Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06/16/2025 City Council Regular Agenda Packet
June 16, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 1 of 9 City Council Regular Meeting CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA CITY CHAMBERS, CITY HALL 7351 ROSANNA STREET, GILROY, CA 95020 MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2025 | 6:00 PM MAYOR Greg Bozzo COUNCIL MEMBERS Dion Bracco Tom Cline Terence Fugazzi Zach Hilton Carol Marques Kelly Ramirez CITY COUNCIL PACKET MATERIALS ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE AT www.cityofgilroy.org AGENDA CLOSING TIME IS 5:00 P.M. THE TUESDAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Public testimony is subject to reasonable regulations, including but not limited to time restrictions for each individual speaker. **Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.** The amount of time allowed per speaker may vary at the Mayor’s discretion depending on the number of speakers and length of the agenda. Written comments on any agenda item may be emailed to the City Clerk’s Office at publiccomment@cityofgilroy.org or mailed to the Gilroy City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by the City Clerk’s Office by 1 p.m. on the day of a Council meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to or at the meeting and available for public inspection with the agenda packet located in the lobby of Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street prior to the meeting. Any correspondence received will be incorporated into the meeting record. Items received after the 1 p.m. deadline will be provided to the City Council as soon as practicable. Written comments are also available on the City’s Public Records Portal at bit.ly/3NuS1IN. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, 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’s Office at least 72 hours prior to the meeting at (408) 846-0204 or cityclerk@cityofgilroy.org to help ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made. 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 the City website at www.cityofgilroy.org subject to the Staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE GILROY OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE Page 1 of 217 June 16, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 9 City Council Regular Meeting 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. If you need assistance with translation and would like to speak during public comment, please contact the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the meeting at 408-846-0204 or e-mail the City Clerk’s Office at cityclerk@cityofgilroy.org. Si necesita un intérprete durante la junta y gustaría dar un comentario público, comuníquese con el Secretario de la Ciudad un mínimo de 72 horas antes de la junta al 408-846-0204 o envíe un correo electrónico a la Oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad a cityclerk@cityofgilroy.org. To access written translation during the meeting, please scan the QR Code or click this link: Para acceder a la traducción durante la reunión, por favor escanee el código QR o haga clic en el enlace: bit.ly/3FBiGA0 Choose Language and Click Attend | Seleccione su lenguaje y haga clic en asistir Use a headset on your phone for audio or read the transcript on your device. Use sus auriculares para escuchar el audio o leer la transcripción en el dispositivo. The agenda for this regular meeting is outlined as follows: 1.OPENING 1.1.Call to Order 1.2.Pledge of Allegiance 1.3.Invocation 1.4.City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda 1.5.Roll Call 1.6.Orders of the Day Page 2 of 217 June 16, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 3 of 9 City Council Regular Meeting 1.7.Employee Introductions 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - Proclamations and Awards 2.1.Proclamation Honoring the Gilroy High School Wrestling Team 2.2.Proclamation in Honor of Don Gage 3. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL 3.1.Presentation of the Annual Report from Visit Gilroy 3.2.PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Council on matters within the Gilroy City Council’s jurisdiction but not on the agenda. Persons wishing to address the Council are requested to complete a Speaker’s Card located at the entrances and handed to the City Clerk. Speakers are limited to 1 to 3 minutes each, varying at the Mayor’s discretion depending on the number of speakers and length of the 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 comments to address the Council on matters not on this agenda may be e-mailed to the City Clerk’s Office at publiccomment@cityofgilroy.org or mailed to the Gilroy City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by the City Clerk’s Office by 1:00 pm on the day of a Council meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to or at the meeting and available for public inspection with the agenda packet located in the lobby of Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, prior to the meeting. Any correspondence received will be incorporated into the meeting record. Items received after the 1:00pm deadline will be provided to the City Council as soon as practicable. Written material provided by public members under this section of the agenda will be limited to 10 pages in hard copy. An unlimited amount of material may be provided electronically. 4. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Bracco – Downtown Committee, Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority, Santa Clara Water Commission, Santa Clara Valley Water Joint Water Resources Committee, SCRWA Council Member Fugazzi – Santa Clara Water Commission (alternate), Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board (alternate), SCRWA, Visit Gilroy California Welcome Center, VTA Mobility Partnership Committee Council Member Marques – ABAG, Downtown Committee, Santa Clara County Library Joint Page 3 of 217 June 16, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 4 of 9 City Council Regular Meeting Powers Authority (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board, SCRWA (alternate) Council Member Hilton – CalTrain Policy Group, Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Advisory Board (alternate), Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team, VTA Policy Advisory Committee Council Member Ramirez – ABAG (alternate), Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors (alternate), Gilroy Sister Cities, Gilroy Youth Task Force (alternate), SCRWA, Santa Clara Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee Council Member Cline – CalTrain Policy Group (alternate), Gilroy Sister Cities (alternate), Gilroy Youth Task Force, Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Advisory Board, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board (alternate), Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board, Visit Gilroy California Welcome Center (alternate), VTA Mobility Partnership Committee, VTA Policy Advisory Committee (alternate) Mayor Bozzo – Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors, Santa Clara Valley Water Joint Water Resources Committee, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team, VTA Board of Directors (alternate), Santa Clara Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (alternate) 5. CONSENT CALENDAR 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 City Council votes to approve. If removed, the item will be discussed in the order in which it appears. 5.1.Adoption of the Minutes from the May 19 and June 2, 2025 City Council Regular Meeting, the June 7, 2025 Coffee with the Mayor, and the June 9, 2025 City Council Special Meeting 5.2.Approve the Purchase of two Playground Shade Covers for the Third Street Park in the amount of $112,497, and include a 10% contingency, for a total not to exceed amount of $123,747, utilizing National Purchasing Partners Contract (NPP) PS21070 and authorize the City Administrator to execute the agreement with Ross Recreation Equipment, Inc. and any other related documents necessary to complete the purchase and installation of the shade structures. 5.3.Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Approving the Application for Metropolitan Transportation Commission Capital Implementation Grant Funds for the Gilroy Public Library Electrical Vehicle Chargers Project and Authorize the Execution of the Agreement and Related Documents 5.4.Approval of a Notice of Acceptance of Completion for the City Hall Backup Generator Project No. 21-PW-268 Page 4 of 217 June 16, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 5 of 9 City Council Regular Meeting 5.5.Claim of Terell Felton (The City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute denial of the claim) 5.6.Adopt an Ordinance to Adopt by Reference the Mapping of the Fire Hazard Severity Zones as Issued by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 5.7.City Council Appointment of Kim Mancera to the Position of City Clerk 6. BIDS AND PROPOSALS 6.1.Award a Contract to McKim Corporation for the Fiscal Year 2024-25 (FY25) Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 25-PW-295 1.Staff Report: John Doughty, Public Works Director 2.Public Comment 3.Possible Action: 1. Award a contract to McKim Corporation in the amount of $6,479,784.04, approve a project contingency of $647,978.96, approve a total project expenditure of $7,127,763.00 for the FY25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 25-PW- 295, and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents. 2. Adopt a resolution amending the FY25 budget to accommodate the funding adjustments for the project in the various funds as outlined in the resolution. 6.2.Award a Contract to Vanguard Construction for the FY25 Engineering Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 25-PW-296 in the amount of $652,787, Approve a Project Contingency of $65,278, and Approve a Total Project Expenditure of $718,065 for Construction 1.Staff Report: John Doughty, Public Works Director 2.Public Comment 3.Possible Action: Council either: 1. Award a contract to Vanguard Construction in the amount of $652,787, approve a project contingency of $65,278, approve a total project expenditure of $718,065 for the construction of the FY25 Engineering Sidewalk Replacement Project (No.25-PW-296), and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents; or 2. Reject all bids and direct staff to re-bid the project given all qualified bids substantially exceed the Engineer’s estimate and available Page 5 of 217 June 16, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 6 of 9 City Council Regular Meeting budget. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1.Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Determination for Architectural and Site Review and Variance application for removal of an existing 35-foot monopole and installation of a 65-foot monopole, or 70-foot monopine design, and related equipment located at 401 First Street, Application No. AS 24-14 and V 24-01 (Continued Item) 1.Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications 2.Staff Report: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director 3.Open Public Hearing 4.Close Public Hearing 5.Possible Action: Staff recommends that the City Council grant the appeal of the Planning Commission’s 3-3 tie vote, which resulted in denial of Variance application V 24-01 and Architectural and Site Review application AS 24-14, and approve AS 24-14 and V 24-01 to allow the removal of an existing 35-foot monopole, and installation of either a 65-foot monopole or 70-foot monopine design and related equipment located at 401 First Street, APN 790-32-004. 7.2.Public Hearing to Accept the Public Health Goal Report for the Gilroy Drinking Water System in Accordance with California Health and Safety Code 116470 1.Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications 2.Staff Report: Heath McMahon, Public Utilities Director 3.Open Public Hearing 4.Close Public Hearing 5.Possible Action: Accept the 2022-2024 Public Health Goal Report for the Gilroy Drinking Water System in accordance with California Health and Safety Code 116470 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8.1.Aquatics Program Operations 1.Staff Report: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator 2.Public Comment 3.Possible Action: Receive a report on Aquatics Program operations and provide feedback or direction for future operations. 8.2.Sharks Ice Update Page 6 of 217 June 16, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 7 of 9 City Council Regular Meeting 1.Staff Report: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator 2.Public Comment 3.Possible Action: Receive update. 9. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS 9.1.Acceptance of a One-Year Agreement with Santa Clara County Communications for Emergency Medical Dispatching 1.Staff Report: Rob Fleeup, Fire Chief 2.Public Comment 3.Possible Action: Approve a one-year agreement with the County of Santa Clara Communications Department (County Comm) for Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) services, in the amount of $100,878, and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents. 9.2.Approval and Authorization to Purchase Real Property Located at 641 Old Gilroy Street (APN 841-100-10 and 841-100-28) 1.Staff Report: Victoria Valencia, Economic Development Manager 2.Public Comment 3.Possible Action: 1. Approve the purchase of real property located at 641 Old Gilroy Street (APN 841-100-10 and 841-100-28), for a total of $3,250,000, associated transaction costs, for the purpose of expanding the City’s Corporation Yard and Utilities Department operational space. 2. Authorize the City Administrator to execute the purchase agreement and related documents. 3. Adopt a resolution amending Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget within the Water and Wastewater Funds for the acquisition of the property. 9.3.Gilroy Center for the Arts Proposed Mural Project and Donation Acceptance 1.Staff Report: Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator 2.Public Comment 3.Possible Action: Council approve the proposed mural project and delegate acceptance of the mural donation to the City Administrator. 9.4.Public Art Plaque and Augmented Reality Art Project at the Downtown Paseo 1.Staff Report: Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator 2.Public Comment Page 7 of 217 June 16, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 8 of 9 City Council Regular Meeting 3.Possible Action: Council accept or reject the proposed public art plaque at the downtown paseo. 9.5.Approval of the Amendment to the Lease with Gilroy Gardens Family Theme Park Removing the Treehaven Fire Station from the Premises 1.Staff Report: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator 2.Public Comment 3.Possible Action: Council approve the Amendment to the Lease with Gilroy Gardens Family Theme Park Removing the Treehaven Fire Station from the Premises. 9.6.Project Processing Agreement, 315 Las Animas Ave. Project 1.Staff Report: Andy Faber, City Attorney 2.Public Comment 3.Possible Action: Council approve the Project Processing Agreement with Gandolfi Investments, LLC and 315 Las Animas LP regarding the project to develop property at 315 Las Animas Avenue and authorize the City Administrator to execute the Agreement. 10. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS 11. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS 12. CLOSED SESSION 12.1.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to GC Sec. 54956.8 and GCC Sec. 17A.8 Property: Gilroy Gardens Theme Park, 3050 Hecker Pass Highway, Gilroy, CA (APN’s: 810-17-024, 810-17-026, 810-17-029, 810-17-030, 810-17-031, 810-18-002, 810-18-013, 810-19-005, 810-19-007, 810-19-010, 810-19-011, 810-19-014) Negotiators: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator; Victoria Valencia, Economic Development Manager Other Party to Negotiations: Gilroy Gardens Family Theme Park, LLC Under Negotiations: Price and terms of payment for sale or lease. 12.2.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS – COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS Pursuant to GC Section 54957.6 and GCC Section 17A.11(4) Collective Bargaining Units: Gilroy Police Officers Association, Inc. Representing Gilroy Police Officers; Gilroy Management Association Representing Mid-Management Employees (GMA); and Unrepresented Exempt Employees (Confidential, Department Heads & Council-Appointed) City Negotiators: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator; LeeAnn McPhillips, Assistant City Administrator and Administrative Services & Human Resources Director/Risk Manager Page 8 of 217 June 16, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 9 of 9 City Council Regular Meeting Anticipated Issue(s) Under Negotiation: Wages, Hours, Benefits, Working Conditions Memorandums of Understanding: City of Gilroy and Gilroy Police Officers Association Inc.; City of Gilroy and Gilroy Management Association (GMA) 13. ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION Report of any action taken in Closed Session and vote or abstention of each Council Member if required by Government Code Section 54957.1 and GCC Section 17A.13(b); Public Report of the vote to continue in closed session if required under GCC Section 17A.11(5). 14. ADJOURNMENT FUTURE MEETING DATES July 2025 28 City Council Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. August 2025 04 18 City Council Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. September 2025 08 15 City Council Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. Meetings are webstreamed on the City of Gilroy’s website at gilroy.city/meetings. Page 9 of 217 DRAFT Page 1 of 8 City of Gilroy City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Monday, May 19, 2025 | 6:00 PM 1. OPENING 1.1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:01 PM. 1.2. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Marques. 1.3. Invocation The Invocation was led by Pastor Malcolm McPhail. 1.4 City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda The City Clerk reported that the agenda was posted on Friday, May 16, 2025, at 11:19 AM. 1.5. Roll Call Attendance Attendee Name Present Dion Bracco, Council Member Tom Cline, Council Member Terence Fugazzi, Council Member Zach Hilton, Council Member Carol Marques, Council Member Kelly Ramirez, Council Member Greg Bozzo, Mayor Absent None 1.6. Orders of the Day Mayor Bozzo reminded attendees that the public hearing for the district-based elections item would be heard at 7:00 PM. 1.7. Employee Introductions City Administrator Forbis Introduced Fire Chief Rob Fleeup. Fire Division Chief Summers introduced newly promoted Fire Engineers Jesse Skapik and Ian Nickolas. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - Proclamations and Awards Page 10 of 217 May 19, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 8 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 2.1. Proclamation Declaring May 2025 as National Bike Month Luis Ramirez, Gilroy Parks and Recreation Commissioner, received the proclamation. 2.2. Proclamation Declaring May 18 to May 24, 2025, as National Public Works Week John Doughty, Gilroy Public Works Director, received the proclamation. 3. COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE (Informational Only) None. 4. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL 4.1. Annual Sister Cities Association Presentation David Peoples, President of the Gilroy Sister Cities Association, provided the presentation. 4.2. PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Bozzo opened public comment. Alaina Purcell Schroeder - from Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley commented regarding the Community Development Block Grant award determinations. Linda Bostwick - from Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley commented regarding the Community Development Block Grant award determinations. Liz Murillo - from Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley commented regarding the Community Development Block Grant award determinations. Vilma Peraza - Commented in support of mobile food vendors. Genevieve Corbin - Commented regarding the upcoming Monterey Crosswalk at the Gateway Senior Apartments. Juan Rojas - Commented in support of mobile food vendors. Terri Hendrix Hermann - Commented in support of mobile food vendors. Miguel Flaquer - Commented in support of mobile food vendors. Rose Ang - Asked questions regarding streets. Kathy Chavez Napoli - Commented regarding the history of populations in the Page 11 of 217 May 19, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 3 of 8 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Gilroy area and gave a land acknowledgment statement. Sheila Monger - Commented in support of mobile food vendors. Giovanni Albanese - Commented in support of mobile food vendors. Matthew Gallion - Commented in support of mobile food vendors. Dan Donovan – From the Gilroy Historical Society announced the architectural award winners. With no further speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment. 5. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Bracco – Reported on attending the Library’s Grand Opening of Earthen Excursion play space. Council Member Fugazzi – Reported on Visit Gilroy’s Reverse Mexico Mission. Council Member Marques – Reported on the Santa Clara County Habitat Implementation Board meeting. Council Member Hilton – No report. Council Member Ramirez – Thanked David Peoples for the presentation. Council Member Cline – No report. Mayor Bozzo – No report. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR 6.1. Approval of Minutes for the May 5, 2025 Strategic Planning Workshop, Special Meeting, and Regular Meeting, as well as the May 12, 2025 City Council Budget Workshop 6.2. Purchase of Irrigation Controllers for a Total of $124,763 Utilizing Sourcewell's Cooperative Purchasing Contract 112624-TTC 6.3. Annual Military Equipment Use Report 2024, per CA Assembly Bill No. 481 6.4. Acceptance of Cash and Investment Report as of March 31, 2025 6.5. Adopt a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Road Rehabilitation Projects for Funding by Senate Bill 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 Funds 6.6. Approve the Amended and Restated Funding Agreement Between the City of Gilroy and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for the 2016 Measure B Bicycle and Pedestrian Education and Encouragement Program Page 12 of 217 May 19, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 4 of 8 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Mayor Bozzo opened public comment. With no speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment. Motion: Approve the Consent Calendar with an edit to the May 5, 2025 regular meeting minutes regarding the Community Development Block Grant item vote tally. RESULT: Pass MOVER: Dion Bracco, Council Member SECONDER: Carol Marques, Council Member AYES: Council Member Bracco, Council Member Cline, Council Member Fugazzi, Council Member Hilton, Council Member Marques, Council Member Ramirez, Mayor Bozzo 7. BIDS AND PROPOSALS None. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1. Public Hearing Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3 (AB 2561) to Receive a Report on City of Gilroy Vacancies, and Recruitment and Retention Efforts This item followed Item No. 8.2 Mayor Bozzo opened the Public Hearing. With no speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed the public hearing. 8.2. Sixth Public Hearing Regarding the City's Transition from an At-Large to a District-Based Elections System for the Purpose of Receiving the Demographer’s Presentation on the Transition Process and Selecting a Final District Elections Map from the Remaining Two Draft Map – Maps D and F; as well as Determining the Order of Elections – that is - Which Three Districts Will Be on the Ballot in the November 2026 Election and Which Three Districts Will Be on the 2028 Ballot; Determining Whether Candidates for City Council Must be Residents and Electors of the District in Which They Seek Election for Any Period of Time Prior to Filing Their Nomination Papers and Declaring Their Intent to Run; and Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Declaring Henceforth that City Council Elections will be Districted, Adopting a Districting Map, Declaring the Order of Elections, and Potentially Imposing a Residency Requirement on Council Candidates This Public Hearing Item Shall be Heard at 7:00 p.m. or Soon Thereafter Page 13 of 217 May 19, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 5 of 8 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes This item was heard after Bids and Proposals, Section 7. Mayor Bozzo opened the public hearing. Kathy Chavez Napoli - Commented in support of Map D. Joseph Robinson - Commented in support of Map D. Joanne Fierro - Commented in support of Map D. Dan Donovan - Commented in support of Map D. Tanaya Stumpf - Commented in support of Map D. Jorge Mendoza - Commented in support of Map F. Faviola Bataz - Commented in support of Map D. Alberto Lustre - Commented in support of Map D. Jesus Becerra - Commented in support of Map D. Armando Benavides - Commented in support of Map D. Sally Armendariz - Commented in support of Map D. Erin OBrien - Commented in support of Map D. Rebeca Armendariz - Commented in support of Map D. Jorge Vargas - Commented in support of Map D. With no further speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed the public hearing. Motion: Approve the division of the City into six electoral districts with identification numbers for the districts as shown Map F. RESULT: Pass MOVER: Tom Cline, Council Member SECONDER: Terence Fugazzi, Council Member AYES: Council Member Bracco, Council Member Cline, Council Member Fugazzi, Council Member Hilton, Council Member Marques, Council Member Ramirez, Mayor Bozzo Motion: Approve the order of elections to be Districts #4, #5, and #6 to be on the ballot in November of 2026, and Districts #1, #2, and #3 to be on the ballot in November of 2028. Page 14 of 217 May 19, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 6 of 8 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes RESULT: Pass MOVER: Dion Bracco, Council Member SECONDER: Terence Fugazzi, Council Member AYES: Council Member Bracco, Council Member Cline, Council Member Fugazzi, Council Member Hilton, Council Member Marques, Council Member Ramirez, Mayor Bozzo Motion: Adopt a thirty-day (30 day) residency requirement for candidates to qualify when filing their nomination papers. RESULT: Pass MOVER: Terence Fugazzi, Council Member SECONDER: Carol Marques, Council Member AYES: Council Member Bracco, Council Member Cline, Council Member Fugazzi, Council Member Marques, Council Member Ramirez, NAYS: Council Member Hilton, Mayor Bozzo Motion: Read Ordinance by Title Only and Waive Further Reading RESULT: Pass MOVER: Tom Cline, Council Member SECONDER: Kelly Ramirez, Council Member AYES: Council Member Bracco, Council Member Cline, Council Member Fugazzi, Council Member Hilton, Council Member Marques, Council Member Ramirez, Mayor Bozzo Motion: Adopt Ordinance No. 2025-04 RESULT: Pass MOVER: Terence Fugazzi, Council Member SECONDER: Tom Cline, Council Member AYES: Council Member Bracco, Council Member Cline, Council Member Fugazzi, Council Member Hilton, Council Member Marques, Council Member Ramirez, Mayor Bozzo 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10.1. Strategic Planning Session #4 - Council Legislative Agenda / Public Safety / Unhoused This item followed Item No. 8.1. Mayor Bozzo opened public comment. Page 15 of 217 May 19, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 7 of 8 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes With no speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment. 11. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS 11.1. Adopt a Resolution Setting the 2025 Fireworks Service Fee Motion: Adopt Resolution No. 2025-17 RESULT: Pass MOVER: Tom Cline, Council Member SECONDER: Carol Marques, Council Member AYES: Council Member Bracco, Council Member Cline, Council Member Fugazzi, Council Member Hilton, Council Member Marques, Council Member Ramirez, Mayor Bozzo Mayor Bozzo opened public comment. With no speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment. 11.2. Consent the Appointment of Ken Binder (CalPERS Retired Annuitant) as the Interim Police Chief Following Successful Completion of all Peace Officer Standards & Training (POST) Hiring Requirements and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Appointment and Employment Agreement Mayor Bozzo opened public comment. With no speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment. Motion: Consent to the appointment of Ken Binder as Interim Police Chief and adopt Resolution 2025-18 approving the appointment and employment agreement. RESULT: Pass MOVER: Dion Bracco, Council Member SECONDER: Kelly Ramirez, Council Member AYES: Council Member Bracco, Council Member Cline, Council Member Fugazzi, Council Member Hilton, Council Member Marques, Council Member Ramirez, Mayor Bozzo 6. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS None. 12. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS City Administrator Forbis provided an update including the Uvas Creek cleanup project and the retirement of Pedro Espinoza as the Police Chief. Page 16 of 217 May 19, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 8 of 8 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 13. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS None. 14. CLOSED SESSION 14.1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS – COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS Pursuant to GC Section 54957.6 and GCC Section 17A.11(4) Collective Bargaining Units: Gilroy Police Officers Association, Inc. Representing Gilroy Police Officers; Gilroy Management Association Representing Mid-Management Employees (GMA); and Unrepresented Exempt Employees (Confidential, Department Heads & Council-Appointed) City Negotiators: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator; LeeAnn McPhillips, Assistant City Administrator and Administrative Services & Human Resources Director/Risk Manager Anticipated Issue(s) Under Negotiation: Wages, Hours, Benefits, Working Conditions Memorandums of Understanding: City of Gilroy and Gilroy Police Officers Association Inc.; City of Gilroy and Gilroy Management Association (GMA) City Attorney Faber read the item and provided instruction. City Attorney Faber opened public comment. With no speakers, City Attorney Faber closed public comment. Council entered closed session at 9:38 PM. 15. ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION Report of any action taken in Closed Session and vote or abstention of each Council Member if required by Government Code Section 54957.1 and GCC Section 17A.13(b); Public Report of the vote to continue in closed session if required under GCC Section 17A.11(5). City Council returned to open session at 10:08 PM with no reportable actions. 16. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:08 PM. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gilroy on June 2, 2025. /s/Bryce Atkins Acting City Clerk Page 17 of 217 June 2, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 1 of 9 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes City of Gilroy City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Monday, June 2, 2025 | 6:00 PM 1. OPENING 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Mayor Bozzo at 6:00 PM. 2. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Bozzo. 3. Invocation None. 4. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda The Acting City Clerk reported that the agenda was posted on Friday, May 30, 2025 at 2:55 PM. 5. Roll Call Attendance Attendee Name Present Council Member Dion Bracco Council Member Tom Cline Council Member Terence Fugazzi Council Member Zach Hilton Council Member Carol Marques Council Member Kelly Ramirez Mayor Greg Bozzo Absent 6. Orders of the Day None. 7. Employee Introductions City Administrator Forbis introduced Interim Police Chief Ken Binder. Captain Juan Rocha of the Police Department introduced Matthew Avilla, Vanessa Ruiz, Esthela Rocha, and Monica Marquez Padilla. Fire Division Chief Arlen Summers of the Fire Department introduced Chris Channel and Joseph Scanlon. 2. COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE (Informational Only) 1. Parklet Letter to Council from Tom and Tracey Miller Page 18 of 217 June 2, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 9 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Mayor Bozzo read the item title into the record. 3. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL 1. PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor Bozzo opened public comment. Sharon McKeegan commented about the need for portable restrooms in food areas with a code to prevent homeless persons from using it, and for portable restrooms for homeless persons. Liz Murillo commented about the work of Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley, reading a letter from a recipient of the service. Ron Kirkish commented about his medical news and thanked the Council for support. With no further speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment. 4. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS 1. Council Member Bracco – Downtown Committee, Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority, Santa Clara Water Commission, Santa Clara Valley Water Joint Water Resources Committee, SCRWA Council Member Fugazzi – Santa Clara Water Commission (alternate), Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board (alternate), SCRWA, Visit Gilroy California Welcome Center, VTA Mobility Partnership Committee Council Member Marques – ABAG, Downtown Committee, Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board, SCRWA (alternate) Council Member Hilton – CalTrain Policy Group, Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Advisory Board (alternate), Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team, VTA Policy Advisory Committee Council Member Ramirez – ABAG (alternate), Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors (alternate), Gilroy Sister Cities, Gilroy Youth Task Force (alternate), SCRWA, Santa Clara Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee Council Member Cline – CalTrain Policy Group (alternate), Gilroy Sister Cities (alternate), Gilroy Youth Task Force, Santa Clara County Expressway Plan Page 19 of 217 June 2, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 3 of 9 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 2040 Advisory Board, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board (alternate), Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board, Visit Gilroy California Welcome Center (alternate), VTA Mobility Partnership Committee, VTA Policy Advisory Committee (alternate) Mayor Bozzo – Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors, Santa Clara Valley Water Joint Water Resources Committee, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team, VTA Board of Directors (alternate), Santa Clara Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (alternate) Council Member Bracco – No report. Council Member Fugazzi – No report. Council Member Marques – No report. Council Member Hilton – Provided updates from the Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee about ridership statistics; Silicon Valley Clean Energy Board action on its energy procurement portfolio and real-time pricing rate structure; and the Progress Pride Flag raising. Council Member Ramirez – Provided an update on the Gilroy Gardens Board Meeting, the celebration of their anniversary and the new Cherries Jubilee Celebration. Council Member Cline – Provided an update on Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority's preparations for Super Bowl and FIFA World Cup, and the impacts that could extend down to Gilroy. Mayor Bozzo – No report. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Bozzo opened public comment. With no speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment. Motion Approve RESULT:Passed MOVER:Council Member Tom Cline SECONDER:Council Member Kelly Ramirez AYES:Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Tom Cline, Council Member Terence Fugazzi, Council Member Zach Hilton, Council Member Carol Marques, Council Member Kelly Ramirez, Mayor Greg Bozzo 1. Adopt a Resolution Approving a Time Extension for a Tentative Map for the Gilroy Square Project Located at 6970 Camino Arroyo, APN 841-70-049 (File Number TM 21-02) Page 20 of 217 June 2, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 4 of 9 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 2. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Setting the Tax Rate for Fiscal Year 2025-26 (FY26) for the Gilroy Community Library Project Bonds 3. Receive Budget Update for the Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2024-25 (FY25) and Adopt a Budget Amendment Resolution 4. Adopt a Resolution Approving an Agreement with Caltrans for the Maintenance of Emergency Vehicle Detection Systems (EVDS) on State Highways in the City of Gilroy and Authorizing the City Administrator to Execute the Agreement 5. Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy to Establish the Election of Members of the City Council by Six Districts, Establish the Boundaries, Identification Numbers, and the Election Order of Each District, Establish a Residency Requirement to Seek a Council Seat from Each District, and Related Actions 6. Claim of Joshua Castillo-Rosales (The City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute denial of the claim) 6. BIDS AND PROPOSALS 1. Approve the Purchase of a Modular Replacement Restroom for Las Animas Park to total $244,921, utilizing Sourcewell's Cooperative Purchasing Contract 081721-CXT. Mayor Bozzo opened public comment. With no speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment. Motion Approve RESULT:Passed MOVER:Council Member Terence Fugazzi SECONDER:Council Member Carol Marques AYES:Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Tom Cline, Council Member Terence Fugazzi, Council Member Zach Hilton, Council Member Carol Marques, Council Member Kelly Ramirez, Mayor Greg Bozzo 2. Purchase Seven 2025 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 4WD Crew Cab Trucks for the Amount of $393,744 for the Public Works and Utilities Departments Using the State of California Statewide Contract 1-22-23-20-D Mayor Bozzo opened public comment. With no speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment. Motion Page 21 of 217 June 2, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 5 of 9 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Award RESULT:Passed MOVER:Council Member Dion Bracco SECONDER:Council Member Kelly Ramirez AYES:Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Tom Cline, Council Member Terence Fugazzi, Council Member Zach Hilton, Council Member Carol Marques, Council Member Kelly Ramirez, Mayor Greg Bozzo 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Adopt Fiscal Years 2026 (FY26) and 2027 (FY27) Operating and Capital Budgets, Position Control List, Departmental Work Plans, Boards & Commissions Work Plans, and the GANN Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2026. Mayor Bozzo opened the public hearing. Luis Ramirez commented in support of funding for the Recreation Division. Gannon Janisch commented in support of funding for the Recreation Division. Sally Armendariz commented her thanks to City Administrator Forbis for the clarification, and that some of the recreation funding should be used to help fund those families that cannot afford their youth participating in recreation programs. Maria Aguilar commented that she e-mailed her expressions regarding the recreation matter, but also raised concerns about the cost increase for senior meals. Alicia commented about her time teaching in recreation programs and in support of funding for the Recreation Division. Ron Kirkish commented about how parks and recreation in Gilroy was an integral part of his family's lives. Jorge Vargas commented thanks for being appointed as a Parks and Recreation Commissioner, and asked for no action to take funding from Recreation. With no further speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed the public hearing. Motion Adopt RESULT:Passed MOVER:Council Member Kelly Ramirez SECONDER:Council Member Carol Marques AYES:Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Tom Cline, Council Member Terence Fugazzi, Council Member Zach Hilton, Council Member Carol Marques, Council Member Kelly Ramirez, Mayor Page 22 of 217 June 2, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 6 of 9 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Greg Bozzo 2. Conduct a Public Hearing to Approve Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan and Program Year (PY) 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan including Funding Allocations This item was heard after Item No. 8.1. Mayor Bozzo opened the public hearing. Deanne Everton from Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley commented about their services and the need for CDBG funding. Alaina Purcell Schroeder from Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley commented about their services and the need for CDBG funding. Delinda Yatskevich from Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley commented about their services and the need for CDBG funding. Liz Murillo from Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley commented about their services and the need for CDBG funding. With no further speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed the public hearing. Motion Approve the 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan and 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan with the change to include the Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley allocation proportionately; Direct the Community Development Director to submit to HUD and make changes to comply with CDBG submission guidelines; and adopt the resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget within the CDBG Fund. RESULT:Passed MOVER:Council Member Dion Bracco SECONDER:Council Member Tom Cline AYES:Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Tom Cline, Council Member Terence Fugazzi, Council Member Zach Hilton, Council Member Carol Marques, Council Member Kelly Ramirez, Mayor Greg Bozzo 3. Introduce an Ordinance to Adopt by Reference the Mapping of Fire Hazard Severity Zones as Issued by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Mayor Bozzo opened the public hearing. With no speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed the public hearing. Motion Read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading. Page 23 of 217 June 2, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 7 of 9 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes RESULT:Passed MOVER:Council Member Kelly Ramirez SECONDER:Council Member Terence Fugazzi AYES:Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Tom Cline, Council Member Terence Fugazzi, Council Member Zach Hilton, Council Member Carol Marques, Council Member Kelly Ramirez, Mayor Greg Bozzo Motion Introduce the ordinance. RESULT:Passed MOVER:Council Member Tom Cline SECONDER:Council Member Carol Marques AYES:Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Tom Cline, Council Member Terence Fugazzi, Council Member Zach Hilton, Council Member Carol Marques, Council Member Kelly Ramirez, Mayor Greg Bozzo 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Consideration of a Resolution Establishing a Pilot Program to Allow Food Trucks in Designated Areas While Updating the City’s Mobile Vending Ordinance This item was heard after Item No. 7.1 Mayor Bozzo opened public comment. Matthew Gallison commented in support of the pilot program. Diego Vasquez commented in support of the pilot program. Alicia commented in support of the pilot program. Melanie Reynisson commented about the Gilroy Downtown Business Association's support of the pilot program. Jeff Orth commented in support of the pilot program. Jesus commented in support of the pilot program. Madalegni Mondragon commented in support of the pilot program. David Almeida commented in support of the pilot program. Jorge Vargas commented in support of the pilot program. With no further speakers, Mayor Bozzo closed public comment. Page 24 of 217 June 2, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 8 of 9 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Motion Adopt RESULT:Passed MOVER:Council Member Terence Fugazzi SECONDER:Council Member Carol Marques AYES:Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Tom Cline, Council Member Terence Fugazzi, Council Member Zach Hilton, Council Member Carol Marques, Council Member Kelly Ramirez, Mayor Greg Bozzo 9. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS 1. Santa Teresa Station and County Fire Update City Administrator Forbis provided updates regarding the Santa Teresa Fire Station and County Fire Services. 10. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS None. 11. CLOSED SESSION Council entered closed session at 10:45 PM. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - PENDING LITIGATION. Pending Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of Subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.11 (3) (a), Gandolfi Investments, LLC v. City of Gilroy, et.al., Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, Case Number 24CV444165, filed July 26, 2024. City Attorney Faber read the item into the record and provided instruction. City Attorney Faber opened public comment. With no speakers, City Attorney Faber closed public comment. Motion Enter closed session RESULT:Passed MOVER:None SECONDER:None AYES:Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Tom Cline, Council Member Terence Fugazzi, Council Member Zach Hilton, Council Member Carol Marques, Council Member Kelly Ramirez, Mayor Greg Bozzo Council entered closed session at 10:45 PM. Page 25 of 217 June 2, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 9 of 9 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 12. ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION Council returned to open session at 11:05 PM. 13. ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 PM. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gilroy on XXXXXXX, 20XX. Bryce Atkins Acting City Clerk Page 26 of 217 June 7, 2025 | 9:00 AM Page 1 of 1 City Council Special Meeting Minutes City of Gilroy City Council Special Meeting Minutes Saturday, June 7, 2025 | 9:30 AM 1. OPENING 1. Call to Order The Coffee with the Mayor event was called to order by Mayor Bozzo at 9:31 AM. 2. Roll Call Attendance Attendee Name Present Council Member Dion Bracco Council Member Tom Cline Council Member Terence Fugazzi Mayor Greg Bozzo Absent Council Member Zach Hilton Council Member Carol Marques Council Member Kelly Ramirez 2. COFFEE WITH THE MAYOR 3. ADJOURNMENT The Coffee with the Mayor event was adjourned at 10:49 AM. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gilroy on XXXXXXX, 20XX. Bryce Atkins Acting City Clerk Page 27 of 217 June 9, 2025 | 9:00 AM Page 1 of 2 City Council Special Meeting Minutes City of Gilroy City Council Special Meeting Minutes Monday, June 9, 2025 | 9:00 AM 1. OPENING 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Mayor Bozzo at 9:00 AM. 2. Roll Call Attendance Attendee Name Present Council Member Dion Bracco Council Member Tom Cline Council Member Terence Fugazzi Council Member Zach Hilton Council Member Carol Marques Council Member Kelly Ramirez Mayor Greg Bozzo Absent 2. CLOSED SESSION The Acting City Clerk read the items into the record. Public comment was then opened. With no speakers, public comment was closed. Council entered closed session at 9:02 AM. 1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT/EMPLOYMENT Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.11(2) Name/Title: Council Services, Records, & Elections Manager (City Clerk) 2. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.11(2) Name/Title: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator 3. ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION Motion Remain in closed session. RESULT:Passed MOVER:None SECONDER:None AYES:Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Tom Cline, Council Member Terence Fugazzi, Council Member Zach Hilton, Council Member Carol Marques, Council Member Kelly Ramirez, Mayor Greg Bozzo The Council exited closed session at 11:45 AM. 4. ADJOURNMENT Page 28 of 217 June 9, 2025 | 9:00 AM Page 2 of 2 City Council Special Meeting Minutes With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 AM. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gilroy on XXXXXXX, 20XX. Bryce Atkins Acting City Clerk Page 29 of 217 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Approve the Purchase of two Playground Shade Covers for the Third Street Park in the amount of $112,497, and include a 10% contingency, for a total not to exceed amount of $123,747, utilizing National Purchasing Partners Contract (NPP) PS21070 and authorize the City Administrator to execute the agreement with Ross Recreation Equipment, Inc. and any other related documents necessary to complete the purchase and installation of the shade structures. Meeting Date: June 16, 2025 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department: Public Works Submitted by: John Doughty, Public Works Director Prepared by: Matt Jones, Deputy Public Works Director STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the purchase of two shade covers for the Third Street Park (playground structures) in the amount of $112,497, and include a 10% contingency, for a total not to exceed amount of $123,747, utilizing National Purchasing Partners Contract (NPP) PS21070 and authorize the City Administrator to execute the agreement with Ross Recreation Equipment, Inc. and any other related documents necessary to complete the purchase and installation of the shade structures. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff recommends that City Council approve the purchase of two shade covers for Third Street Park, in the amount of $112,497, and include a 10% contingency, for a total not to exceed amount of $123,747, utilizing National Purchasing Partners Contract (NPP) PS21070. The proposed shade covers will be installed over two existing playground structures that currently lack any sun protection. Page 30 of 217 The addition of shade covers serves multiple important purposes. First, they enhance the comfort and safety of park users—particularly children and families—by providing relief from direct sun exposure, especially during the warmer spring and summer months. This creates a more inviting and usable play environment throughout the day, potentially increasing public usage and community engagement with the park. Second, the covers protect the playground equipment from prolonged sun exposure, helping to prevent fading, heat-related deterioration, and material fatigue. By shielding the play structures, the City will extend their useful life and reduce the frequency and cost of future repairs or replacements. Providing shaded, accessible, and family-friendly park amenities aligns with the City's goals of promoting outdoor activity, equity in recreation, and long-term infrastructure sustainability. BACKGROUND Third Street Park is a well-used neighborhood park that serves families and children in the surrounding community. The park features two playground structures that are popular amenities for residents, especially during weekends and after-school hours. These playgrounds currently do not have any sun protection. The park was constructed by the developer, Meritage Homes and accepted by the City in 2018. During the warmer months, the lack of overhead sun protection results in elevated surface temperatures on the play equipment, making it uncomfortable or unsafe for children to use during peak daytime hours. Prolonged exposure to direct sunlight also accelerates the wear and fading of the equipment, reducing its visual appeal and long- term durability. In response to community feedback and increased demand for shaded recreational areas, staff have identified the installation of two modular shade covers as a priority improvement for Third Street Park. This project supports the City’s ongoing efforts to enhance the quality, usability, and lifespan of park infrastructure, while promoting outdoor activity in a safe and comfortable environment. To facilitate this purchase and ensure competitive pricing, the proposed shade structures will be acquired through NPP Contract PS21070, a cooperative purchasing agreement that meets the City’s procurement policy requirements. ANALYSIS The vendor selected through NPP Contract PS21070 is Ross Recreation Equipment, who is the authorized vendor for Custom Canopies. Ross Recreation will oversee the installation of shade canopies manufactured by Custom Canopies, ensuring the project Page 31 of 217 is executed with quality and consistency. Notably, Ross Recreation was also the original vendor responsible for supplying and installing the playground structures at Third Street Park. This continuity guarantees that the new shade covers will integrate seamlessly in both design and color, maintaining a cohesive and professional appearance across the site. As part of the procurement process, staff evaluated multiple vendor options available through two cooperative purchasing groups: Sourcewell and National Procurement Partners (NPP). Ross Recreation Equipment presented two vendor options: SkyWays, which was determined to be more expensive, and Custom Canopies, which offered a more cost-effective solution. In addition, staff explored options with PlayPower, who did not respond to requests, and Raindrop, who failed to provide a quote for installation despite communication as recently as April 29, 2025. After reviewing these options, staff determined that Ross Recreation Equipment, working with Custom Canopies, provided the best combination of cost, quality, and responsiveness. Utilizing a cooperative purchasing agreement through NPP satisfies the City’s procurement policy and expedites the acquisition process, while securing competitive pricing from a reputable and experienced vendor. This project directly supports the City’s goals to preserve park infrastructure, enhance user experience, and promote safe, inclusive outdoor environments for the community, and was included in the FY 25 Adopted Budget. ALTERNATIVES Council may reject the purchase through the NPP cooperative contract. This is not recommended, as it would require additional staff time to conduct a formal procurement process and would likely delay the installation of the shade structures. Delaying installation would prolong exposure of the playground equipment to sun damage and continue to limit safe, comfortable use of the playgrounds during warmer months. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE Funding for the purchase and installation of two shade structures at Third Street Park is programmed in the FY 25 Landscape Maintenance Budget (1005510) of the General Fund (100). The proposed award amount is $112,497 with a 10% contingency of $11,250. The total proposed pricing associated with the purchase of the shade structures with the 10% contingency is $123,747. PUBLIC OUTREACH This item was included in the publicly posted agenda for this meeting. Page 32 of 217 NEXT STEPS With Council’s approval, staff will finalize the purchase of the two shade structures for Third Street Park and will coordinate with Ross Recreation Equipment, Inc. to schedule the manufacturing, delivery, and installation. Ross Recreation Equipment estimates the lead time for fabrication and delivery to be approximately 16 to 18 weeks, depending on production schedules and site readiness. Attachments: 1. Ross Recreation Quote w options (1) 2. L-24 Play Equipment Layout-Edited 3. Sample images 4. Agreement for Services with Ross Recreation Equipment, Inc Page 33 of 217 Page 34 of 217 Page 35 of 217 MeritageHomes 1671 East Monte Vista Avenue, Suite 214 Vacaville, CA 95687 www.meritagehomes.com Copyright 2016 vanderToolen Associates. The drawings or written materials contained herein constitute the original and unpublished work of the landscape architect. Reproduction, use or alteration in any form is strictly prohibited without the written consent of vanderToolen Associates. REVISION: DATE: DATE: SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 SCALE: AS SHOWN DRAWN BY: CHECKED: AC RB SHEET TITLE: CONSTRUCTION DETAILS SHEET NO. L-24 PROJECT NO. 02513 A PLAY EQUIPMENT SCALE: AS SHOWN v a n d e r T o o l e n ● A s s o c i a t e s vTA 855 Bordeaux Way Suite 240 Napa, CA 94558 tel: 707.224.2299 700 Ygnacio Valley Road Suit 275 Walnut Creek, CA. 94596 tel: 925.274.1305 Four Post Layout Page 36 of 217 Page 37 of 217 Page 38 of 217 -1- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES (For contracts over $5,000 - CONTRACTOR) This AGREEMENT made this 2nd day of June, 2025, between: CITY: City of Gilroy, having a principal place of business at 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California and CONTRACTOR: Ross Recreation Equipment, Inc., having a principal place of business at 100 Brush Creek Road #206 Santa Rosa, CA 95404. ARTICLE 1. TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement will become effective on June 9, 2025 and will continue in effect through December 9, 2025 unless terminated in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of this Agreement. Any lapse in insurance coverage as required by Article 5, Section D of this Agreement shall terminate this Agreement regardless of any other provision stated herein. ______ Initial ARTICLE 2. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS It is the express intention of the parties that CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR or any employee or agent of CONTRACTOR. Both parties acknowledge that CONTRACTOR is not an employee for state or federal tax purposes. CONTRACTOR 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. CONTRACTOR shall retain the right to perform services for others during the term of this Agreement. ARTICLE 3. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONTRACTOR A. Specific Services CONTRACTOR agrees to: Perform the services as outlined in Exhibit “A” (“Specific Provisions”) and Exhibit “B” (“Scope of Services”), within the time periods described in Exhibit “C” (“Milestone Schedule”). B. Method of Performing Services CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR’S services. Page 39 of 217 -2- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 C. Employment of Assistants CONTRACTOR may, at the CONTRACTOR’S own expense, employ such assistants as CONTRACTOR deems necessary to perform the services required of CONTRACTOR by this Agreement, subject to the prohibition against assignment and subcontracting contained in Article 5 below. CITY may not control, direct, or supervise CONTRACTOR’S assistants in the performance of those services. CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR shall perform the services required by this Agreement at any place or location and at such times as CONTRACTOR shall determine is necessary to properly and timely perform CONTRACTOR’S services. ARTICLE 4. COMPENSATION A. Consideration In consideration for the services to be performed by CONTRACTOR, CITY agrees to pay CONTRACTOR the amounts set forth in Exhibit “D” (“Payment Schedule”). In no event however shall the total compensation paid to CONTRACTOR exceed $112,497.00, plus 10% contingency. B. Invoices CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR, all fees, fines, licenses, bonds or taxes required of or imposed against CONTRACTOR and all other of CONTRACTOR’S costs of doing business. CITY shall not be Page 40 of 217 -3- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 responsible for any expenses incurred by CONTRACTOR in performing services for CITY, except for those expenses constituting “direct expenses” referenced on Exhibit “A.” ARTICLE 5. OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTOR A. Tools and Instrumentalities CONTRACTOR shall supply all tools and instrumentalities required to perform the services under this Agreement at its sole cost and expense. CONTRACTOR is not required to purchase or rent any tools, equipment or services from CITY. B. Workers’ Compensation CONTRACTOR agrees to provide workers’ compensation insurance for CONTRACTOR’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 reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of any injury, disability, or death of any of CONTRACTOR’S employees. C. Indemnification of Liability, Duty to Defend 1. As to professional liability, to the fullest extent permitted by law, CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR’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, CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR’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, CONTRACTOR 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 occurrence 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) with a minimum Page 41 of 217 -4- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 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 the 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, CONTRACTOR 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, CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR under this Agreement may be assigned or subcontracted by CONTRACTOR without the prior written consent of CITY, which CITY may withhold in its sole and absolute discretion. F. State and Federal Taxes As CONTRACTOR is not CITY’S employee, CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for paying all required state and federal taxes. Without limiting the foregoing, CONTRACTOR acknowledges and agrees that: • CITY will not withhold FICA (Social Security) from CONTRACTOR’S payments; • CITY will not make state or federal unemployment insurance contributions on CONTRACTOR’S behalf; • CITY will not withhold state or federal income tax from payment to CONTRACTOR; • CITY will not make disability insurance contributions on behalf of CONTRACTOR; • CITY will not obtain workers’ compensation insurance on behalf of CONTRACTOR. Page 42 of 217 -5- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 ARTICLE 6. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY A. Cooperation of City CITY agrees to respond to all reasonable requests of CONTRACTOR and provide access, at reasonable times following receipt by CITY of reasonable notice, to all documents reasonably necessary to the performance of CONTRACTOR’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 CONTRACTOR. Such assignment shall not release CONTRACTOR from any of CONTRACTOR’S duties or obligations under this Agreement. ARTICLE 7. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT A. Sale of CONTRACTOR’s Business/ Death of CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR shall notify CITY of the proposed sale of CONTRACTOR’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 CONTRACTOR set forth in Exhibit A, Subsection V.H., no later than thirty (30) days after CITY’ receipt of such notice of sale. If CONTRACTOR is an individual, this Agreement shall be deemed automatically terminated upon death of CONTRACTOR. B. Termination by City for Default of CONTRACTOR Should CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR. For the purposes of this section, material breach of this Agreement shall include, but not be limited to the following: 1. CONTRACTOR’S failure to professionally and/or timely perform any of the services contemplated by this Agreement. 2. CONTRACTOR’S breach of any of its representations, warranties or covenants contained in this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to payment only for work completed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement 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 CONTRACTOR. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if CITY terminates this Agreement due to CONTRACTOR’S default in the performance of this Agreement or material breach by CONTRACTOR of any of its provisions, then in addition to any other rights and remedies CITY Page 43 of 217 -6- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 may have, CONTRACTOR shall 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 CONTRACTOR for the performance of that task pursuant to this Agreement. C. Termination for Failure to Make Agreed-Upon Payments Should CITY fail to pay CONTRACTOR 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, CONTRACTOR, at the CONTRACTOR’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 CONTRACTOR to CITY. D. Transition after Termination Upon termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately stop work, unless cessation could potentially cause any damage or harm to person or property, in which case CONTRACTOR shall cease such work as soon as it is safe to do so. CONTRACTOR shall incur no further expenses in connection with this Agreement. CONTRACTOR 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 assumption of CONTRACTOR’s duties by any new CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR shall 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. CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR 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 reasonable attorneys’ fees, that may arise out of any violations of the Act by the CONTRACTOR, 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 Page 44 of 217 -7- 4835-2267-0361v1 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 CONTRACTOR 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, CONTRACTOR 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 GILROY 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 CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR and that no person associated with CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR 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. Page 45 of 217 -8- 4835-2267-0361v1 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.H. 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 CONTRACTOR 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. CONTRACTOR: CITY: Ross Recreation Equipment, Inc. CITY OF GILROY By: By: Name: Name: Jimmy Forbis Title: Title: City Administrator Social Security or Taxpayer Identification Number Page 46 of 217 -9- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 Approved as to Form ATTEST: City Attorney City Clerk Page 47 of 217 -1- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 EXHIBIT “A” SPECIFIC PROVISIONS V. PROJECT MANAGER CONTRACTOR 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, CONTRACTOR agrees to assign Casey Hilbert, 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, CONTRACTOR shall furnish all technical and professional services including labor, material, equipment, transportation, supervision and expertise to perform all operations necessary and required to complete the Services in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. VI. NOTICE TO PROCEED/COMPLETION OF SERVICE I. NOTICE TO PROCEED CONTRACTOR shall commence the Services upon delivery to CONTRACTOR of a written “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, John Sousa shall be the designated City contact person(s). Notice to Proceed shall be deemed to have been delivered upon actual receipt by CONTRACTOR or if otherwise delivered as provided in the Section V.H. (“Notices”) of this Exhibit “A”. J. COMPLETION OF SERVICES When CITY determines that CONTRACTOR has completed all of the Services in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, CITY shall give CONTRACTOR written Notice of Final Acceptance, and CONTRACTOR shall not incur any further costs hereunder. CONTRACTOR may request this determination of completion when, in its opinion, it has completed all of the Services as required by the terms of this Agreement and, if so requested, CITY shall make this determination within two (2) weeks of such request, or if CITY determines that CONTRACTOR has not completed all of such Services as required by this Agreement, CITY shall so inform CONTRACTOR within this two (2) week period. VII. PROGRESS SCHEDULE The schedule for performance and completion of the Services will be as set forth in the attached Exhibit “C”. VIII. PAYMENT OF FEES AND DIRECT EXPENSES Payments shall be made to CONTRACTOR as provided for in Article 4 of this Agreement. Page 48 of 217 -2- 4835-2267-0361v1 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. CONTRACTOR 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. IX. OTHER PROVISIONS A. STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR’S representations and warranties regarding its skills, qualifications and licenses. CONTRACTOR 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. B. RESPONSIBILITY OF CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and the coordination of the Services furnished by it under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall not be responsible for the accuracy of any project or technical information provided by the CITY. 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 CONTRACTOR shall be and remain liable to CITY in accordance with applicable law for all damages to CITY caused by CONTRACTOR’S negligent performance of any of the services furnished under this Agreement. C. RIGHT OF CITY TO INSPECT RECORDS OF CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR for the purpose of verifying any and all charges made by CONTRACTOR in connection with this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall maintain for a minimum period of three (3) years (from the date of final payment to CONTRACTOR), 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 CONTRACTOR, all of which shall be made available to CITY at the CITY’s offices within five (5) business days after CITY’s request. Page 49 of 217 -3- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 D. 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 CONTRACTOR and all other written and oral information developed or received by or for CONTRACTOR and all other written and oral information submitted to CONTRACTOR in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR which is otherwise known to CONTRACTOR or is or becomes generally known to the related industry (other than that which becomes generally known as the result of CONTRACTOR’S disclosure thereof) shall be deemed confidential. CONTRACTOR 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. E. NO PLEDGING OF CITY’S CREDIT. Under no circumstances shall CONTRACTOR have the authority or power to pledge the credit of CITY or incur any obligation in the name of CITY. F. 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 CONTRACTOR may retain and use copies thereof subject to Section V.D of this Exhibit “A”. CITY shall not be limited in any way in its use of said material at any time for any work, whether or not associated with the City project for which the Services are performed. However, CONTRACTOR shall not be responsible for, and City shall indemnify CONTRACTOR from, damages resulting from the use of said material for work other than PROJECT, including, but not limited to, the release of this material to third parties for work other than on PROJECT. G. 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. Page 50 of 217 -4- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 H. NOTICES. Notices are to be sent as follows: CITY: John Sousa City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 CONTRACTOR: Casey Hilbert Ross Recreation Equipment, Inc. 100 Brush Creek Rd, #206 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 I. 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.I. 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.I. do not apply. 1. DBE Program CONTRACTOR 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 CONTRACTOR warrants that he/she has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the CONTRACTOR, 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 consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or contingent fee. J. PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTOR agrees and acknowledges that it is its obligation to determine whether, and to what extent, any work performed under this Agreement is subject to any codes, ordinances, Page 51 of 217 -5- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 resolutions, rules or other regulations or established policies of CITY, and the laws of the State of California and the United States, including, without limitation, the California Labor Code and Public Contract Code, relating to public contracting and prevailing wage requirements (hereinafter referred to as “Prevailing Wage Laws”). If this Agreement is subject to the payment of prevailing wages pursuant to Article 5.A, then the following requirements apply: CONTRACTOR shall fully comply with, and ensure that all workers and/or subcontractors fully comply with, all applicable Prevailing Wage Laws, including, but not limited to, those identified herein. CONTRACTOR and all subcontractors performing such Services shall: pay prevailing wages (Lab. Code, § 1771); pay any wages owed, and be subject to penalties, if prevailing wages are not paid (Lab. Code, § 1775); register with the California Department of Industrial Relations and maintain registration for the duration of this Agreement and require the same of any workers and/or subcontractors, as applicable (Lab. Code, §§ 1725.5, 1771.1); satisfy payroll record reporting requirements (Lab. Code, §§ 1771.4, 1776); satisfy prevailing wage requirements specific to apprentices (Lab. Code, § 1777.5), take notice that eight hours constitutes a legal day’s work (Lab. Code, § 1810); take notice that liability exists for violating wage and hour laws. (Lab. Code, § 1813); take notice that copies of current prevailing rates are available online at the website of the California Department of Industrial Relations (https://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/DPreWageDetermination.htm) and copies of prevailing rates relevant only to apprentices are also available online (https://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/pwappwage/PWAppWageStart.asp); and any other applicable requirement of the Prevailing Wage Laws, notwithstanding their omission here, including California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq. and the regulations thereunder. CONTRACTOR shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, through counsel approved by CITY (which approval will not be unreasonably withheld), CITY, its officers, officials, representatives, agents, employees, or volunteers, against any and all suits, damages, costs, fees, claims, demands, causes of action, losses, liabilities, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to any failure or alleged failure of any person or entity (including CONTRACTOR, its workers, and/or subcontractors) to comply with Prevailing Wage Laws, including, without limitation, paying prevailing wages as required by law, complying with other applicable provisions of Labor Code sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., and implementing regulations of the Department of Industrial Relations, in connection with the performing of Services required pursuant to this Agreement. Page 52 of 217 -1- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 EXHIBIT “B” SCOPE OF SERVICES Project Location: Hecker Pass Park 1500 3rd Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Contractor to: Perform site visit to determine dimensions of each installation. Perform engineered calculations for designing the best layout for existing play structures and locations identified by City of Gilroy staff. Provide materials and installation as quoted (Quote # 00045450, under NPP Cooperative Purchasing Program Contract: # PS21070) and per each manufacturer's installation specifications, guidelines, and standard footing details. Installation includes the layout of the equipment, post- footing excavation based on the manufacturer's standard footing details and specifications, concrete for footings, and completed assembly and installation of the purchased materials. Page 53 of 217 -1- 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 EXHIBIT “C” MILESTONE SCHEDULE Work to be performed by December 9, 2025. Page 54 of 217 4835-2267-0361v1 LAC\04706083 EXHIBIT “D” PAYMENT SCHEDULE Each job to be invoiced and paid within 30 days of satisfactory completion of specific job through the end of the contract period. All billing to be itemized. Total contract not to exceed $112,497.00, plus 10% contingency ($11,250) for unforseen work for maximum total of $123,747. Page 55 of 217 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Approving the Application for Metropolitan Transportation Commission Capital Implementation Grant Funds for the Gilroy Public Library Electrical Vehicle Chargers Project and Authorize the Execution of the Agreement and Related Documents Meeting Date: June 16, 2025 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department: Public Works Submitted by: John Doughty, Public Works Director Prepared by: Mark Johnson, Environmental Programs Manager STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy approving the City's application for Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) funds for the Gilroy Public Library Electric Vehicle (EV) Chargers project, and authorizing the City Administrator, or designee, to execute the agreement and related documents. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MTC allocates grant funds to cities and counties for projects that help implement MTC’s Climate Program strategies identified in Plan Bay Area 2050. The City of Gilroy sought up to $527,000 in grant funds from MTC for the design and installation of six dual-port electric vehicle charging stations at the Gilroy Public Library. MTC requires the City to adopt a resolution of local support in order to be eligible and to enter into an agreement for receipt of these funds. BACKGROUND On December 20, 2024, staff submitted an application for funding through the Charging Page 56 of 217 Infrastructure Grant component of the 2024 Climate Program Implementation Grants Program. This program is administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and funded through the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program. The goal of the program is to accelerate the deployment of publicly accessible electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure across the Bay Area, with a focus on equity, clean mobility access, and transportation electrification. ANALYSIS The City was awarded $527,000 in Climate Program Implementation Grant funds on March 14, 2025. The Project will include installation of six dual-port charging stations (three Level 2 chargers and three DC fast chargers) at the Gilroy Public Library parking lot located at 350 W. 6th Street. This public lot is accessible 24/7 and situated near key civic facilities including City Hall, the Senior Center, and the Police Department. The location is also within a designated Equity Priority Community and near the Gilroy Transit Center, making it a high-impact site for clean transportation access. The project aligns with multiple local and regional plans and policies, including, but not limited to: • Goal 3 of the Gilroy 2040 General Plan, which emphasizes regional air quality improvements and greenhouse gas reduction; • California Executive Order N-79-20, which supports the transition to zero- emission vehicles; • MTC’s climate and transportation equity priorities. In addition to supporting EV adoption for the general public, the project will enable improved service for “Go Go Biblio,” the County Library’s electric mobile library vehicle, which currently lacks reliable charging access in underserved areas of Gilroy. The total project cost is estimated at $595,488 which includes design, permitting, construction, administration, and contingency. The City will be eligible to receive reimbursement of $527,000 from MTC. In addition, Silicon Valley Clean Energy has committed to providing the required 11.47% local match that the City would otherwise be required to fund. Adoption of the resolution will authorize staff to enter into the grant agreement and formally initiate the project. Once approved, staff will proceed with design and construction of the Project ALTERNATIVES Page 57 of 217 Council could choose not to adopt the Resolution of Local Support. Staff does not recommend this as it would forego the opportunity to fund electric vehicle chargers to serve patrons of the Gilroy Library, patrons of civic facilities and the general public. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE The total Project is estimated to cost $595,488 and will be initially funded by the Capital Projects Fund (Fund 400). The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) will reimburse the City up to $527,000 upon project completion, and Silicon Valley Clean Energy will reimburse the City for the City’s required local match of 11.47%, or $68,488, of the total project cost. The capital project is anticipated to result in no net cost to the City. The City will be evaluating a Citywide cost recovery program for City-owned electric vehicle charging stations. PUBLIC OUTREACH This agenda item was included on the publicly posted agenda for this meeting. NEXT STEPS Upon Council’s adoption of the Resolution of Local Support, staff will work with MTC to execute the grant agreement and begin design of the Project. Construction of the Project is expected to be completed in the fall of 2027. Attachments: 1. Resolution of Local Support 2. Letter of Commitment MTC Charging Infrastructure Program - Gilroy Page 58 of 217 RESOLUTION 2025-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR FUNDING ASSIGNED TO THE METROPOLITIAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE GILROY PUBLIC LIBRARY EV CHARGERS PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy submitted an application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for $527,000 for funding assigned to MTC for programming discretion, which includes federal funding administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and federal or state funding administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) such as Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) funding, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funding, Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) funding, Transportation Alternatives (TA) set-aside/Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding, and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) funding (herein collectively referred to as REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING) for the Gilroy Public Library EV Chargers (herein referred to as PROJECT) for the Capital Implementation Grant (herein referred to as PROGRAM); and WHEREAS, the United States Congress from time to time enacts and amends legislation to provide funding for various transportation needs and programs, (collectively, the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT) including, but not limited to the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) (23 U.S.C. § 133), the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) (23 U.S.C. § 149), the Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) (23 U.S.C. § 175), and the Transportation Alternatives (TA) set-aside (23 U.S.C. § 133); and WHEREAS, state statutes, including California Streets and Highways Code §182.6, §182.7, and §2381(a)(1), and California Government Code §14527, provide various funding programs for the programming discretion of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT, and any regulations promulgated thereunder, eligible project sponsors wishing to receive federal or state funds for a regionally-significant project shall submit an application first with the appropriate MPO, or RTPA, as applicable, for review and inclusion in the federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and WHEREAS, MTC is the MPO and RTPA for the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay region; and WHEREAS, MTC has adopted a Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised) that sets out procedures governing the application and use of REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy is the APPLICANT and eligible sponsor for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and Page 59 of 217 WHEREAS, as part of the application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING, MTC requires a resolution adopted by the responsible implementing agency stating the following: the commitment of any required matching funds; and that the sponsor understands that the REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING is fixed at the programmed amount, and therefore any cost increase cannot be expected to be funded with additional REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and that the PROJECT will comply with the procedures, delivery milestones and funding deadlines specified in the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised); and the assurance of the sponsor to complete the PROJECT as described in the application, subject to environmental clearance, and if approved, as included in MTC's federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and that the PROJECT will have adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the PROJECT within the schedule submitted with the project application; and that the PROJECT will comply with all project-specific requirements as set forth in the PROGRAM; and that APPLICANT has assigned, and will maintain a single point of contact for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation projects to coordinate within the agency and with the respective County Transportation Agency (CTA), MTC, Caltrans, FHWA, and CTC on all communications, inquires or issues that may arise during the federal programming and delivery process for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation and transit projects implemented by APPLICANT; and WHEREAS, that APPLICANT is authorized to submit an application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, there is no legal impediment to APPLICANT making applications for the funds; and WHEREAS, there is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and WHEREAS, APPLICANT authorizes the City Administrator or designee to execute and file an application with MTC for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT as referenced in this resolution; and WHEREAS, MTC requires that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the MTC in conjunction with the filing of the application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the APPLICANT is authorized to execute and file an application for funding for the PROJECT for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING under the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION ACT or continued funding; and be it further Page 60 of 217 RESOLVED that APPLICANT will provide any required matching funds; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT understands that the REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the project is fixed at the MTC approved programmed amount, and that any cost increases must be funded by the APPLICANT from other funds, and that APPLICANT does not expect any cost increases to be funded with additional REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT understands the funding deadlines associated with these funds and will comply with the provisions and requirements of the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised) and APPLICANT has, and will retain the expertise, knowledge and resources necessary to deliver federally-funded transportation and transit projects, and has assigned, and will maintain a single point of contact for all FHWA- and CTC-funded transportation projects to coordinate within the agency and with the respective County Transportation Agency (CTA), MTC, Caltrans, FHWA, and CTC on all communications, inquires or issues that may arise during the federal programming and delivery process for all FHWA- and CTC- funded transportation and transit projects implemented by APPLICANT; and be it further RESOLVED that PROJECT will be implemented as described in the complete application and in this resolution, subject to environmental clearance, and, if approved, for the amount approved by MTC and programmed in the federal TIP; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT has reviewed the PROJECT and has adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the PROJECT within the schedule submitted with the project application; and be it further RESOLVED that PROJECT will comply with the requirements as set forth in MTC programming guidelines and project selection procedures for the PROGRAM; and be it further RESOLVED that, in the case of a transit project, APPLICANT agrees to comply with the requirements of MTC’s Transit Coordination Implementation Plan as set forth in MTC Resolution No. 3866, revised; and be it further RESOLVED that, in the case of a highway project, APPLICANT agrees to comply with the requirements of MTC’s Traffic Operations System (TOS) Policy as set forth in MTC Resolution No. 4104; and be it further RESOLVED that, in the case of an RTIP project, PROJECT is included in a local congestion management plan, or is consistent with the capital improvement program adopted pursuant to MTC’s funding agreement with the County Transportation Agency (CTA); and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor of REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING funded projects; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT is authorized to submit an application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT; and be it further Page 61 of 217 RESOLVED that there is no legal impediment to APPLICANT making applications for the funds; and be it further RESOLVED that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and be it further RESOLVED that APPLICANT authorizes its Executive Director, General Manager, City Administrator, or designee to execute and file an application with MTC for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT as referenced in this resolution; and be it further RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution will be transmitted to the MTC in conjunction with the filing of the application; and be it further RESOLVED that the MTC is requested to support the application for the PROJECT described in the resolution, and if approved, to include the PROJECT in MTC's federal TIP upon submittal by the project sponsor for TIP programming. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular meeting duly held on the 16TH day of June 2025 by the following roll call vote AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: APPROVED: Greg Bozzo, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________ Bryce Atkins, City Clerk’s Office Page 62 of 217 333 W El Camino Real, Ste. 330 | Sunnyvale, CA 94087 | svcleanenergy.org | 1-844-474-SVCE Tina Walia, Chair City of Saratoga George Tyson, Vice Chair Town of Los Altos Hills Elliot Scozzola City of Campbell Sheila Mohan City of Cupertino Zach Hilton City of Gilroy Sally Meadows City of Los Altos Rob Rennie Town of Los Gatos Evelyn Chua City of Milpitas Bryan Mekechuk City of Monte Sereno Yvonne Martinez Beltran City of Morgan Hill Pat Showalter City of Mountain View Larry Klein City of Sunnyvale Otto Lee County of Santa Clara December 13, 2024 James Choe Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 375 Beale Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105-2066 Subject: Letter of Commitment for Matching Funds for City of Gilroy’s Climate Program Implementation Grant Dear James Choe, The Silicon Valley Clean Energy Board of Directors wishes to express its support and commitment to providing the required 11.47% project cost match for the City of Gilroy’s application to the 2024 Climate Program Implementation Grant. Installing eight Level 2 charging ports and four direct current fast charging (DCFC) ports in the publicly accessible Gilroy Library parking lot will reduce local greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging the adoption and use of electric vehicles. The proximity of the proposed electric vehicle chargers to the nearby Gilroy Caltrain station will support the advancement of MTC’s Plan Bay Area 2050 Transit-Oriented Communities Policy by increasing zero-emission connectivity options for residents that use Caltrain for commuting to other San Francisco Bay Area destinations. The chargers will be located less than half a mile away from the Gilroy Caltrain station. They will be available to the public 24/7 as per grant requirements, thereby providing multiple transportation and environmental benefits to this Disadvantaged Equity Priority Community. Sincerely, Monica Padilla Chief Executive Officer Silicon Valley Clean Energy O: 408.549-2678 x1009 monica.padilla@svcleanenergy.org Docusign Envelope ID: BB6C0C96-A59F-4564-857E-42DE41F00A25 Page 63 of 217 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Approval of a Notice of Acceptance of Completion for the City Hall Backup Generator Project No. 21-PW-268 Meeting Date: June 16, 2025 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department: Public Works Submitted by: John Doughty, Public Works Director Prepared by: Julie Oates, Engineer STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure RECOMMENDATION Approve a Notice of Acceptance of Completion for the City Hall Backup Generator Project No. 21-PW-268. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Public Works Department has completed construction of the City Hall Backup Generator Project No. 21-PW-268. The purpose of the Project was to provide backup power to City Hall in the event of a power outage. This was done by connecting City Hall to the generator at the Police Department building. The final construction cost for the Project was $567,732.16. The City received an allocation of $300,000 from Cal OES which funded a portion of the Project’s construction. Construction of the Project began in May 2022 but was not completed until March 2025 due to unforeseen circumstances and supply chain disruptions. Staff recommend the City Council approve the Notice of Acceptance of Completion of the City Hall Backup Generator Project No. 21-PW-268. BACKGROUND The purpose of the Project is to provide backup power to City Hall to enable staff to continue providing customer service and perform other job functions in the event of a Page 64 of 217 power outage. This was achieved by connecting City Hall to the existing generator at the Gilroy Police Department building (which has an oversized generator), so that both buildings would be functional during a power outage. In March 2021, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) approved a FY20 Community Power Resiliency allocation to the City of Gilroy in the amount of $300,000. Eligible activities under this allocation included generator connections for essential facilities. The City received the funds in April 2021 and allocated them to the City Hall Backup Generator Project. On January 24, 2022, City Council awarded a construction contract for the Project to PC Inc. (the lowest responsive and responsible bidder) in the amount of $557,200. The award included a project contingency of $55,720 (10%) for a total contract allocation of $612,920 and authorized the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents. ANALYSIS The Project scope of work included the installation of a new automatic transfer switch (ATS) at City Hall, connection to the existing 1,000 kW generator located at the Gilroy Police Department, a new electrical feeder, underground and overhead conduits and cables, and removal of the existing undersized generator at City Hall. Construction began in May 2022 and was expected to be completed within one month. However, the Project experienced significant delays due to unforeseen circumstances in the field and supply chain disruptions. The unforeseen circumstances required the design and construction of a new secondary electrical service point which required lengthy coordination with PG&E (i.e., application, design, and construction of the secondary service). The new secondary service required the ATS to be installed in a different location than had been part of the original design and additional modifications to accommodate this change (i.e., new concrete pad and fencing south of the City Hall building). The Project also experienced significant supply chain disruptions which delayed the procurement of some of the electrical equipment. The Project was deemed Substantially Complete on March 19, 2025. The Project has completed all system testing and inspections and all punch list items have been addressed by the contractor. Staff recommend the City Council approve the Notice of Acceptance of Completion for the City Hall Backup Generator Project No. 21-PW-268. ALTERNATIVES Council may choose not to approve the Notice of Completion. This is not recommended as the notice of completion could not then be recorded, the final retention payment Page 65 of 217 would not be made to the contractor, and the City would retain the bonds with continued cost to the contractor. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE The awarded contract amount was $612,920 (including 10% contingency). The final contract amount was $567,732.16. The Project was funded by Fund 615 – Facilities (formerly Fund 651 – Facility Services). The City received an allocation of $300,000 for the Project from Cal OES. The remaining balance of $45,188 will be unencumbered and released back to the Facilities Fund balance. PUBLIC OUTREACH This item was included on the publicly posted agenda for this meeting. NEXT STEPS If approved, staff will then have the Notice of Acceptance of Completion filed. Attachments: 1. 21-PW-268 NOC Page 66 of 217 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: City of Gilroy WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO: City Clerk’s Office City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 (SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE) RECORD WITHOUT FEE UNDER SECTION 27383 GOVERNMENT CODE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA Notice of Acceptance of Completion City Hall Backup Generator Project Project No. 21-PW-268 PC Inc. SEPARATE PAGE PURSUANT TO GOVT. CODE 27361.6 Page 67 of 217 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, as of the 16th day of June, 2025, the City of Gilroy, California (“City”) has accepted as completed the work required to be performed under the following agreement (“Agreement”) by and between PC Inc. (“Contractor”) and City: City Hall Backup Generator Project Project No. 21-PW-268 PC Inc. Project No.: 21-PW-268 Contractor Name: PC Inc. Contractor Address: 2007 Preisker Lane Suite D, Santa Maria, CA 93454 Surety on Contract: Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America Location of Project: Gilroy, California Description of Work: The work includes furnishing all labor, materials, incidentals, and equipment necessary to construct the installation of a new automatic transfer switch at the City Hall building and connection to an existing 1,000 kW generator located at the north side of the Gilroy Police Department building. The installation includes a new electrical feeder and underground/overhead cables and conduit sections, and associated components and other Work. Interest of City: X Owner in Fee Vendee under Agreement to Purchase Lessee Owner of Easements Holder of License Owner of Streets Owner of Utilities, Water, Sewer, Storm Systems Owner's Name/Address: City of Gilroy, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020 Work Done: See above, Description of Work This notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California. The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and say: That I am an officer of the City of Gilroy, that I have read the foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Completion and know the contents thereof; and that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters that I believe to be true. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at the City of Gilroy, County of Santa Clara, State of California, on . CITY OF GILROY BY: John Doughty TITLE: Public Works Director Page 68 of 217 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title:Claim of Terell Felton (The City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute denial of the claim) Meeting Date:June 16, 2025 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department:Administrative Services Submitted by:LeeAnn McPhillips, Assistant City Administrator/HR Director Prepared by:LeeAnn McPhillips, Assistant City Administrator/HR Director STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:Not Applicable RECOMMENDATION Based on the recommendation from Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA) and/or legal counsel, this claim is recommended for rejection. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on the recommendation from Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA) and/or legal counsel, the following claim is submitted to the City Council for rejection at the June 16, 2025 meeting: • Claim of Terell Felton Attachments: 1. Claim of Terell Felton Page 69 of 217 Page 70 of 217 Page 71 of 217 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title:Adopt an Ordinance to Adopt by Reference the Mapping of the Fire Hazard Severity Zones as Issued by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Meeting Date:June 16, 2025 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department:Community Development Submitted by:Sharon Goei, Community Development Director Prepared by:Jonathan Crick, Fire Marshal STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:Not Applicable RECOMMENDATION Adopt an ordinance to adopt by reference the mapping of the fire hazard severity zones, as issued by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. BACKGROUND On June 2, 2025, the City of Gilroy introduced an ordinance to adopt the Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) map, as required by Government Code Sections 51177–51179. Under State law, local agencies must adopt the map, or designate increased hazard zones, within 120 days of issuance and make the map available for public review within 30 days. The law requires cities to formally designate moderate, high, and very high FHSZs by ordinance, based on maps issued by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). At the June 2, 2025, City Council meeting, staff presented the following and Council held a public hearing to solicit community input: 1. A staff report with background, analysis, fiscal impact, and recommendations; and Page 72 of 217 2. A draft ordinance based on the State’s model, adopting the updated FHSZ map for the City of Gilroy, published by CAL FIRE on February 24, 2025. No changes or amendments were directed by the City Council. The City Council motioned to read the ordinance by title only, waived further reading of the ordinance, and introduced the ordinance with a 7-0 vote. ANALYSIS The City Council is now asked to adopt the proposed ordinance consistent with its June 2, 2025 action. The ordinance will become effective on July 2, 2025, thirty (30) days following the date of Council adoption. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may decline to adopt the ordinance. However, this is not recommended because it would not meet State law. This action would also be inconsistent with the Council’s action on June 2, 2025. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE Adoption of this ordinance has no fiscal impact. PUBLIC OUTREACH Since March 7, 2025, staff have shared the updated FHSZ maps through City Hall postings, social media, and the weekly Gilroy Express email. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Gilroy Dispatch on May 23, 2025. The public hearing was held at the June 2, 2025 Council meeting. Public hearing packets are available through the City’s website. NEXT STEPS Following adoption of the ordinance and the State’s map “as-is”, staff will submit a copy of the ordinance to the State within 30 days. Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance Adopting Mapping of Fire Hazard Severity Zones 2. June 2, 2025 Ordinance Introduction Staff Report Page 73 of 217 ORDINANCE 2025-XX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY ADOPTING BY RFERENCE THE MAPPING OF FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES AS ISSUED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION WHEREAS, in 1992, the California Legislature adopted the Bates Bill, codified as Government Code sections 51175, et seq., to prevent and control wildfires in the State, and reduce the intensity of uncontrolled fires, in order to protect life and property within the State; and WHEREAS, as stated in Section 51176 of the Government Code, the purpose of the Bates Bill is to classify lands in the State in accordance with whether a very high fire hazard is present so that public officials are able to identify measures that will retard the rate of spread, and reduce the potential intensity, of uncontrolled fires that threaten to destroy resources, life, or property; and WHEREAS, Section 51178 of the Government Code requires the State Fire Marshal to identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas, including based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, winds, and other relevant factors; and WHEREAS, Section 51181 of the Government Code requires the State Fire Marshal to periodically review the areas in the state identified as very high fire hazard severity zones and, as necessary, make recommendations relative to very high fire hazard severity zones, including every five years if possible; and WHEREAS, Section 51179 of the Government Code requires local agencies by ordinance to designate moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones within their jurisdictions following receipt of updated recommendations from the State Fire Marshal. In making this determination, local agencies may, upon specified findings, add to or increase the areas within their jurisdictions recommended for designation as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones but may not decrease the level of fire hazard severity zones as identified by the State Fire Marshal. Changes made by a local agency to the recommendations made by the State Fire Marshal shall be final and shall not be rebuttable by the State Fire Marshal; and WHEREAS, by transmittal dated February 24, 2025, the City received from the State Fire Marshal a map entitled “City of Gilroy – Santa Clara County Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones,” copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, which provides recommendations pursuant to Section 51178 of the Government Code for designation of fire hazard severity zones within the City of Gilroy; and WHEREAS, consistent with Section 51178.5 of the Government Code, the City within 30 days after receiving this transmittal, made this transmittal, the proposed map, and all information contained therein available for public review and comment in a Page 74 of 217 Ordinance No. 2025-XX Mapping of Fire Hazard Severity Zones Ordinance City Council Regular Meeting | June 16, 2025 Page 2 of 4 2 3 9 3 format that was understandable and accessible to the general public, including through posting on the City of Gilroy Website; and WHEREAS, consistent with Section 511795 of the Government Code, the City Council now within 120 days of receiving this transmittal intends to approve and adopt by ordinance the most recent Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map recommended by the State Fire Marshal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I RECORD AND BASIS FOR ACTION: The City Council has duly considered the full record before it, which may include but is not limited to such things as the City staff report, testimony by staff and the public, and other materials and evidence submitted or provided to the City Council. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION II ADOPTION OF FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES MAP: As reflected in the map entitled “City of Gilroy – Santa Clara County Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones,” a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein, the City of Gilroy, by and through the Gilroy City Council, hereby designates the Fire Hazard Severity Zones as recommended by the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 51178 of the Government Code. Said map shall be kept on file in the Office of the Gilroy City Clerk and will also be made accessible through the Gilroy Fire Prevention Division and as practical through the City of Gilroy Website. SECTION III APPLICABILITY: Materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure applying to the design and construction of new buildings as found in the California Building Code and the mitigation strategies to reduce risk associated with wildland fires, exemptions, disclosure requirements and violation and penalty provisions pursuant to Sections 51182 through 51189 of the Government Code, Section 1102.6f and 1102.19 of the Civil Code, Section 10094.2 of the Insurance Code, Section 32282 of the Education Code, and such other laws as are made applicable by reference to state and local fire hazard severity maps adopted pursuant to the Bates Bill shall apply to those areas identified in the map entitled “City of Gilroy – Santa Clara County Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones,” a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Page 75 of 217 Ordinance No. 2025-XX Mapping of Fire Hazard Severity Zones Ordinance City Council Regular Meeting | June 16, 2025 Page 3 of 4 2 3 9 3 SECTION IV TRANSMITTAL: Consistent with Section 51179(c) of the Government Code, the Gilroy Fire Marshal shall transmit a copy of this Ordinance to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection within thirty (30) days of adoption. SECTION V SEVERABILITY: The provisions of this Ordinance are separable, and the invalidity of any phrase, clause, provision, or part shall not affect the validity of the remainder. SECTION VI EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING: In accordance with Section 36937 of the Government Code of the State of California, this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Gilroy shall cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be published in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular meeting duly held on the 16th day of June 2025 by the following roll call vote: AYES:COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES:COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN:COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT:COUNCIL MEMBERS: APPROVED: Greg Bozzo, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________ Bryce Atkins, Acting City Clerk Attachment: 1. Exhibit ‘A’: City of Gilroy – Santa Clara County Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones Page 76 of 217 Ordinance No. 2025-XX Mapping of Fire Hazard Severity Zones Ordinance City Council Regular Meeting | June 16, 2025 Page 4 of 4 2 3 9 3 CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK I, BRYCE ATKINS, Acting City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached Ordinance No. 2025-XX is an original ordinance, or true and correct copy of a City Ordinance, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on Monday, June 16, 2025, with a quorum present. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this Date. ____________________________________ Bryce Atkins Acting City Clerk of the City of Gilroy (Seal) Page 77 of 217 City and County boundaries as of 10/22/24 (CA Board of Equalization) CAL FIRE State Responsibility Areas (SRA25_1) CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZSRA23_3, FHSZLRA_25_1) Data Sources: Daniel Berlant, State Fire Marshal, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Joe Tyler, Director/Fire Chief, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources, CA Natural Resources Agency Gavin Newsom, Governor, State of CaliforniaThe State of California and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. Neither the State nor the Department shall be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of data or maps. and other relevant factors including areas where winds have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread. statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, Government Code section 51178 requires the State Fire Marshal to identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent Waterbody Unzoned LRA Incorporated City Projection: NAD 83 California Teale Albers Scale: 1:47,000 at 11" x 17" 0 1 2 3Km 0 1 2Mi Very High High Moderate High Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in Local Responsibility Area (LRA), as Identified by the State Fire Marshal Gilroy 101 152 UNINCORPORATED SANTA CLARA CO. February 24, 2025 As Identified by the State Fire MarshalLocal Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones CITY OF GILROY – SANTA CLARA COUNTY Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area (SRA), Effective April 1, 2024 Exhibit A Page 78 of 217 Page 1 of 3 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Introduce an Ordinance to Adopt by Reference the Mapping of Fire Hazard Severity Zones as Issued by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Meeting Date: June 2, 2025 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department: Community Development Submitted By: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director Prepared By: Isaias Lona, Senior Hazardous Materials Inspector Jonathan Crick, Fire Marshal STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Not Applicable RECOMMENDATION 1. Motion to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading; and 2. Introduce an ordinance to adopt by reference the mapping of fire hazard severity zones, as issued by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Gilroy is initiating an ordinance to adopt Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps, as mandated by California state law. This action is in response to Government Code sections 51177 to 51179 which require the local agency to either adopt published maps or increase the fire hazard severity zones within 120 days of receiving the maps from the State. The Local agency is also required to make the maps public within 30 days and solicit questions and comments. The maps categorize fire hazard severity in Local Responsibility Areas, into moderate, high, and very high zones. The maps evaluate fire hazard, which is the likelihood and expected fire behavior. Page 79 of 217 City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 3 June 2, 2025 The Gilroy Fire Prevention Division made the maps public on March 7, 2025. The current map indicates that Gilroy has "High and Moderate" zones on its western edge, and no "Very High" zones. The proposed ordinance is the final step in complying with State law. BACKGROUND Following the devastating 1991 Oakland wildland fire, California enacted the Bates Bill (Government Code sections 51175 et seq.) and Public Resources Code section 4202. This legislation mandated that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) map all very high fire danger areas within both State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) statewide. LRAs are areas where local governments, like the City of Gilroy, have primary fire protection responsibility. Subsequent amendments in 2021 required the State Fire Marshal to also identify moderate and high fire severity zones. Local agencies are now legally obligated to designate these fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ) within their jurisdictions based on the State Fire Marshal's recommendations. Pursuant to Government Code section 51179, a local agency is prohibited from decreasing the level of fire hazard severity zone identified by the State Fire Marshal. A local agency may in its discretion increase the severity level of areas within its jurisdiction. The State Fire Marshal clarifies that these FHSZ maps evaluate fire "hazard" — the likelihood and expected behavior of fire over a long period based on physical conditions, without considering mitigation efforts. This differs from "risk," which is the potential damage considering existing conditions and mitigation. These hazard maps, similar to flood zone maps, trigger various legal requirements beyond standard building codes, including disclosure requirements (Civil Code sections 1102.6f and 1102.19), insu rance requirements (Insurance Code section 10094.2), and school safety plans (Education Code section 32282). ANALYSIS According to Government Code Sections 51177 to 51179, the California State Fire Marshal must prepare and release recommended maps delineating fire hazard severity zones. Upon receiving the recommendations from the State Fire Marshal, local agencies are required to make the information public within 30 days. The local agency must then either adopt the proposed fire hazard severity map or exercise its discretion to increase proposed fire hazard severity zones within 120 days after receiving these recommendations. The Gilroy Fire Prevention Division received the most recent mapping from the State Fire Marshal on February 24, 2025. The map along with educational information were published and made available for public comment on the Fire Prevention website on March 7, 2025. An email link to the Gilroy Fire Marshal’s office was included to solicit Page 80 of 217 City of Gilroy City Council Page 3 of 3 June 2, 2025 questions and comments. Questions and comments received were related to where the inquirers’ homes and fire stations are in relation to the hazard severity zones. The map (Ordinance Exhibit A) indicates that there are no very high Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) within the City of Gilroy. However, the western edge of the City into the hills is shown as “High and Moderate” zones. Attachment 2 provides further information on the differences between moderate, high, and very high FHSZs. This ordinance is the final requirement established under existing State law regarding the designation of fire hazard severity zones in Local Responsibility Area (LRA) as mandated by the California State Fire Marshal. ALTERNATIVES The City could designate more extensive or increased fire severity zones. This would allow the City of Gilroy to engage more stringent regulations regarding fire protection applicable to homes and structures in designated areas. Residents and property owners may be required to make significant adjustments to current properties and structures. Staff does not recommend this alternative. Staff can find no rationale or justification to extend or increase the mapping designation from the State. Historically, Gilroy has significantly mitigated fire risk through development controls of hillside development, stricter fire protection construction in the hillside, annual reduction of fuel loading through the weed abatement program, and engagement of public education. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE There is no fiscal impact to introduce this ordinance. PUBLIC OUTREACH The public hearing for the proposed ordinance was noticed in the Gilroy Dispatch on May 23, 2025. NEXT STEPS The ordinance to adopt by reference the mapping of fire hazard severity zones as issued by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is tentatively scheduled to be adopted by the City Council on June 16, 2025. Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance Adopting Mapping of Fire Hazard Severity Zones 2. Fire Hazard Severity Zones FAQs Page 81 of 217 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title:City Council Appointment of Kim Mancera to the Position of City Clerk Meeting Date:June 16, 2025 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department:Administrative Services Submitted by:LeeAnn McPhillips, Assistant City Administrator/HR Director Prepared by:LeeAnn McPhillips, Assistant City Administrator/HR Director STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:Not Applicable RECOMMENDATION Appoint Kim Mancera to the Position of City Clerk. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Following the completion of the recruitment and selection process, it is recommended that Kim Mancera be appointed to the position of City Clerk (Council Services, Records, & Elections Manager). The City Clerk is a council-appointed position as outlined in the Gilroy City Charter. However, day-to-day supervision of this position is provided by the City Administrator for purposes of the non-Charter aspects of the position. BACKGROUND A recruitment process was completed for the position of City Clerk (Council Services, Records & Elections Manager). From this process, a top candidate was identified and interviewed, to include an interview with the City Council. Based on the results of the process coupled with the candidate's background and experience, it is recommended that the City Council appoint Kim Mancera to the position of City Clerk (Council Services, Records & Elections Manager). Ms. Mancera currently holds the position of Deputy City Clerk with the City of Morgan Hill. She has served in this position for the past three years. Prior to being elevated to Page 82 of 217 the position of Deputy City Clerk, Ms. Mancera served as the Municipal Services Assistant for the City Clerk's Office. Both positions afforded her the opportunity to perform tasks and functions in support of records management, agenda management, and election coordination. She has clerked for many City Council meetings as well as two outside agencies (Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency and the Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission). She has maintained a centralized records management system using technology resources and has managed the archiving and retention of municipal records. She has coordinated Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) filings to include campaign statements and Statements of Economic Interests. Further, she has assisted with municipal elections, including the issuance of nomination papers and serving as the filing officer for required FPPC documents. She has worked on Public Records Act responses, recruiting for boards and commissions, notarizing documents, and more. In her current role, she uses the Civic Clerk system for agenda management, which is the same system Gilroy has begun transitioning to for agenda processing. She possesses a strong customer service philosophy and approach to her work and has solid communication skills. Ms. Mancera is a Certified Municipal Clerk who holds the CMC designation, and she is working to attain her Master Municipal Clerk designation. Prior to joining the public sector, Ms. Mancera worked in the private sector for over sixteen years in the role of Office Manager/Inside Sales Manager, where she supervised and managed a team of employees. Her combination of experience and training make her an ideal candidate for the City Clerk (Council Services, Records & Elections Manager) position with the City of Gilroy. Lastly, an employment background check has been completed and Ms. Mancera comes highly recommended for this position. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE This position is budgeted and included on the current Position Control list. NEXT STEPS At this time, Ms. Mancera has been issued and has accepted a conditional job offer and is completing the final pre-hire steps. Provided all final steps are successfully completed and the Council appoints Ms. Mancera to the position on June 16th, a final job offer will be issued and a target hire date of July 14, 2025, has been identified. Attachments: None Page 83 of 217 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title:Award a Contract to McKim Corporation for the Fiscal Year 2024-25 (FY25) Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 25-PW-295 Meeting Date:June 16, 2025 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department:Public Works Submitted by:John Doughty, Public Works Director Prepared by:Julie Oates, Engineer STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure RECOMMENDATION 1. Award a contract to McKim Corporation in the amount of $6,479,784.04, approve a project contingency of $647,978.96, approve a total project expenditure of $7,127,763.00 for the FY25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 25- PW- 295, and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents. 2. Adopt a resolution amending the FY25 budget to accommodate the funding adjustments for the project in the various funds as outlined in the resolution. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City’s 5-Year Street Repair Program was approved by City Council on September 13, 2021. City Council adopted the FY24 and FY25 budget on June 5, 2023. The adopted FY25 budget allocated $4,527,074 for the FY25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 25-PW-295 (Project). Subsequently, in November 2024, an additional $700,000 was appropriated as part of mid-cycle budget adjustments from the FY23 Pavement project savings from the General Fund (100), resulting in a total FY25 budget of $5,227,074 for the project. Staff is further proposing to adjust the Project’s funding based on available Gas Tax (Fund 205), SB1 (Fund 210), and VRF (Fund 220) fund balances, and funds available from Measure B (Fund 212). Page 84 of 217 The Project includes pavement rehabilitation (grind and overlay) of 15 street segments and associated work. Staff received 6 bids for construction of the Project. The lowest responsive and responsible bid was received from McKim Corporation in the amount of $6,479,784.04. Staff recommends adding $647,978.96 in contingency (10%) to account for unforeseen conditions, for a total Project allocation of $7,127,763.00. BACKGROUND On March 8, 2021, Public Works Engineering staff presented an introduction to the City’s 5-Year Street Repair Program. This included discussions on pavement alternatives, pavement restoration approaches, pavement program funding scenarios, and funding options. Through those discussions, Council approved a blended pavement restoration approach and approved an increase to the City’s annual paving budget from $1.8 million per year to a minimum of $3.9 million per year for the following five years. On September 13, 2021, City Council approved the City’s 5-Year Street Repair Program. The following is a summary of the work completed to date within the 5-Year Street Repair Program, also known as the Annual Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project: FY22 – Work began in August 2022 and included 149 street segments (approximately 4 million square feet of roadway) FY23 – Work began in June 2023 and included 120 street segments (approximately 3.3 million square feet of roadway) FY24 – Work began in May 2024 and included 67 street segments (approximately 2.4 million square feet of roadway) ANALYSIS The FY25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project focuses on arterial and collector streets where higher traffic volumes and large vehicle use have resulted in more significant deterioration of the pavement. Given these conditions, the Project includes pavement rehabilitation (grind and overlay) activity as well as signage and re-striping to improve bicycle, pedestrian and vehicular safety. The Project rehabilitates 15 street segments representing approximately 1.4 million square feet of roadway. The 15 street segments are as follows: 1. Cohansey Ave from No Name Uno to City Limit 2. San Ysidro Ave from Leavesley Rd to about 0.4 miles north of Leavesley Rd 3. Church St from Ronan Ave to Welburn Ave 4. Welburn Ave from Wren to Hanna St 5. Welburn Ave from Church St to Monterey St 6. Carmel St from First St to Third St Page 85 of 217 7. Miller Ave from Sixth St to Eighth St 8. Uvas Park Dr from Wren Ave to Tenth St 9. Tenth St from Uvas Park Dr to Princevalle St 10. Princevalle St from Tenth St to Luchessa Ave 11. Monterey St from Tenth St to Monterey Frontage Rd 12. Automall Pkwy from Tenth St to about 1,000 feet south of Tenth St 13. Automall Pkwy from Luchessa Ave to approximately 500 feet south of Automall Dr 14. Alley between Dowdy St, Hanna St, Seventh St, and Eighth St 15. Alley between Church St, Eigleberry St, Seventh St, and Eighth St The Project was advertised in the San Jose Mercury News, on Builder’s Exchanges, and on the City’s website on May 19, 2025. Staff conducted the bid opening on June 5, 2025 and received 6 bids. A bid summary is provided below: Firm Name Bid Amount McKim Corporation $6,479,784.04 A. Teichert & Son, Inc. dba Teichert Construction $6,512,668.00 Granite Rock Company $6,721,844.00 DeSilva Gates Construction LLC $7,171,171.00 O'Grady Paving, Inc.$8,011,508.20 Mountain Cascade, Inc.$9,073,238.50 The lowest responsive and responsible bid was determined by a review of the complete bid submittal packages. Staff recommends awarding the contract to the lowest bidder, McKim Corporation, with a total bid of $6,479,784.04. Bid Amount $6,479,784.04 Contingency $647,978.96 Total Project Allocation $7,127,763.00 ALTERNATIVES The alternative to the staff recommendation is to reject all bids. Staff does not recommend this option. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE The total bid is $6,479,784.04. Staff recommends approval of contingency in the amount of $647,978.96 (10%) for a total construction allocation of $7,127,763.00. The 10% contingency would be for potential unforeseen conditions or potential changes in the scope of work during construction. Council adopted the FY24 and FY25 budget on Page 86 of 217 June 5, 2023 and funded the FY25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project (CIP Project 800060) in the amount of $4,527,074. Subsequently, in November 2024, an additional $700,000 was appropriated as part of mid-cycle budget adjustments from the FY23 Pavement project savings from the General Fund (100), resulting in a total FY25 budget of $5,227,074 for the project. Staff is further proposing to adjust the Project’s funding based on available Gas Tax (Fund 205), SB1 (Fund 210), and VRF (Fund 220) fund balances, and funds available from Measure B (Fund 212), as shown in the table below, primarily shifting the General Fund's allocation to the other funding sources and expending the monies that have accumulated which are more appropriate for this project. Project Funding Sources Amended FY25 Budget Recommended FY25 Budget Budget Amendment Gas Tax (205)$500,000 $500,000 $- SB1 (210)$1,527,074 $3,293,591 $1,766,517 Measure B (212)$900,000 $3,006,409 $2,106,409 General Fund (100)$2,300,000 $-($2,300,000) Vehicle Registration Fee (220)$-$500,000 $500,000 Total $5,227,074 $7,300,000 $2,072,926 PUBLIC OUTREACH Project stakeholders, including residents, schools, and businesses in each of the areas affected by the Project will be notified ten working days and again 72 hours in advance of the start of scheduled construction. Staff will also conduct extensive public outreach through a social media campaign. NEXT STEPS Upon City Council’s approval, the contract will be executed, and staff will work with the contractor, McKim Corporation, to develop a final Project schedule. Construction is expected to begin in July 2025 and be completed in October 2025. Attachments: 1. Budget Amendment Resolution - FY25 Annual Pavement Rehabilitation - June 2025 2. Agreement - McKim Page 87 of 217 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF GILROY FOR 2024-2025 FISCAL YEAR WHEREAS, the City Administrator prepared and submitted to the City Council a budget for the City of Gilroy for Fiscal Years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025, and the City Council carefully examined, considered and adopted the same on June 5, 2023; and WHEREAS, City Staff has prepared and submitted to the City Council proposed amendments to the budget for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 (FY25) for the City of Gilroy in the staff report dated June 16, 2025, for the award of the FY25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the expenditure appropriations for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 in Fund 210 – SB1 Fund shall be increased by $1,766,517, in Fund 212 – Measure B Fund shall be increased by $2,106,409, in Fund 220 – Vehicle Registration Fee Fund shall be increased by $500,000 and in Fund 100 – General Fund shall be decreased by $2,300,000. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June 2025 by the following roll call vote: AYES:COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES:COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN:COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT:COUNCIL MEMBERS: APPROVED: Greg Bozzo, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________ Bryce Atkins, Acting City Clerk Page 88 of 217 sEcfloN 00500 AGREEMENT FY25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project PROJECT NUMBER 25.PW.295 THIS AGREEMENT, made 16;s 16th day of June ,2025, by and between the Citv of Gilrov, hereinafter called the "City," and McKim Corporation hereinafter called the "Contractor." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has caused the Contract Documents to be prepared comprised of bidding and contract requirements and technical specifications and drawings for the construction of the FY25 CITYWIDE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 25-PW-295, as described therein, and WHEREAS, the Contractor has offered to perform the proposed work in accordance with the terms of the Contract Documents. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutua! covenants and agreements of the parties herein contained and to be performed, the City and Contractor agree as follows: Article 1. Work. Contractor shall complete the Work as specified or indicated in the Contract Documents. Article 2. Contract Time. The Work shall be completed by the Contractor in accordance with the Contract Documents within the time period required by Paragraph 00810-2.0, Time Allowed for Comoletion, subject to extension as expressly provided in the Contract Documents. Article 3. Liquidated Damages. The city and the contractor recognize that the city will suffer substantial damages Project No.25-PW-295 FY25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project SECTtON 00500-32 Page 89 of 217 and significant financial loss as a result of the contractor's delays in performance of the work described in the contract documents. The city and the contractor hereby acknowledge and agree that the damages and financial loss sustained as a result of any such delays in performance will be extremely difficult and impractical to ascertain. Therefore, the city and contractor hereby agree that in the event of such delays in performance, the city shall be entitled to compensation by way of liquidated damages (and not penalty) for the detriment resulting therefrom in accordancewithparagraph00700.6,5,@,ofthecontract documents. The city and the contractor further agree that the amounts designated as liquidated damages are a reasonable estimate of the city's damages and financial loss in the event of any such delays in performance considering all of the circumstances existing as of the date of this agreement, including the relationship of such amounts to the range of harm to the city which reasonably could be anticipated as of the date of this agreement and the expectation that proof of actual damages would be extremely difficult and impractical. By initialing this paragraph below, the parties hereto signify their approval and consent to the terms of this article 3. City's lnitials Article 4. Contract Price. In consideration of the Contractors Contract Documents, the City shall Documents. performance of the Work in accordance with the pay the Contract Price set forth in the Contract Article 5. Contract Documenfs. The Contract Documents which comprise the entire agreement between City and Contractor concerning the Work consist of this Agreement (Section 00500 of the Contract Documents) and the following, all of which are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by reference with the same force and effect as if set forth in full. lnvitation to Bid lnstructions to Bidders Bid Documents Designation of Subcontractors Bid Guaranty Bond Agreement Acknowledgements Project No.25-PW-295 FY25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project SECTtON 00500-33 Page 90 of 217 Performance Bond Payment Bond General Conditions Supplementary Conditions General Requirements Standard Specifications (Caltrans) Tech nical Specifications Drawings Addenda, if any Executed Change Orders, if any Maintenance Bond Notice of Award Notice to Proceed Article 6. Miscellaneous. Capitalized terms used in this Agreement which are defined in Section 01090, References, of the Contract Documents wil! have the meanings set forth in Section 01090, References. Contractor shall not assign any rights, obligations, duties or responsibilities under or interest in the Contract Documents without the prior written consent of the City, which consent may be withheld by the City in its sole discretion. No assignment by the Contractor of any rights, obligations, duties or responsibilities under or interests in the Contract Documents will be binding on the City without the prior written consent of the City (which consent may be withheld in City's sole discretion); and specifically but without limitation monies that may become due and monies that are due may not be assigned without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction may be limited by law), and unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, executed by the City, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any liability, duty, obligation, or responsibility under the Contract Documents. Subject to the foregoing, the Contract Documents shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. Nothing contained in the Contract Documents shall in any way constitute a personal obligation of or impose any personal liability on any employees, officers, directors, agents or representatives of the City or its successor and assigns. In accordance with California Business and Professions Code Section 7030, the Contractor is required by law to be licensed and regulated by the Contractors' State License Board which has jurisdiction to investigate complaints against Contractors if a Project No.25-PW-295 FY25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project sEcTtoN 00500-34 Page 91 of 217 complaint regarding a latent act or omission is filed within four years of the date of the alleged violation. A complaint regarding a latent act or omission pertaining to structural defects must be filed within 10 years of the date of the alleged violation. Any questions concerning the Contractor may be referred to the Registrar, Contractors' State License Board, P.O. Box 26000, Sacramento, California 95826. lN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed on this day of June 16 2025 . ora.|-ton Signature of City City Administrator Title of Signator Approved as to form by City Attorney ATTEST: Signature lnterim City Clerk Title of Signator ***END OF SECTION*** Name of Contractor Signature 0{fir{. Assis+^, + Project No.25-PW-295 FY25 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project SECTTON 00500-35 Title of Signator Page 92 of 217 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title:Award a Contract to Vanguard Construction for the FY25 Engineering Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 25-PW-296 in the amount of $652,787, Approve a Project Contingency of $65,278, and Approve a Total Project Expenditure of $718,065 for Construction Meeting Date:June 16, 2025 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department:Public Works Submitted by:John Doughty, Public Works Director Prepared by:Ryan Osenton, Project Manager STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure RECOMMENDATION Council either: 1. Award a contract to Vanguard Construction in the amount of $652,787, approve a project contingency of $65,278, approve a total project expenditure of $718,065 for the construction of the FY25 Engineering Sidewalk Replacement Project (No.25-PW-296), and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents; or 2. Reject all bids and direct staff to re-bid the project given all qualified bids substantially exceed the Engineer’s estimate and available budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council adopted the FY24 and FY25 budget, and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY24 through FY28 on June 5, 2023. The FY25 Engineering Sidewalk Replacement Project is included in the FY24-FY28 CIP as Project #800320, funded by the Sidewalk Reserve Fund (200). The adopted budget allotted for the FY25 Engineering Sidewalk Replacement Project No. 25-PW-296 (Project) was $500,000. Subsequently, in November 2024, an additional $329,000 was appropriated as part of Page 93 of 217 mid-cycle budget adjustments from the FY24 unspent/unencumbered funds for the project, resulting in a total FY25 budget of $829,000 for the project. There are adequate appropriations available in the fund to accommodate the project expenditure. The Project consists of repairing damaged sidewalks, curb and gutter, driveway approaches, asphalt repair, tree removal, tree installation, and associated work. The lowest responsive and responsible Base Bid was received from Vanguard Construction in the amount of $652,787. The addition of $65,278 (10%) in contingency brings the total Project expenditure to the amount of $718,065. The Project will be funded from the Sidewalk Repair Reserve (200). BACKGROUND In the spring of 2024, City staff was asked to provide a report to the City Council outlining the then-current “cost-share” program for sidewalk repair/replacement. On May 6, 2024, the City Council directed staff to prepare a revised program and return to the City Council for review and possible approval. On August 5, 2024 the City Council adopted a new program based on the following guidelines/criteria: •Identification of sidewalk repairs is carried out by City staff in an equitable manner throughout the city taking into account the existing levels of deficiency, served traffic generators such as schools, reported concerns, and other rating factors and based on the available database. •City staff will notify the property owners in writing of the assessed deficiencies, as well as provide an explanation of the Program including financial responsibility of the property owners and cost sharing. An initial estimate of their financial share of planned work and the process of invoicing property owners following project construction are also shared. Providing such an estimate well in advance offers the property owners a period of at least six months (period of City staff seeking bids and project construction) to enable them to plan for their cost share. •The Public Works annual project list under this Program is prepared for all work including applicable work such as tree removal, replacement of curb and gutter, pavement repair, replacement of driveway approaches, and replacement of sidewalk segments. The overall project is then advertised for bid, the contract is awarded, the property owners are notified in advance of the work, and all work is completed. •Following completion of the project, the City sends an invoice to each of the impacted property owners stating the actual share of the cost with a payment due date of 180 days (six months) from the date of the invoice. A reminder is sent to the property owners 30 days in advance of the due date. A payment arrangement option will also be made available for those wishing to request one within 30 days of receiving the invoice. The term of the extended payment Page 94 of 217 arrangement is not to exceed one year from the date of the City receiving the request. In other words, the process from the time of receiving the initial cost share estimate through the project completion followed by a payment plan is likely to take about two years. •If the property owners do not pay in full or fail the payment arrangement, their fair share cost is applied as a lien against their property and is collected through the annual special assessment collection process on their annual property tax bill (divided in two payments over a 12-months period). •The cost sharing is consistent with current practice as follows: 1. Sidewalk Replacement Caused by a Private Tree – 100% Property Owner Cost. 2. Sidewalk Replacement Caused by a Public Tree – 50% City Cost / 50% Property Owner Cost. 3. Private Tree Replacement – 100% Property Owner Cost. 4. Public Tree Replacement – 100% City Cost. 5. Curb and Gutter Replacement Caused by a Public or a Private Tree – 100% City Cost. 6. Driveway Approach Replacement – 100% Property Owner Cost. 7. Limit City cost share to repairs adjacent to individual commercial properties to $30,000 (the currently practiced limit is $20,000). 8. The City to fund 100% of all repairs without seeking cost-sharing of residences that are: 1) owner-occupied, and 2) enrolled for PG&E’s Care Program (based on income and other public assistance eligibility and usually indicated on their PG&E monthly statement). •City Council authorized $500,000 per year for five years, totaling $2.5 million, with the project being funded by the Sidewalk Repair Reserve Fund (200) and supplemented by the General Fund (100). Prior to adoption of the new program repairs to damaged sidewalks and surrounding areas were dependent on the property owners’ ability to fund all repair costs upfront (including replacement of sidewalk, curb and gutter, and trees) and to subsequently seek reimbursement from the City for its related costs. This process limited repairs to property owners with financial means and created a process which was limited in effectiveness. To facilitate sidewalk repair/replacement, the City Council committed funding in the FY 2024-2028 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the City’s Annual Shared Cost Sidewalk Replacement Program. The FY25 Adopted Capital Budget includes $500,000 of Sidewalk Repair Reserve Funding (Fund 200) to cover design, construction and project management under PW Project No. 800320. Subsequently, in November 2024, an additional $329,000 was appropriated as part of mid-cycle budget adjustments from the FY24 unspent/unencumbered funds for the project, resulting in a total FY25 budget of $829,000 for the project. The Department of Public Works maintains a list of identified/requested and confirmed Page 95 of 217 locations for sidewalk repair/replacement. Currently, this list includes more than 350 confirmed locations. Based on the Engineer’s Estimate of cost and the available FY 25 funding, staff identified 38 locations throughout the City for immediate repair based upon the City Council adopted 2024 criteria. Locations were selected based upon multiple factors, including severity of damage, proximity to schools, length of time on the list waiting for repairs, and immediate proximity to other locations in need of repairs that could be bundled to benefit from reduced mobilization costs. On March 27, 2025, a bid package was advertised for the 38 locations. See below for additional details on the bid process and results. ANALYSIS The FY25 Engineering Sidewalk Replacement Project includes the repair/replacement of 38 sidewalks, curb and gutter, driveway approaches, asphalt repair, tree removal, tree installation, and associated work. The Engineer’s Estimate for the project was $524,395. The Project was advertised in the San Jose Mercury News and on the City’s website on March 27, 2025. Staff conducted the bid opening on April 17, 2025, and the City received five bids. One bid was immediately disqualified for not completing all necessary acknowledgments. Villalobos & Associates was initially identified as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder and notice was published accordingly. Staff subsequently confirmed the company did not provide disclosure of several wage- related violations in CY 2023 and 2024, which invalidated their bid. The lowest responsive and responsible bidder was ultimately deemed to be Vanguard Construction, with a total base bid of $652,787; this bid was 24% higher than the Engineer’s Estimate. A summary of the bids is provided below. RANK COMPANY NAME TOTAL BASE BID 10% CONTINGENCY TOTAL 1 Vanguard Construction $652,787 $65,278 $718,065 2 JRR Construction $688,235 $68,823 $757,058 3 Zara Construction $730,640 $73,064 $803,704 DQ Villalobos & Associates $433,150 $43,315 $476,465 DQ Kraemer Engineering $534,587 $53,458 $588,045 The 38 locations included in this year’s project are located at the following addresses: 1. 1383 Ousley Drive 2. 8635 Ousley Drive 3. 8622 Ousley Drive 4. 8532 Ousley Drive 5. 1470 Amber Court 6. 7561 Santa Barbara Drive Page 96 of 217 7. 7571 Santa Barbara Drive 8. 7610 Santa Barbara Drive 9. 7605 Wren Avenue 10. 7160 Yorktown Drive 11. 7605 El Roble Court 12. 7610 El Roble Court 13. 7620 El Roble Court 14. 7630 El Roble Court 15. 7670 El Roble Court 16. 7680 El Roble Court 17. 1100 San Miguel Street 18. 1110 San Miguel Street 19. 480 9th Street 20. 510 9th Street 21. 520 9th Street 22. 540 9th Street 23. 550 9th Street 24. 7075 Valley Forge Drive 25. 860 Dearborn Place 26. 7196 Saratoga Place 27. 7595 Princevalle Street 28. 7531 Dowdy Street 29. 7456 Church Street 30. 7444 Church Street 31. 7440 Church Street 32. 7449 Church Street 33. 7233 Church Street 34. 860 Greenwich Drive 35. 6350 Hyde Park Drive 36. 10th Street/Princevalle Street 37. 903 Alder Street 38. 6343 Poppyfield Street ALTERNATIVES The alternative to the staff recommendation is the City Council could authorize staff to include additional locations and rebid the project in hopes of increasing economies of scale. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE The Total Bid is $652,787. Staff also recommends approval of a contingency in the amount of $65,278 (10%) for a total construction allocation of $718,065. The 10% contingency would be for potential unforeseen conditions or potential changes in the scope of work during construction. The Project will be funded by the Sidewalk Repair Page 97 of 217 Reserve (200). There are sufficient budgetary appropriations available to accommodate this project’s expenditure. Any remaining funds will be available to use towards future years' Sidewalk Replacement projects, as this is expected to be an annual project funded in the current five-year CIP. PUBLIC OUTREACH Affected residents were notified in March by City Staff that their property had been identified as needing repairs, given an estimated repair window of Summer 2025, and were provided an initial estimate of out-of-pocket costs. The contractor is required to notify the tenants of the property at least one week prior to construction and again at least 72 hours prior to construction taking place. The notices will include construction start date, daily work schedule, parking restrictions, times of driveway restriction, and any other necessary information as approved by the City Engineer. NEXT STEPS Should the City Council choose to proceed with Vanguard Construction, the contract will be executed, and staff will work with the contractor to develop a final project schedule to begin construction in June 2025. If the City Council chooses to reject all bids, Public Works is prepared to rebid the project; rejection does not ensure lower bids on the project. Attachments: None Page 98 of 217 Page 1 of 4 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title:Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Determination for Architectural and Site Review and Variance application for removal of an existing 35-foot monopole and installation of a 65-foot monopole, or 70-foot monopine design, and related equipment located at 401 First Street, Application No. AS 24-14 and V 24-01 (Continued Item) Meeting Date:June 16, 2025 From:Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department:Community Development Submitted By:Sharon Goei, Community Development Director Prepared By:Vanessa Sanchez, Planner I STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Not Applicable RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council grant the appeal of the Planning Commission’s 3-3 tie vote, which resulted in denial of Variance application V 24-01 and Architectural and Site Review application AS 24-14, and approve AS 24-14 and V 24-01 to allow the removal of an existing 35-foot monopole, and installation of either a 65-foot monopole or 70-foot monopine design and related equipment located at 401 First Street, APN 790-32- 004. BACKGROUND On March 13, 2025, staff brought before the Planning Commission Architectural and Site Review (AS 24-14) and Variance permit (V 24-01) for formal determination. The motion made by the Planning Commission to approve AS 24-14 and V 24-01 failed due to a 3-3 vote and therefore resulted in denials of the applications. The Planning Commission did Page 99 of 217 City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 4 June 16, 20251 2 8 4 not make a motion to deny the project, therefore there were no findings of denial that were made, and no substantial evidence was stated to deny the project. On May 5, 2025, the appeal of the March 13, 2025, Planning Commission’s determination of applications AS 24-14 and V 24-01 was brought before the City Council for a determination. A representative of the applicant’s team, Emily Murray with Allen Matkins, presented the applicant’s basis for the appeal. The applicant based the appeal on the following items: a. City staff recommended approval of AS 24-14 and V 24-14 and found the project to be consistent with the General Plan, compliant with zoning, categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and compliant with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules and regulations. In addition, the applications were reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and staff is able to make the required findings. b. No findings were made, based on substantial evidence, to deny the project as required by section 332(c)(7) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. c. Denial of the project by the Planning Commission is in violation of Section 332(c)(7) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and may amount to a prohibition on the provision of personal wireless services. d. Comments made at the March 13, 2025, Planning Commission meeting suggest that the decisions made by the Planning Commission may have been impermissible under section 332(c)(7) of the 1996 Act. Staff presented the item and recommended that the City Council grant the appeal and approve applications AS 24-14 and V 24-01 because the project was found to be compliant with the Federal Communications Commission regarding radio frequency emissions; all required Architectural and Site Review and Variance findings were able to be made for the project; and no substantial evidence is known to justify a denial of the project. The City Council discussed potential stealth designs for the pole and requested that renderings be brought back for consideration. The City Council made a motion to continue the appeal to the May 19, 2025, City Council meeting and directed that monopine renderings be provided. At the request of the applicant, the item was continued to the June 16, 2025 City Council meeting. ANALYSIS At the May 5, 2025 City Council meeting, the City Council discussed potential stealthing options for the proposed monopole. The Council discussed whether camouflaging the pole as a tree would be a better design option. Staff stated that a stealth tree design was considered. However, there were concerns that a tree design would not blend into the surrounding environment, as it would be in the middle of the commercial parking lot and there are minimal trees in the general vicinity of the project site. The applicant’s Page 100 of 217 City of Gilroy City Council Page 3 of 4 June 16, 20251 2 8 4 representative on radio-frequency (RF) engineering, Anthony Handley, Director of Engineering at InfraServices, stated that a tree design would likely require the pole to increase in height and in width. The City Council requested renderings of a monopole with a stealth tree design, commonly referred to as a monopine. The applicant provided one rendering depicting a monopole design and two renderings that depict the facility using a monopine design. Attachment one depicts the current proposed monopole design as a potential future collocation facility with three carriers. Attachment two depicts the monopine design with one carrier and attachment three depicts the monopine as a potential future collocation facility with three carriers. The estimated height and width that would be needed to achieve the monopine design is 70 feet in height and a maximum diameter of 25 feet. The applicant also provided a letter stating that the monopine design may not be technically feasible. The applicant would be required to do a geophysical study at the building permit stage to investigate the feasibility of the monopine design. As outlined in the applicant’s letter, City Code Section 30.35.17(L) requires stealth design when facilities are located in residential zoning districts or within Planned Unit Developments with residential uses; neither circumstance applies to this site. City Code Section 30.35.19 (b)(8) also provides that the City shall have authority to require special design techniques for facilities when particular sensitivity findings are made (e.g., proximity to historic or aesthetically significant structures, residential uses, views and/or community features). Staff is unable to make particular sensitivity findings. The applicant is requesting that the City Council approve the original monopole design as presented at the May 5, 2025, City Council meeting. However, if the City Council chooses to approve the monopine design and make the findings of particular sensitivity, the applicant requests that verbiage be added to the approval that would allow them to revert back to the original monopole design if the geophysical study finds the monopine design to be infeasible. CONCLUSION Staff recommends granting the appeal resulting in approval of applications AS 24-14 and V 24-01 because staff can make all required Architectural and Site Review and Variance findings for the project. In addition, staff is not able to make findings to deny the project, as no substantial evidence is known that would justify a denial. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may deny the appeal. However, staff does not recommend denial of the appeal without making the required written findings based on substantial evidence as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). Page 101 of 217 City of Gilroy City Council Page 4 of 4 June 16, 20251 2 8 4 FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE The applicant has paid all planning fees associated with the project applications and appeal. The project will also require payment of all associated building permit fees. PUBLIC OUTREACH Property owner information (i.e. list, labels, and map) within 500 feet of the subject site were generated by the City of Gilroy using current ownership data. On February 28, 2025, notices of the March 13, 2025 Planning Commission meeting were mailed to the property owners along with other interested parties and published in the Gilroy Dispatch at least 10 days prior to the meeting. In addition, the property has been posted with on-site signage notifying passersby of pending development, and the Planning Commission public hearing packets were made available through the City's website. Notices for the May 5, 2025 City Council meeting were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the site, published in the Gilroy Dispatch, and the required project notification signage was maintained on the site throughout the appeal period. Both the Planning Commission and City Council public hearing packets are available through the City’s website. NEXT STEPS If approved, the applicant would submit an application to the Building Division to obtain a building permit. Attachments: 1. Monopole Design Renderings with Three Carriers 2. Monopine Design Renderings with One Carrier 3. Monopine Design Renderings with Three Carriers 4. Applicant Letter 5. May 5, 2025 Staff Report 6. Draft Resolution of Approval for AS 24-14 7. Draft Resolution of Approval for V 24-01 Page 102 of 217 401 First Street Gilroy CA 95020 880511 Golden Hills Property Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Looking northwest from First StreetProposed View 1 Existing proposed replacement monopole proposed equipment xxxxxxxxxxx ©2024 Google Maps Page 103 of 217 Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Looking northeast from First StreetProposed View 2 Existing proposed replacement monopole proposed equipment xxxxxxxxxxx 401 First Street Gilroy CA 95020 880511 Golden Hills Property ©2024 Google Maps Page 104 of 217 Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Looking southwest from Hanna Street Proposed View 3 Existing proposed replacement monopole proposed equipment xxxxxxxxxxx 401 First Street Gilroy CA 95020 880511 Golden Hills Property ©2024 Google Maps Page 105 of 217 401 First Street Gilroy CA 95020 880511 Golden Hills Property Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Looking northwest from First StreetProposed View 1 Existing proposed replacement monopine proposed equipment xxxxxxxxxxx ©2024 Google Maps Page 106 of 217 Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Looking northeast from First StreetProposed View 2 Existing proposed replacement monopine proposed equipment xxxxxxxxxxx 401 First Street Gilroy CA 95020 880511 Golden Hills Property ©2024 Google Maps Page 107 of 217 Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Looking southwest from Hanna Street Proposed View 3 Existing proposed replacement monopine proposed equipment xxxxxxxxxxx 401 First Street Gilroy CA 95020 880511 Golden Hills Property ©2024 Google Maps Page 108 of 217 401 First Street Gilroy CA 95020 880511 Golden Hills Property Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Looking northwest from First StreetProposed View 1 Existing proposed replacement monopine proposed equipment xxxxxxxxxxx proposed additional antennas ©2024 Google Maps Page 109 of 217 Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Looking northeast from First StreetProposed View 2 Existing proposed replacement monopine proposed equipment xxxxxxxxxxx 401 First Street Gilroy CA 95020 880511 Golden Hills Property proposed additional antennas ©2024 Google Maps Page 110 of 217 Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Looking southwest from Hanna Street Proposed View 3 Existing proposed replacement monopine proposed equipment xxxxxxxxxxx 401 First Street Gilroy CA 95020 880511 Golden Hills Property proposed additional antennas ©2024 Google Maps Page 111 of 217 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 | Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: 213.622.5555 | Facsimile: 213.620.8816 www.allenmatkins.com Emily L. Murray E-mail: emurray@allenmatkins.com Direct Dial: 213.955.5584 File Number: 377510.00005/4935-4889-6069.1 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco | New York Allen Matkins Via Electronic Mail May 28, 2025 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Gilroy, City Hall 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Architectural and Site Review Permit (AS 24-14) and Variance Permit (V 24-01) Related to the Wireless Communications Tower Located at 401 First Street, Gilroy, California 95020 Dear Honorable Mayor Greg Bozzo and Gilroy City Council Members: This firm represents Global Signal Acquisitions III LLC, a subsidiary of Crown Castle, USA Inc. (“GSA III”), in the above-referenced appeal related to the proposed removal of an existing 35- foot monopole and installation of a 65-foot monopole and related equipment (the “Project”) on the site located at 401 First Street, Gilroy, California 95020 (the “Property”). We are submitting this letter in response to the request made by the Gilroy City Council at the May 5, 2025 hearing for photo simulations that depict the Project as a monopine design rather than the proposed monopole. A. A Monopine Design Cannot be Required at this Location Absent Findings and Evidence of “Particular Sensitivity.” Given the Property’s zoning, the Gilroy City Code (the “Code”) does not authorize the City to require the Project to utilize stealth design techniques, such as a monopine design, absent a finding of particular sensitivity supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the Code requires stealth design techniques “in residential zone districts or PUDs with residential uses.” (City Code § 30.35.17(l).) Similarly, the Code requires that wireless facilities “proposed in residential zone districts or in PUDs with residential uses … be designed to be compatible in scale, mass and height with the character of surrounding uses through camouflage or stealth techniques that will minimize their impacts.” (Id. at § 30.35.19(k).) However, the Property is not located within a residential zone district or PUD with residential uses. Rather, the Property and the properties that surround the Property are located within the C1 Neighborhood Commercial Zone and have a Mixed Use General Plan designation. (City of Gilroy Zoning Map; Page 112 of 217 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable Mayor and City Council Members May 28, 2025 Page 2 2040 General Plan Land Use Map.) Therefore, the Code provisions that authorize the City to require stealth design techniques are inapplicable to the Property. The City is only authorized to require “special stealth design techniques” at the Property if the City Council makes a finding of particular sensitivity. City Code section 30.35.19(b)(8) states: “The city shall have the authority to require special stealth design techniques for telecommunication facilities where findings of particular sensitivity are made (e.g., proximity to historic or aesthetically significant structures, residential uses, views and/or community features).” (City Code § 30.35.19(b)(8).) None of the example scenarios apply here, as the Property is zoned commercial, immediately surrounded by other commercially zoned properties, and is not proximate to any historic or aesthetically significant structures, views, or community features. Because there is no evidence to support a finding of particular sensitivity, the City cannot require a monopine design at this location. B. A Monopine Design Presents Aesthetic and Technical Challenges at this Location. A monopine design increases the overall size of the proposed monopole and is more visually disruptive than the proposed monopole given its surroundings. The requested photo simulations, enclosed herewith, show that the monopine design significantly increases the overall size of the facility.1 The height of the Project, as originally proposed, is 65 feet, and the branches and other components would increase the overall height and width of the facility. Further, the monopine design is more visually disruptive than the monopole. There is an existing monopole located at the Property, and the Project would appear similar to the existing monopole. If an approximately 70- foot monopine facility replaced the existing 35-foot monopole, the drastic change would draw more attention to the facility. The monopine design is incongruous with the Property, which is located in a paved area surrounded by parking, and with the surrounding area in which the trees are significantly smaller than the monopine would be. A monopine design may also prove to be technically infeasible due to structural issues related to wind-loading and foundational support. In addition to being significantly heaver than a monopole design, a monopine also places a great deal of additional stress on the foundation in high wind scenarios. At the building permit stage, GSA III would need to prepare geophysical studies to 1 As requested by the City Council on May 5, the following photo simulations are enclosed: (1) stealth alternative of current proposal: monopine with one carrier; (2) potential future collocation: monopole with three carriers; and (3) stealth alternative of potential future collocation: monopine with three carriers. Page 113 of 217 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP Attorneys at Law Honorable Mayor and City Council Members May 28, 2025 Page 3 evaluate the footings and other structural elements to determine whether the monopine design is feasible and safe. C. Conclusion. For the reasons discussed above, GSA III respectfully requests that the City Council approve the Project as the originally proposed monopole. Please note that, if the City determines that the monopine design is preferrable, the City is only authorized to require a monopine design if the City makes a finding of particular sensitivity supported by substantial evidence. If the City makes a finding of particular sensitivity and approves the Project as a monopine, we request the inclusion of language in the approval to caveat that, if the monopine design is found to be technically infeasible, the approved project reverts to a monopole upon staff-level approval by the Community Development Department. We look forward to discussing this further at the City Council meeting scheduled for June 16th. Very truly yours, Emily L. Murray ELM Enclosures Page 114 of 217 Page 1 of 12 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Determination for Architectural and Site Review and Variance application for removal of an existing 35-foot monopole and installation of a 65-foot monopole and related equipment located at 401 First Street, Application No. AS 24-14 and V 24-01 Meeting Date: May 5, 2025 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department: Community Development Submitted By: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director Prepared By: Vanessa Sanchez, Planner I STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Not Applicable RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council grant the appeal of the Planning Commission’s 3-3 tie vote, which resulted in denial of Variance application V 24-01 and Architectural and Site Review application AS 24-14, and approve AS 24-14 and V 24-01 to allow the removal of an existing 35-foot monopole and installation of a 65-foot monopole and related equipment located at 401 First Street, APN 790-32-004. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On March 13, 2025, staff brought before the Planning Commission Architectural and Site Review (AS 24-14) and Variance permit (V 24-01) for formal determination. The proposed project was analyzed for conformance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff recommended exempting the project from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA guidelines section 15303 (Class 3); adopting a resolution approving Architectural and Site Review permit application AS 24-14; and adopting a resolution approving Variance permit application V 24-01. Page 115 of 217 City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 12 May 5, 2025 The Planning Commission voted unanimously to determine the project was exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3). Two separate motions were made to adopt resolution s approving Architectural and Site Review permit application AS 24-14 and Variance permit application V 24-01. Both motions resulted in a 3-3-tie vote, the effects of which were denials of the applications. The applicant, Crown Castle, USA Inc. represented by Global Signal Acquisitions III LLC, filed an appeal of the March 13, 2025, Planning Commission determination s for AS 24- 14 and V 24-01 on April 1, 2025. BACKGROUND Telecommunications Act of 1996: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “1996 Act”) provides guidance to local jurisdictions regarding regulations of telecommunication facilities. Per Title 47 U.S.C section 332(c)(7)(B)(i-v) of the Telecommunications Act, a local jurisdiction may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. The regulation of a wireless facility must abide by the following criteria: (i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof – (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. (iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. (iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions. (v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief. Page 116 of 217 City of Gilroy City Council Page 3 of 12 May 5, 2025 Permit History: The existing wireless facility was issued an approval in 2001 (Building Permit No. 01030203) for the construction of a 35 -foot-tall monopole and associated equipment within a 275 square-foot lease area located behind the existing commercial building at 401 First Street. In 2013, a building permit was issued (Building Permit No. 13070125) to remove and replace two ground-level cabinets, install three remote radio units on a H-frame, and replace a GPS antenna. Application Submittal Timeline: On July 17, 2024, Lisa Elliott, on behalf of Crown Castle, submitted an application requesting Architectural and Site Review permit for the proposed demolition of an existing 35-foot-tall monopole and installation of a new 65-foot- tall monopole and related equipment, and submitted an application requesting a variance to Zoning Ordinance section 30.35.19. The variance requested an exception to the wireless facility setback standard. This section of the Zoning Ordinance requires wireless facilities to be set back a minimum of the overall height of the structure, in this case, 65 feet. The variance also requested an exception to the maximum height allowed in the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district (35 feet). On August 16, 2024, staff sent the applicant a Notice of Incomplete application. On December 11, 2024, the applicant resubmitted the requested incompleteness items. On December 20, 2024, the application submittal was accepted as complete for final processing. Planning Commission Review: On March 13, 2025, the applications were brought before the Planning Commission for a formal determination. Staff analyzed the proposed project and found it to be compliant with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding radio frequency emissions. No substantial evidence was found that would justify a denial of the proposed wireless facility. Staff did not receive any public comments on the request. The Planning Commission asked staff questions regarding the Radio Frequency report that was prepared by SiteSafe’s registered professional engineer. Staff provided answers to the questions prior to the meeting and provided copies for the Planning Commission and public to review (refer to attachment 2 text in red). The Planning Commission discussed concerns regarding the radio frequency report not containing a horizontal azimuth, and potential impact on airplanes and wildlife, specifically birds. A member of the applicant’s team, Alyse Mathis, confirmed that the wireless facility is compliant with all FCC standards and was not aware of any impacts to wildlife or airplanes. The Assistant City Attorney reiterated that the project was reviewed for environmental review and was found to be exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15303 (Class 3) of the CEQA guidelines. As part of the appeal packet, the applicant provided a revised Radio Frequency report that contains the discussed horizontal azimuth. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission made a motion to, based on its independent analysis, determine that the project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3). The motion passed with a 6-0 vote. A motion was made to adopt a resolution approving Architectural and Site Review permit Page 117 of 217 City of Gilroy City Council Page 4 of 12 May 5, 2025 application AS 24-14. The motion failed due to a 3-3 vote. A motion was made to adopt a resolution approving Variance permit application V 24-01. The motion failed due to a 3- 3 vote. The Assistant City Attorney stated that the Planning Commission’s vote to approve AS 24-14 and V 24-01 were tied 3-3, the effect of which are denials. The Assistant City Attorney stated that the Planning Commission’s action was final and thus appealable to the City Council. A notice of final action letter was provided to the applicant on Friday, March 14, 2025, and revised on March 19, 2025. The letter notified the applicant of the March 13, 2025, Planning Commission meeting’s determination and the 20-day appeal period which ended on April 2, 2025. On April 1, 2025, the applicant, Crown Castle, USA Inc. represented by Global Signal Acquisitions III LLC, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action on AS 24-14 and V 24-01. ANALYSIS Architectural and Site Review AS 24-14 and Variance V 24-01, filed on July 17, 2024, propose to demolish an existing 35-foot tall monopole and install a new 65-foot tall monopole and related equipment consisting of (1) 6160 cabinet with two RP6651 Units and IXRE router, enclosure Bi60 Cabinet, double tri-sector collar with T-arms, six (6) antennas, two (2) hybrid cables, three (3) 4460 radio units, and three (3) 4480 radio units. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses: The subject site (APN 790-32-004) is presently developed with a commercial building, associated parking and landscaping. The property also is developed with a 275 square foot leased fenced area that contains a 35 - foot-tall monopole and associated wireless equipment located behind the commercial building. The site and surrounding land uses are as follows: LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING Project Site Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial (C1) North Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial (C1) South Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial (C1) East Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial (C1) West Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial (C1) Environmental Assessment: Section 15303 (Class 3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, categorically exempts from further environmental review, those projects involving “construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures.” The proposed 65-foot-tall monopole is considered a small facility as there is no horizontal expansion of the existing leasing area and there is only the replacement of existing Page 118 of 217 City of Gilroy City Council Page 5 of 12 May 5, 2025 monopole and associated equipment involved. Filing of a Notice of Exemption (NOE) is not mandated; however, it reduces the statute of limitations for legal challenges under CEQA, from 180 days to 35 days. No further assessment is necessary for this proposal, and a NOE may be filed for the project. General Plan Consistency: The City's General Plan designates the subject site for Mixed Use, which supports the proposed project request. As such, the proposal conforms to the goals and policies of the General Plan. Key goals and policies which pertain to the proposed project are discussed below: POLICY # TITLE AND SUMMARY ANALYSIS PSF 1.8 Provision of Utilities Work with public, quasi-public, and private utility providers as practicable to provide adequate levels of service to city residents. The new wireless facility would improve telecommunication services to the public and emergency services personnel. PSF 8.7 Telecommunication Technologies Support the implementation of telecommunication technologies to attract new businesses and meet the changing communication needs of City residents and businesses. The new wireless facility will improve 5G coverage and fill in a significant coverage gap for the residents of Gilroy. Architectural and Site Review AS 24-14 Analysis The proposed wireless facility is located in the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. In accordance with the Gilroy City Code (GCC) Section 30.35.14, the proposed wireless facility may be permitted with an approved Architectural and Site Review Perm it. The Architected and Site Review Permit may be approved at a staff level if it complies with all zoning regulations. However, because the project is proposing a monopole height greater than the allowed height for the C-1 zoning district and a smaller setback, a Variance Permit application is required. Per GCC section 30.50.20, Variance permits shall go before the Planning Commission for formal determination. The applicable development standards for the project have been considered for the proposed project, as follows: STANDARD REQUIRED PROPOSED CONFORMS? Maximum Height 35 feet 65 feet No, Variance Minimum Front Setback 65 feet 81 feet Yes Minimum Interior Side Setback 65 feet 53 feet 4 inches No, Variance Page 119 of 217 City of Gilroy City Council Page 6 of 12 May 5, 2025 STANDARD REQUIRED PROPOSED CONFORMS? Minimum Street Side Setback 65 feet 48 feet 9 inches No, Variance Minimum Rear Setback 65 feet 53 feet 8 inches No, Variance Per Gilroy Code section 30.35.19(c)(1), a wireless facility is required to be setback at a minimum of the overall structure height from all property lines and/or a distance consistent with the required yard setbacks of the particular zone district. The C-1 zoning district has a front yard setback of 31 feet, side yard adjacent to street set back of 21 feet, and no minimum rear or interior side yard setback when surrounded by parcels within the same zoning district. The proposed wireless facility meets the minimum setback requirement of the zoning district. However, since the proposed monopole is 65 feet tall, the more restrictive setback is 65 feet from all property lines. This setback requirement is part of the variance request. Due to the size of the property, the wireless facility cannot meet the 65-foot setback requirement. The applicant has provided a letter signifying their willingness to allow other carriers to co-locate on the facility wherever technically and economically feasible. The applicant provided the required Radio Frequency Compliance Report prepared by SiteSafe’s registered professional engineer, dated May 2024. The Report deemed the proposed wireless facility to be complaint with FCC Rules and Regulations and outlines actions that the site must take. This includes installing proper signage, ensuring the site re mains secure, and implementing proper radio frequency safety awareness training for personnel who need to access the site. Additionally, the monopole will be constructed out of non - flammable metal and shall be painted a flat gray color. The monopole will b e conditioned to provide a color sample for Community Development Director approval. Architectural and Site Review Findings: In accordance with Gilroy City Code Section 30.35.21 (Wireless Telecommunication Facilities) and 30.50.30, approval of an Architectural and Site Review permit for a wireless facility may be approved if certain findings are made. Those findings are listed below along with staff’s assessment of the project’s compliance with the findings. a. That either: (1) the development of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility as conditioned will not significantly affect any visual resources, environmentally sensitive habitat and/or other significant City of Gilroy resources, including agricultural, open space, and community character resources; or (2) there are no other environmentally equivalent and/or superior and technically feasible alternatives to the proposed wireless telecommunications facility as conditioned (including alternative locations and/or designs) with less visual and/or other resource impacts and the proposed facility has been modified by condition and/or project design to minimize and mitigate its visual and other resource impacts. Page 120 of 217 City of Gilroy City Council Page 7 of 12 May 5, 2025 There are no environmentally sensitive habitats or other significant resources that would be impacted by the wireless facility. The project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3). Additionally, the monopole will be painted a flat gray paint color to ensure that the pole blends in with the surrounding neighborhoods. Alternative heights for the proposed monopole were provided and the analysis displayed that the 65 -foot-tall monopole would provide greater coverage to the population. b. That the site is adequate for the development of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility and, for sites located in residential zoning districts or PUDs with residential uses, that the applicant has demonstrated that there are not environmentally equivalent or superior and technically feasible: (1) alternative sites outside residential zone districts or PUDs with residential uses; and/or (2) alternative designs for the proposed facility as proposed and conditioned. The site is not located in a residential zoning district or within a PUD with residential uses. The site is within the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district, and commercial and industrial zoning districts are the preferred locations for new wireless facilities. Additionally, alternative heights for the monopole were analyzed for the site. A tree design was considered for the monopole, however staff concluded that it would not be the best option as the tree design would require an additional five-foot height increase to accommodate tree branching, which would cause overhang onto the existing commercial building. There were concerns regarding the tree design not blending in with the existing surroundings as it would be located in the middle of the commercial parking lot and there are minimal trees in the general vicinity of the project site. c. That the subject property upon which the wireless telecommunications facility is to be built is in compliance with all rules and regulations of the City of Gilroy, including, but not limited to, zoning uses, subdivisions and any other applicable provisions of this article, and that all zoning violations have been abated and abatement costs, if any, have been paid. There are no zoning violations that currently exist at the site and the site is in compliance with the allowable uses of the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. d. That the proposed wireless communication facility as conditioned is in compliance with all FCC, FAA and California PUC standards and requirements. The project is conditioned to remain compliant with all FCC, FAA, and California PUC standards and requirements. Page 121 of 217 City of Gilroy City Council Page 8 of 12 May 5, 2025 e. That the proposed use is properly located in relation to the general plan and to the community as a whole and to other land uses and to transportation and service facilities in the vicinity. The project is located in the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district which allows the installation of new wireless facilities through approval of an Architectural and Site Review permit application. The parcel is surrounded by commercial development and will not interfere with the existing business operations. f. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions upon which approval is made contingent, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity, or cause any damage, hazard, or nuisance to persons or property. The project will not adversely impact other properties in the vicinity because it will comply with all conditions of approval, building code requirements, and all Federal Communications Commission rules and regulations. The radio frequency report prepared by SiteSafe found the proposed wireless facility’s radio frequency emissions to be compliant with the FCC standards. Variance Application V 24-01 Analysis Gilroy Code section 30.35.19(d) requires wireless facilities proposed in commercial zoning districts to meet the height limitation for the underlying zoning district unless a variance is obtained. The proposed wireless facility would be 65 feet, which exceeds the C1 zoning district height limitation of 35 feet. The variance application must provide a written justification for the proposed tower height and an analysis for absence of alternatives that would have less of a visual impact. The applicant provided the following justification for an increased tower height: • A height increase is needed to achieve the coverage and capacity of wireless services for the area. The additional height would allow for additional antennas and upgraded technologies. Additionally, emergency services would benefit from the additional antennas at the new height. The site is an existing wireless facility, which would eliminate the need for a new cellular facility. The applicant does not believe there are viable alternative sites for this wireless facility for the following reason: • Crown Castle owns the existing tower and has a lease in place with the carrier (T- Mobile). The lease is locked in place for a certain number of years; therefore, Crown Castle would not look for another pole (site) to put these antennas on and lose that revenue. Although other sites were not analyzed, the applicant did provide a coverage map that shows there are no other existing wireless facilities within 1,000 feet of the site; therefore Page 122 of 217 City of Gilroy City Council Page 9 of 12 May 5, 2025 colocation would not be an option. Additionally, the applicant did analyze the different coverage options at various heights: 32-feet RC placement height, 46-feet RC placement height, and 60-feet RC placement height. RC signifies the placement height of wireless technology equipment. The analysis showed that the 32 -foot-tall monopole would have a 851 population gain if updated technology was placed on the existing pole. The 46 -foot- tall monopole can achieve a 2,016 population gain and the 60 -foot-tall monopole is able to achieve a 3,266 population gain. The 65-foot-tall monopole (60-foot RC placement) can provide a large coverage area for the residential neighborhood south of First Street bordered by Wren Avenue to the West and Miller Avenue to the East. Variance Findings: In accordance with Gilroy City Code Section 30.50.20(3), approval of variances from the City’s development standards may be allowed only when specified findings can be made. Those findings are listed below along with staff’s assessment of the project’s compliance with the findings. a. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property involved or to the proposed use. Due to the property’s size, configuration, and existing structures, there are exceptional circumstances that prevent the wireless facility from meeting the minimum 65-foot setback from all property lines. Additionally, the proposed coverage would not be able to be comparably obtained if the monopole were limited to the maximum allowable height of the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district (35 feet). Zoning districts that would allow a monopole height of 65 feet are not located in the general vicinity of the coverage gap. b. That because of such exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, the literal enforcement of specified provisions of this chapter would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship such as to deprive the applicant of a substantial property right possessed by other owners of property in the same class or district. The literal enforcement of the wireless facility setback would cause hardship due to the lot’s configuration and existing conditions. Additionally, co-locating on an existing facility would not be possible as there are no other existing wireless facilities within 1,000 feet of the site. There is no zoning district within 1,000 feet of the site that would permit a 65-foot-tall monopole without going through the variance process. Most of the surrounding properties are zoned Neighborhood Commercial or Single Family Residential/Medium Density Residential. Installation of new wireless facilities on residential-zoned properties are not preferred as it could impact the character of the residential neighborhood and has potential to pose a greater impact to public safety and general welfare. Page 123 of 217 City of Gilroy City Council Page 10 of 12 May 5, 2025 c. That the allowance of the variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to persons or property in the vicinity. The allowance of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare because the proposed wireless facility will comply with all FCC and FAA rules and regulations. Additionally, the wireless facility will be routinely maintained as needed, have all required signage, and implement a security plan to prevent unauthorized personnel from accessing the facility. The increase in telecommunication coverage would benefit the public and enhance the City’s emergency response network. d. That the results of allowing the variances as specified will be in harmony with the general intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The allowance of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent of the Zoning Ordinance because commercial and industrial-zoned properties are the preferred location for the installation of wireless facilities. There would be no impact on the existing business operations and parking as the work taking place will be within the existing 275 square foot lease area. Additionally, the new wireless facility would allow for future collocation for any interested carriers. e. That the granting of a variance will not constitute the granting of a special privilege greater than that provided for by the standard provisions of this chapter for other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. The granting of the variance would not constitute the granting of a special privilege because the proposed wireless facility will provide a necessary service to the public and the coverage could not be comparably obtained at a height lower than 65 feet. Applicant Basis for Appeal: The applicant submitted a letter that outlines the basis for their appeal. The applicant is basing the appeal on the following items: a. City staff recommended approval of AS 24-14 and V 24-14 and found the project to be consistent with the General Plan, compliant with zoning, categorically exempt from CEQA, and compliant with FCC rules and regulations. In addition, the applications were reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and staff is able to make the required findings. b. No findings were made, based on substantial evidence, to deny the project as required by section 332(c)(7) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. c. Denial of the project by the Planning Commission is in violation of Section 332(c)(7) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and may amount to a prohibition on the provision of personal wireless services. Page 124 of 217 City of Gilroy City Council Page 11 of 12 May 5, 2025 d. Comments made at the March 13, 2025, Planning Commission meeting suggest that the decisions made by the Planning Commission may have been impermissible under section 332(c)(7) of the 1996 Act. Conclusion: The motion made by the Planning Commission to approve AS 24 -14 and V 24-01 failed and therefore resulted in denials of the applications. The Planning Commission did not make a motion to deny the project, therefore there were no findings of denial that were made, and no substantial evidence was stated to deny the project. Staff is recommending granting the appeal resulting in approval of applications AS 24-14 and V 24-01 because all required Architectural and Site Review and Variance findings were able to be made for the project and no substantial evidence is known to justify a denial of the project. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Project plans were routed to Engineering, Building, Fire Prevention, and Police representatives for internal review and comments. There were no concerns raised or conditions provided by TAC members. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may deny the appeal. However, staff does not recommend denial of the appeal without making the required written findings based on substantial evidence as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE The applicant has paid all planning fees associated with the project applications and appeal. The project will also require payment of all associated building permit fees. PUBLIC OUTREACH Property owner information (i.e. list, labels, and map) within 500 feet of the subject site were generated by the City of Gilroy using current ownership data. On February 28, 2025, notices of the March 13, 2025 Planning Commission meeting were mailed to the property owners along with other interested parties and published in the Gilroy Dispatch at least 10 days prior to the meeting. In addition, the property has been posted with on -site signage notifying passersby of pending development, and the Planning Commission public hearing packets were made available through the City's webpage. Notices for the May 5, 2025 City Council meeting were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the site, published in the Gilroy Dispatch, and the required project notification signage was maintained on the site throughout the appeal period. Both the Planning Commission and City Council public hearing packets are available through the City’s website. Page 125 of 217 City of Gilroy City Council Page 12 of 12 May 5, 2025 NEXT STEPS If approved, the applicant would submit to the Building Division to obtain a building permit. Attachments: 1. Appeal Packet 2. March 13, 2025, Planning Commission Questions 3. Draft Resolution of Approval for AS 24-14 4. Draft Resolution of Approval for V 24-01 Page 126 of 217 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 35-FOOT-TALL MONOPLE AND INSTALLATION OF A NEW 65-FOOT-TALL MONOPLE AND RELATED EQUIPMENT ON AN APPROXIMATE 0.22-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 401 FIRST STREET, APN: 790-32-004 (FILE NUMBER AS 24-14) WHEREAS, on July 17, 2024, Lisa Elliott, on behalf of Crown Castle, submitted an application requesting an architectural and site review permit for the proposed demolition of an existing 35-foot-tall monopole and installation of a new 65-foot-tall monopole and related equipment located within the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district (APN: 790-32-004); and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2024, the application submittal was accepted as complete for final processing; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting, at which time the Planning Commission received and considered the staff report as well as all evidence received including written and oral public testimony; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2025, the Planning Commission determined that the project was exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3); and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2025, the Planning Commission made a motion to approve Architectural and Site Review (AS 24-14). The motion to approve AS 24-14 failed due to a 3-3 vote, in effect of which is a denial of the application; and WHEREAS, on April 1, 2025, the applicant, Global Signal Acquisitions III LLC on behalf of Crown Castle, USA Inc., filed an appeal of the March 13, 2025, Planning Commission determination; and WHEREAS, on May 5, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting, at which time the City Council received and considered the staff report as well as all evidence received including written and oral public testimony related to the proposed Architectural and Site Review (AS 24-14) application; and WHEREAS, on May 5, 2025, the City Council made a motion to continue the appeal to the May 19, 2025, City Council meeting and directed that tree design renderings be provided for the wireless facility and at the request of the applicant; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2025, the applicant requested a continuance to the June 16, 2025, City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting, at which time the City Council received and considered the staff report, renderings, as well as all evidence received including written and oral public testimony related to the proposed Architectural and Site Review (AS 24-14) application; and Page 127 of 217 Resolution No. 2025-XX Appeal of AS 24-14 City Council Regular Meeting | June 16, 2025 Page 2 of 9 WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the project approval is based is the City Clerk’s office of the City of Gilroy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby grants approval of the appeal of the March 13, 2025 Planning Commission determination and approves Architectural and Site Review Permit AS 24-14 based on the following findings made pursuant to Gilroy City Code section 30.35.21 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities) and 30.50.30 subject to the conditions identified in Exhibit A to this Resolution: A.That either: (1) the development of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility as conditioned will not significantly affect any visual resources, environmentally sensitive habitat and/or other significant City of Gilroy resources, including agricultural, open space, and community character resources; or (2) there are no other environmentally equivalent and/or superior and technically feasible alternatives to the proposed wireless telecommunications facility as conditioned (including alternative locations and/or designs) with less visual and/or other resource impacts and the proposed facility has been modified by condition and/or project design to minimize and mitigate its visual and other resource impacts. There are no environmentally sensitive habitats or other significant resources that would be impacted by the wireless facility. Additionally, the monopole will be painted a flat gray paint color to ensure that the pole blends in with the surrounding neighborhoods. Alternative heights for the proposed monopole were provided and the analysis displayed that the 65-foot-tall monopole would provide greater coverage to the population; B.That the site is adequate for the development of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility and, for sites located in residential zoning districts or PUDs with residential uses, that the applicant has demonstrated that there are not environmentally equivalent or superior and technically feasible: (1) alternative sites outside residential zone districts or PUDs with residential uses; and/or (2) alternative designs for the proposed facility as proposed and conditioned. The site is not located in a residential zoning district or within a PUD with residential uses. The site is within the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district, and commercial and industrial zoning districts are the preferred locations for new wireless facilities. Additionally, alternative heights for the monopole were analyzed for the site. C.That the subject property upon which the wireless telecommunications facility is to be built is in compliance with all rules and regulations of the City of Gilroy, including, but not limited to, zoning uses, subdivisions and any other applicable provisions of this article, and that all zoning violations have been abated and abatement costs, if any, have been paid. There are no zoning violations that currently exist at the site and the site is in compliance with the allowable uses of the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district; Page 128 of 217 Resolution No. 2025-XX Appeal of AS 24-14 City Council Regular Meeting | June 16, 2025 Page 3 of 9 D.That the proposed wireless communication facility as conditioned is in compliance with all FCC, FAA and California PUC standards and requirements; The project is conditioned to remain compliant with all FCC, FAA, and California PUC standards and requirements. E.That the proposed use is properly located in relation to the general plan and to the community as a whole and to other land uses and to transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; and The project is located in the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district which allows the installation of new wireless facilities through approval of an Architectural and Site Review permit application. The parcel is surrounded by commercial development and will not interfere with the existing business operations. F.That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions upon which approval is made contingent, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity, or cause any damage, hazard, or nuisance to persons or property. The project will not adversely impact other properties in the vicinity because it will comply with all conditions of approval, building code requirements, and all Federal Communications Commission rules and regulations. The radio frequency report prepared by SiteSafe, found the proposed wireless facility’s radio frequency emissions to be compliant with the FCC standards. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June 2025 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: APPROVED: ______________________________ Greg Bozzo, Mayor ATTEST: Bryce Atkins, Acting City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit A (Conditions of Approval) Page 129 of 217 Resolution No. 2025-XX Appeal of AS 24-14 City Council Regular Meeting | June 16, 2025 Page 4 of 9 EXHIBIT A AS 24-14 401 First Street PLANNING CONDITIONS The following GENERAL conditions authorize specific terms of the project ENTITLEMENT. 1.APPROVED PROJECT: The approval for AS 24-14 is granted to demolish an existing 35- foot-tall monopole and install a 65-foot-tall monopole and related equipment as described in the staff report dated March 13, 2025, located at 401 First street (Assessor Parcel No. 790- 32-004),as shown on Project Plans received by the Planning Division on December 12, 2024, prepared by Streamline Engineering for T-Mobile, dated January 10, 2024, with revision dates of February 27, 2024, and October 2, 2024, and consisting of 16 sheets. Build-out of the project shall conform to the plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions. Any future adjustment or modification to the plans, including any changes made at time of building permit submittal, shall be considered by the Community Development Director or designee, may require separate discretionary approval, and shall conform to all City, State, and Federal requirements, including subsequent City Code requirements or policies adopted by City Council. 2.PERMIT EXPIRATION: The expiration date of this approval to demolish an existing 35- foot-tall monopole and install a new 65-foot-tall monopole is one year from the decision date, May 19, 2025, during which time the applicant shall submit application for building permits and pursue construction diligently to completion. If any development for which architectural and site approval has been granted has not submitted complete application for building permits within one (1) year from the date of notification of approval, pursued issuance of the permit and/or initiated construction within 6 months of the permit issuance, the approval shall be deemed automatically revoked. Once a permit has been issued for construction, work shall be completed within one (1) year. Upon application, an extension of time may be granted by the Community Development Director or designee. Should Developer intend to request an extension to the permit expiration date, Developer must submit to the Planning Division a written application with applicable fees prior to the expiration date. Only timely requests may be considered pursuant to the City Code. 3.WIRELESS FACILITY EXPIRATION. An approved wireless facility permit is granted for ten (10) years from the date of approval, upon which time this permit shall automatically become null and void. Should Developer desire to continue operation as granted herein, a new application or extension of such application must be requested in a timely manner and prior to the expiration date. Page 130 of 217 Resolution No. 2025-XX Appeal of AS 24-14 City Council Regular Meeting | June 16, 2025 Page 5 of 9 4.COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS: If Developer, owner or tenant fails to comply with any of the conditions of this permit, the Developer, owner or tenant shall be subject to permit revocation or enforcement actions pursuant to the City Code. All costs associated with any such actions shall be the responsibility of Developer, owner or tenant. 5.INDEMNIFICATION: Developer agrees, as a condition of permit approval, at Developer’s own expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Gilroy (“the City”) and its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees and agents from any and all claim(s), action(s) or proceeding(s) brought against the City or its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees, or agents to challenge, attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this resolution or any condition attached thereto or any proceedings, acts or determinations taken, including actions taken under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, done or made prior to the approval of such resolution that were part of the approval process. 6.FEDERAL AND UNIFORM CODE COMPLIANCE: Wireless Facility shall comply with all uniform codes, all FCC rules, regulations, and standards, and FAA requirements. 7.PAINT SAMPLE. Applicant shall provide paint samples for the proposed monopole and pole mounted equipment for Community Development Director consideration and approval. The paint sample must be a flat color. 8.MODIFICATIONS. Any proposed modifications to the wireless facility and/or this approval may require further review and/or planning entitlements subject to review by the Community Development Director or designee. The following conditions shall be addressed prior to issuance of any BUILDING PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT or IMPROVEMENT PLAN, whichever is first issued, or as otherwise specified in the condition. 9.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Developer shall include a plan sheet(s) that includes a reproduction of all conditions of approval of this permit, as adopted by the decision-maker. 10.CERTIFICATION OF BUILDING PERMIT PLANS: The project architect/engineer shall certify in writing that the architectural design shown in the building permit plans match the plans approved by the Community Development Director or designee/Planning Commission/City Council. Any changes must be clearly noted. The project architect shall also certify that the structural plans are consistent with the architectural plans. In the event of a discrepancy between the structural plans and the architectural plans, the architectural plans shall take precedence, and revised structural drawings shall be submitted to the Building Division. 11.COLORS AND MATERIALS: Plans submitted for building permit applications shall include all exterior wireless facility materials and colors to be used in construction. Page 131 of 217 Resolution No. 2025-XX Appeal of AS 24-14 City Council Regular Meeting | June 16, 2025 Page 6 of 9 12.SUBSEQUENT ENTITLEMENTS: Developer shall obtain necessary permits prior to initiating any new construction or modifications authorized under this approval, including but not limited to temporary construction trailers, temporary staging areas. Developer shall pay all requisite fees in effect at the time of plan submittal and/or issuance, as applicable. 13.FENCES AND WALLS: All fencing and walls are to be shown on construction drawings submitted for building permit review, measured from adjacent grade to the top of the fence or wall. The design and location must comply with all setback requirements. The following conditions shall be met prior to RELEASE OF UTILITIES, FINAL INSPECTION, or ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, whichever occurs first, or as otherwise specified in the condition. 14.PLANNING INSPECTION: Inspection by the Planning Division is required for the final completion of the project to ensure that the construction matches the approved plans. 15.BUSINESS LICENSE: Wireless operator shall obtain a City of Gilroy Business License. The following conditions shall be complied with AT ALL TIMES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROJECT, or as otherwise specified in the condition. 16.CONSTRUCTION RELATED NOISE: To minimize potential construction-related impacts to noise, Developer shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the subject site “During earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer shall implement the following measures at the construction site: a. Limit construction activity to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Construction noise is prohibited on Sundays and City-observed holidays; b. Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area; c. Construct sound walls or other noise reduction measures prior to developing the project site; d. Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment; e. Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; f. Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists; and g. Designate a “disturbance coordinator’ who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem.” Page 132 of 217 Resolution No. 2025-XX Appeal of AS 24-14 City Council Regular Meeting | June 16, 2025 Page 7 of 9 17.CONSTRUCTION RELATED AIR QUALITY: To minimize potential construction- related impacts to air quality, Developer shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the project site “During earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer shall implement the following basic control measures at the construction site: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material onsite or offsite shall be covered; c. All visible mud or dirt tracked out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads or pathways shall be limited to 15 miles per hour; e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points; g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; and h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.” The following conditions shall be complied with AT ALL TIMES that the use permitted by this entitlement occupies the premises. 18.COLLOCATIONS. The permittee shall be willing to allow other carriers and site operators to collocate transmission equipment with the wireless facility, to the extent such facility or portions thereof are owned or controlled by the permittee, whenever technically feasible and aesthetically desirable in accordance with applicable provisions in the City’s Municipal Code. 19.MAINTENANCE. Wireless telecommunication facility shall comply at all times with the following operation and maintenance standards: Page 133 of 217 Resolution No. 2025-XX Appeal of AS 24-14 City Council Regular Meeting | June 16, 2025 Page 8 of 9 a. All facilities and related equipment, including lighting, fences, shields, cabinets, and poles, shall be maintained in good repair, free from trash, debris, litter and graffiti and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible so as to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be removed from any facility or equipment as soon as practicable pursuant to Chapter 12.5. b. Facility shall be operated in such a manner so as to minimize any possible disruption caused by noise. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. At no time shall equipment noise from any source exceed an exterior noise level of sixty (60) dB at the property line. c. Owner or operator of the facility shall routinely and regularly inspect wireless facility and associated equipment to ensure compliance with FCC standards and this approval. d. Owner or operator of the wireless telecommunications facility shall provide signage identifying the name and phone number of a party to contact in event of an emergency. The design, materials, colors, and location of signs shall be subject to design review. The signage shall be attached to the base of any utility pole or light standard to which microcells are affixed. 20.TRANSFER OF OPERATIONS. Any carrier/service provider authorized by the planning manager or by the planning commission to operate a specific wireless telecommunications facility may assign the operation of the facility to another carrier licensed by the FCC for that radio frequency; provided, that such transfer is made known to the director in advance of such operation and all conditions of approval for the subject installation are carried out by the new carrier/service provider. Further planning entitlements/review may be required. Page 134 of 217 Resolution No. 2025-XX Appeal of AS 24-14 City Council Regular Meeting | June 16, 2025 Page 9 of 9 CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK I, BRYCE ATKINS, Acting City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2025-XX is an original resolution, or true and correct copy of a City Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a Regular Meeting of said held on Council held Monday, June 16, 2025, with a quorum present. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this Date. ____________________________________ Bryce Atkins Acting City Clerk of the City of Gilroy (Seal) Page 135 of 217 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY APPROVING A VARIANCE PERMIT, ALLOWING EXCEPTIONS TO SIDE AND REAR WIRELESS FACILITY SETBACKS AND EXCEPTIONS TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMITATAION OF THE C1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPOSED NEW 65-FOOT-TALL MONOPOLE ON AN APPROXIMATE 0.22-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 401 FIRST STREET, APN 790-32-004 (FILE NUMBER V 24-01) WHEREAS, on July 17, 2024, Lisa Elliott, on behalf of Crown Castle, submitted an application requesting an architectural and site review permit for the proposed demolition of an existing 35-foot-tall monopole and installation of a new 65-foot-tall monopole and related equipment located within the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district (APN: 790-32-004); and; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2024, the application submittal was accepted as complete for final processing; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting, at which time the Planning Commission received and considered the staff report as well as all evidence received including written and oral public testimony; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2025, the Planning Commission determined that the project was exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3); and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2025, the Planning Commission made a motion to approve Variance permit (V 24-01). The motion to approve V 24-01 failed due to a 3-3 vote, in effect of which is a denial of the application; and WHEREAS, on April 1, 2025, the applicant, Global Signal Acquisitions III LLC on behalf of Crown Castle, USA Inc., filed an appeal of the March 13, 2025, Planning Commission determination; and WHEREAS, on May 5, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting, at which time the City Council received and considered the staff report as well as all evidence received including written and oral public testimony related to the proposed Variance (V 24-01) application; and WHEREAS, on May 5, 2025, the City Council made a motion to continue the appeal to the May 19, 2025, City Council meeting and directed that tree design renderings be provided for the wireless facility; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2025, the applicant requested a continuance to the June 16, 2025, City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting, at which time the City Council received and considered the staff report, renderings, as well as all Page 136 of 217 Resolution No. 2025-XX Appeal of V 24-01 City Council Regular Meeting | June 16, 2025 Page 2 of 5 evidence received including written and oral public testimony related to the proposed Variance (V 24-01) application; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the project approval is based is the City Clerk’s office of the City of Gilroy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby grants approval of the appeal of the March 13, 2025 Planning Commission determination and approves Variance Permit V 24-01 based on the following findings made pursuant to Gilroy Code section 30.50.20(3) subject to the conditions identified in Exhibit A to this resolution: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property involved or to the proposed use. Due to the property’s size, configuration, and existing structures, there are exceptional circumstances that prevent the wireless facility from meeting the minimum 65-foot setback from all property lines. Additionally, the proposed coverage would not be able to be comparably obtained if the monopole were limited to the maximum allowable height of the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district (35 feet). Zoning districts that would allow a monopole height of 65 feet are not located in the general vicinity of the coverage gap. 2. That because of such exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, the literal enforcement of specified provisions of this chapter would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship such as to deprive the applicant of a substantial property right possessed by other owners of property in the same class or district. The literal enforcement of the wireless facility setback would cause hardship due to the lot’s configuration and existing conditions. Additionally, co-locating on an existing facility would not be possible as there are no other existing wireless facilities within 1,000 feet of the site. There is no zoning district within 1,000 feet of the site that would permit a 65- foot-tall monopole without going through the variance process. Most of the surrounding properties are zoned Neighborhood Commercial or Single Family Residential/Medium Density Residential. Installation of new wireless facilities on residential-zoned properties are not preferred as it could impact the character of the residential neighborhood and has potential to pose a greater impact to public safety and general welfare. 3. That the allowance of the variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to persons or property in the vicinity. The allowance of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare because the proposed wireless facility will comply with all FCC and FAA rules and regulations. Additionally, the wireless facility will be routinely maintained as needed, have all required signage, and implement a security plan to prevent unauthorized personnel from accessing Page 137 of 217 Resolution No. 2025-XX Appeal of V 24-01 City Council Regular Meeting | June 16, 2025 Page 3 of 5 the facility. The increase in telecommunication coverage would benefit the public and enhance the city’s emergency response network. 4. That the results of allowing the variances as specified will be in harmony with the general intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The allowance of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent of the Zoning Ordinance because commercial and industrial-zoned properties are the preferred location for the installation of wireless facilities. There would be no impact on the existing business operations and parking as the work taking place will be within the existing 275 square foot lease area. Additionally, the new wireless facility would allow for future collocation for any interested carriers. 5. That the granting of a variance will not constitute the granting of a special privilege greater than that provided for by the standard provisions of this chapter for other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. The granting of the variance would not constitute the granting of a special privilege because the proposed wireless facility will provide a necessary service to the public and the coverage could not be comparably obtained at a height lower than 65 feet. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June 2025 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: APPROVED: ______________________________ Greg Bozzo, Mayor ATTEST: Bryce Atkins, Acting City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit A (Conditions of Approval) Page 138 of 217 Resolution No. 2025-XX Appeal of V 24-01 City Council Regular Meeting | June 16, 2025 Page 4 of 5 EXHIBIT A V 24-01 401 First Street PLANNING CONDITIONS The following GENERAL conditions authorize specific terms of the project ENTITLEMENT. 1.APPROVED PROJECT: The approval for V 24-01 is granted for exemption to the side and rear wireless facility setback and height limitation to allow a 65-foot-tall monopole and associated equipment, located at 401 First Street (Assessor Parcel No 790-32-004), as shown on Project Plans as received by the Planning Division on December 12, 2024 prepared by Streamline Engineering for T-Mobile, dated January 10, 2024, with revision dates of February 27, 2024, and October 2, 2024, and consisting of 16 sheets. Build-out of the project shall conform to the plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions. Any future adjustment or modification to the plans, including any changes made at time of building permit submittal, shall be considered by the Community Development Director or designee, may require separate discretionary approval, and shall conform to all City, State, and Federal requirements, including subsequent City Code requirements or policies adopted by City Council. 2.PERMIT EXPIRATION: The expiration date of this approval is one year from the decision date, June 16, 2025. If the applicant does not receive a building permit for the installation of the new 65-foot-tall monopole within one year of this approval, then the variance shall automatically expire and have no further force and effect. Upon application, an extension of time may be granted by the Community Development Director or designee. Should Developer intend to request an extension to the permit expiration date, Developer must submit to the Planning Division a written application with applicable fees prior to the expiration date. Only timely requests may be considered pursuant to the City Code. 3.RELATED ENTITLEMENTS: This permit is subject to the findings and conditions of approval of concurrent related entitlements AS 24-14 or any subsequent amendments. Page 139 of 217 Resolution No. 2025-XX Appeal of V 24-01 City Council Regular Meeting | June 16, 2025 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK I, BRYCE ATKINS, Acting City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2025-XX is an original resolution, or true and correct copy of a City Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a Regular Meeting of said held on Council held Monday, June 16, 2025, with a quorum present. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this Date. ____________________________________ Bryce Atkins Acting City Clerk of the City of Gilroy (Seal) Page 140 of 217 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title:Public Hearing to Accept the Public Health Goal Report for the Gilroy Drinking Water System in Accordance with California Health and Safety Code 116470 Meeting Date:June 16, 2025 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department:Public Utilities Submitted by:Heath McMahon, Public Utilities Director Prepared by:Izabela Cirloganu, Management Analyst STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure RECOMMENDATION Accept the 2022-2024 Public Health Goal Report for the Gilroy Drinking Water System in accordance with California Health and Safety Code 116470 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City’s potable water system continues to comply with all health-based drinking water standards and Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). This Public Health Goal (PHG) Staff Report for 2022-2024 is being provided to the City Council to comply with Health and Safety Code Section 116470, which requires public water systems with more than 10,000 service connections to prepare a brief report every three years to disclose contaminants in drinking water that exceed the applicable public health goal and to hold a public hearing. PHGs are not regulatory standards and do not consider available technology or cost of treatment. They are prepared by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the California Environmental Protection Agency. Neither the SWRCB nor USEPA mandate additional actions nor specific treatments for Page 141 of 217 contaminants exceeding PHGs. BACKGROUND The City of Gilroy’s municipal water supply comes from the Llagas Basin Aquifer. The City owns and operates nine groundwater wells, that vary in depth and location throughout the city, to draw water from the aquifer. In 2024, the City provided potable water to over 60,000 residents and numerous businesses. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are regulations developed by the USEPA and the SWRCB to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act. They are health protective drinking water standards to be met by public water systems. MCLs take into account not only the chemicals' health risks but also factors such as their detectability and treatability, as well as costs of treatment. Health & Safety Code §116365(a) requires a contaminant's MCL to be established at a level as close to its PHG as is technologically and economically feasible, placing primary emphasis on the protection of public health. Public Health Goals (PHGs) are not regulatory standards. They are established by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). For cancer‐causing chemicals, OEHHA typically establishes the PHG at one person in a million risk level. At that level, not more than one person in a population of one million people drinking the water daily for 70 years would be expected to develop cancer as a result of exposure to that chemical. In some cases, it is not feasible for SWRCB to set the drinking water standard for a contaminant at the same level as the PHG. The technology to treat chemicals may not be available, or the cost of treatment may be exorbitantly high. Section 116470(b) of the California Health and Safety Code requires all public water systems with more than 10,000 service connections that detect a contaminant exceeding a PHG to prepare a report every three years by July 1, and hold a public hearing for the purpose of accepting and responding to public comment on the report. Attached to this staff report is the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) for 2024. The CCR is a water quality summary of the Gilroy water system mailed to all residents each year. It was sent to all customers via the most recent monthly utility bills for water and wastewater services. ANALYSIS City staff collect hundreds of water quality samples from its potable water distribution system each year to ensure safe, high-quality water is provided to the community. Some of the substances tested for include Inorganic Chemicals, Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs), Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs), Disinfectant Residuals, Disinfectant Byproducts, Radionuclides, copper, lead and PFAS. In the three years covered by this report, water provided by the City has met all Page 142 of 217 regulatory MCL requirements. It only exceeded the nonregulatory PHGs for one contaminant, Tetrachloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene or PCE), and it did so by an average of 0.01 micrograms per liter (µg/L). Concentrations did not exceed the MCL. PCE is a perchlorinated two-carbon olefin. Primary uses are as a chemical intermediate for the production of chlorofluorocarbons and as a solvent used in cleaning operations (metal cleaning, vapor degreasing, and dry cleaning). In addition, numerous household products contain some level of PCE. Due to widespread use, PCE is a common environmental contaminant. Acute and chronic neurological changes, and liver and kidney toxicity, have been reported in humans and animals when exposed to high levels. PCEs used in the production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) has declined in recent years due to reduced production of CFCs (which are often associated with aerosol sprays, blowing agents for foams and packing materials, solvents, and refrigerants) stemming from efforts to protect the stratospheric ozone layer from depletion. Solvent recovery operations and recycling efforts have also reduced demand for PCE production. The MCL is the regulatory standard for drinking water. PHGs are not regulatory standards. The Maximum Contaminant Level for PCE is 5 µg/l, which is more than 80 times that of the Public Health Goal of 0.06 µg/L. For context, one microgram per liter (or part per billion) is equivalent to adding one drop to 10,000 gallons, the typical size of a residential swimming pool. The three year average PCE concentration for City wells of 0.07 µg/L exceeded the Public Health Goal of 0.06 µg/L by 0.01 µg/L . Throughout the 2022–2024 monitoring period, samples from Wells 1, 2, and 3 showed PCE concentrations ranging from non-detect to a peak of 1.8 µg/L, which was taken at Well 2 in September 2023. The other wells were all non-detect. This highest single value recorded remains 64 % below California’s regulatory MCL of 5 µg/L. Page 143 of 217 The City’s potable water system continues to comply with all health-based drinking water standards and Maximum Contaminant Levels established by the State Water Resources Control Board and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). No additional actions or treatment are recommended at this time. ALTERNATIVES None - this is an informational report. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE There are no financial impacts associated with receiving and filing this report. PUBLIC OUTREACH This item was included on the publicly posted agenda for this meeting. NEXT STEPS None. Attachments: 1. CCR 2024 Page 144 of 217 Page 145 of 217 TABLE 1 - SAMPLING RESULTS SHOWING THE DETECTION OF COLIFORM BACTERIA 2023Microbiological Contaminants(to be completed only if there was a detection of bacteria)Highest No. ofdetectionsNo. ofmonths in violationMCLMCLGTypical Source of BacteriaTotal Coliform Bacteria(in a month)00More than 5% samples in a month with a detection0Naturally present in the environmentFecal Coliform or E. coli(in a year)00A routine sample and a repeat sample detect total coliform and either sample also detects fecal coliform or E. coli0Human and animal fecal wasteTables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 list all of the drinking water contaminants that were detected during the most recent sampling for the constituent. The presence of these contaminants in the water does not necessarily indicate that the water poses a health risk. The SWRCB requires us to monitor for certain contaminants less than once per year because the concentrations of these contaminants are not expected to vary significantly from year to year. Some of the data, though representative of the water quality, are more than one year old. TABLE 2 - CUSTOMER TAP LEAD/COPPER SAMPLINGLead and Copper (to be completed only if there was a detection of lead or copper in the last sample set)No. ofsamplescollected90th percentilelevel detectedSchools that have requested lead samplingNo. SitesexceedingALALMCLGTypical Source of ContaminantLead (ppb)5/14/2024300.0000152Internal corrosion of household water plumbing systems; discharges from industrial manufacturers; erosion of natural depositsCopper (ppm)5/14/2024300.164N/A01.30.3Internal corrosion of household water plumbing systems; erosion of natural deposits; leaching from wood preservatives TABLE 3 - SAMPLING RESULTS FOR SODIUM AND HARDNESSChemical or Constituent(and reporting units)SampleDataAvg. LevelDetectedRange of DetectionsMCLPHG(MCLG)Typical Source of ContaminantSodium (ppm) 2/14/20245/12/202123.1417–58nonenoneGenerally found in ground and surface waterHardness (ppm) 2/14/20245/12/2021237174–271nonenoneGenerally found in ground and surface waterTABLE 4 - DETECTION OF CONTAMINANTS WITH A PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDChemical or Constituent(and reporting units)SampleDataAvg.LevelDetectedRange ofDetectionMCLPHG(MCLG)Typical Source of ContaminantFluoride (ppm)2/14/20240.01ND–0.1221(NA)Erosion of natural deposits; water additive which promotes strong teeth; discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factoriesNitrate (N) (ppm)Quarterly20244.6 ppm0–8.61010(NA)Runoff and leaching from fertilizer use; leaching from septic tanks, sewage; erosion of natural depositsTetrachloroethylene [PCE] (ppb)Monthly20240.022ND–0.8950.06(NA)Discharge from factories, dry cleaners and auto shops (metal degreaser)Total trihalomethanes[TTHMs] (ppb)Quarterly20245.2250.4–10.080NA(NA)By-product of drinking water chlorinationTotal Haloacetic Acids(HAA5) (ppb)Quarterly20240060NA(NA)By-product of drinking water chlorinationTABLE 5 - DETECTION OF CONTAMINANTS WITH A SECONDARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDChemical or Constituent(and reporting units)SampleDataAvg. LevelDetectedRange ofDetectionsMCLPHG(MCLG)Typical Source of ContaminantChloride (ppm)2/14/202429.0022–48500NA(NA)Runoff/leaching from natural deposits; seawater influenceSpecific Conductance(micromhos/cm)2/14/2024567490–6101600NA(NA)Substances that form ions when in water; seawater influenceSulfate (ppm)2/14/202440.8632–44500NA(NA)Runoff/leaching from natural deposits, industrial wastesTotal dissolved solids [TDS] (ppm)2/14/2024339290–4001000NA(NA)Runoff/leaching from natural depositsPresented By The City of Gilroy Water Department California drinking water regulations require that water delivered by public water systems be, at all times, wholesome and potable, as required by the Federal and State Safe Drinking Water Acts. To accomplish this mandate, domestic water must meet strict standards, as established in the California Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring Regulations. This regulation includes primary and secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) and monitoring frequencies for specified microbiological, chemical and radionuclide contaminants. Primary contaminants are those that may have an adverse health effect. Secondary contaminants are those that may adversely affect the aesthetic quality of the drinking water. The regulation includes the provisions adopted by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. The state has direct enforcement responsibility for all public water systems with 200 or more service connections. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes monitoring requirements and maximum contaminant levels. As the EPA develops new standards, California will amend state regulations, which establish water quality requirements for local water supplies. The domestic water supplied by the City of Gilroy meets all current regulations. This report includes the respective Public Health Goal (PHG), or the federal Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for chemicals that do not yet have a PHG. If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. The City of Gilroy is responsible for providing high quality drinking water but cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing components. When water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline or at http://www.epa.gov/regulatory-informationtopic/ regulatory-information-topic-cross-cutting-issues#lead. Annual Water Quality Report 2024 384100 NSRT_CCR_2024_Broch.pdf 1 5/30/25 1:47 PM Page 146 of 217 City of Gilroy Annual Water Quality Report PWSID#4310004 This report contains important information about your drinking water. Scan the QR code or visit www.gilroy.city/water for the Spanish translation. Este informe contiene información importante sobre su agua potable. Escanee el código QR o visite www.gilroy.city/water para la traducción al español. The City of Gilroy tests it’s water for many constituents as required by State and Federal Regulations. This report shows the results of our monitoring for the period of January 1– December 31, 2024. Safe water is fundamental to healthy people and thriving communities. The City of Gilroy is committed to providing a safe and reliable supply of high quality drinking water that meets Federal and State regulations. This brochure is a snapshot of the quality of water provided in 2024. Included are details about the source of City water, what it contains, and how it compares to State standards. The City encourages public interest and participation in decisions affecting the community’s drinking water supply. Our City Council generally meets at 6:00 P.M. on the first and third Monday of each month at City Hall. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water), which manages the groundwater basin, Board) of Directors meetings are on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 9:30 a.m. (and the fifth Tuesday at 7:30 p.m. when applicable). The City of Gilroy works diligently to ensure that your water continues to meet safe drinking water standards. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Drinking Water Field Operations Branch, requires water agencies to annually notify their customers of the constituents or elements in their drinking water. This is not the result of punitive action, nor is it indicative of any violation of treatment practices. It is strictly a mandated public information service legislated to keep you informed each year of the facts about your drinking water. Water System The City of Gilroy’s municipal water supply comes solely from groundwater within the Llagas Basin Aquifer. The City currently operates nine water wells of varying depth located throughout the city. In 2024, these wells supplied approximately 60,000 residents and businesses with water for personal and industrial use. Gilroy treats our water with chlorine for disinfection purposes. The City has performed a Source Water Assessment to identify possible impacts to water quality. Our source water is considered most vulnerable to the following activities: gas stations, dry cleaners, and metal plating/finishing/ fabricating. A copy of the Source Water Assessment is available by contacting Engineering at (408) 846-0450. If you have any questions regarding this report or the water system, please contact Jeff Castro at (408) 846-0270. The City conducts monthly water quality testing at each of our nine wells to ensure safe drinking water for our community. It is important to note that Gilroy’s groundwater supply does not have the same corrosive properties found in other parts of the country that resulted in elevated amounts of lead in the water. Gilroy participates in the mandatory tri-annual testing and reporting on lead and copper in our water, and the levels observed in that specialized testing are extremely low. In fact, the levels are so low that SWRCB has allowed the City to reduce the frequency of testing from annually to tri-annually. As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develops new standards, California will amend state regulations that establish water quality requirements for local water supplies. The domestic water supplied by the City of Gilroy meets all current regulations. This report includes the respective public health goal (PHG), or the federal maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for chemicals that do not yet have a PHG. Protecting public health and the quality of your drinking water is our top priority. System Improvements To meet the growing needs of our customers, the City of Gilroy is continually evaluating, maintaining and improving our water system. The City has installed variable frequency drive (VFD’s) on two of our wells in an effort to reduce energy costs and maintain system pressure during high demand. The City is also in the preliminary stage of a new well at McCarthy Ranch on the south side of the City. In November of 2023, all eleven water storage reservoirs were cleaned and inspected. The American Water Works Association recommends cleaning water reservoirs every five years and inspecting the tanks every three years. The City of Gilroy exceeds these requirements by cleaning and inspecting water reservoirs every three years. The City is also currently in the design stage for six water utility improvement projects to meet current and future water and fire flow demands. Five of the six projects will replace small diameter distribution pipelines with upsized ductile iron pipelines meeting the requirements of the City’s pipeline technical specifications. As of April 2024, 184 services have been removed and replaced as part of the city’s lead service line replacement program. The City plans to continue efforts to remove and replace the remaining services over the next three years. The lead service line inventory results are now available on the City’s website at https://www.cityofgilroy. org/267/13893/Water. USEPA/Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791). Water Conservation State agencies, led by the State Water Resources Control Board, has executed a statewide water conservation campaign to make all Californians aware and encourage personal actions to reduce water usage. More information is available about water conservation and actions at the following website: www.Cityofgilroy.org/ waterconservation. Water conservation measures not only save our water supply but can also cut the cost of water. Conserving water reduces the energy costs of pumping water to our facilities as well as the chemical costs for treating the water. There are several measures you, as the water consumer, can do to conserve on water usage. Conservation measures you can use inside your home include: 1. Fix leaky faucets, pipes, toilets, etc. 2. Install water-saving devices in faucets, toilets and appliances. Simply replacing old fixtures with a new one will reduce water consumption by nearly one-half. See Santa Clara Valley Water District web site for rebates available for water saving devices at http://www.valleywater.org/rebates 3. Wash only full loads of laundry. 4. Don’t use the toilet for trash disposal. 5. Take shorter showers. Do not let the water run while shaving, washing, brushing teeth, or cleaning fruits and vegetables. 6. Run the dishwasher only when full. 7. Purchase an energy efficient washing machine and dishwasher. You can conserve outdoors as well: 1. Water the lawn and garden as little as possible. Outdoor watering is more efficient between 7 p.m. and 3 a.m., and also reduces demand during peak use periods. From November-March water 2 days a week, and from April-October water 3 days per week. 2. Use mulch around plants and shrubs or choose plants that don’t need much water. Get a rebate for replacing your lawn at www.valleywater.org/landscaperebateprogram 3. Repair leaks in faucets and hoses. Use water-saving nozzles. 4. Wash your car at a commercial car wash that recirculates its water. 5. Sweep clippings, leaves, and dirt from walks and driveways rather than using the hose. 6. Obey any and all water use restrictions and regulations. Consult the City of Gilroy website at www.cityofgilroy.org/ waterconservation for the latest water conservation regulations. Contaminants Sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally-occurring minerals and, in some cases, picks up chemicals and substances resulting from the presence of animals or human activity. Contaminants that may be present in source water before we treat it include: • Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, that may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural or livestock operations, and wildlife. • Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, which can be naturally - occurring or result from urban storm water runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining or farming. • Pesticides and herbicides, which may come from a variety of sources such as agricultural, urban storm water runoff, and residential uses • Organic Chemical Contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals that are byproducts of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban storm water runoff, agricultural application and septic systems. • Radioactive contaminants, which can be naturally occurring or be the result of oil and gas production and mining activities. • Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl substances, collectively known as “PFAS” are a group of chemicals that have been widely used in industrial applications and consumer products such as carpets, clothing, furniture fabrics, paper packaging for food, firefighting foams, and other materials including waterproof/stain resistant/ nonstick cookware. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) are two common types of PFAS.In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the SWRCB prescribe regulations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. • Nitrate in drinking water at levels above 10 mg/L is a health risk for infants less than six months of age. Such nitrate levels in drinking water can interfere with the capacity of the infant’s blood to carry oxygen, resulting in a serious illness; symptoms include shortness of breath and blueness of the skin. Nitrate levels above 10 mg/L may also affect the ability of the blood to carry oxygen in other individuals, such as pregnant women, and those with certain specific enzyme deficiencies. If you are caring for an infant, or you are pregnant, you should ask advice from your health care provider. Nitrate levels may rise quickly for short periods of time because of rainfall or agricultural activity. Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Act Hotline (1-800-426-4791). Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immuno-compromised persons such as persons with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers. Definitions Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Primary MCLs are set as close to the PHGs (or MCLGs) as is economically and technologically feasible. Secondary MCLs are set to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of drinking water. Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Public Health Goal (PHG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL): The level of a disinfectant added for water treatment that may not be exceeded at the consumer’s tap. Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG): The level of a disinfectant added for water treatment below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Primary Drinking Water Standards: MCLs and MRDLs for contaminants that affect health along with their monitoring and reporting requirements, and water treatment requirements. NA: not applicable ND: not detectable at testing limit ppm: parts per million or milligrams per liter (mg/L) ppb: parts per billion or micrograms per liter (ug/L) ppt: parts per trillion or nanograms per liter (ng/L) pCi/L: picocuries per liter (a measure of radiation) Regulatory Action Levels (AL): The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow. 384100 NSRT_CCR_2024_Broch.pdf 2 5/30/25 1:47 PM Page 147 of 217 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title:Aquatics Program Operations Meeting Date:June 16, 2025 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department:Administration Submitted by:Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Prepared by:Monica Sendejas, Management Analyst STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:Develop a Financially Resilient Organization RECOMMENDATION Receive a report on Aquatics Program operations and provide feedback or direction for future operations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Swim lessons are crucial for water safety, physical development and building confidence. Recreation swim is primarily for fun, enjoyment, and relaxation in the water. Waterslides provide a fun and entertaining recreational experience and are popular, key attractions in water parks. Since 2012, the City of Gilroy has offered swim lessons, recreation swim, and waterslide entertainment to the Gilroy community through City staff-run and consultant-run summer programming at Christopher High School (CHS) Aquatics Center. Staff is providing this report to share an overview of the program history and operational costs of the CHS Aquatics Center. Staff is seeking City Council feedback and guidance for future summer aquatics operations. BACKGROUND CHS Aquatics Center Facility The CHS Aquatics Center was built in partnership with Gilroy Unified School District (GUSD). Construction was completed in 2011 and the facility opened to the public in Page 148 of 217 the summer of 2012. The City contributed $4,346,986 towards the cost of land acquisition, development, and construction of the site and facilities within the CHS Aquatics Center. The City has a Cooperative Agreement with GUSD for use of the CHS Aquatics Center until December 31, 2061. The CHS Aquatics Center is comprised of a zero-entry activity pool with waterslides (four total) and an AquaPlay structure, a competition pool with two diving boards, bathrooms, and office buildings. The activity pool, bathrooms, and offices are the City’s responsibility, and the competition pool belongs to GUSD. The pool pump room and pool sanitation maintenance (includes adjusting water chemistry, backwashing, cleaning filters, vacuuming/sweeping the pool, etc.) of the activity and competition pools are under GUSD’s management. GUSD invoices the City for its equitable share of those maintenance and repair costs. The California Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) Amusement Ride and Tramway Unit annually inspects, and issues permits for the waterslides, as the waterslides are regulated under the same category as amusement park rides. The main purpose of this regulation is to prevent incidents by identifying unsafe rides. Regulations on staff training requirements, daily and annual inspections, dispatching on the waterslides, height requirements, and general operating procedures must be followed. In 2018, large shade structures were installed in three areas on the activity pool side of the CHS Aquatics Center as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The construction of shade structures drastically reduced ultraviolet (UV) sun exposure to children and families while creating a safer and more enjoyable environment. The total project cost was $432,622.34. Summer Aquatics Program History The Recreation Department has operated a summer aquatics program for many years. Prior to the opening of the CHS Aquatics Center, the summer aquatics program was held at Gilroy High School and a recreation swim program at South Valley Middle School. The summer program was typically a six-to-eight-week program, depending on the GUSD summer break schedule. The pool was open weekdays for two-hours of recreation swim at Gilroy High School and South Valley Middle School. Swim lessons were offered four days per week at Gilroy High School. In 2011, GUSD closed and subsequently filled-in the pool at South Valley Middle School due to a substantial crack/leak in the pool. From 2012 through 2017, the Recreation Department operated the aquatics program at CHS Aquatics Center and Gilroy High School. The programming at CHS Aquatics Center offered six days per week, was focused on recreation and lap swim from Memorial Day to Labor Day weekend, and included private swim lessons, pool parties, and water aerobics. Swim lessons and recreation swim were offered four days per week at Gilroy High School for six to eight weeks, from the middle-to-end of June until the beginning-to-middle of August. During the school year, the Recreation Department Page 149 of 217 held American Red Cross certification courses including Lifeguarding, Water Safety Instructor, and Basic Water Rescue certification courses as well as Junior Lifeguard (Jr. Guard) Training Program classes at CHS Aquatics Center. The Recreation Department also offered a Jr. Guard Volunteer program during the summer at both facilities for youth ages 11 to 14. Aquatics operations were substantially more challenging in 2017. While there were less staff available to work in 2017, the predominant issues were not the number of staff hired, but rather the number of hours/days/weeks each person was available to work as well as their logged deck experience and lifeguarding skills. On average, a summer lifeguard has a career lifespan of one to three years, and their lifeguarding skills typically get stronger each year (certification is valid for two years). Most summer lifeguards are high school and college-age students, so their availability is based on their school schedule, vacations, and family commitments. Once they have a few years of college under their belt, sometimes less, they are ready to move onto internships or jobs that are resume and career building opportunities. The 2017 staffing issues were compounding since many of the seasoned staff had reached their lifeguarding lifespan and moved on after the 2016 season, resulting in the 2017 team being young, inexperienced, lacking scheduling availability, and lacking senior leadership. After the 2017 season, the Recreation Department solicited the City of Morgan Hill Recreation Department to manage Aquatics operations in Gilroy, as they had a strong Aquatics program, and were successfully operating two aquatics facilities in Morgan Hill. The City of Morgan Hill and the Mt. Madonna YMCA have a strong partnership for operation of the Centennial Recreation Center (CRC), but the Aquatics programs (at the CRC and the Morgan Hill Aquatics Center) have always been run by the City of Morgan Hill Recreation Department. The City of Morgan Hill submitted a proposal to manage Gilroy Aquatics operations at a rate of $162,632 per month, but soon thereafter withdrew the proposal because they began experiencing some of the same staffing challenges that Gilroy had during the summer of 2017. In addition, Bay Area aquatics experts were warning that industry-wide lifeguarding shortages would continue to be a challenge for public pools in the coming years. As a result, the Recreation Department re-evaluated their capacity to safely operate the Aquatics program and moved all operations to one facility, the CHS Aquatics Center, beginning with the 2018 season. In 2018 and 2019, the Recreation Department offered swim lessons, recreation swim, lap swim, water aerobics, and pool parties at the CHS Aquatics Center during the summer, and certification classes during the school year. The Recreation Department did not offer an Aquatics program in 2020 and 2021 due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the pandemic-related reduction of recreation services and staffing, including the Recreation Department being downsized to a Recreation Division. In 2021, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was released, seeking an aquatics operator to manage a summer program at the CHS Aquatics Center. Staff offered a site walk during the RFP process and met with interested parties, including the YMCA of Silicon Page 150 of 217 Valley and Swimming Swan, LLC. The YMCA of Silicon Valley does not have an Aquatics presence in South Santa Clara County and their closest pool is located at the South Valley Family YMCA in San Jose. After their site visit, the YMCA submitted a proposal, and then withdrew it from consideration. The Chief Operating Officer for the YMCA of Silicon Valley stated, with disappointment, that after they completed their financial analysis, “it became clear the programming and operations would not cover their direct and indirect expenses” and that as they were emerging from COVID, they were “financially unable to take on a subsidized program of this magnitude.” City Council awarded a two-year contract and subsequent one-year amendment to Swimming Swan, LLC to operate a summer aquatics program for the 2022, 2023, and 2024 seasons. The consultant, Swimming Swan, LLC, was paid a management fee and provided reimbursement for the cost of insurance. Per the agreement, the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) rate was applied to the management fee for the 2023 and 2024 seasons, and the consultant retained the revenue generated. Swimming Swan, LLC was unable to acquire a ten million dollar insurance policy in 2022 and therefore did not operate the CHS Aquatic Center waterslides that summer, but the pools were open for recreation and lap swim and swim lessons. Consultant 2022 Season 2023 Season 2024 Season Management Fee $175,000 $183,575 $188,348 Insurance $0 $64,580 $61,580 Total $175,000 $248,388 $249,928 A new RFP was issued in November 2024 for management of the CHS Aquatics Center Summer Aquatics Program. At the City Council meeting on March 17, 2025, Swimming Swan, LLC was awarded a one-year contract and City Council requested staff return with an analysis of the Aquatics Program. ANALYSIS CHS Aquatics Center Facility Per the Cooperative Agreement, the City pays GUSD its equitable share of maintenance and repair costs for the CHS Aquatics Center, at an average rate of $76,600 per year over the past two years, which included the annual pool maintenance (average cost of $55,600), replacement of the chemical controller ($22,496) one year, and replacement of a pool heater ($19,431) the other year. The waterslides require waxing and repairs by a consultant every four to six years, at an average cost of $50,000. Regular waxing is an essential part of pool slide maintenance. It helps to extend the lifespan of the slide, maintain its appearance, reduces the risk of rider skin abrasions/injuries, and ensures a smooth, fast, and safe Page 151 of 217 ride. Waxing is especially important for commercial waterslides that are exposed to constant sun and use. The waterslides are due for waxing this year. In 2022, the City replastered the activity pool at a cost of $299,757. Per industry standards, the pool should be replastered every seven to ten years. Pools are replastered to rejuvenate their aesthetics, restore structural integrity, and address issues like stains, cracking, and wear and tear. Replastering provides a fresh, smooth surface, improving the pool's look and feel while also reinforcing its waterproof barrier and protecting against future damage. The CHS Aquatics Center will be 20 years old in 2031. Facility maintenance for the CHS Aquatics Center is high, with waterslide repairs averaging $50,000 every four to six years. Replastering the pool is $300,000 every seven to ten years, and the City’s equitable annual maintenance cost and mechanical replacement fees averages $76,600 per year. Based on these costs and the aging facility, the City can anticipate spending at least one million dollars over the next ten years on the CHS Aquatics Center facility, not including the cost to run a program. Summer Aquatics Program Operations While the City operates on a fiscal year from July 1 through June 30, this analysis was performed on a calendar year basis to align with the summer season. Prior to the construction of the CHS Aquatics Center, the Recreation Department offered a smaller Summer Aquatics Program. In 2011, the Recreation Department offered a seven-week program that included six weeks of swim lessons at Gilroy High School and two-hours of recreation swim on weekdays at Gilroy High School and South Valley Middle School. Swim lessons were $7.50 per class and recreation swim was $2 per day. There were 612 swim lesson participants, 533 recreation swim participants at South Valley Middle School, and 856 recreation swim participants at Gilroy High School. Recreation swim at South Valley Middle School was free for qualifying low- income families. The program generated $45,480 in revenue and had $103,490 in expenses, netting a loss of $58,011. The Summer Aquatics Program at CHS Aquatics Center has been run by City staff and by a consultant. The facility is open six days a week, including weekends, and offers swim lessons and recreation swim for the community. For the purposes of this analysis, the City-run program in 2018 and 2019 and the consultant-run program in 2023 and 2024 will be evaluated. The on-going facility expenses for CHS Aquatics Center are not factors in this operational comparison because those facility costs will be incurred regardless of who is running the program. The City’s operational expenses included staff recruitment, staff wages and benefits, uniforms, swim lesson equipment, lifeguarding equipment, office supplies, certification training supplies, first aid supplies, Snack Shack inventory, staff development, custodial services, class registration support, activity guide publication, and professional memberships (Bay Area Public Pool Operator Association, American Red Cross Learn Page 152 of 217 to Swim Program). An average revenue of $140,978 was generated and an average expense of $476,270 was incurred. The City-run program averaged a net loss of $335,292. In 2025 dollars, the average net loss would be The consultant was responsible for certification classes, hiring and staffing the program, custodial services, additional equipment and supplies, website design and hosting fees, marketing, registration software, a customer payment platform, professional licenses and certifications, staff training, and payroll expenses. The City allowed the consultant to use equipment onsite from the 2019 season, but replacement and additional equipment was purchased by the consultant. The City received no revenue from the consultant and the City paid the consultant an average of $249,158 for the management fee and insurance. The consultant-run program averaged a net loss of $249,158. CITY CONSULTANT Calendar Year 2018 2019 2023 2024 City Revenue $129,524 $152,432 $0 $0 City Expense $469,411 $483,128 $248,388 $249,928 Net ($339,887)($330,696)($248,388)($249,928) In 2025 dollars, this would be an average net loss for the City-run program of $422,511 and an average net loss of the consultant-run program of $257,867. The average expenses were $342,164 greater with the City-run program. By 2025 standards, the City-run program experienced a $164,644 higher average net loss compared to the consultant-run program. CITY CONSULTANT Calendar Year 2018 in 2025 Dollars ($1.27 higher) 2019 in 2025 Dollars ($1.25 higher) 2023 in 2025 Dollars ($1.05 higher) 2024 in 2025 Dollars ($1.02 higher) City Revenue $164,499 $190,540 $0 $0 City Expense $596,152 $603,910 $260,807 $254,927 Net in 2025 Dollars ($431,653)($413,370)($260,807)($254,927) The analysis showed the City and the consultant had similar program offerings each season including Lifeguarding and Water Safety Instructor certification classes, swim lessons, recreation swim, water aerobics, and pool parties at the CHS Aquatics Center. The City had an average of 910 swim lesson participants and 11,575 recreation swim Page 153 of 217 users. The average fee per class for swim lessons was $13.13 and the average recreation swim fee was $6.50 on weekdays and $8.50 on weekends. The consultant had an average of 1,576 swim lesson participants and 5,994 recreation swim users. The average fee per class for swim lessons was $13.75 and the average recreation swim fee was $9 on weekdays and $11 on weekends. There is a disparity in the number of recreation swim users with the City versus the consultant. It is worth noting that the City-run program benefited from eight consistent seasons of operations, while the consultant was following a three-year hiatus (two years of complete shutdown due to COVID, followed by one year without waterslide usage) and has only begun to rebuild the program. Their success thus far is evident in the growth of the swim lesson program. CITY CONSULTANT Calendar Year 2018 2019 2023 2024 # Swim Lesson Participants 938 882 1,192 1,883 Swim Lesson Per Class Fee $11.25 $15.00 $13.75 $13.75 # Recreation Swim Users 12,990 10,159 5,107 6,880 Recreation Swim Fee (Weekdays / Weekends) $5 / $7 $8 / $10 $8 / $10 $10 / $12 Operation and Facility Cost Considerations There are different levels of costs associated with a facility. Having waterslides adds considerable costs because of the maintenance required to safely operate the waterslides and meet Cal/OSHA inspection and permitting requirements. The City can anticipate that GUSD maintenance fees will continue at an average rate of $76,600 per year, in addition to waterslide maintenance every four to six years at an average cost of $50,000. There is also a difference between having an aquatics program that includes swim lessons and recreation swim with waterslides and having a smaller stand-alone swim program. A stand-alone swim lesson program can break even or net a profit if all these conditions are met: •The operational expenses are reasonable for the offered program(s); •The facility is conducive to having at least six classes at one time; Page 154 of 217 •The appropriate fee is charged (not subsidized); and •Scholarships are funded through an external source. Whether the Summer Aquatics Program is run by the City or a consultant, the CHS Aquatics Center will continue to operate at a loss for these reasons: •High staffing costs due to: o The 10/20 protection standard (lifeguard sees someone in distress within 10 seconds and is able to get to that person within 20 seconds) and blind spots caused by the AquaPlay structure, requiring the operator to have more staff physically present to survey the water; o Two staff over the age of 16 are required for dispatching purposes only on the watersides (Cal/OSHA regulation); and o Training requirements and daily inspections of the watersides (Cal/OSHA regulation). •The zero-entry activity pool is not designed to be a teaching pool, so swim lesson capacity is limited. •There isn't a membership model to offset the cost of operation. Daily user fees at $8/$10 per person will never achieve cost recovery. On the other hand, attendance at the pool will decrease significantly if admission is priced for cost recovery at $25+ per person. •The competition pool has the potential to make a profit through pool rentals for swim meets. However, the competition pool is owned by GUSD and therefore these types of rentals are managed by GUSD. Even during the summer, GUSD often has a school's swimming or water polo team utilizing this pool, making it difficult to find available time for an outside user to rent it. Using a consultant has proven to be more cost-effective for the City. The current agreement with the consultant expires on October 31, 2025. Staff recommends publishing an RFP for a summer aquatics operator at CHS Aquatics Center for the next three years, with two possible, one-year amendments. Staff is seeking feedback and guidance from City Council. ALTERNATIVES Following are some alternatives City Council might consider: 1. Return CHS Aquatics Center operations to the Recreation Division. This will require additional General Fund appropriations for operations in addition to adding a staff position with the specialized skills and certifications needed for training, program implementation, and oversight. Staff will prepare a budget for consideration if this is what City Council desires. Page 155 of 217 2. Prepare an RFP for a swim lesson only program with a 90% consultant and 10% City revenue share model. Under consideration would be the facility to host the program. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE There are no fiscal impacts for this agenda item. The fiscal impact of any direction received will be analyzed and reported back to City Council when the item returns for consideration. PUBLIC OUTREACH None. NEXT STEPS Following City Council’s direction, staff will perform any necessary analysis requested or prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for operations of the CHS Aquatics Center and return to City Council at a future meeting. Attachments: 1. CHS Aquatics Center Photos Exhibit Page 156 of 217 Page 157 of 217 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title:Acceptance of a One-Year Agreement with Santa Clara County Communications for Emergency Medical Dispatching Meeting Date:June 16, 2025 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department:Fire Submitted by:Rob Fleeup, Fire Chief Prepared by:Jennifer Fortino, Management Analyst STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure RECOMMENDATION Approve a one-year agreement with the County of Santa Clara Communications Department (County Comm) for Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) services, in the amount of $100,878, and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EMD is a systematic program for processing medical emergency calls. Specially trained dispatchers use EMD guide cards to determine the nature and priority of the call, dispatch the appropriate Emergency Medical Services (EMS) resources, and instruct the caller to assist the patient until an EMS unit arrives. EMD dispatchers are required to be certified in advanced medical dispatching, as they provide a higher level of medical care to callers experiencing medical emergencies. BACKGROUND The Gilroy Communications Department does not currently provide EMD services. The City’s dispatchers receive 911 calls and then transfer the call to a County Communications EMD-accredited dispatcher for medical emergency triage. The current in-house dispatch capabilities also do not include infrastructure that is compliant with national standards. Page 158 of 217 In 2002, Gilroy Fire implemented the Firefighter/Paramedic program to enhance patient outcomes and improve emergency response efficiency. Implementing the paramedic program resulted in a need to change the City’s current 911 dispatch practices. Following a review of the EMS system, the Department concluded that EMD was a critical but missing component of the EMS delivery system within Gilroy. While the Gilroy Fire and Police departments agreed at that time that the provision of EMD by the Gilroy Communications Center would have been the optimal solution, the Police Department's implementation of its new computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system committed staffing resources that would be needed to implement EMD. In 2003, the Department opted for an interim solution by contracting with County Communications for EMD services. At the time, Gilroy Communications intended to provide EMD services using City personnel at a future date. Until recently, the annual cost of the EMD agreement with County Communications has proved to be a good economic choice for the City. Therefore, the City has renewed its annual agreement with County Communications each year through FY25. The initial cost of the EMD services in the 2003 agreement was $24,596. The cost of EMD services has increased annually based on the City’s annual call volume, with the current FY25 agreement cost of $91,912. This reflects an increase of 273% between 2003 and 2025. In March 2025, the City received notification that County Communications had changed its EMD billing methodology, and the cost of the service would significantly increase, effective in the upcoming FY26 agreement. The initial proposed FY26 cost for EMD was $307,251, reflecting a 234% increase between FY25 and FY26. Due to the feedback County Communications received from several of the agencies that contract with them for EMD services, County Communications agreed to a two-year phased-in approach to the increased cost of the services. The updated County Communications phased-in two-year costs for FY26 are $100,878 and $170,148 for FY27. County Communications will implement the full cost of the updated billing methodology beginning with the FY28 agreement. Based on the significant increase in cost for EMD services, the City has begun researching the cost of implementing EMD services in-house. In the meantime, the Fire Department would like to continue its contract with County Communications for an additional one-year term to maintain the current EMD services provided to Gilroy residents. ANALYSIS Providing EMD services involves additional costs compared to standard 911 dispatching. Dispatchers are required to take additional courses to become and maintain their EMD accreditation. These costs are generally incurred by the agencies for which EMD dispatchers work. EMD-accredited dispatchers also commonly receive higher pay for this additional level of training. There is also an initial cost for purchasing Page 159 of 217 the necessary infrastructure needed to provide EMD services. The Fire and Police Departments will research the following factors involved in implementing EMD operations: 1. Cost of sending the current Gilroy Dispatchers through the EMD-accreditation process. 2. Ongoing recertification costs. 3. Cost to purchase the infrastructure needed to implement EMD operations. 4. The additional salary costs to pay dispatchers who complete the accreditation process. 5. Determine whether additional dispatchers must be hired after implementing EMD operations. ALTERNATIVES 1. Maintain Status Quo – Continue contracting with County Communications to maintain EMD dispatch operations and not consider bringing EMD operations in- house. 2. Discontinue providing EMD dispatch operations to Gilroy residents. This option is not recommended as it lessens the level of emergency medical intervention Gilroy residents receive when they call 911. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE The one-year FY26 cost for County Communications EMD services is $100,878 and would be funded in the Fire Department budget. The adopted FY26 budget includes adequate appropriations to accommodate this expenditure. PUBLIC OUTREACH This item was included on the publicly posted agenda for this meeting. NEXT STEPS If Council approves the one-year agreement with the Santa Clara County Communications Department, the City Administrator will finalize and execute the agreement documents, and County Communications will continue to provide EMD services to the City of Gilroy. Attachments: Page 160 of 217 1. SCC and City of Gilroy 3rd Amendment FINAL 04.08.25 (002) Page 161 of 217 Third Amendment to Agreement between County of Santa Clara and City of Gilroy Page 1 of 2 THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND THE CITY OF GILROY FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL DISPATCH AND TECHNICAL SERVICES This is the Third Amendment to the Agreement (“Agreement”) by and between the County of Santa Clara (“COUNTY”) and the City of Gilroy (“CITY”) originally entered into on July 1, 2021, for the provision of Emergency Medical Dispatch and technical services to the CITY. This Agreement is hereby amended as follows, effective July 1, 2025: 1. Article 3.1(a) regarding the Term of Agreement, is revised to read: (a) This Agreement is effective for five (5) years, from July 1, 2021, until June 30, 2026, unless terminated earlier in accordance with Section 3.2. 2. Article 3.1(b) regarding the Term of Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety. 3. Article 6.15 regarding the Levine Act Compliance, is revised to read: CITY will comply and will ensure that its agents (as that term is defined under 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18438.3(a)) and its subcontractors (“Subcontractors”) comply, with California Government Code section 84308 (“Levine Act”) and the applicable regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission concerning campaign disclosure (2 California Code of Regulations sections 18438.1 – 18438.8), which (1) require a party to a proceeding involving a contract to disclose on the record of the proceeding any contribution, as defined by Government Code section 84308(a)(6), of more than $500 that the party or their agent has made within the prior 12 months, and (2) prohibit a party to a proceeding involving a contract from making a contribution, as defined by Government Code section 84308(a)(6), of more than $500 to any County officer during the proceeding and for 12 months following the final decision in the proceeding. CITY agrees to submit disclosures required to be made under the Levine Act at the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors website at http://www.sccgov.org/levineact, and CITY shall require Subcontractors to do the same. If this Agreement is to be considered or voted upon by the County’s Board of Supervisors, CITY shall complete the Levine Act Contractor Form: Identification of Subcontractors and Agents, and if applicable, shall ensure that any Subcontractor completes the Levine Act Subcontractor Form: Identification of Agents, and CITY must submit all such forms to the County as a prerequisite to execution of the Agreement. 4. Replace Exhibit C, EMD Compensation for Services, with revised Exhibit C-1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. All other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the original Agreement, the First Amendment, or Second Amendment, and this Third Amendment, this Third Amendment controls. The Agreement as amended constitutes the entire agreement of the parties concerning the subject matter herein and supersedes all prior oral and written agreements, representations and understandings concerning such subject matter. Docusign Envelope ID: 8250EA23-3DAB-4085-B12C-C69CD238A2B4 Page 162 of 217 Third Amendment to Agreement between County of Santa Clara and City of Gilroy Page 2 of 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the COUNTY and the CITY have caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives effective July 1, 2025. SIGNATURES: COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CITY OF GILROY ________________________ ________ ________________________ ________ OTTO LEE, PRESIDENT Date JIMMY FORBIS Date Board of Supervisors City Administrator Signed and certified that a copy of this ATTEST: document has been delivered by electronic or other means to the President, Board of Supervisors. ________________________ ATTEST: BRYCE ATKINS Acting City Clerk ________________________ CURTIS BOONE Acting Clerk of the Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ________________________ ________________________ STEPHANIE M. JACKSON ANDY FABER Deputy County Counsel City Attorney Exhibit to this Amendment: Exhibit C-1 – EMD Compensation for Service Docusign Envelope ID: 8250EA23-3DAB-4085-B12C-C69CD238A2B4 Page 163 of 217 Exhibit C-1 - Third Amendment to Agreement between County of Santa Clara and City of Gilroy Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT C-1 EMD COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES Emergency Medical Dispatching (EMD) Cost and Billing Methodology 1. The total COUNTY costs for providing dispatching services are allocated to four service areas (law enforcement, medical, fire and local government), based on the most recent three- year average number of events. In the month of March, the annual cost for the upcoming fiscal year (FY) will be estimated using the process described in this cost methodology. 2. Following is the computation for estimated costs for dispatching services to be provided by COUNTY to the CITY in FY 2025-2026: a. COUNTY will classify costs as follows: i. Direct Costs: salaries, benefits, and supplies related to Dispatch line staff. ii. Operations Indirect Costs: costs associated with Dispatch management staff. iii. Department Indirect Costs: costs associated with executive management and administrative support staff. iv. County Indirect Costs: costs associated with County Administration. b. COUNTY allocates salaries and benefits, other operating expenses, and indirect County overhead as follows: c. COUNTY allocates all costs to four service areas based on the number of events, averaged over the most recent three fiscal years, for services provided in each service area. Service Area # of Events % of Total Support Total Cost Law Enforcement 146,730 40.7% $ 16,550,943 Medical 177,607 49.2% $ 20,003,943 Fire 28,605 7.9% $ 3,190,137 Local Government 7,705 2.1% $ 878,654 Total Dispatch 360,647 100.0% $ 40,623,677 i. Salaries & Benefits Direct $ 20,499,280 Operations Indirect $ 2,769,076 Department Indirect $ 2,483,270 ii. Other Operating Expenses (Supplies, county radio infrastructure maintenance, etc.) Direct $ 7,757,229 Operations Indirect $ 718,757 Department Indirect $ 904,350 Indirect County Overhead $ 5,491,713 iii. Total Dispatch Cost $ 40,623,677 Docusign Envelope ID: 8250EA23-3DAB-4085-B12C-C69CD238A2B4 Page 164 of 217 Exhibit C-1 - Third Amendment to Agreement between County of Santa Clara and City of Gilroy Page 2 of 2 d. COUNTY allocates EMD medical costs to agencies/departments based on the number of events, averaged over the most recent three fiscal years (FY2022-FY2024) for services provided. Remove County Overhead and General Admin for cities covered by Government Code 51350. Medical Agency # of Events % of Medical Support Operating Cost County Overhead Total Medical Area Cost Gilroy EMD 3,491 2.0% $340,039 $53,116 $ 393,155 Cost Adjustment/ Reduction (32,788) ($53,116) ($85,904) Gilroy Cost $307,251 $307,251 Contract reduction (206,373) Gilroy Adjusted Cost $100,878 All Other Agencies 174,116 98.0% $16,961,334 $2,649,454 $19,610,788 Total Medical 177,607 100.0% $17,301,373 $2,702,570 $20,003,943 e. FY 2025-2026 the CITY’s adjusted estimate is based on 5% of total medical cost based on the CITY’s average number of EMD events. A contract reduction is added to this Cost Compensation exhibit to reduce the actual cost. Beginning with fiscal year 2026-2027 the COUNTY will phase in cost increases in increments of 2.5% of medical cost for the following fiscal years of the agreement. For example: CITY EMD Cost Percent $ 100,878 5% $ 170,148 7.5% FY 26-27 Estimate During the fiscal year, COUNTY shall bill the CITY for EMD dispatching services quarterly based on the estimated cost. The COUNTY shall notify the CITY of any adjustment prior to billing the CITY’s final fourth quarterly installment. Billing questions may be directed by email to Accounts Payable at Accounts.Payable@911.sccgov.org. 3. In the first quarter of the following fiscal year, actual costs will be computed using the methodology used for cost estimates and update using the previous year’s event count. Any difference in an increase or decrease cost adjustment will not exceed 5% above or below the previously billed amount. Docusign Envelope ID: 8250EA23-3DAB-4085-B12C-C69CD238A2B4 Page 165 of 217 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title:Approval and Authorization to Purchase Real Property Located at 641 Old Gilroy Street (APN 841-100-10 and 841- 100-28) Meeting Date:June 16, 2025 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department:Administration Submitted by:Victoria Valencia, Economic Development Manager Prepared by:Victoria Valencia, Economic Development Manager STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the purchase of real property located at 641 Old Gilroy Street (APN 841- 100-10 and 841-100-28), for a total of $3,250,000, associated transaction costs, for the purpose of expanding the City’s Corporation Yard and Utilities Department operational space. 2. Authorize the City Administrator to execute the purchase agreement and related documents. 3. Adopt a resolution amending Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget within the Water and Wastewater Funds for the acquisition of the property. BACKGROUND The City of Gilroy has identified a need for additional property to support the continued growth and organization of the Utilities Department. The subject property, located at 641 Old Gilroy Street, APN 841-100-10 and 841-100-28, is currently owned by The Jessup Family Trust. The City entered into preliminary discussions with the property owner regarding acquisition. ANALYSIS Page 166 of 217 The City’s Corporation Yard, located at 613 Old Gilroy Street, houses essential operations for Public Works, Utilities, Fleet, and other City services. Over time, the City’s operational demands and service levels have grown, resulting in space constraints at the existing Corporation Yard. In particular, the Utilities Department requires additional space to support equipment storage, materials, staff, and operations necessary to maintain current services and prepare for future growth. A property located immediately adjacent to the existing Corporation Yard — at 641 Old Gilroy Street — is now available for purchase. The property is uniquely situated to allow seamless expansion of the existing yard. No major site redesign, infrastructure improvements, or off-site travel would be required to integrate the two sites. The City can easily remove existing fences or barriers to create a unified, expanded facility. No other comparable parcels near the Corporation Yard are currently available, identified, or will be available in the near future. Due to the exceptional locational advantage of this property — which is directly adjacent to the existing Corporation Yard — staff is recommending its purchase at the negotiated price of $3,250,000. Acquisition of this property aligns with the City’s long-term operational planning and will enable substantial efficiencies that would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve with non-adjacent properties. If the City were to pursue expansion at an alternative location, it would likely face significantly higher long-term costs related to land acquisition, site development, infrastructure connectivity, and operational inefficiencies. As part of the negotiated purchase terms, the seller will lease the property back from the City for up to six months following the close of escrow. The lease-back period provides the seller time to dispose of personal property and vacate the site in an orderly manner. The City will take possession of the property on or after January 1, 2026. Following possession, staff will proceed with initial steps to integrate the property with the existing Corporation Yard, including removal of internal fencing and preparation of the site to support the Utilities Department and other operational needs. Including the lease-back provision in the purchase terms ensures the City is able to secure this strategically valuable property while accommodating a reasonable transition period for the seller. ALTERNATIVES 1.Decline to Approve the Purchase, which would forgo this unique opportunity; other expansion options may be more costly, less efficient, or infeasible. 2.Defer Action and direct staff to evaluate other alternatives. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE Page 167 of 217 The property will be paid for using the Water (705) and Wastewater Fund (700), with a 50/50 split as the property will be utilized by both operations. A related budget amendment resolution is included to appropriate $1,625,000 each from the Water and Wastewater Fund, for a total of $3,250,000 for this acquisition NEXT STEPS If Council approves the purchase, the City Administrator will finalize the purchase and sale agreement, complete outstanding due diligence, and coordinate escrow and title transfer. Staff will move forward with a plan for removal of fencing/internal barriers and operational integration with existing Corporation Yard, and develop phased site planning for Utilities and other applicable department needs. Staff will return to Council as necessary for future funding and capital improvement planning. Attachments: 1. Executed Letter of Intent 5-07-25 Page 168 of 217 Page 169 of 217 Page 170 of 217 Page 171 of 217 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF GILROY FOR 2024-2025 FISCAL YEAR WHEREAS, the City Administrator prepared and submitted to the City Council a budget for the City of Gilroy for Fiscal Years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025, and the City Council carefully examined, considered and adopted the same on June 5, 2023; and WHEREAS, City Staff has prepared and submitted to the City Council proposed amendments to the budget for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 (FY25) for the City of Gilroy in the staff report dated June 16, 2025, for the Authorization to Purchase Real Property Located at 641 Old Gilroy Street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the expenditure appropriations for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 in Fund 700 – Wastewater (Sewer) Fund shall be increased by $1,625,000, and in Fund 705 – Water Fund shall be increased by $1,625,000. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June 2025 by the following roll call vote: AYES:COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES:COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN:COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT:COUNCIL MEMBERS: APPROVED: Greg Bozzo, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________ Bryce Atkins, Acting City Clerk Page 172 of 217 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title:Gilroy Center for the Arts Proposed Mural Project and Donation Acceptance Meeting Date:June 16, 2025 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department:Administration Submitted by:Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator Prepared by:Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:Not Applicable RECOMMENDATION Council approve the proposed mural project and accept the mural donation. BACKGROUND The City has received a request from the Arts Alliance to add a mural to the back wall of the Gilroy Center for the Arts. Pursuant to the Public Art Policy the Arts and Culture Commission is to review and render a recommendation regarding the acceptability of the design at their meeting on June 10th. This staff report will be updated to include any recommendation issued by the Commission prior to the final agenda packet publication. ANALYSIS Attached to this staff report is the conceptual design proposed by the Arts Alliance. They received a request from Eric B. Vasquez, self-identifying as an educator and visual artist. According to the request, he is planning to paint the mural, along with his students from the South County Annex. The mural he would like to paint would be on the back wall (facing the city parking lot) of the Gilroy Center for the Arts building. His proposal states that he has experience painting murals. The Gilroy Arts Alliance Board voted to approve the mural on the back wall. However, the facility is owned by the City and the Arts Alliance leases the building. The mural, if approved, will be painted at no cost to the City. Page 173 of 217 ALTERNATIVES The City Council may accept or reject the donation of the mural on the Gilroy Center for the Arts back wall. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE None. The proposal seeks to use outside funds for the project. PUBLIC OUTREACH This item will go to the Arts and Culture Commission on June 10th. This item is also included on the publicly posted agenda for this meeting. NEXT STEPS If approved, staff will coordinate the completion of the paperwork to accept the donation of the artwork. Attachments: 1. Gilroy Art Center - Mural proposal 04.30.25 2.Arts and Culture Commission - Gilroy Center for the Arts Mural Request Recommendation Page 174 of 217 Page 175 of 217 Arts and Culture Commission Council Correspondence 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-6197 Telephone: (408) 846-0202 http://www.cityofgilroy.org Commission Chair Melanie Reynisson Commissioners Ruben Dario Villa Camille McCormack Adeline Moreno Steven Porter Steven Taylor Wendy Zamora June 11, 2025 To: Gilroy City Council and City Administrator Re: Gilroy Center for the Arts Mural Request Recommendation The Arts and Culture Commission (ACC) of the City of Gilroy voted (4-0 with three absent) to recommend approval of the mural design proposed on the back wall of the Gilroy Center for the Arts. Sincerely, Melanie Reynisson, Chair Arts and Culture Commission Docusign Envelope ID: C26581F3-779A-4F6B-8933-E1B0114C23B1 Page 176 of 217 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title:Public Art Plaque and Augmented Reality Art Project at the Downtown Paseo Meeting Date:June 16, 2025 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department:Administration Submitted by:Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator Prepared by:Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:Not Applicable RECOMMENDATION Council accept or reject the proposed public art plaque at the downtown paseo. BACKGROUND The City of Gilroy received a request from Art Builds Community, a public art consulting firm based in San Jose. Their team has been hired by the Santa Clara County Office of Women's Policy to manage the Womanhood Project. The Womanhood Project (Project) is a multi-year initiative that utilizes artwork created by local artists to celebrate the significant contributions women have made to Santa Clara County. For more information about the Project, their website is located here: https://womanhoodproject.org/about/. Over the last year and a half, Art Builds Community has collaborated with four artists and one artist team to select 20 different women whom they have determined made significant contributions to the County. One of the women being celebrated is Ascencion Solorsano, as depicted by artist Kathy Aoki. The artwork is an augmented reality piece that is experienced through a marker. Attached is a presentation from the requestor, including a draft copy of the proposed marker. Please note that these are draft versions, and the requestor has stated that a few areas need further attention. The image and text will remain the same. Page 177 of 217 ANALYSIS The requestor was impressed with the historical signage in the paseo and would like to place the marker on a post to the left of the sign in the below picture of the paseo. Attached to this staff report is additional presentation material about the proposed plaque, location, and image from the requestor. A video of the augmented reality image will be played for the Council and the public at the meeting for consideration but is not able to be attached to the packet. The plaque is not being donated to the City, and is instead being asked to be hosted on the paseo property. The public artwork is part of a larger, county-wide initiative. The Arts and Culture Commission will be reviewing this proposal at its June 10, 2025 meeting. Once a recommendation is issued, this agenda report will be updated for the final agenda packet. ALTERNATIVES Council may choose to allow the public art plaque at the downtown paseo, reject its installation, or condition the installation. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE Page 178 of 217 None. The plaque and associated artwork were developed by the County's Project. The City, if Council allows the installation the Project, will not be required to maintain or remove the plaque if damaged or vandalized. There is no expectation of the City having any maintenance requirements for the plaque. PUBLIC OUTREACH This item will be heard at the public meeting of the Arts and Culture Commission on June 10, 2025, and was included on the publicly posted agenda for this meeting. NEXT STEPS Staff will implement Council's decision regarding the proposed public art plaque installation. Attachments: 1. Gilroy Womanhood AR 2025 - Installation Deck (1) 2. WomanhoodAR2025-24x15_AscensionSolarsano (1) 3. Location Image 4.Arts and Culture Commission - Womanhood Project Recommendation Page 179 of 217 Page 180 of 217 Page 181 of 217 Page 182 of 217 Page 183 of 217 Page 184 of 217 Page 185 of 217 Page 186 of 217 Page 187 of 217 Page 188 of 217 Page 189 of 217 Page 190 of 217 Page 191 of 217 Page 192 of 217 Page 193 of 217 Page 194 of 217 Page 195 of 217 Make sure your ringer is on & volume is up.You will find the audio text and related information. Scan Scan the QR code with your smartphone or tablet to download the Kinfolk App.1.Open the app & select the “Scan a marker” on the top left.2.Point your camera at the illustration of the woman in the sign in front of you.3.The AR will automatically load & become viewable on your device. Tap anywhere on the animation to view more information.4.Click the refresh button (top left) and tap the “Scan” icon to scan the next image marker as you explore other points of Journey Through Womanhood. 5. Tip: Frame your camera around the pink focus marks & get close enough for the illustration to fill your screen. Experience the Augmented Reality (AR) Animation Page 196 of 217 Journey through Womanhood is a series of immersive and temporary public art monuments that explore the untold stories of women who have made significant contributions to the County of Santa Clara. Kathy AokiARTIST 2024 In Honor Of: Ascension Solarsano Medicine Woman who Helped to Preserve the Mutsun Language 1855 – 1930 | Gilroy, CA Learn more about this honored woman:WomanhoodProject.Org Scan the QR Code to access content through a screen reader Page 197 of 217 Page 198 of 217 Arts and Culture Commission Council Correspondence 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-6197 Telephone: (408) 846-0202 http://www.cityofgilroy.org Commission Chair Melanie Reynisson Commissioners Ruben Dario Villa Camille McCormack Adeline Moreno Steven Porter Steven Taylor Wendy Zamora June 11, 2025 To: Gilroy City Council and City Administrator Re: Womanhood Project Augmented Reality Plaque Recommendation The Arts and Culture Commission (ACC) of the City of Gilroy voted (4-0 with three absent) to recommend approval of the Womanhood Project’s plaque and augmented reality public art piece. Additionally, the Commission recommends approval for its installation for the five-year project term in the Downtown Paseo next to the historical sign, as proposed by the Womanhood Project. Sincerely, Melanie Reynisson, Chair Arts and Culture Commission Docusign Envelope ID: C26581F3-779A-4F6B-8933-E1B0114C23B1 Page 199 of 217 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title:Approval of the Amendment to the Lease with Gilroy Gardens Family Theme Park Removing the Treehaven Fire Station from the Premises Meeting Date:June 16, 2025 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Department:Administration Submitted by:Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Prepared by:Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:Not Applicable RECOMMENDATION Council approve the Amendment to the Lease with Gilroy Gardens Family Theme Park Removing the Treehaven Fire Station from the Premises. BACKGROUND The Gilroy Gardens Family Theme Park ("Gilroy Gardens") is currently leasing property owned by the City on a month-to-month holdover clause in the Single Tenant Lease Agreement (“Agreement”) for the theme park. The City has been in negotiations with Gilroy Gardens on a new lease agreement. In the interim, there is a need driven by the consolidation of the South Santa Clara County Fire District into the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District ("District") to amend the agreement to allow the City to lease the Treehaven Station ("Station") to the District directly. The property in the original lease included the Station. ANALYSIS The Amendment to the Lease with Gilroy Gardens Family Theme Park Removing the Treehaven Fire Station from the Premises ("Amendment") only removes the Station from the property within the leased area under the existing Agreement. All other terms of the Agreement, as amended previously, remain in effect and are not modified by this Page 200 of 217 Amendment. In the original lease, the property of the fire station was included in the property description as it sits on a larger parcel that is leased, and the use of the fire station was under a lease between the South Santa Clara County Fire District and Gilroy Gardens. This change is a housekeeping measure to clarify site control, and is a proactive step prompted by the transition of fire service responsibility to the District. This change in fire service providers and the lease amendment does not impact Gilroy Gardens’ Park operations. There is a timing need to have the lease for the Station established by July 1, 2025, which requires this amendment to be adopted before then. The Gilroy Gardens Board is considering this Amendment at its June 17, 2025 meeting. This amendment does not affect the continued negotiations underway for a long-term, ongoing lease relationship between the City and Gilroy Gardens. ALTERNATIVES Council may reject or modify the Amendment. This is not recommended as any changes or rejection would require more negotiation, delaying the City's ability to enter into a lease for the Station by the July 1, 2025 deadline. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE None. PUBLIC OUTREACH This item was included on the publicly posted agenda for this meeting. NEXT STEPS If approved, staff will work to have the amendment executed and implement its provisions. Attachments: 1. Amendment Removing The Treehaven Fire Station from the Premises Page 201 of 217 -1- 4922-7356-2187v2 MTOSCANO\04706263 AMENDMENT REMOVING THE TREEHAVEN FIRE STATION FROM THE PREMISES This AMENDMENT REMOVING THE TREEHAVEN FIRE STATION FROM THE PREMISES (“Amendment”) is made and entered into as of June __, 2025 (“Effective Date”), by and between THE CITY OF GILROY, a municipal corporation (“Landlord”), and GILROY GARDENS FAMILY THEME PARK, a Delaware nonprofit corporation (“Tenant”). RECITALS A. Landlord and Tenant are parties to that certain Single Tenant Lease, dated as of February 28, 2008 (as amended from time to time, the “Lease”), pursuant to which Landlord leases to Tenant, and Tenant leases from Landlord, certain premises containing Land and Improvements (as both are defined in the Lease) constructed thereon (“Premises”), all as more particularly described in the Lease. The Premises is commonly known as “Gilroy Gardens”. B. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain Eleventh Amendment to Single Tenant Lease Between Gilroy Gardens Family Theme Park And The City of Gilroy, dated as of February 28, 2022, the term of the Lease expired on February 28, 2023, and since such date the term of the Lease continued on a “month-to-month” basis. C. Landlord and Tenant desire to amend the Lease to remove that certain fire station commonly known as the “Treehaven Fire Station” from the Premises, as hereinafter provided. D. Capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Lease, unless otherwise defined in this Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto amend, modify and supplement the Lease as follows: 1. Removal of the Treehaven Fire Station from the Premises. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Lease and/or Exhibit A attached to the Lease, Landlord and Tenant hereby agree that the portion of the Premises commonly known as the Treehaven Fire Station, located at 3050 Hecker Pass Road, shall no longer be considered a part of the Premises. Accordingly, Landlord and Tenant hereby agree and acknowledge that, from and after the Effective Date of this Amendment, (i) the Treehaven Fire Station (as depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto) is hereby removed from the Premises and (ii) all references to the “Premises” in the Lease shall be deemed to refer to the Premises, expressly excluding the portion of the Premises depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto. Landlord and Tenant hereby agree and acknowledge that any third party using the Treehaven Fire Station shall have access over any and all roads located on the Premises for the purposes of ingress and egress to and from the Treehaven Fire Station. 2. Certified Access Specialist Inspection. For purposes of California Civil Code Section 1938, Landlord hereby discloses to Tenant that, as of the Effective Date, to Landlord’s actual knowledge, the Premises have not undergone inspection by a Certified Access Specialist (“CASp”). Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1938(e), Landlord hereby further discloses to Tenant the following: “A Certified Access Specialist (CASp) can inspect the subject premises and determine whether the subject premises comply with all of the applicable construction-related accessibility standards under state law. Although state law does not require a CASp inspection of the subject premises, the commercial property owner or lessor may not prohibit the lessee or tenant from obtaining a CASp inspection of the subject premises for the occupancy or potential occupancy of Page 202 of 217 -2- 4922-7356-2187v2 MTOSCANO\04706263 the lessee or tenant, if requested by the lessee or tenant. The parties shall mutually agree on the arrangements for the time and manner of the CASp inspection, the payment of the fee for the CASp inspection, and the cost of making any repairs necessary to correct violations of construction-related accessibility standards within the premises.” Landlord and Tenant hereby agree and acknowledge that, if Tenant requests a CASp inspection, then Tenant shall pay (i) the fee for such inspection and (ii) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Lease and/or this Amendment, the cost of performing any repairs and/or other work necessary to address construction-related accessibility standards and/or other matters required and/or recommended as a result of such inspection. 3. Miscellaneous. Except as modified herein, the terms and provisions of the Lease shall remain unmodified and continue in full force and effect. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated by this reference into the body of this Amendment as though set forth in full herein. In the event of any conflict between the terms and provisions of this Amendment and the terms and provisions of the Lease, the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall prevail. This Amendment contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and may not be changed or terminated orally or by course of conduct. This Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Time is of the essence of each and every provision of this Amendment. This Amendment will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Landlord and Tenant and their respective successors and assigns, subject to the terms and conditions of the Lease relating to assignments, subleases and other transfers. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall be deemed one and the same instrument. In order to expedite the transaction contemplated herein, .pdf signatures sent via e-mail may be used in place of original signatures on this Amendment. Landlord and Tenant intend to be bound by the signatures on the emailed document, are aware that the other party will rely on the e-mailed signatures, and hereby waive any defenses to the enforcement of the terms of this Amendment based on the form of signature. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed as of the day and year first above written. “LANDLORD”:ATTEST: THE CITY OF GILROY, By: a municipal corporation Name: Its: City Clerk By: Name: Its: “TENANT”:APPROVED AS TO FORM: GILROY GARDENS FAMILY THEME PARK, By: a Delaware nonprofit corporation Name: Its: City Attorney By: Name: Its: Page 203 of 217 -1- 4922-7356-2187v2 MTOSCANO\04706263 EXHIBIT A THE TREEHAVEN FIRE STATION Page 204 of 217 4921-0021-9213v4 ALF\04706083 City of Gilroy STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Title:Project Processing Agreement, 315 Las Animas Ave. Project Meeting Date:June 16, 2025 From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator Andy Faber, City Attorney Department:Administration Submitted by:Andrew Faber, City Attorney Prepared by:Andrew Faber, City Attorney STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS: RECOMMENDATION Council approve the Project Processing Agreement with Gandolfi Investments, LLC and 315 Las Animas LP regarding the project to develop property at 315 Las Animas Avenue and authorize the City Administrator to execute the Agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Agreement concerns the processing of a “Builder’s Remedy” project (Project) at 315 Las Animas Avenue. The application was filed for a 501-unit multi-family project by Gandolfi Investments LLC (Gandolfi) on December 14, 2023. The Project (now 530 units, after the site plan was amended on May 27, 2025) will contain 20% housing affordable to lower-income households. Staff has been processing the Project and is currently performing CEQA analysis. The Applicant has proposed to provide certain benefits to the City in return for certain agreements on processing of the application. The form of the Agreement has been heavily negotiated. It provides a Community Benefit to the City of $7,722 per unit, plus the development of a regional Master Plan at the Developer’s expense. And the litigation will be dismissed. Page 205 of 217 4921-0021-9213v4 ALF\04706083 ANALYSIS This Agreement concerns the processing of a “Builder’s Remedy” project (Project) at 315 Las Animas Avenue. The application was filed for a 501-unit multi-family project by Gandolfi Investments LLC (Gandolfi) in December of 2023. The project (now 530 units, after the site plan was amended on May 27, 2025) will contain 20% housing affordable to lower-income households (monthly housing cost not exceeding 30% of 60% of Area Median Income). In July 2024 the Developer filed suit against the City claiming that the City improperly concluded that the application was incomplete (though shortly thereafter, the Staff concluded that application was complete). Staff has been processing the Project, and is currently performing CEQA analysis. The Agreement was proposed by the Developer and is similar in form to one that was executed by the same Developer with the cities of Roseville and Morgan Hill (the Developer has recently broken ground on their project in Morgan Hill, which involves a 250-unit development on Tennant Boulevard). From the Developer’s standpoint, the Agreement provides for certain expedited processing (for example they can pay for an inspector to be dedicated to building inspections for their Project). In addition, The City will make them a loan of the Development Impact Fees, which will assist them in qualifying for a Welfare Property Tax Exemption related to the affordable units. The Note for this loan will bear interest at 5.5% and will be secured and guaranteed. And the Agreement clarifies which objective City standards will be applied to the Project (including all life-safety standards) and which will not, thus avoiding disputes over the applicability of standards to Builder’s Remedy projects. In return, the City will benefit because the Agreement will facilitate the construction of a housing project with some 106 affordable units. The City will also receive a community benefit cash payment of over $4M, and the development of a Master Plan for the larger area. Finally, the pending lawsuit between the parties will be dismissed. ALTERNATIVES The Council could not approve the Agreement. In that case, the Community Benefits and the Master Planning would not be provided by the Developer, and the lawsuit will continue. In addition, the Developer would be denied the benefits of the Agreement, including the City’s participation in the Loan, which would assist the Developer in obtaining a property tax reduction and would facilitate development of the affordable units. PUBLIC OUTREACH This item is included on the publicly posted agenda for this meeting. Page 206 of 217 4921-0021-9213v4 ALF\04706083 NEXT STEPS If approved, Staff will work to have the Agreement executed and implement its provisions. Attachments: 1. Agreement Page 207 of 217 4932-8755-7428v7 ALF\04706268 PROJECT PROCESSING AGREEMENT This Project Processing Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into on __________, 2025, by and among 315 Las Animas LP (“Developer”), a California limited partnership, Gandolfi Investments, LLC (“Gandolfi”), a Delaware limited liability company and the City of Gilroy, a California municipal corporation and charter city (“City”). Developer and City are sometimes singularly or collectively referred to herein as a “Party” or the “Parties.” RECITALS A. On July 5, 2023, Gandolfi filed a preliminary application for a 504 unit multi-family housing project and associated amenities (“Project”) pursuant to SB 330 (the “Preliminary Application”) at the property located at 315 Las Animas Avenue in Gilroy, California (“Property”). The Project as proposed includes at least twenty percent (20%) of the total units dedicated as affordable to low-income households. B. Gandolfi submitted the Project Preliminary Application pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5), the portion of the Housing Accountability Act referred to as the Builder’s Remedy. C. The Property is currently vacant and zoned as “M-1, limited industrial” and designated as “EC” (employment center) in the General Plan Land Use Element Map and allows for multifamily housing projects to be developed at the Property pursuant to State Law. In addition, the Property is not zoned or used for agriculture purposes and does not contain any known development constraints, as provided in the Preliminary Application for the Project filed with the City by Gandolfi. D. On December 12, 2023, Gandolfi filed its formal application pursuant to SB 330, reducing the unit count to 501 units, but maintaining at least twenty percent (20%) of the total units, or 101 total units, dedicated as affordable to very low- or low-income households, which application has since been amended to increase the unit count to 530 units, maintaining at least twenty percent (20%) of the total units, or 106 total units, dedicated as affordable to very low- or low-income households, but not increasing the total unit count or square footage of the Project by twenty percent (20%) or more from the preliminary application (as such application has been or may be amended, the “Formal Application”). E. Developer and Gandolfi contend that the Builder’s Remedy contained in Gov. Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) applies to the Project. Representatives of the City have suggested that the Builder’s Remedy does not apply to the Project. F. Developer represents that it is a single purpose limited partnership formed by the owners of Gandolfi for the purpose of holding and developing the Property and the Project and will be the assignee of Gandolfi’s rights in the Preliminary Application, the Formal Application, and hereunder. Page 208 of 217 4932-8755-7428v7 ALF\04706268 G. Gandolfi has filed litigation against the City, in the case Gandolfi Investments, LLC v. City of Gilroy, et.al., Santa Clara Superior Court case No. 24CV444165. As part of this Agreement, this litigation will be dismissed without prejudice. H. The City agrees and acknowledges the Project provides certain economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits to the City of Gilroy including the provision of low- income affordable housing and other community benefits as provided in this Agreement. I. Nothing in this Agreement commits any future legislative action except as required by law. Nothing in this Agreement lessens, eliminates, or discharges the obligation of the City to take future legislative action required by law, including but not limited to those legislative actions mandated by the Housing Accountability Act and the Builder’s Remedy, if any. TERMS AND CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, promises, and provisions set forth herein, the Parties agree as follows: SECTION 1: CITY’S COMMITMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS 1. Waiver of Builder’s Remedy: Subject to the terms of this Section, the City agrees that it will not dispute that the Builder’s Remedy applies to the Project (while specifically reserving such right with respect to any other project before the City). As such, the City shall process the Project as a Builder’s Remedy project, as proposed by Developer in the Formal Application (as amended in accordance with recital D) and acknowledges and agrees that, except as provided herein, neither the Zoning Ordinance nor the General Plan land use designation provide a basis for denying or delaying the approval and development of the Project. 2. Processing of Project: The City and Developer each hereby agree that it shall take reasonable steps to expedite processing of the Project and shall use reasonable, best efforts required on their respective parts to cause the Project to be heard by the relevant initial approval body no later than 120 days after the City receives from the Developer complete plans and responses to the City’s September 26, 2024 Inconsistency Analysis letter. The parties agree that if the City has not made a decision on the approval of the Project by the initial approval body on or before that last to occur of (i) December 31, 2025; or (ii) sixty (60) days after the date the City completes the applicable CEQA review for the Project, the City shall be deemed to have effectively denied the Project. 3. CEQA Review: The City and Gandolfi agree to attempt to reduce the time associated with completing environmental review for the Project. In particular, the City shall process an Addendum to the existing EIR related to the Property if the City as the CEQA Lead Agency concludes that substantial evidence supports the use of the Addendum. 4. Impact Fees: The City will provide an impact fee estimate for Developer for all applicable development impact fees (“Impact Fees”) and that fee analysis shall be attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement. The City agrees to provide a loan to Developer in the total amount Page 209 of 217 4932-8755-7428v7 ALF\04706268 of the Impact Fees, payable to the City. This loan shall be made on the date those Impact Fees become due to the City. The loan shall be evidenced by a promissory note from Developer (the “Note”), which shall bear interest at five and one half percent (5.5%) interest per annum and shall be repaid to City as a balloon payment in the full amount of the principal and interest on the date that is thirty-six (36) months after the issuance of the first building permit, with Developer having the right to extend for one additional year (the “Maturity Date”). The City shall also extend the Maturity Date if required by Developer’s construction lender to prevent the Maturity Date from occurring prior to the maturity of the construction loan. If the Project is built in phases, there shall be a separate Note for each phase of the Project and the maturity date of each such Note will occur three years after the date of issuance of the first building permit for such phase with Developer having the right to extend for one additional year. Each Note shall be secured by a deed of trust (the “Deed of Trust”) on the Property, which will subordinate to Developer ’s construction financing for the Project. The Note(s) shall also be secured by a personal guarantee (the “Guarantee”) from Developer’s principal. In exchange for this personal guarantee, The City agrees to accept, in form and substance, whatever subordination terms the construction lender requires. The City acknowledges that the interest rate provided for in the Note is a market rate of interest, and as a result, this loan does not give rise to any prevailing wage requirements. The City agrees that the loan contemplated herein is to assist Developer in Developer ’s efforts to obtain a Welfare Exemption from real estate taxes for the Project in return for Developer’s agreement to provide the affordable housing contemplated in the Project. The City agrees to use all reasonable efforts to work with Developer (including, but not limited to, drafting the loan documents in an appropriate manner) to cause the Project to qualify for the Welfare Exemption. 5. Inspector. During the construction of the Project, Developer shall have the right, at Developer’s sole cost, to retain a private inspector or private inspection service dedicated to the Project, and the City shall accept the findings and conclusions of such Inspector as if made by their own City inspectors. In the alternative, at the election of the City, City shall assign to Developer a City inspector, paid by Developer, dedicated solely to the Project and available on-call for Developer’s inspection needs. The City also will allow the Developer to hire a third-party plan check service, at the sole cost of Developer, so that the Developer may expedite the review and approval of its plans. The City may review and approve the fitness of such inspector and plan checker prior to being engaged by Developer, but shall not unreasonably withhold approval. 6. Zoning Code, General Plan and other City Requirements. Developer shall not be required to comply with Zoning Code requirements, including its development standards (except safety-related standards), but will comply with the City’s objective design standards except to the extent they relate to (i) architectural standards other than safety- and crime prevention- related standards; (ii) local amendments to the California Green Building Standards Code; (iii) undergrounding off-site power lines; (iv) on-site parking requirements; or (v) as otherwise agreed to by the City and Developer. 7. The City agrees that, to the best of City’s current knowledge, none of the findings in Government Code Section 65589.5 subsections (d)(1)-(4), as existing on the date of submittal of the Preliminary Application for the Project, are applicable to the Project. SECTION 2: DEVELOPER’S COMMITMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS Page 210 of 217 4932-8755-7428v7 ALF\04706268 8. Developer Community Benefit Obligation: Upon the City’s approval of Project and following issuance of building permits for the Project, Developer will provide seven thousand seven hundred and twenty two dollars ($7,722) per unit developed to be used by the City in support of City priorities (“Community Benefit Obligation”). The Community Benefit Obligation will be added to the Note; it would then bear interest at the rate of five- and one-half percent (5.5%) per annum and be secured by the Deed of Trust and Guarantee. If the Project is completed in phases, then the Community Benefit Obligation will be allocated proportionately and each proportion will be incorporated into the relevant Note upon issuance of such Note. Once paid to the City on the Maturity Date, such funds may be used by the City to perform community benefit projects designated by City, at City’s sole discretion. 9. Affordable Units: Developer shall develop 20% of its Project units (106 total units according to the current amended application) to be affordable to lower-income households (meaning rents shall be limited to 30% of 60% of Area Median Income for Santa Clara County) or lower, and shall execute a regulatory agreement to ensure affordability of the designated affordable units at the Project site for fifty-five (55) years in return for the City’s agreement to provide the loan evidenced by the Note, Deed of Trust, and Guaranty described in Paragraph 4. As used herein, Area Median Income shall mean the area median income as published from time to time by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”), provided, however, if the area median income published by HCD is lower than the area median income published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), then the area median income published by HUD shall control. Developer agrees that if it develops the Project in phases, each phase will include either (i) two 68-unit buildings, or (ii) one 68-unit building and one 39-unit building, and these buildings will contain a proportionate number of affordable units for such phase. 10. Location of Units: Developer has agreed to provide 20% of its Project units (106 according to the current amended application) to affordable (lower-income) housing units. These affordable units (“Affordable Units”) shall be located only in the mid-rise and community clubhouse buildings at the Property. Affordable units shall not be located in the townhouse buildings. The City shall not require that the affordable housing units be distributed throughout the Project. Notwithstanding the above, all tenants of affordable housing units shall be provided the same access to project amenities, recreational facilities, and common areas as occupants of market-rate units and all the affordable units shall be generally comparable in terms of size, quality, and finishes to any market rate units having the same number of bedrooms. 11. Master Plan: Upon the City’s approval of Project and following issuance of building permits for the Project, Developer shall, at Developer’s cost, generate a Master Plan for the future development of the Murray-Las Animas Corridor (also known as the “Murray-Las Animas Avenue Overlay Combining District”; see Exhibit B defining the geographic contours of the Murray-Las Animas Corridor). The City agrees to work cooperatively and in good faith with Developer and Developer’s consultants in preparing the Master Plan and shall take all reasonable steps to bring a mutually agreeable Master Plan to City Council for review and potential approval in a timely manner. Developer shall pay all City’s staff costs and appropriate fees associated with City staff’s work on this Master Plan. Provisions for community input and public hearings shall be required. The Parties agree to explore, in good faith, all available CEQA exemptions, tiering, Page 211 of 217 4932-8755-7428v7 ALF\04706268 and streamlining options to reduce the time associated with completing environmental review for the Master Plan. This Agreement does not obligate City to approve the Master Plan nor approve any particular land uses on the covered property; nor does it obligate Developer to obtain approval of the Master Plan. Approval and implementation of the Master Plan shall not obligate Developer to purchase and/or develop any parcels in the Master Plan Area and shall not obligate the City to take any parcels, via eminent domain, within the Master Plan Area for future development. 12. Intentionally Deleted. 13. Casualty: City acknowledges and agrees that City’s approval of the Project, as proposed in the Formal Application (as amended, shall constitute a vested right to develop and maintain the Project as proposed (including the plans) which consists of, among other things, 530 rental units. In the event of unforeseen casualty or change in law, Developer shall have the right, which the City shall not challenge, to rebuild or reconstruct the Project in a form and manner substantially similar to that approved by City at approval of Project,. 14. Post-Construction Cooperation: The Parties shall work in good faith to amend the zoning and general plan land use designation of the Property to be generally consistent with the Project as completed. With Developer’s consent, City shall initiate the application and consider the approval of a zoning map amendment and general plan amendment, provided that Developer pays all of City’s reasonable costs and fees in connection with such application(s). SECTION 3: NOTICES 15. Notices: All notices must be in writing and be addressed to the affected Party at the addresses set forth below. Notices shall be: (a) delivered by in-person service to the addresses set forth below, in which case they will be deemed delivered on the date of delivery, as evidenced by the written report of the courier service, or (b) sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, in which case they will be deemed delivered five (5) business days after deposit in the United States mail. Any Party may change its address or the name and address of its attorneys by giving notice in compliance with this Agreement. Notice of a change will be effective only upon receipt. Notice given on behalf of a Party by any attorney purporting to represent a Party will constitute notice by the Party if the attorney is, in fact, authorized to represent the Party. All Notices shall also be provided to the other Party via e-mail, however, delivery via e-mail shall not constitute notice for purposes of this Section. The addresses of the Parties’ attorneys are: If to CITY: Mr. Jimmy Forbis City Administrator City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Email: Jimmy.Forbis@cityofgilroy.org With a copy to: Page 212 of 217 4932-8755-7428v7 ALF\04706268 Mr. Andrew Faber City Attorney Berliner Cohen 10 Almaden Blvd., 11th floor San Jose, CA 95113 Email: Andy.Faber@berliner.com If to DEVELOPER or Gandolfi: 315 Las Animas LP Attn: Scott Canel 445 Central Avenue, Suite 200 Highland Park, Illinois, 60035 Email: scott@tensouth.com With a copy to: William F. McGuinn 445 Central Ave., Suite 200 Highland Park, Illinois 60035 Email: bill@tensouth.com SECTION 4: MISCELLANEOUS 16. No Admission of Liability. This Agreement is not an admission of liability or fault on the part of either Party. 17. Legal Fees and Costs. Each Party shall bear its own legal fees and costs resulting from the preparation, negotiation, and execution of this Agreement. If any action or proceeding arises from or relates to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its out-of- pocket costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of attorneys (including in-house counsel fees) and experts against the non-prevailing Party, in addition to all other relief to which that Party may be entitled. 18. Dismissal of Lawsuit. Upon approval of this Agreement, Gandolfi shall dismiss the pending litigation, without prejudice. 19. Indemnification of City. Developer and Gandolfi jointly and severally shall defend (with attorneys of the City’s choosing), indemnify and hold harmless the City and its Council, officers, agents, employes and representatives from and against all claims or suits of any nature from any third party challenging any actions taken by the City or Developer or Gandolfi in connection with the entering into of this Agreement. Given this indemnification, in the event that a third party challenges the validity of this Agreement or project, the City agrees to continuing processing the Project during the pendency of such third party challenge. Page 213 of 217 4932-8755-7428v7 ALF\04706268 20. Right to Cure. If any Party believes that another Party’s performance is in default of that Party’s obligations under this Agreement, the accusing Party shall provide written notice to the defaulting Party of the alleged default (“Default Notice”); offer to meet and confer in a good faith effort to resolve the issue; and provide the defaulting Party thirty (30) days to cure the alleged default commencing at the time of receipt of the Default Notice. A Default Notice shall specify in reasonable detail the nature of the alleged default and, where appropriate, the manner in which the alleged default satisfactorily may be cured. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any claim or action brought by the City on the Note, the Deed of Trust, or the Guarantee, or any related documents or obligations of Developer and/or Gandolfi to repay the sums due to the City under those documents. 21. Remedies on Default. Upon the happening of any uncured default, the non- defaulting party may exercise those remedies available to it pursuant to law or equity, including without limitation an action to enforce specific performance. Developer shall be entitled to recover monetary damages from the City only in the event of a breach of Section 4 of this Agreement. In such a case, Developer’s monetary damages recovery shall be limited so as not to exceed the amount of the Impact Fees (and if the Project is developed in phases, only the amount of the Impact Fees applicable to the phase on which the City has defaulted). Developer will utilize recovered damages to pay impact fees owed on the project, if any. In the event of any breach by the City of Section 4 of this Agreement that remains uncured following any applicable notice and cure period, Developer shall have no further obligation to perform under this Agreement, including, without limitation, with respect to the Community Benefit Obligation and the Master Plan Development Obligation. 22. Entire Agreement; Amendments. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes any prior written or oral agreements between them concerning the subject matters contained herein. No supplement, modification, or amendment to this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by all Parties hereto. 23. Waiver. The waiver of any provision or term of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any other provision or term of this Agreement. The mere passage of time, or failure to act upon a default, shall not be deemed a waiver of any provision or term of this Agreement. 24. Execution. The Parties warrant that, in executing this Agreement, they do so with full knowledge of the rights and obligations that they may have and that they have received independent legal advice with respect to the matters contained in the Agreement. 25. Joint Negotiation. This Agreement is the product of joint negotiations between the Parties and shall not be construed against any of the Parties. 26. Interpretation. Specific provisions of this Agreement will take precedence over conflicting general provisions. 27. California Law. This Agreement will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Page 214 of 217 4932-8755-7428v7 ALF\04706268 28. Authority of Signatories. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the authority to sign on behalf of the respective Party for which they have executed this Agreement. 29. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. For purposes of this Agreement, an electronically transmitted signature shall be considered as the equivalent of a wet-ink signature and shall be fully binding. 30. Effective Date. This Agreement will be effective upon the date of execution of the Agreement by all Parties. 31. Materiality; Severability. The parties agree and stipulate that each and every recital contained in the preamble and every term and condition contained in this Agreement is material, and that each and every recital, term, and condition may be reasonably accomplished within the time limitations and in the manner set forth in this Agreement. Failure of any party to perform any one provision hereof shall be the basis for issuance of a Default Notice pursuant to Section 18. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder shall be construed as valid and enforced so as to effectuate the intention of the Parties at the time this Agreement was entered into. 32. Assignment, Successors and Assigns. This Agreement may not be assigned or transferred without the written consent of the other Party (which shall not be unreasonably conditioned, withheld, or delayed); provided, however, Gandolfi and Developer shall have the right to collaterally assign this Agreement to any construction lender providing funding for the completion of the Project without the prior consent of the City. If properly assigned, this Agreement will bind and inure to the benefit of the agents, assigns, and successors-in-interest of each Party. 33. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of each and every provision of this Agreement. 34. Disagreement. Upon any disagreement regarding the interpretation of a provision of this Agreement or the applicability of the Builder’s Remedy, the Parties agree to meet and confer regarding the disagreement and shall negotiate in good faith to seek resolution of the disagreement. 35. Additional Documents. The Parties agree to prepare and deliver such further documents and instruments, and shall take such other actions, as may be reasonably required or appropriate to evidence or carry out the intent and purposes of this Agreement. 36. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is not intended to, and shall not be interpreted by a court to, extend any benefits or to any persons or entities not a direct party hereto. No such third parties shall have standing to bring suit to interpret or enforce any provision of this Agreement. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] Page 215 of 217 4932-8755-7428v7 ALF\04706268 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date written below. 315 LAS ANIMAS LP, a California limited partnership By: _________________________________ Scott Canel Title: Manager Date: _________________________________ GANDOLFI INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By:__________________________________ Scott I. Canel, Member Date:________________________________ CITY OF GILROY, a municipal corporation By: _________________________________ Jimmy Forbis Title: City Administrator Date: ___________________________________ Approved as to Form By: _________________________________ Andrew Faber Title: City Attorney Page 216 of 217 4932-8755-7428v7 ALF\04706268 EXHIBIT A IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS Page 217 of 217