gilroy’s history. The Unity Rebekah Lodge No. 24 was established in 1870. In 1897, Caroline Hoxett,
president of the Rebekahs, successfully lobbied to have the Children’s Home of Northern California established at
Gilroy. The orphanage, then called the I.O.O.F Childrens’ Home, opened in 1897 with five children receiving services.
The I.O.O.F and the Freemasons also collaborated to open a cemetery along Bodfish Road (Hecker Pass Road), on
land purchased from Henry Miller, in 1873.141
Figure 15. First I.O.O.F. Hall, no date (Gilroy Historical Museum)
139 Elizabeth Barratt. “Early Fraternal and Benevolent Societies Played Large Role.” The Pinnacle: Yesterday & Today. (Gilroy, CA:
Elizabeth Barratt, 2005): 1
140 Cox N.D. 10; Munro-Fraser 1881: 300; Barratt 2005: 1
141 Cox N.D. 10; Munro-Fraser 1881: 300; Barratt 2005: 2; Rebekah Children’s Services. “Our History.” (Accessed March 26, 2019).
http://www.rcskids.org/about/history; Cemetery History in Gilroy. No Date. Cemetery Subject File. Gilroy Historical Museum; San
Francisco Call 189; This cemetery is not to be confused with another cemetery, also purchased from Henry Miller in 1870.,
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 45 July 2020
The Gilroy’s Ladies Benevolent Society (G.L.B.S.) was founded in 1867 and met at the Temperance Hall on Martin
Street (1868). Incorporated in 1872 and funded mostly by donations, the G.L.B.S. raised funds for needy families,
occasionally even going so far as to finding housing for homeless families. A large bequest of property in 1876
secured housing and future funding for the group which lasted well into the 20th century.142
Other clubs and societies founded during this period included: the Ancient Order of United Workmen, a Grange, the
Columbia Lodge of the International Lodge of Good Templars, the Ancient Order of Hibernarians, the Blue Ribbon
Club, and the Knights of Pythias. The Columbia Lodge was founded in 1874 with ten members and met at member’s
homes. Grange No. 168 was also founded in 1874, and later re-established in 1922 as the Gilroy Grange No. 398.
The Ancient Order of United Workmen (A.O.U.W.) was chartered in 1878 and met at the Freemason Lodge. This
group established as a life insurance group and members had to undergo a medical examination to qualify for the
policy. The Ancient Order of Hibernarians, Division No. 3 was also organized in 1878 as a benevolent group for Irish
immigrants and descendants to assist sick and disabled community members and provide funereal services. The
Blue Ribbon Club also organized in 1878, but as a temperance society offering a reading room and coffee house
as a saloon alternative. The reading room was somewhat unsuccessful, and the Club turned its attention and
funding instead towards forming one of Gilroy’s first circulating libraries, which operated from their reading room in
the back of a photographic gallery on Monterrey Street. In 1885, the Knights of Pythias, Bloomfield Lodge No. 102
was founded as a friendship society and met at the I.O.O.F. Hall.143
Early Cemeteries
The first cemeteries preceded the establishment of the town, interring the earliest settlers such as Lucien
Everett.144 The earliest such cemetery was supposedly established in 1853, however all bodies were disinterred in
the early 1870s. The reason for this is unclear and is either because the location was desired for a new “civic
center,” or because it routinely flooded, making it impossible to hold burials in a timely fashion. The original location
of this first cemetery may have been related to the original location of the Christian Church, which was located at
Church and Third Street but moved in 1886 to its present location. The next cemetery was likely the “Old” St. Mary’s
Catholic Cemetery and opened at the same time as the completion of St. Mary’s Church in 1865. This cemetery
was not moved, but a new St. Mary’s Cemetery was opened in 1918 near the Freemason and I.O.O.F.
Cemetery/Gavilan Hill Memorial Park property.145
The first official cemetery to establish in Gilroy after the town was established was a 20-acre cemetery plot and a
5-acre potter’s field that the City of Gilroy purchased from Henry Miller in 1870.146 Many of the bodies disinterred
from the original cemetery were relocated here in the 1870s, or to the Freemason and I.O.O.F. Cemetery. The
142 Sarah Severance. “The Harrison Bequest.” (Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy Advocate, 1879) June 28, 1879. On File at the Gilroy Historical
Museum; Ruth Forsyth. “Gilroy Ladies Benevolent Society: 1872-1967.” Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy Advocate, 1969), May 26, 1969; Coffin
1873: 22; Barratt 2005: 2
143 Munro-Fraser 1881: 300; Barratt 2005: 2-4
144 Information about Gilroy’s earliest cemeteries is not well recorded. Resource were mostly secondary references, of which neither
the author nor the date was recorded with the documentation. Some of this information is in the Cemetery Subject File held by the
Gilroy Historical Museum and consists of unpublished, undated, authorless manuscripts detailing multiple researchers’ notes on
Gilroy cemeteries, without listing author sources. One resource indicated that “cemetery surveys and maps” were held by the Gilroy
Historical Museum, but these records were not furnished and may no longer be at the museum.
145 Cemetery History in Gilroy. No Date. Cemetery Subject File. Gilroy Historical Museum.
146 Munro-Fraser 1881: 285
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 46 July 2020
Freemason and I.O.O.F. lodges managed the cemetery until 1989, when it was purchased by a private family and
renamed Gavilan Hills Memorial Park.147
Notably, a Chinese Cemetery was established sometime between 1899 and 1906 outside the eastern boundary of
Gilroy, near a “pest house” and City reservoir on Bodfish Road (now Hecker Pass Road). This location is now just
west of the Gilroy Golf Course on Hecker Pass Road. The cemetery fell into disrepair and town boundaries expanded,
leading to the disinterment of those buried at this cemetery. From 1920 to 1928, bodies were removed and
cremated or sent to San Francisco for shipment to China. The Chinese Cemetery was abandoned in 1928.148
4.4.4 Transportation Infrastructure
Probably the most important change in the Initial Development Period (1868-1904) was the coming of the SC&PRR
completed to Gilroy in 1869. Prominent Gilroy developers Zuck, Rogers & Hoover had been campaigning for four
years to convince the railroad to come through Gilroy, all but assuring the city’s growth as a result.149 The first freight
train arrived in March 1869, and the first passenger train followed a month later. The train would become the
primary means for travelers to visit Gilroy, and for Gilroy-area farmers to ship their goods to San José and Monterey.
In 1870, the SPRR purchased the line, and built a one-story, wood-frame depot at their Gilroy station (Figure 16).
They also extended the line south of Gilroy, intending to link Gilroy, San José and San Francisco on its California
Southern line to Fort Mojave.150 In 1882, a turntable, water tower, and three-stall engine house were added to the
Gilroy stop.151
147 Cemetery History in Gilroy. No Date. Cemetery Subject File. Gilroy Historical Museum
148 Cemetery History in Gilroy. No Date. Cemetery Subject File. Gilroy Historical Museum; Gilroy Dispatch. 2004. “Plaque Honors
Chinese Cemetery.” (Gilroy CA: The Gilroy Dispatch. April 5, 2004.) https://gilroydispatch.com/2004/04/05/plaque-honors-chinese-
cemetery/.
149 Gilroy Advocate. “Railroad Inauguration – Six Thousand People Celebrating!” (Gilroy, CA: Gilroy Advocate, 1869) April 10, 1869;
San Jose Mercury. “When San Jose Was Young: October 21 to 27, 1865.” (San Jose: The San Jose Mercury October 28, 1935); The
California Farmer. “Opening of the Southern Pacific Railroad to Gilroy.” The California Farmer and Journal of Useful Sciences, Volume
31, No. 13, (April 15, 1869)
150 Hubert Howe Bancroft. History of California Vol VII 1860-1890. (San Francisco, CA: The History Company, 1890): 599.
151 Mark Duncan. The San Francisco Peninsula Railroad Passenger Service – Past Present Future.(Mark Duncan, 2005): 93
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 47 July 2020
Figure 16. Southern Pacific Depot building, circa 1900 (California History Section Picture Catalog, California
State Library)
Roads in and around Gilroy also generally improved. El Camino Real was renamed the San José-Monterey Road and
enjoyed a short life as a toll road before being declared a free highway in 1874.152 The roads in the city itself were
set to determined widths, set forth in the 1868 charter, which determined the official width of Monterey Road (86
feet wide), side streets (75 feet wide), crossroads (66 feet wide), and their sidewalks (14 feet on Monterey and 10
feet on remaining streets). The 1868 charter also opened the existing roads beyond their 1868 distances: e.g.,
Eigleberry Street was extended from Farman to Martha Street. Ordinance No. 7 of the charter also renamed streets
in Gilroy: “Sargent, to be First street; Martha, to be Second street; Looser, to be Third street; Bodfish to be Fourth
street; Levy, to be Fifth street; Farman to be Sixth Street; and Furlong to be Seventh street.”153
4.4.5 Agriculture, Industry and Manufacturing
Transitioning from a rural settlement to an established small city in the late nineteenth century, more agricultural
practices were relegated to the areas outside of Gilroy. However, Gilroy’s new SPRR depot earned a role as the
shipping center for the region’s agricultural products. In the late nineteenth century, cattle raising had lessened in
importance as Gilroy’s cheese industry took off (Figure 17). Dairies established in the Gilroy area included those of
James C. Zuck; A. W. Furlong, A. Fornii, George Rea, Samuel Rea, J. P. Sargent, A. Watson, James H. Ellis, M T.
Holsclaw, Dexter Bros., Rodney Eschurburg, E. A. Maze, A. Wilson, and J. Murdock.154 By 1879, the Gilroy dairies
had produced 700,000 pounds of cheese and 78,000 pounds of butter, gaining importance in California and across
the country as the state’s leading cheese producer by volume.155 In the 1880s, dozens of dairies were in operation
152 Foot 1888: 119-120.
153 Munro-Fraser 1881: 283.
154 Pacific Rural Press. “Santa Clara: The Dairy.” (San Francisco, CA: The Pacific Rural Press. Volume 44. No 25, 1892.) December
17, 1892, pg. 516.
155 Pacific Rural Press. “The Cheese Region of Gilroy and Hollister.” (San Francisco, CA: The Pacific Rural Press, Volume 21, No. 14.
1881). April 2, 1881, pg. 242.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 48 July 2020
in Gilroy and production surpassed 1,000,000 pounds of cheese.156 By 1892, Gilroy’s cheese production was up
to 1,800,000 pounds, equal to one-fifth of the of the entire state of California’s cheese production.157
Figure 17. Dairying scene at George Rea’s farm, 1895 (Shortridge 1895)
Tobacco farming, which was particularly concentrated around Gilroy due to the tobacco farm of J.D. Culp, gained
maturity in the Initial Development Period (1868-1904). J.D. Culp established a tobacco factory at 4 th Street and
Rosanna Street in 1869, but sold this location in 1871. Culp went on to patent a method for curing tobacco leaf in
1872, and a fabric bag for packing and holding tobacco leaves in 1876.158 Culp relocated to San Felipe, but retained
his Gilroy land holdings, employing many locals. As Culp’s business and agricultural land holdings increased, he
eventually organized the Pacific Tobacco Manufacturing Company and the San Felipe Havana Tobacco Company to
manufacture product.159
In addition to already established industries of dairying and tobacco farming, fruit orchards and dried fruit
production rose to prominence in the 1870s. French prunes160 were introduced to Santa Clara County in 1856, but
the first orchards took investment and lands to purchase and grow the trees as well as a few years to mature and
156 Pacific Rural Press. “Green Cheese.” (San Francisco, CA: The Pacific Rural Press. Volume 23, No 18, 1882) May 6, 1882, pg.
346; Pacific Rural Press. “The Dairy: Gilroy Cheese Dairies.” (San Francisco, CA: The Pacific Rural Press. Volume 29, No 26, 1885)
June 27, 1885, pgs. 594-595; Shortridge 1895: 56; E.S. Harrison. Gilroy: The Most Favored Section of Santa Clara Valley. (Gilroy,
CA: Gilroy Board of Trade, 1888): 12.
157 Pacific Rural Press 1892: 516.
158 Coffin 1873: 16; United States Patent Office. “Patent No 6779” Specifications and Drawings of Patents Issued from the United
States Patent Office for December 1875. (Washington D.C: Government Printing Office, 1876): pg. 243; Gilroy Historical Museum
Subject Files. “Tobacco Culture in Gilroy and the Consolidated Tobacco Company.” From the Tobacco Subject File at the Gilroy
Historical Museum. No Date.
159 Pacific Rural Press “Miscellaneous.” (San Francisco, CA: The Pacific Rural Press, 1892). Volume 44, No 13, September 24, 1892,
pg. 252; Coffin 1873: 16.
160 A small plum, originally imported by the Pellier Brothers into San Jose in the 1850s. (DeSantis 2016)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 49 July 2020
produce a sellable crop. In 1873, the Gilroy area was still described mostly as dairying land with grain fields,
relegating orchards to small plantings near homes.161 After the success of prunes in the 1870s, other stone fruits
slowly appeared until they were proven to be suitable to the regional soil and climate conditions of Gilroy (Figure
18).162 In the 1880s, prunes and other stone fruit orchards would eventually become the dominant agricultural
product of South Santa Clara County, overtaking tobacco.163 Grapes were also enjoying a local resurgence in South
Santa Clara County, as early as 1880 when Henry Miller dedicated a portion of his grazing lands near Gilroy to
raising grapes.164 After multiple vineyard diseases in the 1870s, grape crops recovered in the late 1880s, and by
1904, the California Wine Association established a winery in Gilroy.165
Figure 18. Prune drying at B.F. Thomas farm. Circa 1900 (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical Museum)
161 Coffin 1873: 12-13
162 Harrison, 1888: 12-13.
163 CIRCA 2006: 50; Munro-Fraser 1881: 272.
164 Carol A. DeSantis “Miller Red Barn.” National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination Form (Gilroy, CA: Miller Red Barn
Committee, draft, April 5, 2016): 9-12
165 Gilroy Advocate. “Big Winery Coming: California Wine Association Will Erect Plant in Gilroy.” (Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy Advocate,
1904) July 23, 1904.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 50 July 2020
Food processing and agribusiness began to take place in Gilroy in the 1880s. Agribusiness emerged in Gilroy in the
form of support services for the agricultural products being grown in Gilroy, versus the previous tradition of shipping
agricultural goods to San José for processing. Such businesses, including flourmills, lumber mills, and fruit drying
and packing plants, were established in Gilroy in this period. The Santa Clara Valley Flour Mill was established by
Alex Hay in 1873.166 Another flourmill, the Gilroy Flour Mill, organized by the Smith Brothers was established in
1886, and had a plant on Monterey Road between 6th Street and Old Gilroy Road.167 In the late 1880s, after dried
prunes and apricots were gaining momentum, the Gilroy Fruit Packing Company, located at Monterey and Leavesley
Streets was organized by O.M. Welburn in 1888.168 Another packing company, the South Santa Clara Fruit Drying
and Packing Company, was organized around 1900 by soon-to-be-mayor George Dunlap.169 Gilroy’s farmers turned
outward in the 1900s, when the Gilroy Fruit Growers opted to join the California Cured Fruit Association, one of the
many fruit growers’ co-operatives in California at the turn of the twentieth century.170
Immigrant Labor and Farming
Immigrants from China in the nineteenth century, and later Japan and Italy in the twentieth century, comprised a
large portion of the laborers involved in agricultural and industrial jobs in Santa Clara County, and around Gilroy.
Given the Gilroy area’s growing importance in the tobacco, fruit orchards, vineyard, and seed production
agribusinesses, low-cost foreign laborers were favored.171 Chinese immigration to California had peaked in the
1850s and 1860s, when many Chinese workers emigrated to North America to work on railroad infrastructure and
mines. After the initial railroad work lapsed, displaced Chinese workers sought work in agricultural communities as
seasonal crop pickers and farming tenants. Such a large influx of Chinese immigrants undercutting Anglo-American
work forces brought about political change in 1879 when the working classes began unionizing and forcing the
terms for the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act.172 However, not all landowners abided by laws forbidding Chinese labor.
For example, J.D. Culp employed at least 100 Chinese laborers at his tobacco farms outside Gilroy and later at San
Felipe.173 Nearly 65 Chinese worked for C.C. Morse of the Ferry-Morse Seed Company, near Hollister and Gilroy.174
At the time, these labor practices were perceived as a favorable, since Chinese migrants were forced to accept
lower pay, longer hours, and harder work conditions as a result of the ban on employment. Chinese migrants were
also willing to pay high rents for land to raise crops.175 Samuel Rea, a dairy owner, found it more profitable to lease
portions of his land to Chinese sharecroppers who would raise berries, onions, potatoes, corn and vegetables on
rented land, pick the crops, and then allow Rea, as proprietor, to market the crops. In return, the Chinese
sharecroppers would earn a small portion of the net profits, leaving most to Rea. By the close of the nineteenth
century, nearly 1,000 Chinese were reported to be living in the greater Gilroy area.176 Those that lived in town lived
below 7th street in the informal Chinatown, mostly in wood frame tenements (Figure 19). There were several shops
run by Chinese in this section of town including laundries, dry goods, and restaurants. As anti-Chinese sentiment
166 Coffin 1873: 21
167 Sanborn 1886, 1892.
168 Foote 1888: 340
169 Miller Lux v. Dunlap, 152 P. 309 (California Court of Appeal, 1915). Accessed December 3, 2018,
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3280481/miller-lux-v-dunlap/?
170 San Francisco Call. “Join the Fruit Association.” (San Francisco, CA: The San Francisco Call), March 14, 1900, pg. 9.
171 Claudia Salewske. Images of America: Gilroy. (Chicago, IL: Arcadia Publishing, 2003); Shortridge 1895: 180.
172 Sawyer 1922: 144.
173 Dill et. al. 2003: 14; Shortridge 1895: 180; Salewske 2003
174 Gilroy Dispatch. “Early Settlers Turn to Agriculture.” (Gilroy, CA: Gilroy Dispatch, 1970), December 21, 1970.
175 Shortridge 1895: 106; Sawyer 1922: 112
176 Salewske 2003
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 51 July 2020
increased in the 1880s, culminating in the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, living conditions were generally poor in this
portion of town, and the area was prone to anti-Chinese violent crime.177
Figure 19. Gilroy Chinatown, looking south on Monterey Road towards 9 th Street (Bancroft Library, University of
California Berkeley)
Just after the turn of the twentieth century, Japanese immigrants began to settle in California. The first wave of
Japanese immigration had arrived in the 1880s after the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, and the second in 1898
when Japanese migrated from Hawaiʻi after the territory was annexed. In 1902, Gilroy’s first Japanese immigrant,
Tamiro Nakashiki settled near present-day site of Soares and Nunes Dairy on Old Bolsa Road. In 1904, Nakashiki
was followed by Shigeru Yamane and Kiyoshi (Jimmy) Hirasaki. Hirasaki would go on to become the first major
producer of garlic in the region.178
The twentieth century brought increased Italian immigration to the Santa Clara Valley and the Gilroy region. The
Sturla family had settled near San Ysidro (Old Gilroy) as early as the 1860s, eventually bringing their extended
relations to the region as well. In Gilroy, they engaged in vineyards, olives, fruit, and vegetable farming, but were
landowners rather than migrant labor. By 1900, the Sturla family group had expanded to many interrelated Italian
immigrant families, including the Conrotto, Bertero, Princevalle, Filice, and Perrelli families, settling around Gilroy,
Coyote, and Madrone and would eventually found the Bisceglia Cannery in 1907.179
177 Munro-Fraser 1881: 237, 482
178 Gilroy Dispatch. “Japanese Immigrants Were First Big Garlic Growers.” (Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy Dispatch, 1970). December 21,
1970.; Dill et al. 2003: 19
179 Dill et al. 2003:19; Arbuckle 1970: 20-21
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 52 July 2020
4.5 Early and Mid-Twentieth Century Development
(1904-1941)
The dawn of the twentieth century in Gilroy carried with it a strong desire to develop, improve, and evolve beyond a
small town. By 1900, a substantial percentage of California’s population resided in large urban centers, such as
San Francisco and Los Angeles, because the municipal infrastructure advancements of larger cities offered a higher
quality of life than was available in smaller, rural towns in the State.180 With a population under 2,000, Gilroy was
one such rural agricultural community located in the Santa Clara Valley, and was predominately populated by
farmers and ranchers. Aided by the arrival of the SC&PRR to the area in the 1869 and its subsequent purchase by
SPRR in 1870, the farmers and ranchers were able to haul their goods in greater quantities to the inhabitants of
larger, surrounding cities like San José and San Francisco. However, exposure to the public services available in
such municipalities sparked the desire for civic and economic advancement at home in Gilroy. Gilroy residents were
inspired by the City Beautiful Movement, a city planning and beautification philosophy that was gaining immense
popularity throughout the United States at the time. With the leadership of progressive politicians like George
Dunlap and James Princevalle, the steady push of civic-minded organizations, and the generous donations of
wealthy benefactors, Gilroy was on a steady course towards modernization during this period.
4.5.1 Residential Development
Residential development during the first two decades of the twentieth century was characterized by expansion into
the previously undeveloped sections of the initial Gilroy city grid. Many private residences were erected during this
period, aided by the prospect of piped utilities like natural gas, water and electricity (Figure 20). The population
expanded by thirty-three percent in the first decade of the twentieth century from 1,820 in 1900 to 2,437 in
1910.181 By 1916, as the population continued to rise, the Advocate noted that, “The building boom which has
struck Gilroy, continues with prospects of many more stores and residences than have been erected in years gone
by.”182
180 Angela Woollacott, Carroll Pursell and Chuck Myer. Gilroy’s Old City Hall: 1906-1989. (Cupertino, California: California History
Center and Foundation, De Anza College, 1991).
181 “Population of the City of Gilroy, 1870-1997.” Gilroy Historical Museum.
182 Gilroy Advocate. “Building Boom Goes Merrily On.” (Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy Advocate, March 25, 1916). Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 53 July 2020
Figure 20. Postcard showing Residential Development along Eigleberry Street, c.1910s (California Historical
Society)
However, the forward residential progress would be momentarily halted by the entrance of the United States into
World War I. The war effort placed a large strain on resources throughout the country, and in an effort to conserve
building materials, the City Council of Gilroy banned the distribution of all building permits between 1917 and 1918
unless a license for the work was issued directly from the Federal War Industries Board. This effectively halted
progress on private building projects during this period, including residential development. 183
Despite the hardships and brief building freeze caused by World War I, the population of Gilroy continued expanding
gradually. The 1920 United States census recorded the population at 2,862 persons.184 James Princevalle was
elected Mayor during the same year and contemporary sources suggest that Gilroy underwent a renewed period of
residential development during his time in office between 1920 and 1932.185 Popular local builders such as William
Radtke Sr., J. Carl Howard and the Holmes Brothers began producing affordable small and mid-sized houses in
popular architectural styles. The increased development activity during the 1920s period was keeping pace with a
third consecutive decade of sizeable growth in the City. By the start of the 1930s, the population of Gilroy measured
3,502 persons.186
The difficulties wrought by the Great Depression were widespread in Gilroy during the 1930s, and as a result, the
accelerated growth of the City seen in previous decades stagnated, and the population increased only by a nominal
113 people between 1930 and 1940.187
183 White. N. D.
184 “Population of the City of Gilroy, 1870-1997.” Gilroy Historical Museum.
185 Eugene Sawyer. “James Princevalle” in History of Santa Clara County, California. (Historic Record Co.: Los Angeles, California,
1922).
186 “Population of the City of Gilroy, 1870-1997.” Gilroy Historical Museum.
187 “Population of the City of Gilroy, 1870-1997.” Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 54 July 2020
In 1936, the City of Gilroy zoned the city into five distinctive districts: Single Family Residences; Multiple Family
Residences; Business Districts; Industrial Districts; and Residential-Agricultural. The single family district was
located between Hanna, Princevalle, First, and Seventh Streets. The Multiple Family residence district constituted
an area approximately double that designated for single family residences an area between Eigleberry and Hanna
Streets, and First and Tenth Streets as well as a section to the east of Monterey Street between Old Gilroy and
Lewis Street.188 As the 1940s got underway and the United States entered into World War II in 1941, it became
clear that the deceleration of the population in Gilroy was only a short-lived phenomenon. In 1941, the San José
Mercury-News reported on the increasing value of the property in the area despite the apparent stagnation in
population growth and the number of water meters added during the most economically trying years of the
Depression.
Steady growth of Gilroy is reflected noticeably in two comparisons, those of assessed property valuation and home
building. City property valuation in 1940 was $3,151,236, as compared to $2,867,408 in 1933. Home building,
based on number of water service meters installed by the city, shows steady increase. In 1940, there were 1,125
meters in service, while in 1933 there were 900.189
4.5.2 Commercial Development
In 1906, the great San Francisco Earthquake caused nearly $500,000 damage in the City of Gilroy. On Monterey
Road, the new City Hall was damaged, multiple roofs collapsed, and there was severe damage to the front facades
of the Gilroy Post Office, Johnson’s Drug store, and a private hospital. At the hospital building at Monterey and 5th
Street, walls cracked and pulled apart, causing an evacuation. Plate glass store windows along Monterey were also
severely damaged. After the earthquake a considerable rebuilding period began. 190
Commercial development during the first two decades of the twentieth century was characterized by rapid
expansion and growth of commercial businesses related to the everyday needs of Gilroy’s citizens. A large number
of storefronts were erected during this period, aided by the advent of city sidewalks, paved streets and new
municipal buildings drawing increased pedestrian traffic to the commercial areas of the city. Local builder William
Radtke Sr. arrived in Gilroy in 1911, and immediately embarked on the construction of several construction projects
along Monterey Road including the First National Bank at 7498 Monterey Road in 1912, The Gilroy Advocate
Building at 55 W. 6th Street (just off Monterey Road) in 1910, and the Gilroy Dispatch newspaper Building at 7466
Monterey Road in 1917.191
However, similar to the residential areas of Gilroy, the entrance of the United States into World War I resulted in the
stagnation of private commercial development between 1917 and 1918. The banning of all building permits by the
City Council of Gilroy during this period effectively halted progress on private building projects throughout the city
until the beginning of the 1920s. By the start of the 1920s however, the commercial sector mirrored the same
patterns of growth seen elsewhere in the city.192 While a little over a dozen buildings had been built along Monterey
Road between 1904 and 1920, beginning in 1920, 15 new one and two-part commercial blocks were erected.
These often comprised multiple buildings of an entire block, including the entire odd-numbered 7500 block of
188 Eugene Lewis Conrotto. The Urbanization of the Southern Santa Clara Valley: Gilroy. (Gilroy, CA: Gilroy Historical Museum, 1951).
189 San Jose Mercury-News. 1941. “Gilroy’s Fame Comes from Ranches.” (San Jose, CA: The San Jose Mercury-News, June 20,
1941). Held by San Jose Public Library.
190 Conrotto 1951; Salewske 2003
191 Ibid.
192 Salewske 2003.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 55 July 2020
Monterey. Twelve of these 15 new buildings built between 1920 and 1922 were built by William Radtke, Sr. Radtke
continued to take Downtown Gilroy work on Monterey Road, often in collaboration with local regional architects. In
1920, he collaborated with prolific Bay-area architect William H. Weeks on the Firestone Tires/Ellis Garage building
at 7390 Monterey Road. The Louis Hotel and Café, a collaboration between Radtke and architect firm Binder &
Curtis of San Jose, opened in 1921, and in addition to offering visitors and guests a pleasant, eclectic place to stay
during their travels, the hotel also featured a large hall utilized by social and civic clubs for their meetings,
fundraisers and banquets.193 Weeks also designed the Hotel Milias, Restaurant, and Steak House (Figure 21),
which opened on the corner of Monterey and Sixth Streets, cattycorner from the City Hall in 1922. . The restaurant
and hotel served local elites of Gilroy as well as several Hollywood celebrities.194
Figure 21. Hotel Milias in 1922 (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical Museum)
The Strand Theatre was completed on Monterey Road beside the Masonic Temple in 1921 (Figure 22). The program
from the formal opening of the Theatre on December 3, 1921 states that the Neoclassical-style building designed
by architects Reid & Reid of San Francisco was built by William Radtke Sr. and furnished at a cost of $175,000.195
The theater was a venue for musical performances plays, motion picture films accompanied by live music from the
theatre’s $15,000 pipe organ, and benefit events for Gilroy’s community organizations like the Elks’.196
In response to the increased traffic brought to town by the completion of State Route 101 through Gilroy, and the
relatively inexpensive cost of mass-produced automobiles like Ford’s Model T, Lilly’s Auto Camp was established by
Allen and Alice Lilly on the Monterey Road north of Leavesley Road in 1927. Auto camps emerged in California in
the mid- 1920s along the newly completed State Highways, and they are thought to be the precedent to the modern
drive-up Motel. Lilly’s Auto Camp featured fifteen California bungalow-style cabins furnished austerely with a gas
193 Salewske. 2003.
194Rick Sprain. 2018. Postcard History Series: Santa Clara County. (Arcadia Publishing: Charleston, South Carolina, 2018).
195 Strand Theatre Program. 1921. Vol. 1, No. 1, December 3, 1921. As featured in Salewske. 2003.
196 Salewske. 2003.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 56 July 2020
stove, bed, table, chairs and a toilet. Showers were housed in a small detached building while the main building
fronting Monterey Road served as an office, restaurant, grocery, and service station. 197
The economization of the automobile offered other commercial opportunities to people living in Gilroy. By the
beginning of the 1940s there were a sizeable number of businesses associated with the automobile clustered along
Monterey Road. These establishments included service stations, repair garages, auto-dealers, and several Auto
Courts (motels).198
Figure 22. The Strand Theatre as it appeared in 1931. The Masonic Temple designed by W.H. Weeks pictured
at the left. (Gilroy Historical Museum)
4.5.3 Civic and Institutional Development
In response to civic advancements in communities such as Hollister and Los Gatos, the Gilroy Advocate appealed
to the citizens of Gilroy in February of 1904 claiming that:
Towns of fewer natural advantages are steadily forging ahead of Gilroy. Some of our valley
settlements bid fair in a few years to outdo us in population and enterprise. To make progress, we
must get out of our dormant condition and show more public spirit…199
As evidenced by this newspaper article, the citizens of Gilroy were primed for change, and a chance to keep up with
surrounding districts. The Gilroy Board of Trade, concerned with the commerce and industry of the town, rebranded
itself the Promotion Society (later it would become the Chamber of Commerce) in order to update its role in the
advancement of Gilroy’s economic ventures. The rhetoric of hopeful politicians reflected the citizen’s refrain of
improvement and change was embraced enthusiastically by entrepreneurs such as George T. Dunlap, who ran for
197 Historic American Buildings Survey. Post-1933. “Lilly's Auto Camp, 8877 Monterey Highway, Gilroy, Santa Clara County, CA.”
Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/ca0920/
198 Sanborn Map Company. 1943. “Gilroy, California.”
199 Gilroy Advocate. February 27, 1904. As quoted in Woollacott et al. 1991. p3
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 57 July 2020
the Mayoral office in 1904. He ran alongside what the Gilroy Advocate dubbed a “Ticket of Progressive Business
Men.”200 Dunlap was an accomplished capitalist who headed the Dunlap Realty and Produce Company, owned the
Coyote Cattle Company and was the president of the South Santa Clara Fruit Drying and Packing Company. Dunlap’s
progressive stance won him the office of Mayor in 1904, alongside three reformist candidates elected to the City
Council. Armed with a new, progressive government, Gilroy was set to push forward into a new era.
A New City Hall
Although Gilroy had an existing City Hall building located on Monterey Road and Fifth Street, the City had adopted
a resolution for the creation of a fund to construct a New City Hall building as early as 1900. However, the project
stagnated and never came to fruition. In his inaugural speech, Mayor George Dunlap highlighted his hopes to see
the project through, claiming that:
nothing is a better index of the enterprise and stability of a community than the general appearance
and character of its public buildings…We shall be sadly delinquent as a city if we do not give early
and earnest thought to the subject of erecting a new city hall201
The new City Council took Dunlap’s social and architectural commentary seriously and committed to the
construction of a New City Hall during the City Council meeting on August 1, 1904. The northeastern corner lot at
the intersection of Monterey and Sixth Streets was purchased from the Hotaling family for the prestigious project.
The purchase of this lot would place the New City Hall at the strategic intersection of Gilroy’s main commercial
corridor, Monterey Road, and 6th Street, the only street that crossed completely over Monterey Road between Old
and New Gilroy at this time. 202
Owing to their reputation for working well within a wide range of styles, prominent San José Architects Samuel
Newsome, Frank D. Wolfe, and Charles McKenzie were selected to create the design for the new building. Frank D.
Wolfe had established a contracting firm in San José following a move from Newton, Kansas in 1888. He quickly
gained notoriety in San José and Santa Clara County- and subsequently transitioned his firm to architecture in
1895. Charles McKenzie joined the firm as a partner in 1899. The pair designed a large number of prominent
homes and buildings in San José during their 11-year partnership between 1899 and 1910.203 The New City Hall
Building was an eclectic mix of Richardsonian Romanesque, and other, popular revival styles to be built using local
stone offered by Henry Miller from his quarry on Glen Ranch.204 The layout included meeting space for the City
Council, a police courtroom, office space for the city superintendents in charge of gas and water, and a basement
level for use by the fire crew. Additionally, as the Santa Clara county seat was located over thirty miles away in San
José, for convenience it was decided that this building would include a jail. The County subsequently offered $5,000
towards the project in lieu of having to build a branch jail in the area.205
During 1905, while the stonework for the New City Hall was underway by the Granite Construction Company of
Watsonville, the progressive City Council under Mayor Dunlap continued the modernization of the city by initiating
the process to introduce further infrastructure improvements to Gilroy. As part of this process, A.E. Holloway was
200 Gilroy Advocate. April 9, 1904. As quoted in Woollacott et al. 1991. p3
201 Gilroy Advocate. June 11, 1904. As quoted in Woollacott et al. 1991. P4
202 Woollacott et al. 1991: 7.
203 Unknown Author. 2014. “Frank Delos Wolfe: San Jose’s Most Enduring Architect.” http://www.frankdeloswolfe.com/fdw.html.
Accessed November 21, 2018.
204 Various Newspapers. “Highlights from Gilroy Newspapers by Year.” November 11, 1904. Gilroy Historical Museum.
205 Various Newspapers. “Highlights from Gilroy Newspapers by Year.” August 6, 1904. Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 58 July 2020
appointed to create a cost estimates for a city-wide sewer system, an electric light grid system, and improvements
to the municipal water works which totaled $51,000.206 The Independent Producers Union also received a 50-year
contract from the City for the construction and operation of a pipeline to provide Gilroy with oil, natural gas, and
petroleum during this year.207
The structural competency of the new monumental City Hall was tested heavily during the earthquake centered in
San Francisco on April 18, 1906. The New City Hall Building was nearly completed by the start of April 1906 at a
cost of $19,890, under the efficient management of local contractor, George Seay.208 The earthquake was the
result of the northernmost 296-miles stretch of the San Andres fault rupturing between Cape Mendocino to the
northwest of San Juan Bautista, a mere 13 miles from Gilroy.209 While the Richter magnitude scale would not be
developed for another several decades following the 1906 earthquake, the shaking lasted approximately 45-60
seconds and was felt as far away as southern Oregon, Nevada, and Los Angeles.210 Newspapers reported
approximately $50,000 in damages to Gilroy buildings, but no injuries or deaths.211 The New City Hall had
experienced some cosmetic damage, but many other buildings in Gilroy were not as fortunate.
In the days following the quake, a special meeting of the City Council was called to assess the action needed to
repair damage throughout the area. In response to the widespread destruction of property in Gilroy, a special police
force was convened, and Wolfe was retained by the city to inspect City Hall as part of a wider effort to inspect and
evaluate buildings for safety and structural integrity throughout Gilroy.212 Repairs commenced on City Hall the
following month, and by summer of 1906, the building was repaired to the state it was at prior to the earthquake.
As final finishes were being applied to the spaces inside and out, it became clear that the extra costs of the repairs
had considerably depleted the resources available for furnishing the lavish interior rooms and offices. Despite this
fact, the City Council opted to move into the unfurnished space and held the first meeting in the New City Hall on
October 1, 1906, in the Marshal’s room, instead of the Assembly Hall. 213 As it took an additional year from the
point of this first meeting to when the remainder of City Hall was actually furnished for use, the bold 1905 date
emblazoned on the edifice of City Hall remains more representative of the planning stages of the building than the
actual completion and use timeline (Figure 23). On October 7, 1907, the first meeting of the City Council was held
in the furnished main Assembly Hall.
206 Phil Cox Notes “Compiled from Gilroy City Council Minutes.( Gilroy, CA: City of Gilroy City Clerk’s Office, no date).
207 Cox. N.D.
208 Woollacott et al. 1991. P. 11.
209 USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2018. “The Great 1906 San Francisco Earthquake.”
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/events/1906calif/18april/. Accessed November 28, 2018.
210 USGS. 2018.
211 Various Newspapers. “Highlights from Gilroy Newspapers by Year.” April 21, 1906. Gilroy Historical Museum.
212 Woollacott et al. 1991: 17
213 Woollacott et al. 1991: 19-20.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 59 July 2020
Figure 23. The newly completed City Hall Building in 1907, prior to the installation of the clock faces in the
tower (California Room, San José Public Library)
The funds for the four-dialed Seth Thomas Tower Clock were donated to the City in 1913 by a wealthy benefactor
who requested to remain anonymous. However, by the time H.J. Musgrave of San Francisco was finished with the
installation, it was common knowledge that Mrs. Caroline Hoxett was the generous donor. Caroline Hoxett, the
wealthy widow of Thomas Hoxett, was very involved in her community and donated large sums and land towards
civic-minded projects during her lifetime. The formal presentation of the new clock tower by Mrs. Hoxett took place
on March 2nd, 1914.214
The Gilroy Free Library
Following the declined request by a committee of women associated with the Promotion Society to use the former
City Hall site on Fifth Street as a site for a new public library, nearly one quarter of the eligible voters in Gilroy signed
a petition in favor of a committee who could oversee the establishment of a public library in Gilroy.215 The Library
Board was established by public ordinance in January 1906 and they immediately set about trying to secure a
Carnegie Library Grant to erect a library building. Andrew Carnegie, an American-Scottish entrepreneur and
philanthropist, offered the City of Gilroy a $10,000 grant in March of 1906 for the construction of a public library,
if the City would agree to provide a site for the building and set aside $1000 per year for its continued operation.216
Additionally, the conditions of the grant stated that a temporary library space be established until the new building
could be completed, so a library room was opened in the New City Hall for use as the interim public library in
December of 1907.217
214 Connie Rogers. “Local Women in History: Caroline Amelia Brooks Osborne Hoxett.” (Gilroy, CA:Gilroy Patch, 2012)
https://patch.com/california/gilroy/local-women-in-history-caroline-amelia-brooks-osborne-hoxett. Accessed December 18, 2018;
Woollacott et al. 1991: 25.
215 Woollacott et al. 1991; White, Armand. N.D. “Timeline”. Gilroy Historical Museum.
216 Various Newspapers. “Highlights from Gilroy Newspapers by Year.” March 17, 1906. Gilroy Historical Museum.
217 Various Newspapers. “Highlights from Gilroy Newspapers by Year.” December 14, 1907. Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 60 July 2020
The Doolittle property on the corner of Fifth Street and Church was purchased by Caroline Hoxett and donated to
the Library Board as the site for the future Gilroy Free Library in June of 1909 (Figure 24).218 William Henry Weeks,
the prominent Canadian-born architect responsible for designing a large number of schools, libraries, post offices
and private residences throughout the Bay Area, Santa Cruz, Watsonville, and Salinas was chosen to design the
building. Weeks designed as many as 23 buildings in Gilroy between 1894 and 1909,219 including both private
residences for prominent community members such as George Dunlap (1900), as well as institutional buildings
such as Rucker School (1894) and the Masonic Temple on Monterey Road (1902).220 Weeks designed the Gilroy
Free Library in the Neoclassical Style and it featuring a traditional, full-height pediment entry porch atop grouped,
Tuscan columns. Plans for the new library were approved by the Carnegie Foundation in October and the project
was completed in July of 1910.221
Overall, the New City Hall and the Carnegie Library development projects triggered an escalation in the number of
construction projects throughout Gilroy, both in the public and the private sectors. This sudden increase reflects
the concern for forward progres, and extended to all sectors of the city.
Figure 24. The Gilroy Free Library, c.1920, photo by Frasher Foto. (Pomona Public Library Online Archives)
218 Various Newspapers. “Highlights from Gilroy Newspapers by Year.” June 12, 1909. Gilroy Historical Museum.
219 National Register Nomination for Wheeler Hospital. 1990. Gilroy Historical Museum.
220 Gilroy Historical Museum N.D.
221 Various Newspapers. “Highlights from Gilroy Newspapers by Year.” October 2, 1909. Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 61 July 2020
Schools
As the population of Gilroy grew, so too did the number of school-aged children who required an education. Although
several schools had already been established within the City, the need for a separate facility to house secondary
education was answered during the 1910s. Funding for Gilroy High School was secured through bonds, and the
simplified Beaux Arts-style facility was subsequently designed by W. H. Weeks and constructed on I.O.O.F. Avenue
in 1913 (Figure 25).222
Figure 25. Postcard depicting Gilroy High School. Date Unknown. (California Room, San José Public Library)
222 Gilroy Historical Museum. “Schools” Subject files. No date. Held at Gilroy Historical Museum; Gilroy High School, c.1915.
Photograph. Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 62 July 2020
Two additional schools were established during the 1920s to account for a sharp rise in population between 1920
and 1930. A new elementary School, named Jordan School after the President of Stanford University, David Starr
Jordan, was built in 1923 on a site located at Third Street between Hanna and Carmel Streets.223 Eliot Elementary
School, named after the Harvard University President, Charles Eliot, was designed by prominent San José architects,
Ralph Wyckoff and Hugh White as a school for 7th and 8th graders, and was completed in 1927 on Old Gilroy Street
(Figure 26).224
Figure 26. Wyckoff & White’s 1927 rendering of the 7th and 8th Grade Elementary School. (History San José)
Firemen
In 1915 and 1916, the City invested heavily to support and unify the two brigades of volunteer firemen, the Eureka
Hook and Ladder Co. and the Vigilant Engine Co., to protect the City from the devastating effects of fires. Following
the installation of a new fire alarm system at a cost of $1,940 in 1915225, the City purchased the first motor-driven
vehicle for use by the city fire department in March 1916. The American La France was described by the Gilroy
Advocate as a “Chemical Auto Engine”226 and the person who earned the honor of being the engineer and first paid
member of either fire crew was a young man named Shirley Johnson.227 In June of 1916, the Advocate featured a
small article about the new fire house planned for the Old City Hall site on Fifth Street. The two-story brick building
was designed by San José Architect William Binder, and William Radtke Sr. served as the contractor in charge of
erecting the building which would contain space for the new engine, the new alarm system, a meeting room, and
bedrooms.228 The completion of the building in September of 1916 meant that the two crews, who had maintained
a competitive relationship since their inception, were finally united under one roof.
223 Gilroy Dispatch. 2006. “Campus Name Game.” April 12, 2006. http://gilroydispatch.com/2006/04/12/campus-name-game/.
Accessed December 5, 2018.
224 Gilroy Dispatch. 2006.
225 White. N.D.
226 Gilroy Advocate. “Gilroy’s Latest Addition to Fire Department Equipment.” March 25, 1916. Gilroy Historical Museum.
227 Woollacott et al. 1991.
228 Gilroy Advocate. 1916. “The New Fire House.” June 10, 1916. Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 63 July 2020
Gilroy Women’s Civic Club
While it was formed in 1912, by 1914 the Gilroy Women’s Civic Club (GWCC) had made considerable headway in
the Gilroy enhancement effort. Working as the female auxiliary organization of the Chamber of Commerce, the
GWCC was a social society comprised of the elite wives, widows, and daughters of Gilroy’s founding families, wealthy
benefactors, and well-off entrepreneurs including Caroline Hoxett and Catherine Schafer-Ryan. During their first few
years the GWCC:
…accomplished great things especially in beautifying the town. This club has urged the removal of fences,
the parking of sidewalks, the removal of [wooden] awnings on Monterey Street, the appointment of a board
of forestry for the preservation and planting of shade trees, the passage of an ordinance compelling owners
of dogs to keep them off the public street, and has established a cozy rest room for shoppers and visitors
to the town on Martin Street.229
In 1927, long time member and benefactor Caroline Hoxett died and left her Italianate home at 338 Fifth St. to the
GWCC to use as a headquarters. The club continued to engage in civic promotional activities like campaigning for
signs, trees, and speakers or entertainers to visit Gilroy. The GWCC used Hoxett’s former residence until roughly
1973.230
Utilities and Other Civic Improvements
Despite a declaration of financial hardships by Mayor Dunlap following the earthquake, installation of new civic
infrastructure projects continued uninterrupted as citizens of Gilroy pressed their public representatives towards
forward progress in other areas of the City during 1906. A capable man named C.M. Barker from San José was
employed to begin work constructing a city sewer system.231 After the completion of the electric plant, the first
electric streetlights along Monterey Road were lit on St. Patrick’s Day, 1906. The same year, the Promotion Society
advocated for a publicity space within the newly completed City Hall to display agricultural goods produced in Gilroy
and the surrounding Santa Clara Valley, in order to “…attract the eyes of visitors.“232
Continued infrastructure projects planned under Mayor A.A. Martin after 1910 reflected an expansion of the
community and anticipation of sustained future growth. As part of this growth initiative, engineer A.B. Ward was
awarded a contract to erect a pumping plant to supply to City with municipal water in 1910.233 In 1911, concrete
sidewalks were installed on major streets throughout Gilroy. Considerable advancements in 1912 and 1913
included the installation of electric transmission lines by Sierra & S.F. Power Co., and a levee constructed near
Dowdy Street to control an area subject to seasonal flooding from the Uvas River. In 1913, $25,000 in bonds was
secured to pave the interior of the city reservoir. The work on the reservoir was managed by prominent local
contractor, William Radtke, whose work ostensibly saved the City 8.5-million gallons of water monthly.234 In 1912,
229 Unknown Author. 1914. “Gilroy Ready for Her Guests.” Article. Gilroy Historical Museum.
230 Gilroy Dispatch. 2005. “If Walls Could Talk.” Web article. March 16, 2005. Accessed March 4, 2020.
https://gilroydispatch.com/if-walls-could-talk/
231 Cox. N.D.
232 Gilroy Gazette. February 2, 1907. As quoted in Woollacott et al. 1991. Pg. 20
233 Cox. N.D.
234 Cox. N.D.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 64 July 2020
a private utility called Coast Counties Gas & Electric Company purchased the Gilroy Gas Works and its plant on
Railroad Street.235
The citizens of Gilroy elected James Princevalle as the new mayor in 1920. After serving five City Council terms, the
Gilroy native and the esteemed owner of both an ice cream manufacturing plant in town and a prominent grocery
store on the corner of Monterey and Fourth streets, hoped to continue on the foundation of forward progress laid
out by Mayor Dunlap in 1904. Mayor Princevalle orchestrated and oversaw a number of critical infrastructure
improvements during his six consecutive terms in office between 1920 and 1932. In 1923, a bond measure
secured the $87,000 necessary to order and install water meters throughout the town to monitor and charge for
water usage. In 1926, the City Council passed a resolution to obtain $110,000 for major improvements to the
municipal sewer system, including the purchase of 187-acres of land for use as a sewer farm.236
Wheeler Family Contributions to Gilroy
There was, however, a limit to the amount of money that Gilroy could allocate for projects within the City. Wealthy
benefactors had historically been responsible for donating their own money when it came to medical facilities in
Gilroy. Following a move from the initial location at the corner of Fifth Street and Monterey Road in 1920, the Gilroy
Private Hospital, founded by Dr. Jonas Clark in 1895, was experiencing substantial financial difficulties. Dr. John
Clark, the son of Dr. Jonas Clark, attempted to continue the hospital operations from his residence on Railroad
Street, but citing the need for expanded capital to cover the cost of equipment and general operations, the hospital
closed its doors in 1924.237 Apart from several physicians also practicing from their homes, Gilroy was without a
hospital facility between 1924 and 1929.238
When his wife became gravely ill between 1926 and 1927, Lin Wheeler, owner of the successful Pieters-Wheeler
Seed Company, felt the substantial strain of trips as far as San José and San Francisco to receive medical care.
With the aid of a steering committee, Wheeler sought to determine the feasibility of establishing a community
hospital. Finding the need for such a facility absolutely necessary, Wheeler offered to allocate $25,000 of the
substantial profit he had earned through the operation of the seed production company he had purchased in 1910
towards the construction of a 29-bed non-profit public hospital.239 When subscriptions for the remaining necessary
funds did not materialize, Wheeler offered to match an additional $15,000, and the total needed for the project
was raised shortly thereafter. Plans for the new hospital were drawn up by W. H. Weeks in 1928, and the
construction overseen by William Radtke. The two-story, Spanish Colonial Revival Wheeler Hospital was completed
in July of 1929 (Figure 27).240
Despite the economic downturn effecting the U.S. during the Great Depression, city-backed development projects
persisted throughout the remainder of the 1930s with financial assistance from prominent Gilroy families like the
Wheelers. The Gilroy Gymkhana Roundup (Figure 28), a recreational equestrian event started in 1929, had secured
regional notoriety by the late 1930s, so Linwood Wheeler donated the grounds he owned to the City in 1938 where
235 Superintendent of State Printing. Decisions of the Railroad Commission of the State of California, Volume 1. Sacrament, CA:
State Printing. 1913): 399-402.
236 White. N.D.
237 Vernon C. Gwinn. 1982. “History of Hospitals in Gilroy.” Gilroy Historical Museum.
238 Gwinn. 1982.
239 Pacific Coast Architecture Database (PCAD). 2018. “Wheeler Hospital, Gilroy CA.”
http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/building/7911/. Accessed December 5, 2018.
240 Gwinn. 1982.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 65 July 2020
the annual event had taken place across the road from the Pieter-Wheeler plant since it began.241 The Wheeler
family also donated a majority of the funds to construct a Civic Auditorium for use by Gilroy, which was completed
on the corner of Church and Sixth Streets in 1940. The Art Deco-style building was designed by San José Architects
William Binder and Ernest N. Curtis and built by George Renz at cost of $51,000. 242
Figure 27. Wheeler Hospital Detail as it appeared in 2011, (NoeHill)
241 Cox. N.D.
242 White. N.D.; Pacific Coast Architecture Database. 2018. “City of Gilroy, Wheeler Municipal Auditorium, Gilroy CA.”
http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/building/7909/. Accessed December 6, 2018.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 66 July 2020
Figure 28. Excitement at the Gymkhana. Unknown Date. (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical Museum)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 67 July 2020
4.5.4 Transportation Infrastructure
Highway 101
Growth and development in the transportation sector also impacted the development pattern of Gilroy in the early
twentieth century. One such transportation project was the state highway system. Statewide California elections in
1910 approved the 1909 State Highways Act, allocating $18 million dollars towards the acquisition and
construction of a state highway system.243 This project prompted Gilroy to evaluate its own transportation
infrastructure, and when the first state highway construction began in 1912 on the Highway 1, Pacific Coast route,
rumors circulated that the subsequent highway projects would skirt the edge of the Santa Clara Valley instead of
passing through it.244 Proud citizens and the City Council elected to pave their main thoroughfare, Monterey Road,
so that it might be “…equal in every way to the roadway to be constructed by the State Highway Commission.”245
(Figure 29)
Figure 29. Photo Looking Down Monterey Road in 1911 before it was paved. (California State Library)
243 Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2018. “Important Events in Caltrans History.” Accessed December 4, 2018.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/timeline.html.
244 Caltrans. 2018; Woollacott et al, 1991.
245 Gilroy City Council Minutes. 1912. “Meeting of June 7, 1912.” As quoted in Woollacott, 1991. “Thousands Will Pass Through Our
City.” P. 31.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 68 July 2020
Despite the estimate of paving Monterey Road within city limits costing more than the yearly budget to run the entire
town (roughly $24,000 annually), the City Council concurred with the public, the Chamber of Commerce (formerly
the Promotion Society), and the newly formed GWCC that the returns from having the road pass through Gilroy far
outweighed the burden of initial cost for the work.246 With the invention of the affordable Model T automobile by
the Ford Motor Company in 1908, motor tourists were at the forefront of an emerging tourism industry that allowed
previously rural and isolated regions of the state to become accessible.247 Gilroy wanted to be at the forefront of
this movement, so following a bond election in May of 1913, the compulsory funds were secured and a 24-foot
wide swatch of paving down Monterey Road was completed the following year (Figure 30).248 Upon the completion
of the project, the Highways system was indeed routed through the center of Gilroy and the Gilroy Advocate reported
that “our citizens are rejoicing over the completion of the Monterey Road pavement […] It is one of the finest streets
in the state, and being on the State Highway, thousands will pass through our city.”249 Picking up from the initial
paving of Monterey Road in 1914, Old Gilroy and First Streets were paved within city limits in 1922.250
Figure 30. Photo Looking south Monterey Road c.1920s after paving. (California State Library)
246 Woollacott et al. 1991.
247 Encyclopedia Britannica. 2018. “Model T Automobile.” https://www.britannica.com/technology/Model-T. Accessed December 4,
2018.
248 Woollacott et al. 1991.
249 Gilroy Advocate. May 16, 1914. As quoted in Woollacott. 1991. Pg. 31.
250 Cox. N.D.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 69 July 2020
A New Passenger Depot
In 1917, Gilroy City officials convinced the Southern Pacific Railroad Company to replace the original depot station
with a new facility. The two-story, redwood framed “Mission Style”251 depot was designed by SPRR architects,
constructed by SPRR contractors, and completed in April of 1918 at a cost of around $13,000 [Figure 31].252 It
featured a red tile roof, a cement plaster (stucco) exterior, and “…an electric sign with the letters “Gilroy””253 The
interior spaces included fine oak woodwork, separate men’s and women’s rest rooms finished in marble, a baggage
room, and a ticket office. In December 1918, the Gilroy Advocate remarked that the original depot station was
currently under demolition, following the completion of the new passenger station. “The S.P. Co. is removing the old
passenger depot just north of the present handsome depot. This depot is an old landmark, having been used for
half a century.254”
Figure 31. The New SPRR Gilroy Station, circa 1920. (Gilroy Historical Museum)
Pacheco Pass
As the automobile became more affordable and accessible, so too did the dirt highways which connected Gilroy to
other areas of California. The first automobiles rambled across the Pacheco Pass in the 1920s, which at this time
connected Gilroy to Califa (near present-day Chowchilla) and was known as State Route 32.255 Increasing traffic
volumes over the pass encouraged Santa Clara and Merced Counties to purchase the route in 1923. Work to
upgrade the roadway into the section of Highway 152, known as the Pacheco Pass today, included widening and
paving the roadway. The enhancements to the roadway improved the quality of travel across the pass while
251 Gilroy Advocate. “New Depot Formally Opened.” May 4, 1918. Gilroy Historical Museum.
252 Mark Duncan. The San Francisco Peninsula Railroad Passenger Service – Past, Present and Future. (Askmar Publishing: Menlo
Park, California, 2005); Connie Rogers. "Gilroy Southern Pacific Railroad Depot." DRAFT National Register of Historic Places
Inventory/Nomination Form. (Gilroy, CA: Gilroy Historical Society, 2018).
253 Gilroy Advocate 1918
254 Gilroy Advocate. “Old Depot Being Torn Down.” December 28, 1918. Gilroy Historical Museum.
255 Chuck Myer. “Pacheco Past: A History of the Gateway to Santa Clara Valley.” (Santa Clara, CA: California Pioneers of Santa Clara
County, 1992). Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 70 July 2020
decreasing the time it took to travel between Gilroy and locations in the San Joaquin Valley. As vehicles operated
at increasing speeds over the pass, it gained a reputation as a dangerous roadway.256
Hecker Pass
Henry Hecker relocated to Gilroy from Marion Ohio in 1883, and quickly established himself as a successful
member of the Gilroy community. In addition to owning a successful grocery business in Gilroy, Hecker served both
as the treasurer of Gilroy between 1892 and 1916 and as the president of the Bank of Gilroy between 1908 and
1916 before leaving these positions to join the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors between 1916 and 1945. During
his thirty-year tenure on the Board of Supervisors, Hecker was influential in the completion of a many infrastructure
projects in Santa Clara County, including the construction of a road connecting Gilroy to Watsonville. Hecker saved
the road funds allotted to him yearly for use on county road projects and in 1928, he made a deal with Santa Cruz
County to construct a road between Gilroy and Santa Cruz County. The road would be routed along Mount Madonna
Pass, through the Mount Madonna property he negotiated to purchase from the Henry Miller estate in 1927 for use
as a County Park.257 The graded, shale-rock roadbed cost approximately $90,000 and opened a vital link between
the two counties.258 On May 27, 1928, approximately 6,000 people attended the highway’s dedication ceremony
picnic held near the summit of the pass. A plaque was unveiled that day, located at the summit near the Mount
Madonna Inn, which read “HECKER PASS: This testimonial dedicated to Henry Hecker whose foresight made
possible the completion of the Yosemite to the Sea Highway. May 27, 1928.”259
On Arbor Day 1930, prompted by a Statewide focus on town beautification, the Gilroy Rotary planted a row of 75
Deodar cedar trees along Hecker Pass with the assistance of local school children and helpful citizens, the Elks,
the American Legion Auxiliary, the Boy Scouts, and the Camp Fire Girls. Another 65 cedars were added to the row
on Arbor Day the following year. This row of “Living Christmas Trees” persists to present day along this stretch of
highway and was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2007.260
4.5.5 Agriculture, Industry and Manufacturing
Immigrant Farmers
Italian immigrants were among some the earliest settlers to the Gilroy area, including the Princevalle, Arena,
Porcella, Bisceglia, Filice, and Perrelli families. They established successful vineyards and orchards on many
properties surrounding Gilroy, producing wine, raisins, apricots, cherries, prunes and walnuts. Italians are credited
with introducing the propagation of tomatoes, onions and garlic to the area and they were among the first prominent
grocers and canners in the community.261
First-generation Japanese (Issei) families begun settling in the area as early as 1902.262 Along with their American-
born children (Nisei), the Nakashiri, Yamane, and Hirasaki families were among the leading growers of seed
256 Michael Morser. “A Historical Reconstruction Study of Highway 152 (Pacheco Pass).” (Gilroy, CA: Gilroy Historical Museum, 1989).
257 Chuck Myer. 1993. “Hecker Pass…A Historical Adventure: A History of the Southwestern Gateway to Santa Clara County.” (Santa
Clara, CA: 1993) Pioneers of Santa Clara County. Gilroy Historical Museum.
258 CalTrans (California Department of Transportation). “National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: Highway 152 Tree
Row, Santa Clara County, California.” (Sacramento, CA: Caltrans, 2007) Gilroy Historical Museum.
259 Myer. 1993. p.6.
260 CalTrans. 2007: Sec. 8, p. 1.
261 “Italian Influence Brings a Change to Agriculture.” No Date. Newspaper Article. Gilroy Historical Museum.
262 Gilroy Dispatch. 1970. “Japanese Immigrants were First Big Garlic Growers.” December 21, 1970. Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 71 July 2020
varieties for prominent seed companies in the area, such as the Pieter-Wheeler Seed Co. Common varieties of
seeds were onion, lettuce and mustard.263 The Japanese also found considerable success in growing row crops like
strawberries and garlic. In 1919, Kiyoshi Hirasaki leased 130 acres that would later become the Hirasaki Farms.
Initially growing plants for a seed business, Hirasaki switched to other crops, including garlic. Hirasaki, an Issei, had
to purchase all land in his Nisei children’s names, as they were American citizens by birth and eligible to own
property where he was not.264 By 1941, Kiyoshi Hirasaki was one of California’s largest garlic producers, with 1,500-
acres of garlic in cultivation on his Gilroy ranch.265
Live Oak Creamery
Gilroy was at the heart of Santa Clara Valley’s prosperous dairy industry during the beginning of the Twentieth
Century. When it was constructed in 1908 on Martin Street, the Live Oak Creamery was the first creamery in Gilroy
producing high-quality cheese and butter. The simple, one-story masonry false front building along Railroad Street
featured an innovative insulated area for the storage of dairy products. 266
Pieters-Wheeler Seed Company
Linwood Wheeler purchased the A.J. Pieters Seed Company in 1910, rebranded the company the Pieters-Wheeler
Seed Company, and relocated the company to Gilroy the same year. The company produced a wide range of
domestic vegetable seeds using both fields owned by the company as well as contracting out production to area
farmers, especially Japanese Farmers. The Pieters-Wheeler Seed Company was extremely successful and gained
the family a great deal of wealth and notoriety within the Gilroy community. The Wheeler family donated generously
to civic projects in Gilroy including the Wheeler Hospital, the Gymkhanna Grounds, and the Wheeler Civic
Auditorium.267
Filice & Perrelli Cannery
The Bisceglia Cannery was foundedwhen Joseph, Bruno and Alfonso Bisceglia opened a facility on Lewis Street in
1907. Following a fire that destroyed the plant, two young employees, Gennaro Filice and John Perrelli, raised and
borrowed the funds needed to buy the defunct plant and reopened it in 1914 under the name Filice & Perrelli. In
1929, the company expanded and opened an F & P Brand plant in Richmond, and when the 1914 plant burned
again in 1931, many employees transferred to Richmond to maintain employment and train new employees while
the Gilroy facility was rebuilt. The New Gilroy Cannery opened in April of 1933 and continued to employ a work force
through the worst years of the Depression between 1937 and 1938. 268
C. B. Gentry Chili Powder Company
Although there was little demand yet for dehydrated garlic and onion products, the C. B. Gentry Chili Powder
Company found Gilroy as a suitable location to diversify their product line in the late 1930s. Founded in Los Angeles
in 1918 by Charles Gentry and his wife, Lydia Clausen, Gentry specialized in processing peppers into ground chili
263 Manabi Hirasaki and Naomi Hirahara. A Taste for Strawberries: The Independent Journey of Nisei Farmer Manabi Hirasaki.
(Japanese American National Museum: Los Angeles, California, 2003).
264 Pauline Adema. Garlic Capital of the World. (Jackson, MS: University of Mississippi Press, 2009): 11-12.
265 Gilroy Dispatch. 1970.
266 Historic American Building Survey. Post-1933. “Live Oak Creamery.” Library of Congress.
https://www.loc.gov/resource/hhh.ca0928.sheet/?sp=1&st=single. Accessed December 11, 2018.
267 Gilroy Dispatch. 1973. “Pieters-Wheeler Seed Plant Sold.” September 7, 1973. Gilroy Historical Museum.
268 Gilroy Cannery Timeline. 2006. Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 72 July 2020
and paprika seasonings for sale to food manufactures throughout the United States. After several failed attempts
to establish plants in other areas of California, Gentry erected a small dehydration plant in Gilroy in the late 1930s
on the Pacheco Pass Highway. Capitalizing on the success of early row crop farmers producing garlic in the area,
such as Japanese immigrant Kiyoshi (Jimmy) Hirasaki, Gentry became the preeminent producer of dehydrated garlic
products during this period.269
BeGe Manufacturing & Welding Co.
A small company called BeGe Manufacturing & Welding Co. was formed in 1932 when farmer Albert Gurries
solicited blacksmith James Bussert to create a prototype of a land-leveling scraper and hydraulic pump control unit
that could be affixed to the front of a tractor. The two men named their new company by taking the first letter of
each of their last names followed by an ‘e’, forming the name BeGe.270
By 1936, the product was a hit, and Gurries and Bussert expanded their operation to a larger building near
Leavesley Street and Monterey Road and hired a small team of employees. Despite the economic hardships
experienced by people throughout California during the 1930s, farmers continued to invest in the BeGe
Manufacturing product. Additionally, their equipment was used in large land leveling projects across the state,
including the Bay Meadows racetrack in San Mateo (1934). The success of their product line allowed the company
to maintain a workforce throughout the Depression period. 271
4.6 World War II and Post-War Development (1941-
1975)
Like so many other cities in California, Gilroy was unable to evade the lasting effects brought by World War II. The
entrance of the United States into the war effort following the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7,
1941, laid the foundation for permanent shifts in Gilroy’s history: population growth, expansion of City territory, and
enlarged manufacturing, food production and processing capabilities.
4.6.1 Residential Development
The population of Gilroy grew substantially between 1940 and 1946 from 3,615 persons to 4,388.272 This growth
was spurred by a combination of service members returning from the war to establish families, and people who
were attracted to the area in search of job opportunities created by the war effort in Gilroy at companies like C.B.
Gentry and BeGe Manufacturing. The rapid population growth placed strain on the community burdened with the
responsibility to provide housing during a period when construction materials were being allocated towards the war.
273
When no plans were underway for new residential development, the owner of BeGe Manufacturing, Albert Gurries,
took the matter of housing his employees into his own hands. Designating a portion of the land he owned north of
269 Clausen Jr., George E. 2007. “History of Gentry and Gilroy Foods.” Gilroy Historical Museum.
270 Barrett, Elizabeth. 2019. “Notes on Be-Ge Manufacturing.”
271 Ginn, Phil. 1947. “About Albert Gurries: From ‘Perfectionist’s’ Dream Cam More Efficient Machine.” San Jose Mercury-News.
October 26. 1947. Gilroy Historical Museum; Barrett. 2019
272 Cox, N.D.
273 “Population of the City of Gilroy 1870-1997. Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 73 July 2020
First Street between Hanna and Church Streets, Gurries resolved to build his own employee housing in April 1945,
beginning with three, four-unit apartment buildings.274 Following the end of World War II, Gurries announced in
January 1946 that 50 additional houses would be developed on his land as housing for employees and returning
soldiers.275 Presently, remnants of these modest, Minimal Traditional-style Gurries Tract houses still stand on
Gurries Drive.
Residential development in Gilroy during the post-war period continued in the pattern established by early
subdivision developers like Albert Gurries, who sub-developed a property just outside the city-limits and had the
property annexed to become part of the City. Like many other cities in California, Gilroy’s population continued to
grow in the decade following the close of World War II, and the need for residential development required more
space than the remaining undeveloped areas within the City limits could allow. In order to house Gilroy’s many
incoming residents, annexation of new territory by the mid-1950s was essential to keep pace with the steadily rising
demand for housing. Reports like this from the San José Mercury-News in 1954 were common during this period:
“Workmon Homes will commence building 20 more units in September, making a total of 77 new homes in the
northwest sector of town.”276 The area of the City of Gilroy grew gradually in this way for the next several decades.
By 1960, the population of Gilroy had soared to 7,348 persons, from 4,951 persons recorded in 1950. The influx
of people to the City required even more newly annexed areas devoted to residential developments as well as
supporting infrastructure like schools, parks, churches and commercial centers. During 1965, the City annexed
750-acres of land, effectively increasing the area of the City by 50 percent during that year alone.277 Many of these
annexed regions were sub-developed into modern residential neighborhoods, like Sherwood Park, Eschenberg Park,
and Castlewood Park. By 1970, when the population of Gilroy had nearly doubled within the decade to 12,665
persons, there were approximately 3,000 residences housing the people of Gilroy.278
274 Hollister Free Lance. 2006.
275 Hollister Free Lance. 2006.
276 San Jose Mercury-News. 1954. “Gilroy Building for the Future.” (San Jose, CA: San Jose Mercury News, August 15, 1954). Gilroy
Historical Museum.
277 San Jose Mercury-News. 1966.
278 Gilroy Chamber of Commerce. “Standard Industrial Survey Report: Gilroy, Santa Clara County, California.” (Gilroy, CA: Gilroy
Chamber of Commerce, March, 1969). Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 74 July 2020
4.6.2 Commercial Development
Commercial development continued at a moderate rate in Gilroy during the course of World War II (Figure 32). There
were several standard business that changed hands but maintained the same basic function, such as the Gilroy
Hardware Company (1928-1939) at 7428 Monterey Road becoming the Chappell Hardware Company in 1940 and
Espindola’s Grocery (1926-1940) at 7533 Monterey Road becoming Bettencourt’s Market in 1941, before moving
north of Fourth Street in. Little new construction was completed for the purposes of commercial development during
this period, as most business that began during the war years were established in existing commercial buildings.
There were at least a few entrepreneurs willing to take the chance. Perhaps recognizing the imminent growth of the
City, A.W. Brown with the expertise of contractor William Radtke, erected a new Streamline Moderne-Style Real
Estate office at 7495 Monterey Road.279
Figure 32. Looking west on Monterey Road, c.1940s-1950s. (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical Museum).
Advertisements for new businesses visible on the side of building.
279 Gilroy Chamber of Commerce. “Commercial Building Survey.” 1985. Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 75 July 2020
In 1949, following the recommendation by the Planning Commission, the City Council passed an ordinance allowing
restricted businesses to operate for the first time on a section of Eigleberry Street between First and Seventh
Streets.280 One of the first commercial developments in this new commercial sector was the International Order of
Odd Fellows Lodge. In 1953, the original I.O.O.F. building constructed in 1869 on Martin Street was demolished to
make way for the construction of a new American Trust Co. bank. A replacement I.O.O.F lodge was designed by
structural engineer O.B. Christiansen from Santa Clara and built by contractor William Radtke & Son on its present
site at Eigleberry Street between Fifth and Sixth Streets for $112,000 in 1954. The two-story, Mid-Century-Modern
building was designed with four commercial spaces on the ground level below the lodge hall, and also housed the
offices of Coast Counties Gas & Electric Company, a doctor’s office, and offices for Howard Electric Co. (Figure
33).281 Additional commercial development in 1954 included the completion of the American Trust Co. bank on
Monterey at Martin Street, and the new modern Arizona Flagstone Post Office building on Third Street.
Figure 33. New IOOF Building in 1954, Eigleberry Street, looking west. (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical
Museum)
Commercial Development in the 1960s and 1970s was largely confined to the newly developed areas of the City.
These areas required the installation of new facilities like shopping centers to service the outlying residential
developments. Commercial development along Monterey Road in the downtown corridor did not see sizeable new
projects during this period. Comparative to the World War II period, new commercial ventures were initiated in the
storefronts of pre-existing buildings.
280 Gilroy Dispatch. 1949. “Eigleberry Street Rezoning Ordinance Adopted.” January 25, 1949. Gilroy Historical Museum.
281 Gilroy Evening Dispatch. 1954. “First Big Project on Eigleberry: Work to Start on New IOOF Building.” January, 1954. Gilroy
Historical Museum; San Jose Mercury News 1954
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 76 July 2020
4.6.3 Civic and Institutional Development
Alien Registration During the War Years
Prior to the formal declaration of war by the United States on Japan and Germany, the Alien Registration Act (Smith
Act), was signed into law in June of 1940.282 The final provision of the act required all resident, non-citizen adults
living in the United States to register with the federal government. Registration began in cities throughout the
country and by January 1941, nearly 4.7-million resident aliens had been registered.283 Following United States
involvement in World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Presidential Proclamations 2525, 2526, and
2527, which stated that:
all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation[s] being of the age of fourteen years and
upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be
apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.284
Gilroy began their registration program shortly after the war began, operating out of different locations in town
including the Post Office and City Hall.285 The residents being registered were identified, fingerprinted, asked for
information pertaining to their birthplace, their family’s ethnic heritage and then they would receive a passport-like
booklet bearing all the information in addition to a physical description.286 By this time, Gilroy was home to a wide
array of first and second-generation immigrants from Europe and Asia, many of whom were both well-established
members of the community and prominent producers of agricultural products.
Many Japanese families living in Gilroy destroyed evidence connecting their families to Japan in an effort to
disassociate themselves with the fear following the attack on Pearl Harbor. The ensuing registration process had
an especially profound effect on these families, as prominent members of the community who had been in Gilroy
for decades were among the first arrested by the FBI and those relocated to internment camps. There were also a
number of Nisei from Gilroy who were drafted and served throughout the war, and others who volunteered to serve
with the all-Japanese 442nd Regiment during their time in one of the many internment camps throughout the
country.287
Kiyoshi Hirasaki (Figure 34) was arrested by the FBI in Gilroy in 1941. He was sent to Sharp Point internment camp
in Pacifica, California before being sent to Fort Lincoln in Bismarck, North Dakota. He was released in 1942 and
was able to rejoin his family in Grand Junction, Colorado. Kiyoshi’s wife and eight children had ‘voluntarily
resettled’288 in Grand Junction in 1942, where they waited out the duration of the war. When the war ended, the
Hirasaki family returned to Gilroy to find that a kind neighbor had ensured that their home and farm had remained
safe during their absence.289
282 Encyclopedia Britannica. 2017. “Smith Act.” https://www.britannica.com/event/Smith-Act. Accessed December 8, 2018.
283 The New York Times. 1941. “Alien Total So Far is Put at 4,741,971.” (New York: New York Times, January 13, 1941.)
https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1941/01/13/88097082.html. Accessed December 8, 2018.
284 “Alien Enemies--Japanese.” Proc. No. 2525, Dec. 7, 1941, 6 F.R. 6321, 55 Stat. Pt. 2, 1700.
285 Woollacott et al. 1991. 49.
286 Woollacott et al. 1991. 49
287 Gilroy Dispatch. 1970. “Japanese Immigrants were First Big Garlic Growers.” December 21, 1970. Gilroy Historical Museum.
288 Prior to Japanese families being interned forcibly, the United States government encouraged them to voluntarily leave the
designated coastal military zones following with the passage of the Executive Order 9066 in February 1942.
289 Densho Encyclopedia. 2015. “Kiyoshi Hirasaki.” Accessed March 31, 2019. http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Kiyoshi_Hirasaki/
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 77 July 2020
Figure 34. Kiyoshi Hirasaki and part of his family outside their family home in Gilroy in 1945. The Japanese-
style building was originally part of an exhibition at the 1939 World’s Fair in San Francisco and was bought and
relocated to Gilroy by Kiyoshi. (War Relocation Authority Photograph Collection, University of California Berkeley)
Civilian Defense Organization
City Hall also became the headquarters of the civilian defense organization in Gilroy during World War II, and was
the site of at least one event on November 19, 1942 inspiring support for the war. The rally was organized as part
of a tour of a captured Japanese Submarine called the ‘Tojo Cigar,’ which was displayed at sites along a nationwide
tour intended to promote the war effort and encourage Americans to purchase war bonds.290
Standard Building, Electrical and Plumbing Codes
Although the City established a Planning Commission by ordinance in 1936, several more years passed before a
Uniform Building Code and Standard Electrical and Plumbing codes were adopted in 1941.291 Noticing a
distinguished rise in the number of building permits issued between 1940 and 1952, the City took steps to control
and curb unbridled development through the adoption of additional ordinances, such as the 1945 ordinance
forbidding shacks and unsightly structures.292 These types of ordinances were implemented in an effort to
standardize the quality and safety of buildings in Gilroy. Additionally, zoning ordinances were passed to help
290 Woollacott et al. 1991.
291 Cox. N.D.
292 San Jose Mercury-News. 1954. “Gilroy Building for Future.” August 15, 1954. Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 78 July 2020
maintain the character of certain neighborhoods and protect the residential areas from becoming dotted with
commercial use.
Schools
The original Gilroy High School building was condemned and demolished in 1956 after the construction of new high
school buildings to the east on the same property. Owing to the extensive expansion of the city limits in the 1960s,
by 1972, the Community Economic Profile released by the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce boasted six elementary
schools, one junior high, one high school, and one junior college serving the Gilroy community.293
A New City Charter
The gradual expansion of the City’s territory through annexation during the 1950s shed light on some aspects of
Gilroy’s government structure, which had not been updated since the original city charter was adopted in 1870. In
1949, the San José Mercury-News reported that Gilroy’s City Charter was “…believed to be the only early-day charter
still in effect in California.”294 A new City Charter was adopted in 1960, which included key updates such as
lengthening the two-year term for the office of Mayor to four years and the elected position of City Marshal would
be replaced by an appointed Chief of Police.295
New Civic Center
In 1963, all City offices except the Police Department were relocated from City Hall to in the west side of the Wheeler
Auditorium. A new Justice Court building was also completed during 1963 on Rosanna Street near to the Wheeler
Auditorium, creating the foundation of the Gilroy Civic Center complex presently. In 1965, following the completion
of a new police administration building on the corner of Hanna and Seventh Streets on the edge of the Civic Center,
the Gilroy Police Department vacated their office in the Old City Hall. Newly vacant, the fate of Old City Hall was
unknown until the Gilroy Historical Society formed in 1965 and worked to nominate the Old City Hall Building for
placement on the National Register of Historic Places by 1975.296
In 1975, the City Public Library was moved from the Carnegie Library building into a new facility on the corner of
Sixth and Rosanna Streets beside the Civic Center Complex; however, this building was demolished to make way
for the most recent library building, completed in 2013. In 1976, the Carnegie Library Building was dedicated as
the Gilroy Historical Museum to house the ever-growing collection of Gilroy-related historical materials initially
compiled by City Historian, Armand White.297
New Gilroy-Morgan Hill Sewer Line and Future Treatment Plant
In 1965, anticipating the eventual need to expand sewer and water treatment infrastructure to keep pace with
population growth, Gilroy agreed to a $370,000 deal that would connect Morgan Hill’s sewer line to their own. The
293 Gilroy Chamber of Commerce. 1972. “Gilroy, Santa Clara County, California: Community Economic Profile.” Gilroy Historical
Museum.
294 San Jose Mercury-News. 1949. “City of Gilroy 79 years Old: 1870 Charter Still in Effect.” March 13, 1949. Gilroy Historical
Museum.
295 “Through the Decades 1950 – 1960.” Gilroy Historical Museum.
296 “Through the Decades: 1960s.”
297 White, Armand. No Date. “Timeline”. Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 79 July 2020
sewer line was completed in 1969 with future plans to build a joint treatment plant south of Gilroy. 298 Planning on
the new sewage treatment plant was underway by 1971.299
Street Improvements and Numbering System
Municipal infrastructure improvements during 1955 included the installation of a center divider and new street
lamps to replace the 1906 cast iron lamps on Monterey Road. In 1966, a joint effort between Gilroy and Morgan
Hill resulted in the adoption of a system standardizing house and street numbering in the south of the county,
starting from the Santa Clara-San Benito county line and moving north. This effectively replaced the previous
numbering system which was based on labeling streets north of Sixth Street ‘North” and those south of Sixth Street
‘South’ in the downtown area. The new numbering system simplified this by eliminating the north south labels in
favor of a sequential numbering system and would take place over “the next two years.” 300
New Hospital
In 1962, a new hospital facility was completed for the people of Gilroy in 1962. The new facility was constructed
behind the original Wheeler hospital facing south to Sixth Street, and was capable of accommodating 50 patients,
21 more patients than the original 29-bed Wheeler hospital facility could serve.301
Gavilan College
The Gavilan College District was approved for the eventual move of the community college from the City of Hollister
to a new site southwest of Gilroy in 1963. The new, 2,700 square mile Community College district placed the college
astride both Santa Clara and San Benito Counties, offering students from both counties an opportunity to attend. A
local bond in 1966 appropriated the fund necessary to build the new campus and the new campus opened in
1968.302
Christmas Hill Park
Improvements to the 28-acre Christmas Hill Park also in the southwest of Gilroy started in 1965, and the park
opened during the summer of 1966.303 The unusual name for the park stems from the Toyon Trees, or California
Holly, that once grew on the slope above the park. These trees bear bright red berries in the late fall and early winter
that Gilroyans harvested for use as festive Christmas décor. Eventually the Toyon trees were gone, but the
namesake of the place remained.304
Chesbro and Uvas Dams
While not located within city limits, the Chesbro Dam and the Uvas Dam located northwest of Gilroy, were completed
respectively in 1956 and 1957.305 Chesbro Dam was named for Dr. Elmer Chesbro, who was a doctor and civic
298 San Jose Mercury-News. 1966.
299 San Jose Mercury News. 1984. “Cover-up Led to Resignations...” January 4, 1984. San Jose Public Library.
300 San Jose Mercury-News. 1966.
301 “Through the Decades: 1960s.” Gilroy Historical Museum.
302 Gavilan College. 2018. “History of Gavilan College.” http://www.gavilan.edu/about/history.php. Accessed December 20, 2018.
303 San Jose Mercury-News. 1966. “Gilroy’s Top Problems Attacked During 1965.” January 30, 1966. San Jose Public Library.
304 Gilroy Dispatch. 2006. “The Story Behind Christmas Hill Park.” http://gilroydispatch.com/2006/01/23/the-story-behind-
christmas-hill-park/. Accessed December 20, 2018.
305 Cox n.d.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 80 July 2020
leader in Gilroy. He was serving as the President of the South Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District at the
time the dam and reservoir bearing his name were planned and constructed.306
4.6.4 Transportation Infrastructure
The increased number of people living and working in Gilroy resulted in increased traffic through town. As early as
1965, Gilroy, in conjunction with Morgan Hill, appealed to the State Highway Commission to route Highway 101
around the City instead of along Monterey Road in order to alleviate traffic congestion. By the time the Highway 101
bypass was complete in 1973, the population of Gilroy was recorded at over 12,600 persons.307 During this time,
the railroad depot fell into decline, and in April 1971, the final service to the station ran until 1992. The station was
rehabilitated and service restored in 1998.308
4.6.5 Agriculture, Industry and Manufacturing
The War Effort
The notion that “Where Our Men are Fighting, Our Food is Fighting” was at the heart of several important food
production and manufacturing expansions during the World War II period.309 American Troops abroad required huge
and regular quantities of food, and so a primary mission in the war effort focused on the production, processing
and home front rationing of food on a national scale. The U.S. Department of Agriculture promoted the cultivation
of private gardens, called Victory Gardens, to help bolster family supplies during heightened periods of rationing.
Gilroy’s prominent agricultural history helped to support the war effort in a few unique ways.
The Bracero Program
As the Japanese community in Gilroy either voluntarily moved away or was forcibly sent to internment camps
beginning in the 1941, the large-scale production farms surrounding Gilroy experienced an acute shortage of labor
to assist in the harvest, processing, and shipping of their products.310 The labor shortage was not unique to the
Gilroy area, but rather was a problem across the agricultural regions of the Unites States, which was being further
exacerbated by the increased demands of food for the war effort. On August 4, 1942, the United States signed a
bilateral agreement with Mexico arranging the use of migratory farm labor from Mexico which was known as the
Mexican Farm Labor Program Agreement.311 The program was managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
it allowed Mexican citizens to enter the United States and work on a farm for a pre-determined period of time before
returning to Mexico. The program attracted men who could not find employment during the Mexican economic
downturn, as well as young Mexican men who were educated and saw the program as an opportunity to experience
a new life in the United States. Either way, the participants in the program were often subjected to meager pay for
difficult work and poor living conditions, which were only guaranteed on a contractual, seasonal basis. The program
306 Santa Clara County Parks. 2019. “Chesbro Reservoir County Park.”
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/parks/parkfinder/Pages/ChesbroReservoir.aspx . Accessed March 14, 2019.
307 “Population of the City of Gilroy 1870-1997”. Gilroy Historical Museum.
308 Rogers 2018
309 Poster. “Where our men are fighting, our food is fighting.”1943. Library of Congress.
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2004678605/. Accessed December 8, 2018.
310 CIRCA 2006.
311 Texas State Historical Association. 2010. "BRACERO PROGRAM," Handbook of Texas Online, Fred L. Koestler. Accessed March
31, 2019, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/omb01.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 81 July 2020
quickly earned the name Bracero, Spanish for ‘arm-man’ or manual laborer.312 Though it began as short-term relief
from labor shortages during World War II, the program ended up lasting until the 1960s with approximately 1 million
people filling 4.6 million work contracts.313 The Bracero Program established a pattern of Mexican migration to the
Santa Clara Valley between 1942 and 1964 that is the historical basis for the vibrant Latino and Mexican American
population in Gilroy today.
C.B. Gentry Company
Having established a small plant to dehydrate onion and garlic in Gilroy during the 1930s, the C. B. Gentry Company
was conscripted to begin providing dehydrated food products for the armed forces during World War II (Figure 35).
The initial limited facility was not sufficient for the scale of production required, so a new facility was constructed
on the present site of Gilroy Foods, using funds provided by the federal government.314 Hundreds of people from
the Gilroy community labored at the new facility, which functioned 24-hours a day producing dehydrated varieties
of locally grown food for the troops, eventually earning the Company an Army Navy Production Award for their
assistance in the war effort.315
Figure 35. The Gentry Plant in 1962. (Gilroy Dispatch)
312 Ibid.
313 Bracero History Archive. 2019. “About” Webpage. Accessed March 26, 2019 http://braceroarchive.org/about
314George E Clausen Jr. 2007. “History of Gentry and Gilroy Foods.” Gilroy Historical Museum.
315 Clausen Jr. 2007.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 82 July 2020
Gilroy Foods, Inc.
Gilroy Foods incorporated in 1958 as a processing plant specializing in dehydrated garlic. Construction on the first
generation 20,000-ft plant began in the same year.316 The new company completed its first production cycle in
October 1959, at which time employees sorted locally sourced garlic bulbs by hand. The company became a
subsidiary of the famous spice brand, McCormick & Company, in 1961, causing production demands to spike.
Between 1985 and 1988, McCormick purchased Gentry Foods (the brand was formally absorbed by Gilroy Foods,
Inc.).317 Between the two Gilroy plants, Gilroy Foods, Inc. maintained a successful handle on the garlic market in
the United States, and was processing and/or packing approximately 90 percent of the world’s garlic for the
wholesale and mainstream consumer markets by the end of the 1980s.318 Gilroy Foods, Inc. was historically the
largest employer in the Gilroy area, and still maintains a huge share of local employment presently.
BeGe Manufacturing
The BeGe Manufacturing Company was founded in the early-1930s to produce agricultural machinery products, but
when the U.S. involvement in World War II began, their product line expanded to include the production of steel-
plate ship sections, armored amphibious tank sections, and the 76 MM Tank gun (Figures 36, 37).319 The Gilroy
Dispatch noted, “additional precision machinery makes BeGe one of the finest machine shops in state…”320 The
considerable enlargement of the company necessitated a substantial workforce, and during peak war-time
production the plant supported a workforce of 175 men and women.321 In 1944, BeGe announced further plans to
expand the facility and workforce, just as soon as housing became available to accommodate them.322
316 ConAgra Foods, Inc. 2009. “Garlic: the root of it all.” Gilroy Foods and Flavors.
317 Warren Brown. “Ah, The Sweet Smell of Success.” The Washington Post. (June 13, 1988). Accessed March 26, 2019.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1988/06/13/ah-the-sweet-smell-of-success/943da8cf-5ca9-432a-bb4b-
a6c5cc0d4b12/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3aa851095843
318 The San Francisco Chronicle. 1986. “Gilroy is Going in for More Than Garlic These Days.” July 24, 1986. Gilroy Historical
Museum.
319 Elizabeth Barratt. “BeGe-Manufacturing Co. Notes.” No Date. Gilroy Historical Museum; Madera Daily News-Tribune. 1953. “Oliver
Corporation Buys BeGe Manufacturing Co.” November 17, 1953. P. 5. https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-
bin/cdnc?a=d&d=MT19531117&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------1. Accessed December 7, 2018.
320 Gilroy Dispatch. 1944. December 5, 1944. As quoted in Barratt. No Date. Gilroy Historical Museum.
321 Hollister Free Lance. 2006. “BeGe Manufacturing Co. Played Major WWII Role.” November 24, 2006.
https://sanbenito.com/2006/11/24/yesterday-today/. Accessed December 9, 2018.
322 Hollister Free Lance. 2006.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 83 July 2020
Figure 36. Men Shaping Sheet Metal, BeGe Manufacturing, c.1940s, (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical
Museum)
Figure 37. BeGe Manufacturing, c.1940s, (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical Museum)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 84 July 2020
Christopher Ranch
Following in the footsteps of their Danish immigrant Father, Ole Christopher, who was a famous producer of prunes
in the Santa Clara Valley region, Don and Art Christopher set out in 1956 to create a ranch of their own. They
purchased some acreage in Gilroy and decided to cultivate a crop that was gaining popularity in the area: garlic.
They initially planted French and Italian varieties, and eventually settled on a variety from the Piedmont area in
northwest Italy, which would become their signature garlic crop, Monviso.323
Gilroy Invites New Industry
By 1954, the farmland surrounding Gilroy was cultivating a wide variety of agricultural products, including prunes,
apricots, pears, strawberries, walnuts, lima beans, garlic, sugar beets, tomatoes and cucumbers.324 Yet, despite
the success of these goods, the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce sought to attract new industries which might move
the community away from the seasonal nature of agricultural based industry, noting that currently “…industrial
employment [in Gilroy] now draws 4,000 workers for a three months’ period, requiring only about 200 the rest of
the year.”325 Realizing the geographical advantages of their location, the City identified 250-acres of available land
to the southeast of town near to the rail line and the highway available for industrial development because
“Gilroyans owe their daily bread largely to farm operations, but industry accounts for an enormous share of the local
pay roll.”326
In 1961, a Standard Industrial Survey Summary of Gilroy found that Gilroy’s six largest manufacturing plants
included BeGe Manufacturing Co. (300 employees), Gentry (60 to 400 seasonal employees), Filice & Perrelli
Canning Co. (80 to 800 seasonal employees), National Fiberglass Corporation (25 employees), Air-O-Fan
Corporation (12 employees), and Sandoe Hanna Welding Co. (10 employees).
By 1972, Gilroy boasted 37 manufacturing plants in the area. Food processing still accounted for the largest
employer in the area with California Canners & Growers, Gentry’s Inc., and Gilroy Foods employing around 1,850
people. The production of modular buildings by Dukor Industries employed 175 people, while paper products
produced at companies like Crown Zellerbach Co. and Pacific Central Co. employed another 130.327
323 Christopher Ranch. 2018. “About Us.” https://www.christopherranch.com/the-ranch/. Accessed December 20, 2018.
324 San Jose Mercury-News. 1954.
325 San Jose Mercury-News. 1954.
326 San Jose Mercury-News. 1954.
327 Gilroy Chamber of Commerce. 1972.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 85 July 2020
4.7 Modern Gilroy (1975-Present)
The continued development of Gilroy during the modern period can be largely defined by the City’s close proximity
to the rapid expansion of Silicon Valley’s tech industry, efforts by engaged community members to safeguard the
agricultural and architectural heritage of the community in the face of becoming a bedroom district to the tech
industry in San José, and the rebranding of the City as the Garlic Capital of the World.
4.7.1 Residential Development
Residential development continued through the close of the 1970s, as the overwhelming expansion of San José
drifted into the Southern area of the county. The population of Gilroy had grown from 12,684 in 1970 to 21,550 in
1980.328 In the early 1980s, the South Santa Clara Valley was named “…one of the five new San Josés in the Bay
Area.”329 Realizing that their proximity to the booming tech industry meant unavoidable future growth, the relatively
small communities in the Valley like Gilroy and nearby Morgan Hill quickly felt the pressure to plan for future
expansion of their infrastructure. The development potential of Gilroy was at its core, predicated on the capacity of
its sewer system. A new joint sewer treatment plant servicing Gilroy and Morgan Hill was planned for a site off
Luchessa Lane, two miles south of Gilroy, as early as 1971.330
The new plant cost approximately $4 million dollars to complete and replaced the older treatment plant, which had
been functioning since 1927. The new plant began operation in 1981 and was capable of processing 6.1 million
gallons of wastewater per day. However, capacity issues with operation began after completion. In response, Gilroy’s
City Council passed a measure limiting residential development to 375 units per year.331
Unfortunately, the selected site of the treatment plant was subject to frequent flooding, making the isolation of the
various percolation treatment ponds very difficult.332 Two years into its operation, the plant was imperiled, showing
signs of overuse and was at almost constant risk of flooding.333
As a result of environmental issues stemming from the overuse of the plant and mistreatment of sewage, the State
of California imposed a sewer hookup moratorium for the City of Gilroy, which effectively halted the pace of growth
in the city to a crawl during a period of rapid expansion in other parts of Santa Clara County in the 1980s.”334
Despite the difficulties wrought by the sewer treatment plant and the resulting sewer hook-up ban, the population
of Gilroy continued to gradually expand throughout the 1980s. While there was a marked deceleration in the rate
of growth when compared previous decades, the City was still attracting new residents to the suburban residential
developments that creeped towards the hills west and south of the City. In 1986, the area constituting Gilroy
encompassed 6,270-acres, and by 1997, the city limits held 9,366-acres of land and a population of 35,267
people. 335 As the tech industries in San José and Silicon Valley continued to grow through the 1990s and early
328 “Population of the City of Gilroy 1870-1997.” Gilroy Historical Museum.
329 People for Open Space as quoted in San Jose Mercury-News. 1984. “Cover-up Led to Resignations…” January 4, 1984a. San Jose
Public Library
330 San Jose Mercury-News. 1984a.
331 San Jose Mercury News. 1984b. Sweepstakes for Builders.” January 5, 1984. San Jose Public Library.
332 San Jose Mercury-News. No Date. “New Plant Never Really Did its Job.” San Jose Public Library.
333 San Jose Mercury-News. 1984a.
334 Gilroy Councilmember Sharon Albert. 1984. As quote in the San Jose Mercury-News. 1984a.
335 “Area of the City of Gilroy.” No Date. Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 86 July 2020
2000s, the reputation of Gilroy as a bedroom community grew alongside it. As of 2010, the population of Gilroy
reached 48,821 persons, a massive increase from the nominal 3,000-person count recorded in 1870 at the time
Gilroy became a City.336
4.7.2 Commercial Development
Gilroy Premium Outlets
As the City of Gilroy grew, so too did the commercial needs of the City. The largest contribution to commercial change
for the city came in 1990 with the construction of the sixty store Pacific West Outlet Center on Leavesley Road
(Figure 38). The shopping complex would continue to expand, eventually reaching its current size of 575,000 square
feet of built area containing over 145 outlet stores. Today the complex is called the Gilroy Premium Outlets.337
Figure 38. Recently completed outlet mall, 1990 (Photograph Collection, Gilroy Historical Museum)
Gilroy Gardens
In 2001, another important commercial venture in Gilroy opened to the public following over two decades of
planning and development. Gilroy Gardens is the product of Michael Bonfante’s, the owner of Nob Hill Foods, love
of nature. The natural world offered Bonfante an escape from the hectic realities of day to day life, and by the mid-
1970s he was innovating ways to share his passion for trees with others. Bonafante Gardens opened in 2001 as a
horticultural theme park, which aimed to educate children and their families about the importance of horticulture
336 “Population of the City of Gilroy 1870-1997.”
337 San Jose Mercury News. 2005. “Gilroy Timeline.” November 12, 2005. https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/02/05/gilroy-
timeline/. Accessed December 21, 2018; Gilroy Premium Outlets. 2018. “About Gilroy Premium Outlets.”
https://www.premiumoutlets.com/outlet/gilroy/about. Accessed December 21, 2018.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 87 July 2020
in a fun and memorable environment.338 The City of Gilroy purchased the park and the 536 acres it sits on in 2006
and changed the name to Gilroy Gardens in 2007 to foster a more clear connection between the park and its
location.339
4.7.3 Civic and Institutional Development
Gilroy Garlic Festival
In the summer of 1978, three local Gilroyans hosted a modest luncheon event that featured garlic as the star
attraction. The luncheon was a raving success and so the idea conceived by Dr. Rudy Melone, Val Filice and Don
Christopher of Christopher Ranch, expanded with the support of City officials to become the first official Gilroy Garlic
Festival. The event was held at the Bloomfield Ranch on August 4-5, 1979, and all proceeds would be returned to
the Gilroy Community. Over 15,000 people attended in the first year alone and the festival raised over $19,000
dollars through the sale of tickets, garlic themed dishes, and beer. The following year, the festival moved to its
permanent home at Christmas Hill Park.340
The Gilroy Garlic Festival celebrated its 40th year in 2018 and raised more than $11 million dollars for use by Gilroy
schools and local non-profit organizations to date. The Garlic Festival continues to be a huge success and draws
garlic-loving crowds from all over the world.341 Sadly, on July 28, 2019, the annual Gilroy Garlic Festival became
the site of a mass-shooting that killed three people and wounded at least 13 others.342 . After the shooting, a local
movement, known as Gilroy Strong (#gilroystrong), grew to support the grieving community. In January 2020, the
Gilroy Strong Resiliency Center at The Neon Exchange, 7365 Monterey Road, was celebrated with a grand opening.
The center will offer counseling, trauma education and compensation for victims of the mass shooting343.
Mexican-American Murals
Following the Mexican Revolution in 1910, murals served an important role in Mexico helping to educate citizens,
who were sometimes illiterate, about the possibilities of a national consciousness and the opportunities of new
civic leadership in Mexico. The content and subjects of Mexican murals differed from American and Western-style
murals, which traditionally featured views of the ruling class. The Mexican mural frequently featured the laboring
and peasant classes, often in the process of overcoming the ruling classes. This visual language saw a resurgence
during the American civil rights movements of the late 1960s when it was used as a way for Mexican-Americans to
assert the importance of their individual cultural heritage in the face of a mainstream American culture that touted
the value of homogeneity.344 Three important mural projects by self-identified Chicano muralists date from the late
1970s in Gilroy and maintain connections to this social identity and heritage movement of this period. The Ball
Players (Tlachit) was painted in 1978 in present-day San Ysidro Park by the Tortuga Partrol, which was a student-
338 Gilroy Gardens. 2018. “About Us.” https://www.gilroygardens.org/explore/about-us. Accessed December 21, 2018.
339 Gilroy Gardens. No Date. “Michael Kiosk Booklet.” Gilroy Historical Museum.
340 Gilroy Garlic Festival. 2018. “History.” https://gilroygarlicfestival.com/about/history/. Accessed December 21, 2018; Adema
2009: 25-26
341 Gilroy Garlic Festival. 2018.
342 Evan Sernoffsky. 2019. “Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting: Killer had more guns, survival gear and a clown mask.” (San Francisco,
CA: San Francisco Chronicle, Aug 8, 2019). https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Gilroy-Garlic-Festival-shooting-Killer-had-
more-14291480.php
343 Bay City News. 2020. “Gilroy Strong Resiliency Center to Open Tuesday with Ceremony.” Source:
https://patch.com/california/gilroy/gilroy-strong-resiliency-center-open-tuesday-ceremony
344 Cockcroft, Eva Sperling and Holly Barnet-Sanchez. 1990a. “Signs from the Heart: California Chicano Murals.” In Humanities
Network. Fall 1990: Vol. 12/Num. 4,: pg. 2. Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 88 July 2020
group from Watsonville led by artists Ray Romo and Ralph D’Oliveira. Also in 1978, the Tecolote Corps painted a
large outdoor mural on a building at South Valley Middle School on IOOF Avenue.345 Another large mural by an
unknown Mexican-American muralist during the same period depicts a 30-foot tall circular Aztec Calendar on the
rear of a building located on Hornlein Court. A fundraiser to revitalize this mural is presently underway with funds
being raised to hire veteran Chicano muralist, Guillermo Aranda, to oversee the restoration.346
4.7.4 Transportation Infrastructure
Gilroy Depot
The Gilroy Depot, which had its last train service in 1971, gained new life as a multi-modal transportation station
for local and intra-city bus service in 1986, and train service was restored in 1992. In 1998, the depot building was
reopened after a years-long rehabilitation project. The rehabilitation of the depot involved significant improvements
including interior rehabilitation, remodeling of the southeast wing into a snack bar, remodeling of the northwest
wing into an open-air covered waiting area, and seismic retrofit.347
Caltrain Service
In 1992, Caltrain extended a twice-daily commuter train service line from Dridon Station in San José to Gilroy. The
frequency of Caltrain service has expanded and thinned at various points during the years, but currently offers three
AM and three PM trains a day Monday through Friday with special weekend services offered during the Gilroy Garlic
Festival.348
California High-Speed Rail
After California voters passed Proposition 1A in 2008, California began preparation on a Statewide-High-Speed Rail
system that would eventually create a route between San Francisco and Los Angeles. As the approved route for the
project will pass through Gilroy, Gilroy entered into an agreement with the California High-Speed Rail Authority
(CHSRA) in 2015 to create a Station Area Plan (Plan) within the downtown community area of Gilroy utilizing grant
monies received from High-Speed Rail (HSR). While the Station Area Plan focused on the development of a
downtown station, the Plan was intended to serve as a guide for future community development in the private and
public sectors for the next 25 years. Following the study of various land use and circulation plans for the City
concerning the implementation of such a large project, four viable routes were identified for the path of the project
into Gilroy. Following the negative concurrent findings between City officials and CHSRA concerning the Highway
101 option in 2017, the City of Gilroy moved to place the Station Area Plan on hold and wait to choose the final
alignment path from the remaining choices until the completion of CHSRA Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the San José to Merced segment of the HSR project.349
345 Cockcroft, Eva Sperling and Holly Barnet-Sanchez. 1990b. Signs from the Heart: California Chicano Murals. University of New
Mexico Press: Albuquerque, NM.
346 GofundMe. 2018. “Aztec Calendar Restoration Project.” Accessed March 31, 2019. https://www.gofundme.com/aztec-calendar-
restoration-project
347 Rogers 2018
348 Caltrain.2018.”Gilroy Station.” http://www.caltrain.com/stations/gilroystation.html. Accessed December 21, 2018.
349 California High-Speed Rail Authority. 2018. “Gilroy Station.”
https://www.hsr.ca.gov/programs/station_communities/gilroy_station.html. Accessed December 21, 2018. ; City of Gilroy. 2018.
“Your Voice: Gilroy High Speed Rail Alignment.” https://yourvoice.cityofgilroy.org/high-speed-rail-alignment. Accessed January 4,
2019.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 89 July 2020
In 2018, CHSRA released a Draft Business Plan, which outlined an agreement with Caltrain to expand electrification
of tracks south of San José to Gilroy as part of the HSR project. Caltrain will receive needed funds to improve
infrastructure and ridership, while the HSR project will be able to avoid contentious community scenarios in
congested areas by utilizing existing Caltrain infrastructure.350
4.7.5 Agriculture, Industry and Manufacturing
In many ways, the present Gilroy agricultural, manufacturing, and general industry reflects patterns, which were
established early in the City’s development. Agriculture and agricultural product processing continues to maintain
a huge share of the employment market in Gilroy, followed closely by manufacturing and industrial ventures (Figure
39). However, as the City becomes more desirable as a commuter suburb to Silicon Valley, the balance within the
community is tipping as former agricultural lands are converted into land for housing.
Figure 39. Employees process garlic for Christopher Ranch Farms, c. 1980 (Photograph Collection, Gilroy
Historical Museum)
350 California High-Speed Rail Authority. 2018. Draft 2018 Business Plan. Accessed March 31, 2019.
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/Draft_2018_Business_Plan.pdf
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 4. Historic Context 90 July 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 91 July 2020
5 Architectural Styles
The following (Tables 2 through 5) presents an overview of all major architectural styles by property type (i.e.,
residential, commercial, civic and institutional, and industrial properties), as identified during the citywide survey.
5.1 Residential Properties
Table 2. Architectural Styles for Residential Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Carpenter Gothic (1840-1880s)
• Simple rectangular house form
• Wood frame construction
• Symmetrical façades
• Strong vertical design elements
• Steeply pitched front facing gables with scroll work
barge boards
• Carved porch railings
• Board and batten, horizontal, or vertical wood siding
• Pinnacles as decorative elements
• Pointed cathedral style windows and doors
7311 Alexander Street (pre-1937)
Italianate (1840-1885)
• One to two stories in height
• Rectangular massing and form
• Roof with gently sloping sides and deeply overhanging
eaves
• Tall and slim window openings, often rounded at the top
• Columned entryways typically single storied in height
• Squared tower or cupola centrally placed just above the
roofline
• Decorative brackets below the roofline
• Bay windows
7531 Rosanna Street (pre-1937)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 92 July 2020
Table 2. Architectural Styles for Residential Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Folk National (1860-1920)
• Modestly sized, 1-2 stories in height
• Uses a standard Folk plan and roof plan: gable front;
gable front-and-wing; hall and parlor (side gabled, 1
room deep); I-House (side gabled 2 story, 1 room deep,
usually with rear addition); pyramidal; or massed plan
side gable (more than 1 room deep)
• Predominantly wood cladding
• Overly simple exterior ornamentation, if at all: can be
Greek revival inspired (molded cornice, eave returns);
Victorian/Queen Anne (gable pendants, spindlework
porch components); or Colonial revival (bilateral
symmetry; pediments) especially for Pyramidal forms
• Non-integral porches: stoop, portico, partial width, full
width, wraparound, or 2-story; will usually be shed or hip
roofed
• Usually with simple or turned wood posts and wood
railing balustrade.
• May have wood bracket detailing
• Windows are typically 1-over-1, 2-over-2, 4-over-4, 6-
over-6, or multi-light-over-single light single-hung or
double hung, wood sash windows and are usually
placed individually on the elevation, not grouped or
paired
7221 Forest Street (pre-1937)
Stick/Eastlake (1860-1895)
• Gabled roof/cross gable with tower, hipped roof with
front-facing gable or town house with flat roof and
parapet
• Steeply pitched roofs
• Wooden wall cladding
• Ornamentation in gable ends including: decorative
trusses, braces, patterned stickwork or siding applied in
various directions
• Horizontal and vertical and sometimes diagonal banding
created by belt courses, trim, paneling, and corner
boards
• Box bay windows
• Decorative brackets under the eave, emphasizing
vertical lines of trim and corners of box bay if present
• Elaborated bargeboards, especially when paired with
trusses; occasionally flared
7528 Eigleberry Street (pre-1937)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 93 July 2020
Table 2. Architectural Styles for Residential Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Folk Victorian (ca. 1870-1910)
• Simple folk house form
• Symmetrical façade, except gable front and wing
• Single-story porch, either partial- or full-width with
spindlework
• Wood primary material for both construction and decorative
details
• Boxed or open roof-wall junctions, if boxed then the cornice
typically display brackets, and simple window surrounds or
may have a simple pediment above
• Pre-manufactured wood detailing such as turned posts,
spindlework detailing, and decorative brackets at cornice
line and around the porch
• occasionally utilized Italianate, Gothic Revival, and Queen
Anne style details, such as eave trim or porch decoration,
but are overall much less decorative and follow Folk
building forms
7425 Church Street (pre-1937)
Shingle (1880-1900)
• Asymmetrical façade
• Wall cladding and roofing of continuous wood shingles
• Irregular, steeply pitched roof line, usually with cross
gables
• Shingled walls without interruption at corners
• Multi-level eaves
• Towers
• Extensive porches (may be smaller or absent in urban
examples)
• Shingles curve into recessed windows or balconies
• Windows include equal sized sashes (most common),
Palladian windows, strips of three or more windows, one-
or two-story bay windows, and dormer windows
264 Martin Street (pre-1937)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 94 July 2020
Table 2. Architectural Styles for Residential Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Queen Anne (1880-1910)
• Asymmetrical built forms with protruding balconies, turrets,
bays, overhangs, towers, and wall projections
• Steeply pitched roof in an irregular shape, usually with front-
facing gable
• Partial or full-length asymmetrical porch, usually one-story
in height with ornamental turned wood porch supports and
balustrades
• Wood framed
• Wooden weatherboard siding was frequently accompanied
by several decorative shingle designs to avoid smooth-
walled appearance
• Decorative elements utilized include half-timbering,
spindlework, and patterned masonry
• The use of common Greek and Roman decorative motifs
such as swags, garlands, classical columns, and the tri-
partite Palladian window
• Windows and dormers of inconsistent sizes unevenly
placed throughout the façade
• Beveled, etched, or stained glass in doors and feature
windows to help enhance transoms and entries
Holloway House, 7539 Eigleberry Street (1903)
Colonial Revival (1880-1955)
• Symmetrical facades with rectangular massing, may have
a side porch or sunrooms on either of both sides
• Typically one- to two-stories in height
• Medium pitch side-fable roof with narrow eaves or hipped
roof with dormer windows
• Brick or wood clapboard most common siding material
• Accentuated front door with decorative crown supported by
pilasters or columns, may be hooded to create covered
extended porch
• Windows frequently seen in pairs, typically double hung
sashes and multi-plane glazing in one or both sashes
• Other decorative elements include classical columns, two-
story pilasters, quoins at corners, window shutters, dentil
trim under eaves, and Palladian windows
286 5th Street (1922)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 95 July 2020
Table 2. Architectural Styles for Residential Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Tudor Revival (1890-1940)
• Asymmetrical and irregular massing, typically L-shaped in
plan or with a broad front
• Façade dominated by one or more steeply pitched front-
facing gables and massive chimneys
• Other elements include battlements, overhanging gables at
second-story, varied eave heights , and arcaded wing walls
• Projecting gable or small portico porch
• Can feature a porte cochere or early-attached garage
• Typically wood frame construction covered in stucco, stone,
and/or brick veneer, brick usually utilized on the first-story
while stucco, stone, or wood cladding on gables or upper
stories
• Decorative half-timber in gables
• Front doors and windows feature rounded or pointed Tudor
arch with stone tabbed detailing
• Windows are tall and narrow, commonly in groups with
multi-lite glazing
• Informal patterned stonework or brickwork
• False thatching at roofline
7590 Princevalle Street (1938)
Prairie (1900-1920)
• Geometric and rectangular massing, typically two-stories in
height
• Low pitched roof, usually hipped with wide overhanging
eaves, typically boxed
• One-story porches with massive square supports
• Eaves, cornices, and details emphasizes horizontal lines
• Broad flat chimney
• Exterior walls typically brick or painted stucco
• Restrained use of applied ornamentation
• Tall casement windows either grouped or paired in
horizontal bands sometimes wrapping around corners
• Doors typically multi-pane with sidelights
7531 Church Street (1917)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 96 July 2020
Table 2. Architectural Styles for Residential Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Craftsman (1905-1930)
• Rectangular massing one or one-half stories in height
• Bungalows are common building types within this style.
• Partial or full width porches supported by squared columns
• Columns frequently continue to ground level
• Exterior walls clad in either stucco, wood classing, stone, or
brick
• Low-pitched front gabled roof, occasionally hipped, with
wide unenclosed eave overhangs
• Multiple roof planes
• Exposed roof rafters, decorative false beams or braces
under gables
• Numerous windows, typically cottage windows with
decorative transoms above broad bottom lite
• Lines of three or more windows
• Slopped or battered foundation
• Decorative elements include extra stickwork in gables or
porch, stone exterior chimneys, window boxes and
balconies, slopping battered foundation
7801 Rosanna Street (pre-1937)
Bungalow Court (c. 1910-1940)
• Predominately one-story in height
• Composed of multiple detached buildings
• Typically occupy a single or double residential lot
• Exterior walls clad in either stucco or wood
• Low-pitched front gabled roof, occasionally hipped, often
with exposed rafter tails
• Units oriented around a central common area creating a u-
shape in plan
• Primary entrances to the units are accessed from a shared
walkway
• Presence of a unified architectural style, which is most
commonly the Craftsman style
7360 Railroad Street (1930)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 97 July 2020
Table 2. Architectural Styles for Residential Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Spanish Colonial Revival (1915-1940)
• Simple rectangular or L-shaped massing, typically one- to
two-stories in height with round, square, or polygonal
towers
• Bungalows are common building types within this style.
• Asymmetrical facades
• Low-pitched side or cross-gabled roof, occasionally a
hipped or flat roof section
• Minimal eaves with little to no overhang
• Red clay tile roofs either Spanish (S-shaped) or Mission
(half-cylinder)
• Painted stucco exterior walls in natural colors typically white
or tan, walls extend into gable without a break
• Fenestration irregularly placed and recessed
• Elaborately carved wood entry doors with rounded arches
above both doors and windows
• Decorative details typically include wrought-iron balconies,
interior decorative tile work, and elaborate chimney tops
• Outdoors spaces take the form of courtyards with or without
covered arcaded walkways
7548 Princevalle Street (1932)
French Eclectic (1920-1935)
• Tall, steeply pitched, hipped roof
• Eaves commonly flared upward
• Masonry wall cladding of stone or brick; often stuccoed
• Rounded Norman towers are common
• Massive chimneys
• Range of architectural detail including quoins, pediments,
pilasters
• Windows may be casement or double hung and French
doors are used
731 5th Street (1934)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 98 July 2020
Table 2. Architectural Styles for Residential Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Mid-Century Modern (1933-1965)
• One- to two-stories in height
• Low, boxy, horizontal proportions
• Simple geometric forms with a lack of exterior decoration
• Commonly asymmetrical
• Flat roofed without coping at roof line; flat roofs hidden
behind parapets or cantilevered canopies
• Expressed post-and-beam construction in wood or steel
• Exterior walls are flat with smooth sheathing and typically
display whites, buffs, and pale pastel colors
• Mass-produced materials
• Simple windows (metal or wood) flush-mounted and
clerestory
• Industrially plain doors
• Large window groupings
500 Broadway (1953)
Ranch (c. 1935-1975)
• Long rectangular U- or L-shaped building plan
• One-story in height with broad low shape
• Asymmetrical front façade built low to the ground
• Front entry typically located off-center and sheltered under
main roof of the house
• Low-pitched, commonly hipped roof with moderate to wide
roof overhang and no dormers
• Variety of wall cladding including brick veneer, board-and-
batten, stone veneer, horizontal or wood boards, and
shingles that changes at base of window, entry area, and
gable end
• Garage typically attached to main façade
• Large picture windows usually present on main elevation
with more traditional windows on the rest of the house
8141 Hanna Street (1953)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 99 July 2020
Table 2. Architectural Styles for Residential Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Minimal Traditional (c. 1935-1950)
• Small scale and one-story in height typically located on
small lots
• Typically features a low- or intermediate-pitched gable roof
with little to no eave overhang
• Roof dormers are rare
• Features a variety of exterior materials including vertical
and horizontal wood boards, shingles, brick veneer, and
board-and-batten siding
• Minimal added architectural detail
• Typically feature double-hung windows with either multi-
pane or simulated multi-pane
7931 Carmel Street (1949)
Contemporary (1945-1990)
• Small scale and one-story in height typically located on a
small lot
• Asymmetrical main façade
• Low pitched gable roofs
• Exposed roof beams
• Wide, overhanging eaves
• Windows generally in gable ends
• Materials (wood, brick, glass concrete block) evoking a
variety of textures
• Recessed or obscured entry
• Broad expanses of uninterrupted wall surface
701 5th Street (1948)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 100 July 2020
5.2 Commercial Properties
Table 3. Architectural Styles for Commercial Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
False Front (1868-1950)
• Simple rectangular floor plan
• One to two stories in height
• Wood frame construction
• Vertical extension of the front of the building extends
beyond the roofline
• Horizontal wood exterior cladding
• Windows are usually placed individually on the elevation
and not grouped or paired
• Lack of ornamentation
7648 Monterey Road (1920)
Stucco Commercial (c. 1870-1960)
• One to three stories in height
• Rectangular forms
• Either attached or freestanding in commercial districts
• Brick masonry or board form concrete structure, with
stucco façade
• Minimal decoration
• Typically had a parapet roofline obscuring the roof shape
• Recessed doorway
• Sign band between parapet and tops of fenestration
• Main elevation features a unified elevation with side and
rear elevation displaying no distinctive decoration
7430-7434 Monterey Road (1914)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 101 July 2020
Table 3. Architectural Styles for Commercial Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Brick Commercial (c. 1880-1940)
• One to three stories in height
• Brick masonry walls
• Rectangular forms
• Either attached or freestanding in commercial districts
• Typically had a parapet roofline obscuring a flat roof
• Recessed doorway
• Sign band between parapet and tops of fenestration
• Main elevation features a unified elevation with side and
rear elevation displaying no distinctive decoration
7529 Monterey Road (circa 1910)
Mission Revival (1890-1920)
• Rectangular massing
• Porch supported by large square piers with an arch above
• Occasionally display rectangular bell towers
• Low-pitched gable or hipped roof with red tile, wide
overhanging eaves
• Mission shaped dormer or roof parapet
• Exterior material stucco painted natural color, sometimes
display decorative carving or painted tiles
• Details include quatrefoil windows or vents, Islamic
inspired ornament, and coping
• Windows and doors with rounded arches above
7747 Monterey Road (1930)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 102 July 2020
Table 3. Architectural Styles for Commercial Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Mediterranean Revival (1890-1940)
• simple massing, rectangular floor plan, stressing the
horizontal
• 1-3 stories
• massive, symmetrical façade
• stucco exterior walls (rarely, brick or cast stone)
• clay tile roofs or roof trim, typically hipped
• arched openings, including arched focal windows
• wood or wrought iron balconies with window grilles
• articulated door surrounds
• limited use of applied ornamentation
7387 Monterey Road (1920)
Neo-Classical (1895-1955)
• Symmetrically balanced main façade with rectangular
massing
• Main façade typically dominated by full-height porch with
roof supported by classical columns
• Columns have either Ionic or Corinthian capitals
• Doors typically have elaborate, decorative surrounds based
on Greek Revival, Federal, or Georgian designs
• Rectangular multi-pane double-hung windows with broken
pediments above
• Window types include bay windows, paired windows, triple
windows, transom or arched windows
• Decorative elements include cornice-line balustrades,
raised full-width platform porch, and boxed eave cornice
with moderate overhang
20 Martin Street (1912)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 103 July 2020
Table 3. Architectural Styles for Commercial Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Spanish Colonial Revival (1915-1940)
• Simple rectangular or L-shaped massing, typically one- to
two-stories in height with round, square, or polygonal
towers
• Asymmetrical facades
• Low-pitched side or cross-gabled roof, occasionally a
hipped or flat roof section
• Minimal eaves with little to no overhang
• Red clay tile roofs either Spanish (S-shaped) or Mission
(half-cylinder)
• Painted stucco exterior walls in natural colors typically white
or tan, walls extend into gable without a break
• Fenestration irregularly placed and recessed
• Elaborately carved wood entry doors with rounded arches
above both doors and windows
• Decorative details typically include wrought-iron balconies,
interior decorative tile work, and elaborate chimney tops
• Outdoors spaces take the form of courtyards with or without
covered arcaded walkways
7560 Monterey Road (1931)
Art Deco (1920-1940)
• Irregular building forms with sharp edges and a linear
appearance
• Stepped or setback front façade with towers and other
vertical projections
• Smooth wall surface typically stucco
• Stylized decorative elements using geometric forms such
as zigzags and chevrons
• Feature low relief decorate panels with strips of windows
with decorative spandrels
• Reeding and fluting around doors and windows
7411 Monterey Road (1910)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 104 July 2020
Table 3. Architectural Styles for Commercial Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Mansard (1940-1980)
• One to two stories in height
• Mansard roof shape
• May have dormer windows
• Simplistic exterior details dominated by the roof form
8295 Monterey Road (1974)
Mid-Century Modern (1933-1965)
• One- to two-stories in height
• Low, boxy, horizontal proportions
• Simple geometric forms with a lack of exterior decoration
• Commonly asymmetrical
• Flat roofed without coping at roof line; flat roofs hidden
behind parapets or cantilevered canopies
• Expressed post-and-beam construction in wood or steel
• Exterior walls are flat with smooth sheathing and typically
display whites, buffs, and pale pastel colors
• Mass-produced materials
• Simple windows (metal or wood) flush-mounted and
clerestory
• Industrially plain doors
• Large window groupings
7451 Eigleberry Street (1954)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 105 July 2020
Table 3. Architectural Styles for Commercial Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Ranch (ca. 1935-1975)
• Long, rectangular, U-, or L-shaped building plan
• One-story in height with broad low shape
• Asymmetrical front façade built low to the ground
• Front entry typically located off-center and sheltered under
main roof of the house
• Low-pitched, commonly hipped roof with moderate to wide
roof overhang and no dormers
• Variety of wall cladding including brick veneer, board-and-
batten, stone veneer, horizontal or wood boards, and
shingles that changes at base of window, entry area, and
gable end
• Garage typically attached to main façade
• Large picture windows usually present on main elevation
with more traditional windows on the rest of the house
312 1st Street (1947)
Contemporary (1945-1990)
• Small scale and one-story in height typically located on a
small lot
• Asymmetrical main façade
• Low pitched gable roofs
• Exposed roof beams
• Wide, overhanging eaves
• Windows generally in gable ends
• Materials (wood, brick, glass concrete block) evoking a
variety of textures
• Recessed or obscured entry
• Broad expanses of uninterrupted wall surface
8655 Monterey Road (1966)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 106 July 2020
Table 3. Architectural Styles for Commercial Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Googie (c. 1940s-1960s)
• Upswept rooflines
• Curvaceous and geometric shapes
• Bold use of glass, steel, and neon
• Characterized by space age designed and symbolized by
motion with shapes such as boomerangs, atoms, and
parabolas
8405 Monterey Road (1962)
Shed (1965-1990)
• Shed roof forms
• Multidirectional
• Wood wall cladding (diagonal, vertical, horizontal, or
shingles)
• Smooth roof-wall junction commonly with little to no
overhang
700 W 6th Street (1968)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 107 July 2020
5.3 Civic and Institutional Properties
Table 4. Architectural Styles for Civic and Institutional Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Italianate (1840-1885)
• One to two stories in height
• Rectangular massing and form
• Flat roof with gently sloping sides and deeply overhanging
eaves
• Tall and slim window openings, often rounded at the top
• Columned entryways typically single storied in height
• Squared tower or cupola centrally placed just above the
roofline
• Decorative brackets below the roofline
200 5th Street (1869)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 108 July 2020
Table 4. Architectural Styles for Civic and Institutional Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Greek Revival (c. 1850-1900)
• Geometric and rectangular massing, typically two-stories
in height
• Large transoms above entry points
• Elaborate entry doors
• Boxed eaves
• Rectangular, multi-lite windows
• Inset pilasters
• Bracketed eaves
• Wood clad
• Wood frame construction
• Multiple rooflines, with one being a front facing gable or
partial gable
160 5th Street (1857)
False Front (1860-1905)
• Simple rectangular floor plan
• One to two stories in height
• Wood frame construction
• Vertical extension of the front of the building extends
beyond the roofline
• Horizontal wood exterior cladding
• Windows are usually placed individually on the elevation
and not grouped or paired
• Lack of ornamentation
8191 Swanston Lane (1927)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 109 July 2020
Table 4. Architectural Styles for Civic and Institutional Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Richardson Romanesque (c. 1870s-1900)
• Massive structural appearance
• Facades are typically asymmetrical
• Thick masonry walls
• Rounded (sometimes square) towers with conical roof
• Round arches over windows and/or entryways
• Polychromatic facades with contrasting building materials
• Bold ornament including oversized carvings
7400 Monterey Road (1907)
Brick Commercial (c. 1880-1940)
• One to three stories in height
• Brick masonry walls
• Rectangular forms
• Either attached or freestanding in commercial districts
• Typically had a parapet roofline obscuring a flat roof
• Recessed doorway
• Sign band between parapet and tops of fenestration
• Main elevation features a unified elevation with side and
rear elevation displaying no distinctive decoration
60 W 6th Street (1920)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 110 July 2020
Table 4. Architectural Styles for Civic and Institutional Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Mission Revival (1890-1920)
• Rectangular massing
• Porch supported by large square piers with an arch above
• Occasionally display rectangular bell towers
• Low-pitched gable or hipped roof with red tile, wide
overhanging eaves
• Mission shaped dormer or roof parapet
• Exterior material stucco painted natural color, sometimes
display decorative carving or painted tiles
• Details include quatrefoil windows or vents, Islamic inspired
ornament, and coping
• Windows and doors with rounded arches above
290 IOOF Avenue (1920)
Neoclassical (1895-1955)
• Symmetrically balanced main façade with rectangular
massing
• Main façade typically dominated by full-height porch with
roof supported by classical columns
• Columns have either Ionic or Corinthian capitals
• Doors typically have elaborate, decorative surrounds based
on Greek Revival, Federal, or Georgian designs
• Rectangular multi-pane double-hung windows with broken
pediments above
• Window types include bay windows, paired windows, triple
windows, transom or arched windows
• Decorative elements include cornice-line balustrades,
raised full-width platform porch, and boxed eave cornice
with moderate overhang
195 5th Street (1910)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 111 July 2020
Table 4. Architectural Styles for Civic and Institutional Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Spanish Colonial Revival (1915-1940)
• Simple rectangular or L-shaped massing, typically one- to
two-stories in height with round, square, or polygonal
towers
• Asymmetrical facades
• Low-pitched side or cross-gabled roof, occasionally a
hipped or flat roof section
• Minimal eaves with little to no overhang
• Red clay tile roofs either Spanish (S-shaped) or Mission
(half-cylinder)
• Painted stucco exterior walls in natural colors typically white
or tan, walls extend into gable without a break
• Fenestration irregularly placed and recessed
• Elaborately carved wood entry doors with rounded arches
above both doors and windows
• Decorative details typically include wrought-iron balconies,
interior decorative tile work, and elaborate chimney tops
• Outdoors spaces take the form of courtyards with or without
covered arcaded walkways
7600 Church Street (pre-1937)
Mediterranean Revival (1920-1930s)
• Rectangular floor plan
• Massive symmetrical primary facades
• One or two stories in height
• Stuccoed exterior walls
• Red tile roofs
• Window in the shape of arches or circles
• Wrought iron balconies with window grilles and
articulated door surrounds
• Decorative keystones
• Ornamentation may be simple or dramatic
650 5th Street (1929)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 112 July 2020
Table 4. Architectural Styles for Civic and Institutional Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Art Deco (1920-1940)
• Irregular building forms with sharp edges and a linear
appearance
• Stepped or setback front façade with towers and other
vertical projections
• Smooth wall surface typically stucco
• Stylized decorative elements using geometric forms such
as zigzags and chevrons
• Feature low relief decorate panels with strips of windows
with decorative spandrels
• Reeding and fluting around doors and windows
250 W 6th Street (1940)
Stripped Classicism (1930-1945)
• use of conservative elements and materials such as
concrete
• monumental feel
• rectangular massing
• zigzag ornamentation or very stripped classical
ornamentation
• balanced and symmetrical forms based on Classical
design principles
• windows arranged as vertical recessed panels
• Stucco, concrete, stone, or brick walls
7400 Railroad Street (1930)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 113 July 2020
Table 4. Architectural Styles for Civic and Institutional Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Mid-Century Modern (1933-1965)
• One- to two-stories in height
• Low, boxy, horizontal proportions
• Simple geometric forms with a lack of exterior decoration
• Commonly asymmetrical
• Flat roofed without coping at roof line; flat roofs hidden
behind parapets or cantilevered canopies
• Expressed post-and-beam construction in wood or steel
• Exterior walls are flat with smooth sheathing and typically
display whites, buffs, and pale pastel colors
• Mass-produced materials
• Simple windows (metal or wood) flush-mounted and
clerestory
• Industrially plain doors
• Large window groupings
South Valley Middle School, 277 IOOF Avenue (circa 1956)
Contemporary (1945-1990)
• Small scale and one-story in height typically located on a
small lot
• Asymmetrical main façade
• Low pitched gable roofs
• Exposed roof beams
• Wide, overhanging eaves
• Windows generally in gable ends
• Materials (wood, brick, glass concrete block) evoking a
variety of textures
• Recessed or obscured entry
• Broad expanses of uninterrupted wall surface
8455 Wren Avenue (circa 1968-1980)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 114 July 2020
5.4 Industrial Properties
Table 5. Architectural Styles for Industrial Properties in Gilroy
Description of Style Representative Example in Gilroy
Concrete Industrial (1900s-present)
• Rectangular or square floorplan
• Exterior materials include corrugated metal, stucco, or
brick
• Lack of exterior decorative elements
• Simple windows and doors
7110 Alexander Street (1962)
False Front (1868-1950)
• Simple rectangular floor plan
• One to two stories in height
• Wood frame construction
• Vertical extension of the front of the building extends
beyond the roofline
• Horizontal wood exterior cladding
• Windows are usually placed individually on the elevation
and not grouped or paired
• Lack of ornamentation
7491 Railroad Street (1908)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 115 July 2020
Utilitarian (1868-present)
• Simple rectangular floor plan, with large open volume
• One story plan, but usually a larger volume (1.5 or two-
story) in height
• Wood or metal framing
• Wood or metal cladding
• Simple roof forms: gable ended, sawtooth, vaulted roof, or
shed roofs are common
• Devoid of decoration
• Minimal and simple, de-emphasized fenestration
• Fenestration includes a vehicle-sized door on the main or
side elevation
• Roof or gable ended ventilation
7595-7565 Railroad Street (pre-1937)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 5. Architectural Styles 116 July 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 117 July 2020
6 Architects and Builders
6.1 Architects
No local or state-recognized architects were born or lived in Gilroy however a select group of Bay-area architects
have contributed several residential, commercial, civic, and entertainment buildings to Gilroy throughout its history.
The first of these architects was William H. Weeks of Watsonville who designed four houses (including one remodel)
for prominent citizens of Gilroy in 1900. Weeks returned to contribute more buildings until 1929, just a few years
before company troubles and his death. Another Bay-area architect to take an interest in Gilroy was Samuel
Newsom of Oakland and San Francisco who was responsible for the Gilroy City Hall. Below is a biographical synopsis
and list of works for each architect that has designed buildings in Gilroy.
6.1.1 William H. Weeks (1864-1936)
Born in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island in 1864, Weeks was the fourth child of Richard Weeks, a proficient
builder and designer. The Weeks family moved extensively when Weeks was young, but moved to Denver, Colorado
in 1880, where from age 16-25, Weeks attended the Brinker Institute boarding school for his secondary and
collegiate coursework. Weeks initially went into the construction business with his father upon graduation, but soon
moved to Oakland California to start his own company. Weeks’ first California contract was the Christian Church in
Watsonville, CA 1892. In 1894, Weeks opened an office in Watsonville and began accepting architectural contracts
for schools and homes. After opening a second office in Salinas, Claus Spreckels engaged Weeks for factory
buildings for the Spreckels Sugar Factory in Salinas in 1897. The exposure led to Weeks bidding on buildings in
Monterey, Pacific Grove, Santa Cruz, Paso Robles, San José, and Gilroy. Following the San Francisco earthquake of
1906, Weeks opened an office there the same year. By 1915, Weeks and his firm had designed 1,000 buildings.
In 1924, he partnered with his son Harold Weeks to form the firm Weeks and Weeks, which opened offices in
Oakland and San José (Lewis 1985; PCAD 2019a; Salewske 2003; WRP 1995).
Weeks was especially notable for designing 22 of the 142 Carnegie Libraries in California including: Santa Cruz
(1902), Watsonville (1903, demolished), San Luis Obispo (1903), Santa Cruz main (1904), Paso Robles (1906),
Nevada City (1906-1907), Monterey (1907), San Leandro (1907), Imperial (1909), Lompoc (1909), Livermore
(1909), Gilroy (1910), Richmond (1910), Roseville (1911), Oroville (1911), Orland (1913), Yreka (1915), Bayliss
(1916), and Yolo (1917). Weeks’ civic buildings became popular, and Weeks also designed multiple public and
private schools throughout the state (Lewis 1985; PCAD 2019a; Salewske 2003; WRP 1995).
Weeks’ business suffered with the oncoming Great Depression period of the 1930s. Weeks was accused of
negligence and cost inflation, and lost his architect’s license in 1931. Then his company was accused of being
several thousand dollars in debt. Weeks eventually had his license reinstated and cleared the rumors, but died of
heart failure just a few years later in 1936, leaving the business to his son and partner, Harold (Lewis 1985; PCAD
2019a; Salewske 2003; WRP 1995).
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 118 July 2020
Weeks’ first building in Gilroy was the Rucker School, completed in 1894. He continued to work on Gilroy-area
projects for his remaining years, switching exclusively to the Mediterranean/Spanish Colonial Revival form after it
was popularized in the 1915 Panama-California Exposition in San Diego (Lewis 1985; PCAD 2019a; Salewske
2003; WRP 1995). A list of his Gilroy-area work is listed below:
The Rucker School (1894)
Dr. Clarence R. Weaver House, 60 5th Street (1900)
Wilson House, 7341 Alexander Street (1900)
Residence, Robinson Cottage, 264 Martin Street (1900)
Dunlap House remodel, 7320 Forest Street (1900)
Montgomery Auto Parts/Masonic Temple, 7598 Monterey Street (1902) with Radtke
Edgar Holloway House, 7539 Eigleberry (1903)
Gilroy Free Library, 195 5th Street (1910)
Gilroy High School, (1913) and additions (1932)
Robinson Hardware Company Building, 7541 Monterey Street (1915)
Hersman House, 225 4th Street (1917)
IOOF Children’s Home, 290 IOOF Ave (1921)
Ellis Garage Building, 7390 Monterey Street (1920) (with Radtke)
Milias Hotel, 7387 Monterey St, (1922)
Habing Funeral Home, 129 4th Street (1928) (and Radtke)
Wheeler Hospital 1929 (and Radtke)
6.1.2 William Binder/ Ernest N. Curtis / Binder & Curtis (1918-1953)
William Binder, AIA (1871-1953) started his architectural career in 1890 working for architect George W. Page in
San José. Binder began his own firm in 1897, and quickly gained popularity after the 1906 earthquake for his use
of steel reinforced concrete construction. Binder hired Ernest Curtis (1889-1956), who had also worked for Page,
as a draftsman in 1911. In 1914, both men briefly served in World War I, but upon the end of the war, Binder
partnered with Curtis to form Binder & Curtis (1918). Binder & Curtis worked almost exclusively on modernist civic,
education, commercial, and other buildings. Binder & Curtis became the area’s premier institutional architect,
designing schools managing the Civic Center project on North First Street, and overseeing the work of the architects
designing specific buildings in the complex. After Binder’s death in 1953, Curtis continued the firm until his death
in 1956 (Maggi 2014; Page & Turnbull 2009; PCAD 2019b). Examples of Binder & Curtis’ work in Gilroy and San
José, includes:
T. & D. DeLuxe Theatre, San José , California (c. 1912)
Gilroy Fire Station, Gilroy (1916) with Radtke
Hippodrome Theatre, San José (1919)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 119 July 2020
Louis Hotel (Gilroy Hotel and café), 7363-7371 Monterey Street, Gilroy (1921) with Radtke
Commercial Building, San José (1926)
Towne Theater, San José (1927, formerly Hester Theater)
Salvation Army building, San José (1928)
Byers Ford Dealership, 7747 Monterey, Gilroy (1930) with Radtke
Hale’s Department Store, San José (1931)
Willow Glen Theater, San José (1933)
Burrell Building, Hall of Justice, Civic Auditorium, San Jose (1934-1936)
San José Water Works, San José (1934)
Wheeler Civic Auditorium, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy (1940) with Renz
Fire Station No. 1, San José (1951)
6.1.3 Albert Roller (1891-1981)
Albert Roller was a San Francisco-based architect who designed dozens of commercial buildings in Northern and
Southern California. Roller began his career working as draftsperson for San Francisco firms Coxhead & Coxhead
and Ward & Blohme. He established his own firm Albert F. Roller, Architect in 1925, and continued working from
the Bay area until his death in 1981 (Architect & Engineer 1929; Bowker 1962, 1970; PCAD 2019c). A sample of
Roller’s work is listed below:
Oak Hill Mausoleum, San José (1928)
Guarantee Building & Loan Association, Oakland (1929)
Pacific Savings bank building, San Diego (1929)
Pacific Savings & Loan Building, Fresno (1930)
Sommer & Kaufman Building, San Francisco (1930)
Fords Department Store/ Elks Building, 7560-7562 Monterey Street, Gilroy (1931) (with Radtke)
Breuner's Furniture Company Retail Store and Office Building, Oakland (1932)
Gas Company Building, Watsonville (1932)
National Broadcasting Company (NBC) Studios, San Francisco (1942)
Rexall Drug Co building, Los Angeles (1948)
Aclifornia Masonic Memorial Temple, San Francisco (1958)
U.S. Federal Building, San Francisco (courts and office) (1963)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 120 July 2020
6.1.4 Reid Brothers (1891-1932)
The Reid Brothers began architectural operations in Evansville, IN, with James W. Reid and Merritt J. Reid from
1880-1891. James headed West in late 1886 with youngest brother Watson to open an office in San Diego, CA,
which lasted until 1899. James then reestablished the firm's headquarters in San Francisco, CA, between 1889-
1891 while Merritt came west to open a Portland, OR office in 1891 (created while the office designed the Portland
Oregonian Newspaper Building). Watson remained in San Diego until 1899, when he chose to return to New
Brunswick, Canada. The Reid Brothers' San Francisco office were favorites of the Spreckels family initially, but
prospered after the Great Earthquake of 04/18/1906, receiving many contracts in the Bay Area. In the 1920s, they
became known for their theater building designs, completing over 20 theaters in California. Over the years, the Reid
Brothers maintained offices in the Flood Building, Mills Building, and the Call Building in San Francisco. Offices in
the Call Building occupied its 18th floor, then the tallest point in the city. James closed the Reid Brothers firm after
Merritt's death in 1932 (PCAD 2019d). A sample of Reid & Reid’s work is included below:
Darius Ogden Mills Building, San Francisco (1891)
Spreckels Temple of Music and Concourse, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, CA (1894)
Emma Spreckels Building, San Francisco (1895)
Claus Spreckels House #2, san Francisco (1897)
Bijou Theatre, San Francisco, CA (1896)
Douglas Building, Downtown, Los Angeles, CA (1898)
American Theatre #2, San Francisco (1907)
Sterling Building, San Francisco, (1907)
Drexler Estate Building, San Francisco (1908)
Pacific Union Club, San Francisco (1908)
Carnegie Library, San Rafael (1909)
Colombo Building, Financial District, San Francisco (1913)
Coliseum Theatre #2, San Francisco (1918)
Rowell and Foley Theatre, Fresno (1920)
Strand Theater, 7588-7578 Monterey Street, Gilroy (1921)
Balboa Theatre #1, San Francisco (1922)
Roosevelt Theatre, San Francisco (1924)
Oaks Theatre, Berkeley (1925)
Fairfax Theatre, Oakland (1926)
Grand Lake Theatre, Grand Lake, Oakland (1926)
Riviera Theatre, Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco (1927)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 121 July 2020
6.1.5 Samuel Newsom (1852-1908) with Wolfe & McKenzie
Samuel Newsom was born in Canada in 1852 and settled near Oakland in 1868 at 14 to live with his elder brother
John J. News, also an architect. At 21, Samuel began apprenticing for his brother as a draftsman, before partnering
to become Newsom & Newsom, Architects in 1877. The firm, based in San Francisco, continued as a partnership
until Samuel’s death in 1908. The brothers specialized in private homes, including the Carson House in Eureka,
commercial offices, and city government buildings. The Gilroy City Hall building was one of the last projects Samuel
Newsom worked on during their partnership (PCAD 2019e). A sample of Newsom’s work is included below:
Napa County Superior Court of California Courthouse, Napa (1878)
City of Berkeley City Hall #1, Berkeley (1884)
T.H. Boyd House, Eureka (1885)
William McKendrie Carson House, Eureka (1886)
Glendale hotel, Glendale (1887)
Pinney House Hotel, Sierra Madre (1887)
Charles and Katherine Sessions House, Echo Park, Los Angeles (1888)
1407 Carroll Avenue House, Angelino Heights, Los Angeles, CA (1889)
Carson Office Building, Eureka (1892)
J. Milton Carson, Eureka (1897)
Fraternal Hall Building, Palo Alto (1898)
City Hall, Gilroy (1905-1907)
6.2 Builders
6.2.1 Orrin F. Hanson (1840-1921)
Orrin Footman Hanson was born in Maine in 1839. In 1863, at 24, Hanson had already moved to Sonoma County,
California, and registered for the Civil War draft as a “mechanic.” Little is known about Hanson, other than his listed
occupation as “carpenter” on census forms and San José area directories from 1870 until 1910. In one 1893
directory, he was listed as a carpenter who worked at the Whitehurst and Hodges lumber mill. In the last census of
his lifetime, in 1920, he listed his occupation as “inspector” (Ancestry 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011). A list of his extant
work includes:
Residence, 7425 Church Street circa (1870)
Sydney Johnson Residence, 170 West Ninth Street (1909)
Residence, 7431 Church Street (circa1870)
Chesbro House, 7541 Church Street (1888)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 122 July 2020
6.2.2 Holmes Brothers (circa 1918-1926)
The Holmes Brothers were prolific local contractors consisting of two bothers: Charles S. Holmes and Harry B
Holmes. The Holmes Brothers were known for their modest Craftsman style cottages and built variations of just a
few versions of this style. At the time of Gilroy’s expanding population between 1915 and 1925, the Holmes
Brothers were young contractors who constructed efficient, tract-style small residences. They would construct
homes that were very similar in design and style, with only small variations in entrance and window placement. The
buildings were consistently five rooms in size and sold from $2,500 to $3,500. It is not known when the Holmes
Brothers stopped working in Gilroy, but the majority of their work can be dated between 1918 and 1926. A list of
their extant work includes:
7861 Rosanna Street (1918)
Curse House, 144 Martin Street (1923)
J.A. Peters House, 414 E 6th Street (1921)
W.B. Sanders House, 424 E. 6th Street (1921)
W.B. Sanders House, 444 E. 6th Street (1921)
J. Lasserot House, 464 E. 6th Street (1921)
J.C. Dowell House, 474 E Sixth Street (1921)
Claud Peters House, 484 E Sixth Street (1921)
S.W. Downhour House, 494 E. Sixth Street (1921)
John Lasserot rental house, 7387 Chestnut (1921)
John Lasserot rental house, 7391 Chestnut (1921)
John Lasserot rental house, 7399 Chestnut Street (1921)
7851 Rosanna Street (1923)
6.2.3 George Renz (1893-1988)
George Renz was a prominent, local builder who was born in Tres Pinos in 1893, and moved to Gilroy in 1913. Renz
worked for prominent building contractor William Radtke Sr. during the 1920s, before forming his own construction
company in 1938. Renz worked on several major road and building construction projects throughout Gilroy. A list
of their extant work includes:
555 5th Street, personal residence (1924) with William Radtke Sr.
575 5th Street, residence (1922) with William Radtke Sr.
595 5th Street residence (1922) with William Radtke Sr.
Wheeler Civic Auditorium, 7351 Rosanna Street/250 W 6th Street, Gilroy (1940), with Binder & Curtis
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 123 July 2020
6.2.4 J. Howard Carl (1871-1944)
J. Howard Carl was born in 1871 in Illinois and had moved to the Rucker area of Santa Clara County, some 6 miles
north of Gilroy, in 1896 to work on his prune farm. The Carl family moved to Church Street in Gilroy in 1923, where
Carl had worked as a builder of several homes on the block. Carl’s Church Street residence included his workshop.
Carl was a profitable local builder, coming to prominence in the 1920s, designing and building Craftsman-style
residences. He was also an inventor and held several patents for pistol parts. In the 1930s, Howard left the building
industry to resume being a prune orchardist outside of Gilroy. A list of his extant work includes:
7631 Hanna Street, residence (1922)
7830 Church Street, residence (1923)
7851 Church Street, personal residence (1923)
7860 Church Street, residence (1925)
7870 Church Street, residence (1923)
Chesbro House 665 5th Street (1929)
495 5th Street, residence (1937) [personal communication with Connie Rogers]
6.2.5 William Radtke Sr (1888-1969)
William Radtke Sr was born in San Francisco March 11, 1888. At age 14, he went to work at the Enterprise Foundry
in Santa Clara, then quickly moved on to work for Robert Hall, a machinist. Radtke then entered the carpentry trade
apprenticing three years to Charles Stockholm in Santa Clara. At age 18, Radtke formed his first contracting firm in
San José in 1906. Radtke’s first contracts were for the Los Altos Grammar School, a private residence at Los Altos;
the Ed Seifert Garage at San José, and the bridge across Guadalupe Creek at West Santa Clara Street in San José.
In 1911, Radtke took his first contract in Gilroy, hired by Henry Miller to construct reinforced concrete silos at
Bloomfield Ranch, at a time when the technology was new. In 1912 Radtke moved to Gilroy and married Clare
Loewen, and immediately began taking contracts such as Llagas Creek Bridge and the First National Bank building
on Monterey in 1912, and 8.5 million gallon concrete reservoirs in 1913. Radtke has been involved in many high
profile contracts throughout the city between 1913 and 1969, including the Louis Hotel, the Strand Theater, the
new Masonic building, and Wheeler Hospital, in addition to several private residences. Though not an architect,
Radtke designed and built some residences, including his home at 515 5th Street. Nevertheless, he regularly
partnered with the prominent architects in Gilroy such as William Weeks and William Binder. Radtke had become
such a prominent member of the Gilroy community that he was elected to Gilroy City Council from 1927 to 1931.
Radtke partnered with his son later in life and they continued as Radtke & Son until Radtke’s death in 1969.351
351 Bonnie Bamberg. 1986. City of Gilroy Historic Preservation Survey 1985-1986. A comprehensive Study of the History and
Architecture of the City of Gilroy within the 1945 City Limits. (San Jose, California: Firm of Bonnie L. Bamberg); Barratt 2003;
Conrotto 1951; Salewske 2003; Sprain 2018; Gilroy Chamber of Commerce. “Commercial Building Survey.” 1985. Gilroy Historical
Museum; Ancestry.com. 2006. 1910 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. (Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations
Inc.)https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-
bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=7884&h=1788197&tid=&pid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=isb1987637&_phstart=successSource;
Ancestry.com. 2010. 1920 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. (Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc.
https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 124 July 2020
A sample of the work for Radtke’s contracting firm includes:
Llagas Creek Bridge (1912)
San Benito College (Gavilan College) (1919)
IOOF/Rebekah Children’s Home clock and chimes tower (1921)
Gilroy Fire House, 55 5th Street (1916), with William Binder
Habing Funeral Home, 129 4th Street (1928), with William Weeks
Wheeler Hospital, 651 W 6th Street (1929) with William Weeks
Byers Ford Dealership, 7747 Monterey Street (1930) with Binder & Curtis
Gilroy Advocate Building, 55 W 6th Street (1910)
Gilroy Post Office, 50-60 W 6th Street (1920)
Radtke Construction, 42-46 Martin Street (1920)
Salinas Valley Savings Bank, Monterey and Fourth Street (demolished) (1960)
Residences
Radtke (Drake) apartments, 85 5th Street (demolished) (1919)
515 5th Street, personal residence (1920)
595 5th Street residence (1922)
494 5th Street residence (1922)
545 5th Street residence (1923)
555 5th Street residence (Renz house) (1924)
575 5th Street residence (1922)
595 5th Street residence (1922)
7551 Hanna Street residence (1921)
7445 Forest street residence (1920)
701 Fourth Street, personal residence (1939)
7821 Princevalle Street (Radtke Jr. residence) (1951)
Downtown Monterey Street properties
Cherry Blossom Hotel, 7261/7257 Monterey Street (1921)
7360 Monterey Street (1920)
Louis Hotel (Gilroy Hotel and café), 7363-7371 Monterey Street (1921) with Binder & Curtis
bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=6061&h=812203&tid=&pid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=isb1382825&_phstart=successSource; Connie
Rogers. Email message to Kate G. Kaiser. July 8, 2020.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 125 July 2020
Pitzer Auto Parts, 7380 Monterey Street (circa 1920)
Firestone Tires/Ellis Garage Building, 7390 Monterey Street (1920) with William Weeks
Perelli Building, 7419 Monterey Street (1914)
Harris Building, 7423 Monterey Street (1912)
Coast Counties Building, 7436 Monterey Street (1920)
Cimino Building, 7441 Monterey Street (1920)
Second Chesbro Building, 7445 Monterey Street (1912)
Hollister’s Feed Store 7460 Monterey Street (1912)
Gilroy Dispatch Building, 7466 Monterey Street (1917)
Storefront, 7482-7478 Monterey Street (c. 1920)
Gilroy Stationers, 7483 Monterey Street (1940)
Storefront, 7486 Monterey Street (c. 1920)
First National Bank, 20 Martin Street, 7490/7488 Monterey Street (1912)
Storefront, 7507 Monterey Street (1929)
Woolworth Building, 7511 Monterey Street (1928)
Gilroy Telephone Building, 7525 Monterey Street (1920)
Robinson Hardware Company Building, 7541-43 Monterey Street (1915) with William Weeks
Storefront, 7550 Monterey Street (1919)
Four storefronts, 7557, 7561, 7565, 7573 Monterey Street (1920)
Elks Building, 7560 Monterey Street (1930) with Albert Roller
Storefront, 7568 Monterey Street (1922)
Storefront, 7579-7581 Monterey Street (1920)
Strand Theater, 7588-7578 Monterey Street (1921) with the Reid & Reid
Masonic Building, 7598 Monterey Street (1921) with William Weeks (demolished and replaced)
Radtke’s Residential Signature CDFs:
Broad, low pitched roofs, usually as simple as possible; front gable or hip plan
Contemporaneous styles for the time: strong focus on Craftsman bungalows, Spanish Colonial Revival
Stucco cladding
Arch detailing, observed in both Craftsman and Spanish Colonial Revival, in porch openings and primary
elevation focal windows; if porch opening, can be multiple and will usually be a full porch; if windows this
will usually be a large single pane or tripartite window on the main elevation
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 126 July 2020
6.2.6 Howson Brothers Construction Company (1928-1962)
The Howson Brothers Construction Company were prolific, local, building contractors in Gilroy between 1928 and
approximately 1962, and consisted of two local brothers, John (Jack) M. Howson (1904-1980) and William Robert
Howson (1907-1976). The brothers were born in Nelson, Lancashire, England, but immigrated to the California with
their parents Frank and Dora Howson in 1920.352 The brothers briefly worked in Alameda as shipwrights, before
moving to Gilroy between 1926 and 1928. At the time of the brothers’ naturalization in 1928, they were already
self-employed as building contractors.353 By 1962, they had changed their name to Howson’s Inc. and operated as
a building supply company, offering lumber, building materials, rather than labor, and moved to an office on
Monterey at the intersection of Howson Street.354 The Howson Brothers built custom homes in Gilroy, as well as
churches, public and commercial buildings, and military buildings in the 1940s.
One of William Howson’s daughters, Roberta Howson Hughan (1932-present), carried on her family’s tradition by
becoming an architect. Mrs. Hughan gained her architecture degree from University of California, Berkeley in 1955.
She and her husband became the firm Hughan & Hughan and are responsible for, among other projects, the
restoration of the Caroline Hoxett house. Hughan continued to practice until elected to Gilroy City Council in 1977
and later became Gilroy’s first woman mayor.355
While few of the Howson Brothers Construction Company works are known, their extant works includes356:
Christian Science Church, 283 5th Street (1930)
7571 Carmel Street, residence, William Robert Howson first personal residence (1928)
7561 Carmel Street, John “Jack” Howson’s first personal residence (1930)
701 5th Street, William Robert Howson’s second personal residence (1948)
711 5th Street, multi-family residence (1928)
7515 Princevalle Street, residence (1941)
7525 Princevalle Street, John “Jack” Howson’s second personal residence (1948)
7535-7545 Princevalle Street, duplex (1939)
7555 Princevalle Street, residence (1940)
7554 Princevalle Street, residence (1932)
7730 Princevalle Street, residence (1948)
352 Ancestry.com. 2002. 1930 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2002.
https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?dbid=6224&h=93088689&indiv=try&o_vc=Record:OtherRecord&rhSource=2238
353 Ancestry.com. 2014. California, State Court Naturalization Records, 1850-1986 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc., 2014. https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-
bin/sse.dll?dbid=8839&h=59033&indiv=try&o_vc=Record:OtherRecord&rhSource=5180
354 The Monitor. “Howson’s Inc.” Advertisement. The Monitor, Volume CIII, No. 37. December 16, 1960
355 Reid Lerner. Email message to Samantha Murray. July 10, 2020.
356 Howson Family. Email message to Julie Wyrick. May 19, 2020.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 127 July 2020
6.2.7 Robert Grant (1844-1919)
Robert Grant was born in Canada in 1844 and immigrated to San José, California in 1877. Grant moved south to
just outside the city of Gilroy to raise stock, but eventually turned to land development. Grant became an early land
speculator and housing developer for rental houses in Gilroy and is responsible for the Grant Tract houses on Forest
Street. Little else is known about Grant, except that he moved with his wife to San Francisco some time before
1919 and remained there until his death. A list of their extant work includes:
7211 Forest Street, residence (pre-1937) (altered beyond recognition)
7221 Forest Street, residence (pre-1937)
7241 Forest Street, residence (pre-1937)
7251 Forest Street, residence (pre-1937)
6.2.8 Other Builders
In addition to many professional builders, multiple residential and commercial buildings were built by non-
professionals such as David Dryden a furniture maker, or the initial homeowners, such as James M. Browne or
George Eustice. These houses ranged in skill and execution from simplistic Pioneer, to popular Folk National styles
or Craftsman styles, to ornate Queen Anne cottages or Italianate homes. A list of known local builders and their
buildings is listed below:
James M. Browne, 7360 Railroad Street (1870)
William Cullen, 7456 Church Street (1920)
Ed Denman, 111 Martin Street (1906), 7530 Railroad (1907)
James J. Dorland, 7360 Eigleberry Street (1872), 7528 Eigleberry Street (1886), 365 5th Street (1890)
David Dryden, 394 E 6th Street (no date)
William Charles Ehrich, 7521 Hanna Street (1923)
George Eustice, 213 5th Street (1869)
Wo Fife, 174 Martin Street (1885)
William Furlong, United Presbyterian Church, 214 5th Street (1869)
Val Grodhaus, 7527 Eigleberry Street (1896)
John Harrison, 7581 Rosanna (c. 1871)
William Hanna, 7321 Eigleberry Street
Pleasant C. Hodges, 7406 Church (1891)
Milton Holsclaw, 7531 Rosanna Street (1874)
H.D. Koch, 7341 Alexander Street (1900)
A. Martin, 7571 Hanna Street (1921)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 128 July 2020
Palmer & Gurries, 7451 Monterey (1924)
James Patterson, Milias Hotel, 7397 Monterey Road (1921)
Charles W. Pedlar, 7417 Church Street (no date)
John Rhineheart, 7540 Church Street (pre-1870)
Perry W. Robinson, 99 8th Street – Perry W. Robinson (c.1866)
John E. White, 7520 Railroad Street (1903)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 129 July 2020
7 Guidance for Assessing Significance
7.1 Designation Criteria and Integrity Requirements
The following presents an overview of the national, state, and local guidelines for evaluating properties in Gilroy for
historical significance and integrity.
7.1.1 National Register of Historic Places
The NRHP is the United States’ official list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects worthy of preservation.
Overseen by the NPS under the U.S. Department of the Interior, the NRHP was authorized under the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended. Its listings encompass all National Historic Landmarks and historic
areas administered by the NPS.
NRHP guidelines for the evaluation of historic significance were developed to be flexible and to recognize the
accomplishments of all who have made significant contributions to the nation’s history and heritage. Its criteria are
designed to guide state and local governments, federal agencies, and others in evaluating potential entries in the
NRHP. For a property to be listed in or determined eligible for listing, it must be demonstrated to possess integrity
and to meet at least one of the following criteria:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in
districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association; and
A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
NRHP Criteria Considerations
There are certain types of properties that shall not be considered eligible for the NRHP. However, such properties
will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories:
a. A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or
historical importance; or
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 130 July 2020
b. A building or structure removed from its original location but which is primarily significant for
architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic
person or event; or
c. A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site
or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or
d. A cemetery which derives its primary importance from graves of persons of transcendent
importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or
e. A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a
dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with
the same association has survived; or
f. A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has
invested it with its own exceptional significance; or
g. A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.
NRHP Integrity
To be listed in the NRHP, a property must not only be shown to be significant under at least one of the NRHP criteria,
but it also must have integrity. The evaluation of integrity is sometimes a subjective judgment, but is must always
be grounded in an understanding of a property’s physical features and how they relate to its significance.
Historic properties either retain integrity (that is, convey their significance) or they do not. Within the concept of
integrity, the National Register criteria recognize seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define
integrity. These are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. The retention of
specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. Determining which of these
aspects are most important to a particular property requires knowing why, where, and when the property is
significant. 357
7.1.2 California Register of Historical Resources
In California, the term “historical resource” includes but is not limited to “any object, building, structure, site, area,
place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural,
engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California”
(California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(j)). In 1992, the California legislature established the CRHR “to
be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to
indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change”
(California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(a)). The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were expressly
357 OHP (California Office of Historic Preservation). 2011. California Register and National Register Criteria: A Comparison (for the
purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register). OHP Technical Assistance Series #6, Sacramento, CA: Office of Historic
Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 131 July 2020
developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP, enumerated
below. According to California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c)(1–4), a resource is considered historically
significant if it (i) retains “substantial integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the following criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
(3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly
perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than 50 years old may be
considered for listing in the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its
historical importance (see 14 CCR 4852(d)(2)).
The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic
resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, and properties listed or formally
designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are the state landmarks and
points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local
historical resource surveys.
CRHR Integrity
Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one of the criteria of significance described above
and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey
the reasons for their significance. Historical resources that have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated
for listing.
Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association. It must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for
eligibility. Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural,
or architectural significance.358
7.1.3 Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory
Under local municipal code 30.27.30, properties may be eligible for the Gilroy HRI either as a historic site or historic
neighborhood combining district. The establishment of a historic site or historic neighborhood combining district
may be in combination with any residential, commercial, industrial or other base district as defined in this chapter.
The establishment or removal of either a historic site or historic neighborhood combining district shall be processed
as a zone change. The historic heritage committee shall review all applications for historical designation or removal
of historical designation and pass its recommendations on to the planning commission and city council. The zone
358 Ibid
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 132 July 2020
change fees, which are established from time to time by the city council, shall be waived for the establishment of,
but not the removal of, either a historic site or neighborhood combining district.
(a) Any area or combination of sites within the city may be designated as a historic neighborhood combining
district if it meets any one (1) of the following criteria:
(1) The neighborhood possesses a significant concentration or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or
objects unified by past events or physical development; or
(2) The neighborhood represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community; or
(3) The collective historic value of the neighborhood taken together is of greater value than each individual
structure.
(b) Any site within the city may be designated as a historic site combining district if it meets any one (1) of the
following criteria:
(1) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic,
engineering or architectural history; or
(2) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history; or
(3) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or methods of construction, or is a valuable
example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or
(4) It is representative of the work of a notable builder, designer or architect.
(Ord. No. 2013-08, § 2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13)
7.2 Property Types and Registration Requirements
7.2.1 Initial Development Period (1868-1904)
The dominant themes of the Initial Development period (1868-1904) are the development of Gilroy’s early
infrastructure, local government, downtown commercial buildings along Monterey Road, transportation expansion,
the formalization of civic and institutional buildings, and agricultural expansion. Development during this period
was primarily located around the central core of Monterey Road and 6th Street near the SPRR railroad depot.
Residential growth during the Initial Development period was minimal and bordered the emerging commercial
corridor of Monterey Road. The majority of the commercial and civic properties associated with these significant
themes have been replaced overtime. Additionally, the majority of the residential properties built between 1868
and 1904 have either been altered beyond recognition or replaced with new construction. Property types associated
with these significant themes include residential properties, commercial properties, and civic and institutional
properties.
During this Initial Development period, specifically in 1886, the western extent of town was at Hanna Street, the
southern extent was 7th Street, the northern extent was roughly at 3rd Street (although some sparse residences
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 133 July 2020
were located as far north as 1st Street), and the eastern boundary of settlement is Railroad Street. In the late
1880s, the downtown core was centered along Monterey Road between 4th Street and 7th Street, with residential
buildings on large lots on the surrounding streets. Off Monterey Road, a few large-scale businesses dominated the
side streets. By the 1892 map, residential settlement had expanded north to Broadway Street, South to 9th Street,
and east to Chestnut Street. The population reached 1,820 in 1900 and the city again began to experience
sustained growth.
Residential Properties
Residential buildings constructed between 1868 and 1904 primarily consisted of single-family homes, typically
represented by wood frame 1 and 2-story dwellings and associated outbuildings (e.g., outhouses, sheds, stables).
The residential development patterns that emerged during this period laid the foundation for architectural styles
and trends that continued into future development periods in Gilroy’s history. The dates of construction prior to the
Initial Development Period (1868-1904) were often missing from Santa Clara County Assessor property records.
Given this data gap, late nineteenth and early twentieth century buildings in the city are listed with an assumed
date of construction of pre-1937 if their locations could be confirmed from a 1937 aerial image. While and the
exact dates of construction proved difficult to confirm, the architectural styles present in the City indicate that many
of the homes were likely constructed during the Initial Development. Popular styles seen in Gilroy from this early
time period are Carpenter Gothic, Italianate, Folk National, Folk Victorian , Queen Anne, and Colonial Revival.
Residential buildings from this time period generally fall in one of the following two typologies:
Modest dwellings and cottages largely following the stylistic traditions of Folk National, Folk Victorian, and
Queen Anne, incorporating basic floor plans such as Hall and Parlor, no more than 2-stories in height, and
minimal ornamentation. Roof forms under this typology included gabled, hipped, and pyramidal.
Larger dwellings and mansions designed in specific styles such as Italianate, Queen Anne, Shingle, and
Carpenter Gothic feature elaborate detailing and irregular floor plans. Roof forms were designed to be more
elaborate and oftentimes featured steeply pitched gables, multi-level eaves, towers, and extensive cornice
line or porch detailing.
Associated Architectural Styles
Residential architectural styles associated with the Initial Development period (1868-1904) of Gilroy include the
following (see Section 5 for the character-defining features and a representative example of each style):
Carpenter Gothic (1840-1880s)
Italianate (1840-1885)
Stick/Eastlake (1860-1895)
Folk National (1860-1940)
Folk Victorian (c. 1870-1910)
Shingle (1880-1900)
Queen Anne (1880-1910)
Colonial Revival (1880-1955)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 134 July 2020
Significance Requirements
Table 6 discusses the significance of residential buildings from Gilroy’s Initial Development period in consideration
of NRHP, CRHR and City designation criteria. In order for a residential property built during the Initial Development
Period (1868-1904) to be eligible for designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must 1)
be located within the original city grid, and 2) be constructed within the Residential Development period of
significance (1870-1948). Many of the surviving residential buildings from this period are already listed in the City
HRI.
Table 6. Significance Requirements for Residential Properties Built from 1868-1904
NRHP/CRHR
Criteria
Gilroy Criteria
(MC
30.27.30)
Type of Significance Description of Significance
A/1 1 and 2 Association with
Events, Patterns of
Development; Special
Elements of the City
Residential buildings from this period may be significant for their
clear associations with the theme of Residential Development,
specifically, Gilroy’s pattern of early residential development in
the original city grid during the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century. This period was characterized by expansion
into the previously undeveloped sections of the initial Gilroy city
grid. Many private residences were constructed during this
period, aided by the prospect of piped utilities like natural gas,
water, and electricity.
B/2 2 Association with
People
Residential buildings from this period may be significant for their
association with persons important to the history of Gilroy. Such
persons may include prominent merchants, artists, or city
officials. However, under this Criterion the residence should: 1)
be clearly associated with the person during the period of time
in which they gained importance within their profession or
group; 2) be compared to other properties associated with the
person(s) in question in order to identify which property(s) best
represent that person’s achievements or reasons for being
significant.
C/3 3 and 4 Architecture; Design;
Notable Work
Residential buildings from this period may be significant for their
architecture, as expressed by intact character-defining features,
forms or construction methods. Buildings may also qualify as
the work of a master architect or prominent builder, such as
William Weeks, Orrin Hanson, or Robert Grant. Resources
qualified under these criteria should be good examples of types
and/or styles and retain most of their original features.
Architectural significance should be considered for different
property typologies including simple residences (e.g.,
bungalows/cottages) and larger mansions.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 135 July 2020
Table 6. Significance Requirements for Residential Properties Built from 1868-1904
NRHP/CRHR
Criteria
Gilroy Criteria
(MC
30.27.30)
Type of Significance Description of Significance
D/4 — Information Potential Residential buildings or ruins of residential buildings that have
the potential to yield important information about construction
methods and materials, or patterns of local residential
development may be significant for their potential to provide
information important to history; but it is unlikely such examples
exist.
Integrity Requirements
In order to be eligible for designation on the City’s HRI, residential properties must meet at least one of the City’s
designation criteria and retain integrity from their period of construction. While most buildings undergo change over
time, alterations should not significantly change a property’s essential historic character. The following integrity
requirements have been identified for residential properties from the Initial Development period:
Good representation of a style of architecture from the time period
Retains the original roofline and roof form. Replacement of roofing material is acceptable, but the roofline
and form must be intact.
Retains original fenestration.
Retains the majority of its original windows and doors on the main elevation or exhibits compatible
replacements. Window replacements are acceptable if the collective value of the property’s character-
defining features is sufficient to convey its architectural style despite having replaced windows and doors.
For example: a Queen Anne mansion may have window replacements while still retaining much of its
original features that continue to convey its architectural significance such as original cladding, half-
timbering, second story overhang, roof pitch, scale and massing, etc.; whereas a cottage or bungalow with
numerous window replacements and fewer character-defining features may struggle to convey
architectural significance without its original windows and doors.
Retains the majority of its original ornamentation (e.g., scalloped trim, decorative verge boards, stonework,
bracketed eaves, spindle posts and railings)
Retention of the original cladding is important, however, replacement cladding is acceptable when it does
not detract from the historic character of the building. For example: the aesthetic of a Shingle building is
not completely lost if the original wood cladding is replaced in kind with replacement wood shingles,
provided that the replacement wood cladding is in keeping with the other character-defining features such
as original woodwork, porch, fenestration, and windows remain intact.
Retains original porch configuration and materials. Compatible porch railing replacements are acceptable,
however, replacement columns, partial/full porch enclosures, or changes in the approach to the porch are
not acceptable.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 136 July 2020
Does not have later additions that are visible from the public right-of-way and impact integrity. Examples of
such additions include incompatible garages, second story additions, dormers, and breezeways that are
visible from the public right-of-way. This also includes any inappropriately scaled ADUs.
Does not feature conjectural elements (e.g., the addition of stone veneer to a building that was historically
clad in wood, or elaborate door and porch details that are not consistent with the original period of
construction or architectural style).
Relocation of a residential building is acceptable provided that it can still convey its historic significance.
Residential buildings that have been converted to commercial uses may still be eligible for local designation
provided the conversion did not compromise important character-defining features.
Commercial Properties
Just before and after the official incorporation of Gilroy, the downtown core established along Monterey Road,
concentrated between 4th and 7th Streets. Based on Sanborn maps, many of the early commercial buildings
constructed during the Initial Development period were predominately wood frame or brick construction. The
majority of the commercial buildings constructed during the Initial Development period were located in the
downtown commercial core on Monterey Road. Off Monterey Road, a few large-scale businesses dominated the
side streets. Along 6th Street, between Monterey and Church Streets, there were a few mills, a wheelwright, a
blacksmith shop, and several carpenters, all occupying stone buildings.
As was the case with residential buildings constructed during the Initial Development period (1868-1904), the dates
of construction for commercial buildings built during this period were also missing from property records. Given this
data gap, late 19th and early 20th century buildings in the city have an assumed date of construction of pre-1937.
Previous historic district information prepared in the 1980s indicates that a few early commercial buildings remain
from this development period. The remaining buildings are modest in scale and massing, simplistic in design, and
lacked excessive ornamentation. Given this fact, these buildings fall within the style categories of False Front
Commercial buildings and Brick Commercial buildings.
Associated Architectural Styles
Commercial architectural styles associated with the Initial Development period (1868-1904) of Gilroy include the
following (see Section 5 for the character-defining features and a representative example of each style):
False Front (1860-1905)
Brick Commercial (c. 1880-1940)
Significance Requirements
Table 7 discusses the significance of commercial buildings from Gilroy’s Initial Development period in consideration
of NRHP, CRHR and City designation criteria. In order to be eligible for designation as an individual property on the
City’s HRI, the property must 1) be located within the original city grid, and 2) be constructed within the Monterey
Road Downtown Commercial Development period of significance (1870-1940). While many of the commercial
buildings from this time period no longer exist, most of the surviving buildings from this period are already listed in
the City HRI.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 137 July 2020
Table 7. Significance Requirements for Commercial Properties Built from 1868-1904
NRHP/CRHR
Criteria
Gilroy Criteria
(MC
30.27.30)
Type of Significance Description of Significance
A/1 1 and 2 Association with
Events, Patterns of
Development; Special
Elements of the City
Commercial buildings from this period may be significant for
their clear associations with the theme of Commercial
Development which is best captured in the period of significance
identified for the Monterey Road Downtown Commercial
Development period (1870-1940) . A large number of
commercial buildings and storefronts were erected during this
period, aided by the advent of city sidewalks, paved streets and
new municipal buildings, and drawing increased pedestrian
traffic to the commercial core of the city. Commercial buildings
from this period were typically simple brick and wood frame
buildings with no discernable architectural styles. Commercial
buildings from this time period serve as important
representations of early commercial architectural development
patterns in Gilroy.
B/2 2 Association with
People
Commercial buildings from this period may be significant for
their association with persons important to the history of Gilroy.
Such persons may include prominent merchants. However,
under this Criterion the commercial building should: 1) be clearly
associated with the person during the period of time in which
they gained importance within their profession or group; 2) be
compared to other properties associated with the person(s) in
question in order to identify which property(s) best represent
that person’s achievements or reasons for being significant.
C/3 3 and 4 Architecture; Design;
Notable Work
Commercial buildings from this period may be significant for
their architecture, as expressed by intact character-defining
features, forms or construction methods. Buildings may also
qualify as the work of a master architect or prominent builder.
Individual resources qualified under these criteria should be
good examples of types and/or styles and retain most of their
original features.
With regard to historic districts, contributing properties need not
meet the integrity threshold required for individually eligible
properties. Provided that the grouping achieves significance as
a whole within its historic context, individual properties may lack
individual distinction. This is particularly true of properties
located within the downtown commercial core, nearly all of
which exhibit altered storefronts.
D/4 — Information Potential Commercial buildings or ruins of commercial buildings that have
the potential to yield important information about construction
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 138 July 2020
Table 7. Significance Requirements for Commercial Properties Built from 1868-1904
NRHP/CRHR
Criteria
Gilroy Criteria
(MC
30.27.30)
Type of Significance Description of Significance
methods and materials, or patterns of local residential
development may be significant for their potential to provide
information important to history; but it is unlikely such examples
exist.
Integrity Requirements
In order to be eligible for designation on the City’s HRI, commercial properties must meet at least one of the City’s
designation criteria and retain integrity from their period of construction. While most buildings undergo change over
time, alterations should not significantly change the property’s essential historic character. The following integrity
requirements have been identified for commercial properties from this time period:
Good representation of a style of architecture or construction methodology from the time period.
Retains the original roofline and roof form. Replacement of roofing material is acceptable, but the roofline
and form must be intact.
Retains overall scale and massing that is consistent to the time period.
Additions made to the building must be made to the rear of the building and not serve as a detraction from
the main elevation.
Retains elements of the original fenestration pattern. Storefronts can be altered, but their alterations
should not compete with the rest of the building or detract from other historic elements still in place on the
street facing elevation. Original fenestration may be covered, but the building retains adequate integrity if
the treatment used to cover the fenestration is removable. For example, if a building’s original transoms
have been painted over or boarded up, but are still in place the building retains the requisite historic
integrity.
Retains some of the original ornamentation including original awnings, signage, cornice line and
stringcourse detailing.
Replacement cladding is acceptable as long as character-defining features remain intact. For instance, a
brick commercial building may be reclad in stucco in the event that the cornice line detailing remains intact.
The addition of security elements like bars and fencing that is not permanently affixed to the building does
not negatively impact the integrity of the building.
The building does not feature conjectural elements (e.g., the addition of stone veneer to a building that was
historically clad in wood, or elaborate details that are not consistent with the original period of construction
or architectural style).
With regard to commercial historic districts, contributing properties need not meet the integrity threshold
required for individually eligible properties. Provided that the grouping achieves significance as a whole
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 139 July 2020
within its historic context, individual properties may lack individual distinction. This is particularly true of
properties located within the downtown commercial core, nearly all of which exhibit altered storefronts, but
together can still convey the essential elements of the downtown commercial core.
Civic and Institutional Properties
The Initial Development period was a period of growth for civic and institutional buildings after Gilroy established
its government in 1868. The bulk of the buildings that developed out of this period were schools and churches
concentrated on Church Street or just north of the City’s central core on Broadway. Three utilities services were also
established to serve residents and according to Sanborn maps, these utility buildings were located outside of the
commercial and residential areas, typically on Railroad Street east of the railroad tracks. Many fraternal
organizations founded their Gilroy chapters during the Initial Development Period. While the majority of these
buildings were utilized by fraternal organizations, benevolent societies, and clubs, they either were replaced with
larger structures or sold for a different use. The fraternal organization buildings were located either in residential
areas or within the established commercial corridor on Monterey Road. As Gilroy grew and developed in the 20th
century, many of the temporary civic and institutional buildings were replaced by more elaborate and permanent
structures. There are very few extant buildings from this time period.
Associated Architectural Styles
Institutional architectural styles associated with the Initial Development period (1868-1904) of Gilroy include the
following (see Section 5 for the character-defining features and a representative example of each style):
Italianate (1840-1885)
Greek Revival (c. 1850-1900)
False Front (1860-1905)
Significance Requirements
Table 8 discusses the significance of institutional buildings from Gilroy’s Initial Development period in consideration
of NRHP, CRHR and City designation criteria. In order for an institutional property to be eligible for designation as
an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be located within the original city grid and be constructed
during Initial Development period (1868-1904). While most of the buildings from this period no longer extant, those
that remain from this period are already listed in the City HRI.
Table 8. Significance Requirements for Institutional Properties Built from 1868-1904
NRHP/CRHR
Criteria
Gilroy Criteria
(MC 30.27.30)
Type of Significance Description of Significance
A/1 1 and 2 Association with
Events, Patterns of
Development; Special
Elements of the City
Institutional buildings from this period may be significant for their
clear associations with multiple themes in Gilroy’s Initial
Development period including schools, churches, and civic
development. Institutional buildings from this period serve as
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 140 July 2020
Table 8. Significance Requirements for Institutional Properties Built from 1868-1904
NRHP/CRHR
Criteria
Gilroy Criteria
(MC 30.27.30)
Type of Significance Description of Significance
important representations of early institutional architectural
development patterns in Gilroy.
B/2 2 Association with
People
Institutional buildings from this period may be significant for their
association with persons important to the history of Gilroy. Such
persons may include prominent religious figures or civic figures.
However, under this Criterion the institutional building should: 1)
be clearly associated with the person during the period of time
in which they gained importance within their profession or
group; 2) be compared to other properties associated with the
person(s) in question in order to identify which property(s) best
represent that person’s achievements or reasons for being
significant.
C/3 3 and 4 Architecture; Design;
Notable Work
Institutional buildings from this period may be significant for their
architecture, as expressed by intact character-defining features,
forms or construction methods. Buildings may also qualify as
the work of a master architect or prominent builder. Resources
qualified under these criteria should be good examples of types
and/or styles and retain most of their original features.
D/4 — Information Potential Institutional buildings or ruins of institutional buildings that have
the potential to yield important information about construction
methods and materials, or patterns of local residential
development may be significant for their potential to provide
information important to history; but it is unlikely such examples
exist.
Integrity Requirements
In order to be eligible for designation on the City’s HRI, institutional properties must meet at least one of the City’s
designation criteria and retain integrity from their period of construction. While most buildings undergo change over
time, alterations should not significantly change a property’s essential historic character. The following integrity
requirements have been identified for residential properties from this period:
Good representation of a style of architecture from the time period.
Retains the original roofline and roof form. Replacement of roofing material is acceptable, but the roofline
and form must be intact.
Retains original fenestration. While replacement windows and doors are acceptable, the original
fenestration pattern should be intact.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 141 July 2020
Retains some of the original ornamentation (particularly ornamentation around entry points, windows, and
roofline detailing)
Replacement cladding is acceptable in rare cases when cladding is replaced in kind and there is no change
in the material type. For example, wood cladding needs to be replaced with wood cladding not stucco.
Additions to the building must be in keeping with scale and must not detract from the building’s principal
elevation.
Does not feature conjectural elements (e.g., the addition of stone veneer to a building that was historically
clad in wood, or elaborate door details that are not consistent with the original period of construction or
architectural style).
Transportation Infrastructure
No transportation infrastructure properties from this period are still extant in Gilroy, all having been replaced or
materially altered in the years since. The most important change in the Initial Development Period (1868-1904)
was the coming of the SC&PRR completed to Gilroy in 1869, and its purchase by SPRR in 1870. The train, as
opposed to the Monterey Road became the primary means for travelers to visit Gilroy and for Gilroy-area farmers
to ship their goods to San José and Monterey. Transportation infrastructure constructed during this period include
the SPRR line to Gilroy, its extension south of Gilroy, a one-story, wood-frame depot (no longer extant), turntable,
spurs and rail sidings along the line in Gilroy.
Roads in and around Gilroy also generally improved and formalized by the city during this period. El Camino Real,
now simply the Monterey Road, transitioned from a toll road to a free highway in 1874.359 Additionally, the 1868
charter opened the existing city roads beyond their 1868 distances: e.g., Eigleberry Street was extended from
Farman to Martha Street. As expected, transportation infrastructure in Gilroy during this period was in its infancy,
prior to the automobile boom that occurred in the next major period of development. As such, no extant
transportation properties were identified in Gilroy during this period, beyond existing roads and rail lines, which
have been improved upon over time.
Agriculture, Industry, and Manufacturing
As Gilroy converted from a rural village to a formally established and planned town in the late nineteenth century,
many agricultural practices were relegated to the areas outside of Gilroy. Gilroy’s 1870 SPRR depot (no longer
extant) became the shipping center for the region’s agricultural products, so instead of bringing goods directly to
ship, many goods were stored in warehouses along the rail line at established rail sidings. Agricultural goods were
processed or stored instead of grown directly within city borders. Culp’s tobacco farm, far outside the city, had a
warehouse and processing plant in Gilroy as well, and Gilroy was a large producer of tobacco products in the 1870s.
By 1892, Gilroy’s cheese production was up to 1,800,000 pounds, one-fifth of the of the entire cheese product for
California.360 In addition to already established industries, fruit orchards and dried fruit production rose to
prominence in the 1870s. As was the situation with residential and commercial properties, the date of construction
many of the agricultural, industrial, or manufacturing properties constructed during the Initial Development Period
were missing from the Santa Clara County Assessor property records. Based on the available data, only one
agricultural, industrial, or manufacturing building was identified from the Initial Development period: the Miller Red
359 Foot 1888: 119-120.
360 Pacific Rural Press 1892: 516.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 142 July 2020
Barn located in Christmas Hill Park. However, it is possible there are other extant agricultural, industry, and
manufacturing properties from the Initial Development period. While many industrial properties were identified
during the survey, more research is required to determine if individual industrial and manufacturing properties are
from the Initial Development Period. Additionally, this citywide survey was conducted from the public right of way,
so there may be more extant resources from this period that were not visible during the survey. There is high
potential for the identification of additional resources from this period in the future.
7.2.2 Early and Mid-Twentieth Century Development (1904-1941)
Residential Properties
The dominant themes of the Early and Mid-Twentieth Century Development period (1904-1941) are the expansion
of Gilroy’s infrastructure, establishment of zoning districts, formalization and expansion of transportation,
development of new areas of the City, agricultural expansion and large-scale civic development projects.
Development during this period expanded into the previously undeveloped sections of the initial Gilroy city grid.
Residential growth during this period included decades of expansion and slowdowns due to nationwide events such
as the entrance of the United States into World War I and the Great Depression. These periods of slow development
and expansion were mirrored by the City’s population, which gradually continued to rise. Despite these development
slowdowns, the Early and Mid-Twentieth Century Development period was one of Gilroy’s most productive periods
in terms of residential, commercial, and civic and institutional growth expanding into undeveloped parts of the City.
During this Early and Mid-Twentieth Century Development period, the City’s development expanded north as far as
Hot Springs Road (Leavesley Road) and west out to Carmel Street. The majority of the north development was
residential while the western development was primarily commercial and agricultural. The majority of the residences
constructed during this period remain today and make up the core of the City’s early-residential area between 1st
and 10th Streets, and Carmel and Eigleberry Streets. Additional small scale residences, mostly worker housing,
were located east on Railroad Street, south of Lewis Street, west of Chestnut Street, and north of Pacheco Pass
Road.
Residential development during the Early and Mid-Twentieth Century Development period was characterized by
expansion into the previously undeveloped sections of the initial city grid. Buildings constructed between 1904 and
1941 primarily consisted of single-family homes, bungalow courts, and duplexes typically represented by wood-
frame 1- and 2-story dwellings and associated outbuildings (automotive garages). In 1936, the City of Gilroy zoned
the city into five distinctive districts: Single Family Residences; Multiple Family Residences; Business Districts;
Industrial Districts; and Residential-Agricultural. The single-family district was located between Hanna, Princevalle,
First and Seventh Streets. The Multiple Family residence district constituted an area approximately double the size
of that designated for single family residences between Eigleberry and Hanna Streets, and 1st and 10th Streets as
well as a swath to the east of Monterey Street between Old Gilroy and Lewis Street.
Residential development patterns during this period served as a continuation of earlier architectural development
patterns and introduced new styles that were not present in the previous development period. The dates of
construction for buildings constructed during the early years of the Initial Development Period (1904-1941) were
often missing from Santa Clara County Assessor property records. Given this data gap, late 19 th and early 20th
century buildings in the city are listed with an assumed date of construction of pre-1937 if their locations could be
confirmed from a 1937 aerial image. While the exact dates of construction proved difficult to confirm without
assessor data, there were some styles that were present indicating that buildings within the City were most likely
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 143 July 2020
constructed prior to 1904, such as Shingle (1880-1900), Carpenter Gothic (1840-1880s), and Stick/Eastlake
(1860-1895). Whereas other popular residential styles seen in the Initial Development period extend into the Early
and Mid-Twentieth Century Development Period such as Queen Anne (1880-1910), Folk National (1850-1930),
Folk Victorian (c. 1870-1910), and Colonial Revival (1880-1955). Gilroy also saw the emergence of new styles
during this period of development that included the following: Tudor Revival (1890-1940), Prairie (1900-1920),
Craftsman (1905-1930), Spanish Colonial Revival (1915-1940), Monterey (1925-1955), Mid-Century Modern
(1933-1965), Ranch (c. 1935-1975, and Minimal Traditional (c. 1935-1950).
Residential buildings from this time period fall into multiple typologies:
Modest and mid-size dwellings continue during this period with the most popular style being Craftsman.
There are many variations of Craftsman homes from this period, but it is one of the most dominant
residential styles in Gilroy during this time period. The last decade of development period includes the
emergence of two housing styles that would dominate the second half of the twentieth century throughout
California and the United States, the Ranch and Minimal Traditional style homes.
Cottages continue during this period, especially in the first two decades of the development period. These
cottages are similar to those seen in the Initial Development Period including Folk National, Folk Victorian,
and Queen Anne designs and ornamentation.
Larger dwellings and mansions designed in specific styles such as Queen Anne, Tudor Revival, Spanish
Colonial Revival, and Prairie that feature elaborate detailing and irregular floor plans. Roof forms were
designed to be more elaborate and oftentimes featured steeply pitched gables, multi-level eaves, towers,
extensive cornice line detailing.
Multi-family dwellings that include duplexes, Bungalow Courts, and apartment buildings also emerge in
Gilroy during this period of development. They were typically 1-2 stories in height, simplistically designed,
and the styles used for these buildings were typically Craftsman or Spanish Colonial Revival.
Associated Architectural Styles
Residential architectural styles associated with the Initial Development period (1868-1904) of Gilroy include the
following (see Section 5 for the character-defining features and a representative example of each style):
Folk National (1850-1930)
Folk Victorian (c. 1870-1910)
Queen Anne (1880-1910)
Colonial Revival (1880-1955)
Tudor Revival (1890-1940)
Prairie (1900-1920)
Craftsman (1905-1930)
Spanish Colonial Revival (1915-1940)
Monterey (1925-1955)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 144 July 2020
Mid-Century Modern (1933-1965)
Ranch (c. 1935-1975)
Minimal Traditional (c. 1935-1950).
Significance Requirements
Table 9 discusses the significance of residential buildings from Gilroy’s Early and Mid-Twentieth Century
Development period (1904-1941) in consideration of NRHP, CRHR and City designation criteria. In order for a
residential building constructed during the Early and Mid-Twentieth Century period (1904-1941) to be eligible for
designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must 1) be located within the original city grid,
and 2) be constructed within the Residential Development period of significance (1870-1948). A large portion of
the residential buildings from this period are already listed on the City of Gilroy HRI, but there are later buildings
constructed in the 1940s that were not of historic age at the time of the last HRI in the 1980s.
Table 9. Significance Requirements for Residential Properties Built from 1904-1941
NRHP/CRHR
Criteria
Gilroy Criteria
(MC
30.27.30)
Type of Significance Description of Significance
A/1 1 and 2 Association with
Events, Patterns of
Development; Special
Elements of the City
Residential buildings from this period may be significant for their
clear associations with the theme of Residential Development,
specifically, Gilroy’s pattern of early residential development in
the original city grid during the early twentieth century. This
period was characterized by expansion into the previously
undeveloped sections of the initial Gilroy city grid. Many private
residences were constructed during this period, aided by the
prospect of piped utilities like natural gas, water, and electricity.
B/2 2 Association with
People
Residential buildings from this period may be significant for their
association with persons important to the history of Gilroy. Such
persons may include prominent merchants, artists, or city
officials. However, under this Criterion the residence should: 1)
be clearly associated with the person during the period of time
in which they gained importance within their profession or
group; 2) be compared to other properties associated with the
person(s) in question in order to identify which property(s) best
represent that person’s achievements or reasons for being
significant.
C/3 3 and 4 Architecture; Design;
Notable Work
Residential buildings from this period may be significant for their
architecture, as expressed by intact character-defining features,
forms or construction methods. Buildings may also qualify as
the work of a master architect or prominent builder, such as
William Weeks, Binder and Curtis, Reid Brothers, Samuel
Newsom, George Renz, J. Howard Carl, Willam Radtke Sr., and
Holmes Brothers. Resources qualified under these criteria
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 145 July 2020
Table 9. Significance Requirements for Residential Properties Built from 1904-1941
NRHP/CRHR
Criteria
Gilroy Criteria
(MC
30.27.30)
Type of Significance Description of Significance
should be good examples of types and/or styles and retain most
of their original features. Architectural significance should be
considered for different property typologies including simple
residences (e.g., bungalows/cottages) and larger mansions.
D/4 — Information Potential Residential buildings or ruins of residential buildings that have
the potential to yield important information about construction
methods and materials, or patterns of local residential
development may be significant for their potential to provide
information important to history; but it is unlikely such examples
exist.
Integrity Requirements
In order to be eligible for designation on the City’s HRI, residential properties must meet at least one of the City’s
designation criteria and retain integrity from their period of construction. While most buildings undergo change over
time, alterations should not significantly change a property’s essential historic character. The following integrity
requirements have been identified for residential properties from this period:
Good representation of a style of architecture from the time period
Retains the original roofline and roof form. Replacement of roofing material is acceptable, but the roofline
and form must be intact.
Retains original fenestration.
Retains the majority of its original windows and doors on the main elevation or exhibits compatible
replacements. Window replacements are acceptable if the collective value of the property’s character-
defining features is sufficient to convey its architectural style despite having replaced windows and doors.
For example: a Tudor Revival mansion may have window replacements while still retaining much of its
original features that continue to convey its architectural significance such as original cladding, half-
timbering, second story overhang, roof pitch, scale and massing, etc.; whereas a cottage or bungalow with
numerous window replacements and fewer character-defining features may struggle to convey
architectural significance without its original windows and doors.
Retains the majority of its original ornamentation (e.g., scalloped trim, decorative verge boards, stonework,
bracketed eaves, spindle posts and railings)
Retention of the original cladding is important however, replacement cladding is acceptable when it does
not detract from the historic character of the building. For example: the aesthetic of a Craftsman building
is not completely lost if the original wood cladding is replaced with stucco, provided that other character-
defining features such as original woodwork, porch, fenestration, and windows remain intact.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 146 July 2020
Retains original porch configuration and materials. Compatible porch railing replacements are acceptable,
however, replacement columns, partial/full porch enclosures, or changes in the approach to the porch are
not acceptable.
Does not have later additions that are visible from the public right-of-way and impact integrity. Examples of
such additions include incompatible garages, second story additions, dormers, and breezeways that are
visible from the public right-of-way. This also includes any inappropriately scaled ADU.
Does not feature conjectural elements (e.g., the addition of stone veneer to a building that was historically
clad in wood, or elaborate door and porch details that are not consistent with the original period of
construction or architectural style).
Relocation of a residential building is acceptable provided that it can still convey its historic significance.
Residential buildings that have been converted to commercial uses may still be eligible for local designation
provided the conversion did not compromise important character-defining features.
Commercial Properties
Commercial development during the Early and Mid-Twentieth Century Development period was characterized by
rapid expansion and growth of commercial businesses related to the everyday needs of Gilroy’s citizens. A large
number of storefronts were erected during this period, aided by the advent of city sidewalks, paved streets and new
municipal buildings drawing increased pedestrian traffic to the commercial areas of the city. Due to the 1936 zoning
law, commercial properties were limited to certain parts of the City. According to Sanborn maps, Monterey Road
continued to be the primary commercial corridor in the City and reinforced concrete buildings replaced many of the
earlier built impermanent or small wood frame structures.
In response to the increased traffic brought to town by the completion of State Route 101 through Gilroy, and the
relatively inexpensive cost of mass produced automobiles like Ford’s Model T, a sizeable number of businesses
associated with the automobile clustered along Monterey Road. The economization of the automobile offered other
commercial opportunities to people living in Gilroy. These establishments included service stations, repair garages,
auto-dealers, and several Auto Courts (motels).
Associated Architectural Styles
Commercial architectural styles associated with the Early and Mid-Twentieth Century Development period (1904-
1941) of Gilroy include the following (see Section 5 for the character-defining features and a representative
example of each style):
False Front (1860-1905)
Stucco Commercial (c. 1870-1960)
Brick Commercial (c. 1880-1940)
Mission Revival (1890-1920)
Mediterranean Revival (1890-1940)
Neoclassical (1895-1955)
Spanish Colonial Revival (1915-1940)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 147 July 2020
Art Deco (1920-1940)
Mid-Century Modern (1933-1965)
Significance Requirements
Table 10 discusses the significance of commercial buildings from Gilroy’s Early and Mid-Twentieth Century
Development period (1904-1941) in consideration of NRHP, CRHR and City designation criteria. In order to be
eligible for designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be 1) located within the original
city grid, and 2) constructed within the Monterey Road Downtown Commercial Development period of significance
(1870-1940). Most of the surviving commercial buildings from this period are already listed on the City of Gilroy
HRI.
Table 10. Significance Requirements for Commercial Properties Built from 1904-1941
NRHP/CRHR
Criteria
Gilroy Criteria
(MC
30.27.30)
Type of Significance Description of Significance
A/1 1 and 2 Association with
Events, Patterns of
Development; Special
Elements of the City
Commercial buildings from this period may be significant for
their clear associations with the theme of Commercial
Development. Gilroy’s pattern of early commercial development
in the downtown core predominately took place in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. A large number of
commercial buildings and storefronts were erected during this
period, aided by the advent of city sidewalks, paved streets and
new municipal buildings drawing increased pedestrian traffic to
the commercial core of the city. Commercial buildings from this
period ranged from simple brick and wood frame buildings with
no discernable architectural styles. Commercial buildings from
this time period serve as important representations of early
commercial architectural development patterns in Gilroy.
B/2 2 Association with
People
Commercial buildings from this period may be significant for
their association with persons important to the history of Gilroy.
Such persons may include prominent merchants. However,
under this Criterion the commercial building should: 1) be clearly
associated with the person during the period of time in which
they gained importance within their profession or group; 2) be
compared to other properties associated with the person(s) in
question in order to identify which property(s) best represent
that person’s achievements or reasons for being significant.
C/3 3 and 4 Architecture; Design;
Notable Work
Commercial buildings from this period may be significant for
their architecture, as expressed by intact character-defining
features, forms or construction methods. Buildings may also
qualify as the work of a master architect or prominent builder,
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 148 July 2020
Table 10. Significance Requirements for Commercial Properties Built from 1904-1941
NRHP/CRHR
Criteria
Gilroy Criteria
(MC
30.27.30)
Type of Significance Description of Significance
such as William Weeks, Binder and Curtis, Reid Brothers, Albert
Roller, Samuel Newsom, or William Radtke Sr. Individual
resources should be good examples of their types and/or styles,
and retain most of their original features. With regard to historic
districts, contributing properties need not meet the integrity
threshold required for individually eligible properties. Provided
that the grouping achieves significance as a whole within its
historic context, individual properties may lack individual
distinction. This is particularly true of properties located within
the downtown commercial core, nearly all of which exhibit
altered storefronts.
D/4 — Information Potential Commercial buildings or ruins of commercial buildings that have
the potential to yield important information about construction
methods and materials, or patterns of local residential
development may be significant for their potential to provide
information important to history; but it is unlikely such examples
exist..
Integrity Requirements
In order to be eligible for designation on the City’s HRI, commercial properties must meet at least one of the City’s
designation criteria and retain integrity from their period of construction. While most buildings undergo change over
time, alterations should not significantly change a property’s essential historic character. The following integrity
requirements have been identified for residential properties from this period:
Good representation of a style of architecture or construction methodology from the time period.
Retains the original roofline and roof form. Replacement of roofing material is acceptable, but the roofline
and form must be intact.
Retains overall scale and massing that is consistent to the time period.
Additions made to the building must be made to the rear of the building and not serve as a detraction from
the main elevation.
Retains elements of the original fenestration pattern. Storefronts can be altered, but their alterations
should not compete with the rest of the building or detract from other historic elements still in place on the
street facing elevation. Original fenestration may be covered, but the building retains adequate integrity if
the treatment used to cover the fenestration is removable. For example, if a building’s original transoms
have been painted over or boarded up, but are still in place, the building retains requisite historic integrity.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 149 July 2020
Retains some of the original ornamentation including original awnings, signage, parapet details,
plasterwork, and decorative cornices or stringcourses.
Replacement cladding is acceptable as long as character defining features remain intact. For instance, a
brick commercial building may be re-clad in stucco in the event that the cornice line detailing remains
intact.
The addition of security elements like bars and fencing that is not permanently affixed to the building does
not negatively impact the integrity of the building.
The building does not feature conjectural elements (e.g., the addition of stone veneer to a building that was
historically clad in wood, or elaborate details that are not consistent with the original period of construction
or architectural style).
With regard to commercial historic districts, contributing properties need not meet the integrity threshold
required for individually eligible properties. Provided that the grouping achieves significance as a whole
within its historic context, individual properties may lack individual distinction. This is particularly true of
properties located within the downtown commercial core, nearly all of which exhibit altered storefronts, but
together can still convey the essential elements of the downtown commercial core.
Civic and Institutional Properties
The Early and Mid-Twentieth Century Development period was a period of growth for civic and institutional buildings
and the establishment of monumental permanent structures. These building include a new City Hall Building
located at the intersection of Monterey and Sixth Streets (1907), the Carnegie Library located at the corner of Fifth
Street and Church (1910), Gilroy High School constructed on I.O.O.F. Avenue (1913), and Wheeler Hospital located
at the intersection of 5th Street and Princevalle Street (1929). Despite the economic downturn effecting the U.S.
during the Great Depression, city-backed development projects persisted throughout the remainder of the 1930s
with financial assistance from prominent Gilroy families like the Wheelers. The majority of these civic and
institutional projects are located within the core residential blocks of the City and were intended to be accessible
in order to serve the community. They were built using substantial materials such as brick, concrete, and stone in
a variety of architectural styles that would later influence future commercial and civic projects. Many of these
buildings were constructed by well-known architects like William Weeks and serve as important representations of
the formalization of Gilroy that took place during this period of development.
Associated Architectural Styles
Institutional architectural styles associated with the Early and Mid-Twentieth Century Development period (1904-
1941) of Gilroy include the following (see Section 5 for the character-defining features of each style):
Richardson Romanesque (ca. 1870-1910)
Brick Commercial (ca. 1880-1940)
Mission Revival (1890-1920)
Neoclassical (1895-1955)
Spanish Colonial Revival (1915-1940)
Mediterranean Revival (1920-1930s)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 150 July 2020
Art Deco (1920-1940)
Stripped Classicism (1930-1945)
Mid-Century Modern (1933-1965)
Contemporary (1945-1990)
Significance Requirements
Table 11 discusses the significance of institutional buildings from Gilroy’s Early and Mid-Twentieth Century
Development period in consideration of NRHP, CRHR and City designation criteria. In order to be eligible for
designation as an individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be 1) located within the original city grid,
and 2) constructed during this development period (1904-1941). Most of the surviving buildings from this period
are already listed on the City of Gilroy HRI.
Table 11. Significance Requirements for Institutional Properties Built from 1904-1941
NRHP/CRHR
Criteria
Gilroy Criteria
(MC
30.27.30)
Type of Significance Description of Significance
A/1 1 and 2 Association with
Events, Patterns of
Development; Special
Elements of the City
Institutional buildings from this period may be significant for their
clear associations with multiple themes in Gilroy’s Initial
Development period including schools, churches, and civic
development. Institutional buildings from this time period serve
as important representations of early institutional architectural
development patterns in Gilroy.
B/2 2 Association with
People
Institutional buildings from this period may be significant for their
association with persons important to the history of Gilroy. Such
persons may include prominent religious figures or civic figures.
However, under this Criterion the institutional building should: 1)
be clearly associated with the person during the period of time
in which they gained importance within their profession or
group; 2) be compared to other properties associated with the
person(s) in question in order to identify which property(s) best
represent that person’s achievements or reasons for being
significant.
C/3 3 and 4 Architecture; Design;
Notable Work
Institutional buildings from this period may be significant for their
architecture, as expressed by intact character-defining features,
forms or construction methods. Buildings may also qualify as
the work of a master architect or prominent builders like William
Weeks, Binder and Curtis, George Renz, or William Radtke Sr.
Individual resources qualified under these criteria should be
good examples of types and/or styles, and retain most of their
original features.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 151 July 2020
Table 11. Significance Requirements for Institutional Properties Built from 1904-1941
NRHP/CRHR
Criteria
Gilroy Criteria
(MC
30.27.30)
Type of Significance Description of Significance
D/4 — Information Potential Institutional buildings or ruins of institutional buildings that have
the potential to yield important information about construction
methods and materials, or patterns of local residential
development may be significant for their potential to provide
information important to history; but it is unlikely such examples
exist.
Integrity Requirements
In order to be eligible for designation on the City’s HRI, institutional properties must meet at least one of the City’s
designation criteria and retain integrity from their period of construction. While most buildings undergo change over
time, alterations should not significantly change a property’s essential historic character. The following integrity
requirements have been identified for residential properties from this period:
Good representation of a style of architecture from the time period.
Retains the original roofline and roof form. Replacement of roofing material is acceptable, but the roofline
and form must be intact.
Retains original fenestration. While replacement windows and doors are acceptable, the original
fenestration pattern should be intact.
Retains some of the original ornamentation (particularly ornamentation around entry points, windows, and
roofline detailing)
Replacement cladding is acceptable in rare cases when cladding is replaced in kind and there is no change
in the material type. For example, wood cladding should be replaced with wood cladding, not stucco.
Additions to the building must be in keeping with scale and must not detract from the building’s principal
elevation.
The building does not feature conjectural elements (e.g., the addition of stone veneer to a building that was
historically clad in wood, or elaborate door and window details that are not consistent with the original
period of construction or architectural style).
Transportation Infrastructure
Like many cities throughout California, Gilroy’s development pattern was influenced by the advancements in
automobile and road construction technology in the first half of the 20th century. During the Early and Mid-Twentieth
Century Development Period (1904-1941), Gilroy’s transportation became more focused on roads than in the
previous development period, marked by the rise of the railroad industry. Numerous important transportation
events took place during this period of development including the passage of the State Highways Act in 1909. In
an effort to capitalize on the development of the State Highway program, Gilroy chose to pave their main
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 152 July 2020
thoroughfare to capture the emerging tourism market brought about by the automobile industry and the State
Highway program. Gilroy continued to pave roads during this period including Old Gilroy Road and 1st Street in 1922.
In addition to paving the main thoroughfares throughout the City, Highway 152 was also paved and improved during
this period of development. One of the last road projects undertaken during this period of development was the
construction of the road between Gilroy and Watsonville, known as Hecker Pass, that was dedicated in 1928.
Shortly after the dedication, a now historic tree row was planted along the pass and remains to this day. While these
road projects were an important factor in the development of Gilroy and helped to create more avenues for travel
in and around the city, they did not produce significant buildings that are part of the architectural fabric of Gilroy
today.
However, there is one building from this period of development that is reflective of the importance of transportation:
the existing Southern Pacific depot. In 1918, the original 1870s railroad depot was replaced by the current depot
at 7250 Monterey Road. The depot’s construction reflected Gilroy’s movement towards more permanent structures
which came with the growth and development of the City during this period. The depot also stands as an important
example of Mission Revival style of architecture in the City.
Agriculture, Industry, and Manufacturing
Agricultural, industrial and manufacturing development during the Early and Mid-Twentieth Century Development
period continue to grow throughout the city. This period of development saw the emergence of agricultural
manufacturing businesses and services, which led to the industrialization of agriculture and agricultural products,
which persists in Gilroy today. Examples of these agricultural goods manufacturers included: Live Oak Creamery,
the Pieters-Wheeler Seed Company, the Filice & Perrelli Cannery, and C. B. Gentry Chili Powder Company. Other
companies, such as BeGe Manufacturing & Welding Company, manufactured tools and vehicles for agricultural
use. This period also saw the establishment of smaller farms closer to the downtown core.
While much of the agricultural-related resources have been lost throughout Gilroy’s history, there are some
examples that remain from this period. One important remaining resource is the Live Oak Creamery located on
Railroad Avenue. This building is simplistic in design and located near the railroad tracks, which was likely for the
ease of transporting goods and supplies. Unlike the Live Oak Creamery, which is located on a small parcel within
the downtown core on Railroad Avenue, larger agricultural properties from this period may contain buildings and
structures that were not fully visible from the public right-of-way.
One of the most visible representations of agricultural properties is located at 7040 Church Street. This property is
an intact, early-twentieth century farm with multiple agricultural buildings that were partially visible from the public
right of way including a water storage building, multiple sheds, and animal enclosures. Another extant example is a
barn located at 420 Lewis Street, however, this barn is no longer tied to a farmstead and exhibits a very utilitarian
and unremarkable design. The remaining agricultural properties identified during the survey were not visible from
the public right of way or were unremarkable in design. Given the rich history of agriculture in Gilroy, it is likely that
there are additional agricultural resources of significance that were not identified by the citywide survey. These
resources should be evaluated on a case by case basis for significance and integrity.
There are numerous examples of manufacturing and industrial buildings throughout the city. However, the bulk of
these buildings are ubiquitous and unremarkable in design, and devoid of workmanship as they are often
prefabricated using standard materials. The few examples that were identified as potentially significant from this
time period were flagged for additional research in order to adequately assess historic significance.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 153 July 2020
7.2.3 World War II and Post-War Development (1941-1975)
The dominant themes of the World War II and Post-War Development period (1941-1975) are population growth,
expansion of City territory, enlarged manufacturing, food production and processing capabilities. Like many other
cities in California, Gilroy’s population continued to grow in the decade following the close of World War II, and the
need for residential development required more space than the remaining undeveloped areas within the City could
accommodate. In order to house Gilroy’s many incoming residents, annexation of new territory by the mid-1950s
was essential to keep pace with the steadily rising demand for housing. The influx of people to the City required
even more newly annexed areas devoted to residential developments as well as supporting infrastructure like
schools, parks, churches and commercial centers. These newly annexed areas were primarily located to the west
of Princevalle Street extending as far north as Mantelli Drive and as south as West Luchessa Avenue. Property types
associated with these significant themes include residential, commercial, and civic and institutional properties.
Residential Properties
The population of Gilroy grew substantially between in the first half of the 1940s. This growth was spurred by a
combination of service members returning from the war to establish families and people who were attracted to the
area in search of job opportunities created by the war effort. The City was not prepared for the increased housing
needs and as a result, private companies such as BeGe Manufacturing created their own worker housing. Albert
Gurries designated a portion of the land north of First Street between Hanna and Church Streets as an employee
housing subdivision, the Gurries Tract in April 1945. In 1946, Gurries announced development of 50 additional
houses for employees and returning soldiers. A few of these modest, Minimal Traditional-style houses in the Gurries
Tract still stand on Gurries Drive, while many others have been demolished or heavily modified. After annexation of
land west of the original downtown core, modern residential subdivisions like Sherwood Park, Eschenberg Park,
and Castlewood Park formed using the Gurries Tract model.
The earliest examples of Ranch and Minimal Traditional residences in Gilroy during this period were typically not
constructed as large-scale tracts, but rather, were intermixed among other earlier architectural styles in non-tract
neighborhoods. Examples of these early Ranch and Minimal Traditional house forms can be seen along 5th Street
between Princevalle Street and Miller Avenue and on Carmel between 3rd and 5th Streets. These individually
designed residences embody the construction techniques and design aesthetic most often associated with the
Ranch and Minimal Traditional style homes found throughout tracts, however, their placement within existing
neighborhoods makes these individual houses more likely to be significant than their counterparts in large housing
tracts, which were constructed by the hundreds outside of the original downtown core. Given the commonality of
Ranch and Minimal Traditional style homes throughout the United States and California, the standards for
significance and integrity is generally quite high.
While the earlier house forms from the 1940s and 1950s are present in Gilroy, most of the properties from this
period of development consist of ubiquitous tract housing and fail to rise to the level of significance required for
designation at the local, state and national level. Newly annexed sections of the City were typically subdivided by
the same developer or development company and laid out in its own grid system. The most common architectural
styles for these developments were Ranch (c. 1935-1975), Minimal Traditional (c. 1935-1950), and Contemporary
(1945-1990). These styles were repeated in various models throughout tract housing developments using low-cost
building materials and limited architectural details to reduce labor costs. The majority of the residences from this
period of development are extant; however, many have been subject to window and door replacements and other
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 154 July 2020
alterations including second-story additions. These modifications disrupt the visual continuity that is required to
make a tract housing development significant. There are also instances in which large portions of early housing
tracts were demolished. Significant alterations to visual cohesion in the tract neighborhoods to the north and west
of Gilroy’s downtown core combined with the uniformity in architectural style, materials, lot size, and arrangement
placed all of the tract neighborhoods outside of the realm of significance at the local, state and national level.
Associated Architectural Styles
Residential architectural styles associated with the World War II and Post-War Development period (1941-1975) of
Gilroy include the following (see Section 5 for the character-defining features of each style):
Ranch (c. 1935-1975)
Minimal Traditional (c. 1935-1950)
Contemporary (1945-1990)
Significance Requirements
Table 12 discusses the significance of residential buildings from Gilroy’s World War II and Post-War Development
period (1941-1975) in consideration of NRHP, CRHR and City designation criteria. In order for a residential property
from the World War II and Post-War Development Period (1941-1975) to be eligible for designation as an individual
property on the City’s HRI, the property must be constructed within this development period (1941-1975) and
adhere to the following requirements:
Table 12. Significance Requirements for Residential Properties Built from 1941-1975
NRHP/CRHR
Criteria
Gilroy Criteria
(MC
30.27.30)
Type of Significance Description of Significance
A/1 1 and 2 Association with
Events, Patterns of
Development; Special
Elements of the City
Gilroy followed the same pattern of much of the U.S. in the post-
war years with regard to residential development, which is
characterized as expansion to accommodate population growth.
Post-war residential development in Gilroy primarily consisted of
large housing tracts in the newly annexed western portions of
the city. Residences within these post-1948 annexation areas
are not likely to be associated with any important patterns of
post-war residential development.
Post-1948 development marked Gilroy’s deviation from the
formal city grid. Examples of this change in city planning and
development includes the angling of Miller Avenue (as opposed
to having it run parallel to Princevalle Street), and the
introduction of curvilinear streets such as Monte Vista Way. This
less rigid form of planning resulted in lots that are not uniform in
size. Setback requirements also increased slightly in these
areas, resulting in an overall lack of uniformity, as seen in the
original city grid. Like most of the U.S. in the post-war years,
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 155 July 2020
Table 12. Significance Requirements for Residential Properties Built from 1941-1975
NRHP/CRHR
Criteria
Gilroy Criteria
(MC
30.27.30)
Type of Significance Description of Significance
there is also evidence of the Small House Movement, with the
frequent use of Minimal Traditional homes and early Ranch
style homes, versus the larger homes seen on streets within the
original city grid.
Buildings most likely to be eligible for their associations with
events and patterns of development will have been built in 1948
or earlier and be located within the original downtown grid.
These buildings may be significant for their clear associations
with the theme of Residential Development, specifically, Gilroy’s
pattern of early residential development in the original city grid
during the early twentieth century.
B/2 2 Association with
People
Residential buildings from this period may be significant for their
association with persons important to the history of Gilroy. Such
persons may include prominent merchants, artists, or city
officials. However, under this Criterion the residence should: 1)
be clearly associated with the person during the period of time
in which they gained importance within their profession or
group; 2) be compared to other properties associated with the
person(s) in question in order to identify which property(s) best
represent that person’s achievements or reasons for being
significant.
C/3 3 and 4 Architecture; Design;
Notable Work
Residential buildings from this period may be significant for their
architecture, as expressed by intact character-defining features,
forms or construction methods. Buildings may also qualify as
the work of a master architect or prominent builder. Given the
commonality of the architectural styles from this period of
development, buildings must retain a high level of materials
integrity to be considered for significance and must be proven to
be the work of a master architect or builder that is noted for
his/her work in Gilroy. Resources qualified under these criteria
should be excellent examples of types and/or styles and retain
almost all of their original features. Architectural significance
should also be considered in the event of a tract housing
development that retains a high level of visual cohesion, as it
has the potential to be representative of architectural planning
and methodology employed in this development period,
although none were observed during the citywide survey.
D/4 — Information Potential Residential buildings or ruins of residential buildings that have
the potential to yield important information about construction
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 156 July 2020
Table 12. Significance Requirements for Residential Properties Built from 1941-1975
NRHP/CRHR
Criteria
Gilroy Criteria
(MC
30.27.30)
Type of Significance Description of Significance
methods and materials, or patterns of local residential
development may be significant for their potential to provide
information important to history; but it is unlikely such examples
exist.
Integrity Requirements
In order to be eligible for designation on the City’s HRI, residential properties must meet at least one of the City’s
designation criteria and retain integrity from their period of construction. While most buildings undergo change over
time, alterations should not significantly change a property’s essential historic character. The following integrity
requirements have been identified for residential properties from this period:
Excellent representation of a style of architecture from the time period
Retains the original roofline and roof form. Replacement of roofing material is acceptable, but the roofline
and form must be intact.
Retains original fenestration.
Retains original windows and doors on the main elevation. Replacement windows on the main elevation of
the building have the potential to compromise the building’s integrity, given the commonality of the house
form.
Retains the original ornamentation.
Retains the original cladding.
Retains original porch configuration and materials.
Does not have later additions that are visible from the public right-of-way and impact integrity. Examples of
such additions include incompatible garages, second story additions, dormers, and breezeways that are
visible from the public right-of-way. This also includes any inappropriately scaled ADUs.
Does not feature conjectural elements (e.g., the addition of stone veneer to a building that was historically
clad in wood, or elaborate door and porch details that are not consistent with the original period of
construction or architectural style).
Relocation of a residential building is acceptable provided that it can still convey its historic significance.
Commercial Properties
During World War II commercial development slowed and little new construction was completed during these years,
as most business that began during the war years were established in existing commercial buildings. In 1949,
following a recommendation by the Planning Commission, the City Council passed an ordinance allowing
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 157 July 2020
businesses to operate for the first time on a section of Eigleberry Street between First and Seventh Streets. This
resulted in an expansion of the commercial corridor from Monterey Road only to Eigleberry Street, which became a
combination of residences and businesses, as well as homes that were converted to a commercial use.
Later, in the 1960s and 1970s, commercial development took place in the newly developed areas of the City to the
north and west of the original downtown core. These areas required the installation of new facilities like shopping
centers to service the outlying residential developments which had been established in the 1950s and 1960s.
There were few new commercial developments along Monterey Road in the downtown district, again relegated to
the area outside the main development corridor from 1st Street to 8th Street.
Associated Architectural Styles
Commercial architectural styles associated with the Early and Mid-Twentieth Century Development period (1904-
1941) of Gilroy became more streamlined and less ornate than the previous development period, and include the
following (see Section 5 for the character-defining features and a representative example of each style):
Mid-Century Modern (1933-1965)
Mansard (1940-1980)
Contemporary (1945-1990)
Googie (c. 1940-1960s)
Significance Requirements
Table 13 discusses the significance of commercial buildings from Gilroy’s World War II and Postwar Development
period in consideration of NRHP, CRHR and City designation criteria. In order for a commercial property from the
World War II and Post-War Development Period (1941-1975) to be eligible for designation as an individual property
on the City’s HRI, the property must be constructed within this period (1941-1975) and consider the following:
Table 13. Significance Requirements for Commercial Properties Built from 1941-1975
NRHP/CRHR
Criteria
Gilroy Criteria
(MC
30.27.30)
Type of Significance Description of Significance
A/1 1 and 2 Association with
Events, Patterns of
Development; Special
Elements of the City
Commercial buildings from this period may be significant for
their clear associations with the theme of Commercial
Development. Commercial buildings from this period serve as
important representations of architectural development patterns
in Gilroy in the years surrounding World War II. After 1949,
commercial buildings were allowed outside of the Monterey
Road corridor and begin to appear on formerly residential-only
street such as Eigleberry Street. As this period progresses, and
Gilroy citizens rely more heavily on automobiles, the city
government allowed commercial buildings to expand further
outward from the original, Monterey Road commercial district.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 158 July 2020
Table 13. Significance Requirements for Commercial Properties Built from 1941-1975
NRHP/CRHR
Criteria
Gilroy Criteria
(MC
30.27.30)
Type of Significance Description of Significance
B/2 2 Association with
People
Commercial buildings from this period may be significant for
their association with persons important to the history of Gilroy.
Such persons may include prominent merchants. However,
under this Criterion the commercial building should: 1) be clearly
associated with the person during the period of time in which
they gained importance within their profession or group; 2) be
compared to other properties associated with the person(s) in
question in order to identify which property(s) best represent
that person’s achievements or reasons for being significant.
C/3 3 and 4 Architecture; Design;
Notable Work
Commercial buildings from this period may be significant for
their architecture, as expressed by intact character-defining
features, forms or construction methods. Popular styles for
commercial buildings from this period include Mid-Century
Modern, Contemporary, and Googie. Buildings may also qualify
as the work of a master architect or prominent builder. Buildings
may also qualify as the work of a master architect or prominent
builder. Individual resources qualified under these criteria
should be good examples of types and/or styles and retain most
of their original features. With regard to historic districts,
contributing properties need not meet the integrity threshold
required for individually eligible properties. Provided that the
grouping achieves significance as a whole within its historic
context, individual properties may lack individual distinction.
This is particularly true of properties located within the
downtown commercial core, nearly all of which exhibit altered
storefronts.
D/4 — Information Potential Commercial buildings or ruins of commercial buildings that have
the potential to yield important information about construction
methods and materials, or patterns of local residential
development may be significant for their potential to provide
information important to history; but it is unlikely such examples
exist.
Integrity Requirements
In order to be eligible for designation in the City’s HRI, commercial properties must meet at least one of the City’s
designation criteria and retain integrity from their period of construction. While most buildings undergo change over
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 159 July 2020
time, alterations should not significantly change a property’s essential historic character. The following integrity
requirements have been identified for commercial properties from this period:
Good representation of a style of architecture or construction methodology from the time period.
Retains the original roofline and roof form. Replacement of roofing material is acceptable, but the roofline
and form must be intact.
Retains overall scale and massing that is consistent to the time period.
Additions made to the building must be made to the rear of the building and not serve as a detraction from
the main elevation.
Retains elements of the original fenestration pattern. Storefronts can be altered, but their alterations
should not compete with the rest of the building or detract from other historic elements still in place on the
street facing elevation. Original fenestration may be covered, but the building retains adequate integrity if
the treatment used to cover the fenestration is removable. For example, if a building’s original transoms
have been painted over or boarded-up but are still in place, the building retains the requisite historic
integrity.
Retains some of the original ornamentation including original awnings or signage.
Replacement cladding is acceptable as long as character defining features remain intact. For instance, a
brick commercial building may be re-clad in stucco in the event that the cornice line detailing remains
intact.
The addition of security elements like bars and fencing that is not permanently affixed to the building does
not negatively impact the integrity of the building.
The building does not feature conjectural elements (e.g., the addition of stone veneer to a building that was
historically clad in wood, or elaborate details that are not consistent with the original period of construction
or architectural style).
Civic and Institutional Properties
Similar to the development of commercial properties during the World War II and Post-War Development period,
civic and institutional properties continued at a moderate rate in Gilroy. The properties built during this period were
mostly built as replacements to earlier structures. The newly annexed areas of the City predominantly devoted to
residential development required the construction of supporting infrastructure like schools, parks, and churches.
These buildings were constructed north and west of the original City core and typically utilized simple, modern
architectural styles including Stripped Classicism (1930-1945), Mid-Century Modern (1933-1965), and
Contemporary (1945-1990).
Associated Architectural Styles
Institutional architectural styles associated with the World War II and Post War Development period (1941-1975)
of Gilroy include the following (see Section 5 for the character-defining features of each style):
Mid-Century Modern (1933-1965)
Contemporary (1945-1990)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 160 July 2020
Significance Requirements
Table 14 discusses the significance of institutional buildings from Gilroy’s World War II and Post-War Development
period in consideration of NRHP, CRHR and City designation criteria. In order to be eligible for designation as an
individual property on the City’s HRI, the property must be constructed within the World War II and Post War
Development period (1941-1975) and consider the following:
Table 14. Significance Requirements for Institutional Properties Built from 1941-1975
NRHP/CRHR
Criteria
Gilroy Criteria
(MC
30.27.30)
Type of Significance Description of Significance
A/1 1 and 2 Association with
Events, Patterns of
Development; Special
Elements of the City
Institutional buildings from this period may be significant for their
clear associations with multiple themes in Gilroy’s World War II
and Post-War Development period including schools, churches,
and civic development. Institutional buildings from this time
period serve as important representations of institutional
architectural development patterns in Gilroy.
B/2 2 Association with
People
Institutional buildings from this period may be significant for their
association with persons important to the history of Gilroy. Such
persons may include prominent religious figures or civic figures.
However, under this Criterion the institutional building should: 1)
be clearly associated with the person during the period of time
in which they gained importance within their profession or
group; 2) be compared to other properties associated with the
person(s) in question in order to identify which property(s) best
represent that person’s achievements or reasons for being
significant.
C/3 3 and 4 Architecture; Design;
Notable Work
Institutional buildings from this period may be significant for thei r
architecture, as expressed by intact character-defining features,
forms or construction methods. Buildings may also qualify as
the work of a master architect or prominent builders. Individual
resources qualified under these criteria should be good
examples of types and/or styles and retain most of their original
features.
D/4 — Information Potential Institutional buildings or ruins of institutional buildings that have
the potential to yield important information about construction
methods and materials, or patterns of local residential
development may be significant for their potential to provide
information important to history; but it is unlikely such examples
exist.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 161 July 2020
Integrity Requirements
In order to be eligible for designation on the City’s HRI, institutional properties must meet at least one of the City’s
designation criteria and retain integrity from their period of construction. While most buildings undergo change over
time, alterations should not significantly change a property’s essential historic character. The following integrity
requirements have been identified for residential properties from this period:
Good representation of a style of architecture from the time period.
Retains the original roofline and roof form. Replacement of roofing material is acceptable, but the roofline
and form must be intact.
Retains original fenestration. While replacement windows and doors are acceptable, the original
fenestration pattern should be intact.
Retains some of the original ornamentation (particularly ornamentation around entry points, windows, and
roofline detailing).
Replacement cladding is acceptable in rare cases when cladding is replaced in kind and there is no change
in the material type. For example, wood cladding needs to be replaced with wood cladding not stucco.
Additions to the building must be in keeping with scale and must not detract from the building’s principal
elevation.
The building does not feature conjectural elements (e.g., the addition of stone veneer to a building that was
historically clad in wood, or elaborate door and porch details that are not consistent with the original period
of construction or architectural style).
Transportation Infrastructure
The single greatest change to transportation infrastructure during this period of development consisted of and
related to moving Highway 101 off Monterey Road and around downtown Gilroy, constructing a large freeway
through town. The City of Gilroy appealed to the State Highway Commission to route Highway 101 around the City
instead of along Monterey Road in order to alleviate traffic congestion beginning in 1965. When the Highway 101
bypass was completed in 1973, the population of Gilroy had grown to over 12,600. While there are no additional
transportation buildings identified during this period of development, the Highway 101 bypass influenced the future
growth and development of Gilroy into the next development period (1975 to present), as businesses and
residences began to develop in relation to established on/off ramps from the highway.
Agriculture, Industry, and Manufacturing
As a direct result the demand created by World War II and the need for processed food and military equipment,
industry and manufacturing began to turn into more of an agribusiness enterprise with large plants being developed
by established companies such as C.B. Gentry Company and BeGe Manufacturing. With a shift towards shipping
using automobiles, rather than solely relying on rail, new agribusiness companies like Gilroy Foods and Christopher
Ranch also began to develop their warehouses and packing plants on the edges of town. In the 1950s, the City also
made an effort to attract non-agricultural based industries. By 1961, a Standard Industrial Survey Summary of
Gilroy found that Gilroy’s six largest manufacturing plants included BeGe Manufacturing Co. (300 employees),
Gentry (60 to 400 seasonal employees), Filice & Perrelli Canning Co. (80 to 800 seasonal employees), National
Fiberglass Corporation (25 employees), Air-O-Fan Corporation (12 employees), and Sandoe Hanna Welding Co. (10
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 7. Guidance for Assessing Significance 162 July 2020
employees). The number of manufacturing plants rose to 37 by 1972, with companies like Dukor Industries, Crown
Zellerbach Co. and Pacific Central Co.
Industrial development during this period resulted in the emergence of more ubiquitous industrial and
manufacturing facilities to maximize efficient processing of goods and materials. Industrial and manufacturing
buildings constructed during this period tended to be made from mass produced materials and in most cases,
consist of large, prefabricated metal or concrete warehouses with no architectural detail. While there is always
potential to uncover additional industrial and manufacturing resources from this time period that were not visible
from the public right-of-way, it is somewhat unlikely that they would rise to the level required for significance at the
National, State or local level without a significant level of research.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 8. Findings and Recommendations 163 July 2020
8 Findings and Recommendations
8.1 Citywide Survey Findings
8.1.1 Summary of Findings
Dudek completed pedestrian survey of 3,374 properties within the City of Gilroy built in 1974 or earlier. The
historical significance and integrity of properties within the survey area was evaluated in consideration of NRHP,
CRHR, and City designation criteria, as well as the seven aspects of integrity established for the NRHP and
incorporated into the CRHR. All evaluated resources were assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code
(CHRSC), as appropriate. These codes indicate if a resource is listed in, or appears eligible for listing in, the NRHP,
CRHR, or City HRI. The complete spreadsheet of all citywide survey findings is provided in Appendix B. A summary
of these findings is provided below:
City HRI Properties: 360 currently designated; 224 recommended to stay on HRI; 136 recommended for
removal from the HRI; and 55 recommended for addition to the HRI (see Appendix C, Table 1a, 1b, 1c).
City HRI Districts: 10 currently designated and 7 are recommended for removal; 3 districts will remain and
have been updated as part of this study (see district DPR forms in Appendix D)
CRHR and NRHP Eligible/Listed Properties: 32 properties listed in/eligible for the NRHP and/or CRHR. Of
these, 7 are listed in the NRHP/CRHR; 3 determined eligible for the NRHP/CRHR through the Section 106
process; 12 appear eligible for listing in the NRHP/CRHR; and 10 appear eligible for listing in the CRHR
only (see Appendix C, Table 2).
Ineligible Properties: 1,560 properties appear not eligible for inclusion in the HRI, CRHR, or NRHP due to a
lack of significance/integrity.
Unevaluated Properties: Certain properties were excluded from the citywide survey because they served as
a ubiquitous example of tract housing or an unremarkable, prefabricated industrial property (n=1,520);
require additional study/research before they can be evaluated (n=11); or they were not visible from the
public right-of-way (n=25) and could not be evaluated. A complete list of properties requiring additional
study/not visible is provided in Appendix C, Table 3a and 3b.
All State of California DPR Forms completed as part of the citywide survey are located in Appendix D.
8.1.2 City HRI Eligible/Listed Properties
According to City data, 360 properties are designated on the City’s HRI. Many of these properties were identified as
part of the 1985-1986 citywide survey, which inventoried much of the original downtown grid, roughly equivalent
to the 1945 city limits. Of the 360 designated HRI properties, 136 are recommended for removal from the HRI due
to either demolition of the resource entirely, extensive alteration of character-defining elements, or lack of identified
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 8. Findings and Recommendations 164 July 2020
significance. Additionally, 55 newly identified properties are recommended for designation on the HRI. Appendix C,
Table 1a, 1b, and 1c provides a complete list of all existing HRI properties by address, historic name (if applicable),
recommendation for retention or removal from the HRI, as well as any properties recommended for inclusion in the
HRI, and any applicable comments concerning these recommendations. Figure 40 provides an overview of existing
and recommended HRI properties as a result of the current study.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Date: 7/7/2020 - Last saved by: cstarbird - Path: Z:\Projects\j1116500\MAPDOC\HistoricResourceReport\Fig_HRI_Properties.mxd101
152
Holloway R dHoo
ver Ct2nd St
RogersLnDe
l Ma
r
St
A
l
e
x
a
n
d
e
r
S
t
S i x t h S t
Alt
a
St
M
u
rr
a
y
A
v
e
Old Gilroy StTaft CtSilvia St5th S tPolk CtIOOF AveCarr PlStuartDrDaisy
L
n
CedarCt
E 9th S tFowler StBlake Ct
S toneyC t
SequoiaDr Dor
i
s
Ct Casey LnOak
CtW aln u t L n
BremLnGa
r
d
e
n
Ct
L e x i n g t o n P lSyrahCtClubDrEl Rancho St
Willard Ct
Automall Dr
B irch Pl
White Oak Pl
Ma
p
l
e
S
t
11th StHadley C tGl
e
n
wo
o
d
DrE St
Tennyson Dr
H o w so n S tBenassi DrF
o
r
e
s
t StLa
Co
c
he
Wa
y
Automall CtParish WayHoesch Way
Violet Way
B u t t e r cup Ln
Cas a De l S o lS tA d o b e PlzCulpDr
L a Sierra W a y
Hoxett StPetersen Dr
Aspen WayChesbro Way
La AlondraW
ay
Mo
nteV istaWayGe tty s b urgW ay
JuniperDr
Carla Way
Gl
e
n
v
i
e
wDr
Sarf in aW aySanta Barbara DrPappani Dr
Swaner Dr
Byers St
W illiam sburgW ay
C lark Way
Hersman Dr
C u m b erlan d D r
E 8th S tPlym ou t h D r
HowardAve
Fillippelli
D
r
Perrelli S t
La Paloma Wa yKipling C
irKentwoodCt
Gary St
F airview D rHacienda Dr
Me
s
a
S
t4th S tE 7 th S tS
p
rin
g
d
ale
C
t
DriftwoodTerLawrence Dr
Ro
s
a
n
n
a
StWentzDrReaSt
VentureW a yCra
wfordDr Ch
e
s
t
n
u
t
S
t
Broadway St
W 7th S tW 9th S tCypress Ct
E schen b u rg D rGaunt AveLindsteadt WayGrenacheWay
Arnold Dr
Sherwood Dr
Monte Bello Dr
Ortega Cir
Silacci
W
ay
Ayer Dr
Y
orktownDrSantaPaulaDrLaurelDr C
a
mile
A
veAu
t
o
mallPkwyS
w
a
n
sto nLnSan Miguel St El Cerrito Way
L ew is S tFilice DrOrchardDrWestwood DrK elto n DrHa
n
n
a
StWaylandL
n
SantaTheresaDrDo
wd
y
St Gilman RdCa
r
me
l St
Ei
g
l
e
b
e
r
r
y
StW8thSt
Arroyo C i rPri
n
c
e
v
a
ll
e
St
3rd S t
W 6th St
E 6th S tUvas Park Dr
C
a
min
o
Arro
yo
Church
S
t
UvasPkwy RenzLnKern AveWrenAveMiller AveW 10th S tWelburn Ave
M a n telliDrS
a
n
t
a
T
e
r
e
s
a
B
l
v
d
P ach eco P a s s H w yLeavesleyRd
E 10th S t
1st St Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
R
d
S
V
a
lle
y
F
wy
City of Gilroy Existing and Recommended HRI Properties
City of Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory Update
SOURCE: City of Gilroy, OpenStreetMap
0 1,0 00500Feet
FIGURE 40A
101
152 A
B
D
C A
B
D
C
City of Gilroy Limits and CitywideSurvey Study Area
Existing HRI Properties
Recommended Eligible forHRI/Property Should Remain Listed
Recommended for Removal from HRI
City of Gilroy Parcels
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Date: 7/7/2020 - Last saved by: cstarbird - Path: Z:\Projects\j1116500\MAPDOC\HistoricResourceReport\Fig_HRI_Properties.mxd101 Las Anim as AveNoNameUno
C
hurchSt Mu
rr
a
y
A
v
eKern AveSaddlerDrM a rt iri Ct
Jaguar Pl
Cooper PlP u eblo Ct
OrindaWayOkeef e Ct
Finch Ln M o ro C t Yam aneD r
M oroDrBenbow DrKe
ll
y
L
n
M artiriDr
Peregrine Dr
RodeoDrHogan WayMelchoir CtAvezan WayWagonWayOkeefeLn
Sage H illDrJicarilla Pl
Koshare St
F
r
e
e
manC tLariatDrBennett StL e r m a W a yHopiLnComancheStZuniLnTapestry DrDelRi
oCirT
e
rri
C
t
L e r m a L n Ra
d
t
k
e
Av
e
V i c k e r y L n
Mu
r
a
o
k
a
Dr Le
pa
Ct
K ishim ura D rSolanaDrLa Primavera Way
F e s ta AgilioDrWoodcreek Way
Taos WayBobcat CtSturla W ayMonticelliDr
Li man Ave
V a l b u s a D r
LoganberryDrF
o
r
e
s
t
StElCaminito Johnson W ayE d en St
Pad
ovaDrArapaho Dr
Z
a
mz
o
w
C
t
EagleHillsWayGeronimo St
Pueblo St
CalledelReyB ria rb e r r y Ln
Pheasant DrEagle View WaySprig Way
Cheyenne DrCougar CtS
a
n
Y
sid
r
o
A
v
e Wilf
o
rdW ayTatum Ave FarrellA veC ohansey A veRona n Ave
D en io A veM
a
r
c
ella
A
v
e
D a y R d
B u en a V ista A veWren AveHirasakiAveSunrise Dr
Longmeadow Dr
S
a
n
t
a
T
e
r
e
s
a
B
l
v
d
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
R
d
S
V
a
lle
y
F
wy
City of Gilroy Existing and Recommended HRI Properties
City of Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory Update
SOURCE: City of Gilroy, OpenStreetMap
0 1,0 00500Feet
FIGURE 40B
101
152 A
B
D
C A
B
D
C
City of Gilroy Limits and CitywideSurvey Study Area
Existing HRI Properties
Recommended Eligible forHRI/Property Should Remain Listed
Recommended for Removal from HRI
City of Gilroy Parcels
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Date: 7/7/2020 - Last saved by: cstarbird - Path: Z:\Projects\j1116500\MAPDOC\HistoricResourceReport\Fig_HRI_Properties.mxd152 Solis D r
Silvia StC l u b Dr
StuartDrDaisy
L
n
CedarCt
Blake Ct
Birkdale Ct SequoiaDrGallowayCtColonyWay
SyrahCtWillard Ct
B irch Pl
White Oak Pl
LahinchCtVerbendDrWildIrisDrAlister CtTennyson Dr
Benassi DrHacket DrTarynLnParish WayBraid CtHoesch Way
TurnberryWayEdinburghWayViolet Way
B u t t e r cup Ln
Perrelli S tPeriwinkleDrLaPalomaWa yHoxett StCulp D r
Petersen Dr
W
a
y
l
a
ndLnAspen WayChesbro WayLar
k
s
p
u
rLnC alabres e Way
La AlondraW
ay
CrudenBayWayJuniperDr
Carla Way
Santa Barbara DrBerwickAv ePappani Dr
Swaner Dr
Byers St
Wentz Dr
C lark Way
Hersman Dr
R anch o Vista Ct
VistadelSur
HowardAve
Fillippelli
D
r
Eld o ra do Dr
Kipling C
irKentwoodCt
Gary St
Hacienda Dr
UvasParkDr DriftwoodTerUvasPkwyPonderosaDrLawrence Dr
LahinchDr
Portmarno ckWayCra
wfordDrRanchoRealStrathPl
PitlochryDr Gaunt AveGrenacheWay
ElCerrito Way
IsabellaWayMonte Bello Dr
MossroseWay
Ousley Dr
R oundstone Dr
Ortega Cir
S u n flo w e r CirCypress Ct
Ayer Dr
Co u ntryDrSantaPaulaDrLaur
el
DrTr o on Way
San Miguel St
Muirfield W a y Delta DrHollyh ockLnEagleRidgeDr Westwood DrKelto n DrLone OakRanchoVistaDr
Saint Andrew's Cir
BurchellRd
W 6th St
Miller Ave3rd St
M a n t e l l i Dr
Kern AveWrenAveS
a
n
t
a
T
e
r
e
s
a
B
l
v
d
Welburn Ave
Heck e r P a s s H w y
1st St
City of Gilroy Existing and Recommended HRI Properties
City of Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory Update
SOURCE: City of Gilroy, OpenStreetMap
0 1,0 00500Feet
FIGURE 40C
101
152 A
B
D
C A
B
D
C
City of Gilroy Limits and CitywideSurvey Study Area
Existing HRI Properties
Recommended Eligible forHRI/Property Should Remain Listed
Recommended for Removal from HRI
City of Gilroy Parcels
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Date: 7/7/2020 - Last saved by: cstarbird - Path: Z:\Projects\j1116500\MAPDOC\HistoricResourceReport\Fig_HRI_Properties.mxd101 Arizo
n
a
CirCiminoStCharlesLuxDrHydeParkDrKoror L n
Sussex PlBarron PlCajon Way
Wisteria Dr
T
e
c
a
t
e
L
n
De Anza Plz
MasoniP
lVin c a C t
BoninoWay
Gage CtTannatLn El Rancho St
RasberryCt Thames DrFilbroDrEngel
W
a
y
Vill
agePl
Po
p
p
yfieldSt Ro
s
a
n
n
a
St
B r ookWayBogialaWayOlympicCtLusitano St
Pal
omi
noPl
C hurchill Pl
RubyWay
Shire St
Alder St
London Dr
N
ic
ol
eWay
VlognierWay
Carig nan e DrDawnW a yRiverviewCreek Trave l P
a
r
kCi
rLopezWayBultustro l DrBallybunionDr BabbsC re e k D r
Wild f l o w erCtOakBrookWay
Caspian W a y
Greenfield DrMayock RdSanJ u s toRdObata Way
Portrush C tS o u th sid e D rA
uto
m
all
P
k
w
yV ictoria Dr
W i nged F o otDr
Eag l eRidgeDr
M e s a R d
Luchessa Ave
UvasPkwy
PrincevalleSt Ch
u
r
c
h
St
W LuchessaAveM i l l e r A v e W10thStB
o
ls
a
R
d
Santa Teresa Blvd Mont
e
r
e
y
RdS Valley FwyCity of Gilroy Existing and Recommended HRI Properties
City of Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory Update
SOURCE: City of Gilroy, OpenStreetMap
0 1,0 00500Feet
FIGURE 40D
101
152 A
B
D
C A
B
D
C
City of Gilroy Limits and CitywideSurvey Study Area
Existing HRI Properties
Recommended Eligible forHRI/Property Should Remain Listed
Recommended for Removal from HRI
City of Gilroy Parcels
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 8. Findings and Recommendations 166 July 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 8. Findings and Recommendations 167 July 2020
HRI Historic Districts
According to City data, there are currently 10 historic districts designated on the HRI, most of which were identified
as part of the 1985-1986 survey (Figure 41). As a result of the updated citywide survey, 7 of these existing districts
are recommended for removal from the HRI due to a lack of integrity. However, many of the once-district contributing
properties will remain listed on the HRI as individually significant properties. Table 15 provides a list of all existing
HRI historic districts and associated recommendations for retention or removal from the HRI.
Table 15. Summary of Existing and Recommended HRI Historic Districts
District Name
Currently
on HRI? Recommendation Comments
Bungalow Residential District Yes Remove from HRI Many district contributors exhibit
significant alterations; boundary
justification unclear; no defined period
of significance
Craftsman Bungalow District Yes Remove from HRI Lacks a cohesive Craftsman style, no
defined period of significance
Tudor/Period Revival District Yes Remove from HRI Omission of some properties without
justification; unclear incorporation of
the Wheeler Hospital; no defined
period of significance and unclear why
“Period Revival” is included in the
district title
Fifth Street Historic Residential District Yes Remove from HRI Statement of significance is very broad
leaves room for the addition of many
more properties to this district without
establishing a clear period of
significance; the district boundaries
are not clearly justified and there are
large pockets of non-contributors
within the district.
Eigleberry Early Settlers District Yes Remove from HRI Eastern-half of the district demolished
Alexander Street Residential District Yes Remove from HRI Lacks visual cohesion; contributors
exhibit numerous alterations
Forest Street Bungalow District Yes Remove from HRI District justification unclear; no
defined period of significance
California Bungalow Residential District Yes Keep, but revise Now called the Holmes Brothers
Craftsman District to more
appropriately reflect the builder and
correct architectural style
Pioneer Row Historic District Yes Keep District to remain as-is
Monterey Street Downtown Commercial
Historic District
Yes Keep, but revise Now called the Monterey Road
Downtown Commercial Historic
District. Revisions include changes to
the original boundary and
contributors/non-contributors
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 8. Findings and Recommendations 168 July 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Date: 7/7/2020 - Last saved by: cstarbird - Path: Z:\Projects\j1116500\MAPDOC\HistoricResourceReport\Fig_HRI_Districts.mxdPioneer RowDistrict
Holmes BrothersCraftsmanDistrict
MontereyDistrict
AlexanderStreet District
BungalowDistrict
CraftsmanBungalowDistrict
EigleberryEarly SettlersDistrict
Fifth StreetDistrict
Forest StreetBungalowDistrict
Tudor-PeriodRevivalDistrict
101
152
2nd St Hoov er
Ct
RogersLnCl
a
r
a
Wa
y
7th StMu
r
r
a
y
Av
eOakCt
Sydney Ct
S i x t h S tSargentStFontana W ayOld Gilroy St
M artin S t5th S tGe
n
n
a
r
o
Wa
y
P e rre lli S tOr
char
dDrS a n Y sid ro P a rk
R
enzLnStoneyCtRa
ilr
o
a
d
St
W aln u t L n
Al
e
x
a
n
d
e
r St Ma
p
l
e
S
tRo
s
a
n
n
a
St
F
o
r
e
s
t
S
t
E St
H a d le y C t
L a Sierra W a y
IO O FA veMont eV istaW ayS arfinaW ayWa
y
l
a
n
d
L
nHa
n
n
a
St
E 8th S tE 9th S t4th St E 7 th S tRe
a
St
W 7th S tC
h
e
s
t
n
utSt
Broadway St
E s c h en b u rg D rL e w is S tFiliceDrDo
wd
y
St
SantaTheresaDrCa
r
me
l St Ei
g
l
e
b
e
r
r
y
St
ArroyoCir
W 8th S t3rd St
W 6th S tE 6th S tCh
u
r
c
h
St
Miller AvePri
n
c
e
v
a
ll
e
St Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
R
d
1st St
S
V
a
lle
y
F
wy
City of Gilroy Existing and Recommended HRI Districts
City of Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory Update
SOURCE: City of Gilroy, OpenStreetMap
0 500250Feet
FIGURE 41
101
152
City of Gilroy Limits and CitywideSurvey Study Area
City of Gilroy ParcelsCity HRI District ContributorRecommended City HRI DistrictBoundaries
Districts Recommended for Removalfrom the HRI
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 8. Findings and Recommendations 170 July 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 8. Findings and Recommendations 171 July 2020
Historic Districts Recommended for Removal from HRI
The following districts are recommended for removal from the HRI as a result of the survey:
Bungalow Residential District: the original justification for this district states that “the district is significant
as a neighborhood that reflects the growth of Gilroy during the height of the canning industry and the
popular styles of bungalow architecture so appropriate in Gilroy.”361 A review of the district and its
contributors indicates that the district has significant integrity issues, particularly on the east side of Church
Street between 1st and 2nd Streets. Further, the boundary justifications are not visually distinctive and it is
not clear how they were determined. For these reasons, the district is recommended for removal from the
HRI, although many of its contributors will remain on the HRI as individual properties.
Alexander Street Residential District: the original justification for this district states that “this district is
distinct from other areas by its limited alterations and cohesive design” and pinpoints the district’s
significance in its ability to function of a “micro display of Gilroy history, this area contains homes of early
settlers, those who came from lumbering, cattle and farm industries, as well as those who were attracted
by the booming economy of the food processing era”362. A review of the district and its contributors
indicates that none of the aforementioned associations are conveyed by the district. Further, several of the
contributors have been subject to extensive alterations, including 7350, 7360, 7391, and 7429 Alexander
Street. For these reasons, the district is recommended for removal from the HRI, although many of its
contributors will remain on the HRI as individual properties.
Craftsman Bungalow District: the original justification for this district states “The 7700 Block of Rosanna
contains a grouping of Craftsman bungalows that are a complete set on the street.”363 However, updated
survey found that the 7700 block of Rosanna Street is not comprised solely of Craftsman bungalows, it
also includes Queen Ann (7721 and 7711 Rosanna) and Folk National (7751 Rosanna) style properties.
For these reasons, the district is recommended for removal from the HRI, although many of its contributors
will remain on the HRI as individual properties.
Tudor/Period Revival District: it is unclear why “Period Revival” is used in the district title, when the
contributing properties are only Tudor Revival style. If it was meant to be a Period Revival style district, then
it should have included the Colonial Revival (7580 Princevalle Street) and Spanish Colonial Revival (7548
Princevalle) properties as contributors. Of further confusion is why one Tudor Revival residence (7554
Princevalle Street) was not included as a contributor. Finally, it is unclear why the Wheeler Hospital is
included as a contributor to this district, when the district’s justification of significance is primarily focused
on how the “Tudor Revival style marked a distinctive change in Gilroy from the unassuming bungalows to
these elegant and formal homes that portray a change in attitudes.”364 There is a vague connection to
these residences as being owned by “people who were important in the development, business and medical
history of the community.”365 However, the connection to Wheeler Hospital is not clearly established. For
361 Bamburg, Bonnie. 1986. City of Gilroy Historic Preservation Survey 1985-1986. A comprehensive Study of the History and
Architecture of the City of Gilroy within the 1945 City Limits. The Firm of Bonnie L. Bamburg, San Jose, California. On file with the City
of Gilroy.
362 Ibid.
363 Ibid
364 Ibid
365 Ibid
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 8. Findings and Recommendations 172 July 2020
these reasons, the district is recommended for removal from the HRI, although many of its contributors will
remain on the HRI as individual properties.
Fifth Street Historic Residential District: the original justification for the significance of this district is that it
is a representative sample of Gilroy residential architecture, important architects and builders, and
associations with important individuals. “The collective history of Gilroy is represented in this grouping of
structures.”366. The result is a large number of properties with varying levels of significance and historical
associations incorporated into a district boundary that is not clearly justified. There is also a significant gap
between Hanna Street and Carmel Street. While there is clearly a high density of HRI properties within the
boundary defined, it seems to exclude many other HRI properties that also contribute to the “collective
history of Gilroy.” Simply put, the parameters of this district are too broad and not clearly defined. For these
reasons, the district is recommended for removal from the HRI, although the vast majority of its contributors
will remain on the HRI as individual properties.
Eigleberry Early Settlers District: the original justification for this district was that “In less than one block,
this area retains the sense and feeling of early development on the west side of Monterey Street.” The
significance statement goes on to state that “The importance is due to the sense of time and place, these
mid 1870-1880 structures present”367. Updated survey of this district revealed that the entire eastern side
of the 7300 block of Eigleberry Street has been demolished, including four district contributors (67 Seventh
Street and 7320, 7350, and 7360 Eigleberry Street). As such, the loss of the entire eastern half of the
district has significantly compromised the setting and feeling of the district as a whole. For these reasons,
the district is recommended for removal from the HRI, although nearly all of the contributors on the west
side of Eigleberry Street will remain on the HRI as individual properties.
Forest Street Bungalow District: the original justification for this district is that “This simple block of Forest
has a well defined representation of bungalow styles.” The significance statement goes on to say that “the
significance of this district is directly enhanced by the large grouping of bungalows that represent variations
of design within the style.”368 But it is unclear how this grouping of bungalows on Forest Street is
differentiated from those in the Craftsman Bungalow District or Bungalow Residential District (see
discussions above), or why this particular pocket of residences on Forest Street is worthy of its own district.
For these reasons, the district is recommended for removal from the HRI, although nearly all of the
contributors will remain on the HRI as individual properties.
Historic Districts Recommended to Stay on HRI
The following districts continue to be recommended as HRI districts, with some modifications to account for
changes in integrity and setting since they were first recorded and evaluated. A complete record of each district,
including contributors and non-contributors, can be found in the district DPR forms provided in Appendix D
Holmes Brothers Craftsman District. Formerly called the California Bungalow Residential District, this
district comprises 10 buildings constructed in 1921. Contributing buildings within the district are visually
united by the Craftsman style of architecture, as well as, their small lots, rectangular plans, 1-story height,
uniform set back, low, broad-design, and a wide front porch with stucco sheathing. All contributing buildings
366 Ibid
367 Ibid
368 Ibid
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 8. Findings and Recommendations 173 July 2020
are historically united by their shared associations with the growth and development of Gilroy’s residences
within the original grid, and represent a concentration of small, Craftsman style homes dating from 1921
constructed by the Holmes Brothers. The district’s period of significance is 1921 when all of the contributing
buildings were constructed on Chestnut Street and 6th Street. As a result, this district remains an
undisturbed grouping of Holmes Brothers’ buildings that are historically distinct from other buildings within
the neighborhood.
Pioneer Row Historic District. This district comprises four buildings constructed circa 1870. Contributing
buildings within the district are Folk National in style and visually united by their almost identical
appearance with hall and parlor design, one-story height, cross gable roof, horizontal board siding, full front
porch supported by posts with ornamental braces, equal set-backs from Forest Street, and a center entry
flanked by multi-lite windows. All contributing buildings are historically united by their shared associations
with the growth and development of early Gilroy’s residences within the original grid, and represent a
concentration of small, Folk National style homes dating from the 1870s. The district’s period of
significance begins in 1870, the approximate date of construction for all four contributing buildings and
ends the same year when the Robert Grant developed housing tract was completed. This group of four
residences represents the best example of early 1870’s mass constructed housing left in Gilroy.
Monterey Road Downtown Commercial Historic District. Formerly called the Monterey Street Downtown
District, this district comprises 60 buildings (45 contributors and 15 non-contributors) constructed between
approximately 1870 and 1940. Contributing buildings within the district are visually united by their long,
narrow, rectangular plans, 1-2 story height, 1-2 part commercial block, glass storefronts, standardized set-
backs from Monterey Road, adjacent positioning/shared party-wall, and use of simple brick commercial,
stucco commercial, and more ornately elaborately designed buildings in Art Deco, Neoclassical, Spanish-
Colonial Revival, and Italianate styles. The district also contains a number of simple, unadorned storefronts
devoid of architectural style that only contribute to the district through their simple rectangular plan, scale
and massing, and shared walls. Other features seen throughout the district include raised parapets, cornice
line detailing, and brick/molded stringcourses. The district also includes several monumental buildings that
serve as major anchor-points for the district, including the NRHP-listed Old City Hall building (7400
Monterey Road), The Milias Hotel (7387 Monterey Road), the bank building at 7490 Monterey Road (22
Martin Street), and the Louis Hotel and Café (7365-7367 Monterey Road). All contributing buildings are
historically united by their shared associations with the growth and development of Gilroy’s commercial
core, and represent a concentration of simple, traditional brick commercial (one-part and two-part block)
and revival style storefronts, dating from 1870 to 1940, with the vast majority of buildings within the district
dating to the 1920s. The district’s period of significance begins in 1870 when the original SPRR Depot was
constructed and new hotels and businesses began to establish along Monterey Road; and ends in 1940
when commercial development along Monterey Road slowed and new commercial development departed
from the size, scale, and massing of the districts traditional storefronts; and commercial development on
other streets was newly allowed (i.e., along Eigleberry Street between First and Seventh Streets). Very little
new development has occurred in the Monterey Road downtown core since the mid-century.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 8. Findings and Recommendations 174 July 2020
8.1.3 CRHR and NRHP Eligible/Listed Properties
In consideration of the CHRIS records search results (Confidential Appendix A), which included a review of the State
HRI, 32 properties listed on/eligible for the NRHP and/or CRHR. Of these 7 properties within Gilroy city-limits are
listed in the NRHP, and by default, are also listed in the CRHR; an additional 3 properties have been determined
eligible for the NRHP/CRHR through the Section 106 process; 12 properties appear eligible for inclusion in the
NRHP (CHRSC 3S); and 10 additional properties appear eligible for inclusion in the CRHR only (CHRSC 3CS). All
CRHR and NRHP eligible/listed properties are also listed in or eligible for the City HRI. Appendix C, Table 2 provides
a complete list of all identified CRHR and NRHP eligible/listed properties by address, historic name (if applicable),
current CHRSC, recommended CHRSC, and any applicable comments concerning these recommendations. Figure
42 shows the locations of all NRHP and CRHR listed/eligible properties.
8.1.4 Ineligible Properties
Of the properties evaluated for historical significance, 1,560 properties were found ineligible for the NRHP, CRHR,
and City HRI due to a lack of requisite integrity and/or architectural merit. These are represented by a CHRSC of 6Z
in Appendix B.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Date: 7/7/2020 - Last saved by: cstarbird - Path: Z:\Projects\j1116500\MAPDOC\HistoricResourceReport\Fig_Eligible_Properties.mxd101
152
Holloway R dHoo
ver Ct2nd St
RogersLnDe
l Ma
r
St
A
l
e
x
a
n
d
e
r
S
t
S i x t h S t
Alt
a
St
M
u
rr
a
y
A
v
e
Old Gilroy St
M artin S tTaft CtSilvia St5th S tPolk CtIOOF AveCarr PlStuartDrDaisy
L
n
CedarCt
E 9th S tFowler StBlake Ct
S toneyC t
SequoiaDr Dor
i
s
Ct Casey LnRa
ilr
o
a
d
St
Oak
CtW aln u t L n
BremLnGa
r
d
e
n
Ct
L e x i n g t o n P lSyrahCtClubDrEl Rancho St
Willard Ct
Automall Dr
B irch Pl
White Oak Pl
Ma
p
l
e
S
t
11th StHadley C tGl
e
n
wo
o
d
DrE St
Tennyson Dr
H o w so n S tBenassi DrF
o
r
e
s
t
S
tLa
Co
c
he
Wa
y
Automall CtParish WayHoesch Way
Violet Way
B u t t e r cup Ln
Cas a De l S o lS tA d o b e PlzCulpDr
L a Sierra W a y
Hoxett StPetersen Dr
Aspen WayChesbro Way
La AlondraW
ay
Mo
nteV istaWayGe tty s b urgW ay
JuniperDr
Carla Way
Gl
e
n
v
i
e
wDr
Sarf in aW aySanta Barbara DrPappani Dr
Swaner Dr
Byers St
W illiam sburgW ay
C lark Way
Hersman Dr
C u m b erlan d D r
E 8th S tPlym ou t h D r
HowardAve
Fillippelli
D
r
Perrelli S t
La Paloma Wa yKipling C
irKentwoodCt
Gary St
F airview D rHacienda Dr
Me
s
a
S
t4th S tE 7 th S tS
p
rin
g
d
ale
C
t
DriftwoodTerLawrence Dr
Ro
s
a
n
n
a
St
Wentz Dr Re
a
S
t
VentureW a yCra
wfordDr Ch
e
s
t
n
u
t
S
t
Broadway St
W 7th S tW 9th S tCypress Ct
E schen b u rg D rGaunt AveLindsteadt WayGrenacheWay
Arnold Dr
Sherwood Dr
Monte Bello Dr
Ortega Cir
Silacci
W
ay
Ayer Dr
Y
orktownDrSantaPaulaDrLaurelDr C
a
mile
A
veAu
t
o
mallPkwyS
w
a
n
sto nLnSan Miguel St El Cerrito Way
L ew is S tFilice DrOrchardDrWestwood DrK elto n DrHa
n
n
a
StWaylandL
n
SantaTheresaDrDo
wd
y
St Gilman RdCa
r
me
l St
Ei
g
l
e
b
e
r
r
y
St
W 8thSt
Arroyo C i rPri
n
c
e
v
a
ll
e
St
3rd S t
W 6th St
E 6th S tUvas Park Dr
C
a
min
o
Arro
yo
Church
S
t
UvasPkwy RenzLnKern AveWrenAveMiller AveW 10th S tWelburn Ave
M a n telliDrS
a
n
t
a
T
e
r
e
s
a
B
l
v
d
P ach eco P a s s H w yLeavesleyRd
E 10th S t
1st St Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
R
d
S
V
a
lle
y
F
wy
City of Gilroy NRHP and CRHR Eligible/Listed Properties
City of Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory Update
SOURCE: City of Gilroy, OpenStreetMap
0 1,0 00500Feet
FIGURE 42A
101
152 A
B
C A
B
C
City of Gilroy Limits and CitywideSurvey Study Area
City of Gilroy ParcelsProperties Currently Listed on theNRHP/CRHR
Properties Previously DeterminedEligible for NRHP and CRHR
Properties that Appear Eligible for theNRHP and CRHR
Properties that Appear Eligible for theCRHR Only
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Date: 7/7/2020 - Last saved by: cstarbird - Path: Z:\Projects\j1116500\MAPDOC\HistoricResourceReport\Fig_Eligible_Properties.mxd101 Las Anim as AveNoNameUno
C
hurchSt Mu
rr
a
y
A
v
eKern AveSaddlerDrM a rt iri Ct
Jaguar Pl
Cooper PlP u eblo Ct
Li
l
l
y AveOrindaWayOkeef e Ct
Finch Ln M o ro C t Yam aneD r
M oroDrBenbow DrKe
ll
y
L
n
M artiriDr
Peregrine Dr
RodeoDrHogan WayMelchoir CtAvezan WayWagonWayOkeefeLn
Sage H illDrJicarilla Pl
Koshare St
F
r
e
e
manC tLariatDrBennett StL e r m a W a yHopiLnComancheStZuniLnTapestry DrDelRi
oCirT
e
rri
C
t
L e r m a L n Ra
d
t
k
e
Av
e
V i c k e r y L n
Mu
r
a
o
k
a
Dr Le
pa
Ct
K ishim ura D rSolanaDrLa Primavera Way
F e s ta AgilioDrWoodcreek Way
Taos WayBobcat CtSturla W ayMonticelliDr
Li man Ave
V a l b u s a D r
LoganberryDrF
o
r
e
s
t
StElCaminito Johnson W ayE d en St
Pad
ovaDrArapaho Dr
Z
a
mz
o
w
C
t
EagleHillsWayGeronimo St
Pueblo St
CalledelReyB ria rb e r r y Ln
Pheasant DrEagle View WaySprig Way
Cheyenne DrCougar CtS
a
n
Y
sid
r
o
A
v
e Wilf
o
rdW ayTatum Ave FarrellA veC ohansey A veRona n Ave
D en io A veM
a
r
c
ella
A
v
e
D a y R d
B u en a V ista A veWren AveHirasakiAveSunrise Dr
Longmeadow Dr
S
a
n
t
a
T
e
r
e
s
a
B
l
v
d
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
R
d
S
V
a
lle
y
F
wy
City of Gilroy NRHP and CRHR Eligible/Listed Properties
City of Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory Update
SOURCE: City of Gilroy, OpenStreetMap
0 1,0 00500Feet
FIGURE 42B
101
152 A
B
C A
B
C
City of Gilroy Limits and CitywideSurvey Study Area
City of Gilroy ParcelsProperties Currently Listed on theNRHP/CRHR
Properties Previously DeterminedEligible for NRHP and CRHR
Properties that Appear Eligible for theNRHP and CRHR
Properties that Appear Eligible for theCRHR Only
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Date: 7/7/2020 - Last saved by: cstarbird - Path: Z:\Projects\j1116500\MAPDOC\HistoricResourceReport\Fig_Eligible_Properties.mxd152SolisDrSilvia StC l u b Dr
StuartDrDaisy
L
n
CedarCt
Blake Ct
Birkdale Ct SequoiaDrGallowayCtColonyWay
SyrahCtWillard Ct
B irch Pl
White Oak Pl
LahinchCtVerbendDrWildIrisDrAlister CtTennyson Dr
Benassi DrHacket DrTarynLnParish WayBraid CtHoesch Way
TurnberryWayEdinburghWayViolet Way
B u t t e r cup Ln
Perrelli S tPeriwinkleDrLaPalomaWa yHoxett StCulp D r
Petersen Dr
W
a
y
l
a
ndLnAspen WayChesbro WayLar
k
s
p
u
rLnC alabres e Way
La AlondraW
ay
CrudenBayWayJuniperDr
Carla Way
Santa Barbara DrBerwickAv ePappani Dr
Swaner Dr
Byers St
Wentz Dr
C lark Way
Hersman Dr
R anch o Vista Ct
VistadelSur
HowardAve
Fillippelli
D
r
Eld o ra do Dr
Kipling C
irKentwoodCt
Gary St
Hacienda Dr
UvasParkDr DriftwoodTerUvasPkwyPonderosaDrLawrence Dr
LahinchDr
Portmarno ckWayCra
wfordDrRanchoRealStrathPl
PitlochryDr Gaunt AveGrenacheWay
ElCerrito Way
IsabellaWayMonte Bello Dr
MossroseWay
Ousley Dr
R oundstone Dr
Ortega Cir
S u n flo w e r CirCypress Ct
Ayer Dr
Co u ntryDrSantaPaulaDrLaur
el
DrTr o on Way
San Miguel St
Muirfield W a y Delta DrHollyh ockLnEagleRidgeDr Westwood DrKelto n DrLone OakRanchoVistaDr
Saint Andrew's Cir
BurchellRd
W 6th St
Miller Ave3rd St
M a n t e l l i Dr
Kern AveWrenAveS
a
n
t
a
T
e
r
e
s
a
B
l
v
d
Welburn Ave
Hecker Pass Hwy
1st St
Hecker Pass Tree Row
City of Gilroy NRHP and CRHR Eligible/Listed Properties
City of Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory Update
SOURCE: City of Gilroy, OpenStreetMap
0 1,0 00500Feet
FIGURE 42C
101
152 A
B
C A
B
C
City of Gilroy Limits and CitywideSurvey Study Area
City of Gilroy ParcelsProperties Currently Listed on theNRHP/CRHR
Properties Previously DeterminedEligible for NRHP and CRHR
Properties that Appear Eligible for theNRHP and CRHR
Properties that Appear Eligible for theCRHR Only
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 8. Findings and Recommendations 176 July 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 8. Findings and Recommendations 177 July 2020
8.1.5 Unevaluated Properties
Certain properties were excluded from the citywide survey because they served as a ubiquitous example of tract
housing or an unremarkable, prefabricated industrial property (n=1,520); require additional study/research before
they can be evaluated n=11); or they were not visible from the public right-of-way (n=25) and could not be evaluated.
Properties falling into one of these three categories have no accompanying DPR form set. A complete list of
properties requiring additional study/not visible is provided in Appendix C, Table 3a and 3b. A discussion of all
properties not evaluated as part of the citywide survey is provided below.
Properties Excluded from Evaluation
In consideration of the large quantity of properties that are included in a citywide survey, Dudek excluded certain
properties that represent ubiquitous resource types throughout the United States and California (n=1,520), such
as postwar tract housing and prefabricated industrial properties.
Starting in the 1930s, housing shortages throughout the United States resulted in mass-produced housing forms.
These new housing forms lead to the popularity of multiple styles from the 1930s to the 1970s including Minimal
Traditional, Ranch, and Contemporary. While a large percentage of homes during this time were constructed as
single family residences, as populations continued to boom in the second half of the twentieth century, multi-family
complexes and duplexes also increased in popularity as a way to increase density in both suburban and urban
areas. These popular building forms were designed to be quickly constructed with the use of mass produced
materials, standardized floor plans, and were not typically designed by a master architect or with a high level of
artistic value. Given the commonality of these house types, most do not rise to the level of significance required for
local, state, or national designation. More than 40 million tract housing units were constructed in the United States
during the 30-year period that followed the end of World War II. In California, nearly six million housing units were
constructed during this period with more than 3.5 million of these being single-family residences. Generally
speaking, a tract Ranch, Minimal Traditional, or Contemporary house will rarely be found individually eligible for
designation. Rather, it is the larger tract that is more likely to be eligible as a district369. However, no distinctive
postwar housing tracts were identified in Gilroy as a result of the citywide survey. All housing tracts west of Miller
Avenue, south of 1st Street and west of Wayland Lane, north of 1st Street were found to be ubiquitous examples of
Ranch and Minimal Traditional style tracts lacking distinctive/unique architectural features and exhibiting a low
level of integrity of design, materials (particularly with regard to window placements), and feeling (Figure 43).
Industrial development in Gilroy predominantly took place adjacent to the downtown commercial core/business
district and developed in close relation to the railroad, reflective of Gilroy’s role as a major agricultural shipping
center in the region. As the mid-twentieth century approached, and shipping became less reliant on the railroad
and more reliant on overland trucking, industrial development began to expand on the outskirts of Gilroy. Buildings
from this mid-century period were oftentimes mass produced, prefabricated metal, utilitarian building forms that
can be found throughout the United States and California, with few design elements that reflect architectural styles.
This is true of the industrial properties on Monterey Road near Leavesley Road; all industrial properties south of
10th Street; and industrial development along the 101 between 6th and 10th Streets (Figure 43).
369 Caltrans. 2011. Tract Housing in California, 1945-1973: A Context for National Register Evaluation. Sacramento, California.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 8. Findings and Recommendations 178 July 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Date: 7/7/2020 - Last saved by: cstarbird - Path: Z:\Projects\j1116500\MAPDOC\HistoricResourceReport\Fig_Ineligible_Properties.mxd101
152
Holloway R dHoo
ver CtRogersLnA
l
e
x
a
n
d
e
r
S
t
S i x t h S t
M
u
rr
a
y
A
v
e
W illy C tOld Gilroy St
M artin S tTaft Ct5th S tPolk CtIO OFAveCarr PlE 9th S tS toneyC t
BremLnDor
i
s
Ct
Me
s
a
StCasey LnRa
ilr
o
a
d
St
Oak
Ct2n d S tW aln u t L n
Automall CtL e x i n g t o n P lMa
p
l
e
S
t
Ro
s
a
n
n
a
St
L illy Ave
Hadley C tGl
e
n
wo
o
d
DrE St
H o w so n S tF
o
r
e
s
t
S
tLa
Co
c
he
Wa
y
Ven tu reW ayA d obe P lzE lC errito W a y
L a Sierra W a y
Yorktow
n
D
r Mo
nteV istaWayPierce St
Sarf in aW ayW illiam sburg Wa
yC u m b erlan d D r
E 8th S tPlym ou t h D r F airview D rArnold Dr
4th S tE 7 th S tS
p
rin
g
d
ale
C
t
Sherwood Dr
Re
a
S
t
Ch
e
s
t
n
u
t
S
t
Broadway St
W 7th S tW 9th S tE schen b u rg D rLindsteadt WayWa
y
l
a
n
d
L
n
Au
t
o
mallPkwySilacci
W
ay
Ca
m
ile
A
ve
S
w
a
n
sto nLnOrchardDrLew is S tFilice DrHa
n
n
a
St
D unlap A veDo
wd
y
St
F
u
rl
o
n
g
Av
e
Gilman RdCa
r
me
l St
Ei
g
l
e
b
e
r
r
y
St
HolsclawRd
Arroyo C i rW 8thStPri
n
c
e
v
a
ll
e
St
Church
S
t
C
a
min
o
Arro
yo3rd St
W 6th S tE 6th S tRenzLnMiller AveW 10th S tW e lburn Ave
Mantelli Dr
Pacheco Pass HwyLeavesley RdE 10th S t
1st St Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
R
d
S
V
a
lle
y
F
wy
City of Gilroy Properties Recommended Ineligible
City of Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory Update
SOURCE: City of Gilroy, OpenStreetMap
0 1,0 00500Feet
FIGURE 43A
101
152 A
B
D
C A
B
D
C
City of Gilroy Limits and CitywideSurvey Study Area
City of Gilroy ParcelsProperties Found Not Eligible for theHRI, CRHR or NRHP
Properties Found to Represent aCommon or Ubiquitous Resource Typethat Lacks Potential for Eligibility
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Date: 7/7/2020 - Last saved by: cstarbird - Path: Z:\Projects\j1116500\MAPDOC\HistoricResourceReport\Fig_Ineligible_Properties.mxd101
152Las Anim as AveNoNameUno
C
hurchSt Mu
rr
a
y
A
v
eKern AveC a s a b lancaCirSaddlerDrW illy C tB urke D rM a rt iri C t
S
a
n
Y
sid
r
o
A
v
e
Jaguar Pl
Cooper PlP u eblo Ct
ArborStOrindaWayOkeefe Ct
M o ro C t Yam aneD r
Mo r oDrBenbow DrM a rtiriDrRodeoDrHogan WayMelchoir CtFl
or
a
l
StAvezan WayWagonWay Sage H illDrJicarilla Pl
Koshare St
F
r
e
e
manC tLariatDr
Sp en ce
rCtL illy Ave
Del Oro W ayB ennett StL e r m a W a y
Sorren to C tHopi
LnComancheStZuniLnTapestry DrDelRio C
irT
e
rri
C
t
L e r m a L n Ra
d
t
k
e
Av
e
Birdsong StV i c k e r y L n
S o r r e ntoDrP a r t r i d g e D r Le
pa
Ct
K ishim ura D rSolanaDrLa Primavera Way
F e s ta AgilioDrWoodcreek Way
Taos WayBobcat CtWilford W ayMu
r
a
o
k
a
D
rSturla W ayMonticelliDr
Li man Ave
V a l b u s a D rElCaminito Johnson W ayLoganberryDr
Arapaho Dr
Z
a
mz
o
w
C
t
B ria rb e r r y Ln
Pheasant Dr
Pad
ovaDrEagle Hills WayGeronimo St
Pueblo St
Ede n St
Siena D rEagle View WaySprig Way
Cheyenne DrCougar CtF
o
r
e
s
t
S
t
Tatum Ave FarrellA veCalledelReyC ohansey A veD en io A veRona n Ave
M
a
r
c
ella
A
v
e
Hi
r
asaki
AveD a y R d
B u en a V ista A veWren AveSunrise Dr
L o n gmeadowDr
S
a
n
t
a
T
e
r
e
s
a
B
l
v
d
MantelliDr Leavesley RdMo
n
t
e
r
e
y
R
d
S
V
a
lle
y
F
wy
City of Gilroy Properties Recommended Ineligible
City of Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory Update
SOURCE: City of Gilroy, OpenStreetMap
0 1,0 00500Feet
FIGURE 43B
101
152 A
B
D
C A
B
D
C
City of Gilroy Limits and CitywideSurvey Study Area
City of Gilroy ParcelsProperties Found Not Eligible for theHRI, CRHR or NRHP
Properties Found to Represent aCommon or Ubiquitous Resource Typethat Lacks Potential for Eligibility
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Date: 7/7/2020 - Last saved by: cstarbird - Path: Z:\Projects\j1116500\MAPDOC\HistoricResourceReport\Fig_Ineligible_Properties.mxd152
2nd StJanDrSolisDrSilvia StC l u b Dr
Carr PlStuartDrDaisy
L
n
CedarCt
Fowler StBlake Ct
Birkdale Ct SequoiaDr Dor
i
s
Ct
4th St
GallowayCtColon y W aySyrahCtWillard Ct
Carriage DrB irch Pl
White Oak Pl
LahinchCtVerbendDrAlister CtArnold Dr
Tennyson Dr
Benassi DrPoplar DrHacket DrFineDr
TarynLnParish WayBraid CtHoesch WayAcorn
Way
TurnberryWayEdinburghWayViolet Way
B u t t e r cup Ln AmandaAvePeriwink l e DrCulp D r
Hoxett StPetersen Dr
Aspen WayChesbro WayLar
k
s
p
u
rLnC alabres e Way
La AlondraW
ay
Yorktown
DrCrudenBayWayLavendarWay
JuniperDr
Carla Way
Maria Way
Santa Barbara DrLionsCreekDrBerwickAv ePappani Dr
Swaner Dr
Byers St
P a r t r i d g e D r
C lark Way
Hersman Dr
R anch o Vista Ct WildIrisDrCalledelReyVistadelSur
HowardAve
Fillippelli
D
r
Perrelli S t
Eld o rad o Dr
La Paloma Wa yKipling C
irKentwoodCt
Gary St
Hacienda Dr
UvasParkDr DriftwoodTerUvasPkwyPonderosaDrLawrence Dr
Co
lu
mbineCt
LahinchDr
Wentz Dr
Siena D rCrawford
DrRanchoRealStrathPl
PitlochryDr Gaunt AveGrenacheWayIsabellaWay Ramona WayBayTreeDrDaffodilPl
Monte Bello Dr
MossroseWay
Ousley Dr
R oundstone Dr
Ortega Cir
CypressCt
Ayer Dr
SantaPaulaDrS u n flo w e r CirLaur
el
DrEagleRidgeDr
El Cerrito Way
Troon W a y
San Miguel St
Muirfield W a y Delta DrWayl
andL
n
Hollyh ockLnFilice DrWestwood DrK elto n DrSantaTheresaDrLone OakRanchoVistaDrCountryDr
Saint Andrew's Cir
BurchellRd
WrenAveW 6th StKern AveMillerAveRanchoH
ills
D
r
3rd St
M a n t e l li Dr
S
a
n
t
a
T
e
r
e
s
a
B
l
v
d
Welburn Ave
Hecker P a s s H wy
1st St
City of Gilroy Properties Recommended Ineligible
City of Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory Update
SOURCE: City of Gilroy, OpenStreetMap
0 1,0 00500Feet
FIGURE 43C
101
152 A
B
D
C A
B
D
C
City of Gilroy Limits and CitywideSurvey Study Area
City of Gilroy ParcelsProperties Found Not Eligible for theHRI, CRHR or NRHP
Properties Found to Represent aCommon or Ubiquitous Resource Typethat Lacks Potential for Eligibility
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Date: 7/7/2020 - Last saved by: cstarbird - Path: Z:\Projects\j1116500\MAPDOC\HistoricResourceReport\Fig_Ineligible_Properties.mxd101CiminoStCharlesLuxDrHydeParkDrAlt
a
St De
l
Ma
r
S
t K o ro r L n
Arizo n a
CirSussex PlBarron PlCajon Way
Wisteria Dr
De Anza Plz
MasoniP
lTe
c
a
t
e
L
n
V i n ca C t
BoninoWay
Gage CtTannatLnRasberryCt
Automall Dr
Thames DrFilbroDrEngel
W
a
y11th StGa
r
d
e
n
CtOrch
a
r
d
Dr
Vil
l
agePl
A d o b e Plz
Popp
y
fieldSt
B r ookWayCa sa D el So lS tBogialaWayOlympicCtLusitano St
Pal
omi
noPl
G e tty s burgW ay
C hurchill Pl
RubyWay Gl
e
n
v
i
e
wDr
Shire StMe
s
a
S
t
Y
orktownDr
Alder St
London Dr
N
ic
ol
eWay
VlognierWay
Carig nan e DrDawnW a yRiverviewCreek Trave l P
a
r
kCi
rVentureW a yLopezWayBultustro l Dr Ro
s
a
n
n
a
St
Babbs C r e e k D r
Wild f l o w erCtOakBrookWay
Caspian W a y
Greenfield DrMayock RdPortrushCtSanJ u s toRdObata Way
V ictoria Dr
W i nged F o otDr
A
uto
m
all
P
k
w
yS o u th s id e D rM e s a R d
Luchessa Ave
C
a
m
in
o Arroy
oPri
n
c
e
v
a
ll
e
St
UvasPkwy Ch
u
r
c
h
St
WLuchessaAveM i l l e r A v e
Bolsa RdW10thStSanta Teresa Blvd Mo
nt
e
r
e
y
Rd S Valley FwyCity of Gilroy Properties Recommended Ineligible
City of Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory Update
SOURCE: City of Gilroy, OpenStreetMap
0 1,0 00500Feet
FIGURE 43D
101
152 A
B
D
C A
B
D
C
City of Gilroy Limits and CitywideSurvey Study Area
City of Gilroy ParcelsProperties Found Not Eligible for theHRI, CRHR or NRHP
Properties Found to Represent aCommon or Ubiquitous Resource Typethat Lacks Potential for Eligibility
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 8. Findings and Recommendations 180 July 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 8. Findings and Recommendations 181 July 2020
Properties Requiring Additional Study
As a result of the survey, 11 properties were flagged as requiring additional survey/research to facilitate evaluation
(Figure 44). This includes large, complex properties where the full extent of the resource could not be viewed;
resources exhibiting unique characteristics that should be further researched for potential significance; public
parks; cemeteries; and other properties that may have important historical associations and research beyond the
scope of a citywide survey. Properties requiring additional research have been assigned a CHRSC of 7R (Identified
in Reconnaissance Level Survey: Not evaluated). These properties were not evaluated for historical significance
and therefore have no accompanying DPR form set in Appendix D.
Properties Not Visible from Public Right-of-Way
A total of 25 properties were not visible from the public right-of-way and therefore could not be surveyed or
evaluated as part of the citywide survey (Figure 44).These properties were not evaluated for historical significance
and therefore have no accompanying DPR form set in Appendix D.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 8. Findings and Recommendations 182 July 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Date: 7/7/2020 - Last saved by: cstarbird - Path: Z:\Projects\j1116500\MAPDOC\HistoricResourceReport\Fig_Additional_Surveys_Needed.mxd101
152
Holloway R dHoo
ver CtRogersLnA
l
e
x
a
n
d
e
r
S
t
S i x t h S t
M
u
rr
a
y
A
v
e
W illy C tOld Gilroy St
M artin S tTaft Ct5th S tPolk CtIO OFAveCarr PlE 9th S tS toneyC t
BremLnDor
i
s
Ct
Me
s
a
StCasey LnRa
ilr
o
a
d
St
Oak
Ct2n d S tW aln u t L n
Automall CtL e x i n g t o n P lMa
p
l
e
S
t
Ro
s
a
n
n
a
St
L illy Ave
Hadley C tGl
e
n
wo
o
d
DrE St
H o w so n S tF
o
r
e
s
t
S
tLa
Co
c
he
Wa
y
Ven tu reW ayA d obe P lzE lC errito W a y
L a Sierra W a y
Yorktow
n
D
r Mo
nteV istaWayPierce St
Sarf in aW ayW illiam sburg Wa
yC u m b erlan d D r
E 8th S tPlym ou t h D r F airview D rArnold Dr
4th S tE 7 th S tS
p
rin
g
d
ale
C
t
Sherwood Dr
Re
a
S
t
Ch
e
s
t
n
u
t
S
t
Broadway St
W 7th S tW 9th S tE schen b u rg D rLindsteadt WayWa
y
l
a
n
d
L
n
Au
t
o
mallPkwySilacci
W
ay
Ca
m
ile
A
ve
S
w
a
n
sto nLnOrchardDrLew is S tFilice DrHa
n
n
a
St
D unlap A veDo
wd
y
St
F
u
rl
o
n
g
Av
e
Gilman RdCa
r
me
l St
Ei
g
l
e
b
e
r
r
y
St
HolsclawRd
Arroyo C i rW 8thStPri
n
c
e
v
a
ll
e
St
Church
S
t
C
a
min
o
Arro
yo3rd St
W 6th S tE 6th S tRenzLnMiller AveW 10th S tW e lburn Ave
Mantelli Dr
Pacheco Pass HwyLeavesley RdE 10th S t
1st St Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
R
d
S
V
a
lle
y
F
wy
City of Gilroy Properties Requiring Additional Study
City of Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory Update
SOURCE: City of Gilroy, OpenStreetMap
0 1,0 00500Feet
FIGURE 44A
101
152 A
B
D
C A
B
D
C
City of Gilroy Limits and CitywideSurvey Study Area
City of Gilroy Parcels
Property Requires Additional Research
Property Not Visible from Public ROW
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Date: 7/7/2020 - Last saved by: cstarbird - Path: Z:\Projects\j1116500\MAPDOC\HistoricResourceReport\Fig_Additional_Surveys_Needed.mxd101 LasAnim asAveNoNameUno
C
hurchSt Mu
rr
a
y
A
v
eKern AveC a s a b lancaCirSaddlerDrW illy C tLinetCtLoganberryDr
Fine DrB urke D rPomo Pl
M a rt i ri C t
S
a
n
Y
sid
r
o
A
v
e
Jaguar Pl
Cooper PlP u eblo Ct
ArborStOrindaWayOkeefe Ct
M o ro C t
Mimos
a
CtYam aneD r
Mo r oDrBenbow DrFinch Ln
M a rtiriDrRodeoDrHogan WayMelchoir CtFl
or
a
l
StS wa l l o w Ln
Avezan WayDoral Ct
WagonWayOkeefeLn
Sage H illDrJicarilla Pl
Koshare St
F
r
e
e
manC tLariatDr
Sp en ce
rCtL illy Ave
Del Oro W aySaffr
onCtB ennett StL e r m a W a y
Sorren to C tHopi
LnSalem Ave
ComancheStZuniLnTapestry DrDelRio C
irT
e
rri
C
t
L e r m a L n Ra
d
t
k
e
Av
e
Birdsong StV i c k e r y L n
EagleNestWay
S o r r e ntoDrAcornWayLe
pa
Ct
K ishim ura D rSolanaDrLa Primavera Way
F e s ta AgilioDrWoodcreek Way
Taos WayBobcat CtP a r t r i d g e D rCarobCt Mu
r
a
o
k
a
D
rSturla W ayMonticelliDr
Lane B
Li man Ave
Laven
da
r
W
ay
V a l b u s a D r
C
ol
um
b
i
neCt ElCaminitoBa
n
yanCt
Arapaho Dr
Z
a
mz
o
w
C
t
Pad
ovaDrEagleHillsWayGeronimo St
Pueblo StOhlone DrEde n St
Siena D rQuailWalk Dr
Eagle View WaySprig Way
Cheyenne DrCougar CtPheasa n t D rP eregrine Dr
F
o
r
e
s
t
S
t
C r e s t HillWay
B r ia rb e rr y L n
TeaTreeWayTatum Ave FarrellA veCalledelReyValleyOaksDr
C ohansey A veD en io A veRona n Ave
Geri Ln
Hi
r
asaki
AveB u en a V ista A veWren AveRanchoHillsDr
CoyoteM
o
o
n
LnS u n s e tD r
Cielo Vista Ln
Sunrise Dr
Longmead o w D rD a y R d
Leavesley RdS
a
n
t
a
T
e
r
e
s
a
B
l
v
d
MantelliDr Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
R
d
S
V
a
lle
y
F
wy
City of Gilroy Properties Requiring Additional Study
City of Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory Update
SOURCE: City of Gilroy, OpenStreetMap
0 1,0 00500Feet
FIGURE 44B
101
152 A
B
D
C A
B
D
C
City of Gilroy Limits and CitywideSurvey Study Area
City of Gilroy Parcels
Property Requires Additional Research
Property Not Visible from Public ROW
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Date: 7/7/2020 - Last saved by: cstarbird - Path: Z:\Projects\j1116500\MAPDOC\HistoricResourceReport\Fig_Additional_Surveys_Needed.mxd152
2nd StJanDrSolisDrSilvia StC l u b Dr
Carr PlStuartDrDaisy
L
n
CedarCt
Fowler StBlake Ct
Birkdale Ct SequoiaDr Dor
i
s
Ct
4th St
GallowayCtColon y W aySyrahCtWillard Ct
Carriage DrB irch Pl
White Oak Pl
LahinchCtVerbendDrAlister CtArnold Dr
Tennyson Dr
Benassi DrPoplar DrHacket DrFineDr
TarynLnParish WayBraid CtHoesch WayAcorn
Way
TurnberryWayEdinburghWayViolet Way
B u t t e r cup Ln AmandaAvePeriwink l e DrCulp D r
Hoxett StPetersen Dr
Aspen WayChesbro WayLar
k
s
p
u
rLnC alabres e Way
La AlondraW
ay
Yorktown
DrCrudenBayWayLavendarWay
JuniperDr
Carla Way
Maria Way
Santa Barbara DrLionsCreekDrBerwickAv ePappani Dr
Swaner Dr
Byers St
P a r t r i d g e D r
C lark Way
Hersman Dr
R anch o Vista Ct WildIrisDrCalledelReyVistadelSur
HowardAve
Fillippelli
D
r
Perrelli S t
Eld o rad o Dr
La Paloma Wa yKipling C
irKentwoodCt
Gary St
Hacienda Dr
UvasParkDr DriftwoodTerUvasPkwyPonderosaDrLawrence Dr
Co
lu
mbineCt
LahinchDr
Wentz Dr
Siena D rCrawford
DrRanchoRealStrathPl
PitlochryDr Gaunt AveGrenacheWayIsabellaWay Ramona WayBayTreeDrDaffodilPl
Monte Bello Dr
MossroseWay
Ousley Dr
R oundstone Dr
Ortega Cir
CypressCt
Ayer Dr
SantaPaulaDrS u n flo w e r CirLaur
el
DrEagleRidgeDr
El Cerrito Way
Troon W a y
San Miguel St
Muirfield W a y Delta DrWayl
andL
n
Hollyh ockLnFilice DrWestwood DrK elto n DrSantaTheresaDrLone OakRanchoVistaDrCountryDr
Saint Andrew's Cir
BurchellRd
WrenAveW 6th StKern AveMillerAveRanchoH
ills
D
r
3rd St
M a n t e l li Dr
S
a
n
t
a
T
e
r
e
s
a
B
l
v
d
Welburn Ave
Hecker P a s s H wy
1st St
City of Gilroy Properties Requiring Additional Study
City of Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory Update
SOURCE: City of Gilroy, OpenStreetMap
0 1,0 00500Feet
FIGURE 44C
101
152 A
B
D
C A
B
D
C
City of Gilroy Limits and CitywideSurvey Study Area
City of Gilroy Parcels
Property Requires Additional Research
Property Not Visible from Public ROW
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Date: 7/7/2020 - Last saved by: cstarbird - Path: Z:\Projects\j1116500\MAPDOC\HistoricResourceReport\Fig_Additional_Surveys_Needed.mxd101CiminoStCharlesLuxDrHydeParkDrAlt
a
St De
l
Ma
r
S
t K o ro r L n
Arizo n a
CirSussex PlBarron PlCajon Way
Wisteria Dr
De Anza Plz
MasoniP
lTe
c
a
t
e
L
n
V i n ca C t
BoninoWay
Gage CtTannatLnRasberryCt
Automall Dr
Thames DrFilbroDrEngel
W
a
y11th StGa
r
d
e
n
CtOrch
a
r
d
Dr
Vil
l
agePl
A d o b e Plz
Popp
y
fieldSt
B r ookWayCa sa D el So lS tBogialaWayOlympicCtLusitano St
Pal
omi
noPl
G e tty s burgW ay
C hurchill Pl
RubyWay Gl
e
n
v
i
e
wDr
Shire StMe
s
a
S
t
Y
orktownDr
Alder St
London Dr
N
ic
ol
eWay
VlognierWay
Carig nan e DrDawnW a yRiverviewCreek Trave l P
a
r
kCi
rVentureW a yLopezWayBultustro l Dr Ro
s
a
n
n
a
St
Babbs C r e e k D r
Wild f l o w erCtOakBrookWay
Caspian W a y
Greenfield DrMayock RdPortrushCtSanJ u s toRdObata Way
V ictoria Dr
W i nged F o otDr
A
uto
m
all
P
k
w
yS o u th s id e D rM e s a R d
Luchessa Ave
C
a
m
in
o Arroy
oPri
n
c
e
v
a
ll
e
St
UvasPkwy Ch
u
r
c
h
St
WLuchessaAveM i l l e r A v e
Bolsa RdW10thStSanta Teresa Blvd Mo
nt
e
r
e
y
Rd S Valley FwyCity of Gilroy Properties Requiring Additional Study
City of Gilroy Historic Resources Inventory Update
SOURCE: City of Gilroy, OpenStreetMap
0 1,0 00500Feet
FIGURE 44D
101
152 A
B
D
C A
B
D
C
City of Gilroy Limits and CitywideSurvey Study Area
City of Gilroy Parcels
Property Requires Additional Research
Property Not Visible from Public ROW
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 8. Findings and Recommendations 184 July 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 9. Bibliography 185 July 2020
8.2 Recommendations
Although this document aims to be as thorough as possible, it is acknowledged that the scope of a citywide survey
is not conducive to in-depth research on specific properties. Therefore, recommendations for additional study have
been provided below.
8.2.1 Additional Study
Howson Brothers Construction Company and the Wheeler Hospital Area
Public comments and additional primary and secondary source research indicate that the Howson family
significantly contributed to the built environment in Gilroy. While archival research revealed information about the
Howson Brothers as builders, their level of significance remains largely unconfirmed due to a lack of primary source
documentation. Additional information about the Howson Brothers was provided by local community stakeholders
and Howson family members. Based on this information, additional archival research was conducted to determine
their potential significance. The Howson Brothers were found to be notable builders in Gilroy with many examples
of their work located on Princevalle Street, Carmel Street, and 5th Street. While a discussion of their history and a
confirmed works list is included in this document, there are significant research gaps that would require in-person
interviews with Howson family members, as well as permit research to confirm builder and architect information for
many residences. It is recommended that residences thought to be designed and built by the Howson Brothers, and
later by Roberta Howson Hughan, be studied further to assess potential historical significance.
It is also recommended that the neighborhood surrounding the Wheeler Hospital also be studied further to
determine if there is a broader pattern of development present in the area that resulted in the Howson Brothers
designing such a significant concentration of homes in this part of Gilroy. It also appears that the Howson family
resided in this part of Gilroy and their history in the area may have bearing on their potential significance.
Based on information received throughout the course of the public comment period, additional research should be
conducted on the following properties to assess their potential for association with the Howson family, Howson
Brothers Construction Company, or Roberta Howson Hughan:
283 5th Street, Christian Science Church (1930)
7571 Carmel Street, residence, William Robert Howson first personal residence (1928)
7561 Carmel Street, John “Jack” Howson’s first personal residence (1930)
701 5th Street, William Robert Howson’s second personal residence (1948)
711 5th Street, multi-family residence (1928)
7515 Princevalle Street, residence (1941)
7525 Princevalle Street, John “Jack” Howson’s second personal residence (1948)
7535-7545 Princevalle Street, duplex (1939)
7555 Princevalle Street (1940)
7554 Princevalle Street (1932)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 9. Bibliography 186 July 2020
7730 Princevalle Street (1948)
7551 Carmel St (1930)
7511 Carmel St. (1928)
7581 Carmel St. (1930)
7501 Carmel St. (1928)
7595 Princevalle St. (1939)
7548 Princevalle St (1932)
In addition to the Howson Brothers, there are other important local builders, such as William Radtke Sr, who also
had prolific building careers in Gilroy and shaped the history of its built environment. Deeper permit research into
these local builders and architects would greatly enhance the understanding of the footprint, level of influence, and
significance of these local builders and architects (see Section 6).
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 9. Bibliography 187 July 2020
9 Bibliography
Adema, Pauline. 2009. Garlic Capital of the World. Jackson, MS: University of Mississippi Press.
“Alien Enemies--Japanese.” Proc. No. 2525, Dec. 7, 1941, 6 F.R. 6321, 55 Stat. Pt. 2, 1700.
Ancestry.com. 2002. 1930 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations Inc, 2002. https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-
bin/sse.dll?dbid=6224&h=93088689&indiv=try&o_vc=Record:OtherRecord&rhSource=2238
Ancestry.com. 2006. 1910 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations Inc, 2006. https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-
bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=7884&h=1788197&tid=&pid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=isb1987637&_phstart=s
uccessSource
Ancestry.com. 2009. 1870 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc., 2009. Images reproduced by FamilySearch. https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-
bin/sse.dll?dbid=7163&h=13720217&indiv=try&o_vc=Record:OtherRecord&rhSource=60525
Ancestry.com. 2010. 1920 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com
Operations, Inc., 2010. Images reproduced by FamilySearch. https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-
bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=6061&h=812203&tid=&pid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=isb1382825&_phstart=
successSource
Ancestry.com. 2011. San Jose, California, City Directory, 1893. U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995 [database on-
line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011. https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-
bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=2469&h=1385791188&tid=&pid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=isb1382825&_phs
tart=successSource
Ancestry.com. 2014. California, State Court Naturalization Records, 1850-1986 [database on-line]. Provo, UT,
USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2014. https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-
bin/sse.dll?dbid=8839&h=59033&indiv=try&o_vc=Record:OtherRecord&rhSource=5180
Arbuckle, Clyde. 1970. Gilroy’s First Century of Incorporation, 1870-1970. A History of the City. Gilroy, CA: Gilroy,
CA: City of Gilroy.
Architect & Engineer. 1929. “Who’s Who in this Issue.” Architect & Engineer. Volume 99. No. 2. November 1929.
https://www.usmodernist.org/AECA/AECA-1929-10-12.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2020.
“Area of the City of Gilroy.” No Date. Gilroy Historical Museum.
Bamburg, Bonnie. 1986. City of Gilroy Historic Preservation Survey 1985-1986. A comprehensive Study of the
History and Architecture of the City of Gilroy within the 1945 City Limits. The Firm of Bonnie L. Bamburg,
San Jose, California. On file with the City of Gilroy.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 9. Bibliography 188 July 2020
Bancroft, Hubert Howe. 1890. History of California Vol VII 1860-1890. San Francisco, CA: The History Company.
Barratt, Elizabeth. 2003. “Gilroy Gets its First Hotels.” The Pinnacle: Yesterday & Today. Gilroy, CA: Elizabeth R.
Barratt.
Barratt, Elizabeth. 2005. “Early Fraternal and Benevolent Societies Played Large Role.” The Pinnacle: Yesterday &
Today. Gilroy, CA: Elizabeth R. Barratt.
Barratt, Elizabeth. No Date. “Be-Ge-Manufacturing Co. Notes.” Gilroy Historical Museum.
Barretta, Richard. N.D. Fifty Years of Beer: the Gilroy Brewery. Gilroy, CA: Gilroy Historical Society.
Basgall, M.E. 1987. Resource Intensification Among Hunter-Gatherers: Acorn Economies in Prehistoric California.
Research in Economic Anthropology 9:21–52.
Bay City News. 2020. “Gilroy Strong Resiliency Center To Open Tuesday With Ceremony.” Accessed via Patch:
https://patch.com/california/gilroy/gilroy-strong-resiliency-center-open-tuesday-ceremony
Bertrando, E. 2004. Evidence and Models for Late Pleistocene Chronology and Settlement along California’s
Central Coast. In Emerging from the Ice Age: Early Holocene Occupations on the California Central Coast,
edited by Ethan Bertrando and V.A. Levulett, pp. 93–105. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society
Occasional Papers no. 17.
Bowker, R. R. ed. 1962. American Architects Directory, Second edition. New York City, NY: R. R. Bowker
Company. http://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2018-09/Bowker_1962_R.pdf.
Bowker, R. R. ed. 1970. American Architects Directory, Third edition. New York City, NY: R. R. Bowker Company.
http://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2018-09/Bowker_1970_R.pdf.
Brady, R., J. Farquhar, T. Garlinghouse, and C. Peterson. 2009. Archaeological Evaluation of CA-MNT-143 for the
Asilomar Boardwalk Replacement Project, Asilomar State Beach, Pacific Grove, California . Albion
Environmental, Inc., Santa Cruz. Copies available from the Northwest Information Center, Department of
Anthropology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.
Bracero History Archive. 2019. “About” Webpage. http://braceroarchive.org/about. Accessed March 26, 2019.
Breschini, G.S., T. Harvest, and R.P. Sampson. 1983. A Cultural Resources Overview of the Coast and Coast-Valley
Study Areas[California]. Salinas, CA: Coyote Press.
Breschini, G. and T. Haversat. 1992a. Preliminary Excavations at CA-MNT-108, Fisherman’s Wharf, Monterey
County, California. In Archaeological Investigations of Some Significant Sites on the Central Coast of
California, edited by H. Dallas, Jr. and G.S. Breschini, pp. 39–47. Coyote Press Archives of California
Prehistory No. 37, Salinas.
Breschini, G. and T. Haversat. 1992b. Baseline Archaeological Studies at Rancho San Carlos, Carmel Valley,
Monterey County, California. Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory No. 36, Salinas.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 9. Bibliography 189 July 2020
Brown, Warren. 1988. “Ah, The Sweet Smell of Success.” The Washington Post. June 13, 1988.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1988/06/13/ah-the-sweet-smell-of-
success/943da8cf-5ca9-432a-bb4b-a6c5cc0d4b12/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3aa851095843.
Accessed March 26, 2019.
Bryne, S. 2002. Archaeological Monitoring of the Wilder Ranch Bike Path Construction and Mitigation Related to
Archaeological Site CA-SCR-38/123/H. Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo. Copies available from
Northwest Archaeological Information Center, Department of Anthropology, Sonoma State University,
Rohnert Park, California.
The California Farmer. 1869. “Opening of the Southern Pacific Railroad to Gilroy.” The California Farmer and
Journal of Useful Sciences, volume 31, No. 13, April 15, 1869.
California High-Speed Rail Authority. 2018. Draft 2018 Business Plan.
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/Draft_2018_Business_Plan.pdf. Accessed March 31,
2019.
California High-Speed Rail Authority. 2018. “Gilroy Station.”
https://www.hsr.ca.gov/programs/station_communities/gilroy_station.html. Accessed December 21,
2018.
California State Legislature. 1870. “Chapter 180: An Act To Incorporate the City of Gilroy.” The Statutes of
California Passed at the Eighteenth Session of the Legislature 1869-1870 . Sacramento, CA: D.W.
Gelwicks, state printer.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2007. “National Register of Historic Places Registration Form:
Highway 152 Tree Row, Santa Clara County, California.” Gilroy Historical Museum.
Caltrans. 2011. Tract Housing in California, 1945-1973: A Context for National Register Evaluation . Sacramento,
California.
Caltrans. 2018. “Important Events in Caltrans History.” http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/timeline.html. Accessed
December 4, 2018.
Cartier, R. 1993. The Scotts Valley Site: CA-SCR-177. The Santa Cruz Archaeological Society, Santa Cruz.
Cemetery History in Gilroy. No Date. Cemetery Subject File. Gilroy Historical Museum.
CIRCA. 2006. Historic Context Statement for the City of Morgan Hill. Prepared for the City of Morgan Hill. San
Francisco: CA: CIRCA Historic Property Development.
City of Gilroy. 2018. “Your Voice: Gilroy High Speed Rail Alignment.” https://yourvoice.cityofgilroy.org/high-speed-
rail-alignment. Accessed January 4, 2019.
Clausen Jr., George E. 2007. “History of Gentry and Gilroy Foods.” Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 9. Bibliography 190 July 2020
Cockcroft, Eva Sperling and Holly Barnet-Sanchez. 1990a. “Signs from the Heart: California Chicano Murals.” In
Humanities Network. Fall 1990: Vol. 12/Num. 4,: pg. 2. Gilroy Historical Museum.
Cockcroft, Eva Sperling and Holly Barnet-Sanchez. 1990b. Signs from the Heart: California Chicano Murals.
University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque, NM.
Coffin, H. 1873. Gilroy as a Home: Its Geography, Climate, Location, Soil, Productions, and Institutions. Gilroy, CA:
Advocate Book and Job Printing Office.
ConAgra Foods, Inc. 2009. “Garlic: the root of it all.” Gilroy Foods and Flavors. Gilroy Historical Museum.
Conkling, Roscoe P. and Margaret B. Conkling. 1947. The Butterfield Overland Mail 1857-1869. Volume 1.
Glendale, CA: Arthur H. Clark Company.
Conrotto, Eugene Lewis. 1951. “The Urbanization of the Southern Santa Clara Valley: Gilroy.” Term paper.
Stanford University. Gilroy Historical Museum.
Cox, Phil. N.D. Notes “Compiled from Gilroy City Council Minutes. Gilroy, CA: City of Gilroy City Clerk’s Office.
Culleton, B. J., R. H. Gargett and T. L. Jackson. 2005. Data Recovery Excavations at CA-SCR-60/130 for the
Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency Local Water Supply and Distribution Project. Pacific Legacy,
Santa Cruz, California.
Densho Encyclopedia. 2015. “Kiyoshi Hirasaki.” http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Kiyoshi_Hirasaki/. Accessed
March 31, 2019.
DeSantis, Carol A. 2016. “Miller Red Barn.” National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination Form.
Gilroy, CA: Miller Red Barn Committee, draft, April 5, 2016.
Dietz, S.A., W.R. Hildebrandt, and T. Jones 1988. Archaeological Investigations at Elkhorn Slough: CA-MNT-229 A
Middle Period Site on the Central California Coast. Papers in Northern California Anthropology, Number 3.
Dill, Leslie A. G., Kara Oosterhous, Charlene Duval. 2003. Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory
Update. South County Survey Report. Los Gatos, CA: Dill Design Group.
Duncan, Mark. 2005. The San Francisco Peninsula Railroad Passenger Service – Past Present Future. (Mark
Duncan, 2005): 93.
Encyclopedia Britannica. 2017. “Smith Act.” https://www.britannica.com/event/Smith-Act. Accessed December
8, 2018.
Encyclopedia Britannica. 2018. “Model T Automobile.” https://www.britannica.com/technology/Model-T.
Accessed December 4, 2018.
Erlandson, J.M., M.H. Graham, B.J. Bourque, D. Corbett, J.A. Estes, and R.S. Steneck. 2007. The Kelp Highway
Hypothesis: Marine Ecology, the Coastal Migration Theory, and the Peopling of the Americas. The Journal
of Island and Coastal Archaeology 2(2): 161–174.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 9. Bibliography 191 July 2020
Fitzgerald, R.T., J.L. Edwards, J.M. Farquhar, and K. Loefler. 1995. Archaeological Test Excavation at CA-MNT-
1765, for the Moro Cojo Standard Subdivision Project (SH93001), Monterey County, California .
Biosystems Analysis, Inc., Santa Cruz. Report on file Northwest Information Center, Department of
Anthropology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.
Fitzgerald, R.T. and T.L. Jones. 1999. The Milling Stone Horizon Revisited: New Perspectives from Northern and
Central California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 21:65-93.
Fitzgerald, R.T. and A. Ruby. 1997. Archaeological Test Excavations at CA-SCR-117, the Davenport Landing Site .
Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo. Report on file Northwest Information Center, Department of
Anthropology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.
Foote, Horace S. 1888. Pen Pictures from the Garden of the World or Santa Clara County, California. Chicago, IL:
Lewis Publishing, 1888.
Forsyth, Ruth. 1969. “Gilroy Ladies Benevolent Society: 1872-1967.” Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy Advocate, May 26,
1969.
Gibson, R.O. 1996. Results of Archaeological Monitoring for Unocal Soil Testing Program along Pipelines near
Santa Margarita, San Luis Obispo County, California. Gibson’s Archaeological Consulting, Paso Robles.
Report submitted to UNOCAL CERT, San Luis Obispo. Copies available from the Central Coast Information
Center, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California.
Gilroy Advocate. 1904. “Big Winery Coming: California Wine Association Will Erect Plant in Gilroy.” Gilroy, CA: The
Gilroy Advocate, July 23, 1904.
Gilroy Advocate. 1916.
“Gilroy’s Latest Addition to Fire Department Equipment.” March 25, 1916. Gilroy Historical Museum.
“Building Boom Goes Merrily On.” March 25, 1916. Gilroy Historical Museum.
“Gilroy’s Latest Addition to Fire Department Equipment.” March 25, 1916. Gilroy Historical Museum.
“The New Fire House.” June 10, 1916. Gilroy Historical Museum.
Gilroy Advocate. 1918.
“New Depot Formally Opened.” May 4, 1918. Gilroy Historical Museum.
“Old Depot Being Torn Down.” December 28, 1918. Gilroy Historical Museum.
Gilroy Cannery Timeline. 2006. Gilroy Historical Museum.
Gilroy Chamber of Commerce. 1969. “Standard Industrial Survey Report: Gilroy, Santa Clara County, California.”
March 1969. Gilroy Historical Museum.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 9. Bibliography 192 July 2020
Gilroy Chamber of Commerce. 1985. ““Commercial Building Survey: Gilroy, Santa Clara County, California.” On file
at Gilroy Historical Museum.
Gilroy Councilmember Sharon Albert. 1984. As quoted in the San José Mercury-News. 1984a.
Gilroy Dispatch. 1944. December 5, 1944. As quoted in Barratt. No Date. Gilroy Historical Museum.
Gilroy Dispatch. 1949. “Eigleberry Street Rezoning Ordinance Adopted.” January 25, 1949. Gilroy Historical
Museum.
Gilroy Dispatch. 1970.
“San Ysidro Settled First.” Gilroy, CA: Gilroy Dispatch. December 21, 1970. On file at the Gilroy Historical
Museum.
“Early Settlers Turn to Agriculture.” Gilroy, CA: Gilroy Dispatch. December 21, 1970. On file at the Gilroy
Historical Museum.
“Dairy Industry Once a Major Gilroy Business.” Gilroy, CA: Gilroy Dispatch. December 21, 1970. On file at
the Gilroy Historical Museum.
“Railroad Opens Up New Era.” Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy Dispatch. December 21, 1970.
“Schools Grow From Modest Start into Unified District.” Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy Dispatch. December 21,
1970.
“Miller Plays Role in Town’s Development.” Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy Dispatch. December 21, 1970.
“Japanese Immigrants Were First Big Garlic Growers.” Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy Dispatch. December 21,
1970.
“Early Settlers Turn to Agriculture.” Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy Dispatch. December 21, 1970.
Gilroy Dispatch. 1973. “Pieters-Wheeler Seed Plant Sold.” September 7, 1973. Gilroy Historical Museum.
Gilroy Dispatch. 2004. “Plaque Honors Chinese Cemetery.” The Gilroy Dispatch. April 5, 2004.
https://gilroydispatch.com/2004/04/05/plaque-honors-chinese-cemetery/. Accessed March 26, 2019.
Gilroy Dispatch. 2006a. “Campus Name Game.” April 12, 2006. http://gilroydispatch.com/2006/04/12/campus-
name-game/. Accessed December 5, 2018.
Gilroy Dispatch. 2006b. “The Story Behind Christmas Hill Park.” http://gilroydispatch.com/2006/01/23/the-story-
behind-christmas-hill-park/. Accessed December 20, 2018.
Gilroy Evening Dispatch. 1954. “First Big Project on Eigleberry: Work to Start on New IOOF Building.” January
1954. Gilroy Historical Museum.
Gilroy Evening Dispatch. 1969.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 9. Bibliography 193 July 2020
“Gilroy Celebrates Arrival of the Railroad in 1869.” Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy Evening Dispatch. January 10,
1969, pg. 7A.
“Religion Plays Prominent Role in Early Gilroy.” Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy Evening Dispatch. January 10,
1969, pg. 11A.
Gilroy Gardens. No Date. “Michael Kiosk Booklet.” Gilroy Historical Museum
Gilroy Gardens. 2018. “About Us.” https://www.gilroygardens.org/explore/about-us. Accessed December 21,
2018.
Gilroy Garlic Festival. 2018. “History.” https://gilroygarlicfestival.com/about/history/. Accessed December 21,
2018.
Gilroy High School. 1923. Photograph. Gilroy Historical Museum.
Gilroy Historical Museum Subject Files. N.Da. “Tobacco Culture in Gilroy and the Consolidated Tobacco
Company.” From the Tobacco Subject File at the Gilroy Historical Museum.
Gilroy Historical Museum Subject Files. N.Db. “Fifteen Weeks in Gilroy: The Works of Architect William Henry
Weeks.” From a Pamphlet on file with the Gilroy Historical Museum.
Gilroy Historical Museum Subject Files. 1985. “Commercial Building Survey.” From the Commercial Subject File at
the Gilroy Historical Museum.
Gilroy Premium Outlets. 2018. “About Gilroy Premium Outlets.”
https://www.premiumoutlets.com/outlet/gilroy/about. Accessed December 21, 2018.
Ginn, Phil. 1947. “About Albert Gurries: From ‘Perfectionist’s’ Dream Cam More Efficient Machine.” San José
Mercury-News. October 26. 1947. Gilroy Historical Museum.
GofundMe. 2018. “Aztec Calendar Restoration Project.” https://www.gofundme.com/aztec-calendar-restoration-
project. Accessed March 31, 2019.
Gurries, Ron. 2017. “An Old Time Gilroyan Speaks Out.” As quoted in Gilroy Dispatch. October 10, 2017.
http://gilroydispatch.com/2017/10/06/guest-column-an-old-time-gilroyan-speaks-out/. Accessed
December 6, 2018.
Gwinn, Vernon C. 1982. “History of Hospitals in Gilroy.” Gilroy Historical Museum.
Harrison, E.S. 1888. Gilroy: The Most Favored Section of Santa Clara Valley. Gilroy, CA: Gilroy Board of Trade.
Hildebrandt, W.R. 2006. Archaeological Evaluation of the Priest Valley Knoll Sites (CA-MNT-745), Eastern
Monterey County, California. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis. Copies available
from the Northwest Information Center, Department of Anthropology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert
Park.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 9. Bibliography 194 July 2020
Hildebrandt, W. and P. Mikkelsen. 1993. Archaeological Test Excavations at Fourteen Sites along Highways 101
and 152, Santa Clara and San Benito Counties, California. Far Western Anthropological Research Group,
Inc. Davis, California.
Hirasaki, Manabi and Naomi Hirahara. 2003. A Taste for Strawberries: The Independent Journey of Nisei Farmer
Manabi Hirasaki. Japanese American National Museum: Los Angeles, California.
Historic American Buildings Survey. Post-1933. “Lilly's Auto Camp, 8877 Monterey Highway, Gilroy, Santa Clara
County, CA.” Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/ca0920/. Accessed December 2018.
Historic American Building Survey. Post-1933. “Live Oak Creamery.” Library of Congress.
https://www.loc.gov/resource/hhh.ca0928.sheet/?sp=1&st=single. Accessed December 11, 2018.
Hollister Free Lance. 2006. “Be-Ge Manufacturing Co. Played Major WWII Role.” November 24, 2006.
https://sanbenito.com/2006/11/24/yesterday-today/. Accessed December 9, 2018.
Hylkema, M.G. 1991. Prehistoric Native American Adaptations along the Central California Coast of San Mateo
and Santa Cruz Counties. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, San José State University.
University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Hylkema, M.G. 2007. Santa Clara Valley Prehistory: Archaeological Investigations at CA-SCL-690, The Tamien
Station Site, San José, California. Center for Archaeological Research, Davis, California.
“Italian Influence Brings a Change to Agriculture.” No Date. Newspaper Article. Gilroy Historical Museum.
Jones, T.L. 1993. Big Sur: A Keystone in Central California Culture History. Pacific Coast Archaeological Quarterly.
Jones, T.L. 1995. Transitions in Prehistoric Diet, Mobility, Exchange, and Social Organization Along California’s
Big Sur Coast. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California,
Davis, California.
Jones, T.L. 2003. Prehistoric Human Ecology of the Big Sur Coast, California. Contributions of the University of
California Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley.
Jones, T.L., G. M. Brown, L.M. Raab, J.L. McVickar, W.G. Spaulding , D.J. Kennett, A. York, and P.L. Walker. 1999.
Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered: Demographic Crises in Western North America During the
Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Current Anthropology 40:137-170.
Jones, T.L. and J.A. Ferneau. 2002a. Prehistory at San Simeon Reef: Archaeological Data Recovery at CA-SLO-179
and -267, San Luis Obispo, California. San Luis Obispo Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No. 16.
Jones, T.L., and J.A. Ferneau. 2002b. Deintensification along the Central Coast. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late
Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by J.M. Erlandson and T.L. Jones, pp. 205-232.
Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los
Angeles.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 9. Bibliography 195 July 2020
Jones, T.L. and J. Haney. 2005. Archaeological Evaluation of CA-MNT-910, -1748/H, -1919, and -2182, Fort
Hunter Liggett Military Installation, Monterey County, California. California Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo.
Jones, D., and W.R. Hildebrandt. 1990. Archaeological Investigation at Sand Hill Bluff: Portions of Prehistoric Site
CA-SCr-7, Santa Cruz County, California. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis. Copies
available from Northwest Information Center, Department of Anthropology, Sonoma State University,
Rohnert Park.
Jones, D., and W.R. Hildebrandt. 1994. Archaeological Investigations at Sites CA-SCR-10, CA-SCR-17, CA-SCR-
304, and CA-SCR-38/123 for the North Coast Treated Water Main Project, Santa Cruz County, California .
Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. Copies available from Northwest Information Center,
Department of Anthropology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.
Jones, T.L., and D. Jones. 1992. Elkhorn Slough Revisited: Reassessing the Chronology of CA-MNT-229. Journal of
California and Great Basin Anthropology 14:159-179.
Jones, T.L., J.F. Porcasi, J.W. Gaeta, and B.F. Codding. 2008. The Diablo Canyon Fauna: A Coarse-grained Record
of Trans-Holocene Foraging from the Central California Mainland Coast. American Antiquity 73:289–316.
Jones, T. L., N. E. Stevens, D. A. Jones, R. T. Fitzgerald, and M. G. Hylkema. 2007. The Central Coast: A Midlatitude
Milieu. In California Prehistory Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn
A. Klar, pp: 125-146. Altamira Press, Lanham.
Jones, T.L. and G. Waugh. 1995. Central California Coastal Prehistory: A View from Little Pico Creek. Perspectives
in California Archaeology No. 3, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Jones, T.L. and G. Waugh. 1997. Climatic Consequences or Population Pragmatism? A Middle Holocene
Prehistory of the Central California Coast. In Archaeology of the California Coast During the Middle
Holocene, edited by J.M. Erlandson and M.A. Glassow, pp. 111-128. Perspectives in California
Archaeology 4. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Levy, R. 1978. Costanoan. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8. Edited by Robert F. Heizer. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington.
Lewis, Betty. 1985. “W.H. Weeks: Architect.” Fresno, CA: Panorama West Books. Held at the SCPL Local History
Collection.
Loomis, Patricia. 1971. “Signposts: Old Indian Pass.” San José News, October 29, 1971. Copy held by the Gilroy
Historical Museum.
Loomis, Patricia. 1974. “Signposts Gilroy’s Pioneer Tom Rea: Short on Words—Long On Deeds.” San José News.
March 29, 1974, pg. 31.
Loomis, Patricia. 1977. “Hanna’s a Name Always Important in Gilroy.” San José, CA: The San José Mercury,
December 7, 1977, pg. 30.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 9. Bibliography 196 July 2020
Madera Daily News-Tribune. 1953. “Oliver Corporation Buys Be-Ge Manufacturing Co.” November 17, 1953. P. 5.
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=MT19531117&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN--------1. Accessed
December 7, 2018.
Maggi, Franklin. 2014. San Jose Central Fire Station: National Register of Historic Places Registration Form.
Prepared by Archives and Architecture LLC, San Jose, CA
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1067/files/nr_10-900_sjfirestationone1060614.pdf.
Melone, Michael E. 1991. “Gilroy’s First Newspaper: The Advocate.” The Californian. Volume 12, No. 3. Santa
Clara, CA: California History Center Foundation, De Anza College.
Miller Lux v. Dunlap, 152 P. 309. 1915. (California Court of Appeal, 1915).
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3280481/miller-lux-v-dunlap/. Accessed December 3, 2018,
Mikkelsen, P., W.R. Hildebrandt and D.A. Jones. 2000. Prehistoric Adaptations on the Shores of Morro Bay
Estuary: Excavations at Site CA-SLO-165, Morro Bay, California. Occasional Paper No. 14, San Luis
Obispo County Archaeological Society, San Luis Obispo, California.
Milliken, R., J. Nelson, W.R. Hildebrandt, and P. Mikkelsen. 1999. The Moss Landing Hill Site: A Technical Report
on Archaeological Studies at CA-MNT-234 in 1991 and 1997-1998. Far Western Anthropological
Research Group, Inc., Davis. Copies available from the Northwest Information Center, Department of
Anthropology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.
Mills, W.W., M.F. Rondeau, and T.L. Jones. 2005. A Fluted Point from Nipomo, San Luis Obispo County, California.
Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 25:214-220.
The Monitor. “Howson’s Inc.” Advertisement. The Monitor, Volume CIII, No. 37. December 16, 1960.
Morser, Michael. 1989. “A Historical Reconstruction Study of Highway 152 (Pacheco Pass).” Gilroy Historical
Museum.
Munro-Fraser, J.P. 1881. History of Santa Clara County, California. San Francisco CA: Alley, Bowen & Co.
https://archive.org/download/historyofsantacl00munr/historyofsantacl00munr.pdf. Accessed November
2, 2018.
Myer, Chuck. 1992. “Pacheco Past: A History of the Gateway to Santa Clara Valley.” Article prepared for the
California Pioneers of Santa Clara County. Gilroy Historical Museum.
Myer, Chuck. 1993. “Hecker Pass…A Historical Adventure: A History of the Southwestern Gateway to Santa Clara
County.” Article prepared for the California Pioneers of Santa Clara County. Gilroy Historical Museum.
Nelson, Truda Cooling. 1981. John Gilroy: a Biography. Master’s Thesis presented to the Department of Social
Science at San Jose University. San Jose, CA: San Jose University. Held at Gilroy Historical Museum.
New York Times, The. 1941. “Alien Total So Far is Put at 4,741,971.” January 13, 1941.
https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1941/01/13/88097082.html. Accessed December
8, 2018.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 9. Bibliography 197 July 2020
NPS (National Park Service). 1990. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register
Bulletin 15. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.
NPS. 2018. “Early History.” Santa Clara County: California’s Historic Silicon Valley: A NRHP Travel Itinerary.
https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/santaclara/history.htm. Accessed November 6, 2018.
National Register Nomination for Wheeler Hospital. 1990. Gilroy Historical Museum.
Newsome, S.D., D.L. Phillips, B.J. Culleton, T.P. Guilderson, P. Koch. 2004. Dietary Reconstruction of an Early to
Middle Holocene Human Population from the Central California Coast: Insights from Advanced Stable
Isotope Mixing Models. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:1101-1115.
OHP (California Office of Historic Preservation). 2011. California Register and National Register Criteria: A
Comparison (for the purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register). OHP Technical
Assistance Series #6, Sacramento, CA: Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and
Recreation.
PCAD (Pacific Coast Architecture Database). 2018a. “City of Gilroy, Wheeler Municipal Auditorium, Gilroy CA.”
http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/building/7909/. Accessed December 6, 2018.
PCAD. 2018b. “Wheeler Hospital, Gilroy CA.” http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/building/7911/. Accessed
December 5, 2018.
PCAD. 2019a. “William H. Weeks (Architect).” http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/1345/. Accessed
December 17, 2019.
PCAD. 2019b. “Binder and Curtis, Architects (Partnership).” http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/firm/1296/.
Accessed December 17, 2019.
PCAD. 2019c. “Albert F. Roller (Architect).” http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/1785/. Accessed December
17, 2019.
PCAD. 2019d. “Reid Brothers, Architects (Partners).” http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/firm/284/. Accessed
December 17, 2019.
Pacific Rural Press. 1882. “Green Cheese.” Volume 23, No 18. San Francisco, CA: The Pacific Rural Press. May 6,
1882, pg. 346.
Pacific Rural Press. 1885. “The Dairy: Gilroy Cheese Dairies.” Volume 29, No 26. San Francisco, CA: The Pacific
Rural Press. June 27, 1885, pgs. 594-595.
Pacific Rural Press. 1892a. “Miscellaneous.” Volume 44, No 13. San Francisco, CA: The Pacific Rural Press.
September 24, 1892, pg. 252.
Pacific Rural Press. 1892b. “Santa Clara: The Dairy.” Volume 44, No. 25. San Francisco, CA: The Pacific Rural
Press. December 17, 1892, pg. 516.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 9. Bibliography 198 July 2020
Page & Turnbull, Inc. 2009. Raised Streets & Hollow Sidewalks: Survey Report. Prepared for City of Sacramento.
July 2009.
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/~/media/Corporate/Files/CDD/Planning/Environmental%20Impact%
20Reports/Arena_ESC/Admin%20Records/GHistoricalResourcesReportAdminRecord16of37.pdf.
Paulson, LL. 1875. Handbook and Directory of Santa Clara, San Benito, Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Mateo
Counties. San Francisco, CA: L. L. Paulson.
People for Open Space as quoted in San José Mercury-News. 1984. “Cover-up Led to Resignations…” January 4,
1984a. San José Public Library.
Personal Communication
Howson Family. Email message to Julie Wyrick. May 19, 2020.
Connie Rogers. Email message to Kate G. Kaiser. July 8, 2020.
Reid Lerner. Email message to Samantha Murray. July 10, 2020.
Pohorecky, Z.S. 1976. Archaeology of the South Coast Ranges of California. University of Archaeological Research
Facility 34, Berkeley.
Population of the City of Gilroy, 1870-1997. Gilroy Historical Museum.
Rebekah Children’s Services. 2019. “Our History.” http://www.rcskids.org/about/history. Accessed March 26,
2019.
Rogers, Connie. 2012. “Local Women in History: Caroline Amelia Brooks Osborne Hoxett.” In Gilroy Patch.
https://patch.com/california/gilroy/local-women-in-history-caroline-amelia-brooks-osborne-hoxett.
Accessed December 18, 2018.
Rogers, D.B. 1929. Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara.
Rosenthal, J and J. Meyer. 2004. Landscape Evolution and the Archaeological Record: A Geological Study of the
Southern Santa Clara Valley and Surrounding Region. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis
Publication Number 14. Regents of the University of California, Davis.
Sacramento Daily Union. 1874. “City Intelligence: Incorporation.” UCR California Digital Newspaper Collection: The
Sacramento Daily Union. April 7, 1874, pg. 3.
Salewske, Claudia. 2003. Images of America: Gilroy. Chicago, IL: Arcadia Publishing.
San Francisco Call. 1897. “Plans for the New Orphanage.” San Francisco, CA: The San Francisco Call, January 16,
1897, pg. 9.
San Francisco Call. 1898. “Gilroy’s New High School.” San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Call, April 9, 1898.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 9. Bibliography 199 July 2020
San Francisco Call. 1900. “Join the Fruit Association.” San Francisco, CA: The San Francisco Call, March 14,
1900, pg. 9.
San Francisco Call. 1902. “Packing Plant for Gilroy.” San Francisco, CA: The San Francisco Call, April 26, 1902,
pg. 9.
San Francisco Chronicle. 1986. “Gilroy is Going in for More Than Garlic These Days.” July 24, 1986. Gilroy
Historical Museum.
San José Mercury. 1935. “When San José Was Young: October 21 to 27, 1865.” San José: The San José Mercury,
October 28, 1935.
San José Mercury Herald. 1940. “Ancient Gilroy Armory, Music Hall Goes Into Limbo After 70 Years of Service.”
San José, CA: The San José Mercury-Herald, November 17, 1940, pg. 16.
San José Mercury-News. 1941. “Gilroy’s Fame Comes from Ranches.” June 20, 1941. San José Public Library.
San José Mercury-News. 1949. “City of Gilroy 79 years Old: 1870 Charter Still in Effect.” March 13, 1949. Gilroy
Historical Museum.
San José Mercury-News. 1954. “Gilroy Building For Future.” August 15, 1954. Gilroy Historical Museum.
San José Mercury-News. 1966. “Gilroy’s Top Problems Attacked During 1965.” January 30, 1966. San José
Public Library.
San José Mercury News. 1984a. “Cover-up Led to Resignations...” January 4, 1984. San José Public Library.
San José Mercury News. 1984b. Sweepstakes for Builders.” January 5, 1984. San José Public Library.
San José Mercury News. 2005. “Gilroy Timeline.” November 12, 2005.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/02/05/gilroy-timeline/. Accessed December 21, 2018.
San José Mercury-News. No Date. “New Plant Never Really Did its Job.” San José Public Library.
Sanborn Map Company. 1886. “Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Gilroy, Santa Clara County, California.” Map. 5
sheets. Sanborn Map Company, August 1886. https://www.loc.gov/item/sanborn00566_001/. Accessed
August 14, 2018.
Sanborn Map Company. 1892. “Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Gilroy, Santa Clara County, California.” Map. 11
sheets. Sanborn Map Company, May 1892. https://www.loc.gov/item/sanborn00566_002/. Accessed
August 14, 2018.
Sanborn Map Company. 1943. “Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Gilroy, Santa Clara County, California.” Map.
Santa Cruz Public Library.
Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission. 1979. “Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory.”
San José, CA: SCC Historical Heritage Commission.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 9. Bibliography 200 July 2020
Santa Clara County Parks. 2019. “Chesbro Reservoir County Park.”
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/parks/parkfinder/Pages/ChesbroReservoir.aspx. Accessed March 14,
2019.
Sawyer, Eugene T. 1922. History of Santa Clara County, California. Los Angeles, CA: Historic Record Company.
Severance, Sarah. 1879. “The Harrison Bequest.” Gilroy, CA: The Gilroy Advocate, June 28, 1879. On File at the
Gilroy Historical Museum.
Shortridge, Charles. 1895. Santa Clara County and Its Resources, Historical, Descriptive Statistical: a Souvenir of
the San José Mercury. San José, CA: San José Mercury Publishing and Print. Co.
Shueh, Sam. 2008. Images of America: South Santa Clara County. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing.
Sprain, Rick. 2018. Postcard History Series: Santa Clara County. Arcadia Publishing: Charleston, South Carolina.
Stine, S. 1994. Extreme and Persistent Drought in California and Patagonia during Medieval Time. Nature
369:546-549.
Strand Theatre Program. 1921. Vol. 1, No. 1, December 3, 1921. As featured in Salewske. 2003.
Texas State Historical Association. 2010. "BRACERO PROGRAM," Handbook of Texas Online, Fred L. Koestler.
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/omb01. Accessed March 31, 2019.
“Through the Decades: 1950 – 1960.” Gilroy Historical Museum.
“Through the Decades: 1960s.” Gilroy Historical Museum.
Thompson & West. 1876. “City of Gilroy.” Map published in Historical Atlas Map of Santa Clara County. San
Francisco, CA: Thompson & West. http://www.davidrumsey.com/maps33.html. Accessed December 1,
2018.
Unknown Author. “Italian Influence Brings a Change to Agriculture.” No Date. Newspaper Article. Gilroy Historical
Museum.
Unknown Author. 1914. “Gilroy Ready for Her Guests.” Article. Gilroy Historical Museum.
Unknown Author. 2014. “Frank Delos Wolfe: San José’s Most Enduring Architect.”
http://www.frankdeloswolfe.com/fdw.html. Accessed November 21, 2018.
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2018. “The Great 1906 San Francisco Earthquake.”
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/events/1906calif/18april/. Accessed November 28, 2018.
United States Copyright Office. 2018. Copyright Law of the United States (Title 17) / Chapter 1, 107. Limitations
on exclusive rights: Fair Use.
United States Patent Office. 1876. “Patent No 6779” Specifications and Drawings of Patents Issued from the
United States Patent Office for December 1875. Washington D.C: Government Printing OfficeVarious
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 9. Bibliography 201 July 2020
Newspapers. “Highlights from Gilroy Newspapers by Year.” November 11, 1904. Gilroy Historical
Museum.
WRP (Watsonville Register-Pajaronian). 1995. “That Was Watsonville: William H. Weeks A Master Architect.”
Watsonville, CA: Watsonville Register-Pajaronian. Held in the Local News Index Collection at SCPL Local
History. https://history.santacruzpl.org/omeka/items/show/127938. Accessed December 17, 2019.
White, Armand. No Date. “Timeline.” Gilroy Historical Museum.
Woolacott, Angela, Carroll Pursell and Chuck Myer. 1991. Gilroy’s Old City Hall: 1906-1989… Cupertino,
California: California History Center and Foundation, De Anza College.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
11165
Chapter 9. Bibliography 202 July 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Appendix A
Confidential Records Search Results
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Appendix B
Master Spreadsheet of Findings
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Appendix C
Tables of Findings
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
APPENDIX C, TABLE 1A
PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED TO STAY ON THE HRI
APN House # Street Name Street Type Year Built
Currently on
HRI?
Recommended
for HRI?
Recommended
CHRSC
79037016 11 1ST ST 1965 Yes Yes 5S1
79901032 111 2ND ST 1910 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79901015 159 2ND ST 1922 Yes Yes 5S1
79901049 215 2ND ST 1914 Yes Yes 5S1
79904031 129 4TH ST 1920 Yes Yes 5S1
79906022 164 4TH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79906039 194 4TH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79904043 265 4TH ST 1901 Yes Yes 5S1
79919054 328 4TH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79950007 55 5TH ST 1920 Yes Yes 5S1
79907045 60 5TH ST 1900 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79907042 92 5TH ST 1922 Yes Yes 3CS, 5S1
79906026 111 5TH ST 1920 Yes Yes 5S1
79907023 140 5TH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79907082 160 5TH ST 1857 Yes Yes 1S, 5S1
79906031 195 5TH ST 1910 Yes Yes 1S, 5S1
79907083 200 5TH ST 1869 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79906010 213 5TH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79906012 263 5TH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79907021 268 5TH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 5S1
79906013 283 5TH ST 1930 Yes Yes 5S1
79907020 286 5TH ST 1922 Yes Yes 5S1
79918045 314 5TH ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 5S1
79919062 323 5TH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79918044 338 5TH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79919063 365 5TH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79918043 366 5TH ST 1905 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79919064 391 5TH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79918042 494 5TH ST 1922 Yes Yes 5S1
79919024 515 5TH ST 1920 Yes Yes 5S1
79918002 546 5TH ST 1925 Yes Yes 5S1
79919026 555 5TH ST 1924 Yes Yes 5S1
79919027 575 5TH ST 1924 Yes Yes 5S1
79919028 595 5TH ST 1924 Yes Yes 5S1
79919010 665 5TH ST 1929 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79924005 701 5TH ST 1948 Yes Yes 5S1
79907070 55 6TH ST 1910 Yes Yes 5S1
79908059 60 6TH ST 1920 Yes Yes 3CS, 5S1
79908011 110 6TH ST 1936 Yes Yes 5S1
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
APPENDIX C, TABLE 1A
PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED TO STAY ON THE HRI
APN House # Street Name Street Type Year Built
Currently on
HRI?
Recommended
for HRI?
Recommended
CHRSC
79908058 250 6TH 1940 Yes Yes 3CS, 5S1
84106048 307 6TH ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
84106047 337 6TH ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
84109020 414 6TH ST 1920 Yes Yes 5D1
84109021 424 6TH ST 1920 Yes Yes 5D1
84109022 444 6TH ST 1920 Yes Yes 5D1
84109023 464 6TH ST 1920 Yes Yes 5D1
84109024 474 6TH ST 1920 Yes Yes 5D1
84109025 484 6TH ST 1920 Yes Yes 5D1
84109026 494 6TH ST 1920 Yes Yes 5D1
79918001 651 6TH ST 1929 Yes Yes 1S, 5S1
79909024 288 7TH ST 1910 Yes Yes 5S1
79915025 338 7TH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79909063 99 8TH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
84108016 7311 ALEXANDER ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
84108013 7341 ALEXANDER ST 1904 Yes Yes 5S1
84108011 7361 ALEXANDER ST 1926 Yes Yes 5S1
84105026 7530 ALEXANDER ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
84105037 7561 ALEXANDER ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
84105036 7571 ALEXANDER ST 1908 Yes Yes 5S1
79919009 7501 CARMEL ST 1928 Yes Yes 5S1
84109038 7340 CHESTNUT ST 1920 Yes Yes 5S1
84109004 7387 CHESTNUT ST 1926 Yes Yes 5D1
84109003 7391 CHESTNUT ST 1926 Yes Yes 5D1
84109002 7399 CHESTNUT ST 1926 Yes Yes 5D1
84106065 7493 CHESTNUT ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
84107064 7522 CHESTNUT ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79911008 7011 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79911063 7040 CHURCH ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79911062 7090 CHURCH ST 1910 Yes Yes 3CS, 5S1
79910028 7160 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79910032 7190 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79909079 7201 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79909045 7248 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79909048 7272 CHURCH ST 1915 Yes Yes 5S1
79909050 7288 CHURCH ST 2003 Yes Yes 5S1
79909003 7297 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79908024 7310 CHURCH ST 1920 Yes Yes 5S1
79907009 7405 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
APPENDIX C, TABLE 1A
PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED TO STAY ON THE HRI
APN House # Street Name Street Type Year Built
Currently on
HRI?
Recommended
for HRI?
Recommended
CHRSC
79907033 7406 CHURCH ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79907008 7417 CHURCH ST 1906 Yes Yes 5S1
79907034 7424 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79907007 7425 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79907006 7431 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79907036 7440 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79907004 7449 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79907038 7456 CHURCH ST 1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79907003 7463 CHURCH ST 1938 Yes Yes 5S1
79907039 7468 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79907040 7474 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79906009 7521 CHURCH ST 1924 Yes Yes 5S1
79906008 7531 CHURCH ST 1917 Yes Yes 5S1
79906064 7540 CHURCH ST 1999 Yes Yes 5S1
79906007 7541 CHURCH ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79906034 7550 CHURCH ST 1952 Yes Yes 5S1
79906005 7561 CHURCH ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79906004 7571 CHURCH ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79906038 7590 CHURCH ST 1914 Yes Yes 5S1
79904042 7601 CHURCH ST 1917 Yes Yes 3CS, 5S1
79904035 7650 CHURCH ST 1938 Yes Yes 5S1
79904037 7680 CHURCH ST 1925 Yes Yes 5S1
79904038 7690 CHURCH ST 1925 Yes Yes 5S1
79903039 7704 CHURCH ST 1922 Yes Yes 5S1
79903006 7751 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79901047 7831 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79901046 7841 CHURCH ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79901045 7851 CHURCH ST 1922 Yes Yes 5S1
79901044 7861 CHURCH ST 1912 Yes Yes 5S1
79909031 7257 EIGLEBERRY ST 1925 Yes Yes 5S1
79908020 7321 EIGLEBERRY ST 1990 Yes Yes 5S1
79908018 7341 EIGLEBERRY ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79908016 7361 EIGLEBERRY ST 1912 Yes Yes 5S1
79908013 7391 EIGLEBERRY ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79907031 7405 EIGLEBERRY ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79907027 7439 EIGLEBERRY ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79907080 7477 EIGLEBERRY ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79906025 7527 EIGLEBERRY ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79950009 7528 EIGLEBERRY ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 5S1
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
APPENDIX C, TABLE 1A
PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED TO STAY ON THE HRI
APN House # Street Name Street Type Year Built
Currently on
HRI?
Recommended
for HRI?
Recommended
CHRSC
79906024 7539 EIGLEBERRY ST 1903 Yes Yes 1S, 5S1
79904025 7671 EIGLEBERRY ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79903032 7707 EIGLEBERRY ST 1920 Yes Yes 5S1
79903078 7737 EIGLEBERRY ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79903059 7740 EIGLEBERRY ST 1922 Yes Yes 5S1
79903029 7751 EIGLEBERRY ST 1914 Yes Yes 5S1
79903070 7760 EIGLEBERRY ST 1920 Yes Yes 5S1
79903071 7765 EIGLEBERRY ST 1915 Yes Yes 5S1
79903025 7797 EIGLEBERRY ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79901002 7832 EIGLEBERRY ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79901059 7841 EIGLEBERRY ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
84111014 7221 FOREST ST Circa 1870 Yes Yes 5D1
84111013 7231 FOREST ST Circa 1870 Yes Yes 5D1
84111012 7241 FOREST ST Circa 1870 Yes Yes 5D1
84111011 7251 FOREST ST Circa 1870 Yes Yes 5D1
84109014 7320 FOREST ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
84106049 7430 FOREST ST 1922 Yes Yes 5S1
84106033 7433 FOREST ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
84106031 7445 FOREST ST 1920 Yes Yes 5S1
84106051 7450 FOREST ST 1922 Yes Yes 5S1
84106052 7460 FOREST ST 1922 Yes Yes 5S1
84106030 7469 FOREST ST 1912 Yes Yes 5S1
79918031 7421 HANNA ST 1925 Yes Yes 5S1
79918026 7471 HANNA ST 1926 Yes Yes 5S1
79919042 7521 HANNA ST 1921 Yes Yes 5S1
79919040 7551 HANNA ST 1921 Yes Yes 5S1
79919068 7560 HANNA ST 2008 Yes Yes 5S1
79919071 7590 HANNA ST 1905 Yes Yes 5S1
79905031 7621 HANNA ST 1922 Yes Yes 5S1
79905016 7630 HANNA ST 1920 Yes Yes 5S1
79902031 7700 HANNA ST 1908 Yes Yes 5S1
79902033 7730 HANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79902038 7790 HANNA ST 1925 Yes Yes 5S1
79920009 7811 HANNA ST 1923 Yes Yes 5S1
79920008 7821 HANNA ST 1922 Yes Yes 5S1
79920004 7861 HANNA ST 1923 Yes Yes 5S1
78304022 2485
HECKER
PASS HY Pre-1937 Yes Yes 2S2, 5S1, 7J
84104024 290 IOOF AV 1920 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
84106015 20 MARTIN ST 1912 Yes Yes 5D1
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
APPENDIX C, TABLE 1A
PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED TO STAY ON THE HRI
APN House # Street Name Street Type Year Built
Currently on
HRI?
Recommended
for HRI?
Recommended
CHRSC
84106016 44 MARTIN ST 1920 Yes Yes 5D1
84106018 144 MARTIN ST 1922 Yes Yes 5S1
84106067 174 MARTIN ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
84105086 209 MARTIN ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
84106029 264 MARTIN ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
84113017 7250 MONTEREY ST 1918 Yes Yes 2S2, 5S1
84108042 7350 MONTEREY ST 1912 Yes Yes 5D1
79908038 7357 MONTEREY RD Circa 1870 Yes Yes 5D1
79908036 7373 MONTEREY RD 1920 Yes Yes 5D1
79908034 7387 MONTEREY RD 1920 Yes Yes 2S2, 5D1
84108007 7390 MONTEREY ST 1920 Yes Yes 5D1
84106061 7400 MONTEREY ST 1905 Yes Yes 1S, 5D1
79907067 7401 MONTEREY RD Circa 1906 Yes Yes 5D1
79907064 7419 MONTEREY RD 1914 Yes Yes 5D1
79907062 7423 MONTEREY RD 1912 Yes Yes 5D1
84106007 7430 MONTEREY ST 1914 Yes Yes 5D1
79907058 7435 MONTEREY RD 1925 Yes Yes 5D1
84106009 7440 MONTEREY ST 1919 Yes Yes 5D1
79907057 7441 MONTEREY RD 1920 Yes Yes 5D1
79907056 7445 MONTEREY RD 1912 Yes Yes 5D1
84106010 7450 MONTEREY ST Circa 1896 Yes Yes 5D1
79907055 7451 MONTEREY RD Circa 1924 Yes Yes 5D1
79907053 7455 MONTEREY RD Circa 1920 Yes Yes 5D1
84106011 7460 MONTEREY ST 1912 Yes Yes 5D1
84106063 7466 MONTEREY ST Circa 1917 Yes Yes 5D1
79907050 7477 MONTEREY RD circa 1885 Yes Yes 5D1
79907049 7483 MONTEREY RD 1940 Yes Yes 5D1
79907048 7485 MONTEREY RD 1940 Yes Yes 5D1
79906054 7511 MONTEREY RD Circa 1928 Yes Yes 5D1
79906053 7515 MONTEREY RD Circa 1900 Yes Yes 5D1
79906050 7529 MONTEREY RD Circa 1910 Yes Yes 5D1
79906049 7533 MONTEREY RD Circa 1890 Yes Yes 5D1
79906048 7541 MONTEREY RD 1915 Yes Yes 5D1
84105058 7550 MONTEREY RD 1918 Yes Yes 5D1
79906046 7557 MONTEREY RD 1920 Yes Yes 5D1
84105060 7560 MONTEREY RD 1931 Yes Yes 5D1
79906045 7561 MONTEREY RD 1920 Yes Yes 5D1
79906044 7565 MONTEREY RD 1920 Yes Yes 5D1
84105061 7568 MONTEREY RD 1922 Yes Yes 5D1
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
APPENDIX C, TABLE 1A
PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED TO STAY ON THE HRI
APN House # Street Name Street Type Year Built
Currently on
HRI?
Recommended
for HRI?
Recommended
CHRSC
79906043 7573 MONTEREY RD 1920 Yes Yes 5D1
79906042 7579 MONTEREY RD 1920 Yes Yes 5D1
84105064 7588 MONTEREY RD 1918 Yes Yes 5D1
84104010 7638 MONTEREY RD 1925 Yes Yes 5S1
79903053 7747 MONTEREY RD 1930 Yes Yes 5S1
79903052 7757 MONTEREY RD 1906 Yes Yes 5S1
79903047 7797 MONTEREY ST 1920 Yes Yes 5S1
83505015 9480 MURRAY AV Pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 5S1
84111065 362 OLD GILROY ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79919011 7544 PRINCEVALLE ST 1932 Yes Yes 5S1
79919015 7590 PRINCEVALLE ST 1938 Yes Yes 5S1
84106027 7450 RAILROAD ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
84106028 7470 RAILROAD ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79911018 7090 ROSANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79918050 7427 ROSANNA ST 1906 Yes Yes 5S1
79907015 7438 ROSANNA ST 1916 Yes Yes 5S1
79907016 7446 ROSANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79919061 7531 ROSANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79905011 7601 ROSANNA ST 1910 Yes Yes 5S1
79905007 7641 ROSANNA ST 1906 Yes Yes 5S1
79905005 7657 ROSANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79902028 7711 ROSANNA ST 1911 Yes Yes 5S1
79902027 7721 ROSANNA ST 1907 Yes Yes 5S1
79902026 7731 ROSANNA ST 1914 Yes Yes 5S1
79902024 7751 ROSANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
79903019 7760 ROSANNA ST 1908 Yes Yes 5S1
79902020 7791 ROSANNA ST 1920 Yes Yes 5S1
79902019 7801 ROSANNA ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 5S1
84102003 8191 SWANSTON LN Circa 1929 Yes Yes 5S1
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
APPENDIX C, TABLE 1B
PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED FOR REMOVAL FROM THE HRI
APN House # Street Name
Street
Type Year Built
Currently on
HRI?
Recommended
for HRI?
Recommended
CHRSC
79037008 11 1ST ST Circa 1953 Yes No 6Z
79901016 165 2ND ST 1922 Yes No 6Z
79902039 358 2ND ST 1916 Yes No 6Z
79906021 290 4TH ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79905013 361 4TH ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79905014 393 4TH ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79904029 4TH ST Yes No 6Z
79907043 80 5TH ST 1941 Yes No 6Z
79906011 237 5TH ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79919025 545 5TH ST 1924 Yes No 6Z
84106046 367 6TH ST 1916 Yes No 6Z
84106058 395 6TH ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79908045 67 7TH ST Yes No 6Z
79909002 254 7TH ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
84111043 7200 ALEXANDER ST 1956 Yes No 6Z
84108046 7350 ALEXANDER ST 1928 Yes No 6Z
84106022 7429 ALEXANDER ST 1918 Yes No 6Z
84106021 7439 ALEXANDER ST 1910 Yes No 6Z
84105038 7551 ALEXANDER ST 1910 Yes No 6Z
84105029 7554 ALEXANDER ST 1925 Yes No 6Z
84106043 7461 CHESTNUT ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79911005 7041 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79910030 7180 CHURCH ST 1908 Yes No 6Z
79909006 7249 CHURCH ST 1925 Yes No 6Z
79909005 7265 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79909049 7280 CHURCH ST 1995 Yes No 6Z
79908025 7320 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79908028 7360 CHURCH ST 1961 Yes No 6Z
79908031 7390 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79907005 7439 CHURCH ST 1904 Yes No 6Z
79906032 7530 CHURCH ST 1914 Yes No 6Z
79906006 7551 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79906003 7581 CHURCH ST 1916 Yes No 6Z
79904041 7621 CHURCH ST 1916 Yes No 6Z
79904040 7631 CHURCH ST 1916 Yes No 6Z
79903010 7711 CHURCH ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79903041 7728 CHURCH ST 1926 Yes No 6Z
79903042 7738 CHURCH ST 1925 Yes No 6Z
79903007 7741 CHURCH ST 1920 Yes No 6Z
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
APPENDIX C, TABLE 1B
PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED FOR REMOVAL FROM THE HRI
APN House # Street Name
Street
Type Year Built
Currently on
HRI?
Recommended
for HRI?
Recommended
CHRSC
79903043 7746 CHURCH ST 1914 Yes No 6Z
79903073 7766 CHURCH ST Circa 1952 Yes No 6Z
79903004 7771 CHURCH ST 1920 Yes No 6Z
79903003 7781 CHURCH ST 1910 Yes No 6Z
79901017 7810 CHURCH ST 1922 Yes No 6Z
79901018 7820 CHURCH ST 1922 Yes No 6Z
79901048 7821 CHURCH ST 1922 Yes No 6Z
79901019 7830 CHURCH ST 1922 Yes No 6Z
79901020 7840 CHURCH ST 1922 Yes No 6Z
79901022 7860 CHURCH ST 1925 Yes No 6Z
79901023 7870 CHURCH ST 1926 Yes No 6Z
79901024 7880 CHURCH ST 1920 Yes No 6Z
79910019 7141 EIGLEBERRY ST 1908 Yes No 6Z
79909070 7264 EIGLEBERRY ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79909030 7265 EIGLEBERRY ST 1925 Yes No 6Z
79908047 7310 EIGLEBERRY ST Yes No 6Z
79908048 7320 EIGLEBERRY ST Yes No 6Z
79908050 7350 EIGLEBERRY ST Yes No 6Z
79908051 7360 EIGLEBERRY ST Yes No 6Z
79908012 7393 EIGLEBERRY ST
Circa 1937-
1956 Yes No 6Z
79906062 7562 EIGLEBERRY ST
circa 1953-
1956 Yes No 6Z
79903033 7705 EIGLEBERRY ST 1919 Yes No 6Z
79903079 7725 EIGLEBERRY ST 1922 Yes No 6Z
79903069 7750 EIGLEBERRY ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79903027 7773 EIGLEBERRY ST 1922 Yes No 6Z
79903076 7780 EIGLEBERRY ST 1920 Yes No 6Z
79903026 7785 EIGLEBERRY ST 1922 Yes No 6Z
79903077 7790 EIGLEBERRY ST 1920 Yes No 6Z
84106050 7440 FOREST ST 1922 Yes No 6Z
84106054 7498 FOREST ST 1922 Yes No 6Z
84105014 7536 FOREST ST pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
84105073 7541 FOREST AV 1928 Yes No 6Z
84105067 7549 FOREST ST 1901 Yes No 6Z
84105016 7554 FOREST ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79915051 7256 HANNA ST 2008 Yes No 6Z
79915045 7264 HANNA ST 1910 Yes No 6Z
79919065 7520 HANNA ST 2009 Yes No 6Z
79919039 7571 HANNA ST 1923 Yes No 6Z
79919070 7580 HANNA ST 1916 Yes No 6Z
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
APPENDIX C, TABLE 1B
PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED FOR REMOVAL FROM THE HRI
APN House # Street Name
Street
Type Year Built
Currently on
HRI?
Recommended
for HRI?
Recommended
CHRSC
79919038 7581 HANNA ST 1927 Yes No 6Z
79905030 7631 HANNA ST 1922 Yes No 6Z
79905029 7641 HANNA ST 1925 Yes No 6Z
79905019 7660 HANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79905020 7670 HANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79905024 7691 HANNA ST 1922 Yes No 6Z
79902035 7750 HANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79902004 7820 HANNA ST 1920 Yes No 6Z
79920007 7831 HANNA ST 1923 Yes No 6Z
79920006 7841 HANNA ST 1923 Yes No 6Z
84105045 111 MARTIN ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
84106017 124 MARTIN ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
84105043 165 MARTIN ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
84106040 222 MARTIN ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79908041 7347 MONTEREY RD 1914 Yes No 6Z
79908039 7355 MONTEREY RD 1925 Yes No 6Z
84108006 7380 MONTEREY ST 1907 Yes No 6Z
79907084 7433 MONTEREY RD 2009 Yes No 6Z
84106008 7436 MONTEREY ST 1920 Yes No 6Z
79907054 7453 MONTEREY RD Yes No 6Z
79907052 7461 MONTEREY RD circa 1918 Yes No 6Z
79906069 7525 MONTEREY RD circa 1910 Yes No 6Z
84105056 7526 MONTEREY RD 1950 Yes No 6Z
84105057 7542 MONTEREY RD 1936 Yes No 6Z
84104012 7648 MONTEREY RD 1920 Yes No 6Z
79015036 8877 MONTEREY RD Yes No 6Z
79924055 7545 PRINCEVALLE ST 1939 Yes No 6Z
84105046 7520 RAILROAD ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
84105047 7530 RAILROAD ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79910069 7100 ROSANNA ST 1920 Yes No 6Z
79910072 7150 ROSANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79910063 7170 ROSANNA ST 1993 Yes No 6Z
79910066 7180 ROSANNA ST 1995 Yes No 6Z
79907014 7428 ROSANNA ST 1906 Yes No 6Z
79918049 7443 ROSANNA ST 1906 Yes No 6Z
79907017 7456 ROSANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79918047 7463 ROSANNA ST 1965 Yes No 6Z
79906014 7530 ROSANNA ST 1915 Yes No 6Z
79906015 7540 ROSANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
APPENDIX C, TABLE 1B
PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED FOR REMOVAL FROM THE HRI
APN House # Street Name
Street
Type Year Built
Currently on
HRI?
Recommended
for HRI?
Recommended
CHRSC
79919060 7541 ROSANNA ST 1918 Yes No 6Z
79919059 7551 ROSANNA ST 1901 Yes No 6Z
79906020 7580 ROSANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79919056 7581 ROSANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79919055 7591 ROSANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79905010 7611 ROSANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79904045 7620 ROSANNA ST 1922 Yes No 6Z
79905008 7631 ROSANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79905006 7651 ROSANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79905004 7661 ROSANNA ST 1918 Yes No 6Z
79903016 7730 ROSANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
79902025 7741 ROSANNA ST 1918 Yes No 6Z
79902023 7761 ROSANNA ST 1905 Yes No 6Z
79903020 7770 ROSANNA ST 1920 Yes No 6Z
79902016 7831 ROSANNA ST 1915 Yes No 6Z
79902014 7851 ROSANNA ST 1910 Yes No 6Z
79901056 7860 ROSANNA ST 1998 Yes No 6Z
79902013 7861 ROSANNA ST 1918 Yes No 6Z
79902012 7881 ROSANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes No 6Z
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
APPENDIX C, TABLE 1C
PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION ON THE HRI
APN House # Street Name Street Type Year Built
Currently on
HRI?
Recommended
for HRI?
Recommende
d CHRSC
79901014 139 2ND ST 1912 No Yes 5S3
79907044 64 5TH ST 1940 No Yes 5S3
79918022 590 5TH ST 1930 No Yes 5S3
79908033 64 6TH ST 1947 No Yes 5S3
79908053 74 6TH ST 1951 No Yes 5S3
84108026 262 6TH ST 1916 No Yes 5S3
79918053 321 6TH ST 1926 No Yes 5S3
84111025 7290 ALEXANDER ST Pre-1937 No Yes 5S3
84108039 7340 ALEXANDER ST 1922 No Yes 5S3
79031053 641 BROADWAY ST Circa 1968 No Yes 5S3
79031054 651 BROADWAY ST Circa 1968 No Yes 5S3
79919008 7511 CARMEL ST 1928 No Yes 5S3
79905055 7600 CARMEL ST 1934 No Yes 5S3
79920015 7800 CARMEL ST Circa 1952 No Yes 5S3
79921004 7931 CARMEL ST 1949 No Yes 5S3
84105008 7531 CHESTNUT ST 1927 No Yes 5S3
79908029 7370 CHURCH ST 1908 No Yes 5S3
79906037 7580 CHURCH ST 1941 No Yes 5S3
79905045 7681 DOWDY ST 1940 No Yes 5S3
79909027 7281 EIGLEBERRY 1919 No Yes 5S3
79908019 7331 EIGLEBERRY ST 1914 No Yes 5S3
79907025 7451 EIGLEBERRY ST 1954 No Yes 5S3
79904028 7641 EIGLEBERRY ST 1915 No Yes 5S3
79923033 711 FOURTH ST 1940 No Yes 5S3
79918057 7430 HANNA ST 1923 No Yes 5S3
79902007 7850 HANNA ST pre-1937 No Yes 5S3
79920005 7851 HANNA ST 1937 No Yes 5S3
78302004 1795
HECKER
PASS HY 1948 No Yes 5S3
78302020 1795
HECKER
PASS HY 1948 No Yes 5S3
81023010 6395 MILLER AV 1936 No Yes 5S3
80818022 7049 MILLER AV 1891 No Yes 1S, 5S3
80813011 7841 MILLER AV 1920 No Yes 5S3
84114031 6110 MONTEREY RD 1966 No Yes 5S3
79909059 7259 MONTEREY RD 1926 No Yes 5S3
79908037 7367 MONTEREY RD 1920 No Yes 5D1
79908035 7377 MONTEREY RD 1920 No Yes 5D1
79907066 7411 MONTEREY RD 1910 No Yes 5D1
79907065 7415 MONTEREY RD 1910 No Yes 5D1
84106014 7484 MONTEREY ST 1920 No Yes 5D1
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
APPENDIX C, TABLE 1C
PROPERTIES RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION ON THE HRI
APN House # Street Name Street Type Year Built
Currently on
HRI?
Recommended
for HRI?
Recommende
d CHRSC
79906055 7501 MONTEREY RD 1929 No Yes 5D1
79906047 7547 MONTEREY RD 1920 No Yes 5D1
79901012 7845 MONTEREY RD 1915 No Yes 5S1
78318017 10545 MONTEREY RD Pre-1941 No Yes 5S3
79919012 7548
PRINCEVALL
E ST 1932 No Yes 5S3
79919013 7554
PRINCEVALL
E ST 1932 No Yes 5S3
79919014 7580
PRINCEVALL
E ST 1936 No Yes 5S3
84108022 7360 RAILROAD ST Circa 1862 No Yes 3CS, 5S3
84106025 7400 RAILROAD ST 1930 No Yes 5S3
84106001 7491 RAILROAD ST 1908 No Yes 1S, 5S3
79923004 7671 REA ST 1947 No Yes 5S3
79911012 7000 ROSANNA ST 1904 No Yes 5S3
79901039 7840 ROSANNA ST Pre-1937 No Yes 5S3
84102001 8091 SWANSTON LN Pre-1937 No Yes 5S3
78329025 8444 TARYN LN 1921 No Yes 5S3
80838001 6201 THOMAS RD Pre-1952 No Yes 5S3
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
APPENDIX C, TABLE 2
PROPERTIES LISTED IN/ELIGIBLE FOR THE NRHP AND/OR CRHR
APN House # Street Name
Street
Type Year Built
Currently on
HRI?
Recommended
for HRI?
Recommended
CHRSC
79901032 111 2ND ST 1910 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79907045 60 5TH ST 1900 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79907042 92 5TH ST 1922 Yes Yes 3CS, 5S1
79907082 160 5TH ST 1857 Yes Yes 1S, 5S1
79906031 195 5TH ST 1910 Yes Yes 1S, 5S1
79907083 200 5TH ST 1869 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79907021 268 5TH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 5S1
79918045 314 5TH ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 5S1
79918044 338 5TH ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79918043 366 5TH ST 1905 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79919010 665 5TH ST 1929 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79908059 60 6TH ST 1920 Yes Yes 3CS, 5S1
79908058 250 6TH 1940 Yes Yes 3CS, 5S1
79918001 651 6TH ST 1929 Yes Yes 1S, 5S1
79911063 7040 CHURCH ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79911062 7090 CHURCH ST 1910 Yes Yes 3CS, 5S1
79907033 7406 CHURCH ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79906007 7541 CHURCH ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
79904042 7601 CHURCH ST 1917 Yes Yes 3CS, 5S1
79950009 7528 EIGLEBERRY ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 5S1
79906024 7539 EIGLEBERRY ST 1903 Yes Yes 1S, 5S1
84109014 7320 FOREST ST pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
78304022 2485 HECKER PASS HY Pre-1937 Yes Yes 2S2, 5S1, 7J
84104024 290 IOOF AV 1920 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
80818022 7049 MILLER AV 1891 No Yes 1S, 5S3
84113017 7250 MONTEREY ST 1918 Yes Yes 2S2, 5S1
79908034 7387 MONTEREY RD 1920 Yes Yes 2S2, 5D1
84106061 7400 MONTEREY ST 1905 Yes Yes 1S, 5D1
83505015 9480 MURRAY AV Pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 5S1
84108022 7360 RAILROAD ST Circa 1862 No Yes 3CS, 5S3
84106001 7491 RAILROAD ST 1908 No Yes 1S, 5S3
79919061 7531 ROSANNA ST Pre-1937 Yes Yes 3CS, 3S, 5S1
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
APPENDIX C, TABLE 3A
PROPERTIES THAT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL RESEARCH PRIOR TO EVALUATION
APN House # Street Name
Street
Type Year Built
Currently on
HRI?
Recommended for
HRI?
Recommended
CHRSC
80811007 900 1ST ST No No 7R
79921005 2ND ST No No 7R
84166012 9TH ST No No 7R
79906023 7559 EIGLEBERRY ST No No 7R
79001022 MANTELLI DR No No 7R
84117098 1350 PACHECO PASS HY No No 7R
84106003 7411 RAILROAD ST 1925 No No 7R
84105072 7565 RAILROAD ST 1940 No No 7R
79020076 8455 WREN AV No No 7R
79026047 WREN AV No No 7R
84103081 No No 7R
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
APPENDIX C, TABLE 3B
PROPERTIES NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY
APN House # Street Name Street Type Year Built Currently on HRI?
79038054 226 CARLYLE CT 1972 No
83506043 455 COHANSEY AV No
81029002 766 DAWN WY 1968 No
81028018 770 DAWN WY 1965 No
79006043 330 DAY RD No
78316016 1060 DAY RD 1935 No
78315085 1180 DAY RD 1960 No
80815023 7621 FILICE DR 1958 No
84101126 FOREST ST No
78301033 1705 HECKER PASS HY 1957 No
79020077 8710 KERN AV 1949 No
79018015 9060 KERN AV 1965 No
79018017 9070 KERN AV 1950 No
83505023 535 LAS ANIMAS AV 1905 No
79015046 8887 LILLY AV 1961 No
81033092 5589 MESA RD Circa 1922 No
81033089 5595 MESA RD 1922 No
81028038 5875 MILLER AV No
81028002 5885 MILLER AV 1967 No
80813028 7830 SANTA THERESA DR 1967 No
80813029 7840 SANTA THERESA DR No
78323038 1410 WELBURN AV 1958 No
78326031 1550 WELBURN AV No
84131003 No
79017001 No
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Appendix D
State of California DPR Forms
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Appendix E
Applicable Local Codes and Regulations
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
Appendix E 1 March 2020
1 Applicable Codes and
Regulations
1.1 Gilroy City Code: Chapter 30 Zoning
Ordinance
The following presents key sections of City Code concerning the establishment of historic site and
neighborhood combining districts, and required procedures for design review within these established
areas.
Article XXVII. Historic Site and Neighborhood Combining Districts
30.27.10 Statement of intent.
The intent of this article is:
(a) To preserve historic sites and neighborhoods that represent important elements of Gilroy’s pa st or
contribute to the community’s identity or educational resources;
(b) To enhance the visual character of Gilroy by encouraging and regulating the compatibility of
architectural styles within historic sites and neighborhoods;
(c) To identify and designate areas that have a significant concentration or continuity of sites, buildings
or objects unified by past events or physical development;
(d) To encourage restoration of historic buildings and neighborhoods throughout the city.
(Ord. No. 2013-08, § 2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13)
30.27.30 Establishment of historic site and neighborhood combining districts.
The establishment of a historic site or historic neighborhood combining district may be in combination with
any residential, commercial, industrial or other base district as defined in this chapter. The establishment
or removal of either a historic site or historic neighborhood combining district shall be processed as a zone
change. The historic heritage committee shall review all applications for historical desig nation or removal
of historical designation and pass its recommendations on to the planning commission and city council.
The zone change fees, which are established from time to time by the city council, shall be waived for the
establishment of, but not the removal of, either a historic site or neighborhood combining district.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
Appendix E 2 March 2020
(a) Any area or combination of sites within the city may be designated as a historic neighborhood
combining district if it meets any one (1) of the following criteria:
(1) The neighborhood possesses a significant concentration or continuity of sites, buildings,
structures, or objects unified by past events or physical development; or
(2) The neighborhood represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community; or
(3) The collective historic value of the neighborhood taken together is of greater value than each
individual structure.
(b) Any site within the city may be designated as a historic site combining district if it meets any one (1)
of the following criteria:
(1) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political,
aesthetic, engineering or architectural history; or
(2) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history; or
(3) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or methods of construction, or is
a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or
(4) It is representative of the work of a notable builder, designer or architect.
(Ord. No. 2013-08, § 2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13)
30.27.40 Design review procedures.
Applications to construct new structures, alter, change, modify, remove or significantly alter the exterior of
any structure within a historic site or neighborhood combining district shall require architectural and site
approval according to the provisions of section 30.50.40. An application shall be denied if the changes
would jeopardize the building’s or neighborhood’s architectural or historical value. Interior remodeling or
routine maintenance or repair of the exterior features of a structure in a histo ric site or historic
neighborhood combining district shall not require architectural and site review.
(a) In a historic neighborhood combining district, the design of the following proposed structures or
remodeling shall be reviewed according to the provisions of section 30.50.40:
(1) Construction of any type of a building that will affect the exterior appearance of the site,
neighborhood, or any structure on the site or in the neighborhood;
(2) New construction;
(3) Relocation of any structure in or removal from a historic neighborhood combining district;
(4) Remodeling of fifty percent (50%) or more of the facade of any structure.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
Appendix E 3 March 2020
(b) In a historic site combining district, but not in a historic neighborhood combining district, the design
of the following proposed structures or remodeling shall be reviewed according to the provisions of
section 30.50.40:
(1) Exterior alterations to any building;
(2) Interior alterations that would affect the exterior of a building;
(3) Construction of any type on a building that will affect the exterior appearance of the site, or any
structure on the site;
(4) New construction;
(5) Relocation of any structure into or removal from a historic site combining district.
(Ord. No. 2013-08, § 2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13)
Article XIV. Downtown Specific Plan Districts
Subarticle 1. Downtown Historic District (DHD)
30.14.10 Statement of intent.
This district is suitable for the improvement and maintenance of existing commercial structures or the
conversion or construction to new mixed use development. Residential mixed use projects are encouraged.
The intent of the downtown historic district (DHD) is to foster the city’s historic downtown as a unique and
prosperous commercial resource. Buildings in the downtown historic district (DHD) are mixed use with
premium local and regional boutique retail uses and entertainment establishments, fostering a
multicultural environment. Residential or office use above the ground floor is encouraged. Architecture
should reflect historic forms and materials and adaptive reuse of historic architecture is encouraged. Wide
sidewalks with strong pedestrian connections to adjacent districts are encouraged. Establishment of
paseos and plazas and unique outdoor spaces of any size with fountains and public art is a priority. Parking
is not allowed at street front retail locations. (Ord. No. 2013-08, § 2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13)
30.14.11 Permitted uses and conditional uses.
Land in the downtown historic district (DHD) may be used as provided in the commercial use table, section
30.19.10. Conditional uses may be permitted with a conditional use permit, which may be issued by the
planning commission in accordance with the regulations in section 30.50.30. (Ord. No. 2013 -08, § 2 (Exh.
A), 8-5-13)
30.14.12 Site and building requirements.
The lot, yard, height and additional requirements in the DHD downtown historic district shall be as
established in the commercial site and building requirement table, section 30.19.20. (Ord. No. 2013 -08, §
2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
Appendix E 4 March 2020
30.14.13 Density.
The downtown historic district (DHD) allows commercial and mixed use projects. Commercial and mixed
use projects have a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.5. The minimum density for the residential
component of mixed use projects is twenty (20) dwelling units per acre. (Ord. No. 2013-08, § 2 (Exh. A), 8-
5-13)
30.14.14 Railroad corridor.
Properties between Lewis Street and Seventh Street that abut the west side of the railroad corridor must
provide a fifty-one (51) foot rear setback from the property line to accommodate on-site parking, an access
drive, and a landscaped buffer. Additional articulation should be provided on building facades that face this
corridor to promote an aesthetically pleasing view of the downtown for rail patrons. A “standard” fencing
design that will be commercial grade, six (6) foot tall, black powder coated metal, with vertical slats and top
and bottom rail as well as a five (5) foot minimum landscape planter area adjacent to the railroad corridor.
(Ord. No. 2013-08, § 2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13
Subarticle 2. Downtown Expansion District (DED)
30.14.20 Statement of intent.
This district is suitable for the improvement and maintenance of existing commercial structures or the
conversion or construction to new mixed use development. Residential mixed use projects are encouraged.
The intent of the downtown expansion district (DED) is to recognize an area suitable for the expansion of
downtown retail and mixed use developments which expands the synergy of the downtown historic district
and which caters primarily to the Gilroy community. Buildings in the downtown expansion district (DED) are
mixed use developments, housing street front retail and restaurant services with residential and office use
above the ground floor. Architecture of a historic natu re should be used in conjunction with contemporary
designs. Beautification and building upkeep are encouraged, utilizing signage, awnings and greenery for an
aesthetically pleasing environment. Architecture should reflect historic forms and materials and a daptive
reuse of historic architecture is encouraged. Strong pedestrian access to neighboring districts is
encouraged through the establishment of paseos. The establishment of unique outdoor spaces of any size
with fountains and public art is recommended. Parking lots and structures are to be discreetly screened
from street view. The following regulations, except to the extent that they may be modified by a combining
district, shall apply to every lot and building in a downtown expansion district (DED). (Or d. No. 2013-08, §
2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13)
30.14.21 Permitted uses and conditional uses.
Land in the downtown expansion district (DED) may be used as provided in the commercial use table,
section 30.19.10. Conditional uses may be permitted with a conditional us e permit, which may be issued
by the planning commission in accordance with the regulations in section 30.50.30. (Ord. No. 2013 -08, §
2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
Appendix E 5 March 2020
30.14.22 Site and building requirements.
The lot, yard, height and additional requirements in the down town expansion district (DED) shall be as
established in the commercial site and building requirement table, section 30.19.20. (Ord. No. 2013 -08, §
2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13)
30.14.23 Density.
The downtown expansion district (DED) allows commercial and mixed use projects. Commercial and mixed
use projects have a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.5. The minimum density for the residential
component of mixed use projects is twenty (20) dwelling units per acre. (Ord. No. 2013 -08, § 2 (Exh. A), 8-
5-13)
30.14.24 Railroad corridor.
Properties that abut the railroad corridor must provide “standard” fencing design that will be commercial
grade, six (6) foot tall, black powder coated metal, with vertical slats and top and bottom rail as well as a
five (5) foot minimum landscape planter area adjacent to the railroad corridor. The intent of the city and
public utilities commission is to create a pedestrian pathway along the east side of the railroad corridor
between Tenth Street and Leavesley Road. Additional articulation sh ould be provided on building facades
that face this corridor to promote an aesthetically pleasing view of the downtown for rail patrons. (Ord. No.
2013-08, § 2 (Exh. A), 8-5-13)
1.2 2020 General Plan
The Gilroy 2020 General Plan (Adopted June 2002) identifies historic preservation goals and policies,
primarily for the Downtown Historic District. These discussions can be found throughout Chapters 3
(Strategic Direction) and 4 (Community Design and Development). A summary of these sections is provided
below.
1.2.1 Chapter 3. Strategic Direction
Urban Design and Historic Preservation
The design of buildings and public spaces in the Downtown area can contribute to the economic success
of Downtown, making it an attractive, pleasant and unique place to visit. Basic pedestr ian amenities such
as lighting and seating help make the area feel inviting and safe. Other improvements can support specific
types of activities. For example, widening the sidewalk in selected areas can create opportunities for
outdoor cafes and restaurants, making the street into a more active, friendly place. Similar sidewalk
extensions can be used at pedestrian crossings to reduce the distance pedestrians must cross and
enhance pedestrian safety.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
Appendix E 6 March 2020
1.2.2 Chapter 4. Community Design and Development
Section 5. Historic Preservation
GOAL: A strong sense of connection to Gilroy’s past through historical, archeological, and paleontological
resources that are preserved, protected, enhanced, and commemorated for the benefit of current and
future generations.
Policy 5.01
Historic Preservation. Encourage public and private efforts for the preservation of historic and
architecturally significant buildings, archeological sites, and other landmarks that give residents a tie with
the past.
Policy 5.02
Preservation Funding and Incentives. Seek state and federal funding for the preservation of buildings of
historical merit and consider public/private partnerships for capital and program improvements. Support
the use of Mills Act contracts to reduce property taxes on historic properties and thereby provide a monetary
incentive for their acquisition, maintenance, and restoration.
Policy 5.03
Historic Character. Encourage preservation of older homes, other structures, and neighborhood districts to
maintain and enhance the historic character of the city. In particular, encourage the retention and
rehabilitation of older homes in and near the historic city center (r oughly bound by First Street on the north,
Princevalle on the west, Tenth Street on the south, and Chestnut/Murray on the east) and ensure that
rehabilitation activities (especially if funded by low-interest rehabilitation loans from the City) are sensitive
to the historic character of the building and/or site.
Policy 5.04
Downtown Historic District. Designate a Downtown Historic District and promote the preservation of historic
buildings within the district area to reinforce Downtown’s historic character a nd scale. Provide incentives
for the retention and rehabilitation of buildings with historic merit.
Policy 5.05
Adaptive Reuse. Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings, especially in the Downtown Historic District, to
preserve the buildings’ historic character while encouraging development of an economically vital
Downtown.
Policy 5.06
Non-Conforming Uses in Historic Structures. Allow non-conforming uses in designated Historic Structures.
In some situations, a historic building can be retained only if it ca n be used for an activity that would not
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
Appendix E 7 March 2020
normally be permitted under the zoning classification. The City may consider conditional use permits where
the proposed use will not have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood and will be in keeping with the
historic nature of the building, taking into consideration parking needs and compatibility of the use to
neighboring uses.
Policy 5.07
Archeological Resources. If archeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction,
work shall be halted within 50 meters (150 feet) of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified
professional archeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall
be formulated and implemented.
1.3 Downtown Specific Plan
Purpose. The purpose of the Downtown Gilroy Specific Plan is to create a unique and identifiable downtown
for Gilroy that is economically vibrant, pedestrian-oriented and a local and visitor destination. This specific
plan will be a regulatory tool used by the City of Gilroy to guide development in the downtown for
approximately the next 20 years. While the city's general plan is the primary guide for growth and
development within Gilroy, this Specific Plan focuses on the downtown area in more detail, organizing land
use and zoning regulations by districts.
Goals. The specific plan seeks to establish a direct connection between the City of Gilroy's General Plan
and revitalization and enhancement opportunities within downtown Gilroy. An overall goal is the orderly
development of downtown Gilroy in a method consistent with the city's general plan and, more specifically,
with the community's vision as developed through the community outreach process.
1.4 CEQA
As described further below, the following CEQA statutes and CEQA Guidelines are of relevance to the
analysis of archaeological, historic, and tribal cultural resources:
California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g) defines “unique archaeological
resource.”
California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)
define “historical resources.” In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) defines the
phrase “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource.” It also
defines the circumstances when a project would materially impair the significance of an
historical resource.
California Public Resources Code Section 21074(a) defines “tribal cultural resources.”
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
Appendix E 8 March 2020
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)
set forth standards and steps to be employed following the accidental discovery of human
remains in any location other than a dedicated ceremony.
California Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b)-(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.4 provide information regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and
historic resources, including examples of preservation -in-place mitigation measures;
preservation-in-place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to significant
archaeological sites because it maintains the relationship between artifacts and the
archaeological context and may also help avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of
groups associated with the archaeological site(s).
More specifically, under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause
“a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” (California Public Resources
Code Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b).) If a site is either listed or eligible for listing
in the CRHR, or if it is included in a local register of historic resources or identified as significant in a
historical resources survey (meeting the requirements of California Public Resources Code Section
5024.1(q)), it is a “historical resource” and is presumed to be historically or culturally significant for
purposes of CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(a)). The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a historical resource
even if it does not fall within this presumption (California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1; CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)).
A “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” reflecting a significant effect
under CEQA means “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its
immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired”
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1); California Public Resourc es Code Section 5020.1(q)). In turn,
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b)(2) states the significance of an historical resource is materially
impaired when a project:
1. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an
historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or
eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or
2. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical char acteristics that
account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k)
of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the
requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency
reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the
resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
3. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a
historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for
inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for
purposes of CEQA.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
Appendix E 9 March 2020
Pursuant to these sections, the CEQA inquiry begins with evaluating whether a project site contains any
“historical resources,” then evaluates whether that project will cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource such that the resourc e’s historical significance is materially impaired.
If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead
agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserv ed in
place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures
are required (California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).
California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g) defin es a unique archaeological resource as an
archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding
to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criter ia:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there
is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available
example of its type.
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person.
Impacts to non-unique archaeological resources are generally not considered a significant environmental
impact (California Public Resources Code section 21083.2(a); CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)).
However, if a non-unique archaeological resource qualifies as tribal cultural resource (California Public
Resources Code Section 21074(c), 21083.2(h)), further consideration of significant impacts is required.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures
to be used when Native American remains are discovered. As described below, these procedures are
detailed in California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
Appendix E 10 March 2020
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Document_final (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
CITY OF GILROY
A PROPERTY OWNER’S GUIDE TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION
[PHOTOGRAPH]
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Public Guide to Historic Preservation_Booklet_Draft (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory
Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation
2
Table of Contents
The purpose of this guide is to provide a quick reference for property owners
seeking to understand the City’s historic preservation program and its associated
requirements and benefits. This guide addresses the following topics:
Page
Historic Heritage Committee 3
Historic Designation FAQs 4
Mills Act FAQs 9
The Monterey Road Downtown Commercial Historic District 10
City Contact Information 12
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Public Guide to Historic Preservation_Booklet_Draft (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory
Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation
3
Historic Heritage Committee
The purpose and intent of the Historic Heritage Committee is to act as an advisory
board to the City Council and Planning Commission on issues relating to the
identification, protection, retention and preservation of historic sites and historic
neighborhoods in the City of Gilroy. Committee members serve a 2 year term,
meet the third Wednesday of every month, and maintain the following powers and
duties (MC 30.49.32):
(a) recommend any building, structure or other physical object or group of
buildings, structures or other physical objects that it has determined from
review, investigation, and consideration of designation criteria (30.27.30),
should be designated as a historic site or neighborhood combining district.
(b) To maintain and update a local register of historic neighborhoods and
historic sites within the city.
(c) To review and investigate architectural and site review requests for
property located within a historic site or neighborhood combining district, as
specified by section 30.27.40.
(d) To review and investigate requests for demolition permits for any building,
structure or other physical object in the city, as specified by section 30.27.50.
(e) To review all applications for permits, environmental assessments,
environmental impact reports and other similar documents pertaining to
historic sites and historic neighborhoods.
(f) To make recommendations to the city’s street naming committee regarding
possible new street names from Gilroy’s cultural and historical past.
(g) To institute and support such programs and projects as will help make the
citizens of the city and its visitors aware of its origin, development, and
historic significance.
(h) To perform such other duties relating to city history and historic sites and
neighborhoods as the city council requires.
For more information on the HHC, visit: https://www.cityofgilroy.org/285/Historic-
Heritage-Committee
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Public Guide to Historic Preservation_Booklet_Draft (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory
Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation
4
Historic Designation FAQs
Historic designation on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) provides
protection for buildings, structures, objects, and sites that meet the criteria to be
designated as an historic resource in Gilroy. It applies to all property types,
including residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, agricultural, etc.
Designated properties and those that appear eligible for designation, require
review by the City prior to demolition or alteration. In addition to offering
protections to historic resources, designation offers several benefits to property
owners. The following provides an overview of frequently asked questions (FAQs)
concerning this City’s local designation process
What is the City’s historic designation process?
Section 30.27.30 of the City’s Municipal Code describes the process for
determining whether or not a property qualifies for designation as an historic
neighborhood or historic site combining district on the City’s HRI.
The establishment or removal of either a historic site or historic neighborhood
combining district shall be processed as a zone change. The Historic Heritage
Committee shall review all applications for historical designation or removal of
historical designation and pass its recommendations on to the Planning
Commission and City Council. The zone change fees, which are established
from time to time by the City Council, shall be waived for the establishment
of, but not the removal of, either a historic site or neighborhood combining
district.
What are the Criteria for Designation?
(a) Any area or combination of sites within the city may be designated as a
historic neighborhood combining district if it meets any one of the following
criteria:
(1) The neighborhood possesses a significant concentration or continuity
of sites, buildings, structures, or objects unified by past events or physical
development; or
(2) The neighborhood represents an established and familiar visual
feature of the community; or
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Public Guide to Historic Preservation_Booklet_Draft (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory
Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation
5
(3) The collective historic value of the neighborhood taken together is of
greater value than each individual structure.
(b) Any site within the city may be designated as a historic site combining
district if it meets any one of the following criteria:
(1) It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social,
economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history; or
(2) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or
national history; or
(3) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or
methods of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of
indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or
(4) It is representative of the work of a notable builder, designer or
architect.
How can I find out if my property is designated or eligible for designation?
An interactive webmap and completed list of HRI-properties and HRI-eligible
properties can be found at: X
What are the benefits of historic designation?
Owners of HRI-designated properties are eligible for a variety of benefits,
including:
Option to apply for the Mills Act property tax reduction program,
which allows the owners of qualified historic properties who actively
participate in the restoration and maintenance of their historic
properties to enter into a contract with the City while receiving a
significant property tax relief.
Owners of properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places may take advantage of a 20
percent Federal tax credit that is an incentive for historic
preservation at the national level. The Federal Historic Rehabilitation
Tax Credit program is administered by the National Park Service and
the Internal Revenue Service in conjunction with the California State
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Public Guide to Historic Preservation_Booklet_Draft (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory
Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation
6
Office of Historic Preservation. The credit equals 20 percent of the
amount spent on qualifying historic rehabilitation expenditures (both
hard and soft costs) and is only available to income-producing
properties (commercial, industrial, agricultural, and residential
rentals), not owner-occupied housing.
Use of the California State Historic Building Code, which provides
alternative building regulations for permitting repairs, alterations and
additions necessary for the preservation, rehabilitation, relocation,
related construction, change of use, or continued use of a qualified
historical building or structure.
Economic studies have consistently observed an increase in property
value for designated properties, particularly those in historic districts.
Exceptions to some zoning standards/reduction of some permitting
fees
What are the responsibilities of owners of HRI-designated or eligible properties?
Owners of HRI-designated OR properties found eligible for designation as part
of the citywide survey are required to maintain the historic character-defining
features of their property, particularly those features which are visible from
the public right-of-way, in order to maintain the property’s historical
significance and integrity. Property owners must undergo design review with
the City’s Planning Department as part of the application process to construct
new structures, alter, change, modify, remove or significantly alter the
exterior of their property. Any proposed exterior modifications to an HRI-
listed or eligible property must be made in conformance with the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (see below).
What are the restrictions on modifying designated properties?
Owners of designated properties OR properties found eligible for designation
as part of the citywide survey can make modifications to their properties,
provided that the modifications adhere to MC 30.27.40, which provides design
review procedures for designated/eligible properties. Applications to
construct new structures, alter, change, modify, remove or significantly alter
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Public Guide to Historic Preservation_Booklet_Draft (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory
Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation
7
the exterior of any structure within a historic site or neighborhood combining
district shall require architectural and site approval according to the provisions
of MC 30.50.40. An application shall be denied if the changes would
jeopardize the building’s or neighborhood’s architectural or historical value.
Interior remodeling or routine maintenance or in-kind repair of the exterior
features of a structure in a historic site or historic neighborhood combining
district shall not require architectural and site review.
How does the City determine which modifications are appropriate?
Modifications to HRI-listed and eligible properties are acceptable if they are
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation ,
summarized here:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new
use that requires minimal change.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved.
The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces
that characterize a property shall be avoided.
3. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as
adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other
buildings, shall not be undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their
own right shall be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be
preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.
Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a
distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design,
color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible,
materials.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause
damage to historic materials shall not be used.
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Public Guide to Historic Preservation_Booklet_Draft (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory
Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation
8
8. Archaeological resources will be protected and preserved in place.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall
not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible
with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the
historic integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be
undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the
integrity of the historic property and its environment would be
unimpaired.
The complete Standards and Guidelines are available at:
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-2017.pdf
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Public Guide to Historic Preservation_Booklet_Draft (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory
Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation
9
Mills Act FAQs
What is the Mills Act?
The Mills Act is considered the single most important economic incentive
program in California for the restoration and preservation of qualified historic
buildings by private property owners. Enacted in 1972, the Mills Act legislation
grants participating local governments (like the City of Gilroy) the authority to
enter into contracts with owners of qualified historic properties who actively
participate in the restoration and maintenance of their historic properties
while receiving a significant property tax relief (40-60%).
A minimum contract term of ten (10) years, which will be automatically
renewed on an annual basis. This contract will be recorded against title to the
property, and shall run with the land, regardless of change in ownership.
As part of the contract terms, the owner shall maintain the historic property in
accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
(see previous).
Who is eligible to apply for the Mills Act?
Owners of residential properties designated on the City’s HRI are eligible to
apply. An application checklist is available at the City’s Community
Development Department/Planning Division or online at:
https://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/View/1296/Mills-Act?bidId=
How do I learn more about the Mills Act?
For more information about the Mills Act and its benefits, please visit:
The City’s website:
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/View/1296/Mills-Act?bidId=
The California Office of Historic Preservation:
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21412
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Public Guide to Historic Preservation_Booklet_Draft (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory
Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation
10
The Monterey Road Downtown Commercial Historic District
The following offers general guidelines for making improvements to buildings
within the Monterey Road Downtown Commercial Historic District. These
guidelines, taken in concert with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation, define the parameters for modifying and maintaining commercial
properties within the downtown commercial district.
Contributing Properties
Retain the original roofline and roof form. Replacement of roofing
material is acceptable, but the roofline and form must not be altered.
Retain the overall scale and massing.
Additions must be made to the rear of the building and not serve as a
detraction from the main elevation.
Most of the storefronts within the district have already been altered
outside the original period of significance. Altering storefronts is
permitted provided that any remaining original elements, including
original fenestration patterns, windows, transoms, and signage are
retained.
Alterations should not compete with the rest of the building or detract
from other historic elements still in place on the street facing elevation.
Any original ornamentation including original awnings, signage, parapet
details, plasterwork, and decorative cornices or stringcourses must be
retained.
Modifications should not feature conjectural elements (e.g., the addition
of stone veneer to a building that was historically clad in wood, or
elaborate details that are not consistent with the original period of
construction or architectural style).
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Public Guide to Historic Preservation_Booklet_Draft (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory
Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation
11
Non-Contributing Properties
Buildings should not exceed two-stories in height.
The overall massing, scale, and historic set-back from Monterey Road
should be retained.
Additions must be made to the rear of the building and not serve as a
detraction from the main elevation.
Alterations should not compete with the rest of the historic district by
introducing inappropriate modern materials.
Modifications should not feature conjectural elements that are
inappropriate for the district’s period of significance (1870-1940) (e.g., the
addition of stone veneer to a building that was historically clad in wood,
or elaborate details that are not consistent with the original period of
construction).
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Public Guide to Historic Preservation_Booklet_Draft (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory
Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation
12
City Contact Information
For more information about the City’s historic preservation program and the
historic designation process, please visit the following resources:
XXX
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Public Guide to Historic Preservation_Booklet_Draft (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory
10 July 2020
Cindy McCormick
Planning Division
Community Development Department
City of Gilroy
7351Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
Subject:Proposed Document Revision
Project:Gilroy Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Inventory
Greeting,
Please add Roberta Howson Hughan, Architect to the Gilroy Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources
Inventory document [prepared by Dudek consultant], as discussed at the Planning Commission meeting 9 July
2020.
6.1.6 Roberta Howson Hughan (1932 – present)
Roberta Hughan was born, raised, and educated in Gilroy. She graduated from the College of Architecture at
the University of California Berkeley in 1955. Roberta opened her firm Hughan and Hughan Architects in Gilroy
in 1964. In 1977 Roberta was elected to the Gilroy City Council. Roberta was elected Mayor of Gilroy in 1983
and re-elected in 1987. She was the first woman to have been elected Mayor in Gilroy.
Ms. Hughan’s residential building projects may include:
•Mid-Century Modern house at 701 Fifth Street [unverified]
•Mid-Century Modern house at 7700 Rea Street [unverified]
Roberta’s commercial projects may include:
•Office Building at 8010 Wayland Lane [unverified]
•Office Building at 1335 First Street. [unverified].
Please contact me if questions or comments are regarding this opportunity. Thank you for your assistance with
this assignment.
Best wishes,
Reid Lerner
Reid Lerner, AIA
REID LERNER ARCHITECTS
7680 Monterey Street #105
Gilroy, CA USA 95020
Phone (408) 842-9942
reidlerner@yahoo.com
California License No. C19293 Hawaii License No. AR7007 Indiana License No. AR19800066
NCARB Certificate No. 40,835 Idaho License No. AR-1871 New Mexico License No. 3043
Guam Certificate No. 240 CNMI Certificate No. A085 Arizona License No. 34778
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Reid Lerner Comment for Gilroy Historic Context Statement (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Karen L. Garner
DIRECTOR
Community Development
Department
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-61197
Telephone: (408) 846-0451 Fax (408) 846-0429
http://www.cityofgilroy.org
DATE: July 9, 2020
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Julie Wyrick, Customer Service Manager
SUBJECT: Historic Resource Inventory Update and Property Owner's Guide to
Historic Preservation
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning
Commission:
a) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council accept the Historic
Resource Inventory Update and Property Owner’s Guide to Historic
Preservation (File Number M 18-13) as a guiding document for preservation of
historic resources in the City of Gilroy (Roll Call Vote).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In 2018, the City contracted with DUDEK to update the City’s 1986 Historic Resource
Inventory (HRI), develop a Historic Context Statement, and create a Property Owner’s
Guide to Historic Preservation in Gilroy. The California Environmental Quality Act
requires buildings 50 years or older to be reviewed for potential historic significance.
The previous HRI was completed in 1986 and since that time many buildings have
reached or exceeded 50 years of age.
DUDEK conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of all properties over 45 years of age
within the city, surveying 3,374 properties. DUDEK documented each property with
notes and photographs, and made recommendations on properties to remain on the list,
to be removed from the list, and to be added to the eligibility list.
The Historic Heritage Committee reviewed the documents prepared by DUDEK and
recommends that the City Council accept the HRI update and corresponding
documents, with the retention of the 5th Street Historic District, adding the Tudor homes
cluster to the HRI or as a district, and the consideration of inclusion of Gavilan Hills
Memorial Park and Saint Mary Cemetery.
10.A.d
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: July 9, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report - Historic Resource Inventory Update and PC Resolution (2939 : Historic Resource
2
Staff’s analysis of this recommendation is provided on pages 3 and 4 of this staff report.
BACKGROUND:
The HRI update was undertaken to enhance and streamline the City’s historic
preservation program by bringing consistency to preservation planning efforts. The HRI
includes a Historic Context Statement which provides the foundation for identifying and
evaluating historical resources and establishes a framework for grouping information
about resources that share common themes and patterns of historical development.
This document presents the history of the City of Gilroy’s built environment from pre-
history to present, identifies important themes, events, and patterns of development,
and describes the different property types, styles, builders, and architects associated
with these important periods and themes.
The City maintains an HRI that was updated in 1986. The intent of this document was to
identify commercial, residential, and public buildings that are eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR), or of local significance. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) also
requires that properties 50 years or older, if part of a development project, be evaluated
for historical significance. Since the last update of the HRI almost 35 years ago, many
buildings in the City are now subject to review under CEQA.
In 2018, the City contracted with DUDEK, an environmental and planning consulting
firm with a division specializing in the “historic built environment,” to update the City’s
1986 HRI, develop a historic context statemen t, and create the Property Owner’s Guide
to Historic Preservation in Gilroy.
DUDEK conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of all properties within the city,
including those currently listed on the City’s HRI to determine if they retain requisite
integrity to remain eligible for the CRHR and NRHP. The team documented each
property with notes and photographs, and made recommendations on properties to be
added to the eligibility list, remain on the list, and to be removed from the list. DUDEK
incorporated the data into the HRI document, and converted the data to an Excel
Spreadsheet and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) map layers.
Environmental Assessment: Section 15331 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines, exempts from further environmental review, those projects
intended for maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation,
conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards1. The Historic Resource Inventory Update and
Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation are draft documents intended to be
resources to elected and appointed officials, City staff, and Gilroy property owners, and
1 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Proper ties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
10.A.d
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: July 9, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report - Historic Resource Inventory Update and PC Resolution (2939 : Historic Resource
3
would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no further
environmental assessment is necessary and a Notice of Exemption may be filed for the
project.
ANALYSIS:
DUDEK surveyed 3,374 properties, with consideration to the NRHP, CRHR, and City of
Gilroy designation criteria, and the seven aspects of integrity established for the NRHP
and CRHR. Certain properties were excluded from the survey because they served as a
ubiquitous example of tract housing, were unremarkable, not visible from the public
right-of-way, or required additional research before they could be evaluated.
Of the 3,374 surveyed properties, 32 were found to be eligible for the NRHP and/or
CRHR2, with seven (7) of those properties already listed in the NRHP/CRHR. 1,560 of
the 3,374 properties appear ineligible for inclusion in the HRI, CRHR, or NRHP due to a
lack of integrity. With regard to the City’s existing HRI, DUDEK recommended that 224
of the 360 currently designated properties stay on the HRI, that 136 properties be
removed from the HRI, and that 55 additional properties be added to the HRI.
Additionally, DUDEK reviewed the City’s ten (10) designated Historic Districts,
recommending that seven (7) of the ten (10) districts be removed due to a lack of
integrity, however, many of the once-contributing properties will remain listed on the HRI
as individually significant properties. Those properties that are included in a district that
are not actually contributing properties or historically significant properties would be
subject to the historic review, so removal of the district designation limits historic review
to only those properties on the HRI.
The following existing districts are recommended for removal:
Bungalow Residential District
Alexander Street Residential District
Craftsman Bungalow District
Tudor/Period Revival District
Fifth Street Historic Residential District
Eigleberry Early Settlers District
Forest Street Bungalow District
The following districts are recommended to stay on the HRI:
Holmes Brothers Craftsman District
Pioneer Row Historic District
Monterey Road Downtown Commercial Historic District
Additional information on these properties and historic districts is provided in Appendix
C of the HRI.
Staff received comments and suggested edits from the Gilroy Historical Society
2 Ten (10) of the 32 properties appear eligible for listing in the CRHR only
10.A.d
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: July 9, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report - Historic Resource Inventory Update and PC Resolution (2939 : Historic Resource
4
including recommendations to retain the 5th Street Historic District, add the Tudor
homes cluster to the HRI or as a district, and consider the inclusion of Gavilan Hills
Memorial Park and Saint Mary Cemetery.
Staff revisited the 5th Street Historic District and recommend that the Planning
Commission uphold the recommendations from DUDEK to eliminate the district. Staff
found that the age, architectural style, and context of the eligible homes significantly
varied, not warranting a separate district designation. The eligible homes within the 5th
Street District will remain on the HRI.
Additionally, staff viewed the Tudor homes and found that while they are also
individually eligible, they are spread out and too few to warrant a district. Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the recommendations from DUDEK
and not include the Tudor homes as an additional district.
Regarding the two cemeteries, staff has requested additional analysis from DUDEK to
help determine eligibility and process for inclusion into the HRI.
PROPERTY OWNER’S GUIDE TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION: The Property
Owner’s Guide is a separate document to the HRI. The purpose of the document is to
provide a quick reference for property owners seeking to understand the City’s historic
preservation program and associated requirements and benefits. It includes information
on the City’s Historic Heritage Committee and process, Frequently Asked Questions on
Historic Designation and Mills Act Contracts, and general guidelines for making
improvements in the Monterey Road Downtown Commercial Historic District.
This document is a work in progress and will be updated pursuant to changes to the
HRI, including the addition or removal of individual sites and districts from the HRI, as
recommended by the HHC and Planning Commission, and decided by the City Council
at future public hearings.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: The City's Current General Plan (2020) includes
the following policies related to historic properties in the context of the HRI.
POLICY # TITLE AND SUMMARY
3.30 Historic Preservation, Restoration and Re-use in the Downtown Area.
Encourage restorative maintenance to deteriorated buildings in the Downtown
and restrict the demolition of historically and/or architecturally significant
buildings to accommodate new development. Encourage adaptive re-use of
historic structures to maintain their historic character while supporting economic
development.
5.01 Historic Preservation
Encourage public and private efforts for the preservation of historic and
architecturally significant buildings, archeological sites, and other landmarks.
5.02 Preservation Funding and Incentives
10.A.d
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: July 9, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report - Historic Resource Inventory Update and PC Resolution (2939 : Historic Resource
5
Seek state and federal funding for the preservation of buildings of historical merit
and consider public/private partnerships for capital and program improvements.
Support the use of Mills Act contracts to reduce property taxes on historic
properties and thereby provide a monetary incentive for their acquisition,
maintenance, and restoration.
5.03 Historic Character
Encourage preservation of older homes, other structures, and neighborhood
districts to maintain and enhance the historic character of the city. In particular,
encourage the retention and rehabilitation of older homes in and near the historic
city center and ensure that rehabilitation activities are sensitive to the historic
character of the building and/or site
5.04 Downtown Historic District
Designate a Downtown Historic District and promote the preservation of historic
buildings within the district area to reinforce Downtown’s historic character and
scale. Provide incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of buildings with
historic merit
The update to the HRI and related documents furthers the goals and policies of the
General Plan related to historic preservation in that the first step in preserving the
resource is to identify its significance and eligibility. Identifying those buildings eligible
for local, state, or national registration allows the property owners and city staff to
engage in preservation efforts through city zoning designation and architectural review,
Mills Act Contracts, and other preservation efforts and incentives.
The HRI update is also consistent with the General Plan 2040 update, which includes
updated versions of these same policies.
FINDINGS: As discussed and analyzed above, the following findings can be made in
support of the HRI Update and related documents:
i) The proposed Historic Resource Inventory and related documents were prepared
by a qualified architectural historian for the purpose of identifying eligible,
potentially eligible, and non-eligible historic resources.
ii) The proposed Historic Resource Inventory and related documents are consistent
with the intent of the goals and policies of the City's General Plan.
iii) There will be no significant environmental impacts as a result of this update and
the project is exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to the provisions of Section 15331 of
the CEQA Guidelines.
As such, staff supports a recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission .
NEXT STEPS:
10.A.d
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: July 9, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report - Historic Resource Inventory Update and PC Resolution (2939 : Historic Resource
6
The Planning Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council regarding
the HRI Update and associated documents. Following the City Council’s review and
decision, staff will prepare recommendations on formally adding or removing buildings
from the HRI. Historic Site designation requires an historic overlay rezone; therefore
property owner coordination, public notification, and public hearings at Planning
Commission and City Council will be required, consistent with the City’s Zoning
Ordinance.
Attachments:
A. Draft Historic Resource Inventory
B. Draft Public Guide to Historic Preservation
C. May 20, 2020 Historic Heritage Committee Meeting Staff Report
D. Resolution 2020-XX
Attachments:
1. Gilroy Historic Context and HRI Update Final Draft
2. Public Guide to Historic Preservation Booklet Final Draft
3. Planning Commission Resolution 2020-XX HRI Update
10.A.d
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: July 9, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report - Historic Resource Inventory Update and PC Resolution (2939 : Historic Resource
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GILROY
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF THE HISTORIC
RESOURCE INVENTORY UPDATE AND PROPERTY OWNER’S GUIDE TO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION (FILE NUMBER M 18-13) AS A GUIDNG
DOCUMENT FOR PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES IN THE CITY
OF GILROY
WHEREAS, the Historic Resource Inventory Update was prepared by DUDEK Environmental
Consultants for the purpose of identifying eligible, potentially eligible, and non-eligible historic
resources in the City of Gilroy; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation was prepared by DUDEK
Environmental Consultants for the purpose of assisting the public in understanding the purpose and
process of historic preservation in the City of Gilroy; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Heritage Committee held public meetings on May 20, 2020 and June
17, 2020, at which time the Historic Heritage Committee received and considered written public
testimony related to the Historic Resource Inventory Update file number M 18-13, and thereafter
recommended that the Planning Commission recommend acceptance of said document to the City
Council, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has received and considered the Draft Historic
Resource Inventory and Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation, in accordance with the City
of Gilroy Zoning Ordinance (Article LII), and the staff report pertaining to the proposed Historic
Resource Inventory Update file number M 18-13; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting on July 9, 2020, at
which time the Planning Commission received and considered written and oral public testimony
related to the Historic Resource Inventory Update file number M 18-13, and thereafter recommended
that the City Council accept said document with the staff recommended revisions; and
WHEREAS, the review and acceptance of the guiding documentation contained in the
Historic Resource Inventory Update file number M 18-13 is exempt from environmental review under
the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to the provisions of Section 15331 of
the CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project is exempt from CEQA if it is “intended for
maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or
reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards.” The Historic Resource Inventory Update and Property Owner’s Guide to Historic
Preservation are documents intended to be resources to elected and appointed officials, City staff, and
Gilroy property owners, and would not have a significant effect on the environment; and
10.A.d
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: July 9, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report - Historic Resource Inventory Update and PC Resolution (2939 : Historic Resource
Resolution No. 2020-XX
Page 2
WHEREAS, in accordance with City of Gilroy General Plan, the Planning Commission finds
that the acceptance of the Historic Resource Inventory Update and Property Owner’s Guide to
Historic Preservation furthers the goals and policies adopted by the City Council to preserve Gilroy’s
past through historical, archeological, and paleontological resources that are preserved, protected,
enhanced, and commemorated for the benefit of current and future generations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy
hereby recommends to the City Council the acceptance of the Historic Resource Inventory Update
document and Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation file number M 18-13.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of July 2020 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________________ __________________________________
Julie Wyrick, Planning Division Manager Tom Fischer, Chairperson
10.A.d
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: July 9, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report - Historic Resource Inventory Update and PC Resolution (2939 : Historic Resource
Historic Resource Inventory Update Meeting Date: 5/20/20
1
City of Gilroy
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy CA 95020
(408) 846-0451 (408) 846-0429 (fax)
www.cityofgilroy.org
DATE: May 20, 2020
TO: Historic Heritage Committee
FROM: Julie Wyrick, Planning Division Manager
SUBJECT: Historic Resource Inventory Update and Property Owner’s Guide to Historic
Preservation
REQUEST: Following a presentation and discussion of the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI)
and Historic Context Statement with proposed eligibility list, and the Property Owner’s Guide to
Historic Preservation, the Historic Heritage Committee is requested to make a recommendation
to the Planning Commission regarding acceptance of the documents.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Committee consider the discussion presented by
the City’s consultant DUDEK1, and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission
regarding acceptance of the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI), Historic Context Statement,
proposed eligibility list, and the Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Section 15331 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, exempts from further environmental review, those projects intended for
maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or
reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards2. The Historic Resource Inventory Update and Property Owner’s Guide to Historic
Preservation are draft documents intended to be resources to elected and appointed officials,
City staff, and Gilroy property owners, and would not have a significant effect on the
environment. Therefore, no further environmental assessment is necessary and a Notice of
Exemption may be filed for the project.
BACKGROUND: In 2018, the City contracted with DUDEK to update the City’s 1986 Historic
Resource Inventory (HRI) and develop a Historic Context Statement (“HRI Update”, Attachment
1), and create a Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation in Gilroy (Attachment 2).
1 DUDEK is an environmental and planning consulting firm with a division specializing in the “historic built
environment,”
2 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
10.A.e
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: May 20, 2020 Historic Heritage Committee Staff Report and public comments (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Historic Resource Inventory Update Meeting Date: 5/20/20
2
DUDEK has amended the HRI Update and Property Owner’s Guide documents in response to
feedback from City staff, the President of the Gilroy Historical Society (Attachment 3), and the
Gilroy History Museum (Attachment 4).
The following is a brief summary of the HRI findings and recommendations:
Historic Resource Inventory (HRI): The City’s existing HRI, prepared in 1986, identifies
commercial, residential, and public buildings that are eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and/or local
significance. Since 1986, many more buildings in the City have reached the age of 50 years, the
threshold for potential historic designation and review under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). DUDEK conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of all properties over 45 years of
age within the city. However, certain properties were excluded from the survey because they
served as a ubiquitous example of tract housing, were unremarkable, or required additional
research before they could be evaluated. Dudek surveyed 3,374 properties, with consideration
to the NRHP, CRHR, and City of Gilroy designation criteria, and the seven aspects of integrity
established for the NRHP and CRHR. DUDEK documented each property with notes and
photographs, and made recommendations on properties to remain on the list, to be removed
from the list, and to be added to the eligibility list (See Appendix C of Attachment 1)
The HRI contains the following sections:
1. An Introduction discussing the HRI update description, study area, survey and research
methodology;
2. A discussion of Previous Surveys and Studies;
3. Reference to Applicable Codes and Regulations;
4. Guidelines for Evaluation;
5. The Historic Context Statement;
6. A description of Architectural Styles found in the city;
7. Notable Architects and Builders who designed or constructed the buildings; and
8. Findings and Recommendations
HRI Findings and Recommendations: Of the 3,374 surveyed properties, 32 were found to be
eligible for the NRHP and/or CRHR 3, with seven (7) of those properties already listed in the
NRHP/CRHR. 1,560 of the 3,374 properties appear ineligible for inclusion in the HRI, CRHR, or
NRHP due to a lack of significance/integrity. With regard to the City’s existing HRI, DUDEK
recommended that 224 of the 360 currently designated properties stay on the HRI, that 136
properties be removed from the HRI, and that 55 additional properties be added to the HRI.
Additionally, DUDEK reviewed the City’s ten (10) designated Historic Districts, recommending
that seven (7) of the ten (10) districts be removed due to a lack of integrity.
The following existing districts are recommended for removal:
Bungalow Residential District
Alexander Street Residential District
Craftsman Bungalow District
Tudor/Period Revival District
3 Ten (10) of the 32 properties appear eligible for listing in the CRHR only
10.A.e
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: May 20, 2020 Historic Heritage Committee Staff Report and public comments (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
Historic Resource Inventory Update Meeting Date: 5/20/20
3
Fifth Street Historic Residential District
Eigleberry Early Settlers District
Forest Street Bungalow District
The following districts are recommended to stay on the HRI:
Holmes Brothers Craftsman District
Pioneer Row Historic District
Monterey Road Downtown Commercial Historic District
Additional information on these properties and historic districts is provided in Appendix C of
Attachment 1.
PROPERTY OWNER’S GUIDE TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION: The Property Owner’s Guide
(Attachment 2) is a separate document to the HRI. The purpose of the document is to provide a
quick reference for property owners seeking to understand the City’s historic preservation
program and associated requirements and benefits. It includes information on the City’s Historic
Heritage Committee and process, Frequently Asked Questions on Historic Designation and Mills
Act Contracts, and general guidelines for making improvements in the Monterey Road
Downtown Commercial Historic District.
NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission and City Council will also review the HRI Update and
associated documents. Following the City Council’s review and decision, staff will prepare
recommendations on formally adding or removing buildings from the HRI. Historic Site
designation requires an historic overlay rezone; therefore property owner coordination, public
notification, and public hearings at Planning Commission and City Council will be required,
consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION: The Historic Heritage Committee is tasked with
making a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding acceptance of the Historic
Resource Inventory (HRI), Historic Context Statement, proposed eligibility list, and the Property
Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation.
Attachment 1: Draft HRI and Historic Context Statement, dated March 2020
Attachment 2: Draft Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation, dated February 2020
Attachment 3: Public Comments (Gilroy Historical Society), dated 02-27-2020
Attachment 4: Public Comments (Gilroy History Museum), dated 02-27-2020
10.A.e
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: May 20, 2020 Historic Heritage Committee Staff Report and public comments (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
1
Cindy McCormick
From:james rogers <jrogers@garlic.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 27, 2020 10:52 AM
To:Julie Wyrick
Cc:Cindy McCormick
Subject:Context statement for new HRI
Dear Julie and Cindy,
I have been “proof reading” the draft context statement and Dudek’s recommendations for the addresses to be
listed and maps. I thought I should send you my corrections and comments for the Context Statement now. I’m
still working on the maps and addresses part. I think I need to go out in my car and check some of them!
Dudek really did a very good job on the history, especially from people who were unfamiliar with the
material. Some parts do seem rather repetitive, perhaps because of the way it is divided into sections. Some of
the errors are just spelling which I believe should be corrected.
Thank you for allowing this input.
Connie Rogers, President
Gilroy Historical Society
jrogers@garlic.com
408-842-8494
Context statement p. 31 - No mention of the Juan Bautista de Anza expedition which
passed by both the west and east side of Gilroy. Although it didn't affect Gilroy directly,
it did lead to the settlement of San Jose and Monterey by families and is today part of the
National Trail System.
1.
2. p. 33 Probably a typo in 3rd paragraph - should be spelled John (Juan Bautista) Gilroy
3.
4. p. 33 last paragraph I believe Thomas O. Larkin lived in Monterey, not Gilroy. He did
conduct a soap trade business with John Gilroy. This is documented by letters between
them held in the Bancroft Library. See also the 1981 Masters Thesis of Trudi Cooling
Nelson on the life of John Gilroy.
5.
6. p.37 1st paragraph Horace Willson is spelled with 2 ells (ls)
P 44 re the first cemetery - per an undated and undocumented paper at the Gilroy
Museum it was on land located between 2nd and 3rd St. and west of Church St. That article
didn’t say it was donated by Henry Miller. It says the city purchased a new cemetery around
1870 at Farrell and Monterey. The cemetery lasted there for only 2 years when the same bodies
were moved again to the Mason’s and Ioof Cemetery on First St.. Those ten acres were
purchased from Henry Miller. See further discussion on p. 57
10.A.e
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: May 20, 2020 Historic Heritage Committee Staff Report and public comments (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
2
p. 56 3rd paragraph re IOOF Children’s Home. The original building in 1897 was NOT a
William Weeks building, but a 3 story wooden edifice. It was replaced in 1921 by the current
handsome masonry Mediterranean style building which was designed by William Weeks.
p. 73 It should be Christmas HILL Park, not Christmas tree.
p.79 Architectural historian Krista Van Laan has substantiated in 2016 that Wolfe and
McKenzie designed the building, although an earlier write up called it “in the style of Samuel
Newsome” Wolfe and McKenzie also designed 7797 Monterey St., a home, and another one
substantially alike on Watsonville Rd. in the County.
p. 81 - Caroline Hoxett also donated the land for the Carnegie Library building and the Carillon
tower for the IOOF Orphanage, who site she chose.
p. 85 - Caroline Hoxett left her Italianate home at 338 Fifth St. to the Women’s Civic Club when
she died (1927?) It was purchased by John and Roberta Hughan in the 1970s and Roberta
became the first woman mayor of Gilroy. She still lives there.
p. 91 - re Hecker Pass Rd. Supervisor Hecker must have negotiated the purchase from the estate
of Henry Miller because Miller died in 1916.
p. 92, paragraph one. I’ve never heard that Hirasaki’s ranch was called Soap Lake. His son-on-
law, Lawson Sakai, (408) 782-2054 ) could be questioned about that. Hirasaki’s home was
located at 800 Pacheco Pass Rd. Just because the Gilroy Dispatch says it doesn’t mean it was
true.
p. 92 Lin Wheeler allowed the Japanese to build a school on his property where their kids went
after public school hours to learn Japanese language and culture. The building still exists on
Swanston Lane and is probably eligible for the National Register.
p. 92 - I believe the cannery owner was spelled Filice.
p. 93 - The hydraulic pump developed and produced by BeGe was sold to Caterpillar Tractor Co.
and used around the world in their equipment.
p. 94 Re Architectural styles. What about the bungalow style??? Gilroy has MANY bungalows,
sometimes Craftsman, sometimes California, other times Spanish style in bungalow size. There
are only 4 “bungalow courts” that I know of, but the one story, double gable style os single
family home is very prevalent both east and west of Monterey St.
p. 104 1st paragraph Filice, not Felice
p 108 - Hirasaki is the correct spelling (last paragraph)
p. 111 - I believe the change in tree numbering system occurred in about 1969, more or less. I lived in Gilroy at
the time and remember because my address changed. The change was primarily for the benefit of emergency
responders. Perhaps the date of this change could be verified through the County???
p. 111 - the new hospital faced Sixth St. and the address was 651 West Sixth St. The old Wheeler Hospital
(1929) was at 650 Fifth St.
10.A.e
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: May 20, 2020 Historic Heritage Committee Staff Report and public comments (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
3
p. 112 - in 5.6.4 Final passenger service of the famous Del Monte train stopped in 1971. Caltrain began
commute passenger service to San Francisco in 1992, even before the station was restored in 1998.
p. 116, 3rd paragraph - Filice (not Felice) again
p. 117 - No mention of the 7 or 8 Tudor style homes between 4th and 5th St. on the west side of Carmel St.?
Most of the houses on the gridwork streets between 1st and 6th, especially west of Hanna St., are
almost all custom homes, in various styles, not a tract.
p. 123 Re Civic and Institutional Properties. Gilroy High School on 10th St. opened in 1978 and the new City
Hall opened in 1980. Do you want them in this time period or should they be in the post 1975 time period???
p. 125 Next to last paragraph - Should be spelled Filice And spelled Crown Zellerbach
p. 128 re Garlic Festival One of the 3 founders is spelled Val Filice
10.A.e
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: May 20, 2020 Historic Heritage Committee Staff Report and public comments (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
1
Cindy McCormick
From:Gilroy Museum
Sent:Thursday, February 27, 2020 2:07 PM
To:Connie Rogers; Julie Wyrick
Cc:Cindy McCormick
Subject:RE: Context statement for new HRI
Hello All,
A few little corrections and comments on the corrections. (I cannot remember if I already
participated in this this or not).
4: Thomas Larkin did live in Monterey, but he was in partnership with Jose Maria Sanchez, not
Gilroy. Gilroy and other rancheros presumably used the kettle to produce soap (for payment for
finished goods sold by Larkin), but it was Larkin and Sanchez who owned the operation.
81: Recently I came across documentation (a deed) that shows the owners of the present day
museum property (descendants of Ira Doolittle) sold the land to the City of Gilroy for use as a
library. Hoxett may have been involved in some way, but at present we don’t know how. We
have told the Hoxett story incorrectly for many decades now and it would be good to see a more
accurate story emerge.
92: Unfortunately I cannot know what was being referred to here. The cannery property was
purchased from the Bisceglia Brothers by Filice and Perrelli partners. The former actually ran a
cannery here before F and P.
117: Connie’s comment about the tract homes is interesting. Using subdivision might be more
accurate in regards to these properties and many others. Early developers subdivided larger
parcels, put in the streets, sewers and water mains and then sold the lots for custom
development by the purchasers. Even sections of Gilroy built in the 1940’s and 1950’s are
primarily custom homes using this same development style.
Tom Howard
Gilroy Museum
From: james rogers [mailto:jrogers@garlic.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 10:52 AM
To: Julie Wyrick
Cc: Cindy McCormick
Subject: Context statement for new HRI
10.A.e
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: May 20, 2020 Historic Heritage Committee Staff Report and public comments (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY
ACCEPTING THE HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY UPDATE AND
PROPERTY OWNER’S GUIDE TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION (M 18-13)
AS A GUIDNG DOCUMENT FOR PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC
RESOURCES IN THE CITY OF GILROY
WHEREAS, the Historic Resource Inventory Update was prepared by DUDEK Environmental
Consultants for the purpose of identifying eligible, potentially eligible, and non-eligible historic
resources in the City of Gilroy; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner’s Guide to Historic Preservation was prepared by DUDEK
Environmental Consultants for the purpose of assisting the public in understanding the purpose and
process of historic preservation in the City of Gilroy; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Heritage Committee held public meetings on May 20, 2020 and June
17, 2020, at which time the Historic Heritage Committee received and considered written public
testimony related to the Historic Resource Inventory Update file number M 18-13, and thereafter
recommended that the Planning Commission recommend acceptance of said document to the City
Council, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on July 9, 2020, at which time
the Planning Commission received and considered written and oral public testimony related to the
Historic Resource Inventory Update file number M 18-13, and thereafter recommended that the City
Council accept said document with the staff recommended revisions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on August 17, 2020, at which time the
City Council received and considered written and oral public testimony related to the Historic
Resource Inventory Update file number M 18-13; and
10.A.f
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Resolution Historic Resources Inventory [Revision 1] (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-XX
WHEREAS, the review and acceptance of the guiding documentation contained in the
Historic Resource Inventory Update file number M 18-13 is exempt from environmental review under
the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to the provisions of Section 15331 of
the CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project is exempt from CEQA if it is “intended for
maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or
reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards.” The Historic Resource Inventory Update and Property Owner’s Guide to Historic
Preservation are documents intended to be resources to elected and appointed officials, City staff, and
Gilroy property owners, and would not have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with City of Gilroy General Plan, the City Council finds that the
acceptance of the Historic Resource Inventory Update and Property Owner’s Guide to Historic
Preservation furthers the goals and policies adopted by the City Council to preserve Gilroy’s past
through historical, archeological, and paleontological resources that are preserved, protected,
enhanced, and commemorated for the benefit of current and future generations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby
accepts the Historic Resource Inventory Update document and Property Owner’s Guide to Historic
Preservation file number M 18-13.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of August 2020 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
___________________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
10.A.f
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Resolution Historic Resources Inventory [Revision 1] (2939 : Historic Resource Inventory Update)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Consideration of a Donation from the South Valley Garden Club to
Design and Maintain a Blue Star Memorial Garden with Flowers
and a Plaque in Front of the Gilroy Veterans Memorial Building on
City-owned Property Located at Sixth and Eigleberry Streets
Meeting Date: August 17, 2020
From: Jimmy Forbis, Interim City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Jimmy Forbis
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Neighborhood Services
☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
☐ Workforce Stability Public Engagement
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
At the August 3rd, 2020 City Council meeting, the South Valley Fleurs Club (SVFC)
verbalized a proposal that would place flowers and a plaque in front of the Gilroy
Veteran’s Memorial Building at 74 West 6th Street.
ANALYSIS
Since that meeting, City staff have worked with Susan Mister of the SVFC to determine
details and logistics of their proposal which includes placement of flowers and a Blue
10.B
Packet Pg. 346
Star plaque in the City-owned curb strip adjacent to 6th Street. Sample pictures are
attached (Attachment 1).
The Blue Star represents a service member in active duty and typical plaque wording
includes language such as “A Tribute to the Armed Forces of America” with an
additional reference to the plaques’ sponsor.
The only ongoing request is that SVFC would like to the City to maintain the irrigation at
the site. SVFC would install and maintain the flowers.
Lastly, in order for the City to provide approval for the SVFC request, Council is being
asked to direct staff to obtain indemnity from SVFC and secondly create a resolution for
Council consideration at a future meeting to approve the language included on the Blue
Star plaque.
ALTERNATIVES
Council could decide not to provide direction to staff to move forward with this request.
This is not recommended.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
At this time, staff believes that providing irrigation for the proposed is feasible and the
impact on City resources would be minimal.
NEXT STEPS
Should Council provide direction to move forward, staff will obtain indemnification from
the SVFC and submit the required resolution to Council for consideration.
Attachments:
1. Planting Area - Blue Star Memorial
10.B
Packet Pg. 347
Attachment 1 – Planting Area and Blue Star Memorial Example
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Planting Area - Blue Star Memorial (2958 : Flowers/Plaque at VFW on 6th Street)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Gilroy Economic Development Partnership Report and Proposed
Initiatives
Meeting Date: August 17, 2020
From: Jimmy Forbis, Interim City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Jimmy Forbis
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
Economic
Development
☐ Neighborhood Services
☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
☐ Workforce Stability ☐ Public Engagement
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report and provide direction to staff concerning support/implementation of the
Gilroy Economic Development Partnership initiatives.
BACKGROUND
The Gilroy Economic Development Partnership (GEDP) was formed to ensure
continuity in economic development leadership amongst the Chief Executives and the
Boards of the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce, Gilroy Economic Development
Corporation, Gilroy Downtown Business Association, Visit Gilroy, Gilroy Gardens,
Gavilan College and the elected (Mayor) and appointed (City Administrator) leaders of
the City of Gilroy.
10.C
Packet Pg. 349
Since the first meeting in March 2020 the group has narrowed its’ focus for the GEDP
with the overarching theme being to make Gilroy a recreation destination. The three key
initiatives that fall under that overarching theme are as follows:
1. Sharks Ice
2. The 536 (536 acres at Gilroy Gardens)
3. Gourmet Alley in Downtown Gilroy
These three initiatives create a "recreation triangle" which serves the greater Gilroy
community and creates both direct and indirect revenue generating opportunities while
supporting local businesses, creating jobs, employing local residents, elevating Gilroy's
status as a visitor destination and expanding our brand beyond the Garlic Festival.
GEDP will occasionally provide Council with a verbal report that will provide updates,
seek feedback, and inform the community of economic development initiatives.
10.C
Packet Pg. 350